ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 11, 1986
VILLAGE OF ROUND
LAKE BEACH
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 86—59
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
and
ELIZABETH BOWDEN, BARBARA ELLENWOOD,
)
MICHAEL KARASINSKI, JEAN KENNEDY,
CHRISTINE MEEK, STEWART SLAVIK,
)
CITIZENS
FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,
AND
)
THE LAKE COUNTY DEFENDERS
)
Intervenors.
JOHN MULLEN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
WAYNE WIEMERSLAGE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
ELIZABETH BOWDEN,
BARBARA ELLENWOOD, MICHAEL KARASINSKI, JEAN
KENNEDY,
CHRISTINE MEEK, JED POSNICK, STEWART SLAVIK, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES.
JED POSNICK APPEARED ON BEHALF OF CITIZENS
FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT.
LORENS TRONET APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
THE LAKE COUNTY DEFENDERS.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
R.
C.
Flernal):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a Petition for
Variance filed by the Village of Round Lake Beach (“Village”) on
April
22, 1986.
The Village requests
a variance from 35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 602.105(a)
(Standards
for Issuance)
and 602.106(b)
(Restricted Status)
as
they relate
to 604.301(a)
(Combined radium
226 and 228)
for
five years or until May 1,
1991.
The Village is
not seeking
a variance from the actual combined radium standard,
but rather,
from restricted
status.
On April
24, 1986,
the Board determined
the Village’s
Petition
to be deficient
in that it failed “to identify the
public water supply customers or facilities
for which hook—up and
permits
are sought”.
To remedy this problem the Village
submitted an Amended Petition
(“Amen.
Pet.”) May 19, 1986.
The
Agency filed
its Recommendation
(“Rec.”)
in this matter on June
72-275
—2—
27, 1986,
recommending that the variance requested by the Village
be granted, subject
to conditions.
Hearing was held
on July 11, 1986,
in Round Lake Beach,
Illinois.
The hearing was well attended by interested persons,
as
the Hearing Officer estimated
that approximately 200 persons
were present
(R.
at 11).
The Village’s Petition has engendered
a
considerable amount of interest and/or controversy amongst the
public;
the Board has received many written comments from persons
and organizations interested
in this case, and all have been
opposed to granting the requested variance relief.
On August 20, 1986,
the Village waived
its right to a
decision
in this matter until September
25, 1986.
As discussed more
fully below,
the Board finds
the Village
would suffer arbitrary or unreasonable hardship if denied
variance relief
in this instance,
but does not find that variance
for
a five—year period is required.
Therefore,
the Board will
partially grant the Village the variance relief
it seeks, subject
to conditions.
RELIEF SOUGHT
BY THE VILLAGE
The Village requests variance until May 2,
1991,
or for five
years
from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 602.105(a)
(Standards
for Issuance)
and from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 602.106(b)
(Restricted 9atus)
but
only as they relate
to
35
Ill. Adm. Code 604.301(a)
-
Section
602.105(a)
states
in full:
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.
1981,
ch.
lll1h~pars. 1001
et.
seq.)(Act),
or
of
this chapter.
Sections 602.106(a)
and
(b)
state
in full:
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
‘The Village’s Petition actually cites
to
604.301(b),
but that
reference is obviously made
in error because
604.301(b)
relates
to gross alpha particle activity.
72-276
—3—
construction permit without causing
a violation
of the Act or this Chapter.
b)
The Agency shall publish and make available to
the public,
at intervals of not more than six
months,
a comprehensive and
up—to—date list of
supplies subject
to restrictive status
and the
reasons why.
The asserted purpose of the requested variance
is to allow
the continued operation of the Village~swater supply and
distribution system,
the expansion or
extension of said system,
and the removal
of this facility from the Agency’s Restricted
Status List
(Amen.
Pet.,
p.
1).
The Board notes
that the Village’s ability to continue
operation of
its existing water supply and distribution system
would not be affected
by either
a grant or denial
of
the
requested relief.
However,
the decision on relief could affect
the likelihood of those future developments which would require
extension of the Village’s water service.
BACKGROUND
The Village provides public services,
including potable
water supply and distribution,
for
a population of
3,886
residential
and
182
industrial
and commercial utility
customers representing approximately 15,000 residents and 1,000
employees (Amen.
Pet.,
par. 10).
The Village owns and operates
its water supply
and distribution system, which consists of
four
shallow wells
(Nos.
1,
3,
4,
and 5),
two deep wells (Nos.
6
and
7),
a 500,000 gallon elevated storage tank,
and
a one million
gallon around storage reservoir
(Amen. Pet.,
pars.
12—13;
Exhibit4
(“Ex”)
4,
p.1).
In
1985,
the system delivered 475
million gallons and experienced
a peak daily demand of 1.7
million gallons/day
(Ex.
4, p.1).
addition
to the Exhibits submitted for the Record by the
Village,
the Agency and several citizens who obtained Intervenor
status
in this case pursuant
to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 103.142 also
submitted Exhibits.
Exhibits filed by the Agency will be
referred ~o as Agency Exhibits (“Agen.
Ex.”).
The citizens
granted intervenor status pursuant
to 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 103.142
were Elizabeth Bowden, Barbara Ellenwood, Michael
Karasinski,
Jean Kennedy, Christine Meek, and Stewart Slavik.
Citizens for
a
Better Environment and the Lake County Defenders were also
granted intervenor status.
Exhibits filed by Intervenors will be
referred to
as Public Exhibits
(“Pub.
Ex.”).
72-277
—4—
The depths
and ages of the wells operated by the Village are
as follows:
YEAR PLACED
WELL
DEPTH
INTO SERVICE
1
215
1946
3
342
1948
4
314
1952
5
295
1956
6
1,287
1972
7
2,000
1978
The Village was notified by letter from the Agency on
December
9,
1985,
that
its system was delivering
water
exceeding
the
5 pCi/l combined
radium 226 and 228 standard.
The Agency’s
letter was prompted by its determination that
the water delivered
by the Village contained 10.5 pCi/i
of combined radium
(Ex.
1).
In response to this notification from the Agency,
the Village
uqdertook efforts to independently sample water from wells
6 and
7’,
as well as water from one location
in the Village’s
distribution system,
for combined radium.
The results obtained
(expressed
in pCi/i)
are as
follows:
WELL
RADIUM 226
RADIUM 228
6
3.5 ±0.1
4.1 ±1.0
7
4.2 ±0.1
4.7 ±1.0
1502 Elm Av.
0.9 ±0.1
1.6 ±0.7
(Ex.
3).
COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES
The Village believes that the most feasible manner
for
it to
achieve compliance with the combined radium standard
is to blend
water
drawn from shallow wells with water
from deep wells
(R. at
150).
The former, having comparatively low levels of radium,
would offset the naturally occuring higher levels of radium in
the latter
and thereby allow the system to deliver water
containing less than 5 pCi/i of radium 226 and 228.
3Ostensibly the Village’s four shallow wells were not sampled
for
the presence of
combined radium because such material
is found
only in water drawn from deep wells
in certain portions of
Illinois.
72.278
—5—
Blendin9
as
a Short—Term Solution
The configuration of the Village’s system
is fortuitously
amendable
to immediate utilization of blending as
a partial means
of attaining compliance.
Well No.
6 currently pumps directly
into the one million gallon ground storage reservoir,
and the
reservoir can also receive water from the distribution system
(Ex. 4).
The Village proposes
to begin blending within one to
two months after variance
is granted. Blending would
occur
in the
reservoir and utilize water
from Well No.
6
and the distribution
system,
at
a ratio of approximately 1:1
(Id.).
The Village
calculates
that this procedure will reduce the combined radium
level
in
the blended water
to about
5 pCi/i
(Id.).
However,
the Village contends that prior
to completion of
the long—term improvements to
the system
(see discussion below),
its shallow wells
in conjunction with Well No.
6 cannot
consistently supply enough water
to meet the needs of the
system’s
users
(R.
at
152).
This deficiency would likely present
itself
in warm weather
and/or during periods when water
is being
drawn
for fire protection purposes
(Id.).
The Village suggests
that at those times unbiended water
from the deep wells would be
utilized out of necessity,
and would push the combined radium
level
in
the system’s delivered water
above
the
5 pCi/i standard
(Id.).
The Village therefore requests variance
for
a five year
period
or until May 1,
1991,
to do additional work which will
allow
for the use
of
a blending system which will provide water
meeting
the
5 pCi/l combined radium standard
in sufficient
quantity to meet the demands placed on the system
(Id.).
Blending
as
a Long—Term Solution
During
the period of the requested variance,
the Village
proposes
to construct additional shallow wells which will provide
water with low combined radium levels.
In addition, the Village
plans
on installing piping and control equipment that will enable
water from Well No.
7
to
be blended
in the system’s elevated
tank
prior
to entering the distribution system
(Ex. 4).
Well No.
7
is
located approximately 500 feet from the
500,000 gallon elevated storage tank.
To accomplish the blending
of Well No.
7 water with water of low combined radium, additional
watermains connecting
the well and the elevated tank need
to be
constructed.
The costs of these proposed improvements
is
estimated by the Village
to be approximately $150,000
(Ex. 4).
Lime Softening
According
to the Agency,
this method can remove 80
to 90
percent of the combined radium in the water
(Rec.,
par.
17).
However,
it also produces large quantities of sludge containing
the combined radium
in
a concentrated
form, which causes
72-279
—6—
additional problems and expenses
in properly disposing of the
material
(Id.).
Ion
Exchange Water Softening
The Agency states that this method
is cheaper than lime
softening,
and will remove more than 90 percent of the combined
radium from the water (Rec,
par.
18).
Though possibly less
expensive than the lime softening method
the Village estimates
that utilizing
this approach would cost approximately $1 million
per well
(R.
at 148).
However,
the Agency adds that
if an ion
exchange softener
which
is regenerated with salt
is used,
the
sodium content
of the water will be
increased significantly
(Id.).
This may create
a significant risk to persons who are
hypertensive or who have heart problems (Id.).
The Agency
further
adds that the ion exchange process will concentrate
the
radioactivity and release the majority of the radioactivity in
the waste stream
in
a concentrated form.
This concentration
causes difficulties
in disposing of the waste material, and may
result
in
a hazard
to anyone subsequently working on the softener
equipment
(Id.).
The Agency
is actively discouraging use of the
ion exchange process
for
removal of combined radium,
“...unless
that
is the best treatment method available
for
a particular
supply”
(Id.).
Lake Michigan Water
Another compliance alternative
is
to obtain Lake Michigan
water
for the Village’s system.
The Village has applied
for, and
received
an allocation of, Lake Michigan water
(R.
at
149).
However,
up
to this time the Village has not devised what
it
considers
to be
a feasible way of transporting
the water
from
Lake Michigan
to its system
(R.
at 149—150).
HEALTH RISK
The Agency states that although radiation at any level
creates
some risk,
the risk associated with the level present in
the Village’s water
is very low (Rec.,
par.
14).
The Village
presented testimony at hearing from Richard
E.
Toohey, Ph.D,
a
biophysicist and research scientist at Argonne National
Laboratory.
Dr. Toohey has studied the human health effects of
radium
for the past 13 years,
all of which time he has been
employed by Argonne
(R.
at 33).
Dr. Toohey has presented his testimony regarding
the health
effects of radium,
in virtually identical fashion, at hearings in
several Board proceedings (see
the records of PCB 85—51,
City of
Aurora
v.
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, July 11,
1985, and R85—14,
Proposed Amendments
to Public Water Supply
Regulations,
35
Xli.
Adin. Code 602.105 and 602.106).
His
72-280
—7—
testimony essentially indicates,
and
is
cited by the Village and
the Agency
for the proposition that:
an
incremental
increase
in the allowable
concentration for combined radium,
even up to
a
maximum of 20 pCi/i, should cause no significant
health risk for the limited population served by
new water main extensions for the time period of
this recommended variance (emphasis as in
original)
(Rec.,
par.
16).
Since the substance of Dr. Toohey’s presentation has previously
been recounted
in detail by the Board
(see Aurora,
pps.
5—7),
it
will not be repeated
here.
Seven of
the eight persons who were formally granted
intervenor status by the Hearing Officer participated
in the
hearing
and,
inter alia, questioned Dr. Toohey o~his conclusions
regarding
the health effects of radium ingestion
*
The questions
posed
by the intervenors generally focused on the
following
areas:
—
whether
Dr. Toohey’s opinion is accepted by other
government agencies
(R.
at 62—68);
—
whether certain
of
the assumptions made by Dr. Toohey in
his calculations are accurate
(R.
at 73—82);
—
whether
a causal relationship exists between ingestion
of radium and various adverse health effects,
other than
thos
identified by Dr. Toohey
(R.
at 74—76;
92—94;
99—
100;
103—104).
The intervenors did not present any witnesses of their own,
expert or otherwise,
to counter Dr. Toohey’s testimony5.
Several
persons commented, however,
that in their Opinion any health risk
associated with the presence of radium
in drinking water
is
excessive and that the requested variance should not be granted
(R.
at 101;
119—121;
267—268).
The intervenors also submitted
petitions signed by more than 600 persons
in opposition to the
variance.
The petitions state
that those Signing oppose the
4me
only intervenor who did not attend
the hearing was Barbara
Ellenwood.
5me intervenors did present one witness,
F.T. Mike Graham, who
is the Libertyville Township Supervisor.
By his own admission,
however, Mr. Graham was asked
by the intervenors
to address the
“cost of growth”
(i.e.
cost of public development;
see R.
at 252—
253).
72-281
—8—
granting of variance relief here because
“the users of said water
supply
(will)
be exposed to health hazards,
known and unknown...”
HARDSHIP
The Village and the Agency both contend that the hardship
resulting from denial of the requested variance would outweigh
the injury to the public from granting the petition (Amen.
Pet.,
par.
40; Rec.,
par. 27), and that denial of the variance would
impose on arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship on the Village
(Amen.
Pet.,
par.
32; Rec., par.
27).
The Village asserts that it does not have adequate funds at
the present time to implement the full blending plan
(R. at
205).
The Village states that funds were not allocated for this
purpose
in the Village’s 1986 budget,
and that because of
deficits
in
the Village’s sewer
and water
fund revenue bonds
cannot be obtained
to finance the necessary work
(R.
at 205—206).
The Village initially indicated at hearing that
it sought
the requested variance relief
in order
to bring its system into
compliance,
to upgrade
the system to better serve existing
customers,
and
to serve new customers by extending water
connections to new development
(R.
at 227).
In response to
questioning by one of the intervenors, however, Wayne
Wiemersiage,
an Attorney with the Agency, noted
that
a variance
from Restricted Status would only be necessary for
the purpose of
connecting new users to the system (i.e.
to accoinodate new
development)
(R.
at 228—229).
The Village insists that fees
charged
to new users added to the system as
a consequence of
development will comprise
a significant source of revenue,, and
will assist the Village
in implementing the blending plan
(R.
at
209).
The Village has indicated that without variance relief,
three pending developments within its boundaries already
in the
construction or planning stages will not be allowed to obtain
water
service.
These developments are the Countryside Hills
subdivision (consisting of 258 single family attached homes;
at
least 32 units have already been sold,
and the buyers had
intended
to take possession
in June, 1986), the Eagle Creek
development (consisting of 300 single family attached and
detached homes to
be built over the next five years),
and
a
proposed 20—store shopping center
(Ex.
1(A)).
THE DEVELOPMENT ISSUE
It
is apparent from
a reading of the transcription of the
hearing held
in this matter
that at least
a portion of the
opposition generated against the Village’s petition for variance
72-282
—9—
is rooted
in philosphical differences between the Village’s
Administration and some of its citizenry over the ~uestion of
development
(see,
e.g.,
R.
at 223—224 and 253—254)
.
The
Village’s Administration is apparently interested
in having the
Village annex
additional property for residential and commercial
development,
while some persons who exhibited an interest
in this
case objected
to the granting of variance relief in whole
or
in
part because of their opposition
to further development of the
Village.
The concern exhibited at hearing over development of the
Village
is exemplified by the following discussion between
Michael Karasinski
(one of the intervenors), John Mullen
(attorney
for the Village),
and the Hearing Officer, as Mr.
Karasinski attempts
to introduce as an exhibit
a number of signed
petitions purporting
to show opposition to the granting of
variance relief
in this case:
Mr.
Karasinski:
Yes,
I would
like to have
it
entered as
an exhibit from the people of Round
Lake Beach, petitions that they do not want this
variance granted.
They want
it cleaned
up first
before any further development is put
in.
Mr. Mullen:
And
I would
like to object for the
record.
I don’t think those documents are
admissible.
Hearing Officer Wuif:
I will
admit them.
Before you go on,
I am going
to rescind
something
that
I said earlier.
As related
to Mr.
——
I am going
to rescind
something that
I
said earlier that related
to
Mr.
Karasinski’s petition that he
indicated.
He indicated these were people that were
opposed
to
the variance.
These petitions don’t
address that issue,
but an annexation issue,
which
is not the matter
at hand.
61n so noting, the Board
at the same time realizes that many of
the comments received
in opposition
to the variance have been
given
as the result of
sincere concern over the health effects of
ingesting combined radium 226 and 228.
Such comments are
appropriate, and
the
Board welcomes them.
72-283
—10—
These
are more appropriately submitted
to
your Village officials.
So
I will not admit these
into the record.
(R.
at 224—225,
238).
The Board
feels compelled
to observe that determining the
relative merits of “growth” as
a policy or philosophy is not its
function.
Rather, the Board
is empowered
to grant variance
relief
if,
in
its discretion, arbitrary or unreasonable hardship
would result
from requiring an entity
to comply with
a Board
regulation, requirement,
or order.
In making this determination,
the Board determines whether the alleged hardship outweighs the
environmental impact that may occur
as
a result of the
variance.
The raising of other issues, such as whether
annexation on
the part of the Village
is prudent from
a cost
perspective
(R.
at 253—256)
is not appropriate
in a variance case
and cannot be entertained
by the Board.
CONCLUSION
The Village’s request
is basically that it be allowed
to
expose an additional unidentified number of persons
to
its excess
combined radium levels by extending water
service to them, and
that such additional exposure be for
a period ending not later
than five years from now.
This is essentially what variance from
Restricted Status would
allow because it would enable the Agency
to grant permits
to the Village
for new water main extensions.
Moreover, this
is all that the
requested variance relief entails;
neither the Village’s ability
to continue operation of its water
supply and distribution system, nor the issue of requiring the
Village
to take actions
to lower the level of combined radium
found
in water delivered
to existing users, are subjects of this
case.
As previously noted, the Agency believes that exposure over
a five year period
to the level
of combined radium found
in the
Village’s water
would cause
no significant health risk for the
limited population served by new water main extensions.
The
Board
finds that granting the requested variance would produce no
significant health risk.
Regarding the question of hardship, the Board
finds that the
Village will
suffer,
for various reasons, hardship
if denied some
form of variance relief.
The Village has indicated that it will
charge the builders of new developments “tap—on” fees for the
privilege of being
added
to the system.
The Village has also
noted that it needs the funds that will be generated by these
fees in order
to pay for the improvements which will bring
the
system into compliance.
Furthermore,
the Village has shown that the funding for the
improvements
to its system can, and will, come from the fees
72.284
—11—
charged
to the new users who will be added
to the system.
The
Village has also shown
its intention to bring its system into
compliance
by virtue of
its planning efforts
to date.
The
Village has already completed the stages of identification of
alternative solutions to the combined radium problem,
the
evaluation of those alternatives, and the selection of one of
them as
a compliance option, and shows every intention of fully
implementing the blending plan
it has selected.
Finally, the Board
finds hardship would additionally result
from failure
to lift Restricted Status here because of the impact
such a determination would have on the pending developments
in
the Village.
In reaching this conclusion, the Board does not in
any way comment on the desirability, or lack thereof, of the
construction of these developments
in the first instance.
The
Board simply believes that because progress on these developments
was
initiated prior
to
the time the Village was aware
its system
would
be placed
on Restricted Status
(R.
at 222), hardship would
result from
a denial of variance relief.
This concern is
particularly applicable to the Countryside Hills development, at
which construction was begun prior
to the time the Village was
aware of its Restricte~Status situation,
and at which many units
have already been sold
On balance, therefore,
the Board
finds that given
the
minimal environmental impact of the requested variance and the
hardship that would result without
it,
a denial
of variance
relief
in this instance would result
in arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship.
The Board
adds that in granting variance
relief here,
its intention is to ensure that all users of the
Village’s system begin
receiving,
as expeditiously as possible,
water complying with the
5 pCi/i combined radium standard.
The
Board
is persuaded that variance relief will allow the Village
to
obtain
the financing necessary
to attain compliance within a
shorter time period than would otherwise be possible.
7Jeanne
A. Kennedy,
one of the intervenors
in this matter, claims
that Countryside Hills has recently installed two private wells
and has “an adequate, temporary water supply”
(Comment of Jeanne
A.
Kennedy, July 24,
1986).
However, Peter G
Kanelos, developer
of the project,
earlier noted
that the inability of his company
to obtain permits
for the extension of water mains
to his project
and
the resulting legal consequences of that situation could
bring about
“..
.financial ruin and abandonment”
of the project
(Ex.
7).
It
is not clear
from the record whether Mr. Kanelos has
obtained a sufficient water supply to meet Countryside Hills’
short—term needs.
Whether
that has occurred
or not, the Board
nonetheless believes that unless the development can be connected
with the Village’s system, arbitrary or unreasonable hardship
will result
in the long—run.
72-285
—12—
However, given
the relative ease with which the Village can
begin blending water
from Well No.
6, as well as the limited
amount of work that needs to be accomplished before water from
Well No.
7 can be blended, the Board believes that a variance
period of five years
is unnecessarily long.
The Village has
already determined to undertake blending as the means of
compliance
(R.
at
150);
in addition, the Village’s engineer
has
already specifically identified the construction work needing
to
be done
to implement the blending program (see Ex.
4).
Little or
no time needs to be allowed the Village
for the securing of
professional assistance,
the investigation of compliance options,
etc.,
as this work has already been completed.
Consequently,
the Board finds that
a three—year variance
period
is adequate
to allow the Village sufficient time to
complete the required construction
to
its system
and bring
the
blending plan into
full operation.
The largely identical
variance conditions proposed by the Agency and the Village, which
had been written with a five—year variance
in mind, will
therefore be modified
to reflect
the Board’s position.
One major distinction
in the variance conditions suggested
by the Agency and the Village and those imposed by the Board has
to do with the upper
limit on the level of combined radium that
must be observed
in
the system during
the variance period.
The
Agency recommends this level
be set at 15 pCi/i
(Rec., par.
28(B))
while
the Village suggests no particular figure but offers
to “take
all reasonable measures with its existing equipment
to
minimize the combined radium
226 and 228 activity
in
its finished
water
(Amen.
Pet., par.
31(L)).
The Board believes
it
is appropriate
to impose an upper
limit
in this case, as the Village has asserted that it will have
the ability to control
the level
of combined radium in its
system.
The Board furthermore determines that the cap will be
set at
6 pCi/i
for all
times except during those
of an
“emergency”
(for definition,
see Order) nature.
The
6 pCi/l figure was arrived
at in consideration of
statements made by the Village regarding its capabilities and
intentions.
The Village has indicated that within
a two month
period
it could begin blending water
from Well
No.
6
(R. at 172;
Ex.
4), and that this action would allow the blended water
to
attain
a combined radium concentration of “about” 5.0 pCi/i
(Ex.
4).
Since the Village has indicated some degree of uncertainty
in its ability to attain
a level
of below 5.0 pCi/l,
the Board
will set the cap at 6.0 pCi/l
in order to provide a rigorous yet
reasonable standard
for
the Village to meet.
The Village has further proposed that the use of Well No.
7
be limited
to “emergency” operation only
(Ex.
4), i.e. during
those periods when the other wells cannot meet the system
72-286
—13—
demand.
The Board
finds
it appropriate
to so limit the use of
Well No.
7,
and will impose
the limitation as
a variance
condition.
The Board realizes that during
those
periods of an
“emergency” nature,
the 6.0 pCi/i
limit may not be met.
Finally, the Board notes that the variance requested here Is
solely from Illinois regulations establishing the Restricted
Status mechanism and not from the national primary drinking water
regulations.
That being the case, such variance will not
insulate
the Village from the possibility of enforcement from
violations of the underlying combined radium standard.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law
in this matter.
ORDER
The Village of Round Lake Beach
is hereby granted variance
from 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 602.105(a)
(Standards for
Issuance)
and
602.106(b)
(Restricted Status) but only as they relate
to
604.301(a)
(Combined radium 226 and 228), subject to the
following conditions:
1. Variance shall
be effective this date
and shall expire
on September 11,
1989,
or when analysis pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 605.105(a)
shows compliance with the
combined radium 226 and 228 standard, whichever occurs
first.
2.
By November
11,
1986,
the Village shall begin blending
in its ground storage reservoir water from Well No.
6
with water
from
its distribution system in such ratio
as
to prevent the level of combined radium 226 and 228
in
that blended water
from exceeding 5.0 pCi/i.
This
blending shall be continued
for the duration of the
variance.
3.
Well No.
7 shall not be used except
for emergency
operation.
Such operation shall be said
to be required
during
those periods when water from
the Village’s
shallow wells and Well No.
6
(after blending)
cannot
meet the demands on the Village’s system.
4. The concentration of combined radium 226 and 228
in
Petitioner’s distribution system shall not exceed 15
pCi/i for
the initial two months of the variance
period.
After November
11,
1986,
such level
shall not
exceed 6.0 pCi/i,
except during those periods when Well
No.
7
is used
in emergency operation, during which time
such level shall
not exceed 15 pCi/l.
72.287
—14—
5.
In consultation with the Agency, Petitioner shall
continue its sampling program to determine as accurately
as possible the level
of radioactivity
in its wells and
finished water.
Until this variance expires, Petitioner
shall collect quarterly samples of its water from its
distribution system,
shall composite and shall analyze
them annually by a laboratory certified by the State of
Illinois
for radiological analysis
so as to determine
the concentration of combined radium 226 and 228.
The
results of the analyses shall
be reported
to the Water
Quality Unit, Division of Public Water Supplies, 2200
Churchill Road,
IEPA, Springfield, Illinois 62706,
within 30 days of receipt of each analysis.
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.
6.
Compliance
shall
be achieved with the combined radium
226 and 228 standard by September
11,
1989.
7. Within
six months of the grant of the variance, the
Petitioner
shall complete investigating compliance
methods, including
those treatment techniques described
in the Manual
of Treatment Techniques
for Meeting the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
USEPA, May
1977, EPA—600/8—77—005, and prepare
a detailed
Compliance Report showing
how compliance shall
be
achieved with the shortest practicable time, but no
later
than three years from the date of this variance.
8.
This Compliance Report shall be submitted within seven
months of the grant of this variance to IEPA,
DPWS,
for
its approval.
9. Within three months after
submission of the Compliance
Report Petitioner
shall apply to
IEPA,
DPWS,
Permit
Section,
for
all permits necessary for construction of
installations, changes
or additions
to the Petitioner’s
public water
supply needed
for achieving compliance with
the combined radium 226 and 228
standard.
10. Within three months after each construction permit
is
issued by IEPA,
DPWS, Petitioner
shall advertise for
bids from contractors to do the necessary work described
in the construction permit and shall accept appropriate
bids within
a reasonable time.
11. Construction allowed on said construction permits shall
begin within
a reasonable time of bids being
accepted,
but
in any case, construction of
all installations,
72-288
—15—
changes or additions necessary to achieve compliance
with the combined radium 226 and 228 standard shall
begin no later than one and one half years
from the
grant of this variance and shall be completed no later
than three years from
the grant of this variance.
12.
Pursuant to 35
Ills Adm.
Code 606.201,
in its first
set
of water bills or within three months after
the date of
this Variance 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.
Adm. Code
602.105(a) Standards of Issuance and
35
Ill.
Adni.
Code
602.106(b) Restricted
Status,
as
it related to the
combined radium 226 and 228
standard.
13.
Pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 606.201,
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 compliance with the combined
radium 226 and 228 standard.
The notice
shall state the
average content of combined radium 226 and 228
in
samples taken since
the last notice period during which
samples were taken.
14.
That Petitioner
shall take all reasonable measures with
its existing equipment
to minimize the level
of combined
radium 226 and 228
in its finished water.
15. That within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner
shall execute and forward
to Wayne
Wiemerslage, Enforcement Programs, Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706,
a Certificate of Acceptance
and Agreement to be bound
to all
terms and conditions of
this variance.
This forty—five day period shall be held
in abeyance for any period this matter
is being
appealed.
The form of the Certification shall be as
follows:
72-289
—16—
CERTIFICATION
The Village of Round Lake Beach, having read the Order
of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in PCB 86—59 dated September
11,
1986, understands
and accepts the said Order, realizing that
such acceptance renders all
terms and conditions thereto binding
and enforceable.
Village of Round Lake Beach
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board Members Jacob D.
Durnelle and Bill Forcade dissented.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby~çertifythat
the abovy Order was adopted on
the
//~-/-~
day ~
,
1986, by
a vote
of
~
.
~t:L~
~
Dorothy M.
Gónn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
72-290
