ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

30,

1978

VILLAGE OF

ALGONQUIN,

Petiti~jnsr,

PCB 78-3

ENVIRONMENTAL

 PROTECTLON

AGENCY,

OPINION

AND

 ORDER CF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Dumelle):

Petitioner has

requested

Variance

from

the

drinking

water standard for barium.

 Petitioner claims

 it would suffer

hardship

 if i~was required to comply with the 1.0 mg/i

standard because

it

has no available alternative water supply

to replace wells

2

and

 4 which exceed the standard.

As

additional reasons Petitioner states that installation of

barium removal equipment would be economically unreasonable

and would cause more harm than it would correct.

 The Agency

recommends that

 a Variance be granted so that more data

can be collected on the levels of barium in Petitioner’s

water supply and on

the

health hazards associated with

ingestion of barium.

 Both parties feel that Petitioner should

not be required to install facilities which may be

rendered unnecessary by a future upward re—evaluation of

the

barium

standard.

The Board was faced with a similar request

in

City of Crystal Lake

EPA, PCB 77-332

 (February 18,

 1978).

In that case the Board noted that the Drinking Water Standards

were adopted

Ofl

 November

22

1974

~ifter

 exten~

i

rev

i ow

of health effects and economic and technical feasibility.

Petitioner

filed

this request for relief

 two days after

the

date

 it was supposed to have met the barium standard.

No

compliance program is proposed.

 Instead the parties cite

reports and studies which may result

 in a change in the

Federal Standard

which

 is also 1.0 mg/i and became effective

on June 24,

 1977.

 It should be noted that the Board

 lacks

the authoriflty to grant relief from the Federal standard.

The health study cited is not yet complete and is not a part

of the record of this case.

 No one knows its

 findings.

There is very little data in this record to establish

the actual levels of barium in Petitioner’s System.

A

cooperative

program of data collection between Petitioner and the Agency

may disclose that no Variance is necessary.

—

443

—2—

The actual cost that would be incurred by Petitioner

in achieving compliance

 is somewhat in doubt.

 Petitioner

states that centralized water softening equipment would not

be feasible, would cost over $1 million and would double the

present water rate,

 The Agency does not agree with the

conclusion that such

 a system would not be feasible or that

installation would impose any overly burdensome cost on

Petitioner.

 There

 is also a dispute between the parties

as to whether or not a referendum would be necessary to

raise the funding.

 The Board would have to be advised of

extremely high, well documented costs before it could grant

a Variance which did not provide for compliance with an

existing effective standard.

 Petitioner has failed to

meet its burden in this regard.

Therefore,

 since no compliance program is proposed,

hardship is not clearly established, and unanswered questions

concerning public health and actual barium levels are at

stake, the Board must deny the Variance.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

It

 is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that

Petitioner’s request for a Variance from the drinking

water standard for barium be denied.

I, Christan

 L. Moffett,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

 hereby certify the above Opinon and Order

were adopted o~ithe ~~day

of

_____________,

19

7~3

by a vote of

~S~o

Illinois Pollution

 ntrol Board

—

444