ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
10,
1980
VILLAGE
OF HANOVER PARK,
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 79-~199
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent,
MR. JOSEPH
D.
LAKE,
Intervenor.
MR. KERRY W,
PEARSON, SAMUELSON,
KNICKERBOCKER & SCHIROTT;
appeared on behalf of Petitioner,
MS. ANNE
K.
MARKEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL; appeared on
behalf of the Agency.
MR. JOSEPH
P.
LAKE appeared
~
OPINION AND ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Dumelle):
Petitioner has requested an extension of the variance
from the standard for barium granted in Village of
Hanover Park
V.
EPA,
PCB 77~-348, 29 PCB 439, March
30,
1978,
The Agency has recommended that the extension be granted
subject to conditions.
A hearing was
held
on November
21,
1979
in the Pollution Control Board Conference Room in
Chicago.
In
Village of Hanover Park v. EPA,
PCB 77~348, the
Board noted that Petitioner was operating four finished
wells with three more under construction.
At that time,
only Well
#4 was known to be pumping water which exceeded
the 1,0 mg/l barium standard. The Board ordered Petitioner
to
initiate a program of data collection on the barium
levels
in this well.
If
a violation in fact existed,
Petitioner was to achi~vecompliance either by commingling
water
from its other wells
or by the installation of barium
removal equipment.
Petitioner
is presently operating four deep wells and
two shallow wells which provide drinking water for a
37—135
—4’—
population
of approximately 26,00G.
Two
of these wells
(#2.
&
14) contain
barium
in excess of the 1.0 mg/l standard.
Samples of Well
14
show’
.a range of barium samples from 0.42
mg/l to 5.69 mg/l in
raw
water with one sample of ground
storage at 8.04 mg/l
(Ex.1). Samples of Well
12 show a range
of
barium
samples from 1.16 mg/l to 2.52 mg/l
(Ex.2).
Two
initial tests on Well
15, which is not
yet
in operation,
show levels of less .than 0.1 mg/l and 0.5 mg/l
(R.28).
Petitioner feels that it needs all of its present wells
to meet its present high demand and provide for fire
protection (R.15).
Well 15 will be needed to provide for
peak demand anticipated during Summer,
1980
(R.25).
Water
from Well
12 and Well 14 is mixed with water from the rest
of Petitioner’s system (R.23).
Petitioner feels that commingling without barium
removal will not achieve compliance unless Well 14 is used
only for limited daytime periods and a complex mixing
system
with additional transmission lines is installed (R.40).
If
Well
12 and Well
14 are removed, the central portion of
Hanover Park will experience a significant pressure drop
during periods of
peak
demand (R.43) and the remaining wells
will be
overtaxed
(R.44).
Removing these wells would
increase operating costs since
they
would have to be
prepared
for
operation
in
times
of
emergency
(R.’40)
however,
operation
for
a
few
hours
per
day
would
probably
keep
these
wells ready (R.49).
In
a
report
prepared
for
Petitioner
(Ex.3),
two
treatment
methods, were
recommended
for
further
study.
They
are
chemical
coagulation
and precipitation
followed
by
buffer
filtration
and
sodium
zeolite
ion
exchange
(Ex.3,
p.28).
Capital costs for either of these alternatives are
approximately $500,000
(R.62-63).
Capital costs for lime
softening are estimated at $800,000 assuming that a lagoon
could .be installed and sludge could be disposed at a nearby
landfill (R.63).
All treatment alternatives are based on
treatment
of
water
from
Well
14
only
(R.42).
Petitioner
has
tentatively
approved
another
study
to
explore
these
alternatives
(R.67).
The
Agency
feels
that
lime
softening
is
the most
effective
alternative
since
it
can
achieve
95
barium
removal.
The Agency prefers lime softening because no
sodium
is
added
and
some
hardness
remains
(R.73).
Chemical
coagulation
and
precipitation
is
not
being
used
for
barium
removal
because
removal
efficiency
of
only
20—35
can
be
expected
(R.74).
The
Agency
discourages
the
use of
sodium
zeolite
softening
because
of
its
effect
on
people who must limit their sodium intake (R.74).
Local
medical authorities would have to be alerted to warn these
37—136
people (R~74)~ The Agency admits that there are higher
installation and sludge disposal costs associated with
lime
softening and that high barium levels may inhibit spreading
this sludge on farmland (R,76),
The Agency feels that the present LO
mg/l standard for
barium is unduly restrictive and that a standard of 2~-4mg/l
would be appropriate (R~78~79),Still the Agency knows
of
no movement in the United States Environmental Protection
Agency to change the LO
mg/l standard
(R.75,
80),
The
Agency feels that no threat to human health exists at the
barium levels presently found in Petitioner’s system
(R,81).
In its Recommendation the Agency states its belief that
Congress
is likely to extend the present deadline of January
1,
1981 for compliance with the barium standard,
Because of
the levels observed in Well
#2 and Well
#4, the Agency feels
that this variance should cover both of these wells or the
system as a whole.
The Agency notes some inconclusive data
on radioactivity in Petitioner’s system but feels that
barium removal would also solve this problem.
A forthcoming
USEPA standard for sodium would rule out the use of ion
exchange softening.
The Agency contends that lime
softening, with its shortcomings,
or the development of
additional well
sources, are Petitioner’s best alternatives.
The Agency feels that with the use of Well
#5, Petitioner
should be required to minimize the use of Well
#2 and Well
#4 during this variance.
The Agency has analyzed the sewage
plants which serve Petitioner and feels that no violation
of
the 2,0 mg/I effluent standard in Rule 408(a) of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution is anticipated
from granting this variance.
The Agency has recommended that Petitioner report its
decision on selection of a treatment alternative within 150
days
so that opportunity for a public hearing can he made to
conform to Federal requirements,
The Agency has pointed out
that recent changes in Federal guidance recommend interim
levels
of 2.0 mg/l barium during any variance,
The Board concludes that denial of a variance would
constitute arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Petitioner
has made significant progress
in resolving
its problems with
barium levels in its public water supply.
The Board agrees
with the Agency’s contention that the incorporation of Well
#5 should enable Petitioner
to minimize the use of Well
#2
and Well
#4 during this variance.
By requiring the use of
sound engineering practices,
these two wells should be kept
ready for use during times
of peak demand. The Board does
not feel
it would be appropriate to dictate which treatment
alternative Petitioner should employ.
This variance shall
expire on December 31,
1980 to conform with the mandate of
Section
35 of the Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act,
This
variance shall
apply to Petitioner’s
system
as
a whole.
37—137
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findingS of facts
a~dconslusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Petitioner is
hereby
granted
a. variance
from
the
1.0
mg/i
standard
for
barium
in
Rule
304
84
of
Chapter
6:
Public
Water
Supplies
until December 31,
1980 subject
to
the
following
conditions:
a.
Within 150 days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall notify the Agency of the method
Petitioner will
employ
to
comply
with
the
barium
standard
by December 31, 1980.
b.
To
the
extent
consonant
with
sound
engineering
practices and without jeopardizing Petitioner’s
needs
during
periods
of
peak
demand and
provided
that
Well #5 maintains levels of
barium below
1.0
mg/i, Petitioner will use Well #5 in place of Well
#2 and Well
#4 during the term of this variance.
c.
Within
45
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
Petitioner
shall
execute
a
certification
of
acceptance
and
agreement
to
be
bound
to
the
terms
and
conditions
of
this
variance.
This
45
day
period
shall
be
held
in
abeyance
if
this
matter
is
appealed.
The certification
shall be forwarded to
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Division of Public Water Supplies, 2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706 a?
shall read
as follows:
I (We), __________________________,
having
read
and
fully understanding the Order in PcB 79—199, hereby
accept,
that
Order
and
agree
to
be
bound by
al
1
of
its
terms
and
conditions.
SIGNED
—
TITLE
DATE
37—138
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Op
were adopted on the
day
l98obyavoteof
~
Illinois
Pollution
‘trol
Board
37—139