ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 23,
1992
VILLAGE
OF
CHANNAHON,
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 91—121
)
(Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the July 17,
1991
petition and the October 4, 1991 amended petition for variance
filed by the Village of Channahon
(Village).
The Village seeks
relief from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.105(a),
“Standards for
Issuance”,
and from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 602.106(a),
“Restricted
Status”, but only as these rules relate to the radium—226 and
radium-228 standard of 35
Ill.
Adni.
Code 611.330(a)
and the gross
alpha standard of 35
Iii. Adm. Code 611.330(b).
(Pet.
p.
1, par.
5).
The Village requests a variance for three years from the
grant of variance or when analysis pursuant to 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
605.104(a)
shows compliance with the applicable standards.
(Pet.
par.
1; Amend.
Pet. par.
1).
On August 23,
1991,
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed its recommendation that variance be denied.
On October
7,
1991,
the Agency filed an amended recommendation in
response to the Village’s amended petition.
The Agency
recommends that variance be granted, with conditions, until the
earliest of the following three dates:
1)
two years following the date on which USEPA
either:
a)
promulgates regulations which amend
the maximum contaminant level
(MCL)
for combined radium,
either of the
isotopes of radium, or the method
by which compliance with a radium
MCL is demonstrated,
or
b)
publishes notice that there will be
no amendments to the
5 pCi/i
combined radium standard or the
method for demonstrating compliance
with that standard;
2)
October
1,
1993, or
129—269
2
3)
when analysis pursuant to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
611.720(d)
shows compliance with the then
current standard for radium
(Agency Amended Rec. pp.
1, 7-8).
The Village waived hearing and none has been held.’
For the following reasons, the Board finds that the Village
has presented adequate proof that immediate compliance with 35
Ill.
Adin’. Code 602.105(a)
and 602.106(a) would result in the
imposition of an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Accordingly, the variance is granted, subject to the conditions
in the attached Order.
BACKGROUND
The Village, located in Will County, provides potable water
for a population of about 250 residential and 5 industrial and
commercial utility customers, respectively representing some 875
residents and 5 industries and businesses that employ
approximately 25 people.
(Pet. par.
10).
Its system consists of
one deep well,
one shallow well, pumps, and distribution
facilities.
(Pet. par.
12, Attachment 3).
The two wells, Well
#1 and Well #2, are 765 feet and 140 feet in depth and operate to
produce 200 and 110 gallons per minute (gpm), respectively.
(Pet. par.
13).
The Village has sought one variance prior to this petition.
Specifically, the Village sought a variance,
in
PCB
88-42,
from
35
Ill.
Adni.
Code 604.301(a)
and
(b)
for combined radium and
gross alpha particle activity.
On June 30,
1988, the Board
granted a variance until July 30,
1990.
(Pet. par. 33,34).
By letter dated December 18,
1984,
the Agency first advised
the Village that its gross alpha particle activity was 17.4
picocuries per liter (“pCi/L”),
exceeding the standard of
15
pCi/L.
(Pet.
pars.
16,
18,
32, Attachment~lA). On January
9,
1985, the Agency notified the Village that it was being placed on
1On August
22,
1991,
the Board set this matter
for hearing
based upon an objection filed on August
8,
1991.
On November 7,
1991,
the Board vacated its August 22,
1991 Order
and granted
a
motion, which was filed on behalf of the Agency and the Village, to
dispense with the hearing
in this matter.
In that motion,
the
Agency’s attorney stated that the two objectors
“indicated that
they were concerned about radium in the water but expressly chose
to go no further or appear at any future hearing on this matter.”
On November
1,
1991,
the village filed a waiver of hearing.
On
November
21,
1991,
the
Board
granted the
Village’s motion
for
expedited hearing which it filed on November 20,
1991.
129—270
3
restricted status.
(Pet. par.
16, Attachment 2A).
Then,
by
letter dated August 5,
1986, the Agency first advised the Village
that the
5 pCi/L NCL standard for combined radium content was
exceeded.
(Pet.
pars.
16,
32, Attachment 1B).
The Agency
reported that the Village’s combined radium level was 10.4 pCi/L
(6.2 pCi/L radium—226 and 4.4 pCi/L radiuin—228).
(Pet.
pars.
16,
18).
By letter dated August 14,
1986,
the Agency notified the
village that it would be placed on restricted status.
(Pet.
par.
16, Attachment 2B).
The Agency’s reports were based upon the
analysis by the
USPEA
of an annual composite of four consecutive
quarterly samples.
(Pet.
par.
17).
REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
The
instant variance request concerns two features of the
Board’s public water supply regulations: “Standards for Issuance”
and “Restricted Status”.
These features are found at 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 602.105 and 602.106, which in pertinent part read:
Section 602.105
Standards for Issuance
a)
The Agency shall not grant any construction or
operating permit required by this Part unless the
applicant submits adequate proof that the public water
supply will be constructed, modified or operated so as
not to cause a violation of the Environmental
Protection Act
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111
½,
pars.
1001 et seq.)
(Act),
or of this Chapter.
Section 602.106
Restricted Status
a)
Restricted status shall be defined as the Agency
determination pursuant to Section 39(a)
of the Act and
Section 602.105, that a public water supply facility
may no longer be issued a construction permit without
causing a violation of the Act or this Chapter.
The principal effect of these regulations is to provide that
community water supply systems are prohibited from extending
water service, by virtue of not being able to obtain the
requisite permits, unless and until their water meets all of the
standards for finished water supplies.
It
is the Village’s
request that it be allowed to extend its water service while it
pursues compliance with the combined radium and gross alpha
standards,
as opposed to extending service only after attaining
compliance.
In determining whether any variance is to be granted, the
Act requires the Board to determine whether a petitioner has
presented adequate proof that immediate compliance with the Board
regulations at issue would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship.
(Ill.
Rev. Stat.
1989,
ch.
111
½,
par.
1035(a)).
129—27 1
4
Furthermore, the burden is upon the petitioner to show that its
claimed hardship outweighs the. public interest in attaining
compliance with regulations designed to protect the public.
Willowbrook Motel v. Pollution Control Board,
135 Ill.
App.
3d
343,
481 N.E.2d 1032
(1st Dist.
1985).
Only with such showing
can the claimed hardship rise to the level of arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship.
A further feature of
a variance
is that it is, by its
nature,
a temporary reprieve from compliance with the Board’s
regulatibns and compliance is to be sought regardless of the
hardship which the task of eventual compliance presents an
individual polluter Monsanto Co.
v.
IPCB,
67 Ill.2d 276,
367
N.E.2d 684
(1977).
Accordingly, except in certain special
circumstances,
a variance petitioner is required,
as
a condition
to grant of variance, to commit to a plan which is reasonably
calculated to achieve compliance within the term of the variance.
It is to be noted that grant of variance from “Standards for
Issuance” and “Restricted Status” does
n~
absolve a petitioner
from compliance with the drinking water standards at issue,
nor
does it insulate a petitioner from possible enforcement action
brought for violation of those standards.
The underlying
standards remain applicable to the petitioner regardless of
whether variance
is granted or denied.
Standards for radium in drinking water were first adopted as
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(“NIPDWRs”)
by the USEPA in 1976.
the standards adopted were
5 pCi/l for the
sum of the two isotopes of radium, radium-226 and radium-228
(“Combined radium”).
Shortly thereafter, Illinois adopted the
same limits.
Although characterized as “interim”limits, the
standards nevertheless are the maximum allowable concentrations
under both federal and Illinois law, and will remain so
unless
modified by the tJSEPA.2
Over much of the fifteen years since their promulgation,
the
current radium standards have been under revision at the federal
level.
The USEPA first proposed revision of the standards in
October 1983 in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(48 Fed.
Reg. 45502).
It later republished this advance notice in
September 1986
(51 Fed., Reg.
34836).
Most recently, on June
19,
2In anticipation of USEPA revision of the radium standard, the
legislature amended the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
at
Section
17.6
in
1988
to
provide
that
any. new
federal
radium
standard
immediately
supersedes
the
current
Illinois
standard.
(See also,
P.A.
87—650 which
amends
Section
17.6
of the Act to
specifically refer to Board adoption of federal combined radium-226
and
radium-228
and
gross
alpha
particle
activity
standards
by
preemptory rulemaking.)
129—2 72
5
1991, USEPA announced a proposal to modify both standards.3
USEPA proposes to replace the 5 pCi/l combined radium standard by
separate standards of
20 pCi/i each for radium-226 and radium-
228.
Under the USEPA’s calendar, these standards are scheduled
for promulgation by April
1993 with an effective date of October
1994.
COMPLIANCE
PLM~
The Village has considered three compliance alternatives:
1)
lime or ~Lime—sodasoftening,
2)
ion exchange water softening,
and
3)
blending.
(Pet.
pars.
22—26,
28—30).
Lime softening produces
large quantities of sludge, concentrates the contaminant,
and
causes additional problems and expenses in proper waste disposal.
(Pet. par.
30).
Ion exchange,
on the other hand,
increases the
sodium content of the water and, as a result, may create
a
significant risk to persons who are hypertensive or who have
heart problems.
(Pet. par.
30).
In addition, the waste from
routine softening is high in total dissolved solids and may be
difficult to dispose of legally.
(Pet. par.
30).
Moreover,
there may be more of a hazard with ion exchange because the
process concentrates the radioactivity and releases the majority
of such radioactivity in the waste stream in a concentrated form.
(Pet.
par.
30).
Even the radioactivity that remains in the ion
exchange material may be a hazard to anyone subsequently working
on the softener and may cause a problem in terms of disposal.
(Pet.
par.
30).
In light of the problems associated with the above options,
the Village plans to use well #2 for blending purposes.4
(Pet.
par.
26).
To blend the water from well
1 with water from well
2,
well
1 will be isolated from the distribution system so that
water from the well can be pumped directly to Channahon’s water
tower where mixing would occur.
(Pet.
par.
26, Att.
3).
Although no accurate timetable has been developed,
the Village
intends to retain an outside consultant to assist it in reviewing
and evaluating this alternative.
(Pet. par.
25).
The Village,
however, estimates that there will be a one time construction
cost of $50,000,
or $13.00 per capita
($50,000 divided by 3,920
residents)
and a $2.00 increase in monthly water bills per
average residential customer for 20 years.
(Pet.
pars.
22A,
23,
24, Attachment 3).
The Village also estimates that it will take
12 to 24 months to implement this option and that the interim
level of contaminants in the blended water will be 6.8 pCi/L for
3publication occurred at 56 Fed.
Reg.
33050, July 18,
1991.
4me
Village does
not
have
any
existing
controls
for
the
contaminants in question.
(Pet. par.
21).
129—273
6
combined radium and 11.5 pCi/L for gross alpha.5
(Pet,
pars.
22A,
26)
HARDSHIP
The Village argues that the expenditure of significant
sums of money to come into compliance with the current
regulations would be an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,
because extension of the water mains will not cause any
significant harm to the environment or the people served by the
potentia~.water main extensions during the limited time period of
the variance.
(Pet.
pars.
37,
38,
45).
The Village also argues
that grant of the variance would only prohibit the Agency from
legally denying construction or operating permits because of the
Village’s non—compliance and will not make less strict the
standard for the contaminants that the village must meet.
(Pet.
par.
38).
The Village also argues that a substantial expenditure
of public funds for treatment facilities which may become
obsolete in the near future as a result of the USEPA proposed
relaxation of the current standards is not in the public interest
and does not grant a corresponding benefit to the public.
(Pet.
par. .42).
The Village asserts that the failure to obtain a
variance will negatively impact prospective home purchasers,
as
well as business developers and the Village’s tax base, because
construction within the Village’s service area requiring the
extension of the water supply system could not resume.
(Pet.
par.
43).
Finally, the Village asserts that the time involved
for the planning,
financing,
engineering, and construction of
water treatment facilities prevents immediate compliance with the
standards and that,
in the interim period, there is a need for
the expansion of the water distribution system in order to serve
the domestic and fire protection need of the local population.
(Pet. par.
44).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The Village has made no formal assessment of the effect of
the variance on the environment.
The Village, however, refers to
the testimony and exhibits presented by Dr. Richard E.
Toohey,
Ph.D.,
and Dr. James Stebbings,
Ph.D, on July 30 and August
2,
1985,
in R85-14, Proposed Amendments to Public Water Supply
Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.105 and 602.106.
(Pet. ‘par.
31).
It also refers to the testimony and exhibits in PCB 89-212,
5The most recent radium analysis of Channahon’s water supply
(samples composited in September of 1991) indicates a radium level
in well
1 is 7.9 pCi/L.
(Amended Pet. par. 7).
Channahon asserts
that water from the two wells can be blended in any proportion by
fixing the running times for each well so that implementation of
the blending alternative will meet the proposed TJSEPA standard for
radium.
(Amended Pet. par.
7).
129—2 74
7
Village of Braidwood v.
IEPA, and ask that they be incorporated
by reference into this proceeding.
(Pet. par.
31).
It does assert, however, that grant of variance will not cause
any significant harm to the environment or to the people served
by the potential water main extensions for the limited period of
the variance.
(Pet.
pars.
37,
38).
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL
LAW
The Village states that the requested variance may be
granted ~onsistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C.
Section 300(f) ~
~g.
as amended by the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1986
(Pub. Law.
99—339,
100 Stat.
642
(1986))
and
the corresponding regulations
(40 CFR Part 141) because the
variance does not grant relief from compliance with the federal
primary drinking regulations.
(Pet. par. 46).
AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
The Agency based its earlier August 23,
1991 variance
recommendation that the Village’s variance request be denied.
on
the Village’s failure to:
a.
submit quarterly water samples to the Agency,
as
mandated by the Board’s Order of June 20,
1988,
in
PCB 88—42;
b.
submit to the Agency an Interim Compliance Report
pursuant to the Board’s June 20,
1988 Order;
c.
make substantial improvements to its water system;
d.
give sufficient reasons why it dismissed the
possibility of utilizing certain treatment methods
for its water system;
e.
convince the Agency that a hardship would result
from denial of a variance; and
f.
provide evidence of having reviewed any financial
resources for use in achieving compliance.
(Agency Rec. pars.
13,
15,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
27,
28,
29,
30,
32,
40; Amended Rec. par.
1(a)—(f)).
In response to the above concerns, the Village filed an
amended petition for variance.
Although the Village cannot
refute the Agency’s claims regarding inadequate submission of
quarterly water samples, the Village states that it attempted to
comply with the sampling requirement, but that changes in
personnel may have affected the execution of its efforts.
129—275
8
(Amended Pet.
pars.
2,
3).
In order to correct the problem, the
Village states that it is instituting administrative procedures
to ensure that samples will be timely taken and submitted to the
Agency for analysis and that it is investigating the appointment
of a full-time Public.Word Director as a further check on sample
submission.
(Amended Pet.
par.
4, Attachments
1,
2).
The Village also asserts that since securing its previous
variance,
it has spent $490,000 in water system improvements
designed to bring its supply into compliance.
(Amended Pet. par.
5).
Spe~ifical1y, the Village states that a developer
constructed
a new shallow gravel well in the northwest part of
the Village, at a cost of $150,000,
as a condition to the
Village’s approval of his subdivision.
(Amended Pet. par.
5(A)).
A second developer has constructed a new 10—inch water main,
at
a
cost of $100,00, from the new gravel well to his property in
order to bring radium—free water from the gravel well closer to
the Village’s existing water distribution system.
(Amended Pet.
par.
5(B)).
Finally, the Village states that it spent $240,000
in local funds and federal grants to construct 8,
10, and 12 inch
water mains which connect the second developer’s system and the
gravel well to the Village’s existing distribution system.
(Amended Pet.
par.
5(C)).
Finally,
in response to the Agency’s concern regarding its
utilization of other treatment options, the Village asserts that
blending will cost approximately $50,000.
(Amended Pet. par.
7).
Although the Village recognizes that lime or lime-soda softening
may remove more radium than blending,
it states that it will cost
approximately $860,000 to construct a lime or lime-soda softening
facility.
(Amended Pet.
par.
8).
In addition, the Village
states that it lacks central sewage collection and treatment
facilities to dispose of the large quantities of sludge and
concentrated contaminant that is produced.
(Amended Pet.
par.
9).
Although ion exchange water softening is cheaper than lime
softening and will remove more radium than blending, the Village
states that it will cost approximately $780,000 to construct an
ion exchange softening facility.
(Amended-Pet. pars.
10,
11).
Finally, the Village states that construction of a new shallow
gravel well will cost approximately $150,000.
(Amended Pet.
par.
12).
As earlier noted, the Agency,
on October
7,
1991, amended
its recommendation to grant of variance.
In addition to the
information provided by the Village in its Amended Petition, the
Agency notes that the Village did submit an interim compliance
report pursuant to the Board’s June 20,
1988 .Order that contained
a proposed plan for developing a blending process for the
Village’s water system.
(Amended Rec. par. 4).
The Agency also
notes that the Village has provided evidence of having reviewed
whether financial resources were available for use in achieving
compliance.
(Amended Rec. par.
11).
The Agency also statesthat
129—276
9
the Village has exhibited a need in its Amended Petition for
further expansion of its water system and facilities and that,
considering the monies already expended,
a ban on construction
would inhibit the Village’s ability to meet the needs of its
increased population.
(Amended Rec. par.
7).
Finally, the
Agency states that it believes that grant of the variance would
impose no significant injury to the public, or to the environment
for the limited time period of the requested variance and that,
as a result, denial of variance would impose an arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship on the Village.
(Amended Rec. pars.
8,
9,
12,
13).
CONCLUSION
Based on the record, the Board finds that immediate
compliance with the 35
Ill. Adm. Code 602.105(a)
and 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 602.106(a) would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship on the Village of Channahon and that Channahon has made
significant progress toward compliance.
We also agree that this
grant of variance does not pose a significant health risk to
those persons served by any new water main extensions.
With the
inclusion of the Agency’s recommended conditions,
the Board will
grant variance consistent with the Agency’s recommendation with
one exception.
The Board notes that the Agency has recommended
a grant of variance for a maximum period of two years from the
date of Channahon’s amended petition
(i.e.. until October
1,
1993).
The Board also notes that Channahon requests a variance
for a period of three years.
The Board will grant variance for a
maximum period of two years from the date of this Opinion and
Order
(i.e.
until January 23,
1994) because Channahon estimates
that it will take 12
to 24 months to implement its compliance
plan.
the Board intends that the first year of the variance will
be used to implement the compliance plan and that the second year
will be used for the purpose of testing.
The Board notes that timely compliance by Channahon may be
affected by pending USEPA action to promulgate new standards for
radionuclides in drinking water.
New radionuclide standards from
USEPA could significantly alter Channahon’s need for a variance
or alternatives for achieving compliance.
In recognition of this
situation,
as recommended by the Agency, the variance will
contain suitable time frames to account for the effects.of any
USEPA alteration
(or notice of refusal to alter) of the radium
standards.
We again note that today’s action
is. solely a grant of
variance from standards of issuance and restricted status.
The
Village is not granted variance from compliance with the
standards for combined radium or gross alpha activity, nor does
today’s action insulate the Village in any manner against
enforcement for violation of these standards.
129—27 7
10
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The Village of Channahon is hereby granted a variance from
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 602.105(a),
“Standards for Issuance”,
and
602.106(a),
“Restricted Status”,
as they relate to the standard
for combined radium and gross alpha particle activity as set
forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.330(a)
and 611.330(b),
respectil~rely,subject to the following conditions:
(1)
This variance shall terminate on the earliest of the
following dates:
(a)
February 23,
1994;
or
(b)
two years following the date on which
USEPA either:
1)
promulgates regulations which
amend the maximum contaminant
level
(MCL)
for combined
radium,
either of the isotopes
of radium, or the radium, or
the method by which compliance
with a radium MCL is
demonstrated, or
2)
publishes notice that there
will be no amendments to the 5
pci/i combined radium standard
or the method for demonstrat-
ing compliance with that
standard; or
(c)
When analysis pursuant to
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
611.720(d),
or any compliance demonstration then
in effect, shows compliance with the current
standard for combined radium and gross alpha
particle activity or any standard for combined
radium or gross alpha particle activity then in
effect.
(2)
Compliance shall be achieved with the maximum
contaminant level for combined radium and gross alpha
particle activity, or with any revised standard for
combined radium or gross alpha particle activity then
in effect, no later than the date on which this
variance terminates.
(3)
In consultation with the Illinois Environmental
129—2 78
11
Protection Agency
(“Agency”), Petitioner shall continue
its sampling program to determine as accurately as
possible the level of combined radium and gross alpha
particle activity in its wells and finished water.
Until this variance terminates,
Petitioner shall
collect quarterly samples of its water from
entry
points of its distribution system at locations approved
by the Agency.
Petitioner shall composite the
quarterly samples from each location separately and
shall analyze them annually by a laboratory certified
by the State of Illinois for radiological analysis so
as to determine the maximum contaminant level
of
combined radium and gross alpha particle activity.
The
results of the analyses shall be reported within 30
days of receipt of the most recent result to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Compliance Assurance Section
Division of Public Water Supplies
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276
At the option of Petitioner,
the quarterly samples may
be analyzed when collected.
The running average of the
most recent four quarterly sample results shall be
reported to the above address within 30 days of receipt
of the most recent quarterly sample.
(4)
Within six months after revision of the USEPA standard
from combined radium or after USPEA publication that
the standard will be unchanged or 12 months after grant
of variance, whichever is applicable pursuant to
Condition 1 above,
Petitioner shall apply’ for all
permits necessary for the construction of
installations, changes or additions to the Petitioner’s
public water supply needed for achieving compliance
with the maximum contaminant level for the standards
in
question.
Such application shall be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Permit Section
division of Public Water Supplies
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62794—9276
(5)
Within three months of USPEA action after each
construction permit is issued by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Petitioner shall
advertise for bids, to be submitted within 60 days,,
from contractors to do the necessary work described in
the construction permit.
The Petitioner shall accept
appropriate bids within a reasonable time.
Petitioner
129—279
12
shall notify t1~meagency within 30 days of ache of ‘the
following actions:
a)
advertisements for bids,
2)
names of successful bidders, and 3) whether Petitioner
accepted the bids.
Such notification shall be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Permit Section
Division of Public Water Supplies
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62794—9276
(6)
Construction allowed on said construction permits shall
begin within a reasonable time of bids being accepted,
but in any case,
construction of all installations,
changes, or additions necessary to achieve compliance
with the maximum contaminant level in question shall be
completed no later than October
1,
1992.
One year will
be necessary to’ prove compliance.
(7)
Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.851(b),
in its first
set of water bills or within three months after the
date of this Order, whichever occurs first,
and every
three months thereafter,
Petitioner will send to each
user of its public water supply a written notice to the
effect that Petitioner has been granted by the
Pollution Control Board a variance from 35 Ill.
Admn.
Code 602.105(a)
Standards of Issuance and 35 Ill.
Adni.
Code 602.106(a) Restricted Status,
as they relate to
the maximum contaminant level for combined radium and
gross alpha particle activity.
(8)
Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.851(b),
in its first
set of water bills or within three months after the
date of this Order, whichever occurs first,
and every
three months thereafter, Petitioner will send to each
user of its public water supply a written notice to the
effect that Petitioner is not in-comnpliance with the
maximum contaminant level for combined radium and gross
alpha particle activity.
The notice shall state the
average content of the contaminants in question in
samples taken since the last notice period during which
samples were taken and shall include the mandatory
health effects language as specified in 35 Ill. Mm.
Code 611.Appendix Al.
(9)
Until full compliance is achieved, Petitioner shall
take all reasonable measures with its existing
equipment to minimize the maximum contaminant level of
combined radium and gross alpha particle activity in
its finished drinking water.
129—280
13
(10) Petitioner shall provide written progress reports
to the Agency at the address below every six
months concerning steps taken to comply with
conditions
1 through
7 of this Order.
Progress
reports shall quote each of said paragraphs and
immediately below each paragraph state what steps
have been taken to comply with each paragraph:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Public Water Supply
Field Operations Section
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276
Within forty-five days of the date of this Order, Petitioner
shall execute’ and forward to Stephen
C.
Ewart, Division of Legal
Counsel, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box
19276,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276,
a
Certificate of Acceptance and agreement to be bound to all terms
and conditions of the granted variance.
The 45—day period shall
be held in abeyance during any period that this matter is
appealed.
Failure to execute and forward the Certificate,within
45—days renders this variance void and of no force and effect as
a shield against enforcement of rules from which this variance is
granted.
The form of Certificate
is as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
hereby accept and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions
of the Order of the Pollution Control Board
in PCB 91-121,
January 23,
1992.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
129—28
1
14
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111½ par.
1041, provides for appeal of final
Orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
B. Forcade dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Oi4nion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day of
avoteof
________
1992,
by
Control Board
129—282
