ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July
    23,
    1981
    LAKE BARRINGTON COMMUNITY HOMEOWNERS ASSN.,
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 81—58
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    Anderson):
    This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
    variance of the Lake Barrington Community Homeowners Association
    (Association) filed April
    16,
    1981 as amended May
    7,
    1981.
    The
    Association seeks variance from the 1.0 mg/i barium standard of
    Rule 304(B) (4)
    of Chapter
    6:
    Public Water Supplies.
    The Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    filed its Recommendation
    in support of variance on June 8,
    1981.
    Hearing was waived and
    none has been held.
    One of the purposes for which the not—for-profit Association
    was created was to own and operate the water supply system for
    a
    500 acre residential development known as Lake Barrington Shores,
    located in the Village of Lake Barrington, Lake County.
    Of 1350
    planned units, 700 have been completed, most of which are attachec~L
    single family units.
    A deep well and shallow well have been drilled to serve the
    Association.
    This 129 feet deep well
    is not in use, due to
    “expressed but unconfirmed concerns of some neighboring homeowners
    that a major user,
    such as Lake Barrington Shores, might draw down
    the water table and adversely affect their
    wells’1
    (Pet.,
    Ex.
    1,
    p.1).
    Since deep Well
    #2 was drilled and a 500,000
    gal. reservior
    was constructed in 1977,
    it has been the Association’s sole source
    of water, except for a short time during the spring of
    1980 when
    the shallow well was put back into operation to allow for testing
    of both wells and repairs to Well #2’s pump.
    The Village has
    presented the results of sixteen tests for barium on Well #2
    performed by four laboratories between March and December, 1980
    plus two earlier tests in 1976.
    The various barium readings are
    somewhat difficult to reconcile, as they range from 0.16 to 18.5
    mg/i.
    However,
    14 out of
    18 tests exceed the 1.0 mg/i barium
    standard.
    (Pet.
    attach.
    A to Ex.
    A.)
    43—87
    2
    Water from Well #2 is pumped at a maximum capacity
    )E
    about
    450 gallons per minute
    (gpm).
    Barium sulfate was discovered as
    a
    causative factor in earlier well pump failure.
    When the entire
    development is complete,
    it is estimated that the Association’s
    water needs will be approximately 730 gpm (with
    a fire flow
    requirement of 2,000 gpm for two hours).
    Thus,
    even if Well
    *2
    complied with the barium standard, the Association would need
    to
    develop additional water capacity.
    In preparing its petition for variance, the Association’s
    consultant, Hooper Engineers,
    Ltd., has examined “the economics
    of the various alternatives and possible alternatives to meet
    the requirements of both quality and quantity for the entire
    development.”
    The Association is therefore in the process of
    determining whether drawing from shallow Well
    #1 will
    in fact
    adversely affect neighboring shallow wells.
    If it does
    riot,
    the
    Association might plan to drill an additional shallow well which,
    in conjunction with Well
    #1, would be used as a primary water
    source to replace the deep well.
    This option would cost $195,000;
    if iron removal would be required $300,000 must be added,
    and if
    complete softening is required $200,000 more must be added.
    Another option suggested was to enlarge the pumping capacity
    of Well
    #2, remove the barium,
    and drill another small,
    shallow,
    standby well.
    The well development costs are again estimated to
    be $195,000 with barium treatment equipment costs figured at
    $500, 000.
    It was finally suggested that the Village consider locating
    a shallow well or wells on Association property located adjacent
    to the Fox River.
    Well development costs were figured to be about
    $175,000, with $300,000
    to be added for iron removal and $200,000
    more for softening,
    if necessary.
    In addition to the capital cost of each option,
    annual
    operation and maintenance costs were calculated.
    Iron removal
    would cost an additional $17,098 and softening would cost $42,745,
    although
    if options
    1 or
    3 were chosen credits for power would
    reduce the figure $12,000 annually.
    It was also stated that
    softening would create a backwash disposal problem, and would
    raise
    the sodium content of the water to about 125 mg/i.
    The Agency believes that the level of barium in the
    Association’s water imposes no threat to the health of its users.
    Even though Well
    #1 would provide “an adequate source of water
    which is
    in compliance” with the Board’s minerological standards,
    the Agency favors grant of variance because “there is a very real
    threat of hardship to the surrounding homeowners”.
    The Agency
    would,
    however, have the Board require that the Association
    determine whether use of Well #1 does in fact significantly affect
    the water level in neighboring wells.
    43—88
    3
    Based on this record, the Board cannot grant variance until
    January
    1,
    1984,
    the maximum period permissible under Section 1416
    of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    The Association is clearly in the
    early stages of determining how its water quantity and quality
    needs are to be met, with the result that the Association itself,
    let alone the Board,
    is not fully aware of compliance costs and
    options.
    (The Board notes that the Village has not considered the
    feasibility of blending waters from its deep well with water from
    its shallow well.)
    Too, while it is true that the barium standard
    is under review at the federal
    level, the Association’s water
    contains barium far in excess of the current applicable standard,
    and far
    in excess of the 2.0 mg/l USEPA guideline for exemptions
    under §1415 of the Safe Drinking Water Act for states having
    primacy of enforcement.
    The Board does find, however, that to immediately disallow
    continued use of Well
    #2 would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
    hardship.
    Variance is therefore granted for a one year period,
    during which time the Village shall continue to investigate and
    pinpoint sound, economically and technically feasible compliance
    options.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in the matter.
    ORDER
    1.
    Petitioner, Lake Barrington Community Homeowners
    Association,
    is hereby granted
    a one—year variance from the 1.0
    mg/i maximum barium concentration limitation of Chapter
    6:
    Public
    Water Supplies,
    subject to the following conditions:
    A.
    Petitioner
    shall expeditiously commence
    and continue the proposed water survey outlined in
    Exhibit A to its variance petition at p.
    4, which is
    incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.
    B.
    On or before June
    1,
    1982, Petitioner
    shall develop and submit to the Agency a plan to
    reach compliance with then—existing barium standards.
    C.
    Petitioner
    shall take all reasonable
    measures with its existing equipment to minimize
    the level of barium in its finished water.
    D.
    Pursuant to Rule 313(D)(1)
    of Chapter 6,
    on or before September 30,
    1981 and every three
    months thereafter Petitioner
    shall 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 the 1.0 mg/i
    maximum barium standard.
    The notice shall state the
    average content of barium in samples taken since the
    last notice period during which samples were taken.
    43—89
    4
    2.
    Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
    Petitioner shall execute and forward to 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 certificate shall
    be as follows:
    CERTIFICATE
    I,
    (We),
    ,
    having read
    the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 81-58,
    dated ___________________________, understand and accept the said
    conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
    Petitioner
    By:
    Authorized Agent
    Title
    Date
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Dumelle concurred.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,
    here1~çcertify. that. the above Opinion and Order was
    ~opted
    on the
    ~~.2~’dayof
    _______________,
    1981 by a vote of
    (~7
    j
    Christan L. Moffe
    j’~lerk
    Illinois PollutionLcckitrol Board
    43—90

    Back to top