ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 10, 1980
CITY OF ROLLING MEADOWS,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 80—70
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 9, 1980 by the City of Rolling Meadows (Rolling
Meadows). The petition requests a variance from the gross alpha
particle limitation of Rule 304(C) of Chapter 6: Public Water
Supplies (Rules). On June 6, 1980 the Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency) recommended that the variance be granted with
conditions. An amended petition was filed June 19 and an amended
recommendation on June 26, 1980. Rolling Meadows requested and
subsequently waived its right to a hearing. The Board has re-
ceived no public comment.
Rolling Meadows has an estimated population of 21,500 and is
situated in northwestern Cook County. It operates a public water
supply within the municipality. Rolling Meadows appears to oper-
ate as many as 7 wells (Pet. Ex. B). No information on the nature
or pumping capacities of its system is given. Petitioner has sub-
mitted analyses of six wells ranging from 3.3 ±2.9 to 17.6 ±4.0
pCi/i gross alpha activity (Pet. Ex. B). The average of all wells
was 10.6 ±4.0 pCi/i for gross alpha particle activity (Pet. 3).
It is unclear whether this is a flow weighted average. The Agency
notes that the laboratory which performed these analyses is not
certified for radioactivity analyses (Rec. 1). Rolling Meadows
has further attached as Exhibit C a second set of test results.
These appear to measure Radium 226 and 228 separately and could
indicate large violations of the 5 pCi/i combined radium 226 and
228 standard of Rule 304 (C) (1) (a). However, the petition seems
to request a variance only from the gross alpha particle activity
limitation. If it was intended to request other relief, the in-
formation supplied is inadequate.
The Agency has on file only a single analysis performed at a
state certfied laboratory. On May 4, 1979 water in the distribu-
tion system measured 15.2
±
4.13 pCi/i.
—2—
Rule 304(C) (1) sets a 15 pCi/l limitation on gross alpha
particle activity. The source of the activity is often trace
amounts of radium found in deep aquifers. For the remainder of
this Opinion, “gross alpha particle activity” and “radium” will
be used interchangeably. On June 21, 1979 the Agency in a letter
to Rolling Meadows indicated that the radiological content of the
water through its distribution system may be in excess of the 15
pCi/i limit (Pet. 1; Ex. A). The Agency has imposed a moratorium
on construction permits within Roiling Meadows as a result of this
single analysis (Pet. 3). The Agency has denied a permit for a
water main extension to a ten acre development on November 27,
1979. This resulted in expenses to the developer of approximately
$100,000 per month and subjects Rolling Meadows to potential lia-
bility for faiiure to deliver water as contracted. Other contract-
ors have been forced to postpone construction because of the ban
(Pet. 3).
Rule 309(C) (i) provides that compliance with the radiological
standards is to be determined from the average of four samples
obtained at quarterly intervals. Rolling Meadow’s contention that
the Agency’s actions were wrong in the absence of adequate proof
that the water was in violation of the standards should have been
brought before the Board in the context of a permit appeal pur-
suant to Rule 311 and Part V of the Procedurai Rules.
Rolling Meadows contends that the permit deniai is wrong un-
less the Agency produces four quarterly analyses. The Agency con-
tends that it cannot award a permit until Rolling Meadows produces
the four analyses. Both parties assume that Rule 309(C) (1) estab-
lishes a rule of proof in permit issuance. However, the first
sentence of Rule 309(C) (1) (a) applies directiy only to enforcement
actions. For purposes of permit issuance it is possible for the
applicant to satisfy the burden of showing that no violations of
the rules will occur with evidence which is less significant
statistically.
The Board does not generally award variances where it is un-
likely 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.
Petitioner has attached no cost estimates for reducing its
radium levels to within the applicable standard. The Agency states
that the alternative of softening as a treatment technique presents
the twin problems of high cost and creation of a radioactive waste
product for which disposal facilities are generally unavailable
(Rec. 4).
—3—
Bills have been introduced in Congress to alter the radiologi-
cal standards or extend the time required for compliance (Rec. 4).
The Board has previously noted an expert opinion that the standards
could be increased considerably and still provide adequate protec-
tion (Village of Glasford v. EPA, PCB 79—238, February 7, 1980).
The Agency believes that if there are any health threats from
Rolling Meadows current level of radiation, it is a long term
threat. Therefore, matched against the possibility that the stan-
dard may be raised, the expense and difficulties of immediate com-
pliance and the apparent availability of Lake Michigan water to
Rolling Meadows in the reasonably near future, the Agency believes
that a variance should be granted.
Rolling Meadows has received a Lake Michigan allocation for
1977 through 1981 (Rec. 3). It has previously been unable to act
on this allocation but has now acted (Amended Pet., June 19, 1980).
It has applied for a further allocation during current Lake Michi-
gan water allocation hearings. Because Rolling Meadows has entered
into an enforceable agreement to become part of a regional water
system, it is entitled to receive a variance until January 1, 1983
despite the limitation of January 1, 1981 for exemptions under the
federal regulations (Section 14(a) (2) (b) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (Amended Pet.; Amended Rec.).
The Board concludes that because of the above factors Rolling
Meadows would suffer arbitrary or unreasonable hardship if required
to either suspend extension of its water system or to come into
immediate compliance with the radiological standards. In addition
to the conditions discussed above, Rolling Meadows will be required
to periodically provide notice of this variance to its customers,
to continue its sampling program, to continue its efforts to re-
ceive a Lake Michigan water allocation and to periodically report
to the Agency. Rolling Meadows will also be required to explore
the availability of landfill sites which could accept radiation
bearing water softening waste.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The City of Rolling Meadows is granted a. variance from the
15 pCi/l gross alpha particle activity limitation of Rule 304(C)
of Chapter 6: Public Water Supplies subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance will expire January 1, 1983.
—4—
2. Petitioner shall, in consultation with the Agency, con-
tinue its sampling program to determine as accurately
as possible the level of radioactivity in its wells and
finished water.
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 possibility of developing other alter-
native water sources to provide adequate blending water
should it be required to meet the present requirements
for alpha particle activity or radium 226 and 228 in its
water supply.
4. Petitioner shall explore the availability of landfill
sites which can and will accept radioactive water soft-
ening waste if blending of additional water sources
proves to be not a feasible alternative.
5. Petitioner shall provide notice of this variance to its
customers in writing at least once every three months.
6. 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 Certif1-
cate shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I, (We),
________________________,
having read
and fully understanding the Order in PCB 80-70, hereby
accept that Order and agree to be bound by all of its
terms and conditions.
SIGNED __________________________
TITLE _________________________
DATE ____________________________
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mr. Dumelle concurs.
—5—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Con-
trol Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order were
adop~on the /p1~ day of
_____________,
1980 by a vote
CnL~’?&~~k
Illinois Pollution ontrol Board
