ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 10,
1980
VILLAGE OF WHEELING,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 80-59
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by D.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon a petition for vari-
ance filed April
3,
1980 by the Village of Wheeling (Wheeling).
The petitioner requests
a variance from the gross alpha particle
activity and radium content of finished water limitations of Rule
304(C) (1)
of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies
(Rules).
On June
23,
1980 the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) recommended
that the variance be granted with conditions.
An amended recom-
mendation was filed June
26,
1980.
Wheeling waived its right to
a hearing and the Board has received no public comment.
Wheeling has a population of 22,000 in Cook and Lake Counties.
It operates a public water supply serving all residents.
This in-
cludes three deep and three shallow wells, one reservoir and four
elevated tanks.
Two additional deep wells and a reservoir are under
construction
(Pet.
2).
The deep wells are
in sandstone,
the shallow
in dolomite.
The following is a summary of data concerning the
wells
(Pet.
2,
8, 16; Rec.
2):
Well No.
Depth
(ft.)
Capacity (Ml/day)+
MGD
AlP1~a~~7~vitY
1
201
2.2
0.58
Less than
4
2
245
1.1
0.29
3
1370
4.1
1.1
10.0 ±445
4
281
2.2
0.58
Less than
5
5
1361
6.1
1.6
12.0
±
3.04
6
1350
4.2
1.1
9~67~ 3.23
7*
1350
5.4
1.4
25.9
±
55
Distribution
25.3
6.7
10.0 ±3.45
—2—
+Megaliters
(106 liters) per day.
*Under construction.~A second deep well, designated lA,
is also
under construction.
Rule 304(C) (1)
sets
a limit of
5 pCi/i for combined radium
226 and 228 alpha
radioactivity.
Since there is no evidence
concerning the actual source of the activity in Wheeling’s water,
no variance from this standard will be awarded.
Rule 304(C) (1)
sets a limitation of 15 pCi/i for gross alpha particle activity
in finished water.
The source of this activity is often trace
amounts of radium in water from deep aquifers.
For the remainder
of this Opinion, the terms
“radium” and “gross alpha activity” will
be used interchangeably.
Well seven was built under a construction
permit which included a condition that water not be pumped into the
system from it unless the water met the Chapter 6 requirements.
On
November 15,
1979 the Agency indicated to Wheeling that well
7 did
not meet the radiological standard
(Pet.
16).
Rule 304(C)
(1)
sets standards for finished water rather than
raw water.
It is questionable whether it would be a sufficient
reason to deny the operating permit absent evidence of the effect
on finished water quality.
However, the Agency has indicated that
violation of Rule 304(C) (1)
will likely occur in the area immediate-
ly affected by well
7.
The demand and pumping capacity figures are
as
follow
(Pet.
2,
8;
Rec.
2):
Mi/day
MGD
Average Daily Demand
6.7
1.8
Maximum Daily Demand
10.0
2.6
Deep ~Iells (3)
14.4
3.8
Shallow Wells
(3)
5.5
1.4
Well
7
5.5
1.4
It appears that the three existing deep wells are more than
adequate to meet the maximum daily demand.
However,
failure of
well
5 would result in a reduction of deep well capacity to 8.3
Mi/day
(2.2 MGD).
A deficit of
1. 7 Mi/day
(0.4 NGD) would have to
be met from the shallow wells or from well 7.
The shallow wells
are adequate to meet this contingency but Wheeling would prefer to
use well 7 because the shallow wells produce water containing iron
and hydrogen sulfide.
Apparently this is within applicable standards
and poses no threat to health.
However,
it results
in numerous com-
plaints
(Pet.
2).
The Agency recommends thatthe variance be con-
ditioned on standby use of well
7 only
(Rec.
3,
7).
Wheeling will
not be required to use the shallow water before resorting to well
7.
—3—
Rule 309(C) (1)
provides that compliance with the radiological
standards is to be determined from the average of four samples ob-
tained quarterly.
To date only one sample has been obtained.
Wheeling’s contention that the Agency’s actions were wrong in the
absence of adequate proof that the water was in violation of the
standard should have been brought before the Board in the context
of a permit appeal pursuant to Rule 211 and Part V of the Pro-
cedural Rules.
Wheeling contends that permit denial is wrong unless the Agency
produces four quarterly analyses and the Agency contends that it
cannot award the permit until Wheeling produces the analyses.
Both
parties assume that the first sentence of Rule 309(C) (1) (a) estab—
lishes
a rule of proof in permit issuance.
However, this sentence
applies directly only to enforcement actions.
For purposes of
permit issuance it is possible for the applicant to satisfy its
burden of showing that no violation of the rules will occur with
evidence which is less significant statistically.
The Board does not generally award a variance where it is
unlikely that the Petitioner is in violation of the rules.
The
Board is satisfied that the single sample in this case demonstrates
a violation of the standard with sufficient certainty to justify
the award of a variance.
The parties agree that lime softening is the best available
treatment method for radium.
Petitioner estimates that a capital
outlay of $700,000 would be required for well
7 or about
$32 per
person in Wheeling
(Pet.
4).
No estimates of operating costs are
given.
Petitioner also presents cost data for the other existing
and proposed wells.
However,
there is no demonstrated need at this
time to treat this other water.
The Agency has suggested that it could be cheaper to treat the
shallow wells for iron and hydrogen sulfide than to treat the deep
wells for radium.
Accordingly the Agency has recommended that the
variance be conditioned on a study of this alternative
(Rec.
3).
Wheeling has requested an allocation of Lake Michigan water.
This would be available to mix with the deep well water to main-
tain acceptable radiological levels.
Under the Safe Drinking Water
Act Petitioner must show that it has entered into an enforceable
agreement to become a part of a regional water system in order to
qualify for a variance through January
1,
1983; otherwise the vari-
ance cannot extend beyond January 1,
1981
(Rec.
3)
(Safe Drinking
Water Act §14l6(b)(2)(B).
Wheeling’s membership in the regional
—4—
system is conditioned on its receipt of a Lake Michigan water
allocation
(Rec.
4; Amended Rec.).
The variance will be granted
through January
1, 1983; however,
a condition will be provided for
expiration if an allocation is not received or in the event Peti-
tioner fails to join the regional system.
In this case compliance
or a new variance petition will be necessary.
Bills have been introduced in Congress to alter the radiolog-
ical standards or extend the time required for compliance
(Pet.
4;
Rec.
4).
The Board has previously noted an expert opinion that the
standards could be increased considerably and still provide ade-
quate protection
(Pet.
4;
Rec.
5; Village of Glasford v.
EPA, PCB
79—238, February
7,
1980).
The Agency believes that occasional use
of well
7 to supplement the present supply shoUld create no risk to
the health of the consumers
(Rec.
6).
The Agency recommends that
Wheeling be required to provide quarterly notice of this variance
to its customers pursuant to Rule 313(D).
The Board concludes that because of the uncertainty of the
extent of the violation,
the possibility of modification of the
radiological standard,
the possibility of obtaining Lake Michigan
water and the cost of immediate compliance the Petitioner has
demonstrated sufficient arbitrary or unreasonable hardship to just-
ify award of a variance.
In addition to the conditions noted above,
Petitioner will be required to report periodically to the Agency
concerning its progress in planning for treatment or obtaining
other water and to explore the availability of landfill sites to
accept radioactive water softening wastes.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Petitioner, the Village of Wheeling,
is granted a variance
from Rule 304(C) (1)
of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies, subject
to the following conditions:
1.
This variance will expire January 1,
1983; provided,
however, that in the event that Petitioner’s Lake
Michigan water allocation
is denied or in the event
it fails to promptly enter into an enforceable agreement
to join a regional public water system after receipt of
an allocation, then this variance will expire.
—5—
2.
Petitioner shall,
in consultation with the Agency,
continue its sampling program to determine
as ac-
curately as possible the level of radiation provided
to its customers.
3.
Petitioner shall continue its efforts to receive
a
Lake Michigan water allocation and keep the Agency
periodically informed as to
the
progress of that
activity.
Petitioner shall explore the possibilities
of treating its shallow wells in order to remove the
iron and hydrogen sulfide which now makes them ob-
jectionable
as water sources and shall also investigate
the possibility of developing other water sources to be
used to supplement its present well sources should it
be required to meet the present requirements of alpha
radiation or radium 226 and 228 in its water supply.
4.
Petitioner shall use well
7 only in a backup capacity
to its existing three deep wells when they are not
able to provide for daily demand.
5.
Petitioner shall explore the availability of landfill
sites that can and will accept radiation bearing water
softening wastes should blending of additional water
sources not prove to be a feasible alternative and
lime softening is found to be necessary as
a treatment
technique.
6.
Petitioner shall provide notice of this variance to its
customers in writing at least every three months.
7.
Within forty-five days of the date of this Order, Peti-
tioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Division of Public Water Sup-
plies, 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 Certifi-
cate shall be as follows:
—6—
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We),
,
having read
and fully understanding the Order in PCB 80-59, hereby
accept that Order and agree to be bound by all of its
terms and conditions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mr~Dumelle concurs.
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~
day of
____________,
1980 by a
vote of~-~
le~k
Illinois Polluti
Control Board
