ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 16, 1987
VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD,
)
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 87—9
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J, Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the January 26, 1987
petition for variance filed by the Village of Plainfield
(Village). The Village seeks a five year variance from 35 Ill.
Adm, Code 602,105(a), Standards for Issuance, and from 35 Ill,
Adm. Code 602.105(b), Restricted Status, but only to the extent
those rules involve 35 Ill. Adm. Code 604.301(a) (combined
radium—226 and radium—228 concentration) and 604.301(b) (gross
alpha particle activity) On March 11, 1987, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its Recommendation
in support of grant of variances Hearing was waived and none has
been held,
The Village of Plainfield, located in Will County, provides
drinking water from its wells for a population of 1300
residential and 200 industrial and commercial utility customers
representing some 4,000 residents and some 200 industries, The
water supply system includes two deep wells, pump and
distribution facilities, The Village by ordinance imposes a user
charge,
By letter dated October 4, 1985, the Village was first
advised by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(hereafter flAgencyu) that the 5.0 pCi/l maximum allowable
concentration of combined radium—226 and radium—228 was
exceeded, The Agency analyses indicated a combined radium
concentration of 9~8pCi/l. By letter dated May 20, 1986, the
Agency notified Petitioner that Petitioner was going to be placed
on Restricted Status,
By letter dated May 5, 1986, the Village was first advised
by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter
“Agency”) that the 15 pCi/i maximum allowable concentration of
gross alpha particle activity was exceeded. The Agency analyses
indicated a gross alpha particle activity of 19 pCi/i. By letter
77-165
—2---
dated May 20, 1986, the Agency notified Petitioner that
Petitioner was going to be placed on Restricted Status.
Since receiving the Agency’s report, the Village conducted
its own analyses of its water in its water supply system and its
water distribution system. These analyses of the Village’s water
samples show the following results in pico curies per liter;
6 OF
LOCATION
RAW
OR
RESULTS
PLE
DISTRIBUTION
9—86 1400 Division St. Distribution 8,2 ±2,4 pCi/l Gross Alpha
9—86
Well #4
Raw
9.8 ~ 2.6 pCi/l Gross Alpha
9—86
Well #3
Raw
7.3 ±2~2pCi/l Gross Alpha
DF
LOCATION
RAW OR
RADIUM RADIUM
COMBINEE
6
DISTRIBUTION
226
228
86 1400 Division St. Distribution 6.6±0.2 3.3±1.0 9,9±1.2pC
86
Well #4
Raw
7.7±0,2 3.5±1.0 11,2±1.2 pC
86
Well #3
Raw
8.0±0.2 4.2±1.1 12,2±1,3 pC
By letter of October 23, 1986, the Agency reported to the
Village that another analysis it had performed indicated a
combined radium level of 12,8 pCi/i, with the radium—226 level at
8,1 pCi/i and the radium—228 level at 4.7 pCi/l,
The Village has identified two po-ssible compliance
options. One such option would involve searching for alternative
sources of water, such as the construction of shallow wells, The
Village notes that it currently has no shallow wells which can be
used for blending purposes, and asserts without elaboration that
interconnections with other systems to obtain low radium water
would be “excessively costly” due to the distance from existing
water lines to other water supply systems. The Village has not
as yet begun investigating the particulars of this option, and so
has no estimate of the potential costs or time required for
implementations
Another option would involve construction of treatment
facilities to properly treat all water supplied by the wells,
Again, as the Village has not begun its investigation of the
particulars of this option, it has presented no estimate of the
potential costs or time required for implementation,
The Village notes that the two primary treatment methods
used for radium removal, lime or lime—soda softening and ion
exchange softening, each produce large quantities of sludge in
which the removed radium is concentrated, which can create
disposal and handling problems. Additionally, if an ion exchange
softener is regenerated with salt, the sodium content of the
77-166
—3—
finished water is increased, creating health risks for those with
hypertension or heart problems.
The Village notes with interest, therefore, news reports of
research which is currently being conducted concerning radium
removal by means of absorption using a resin product which would
absorb radium isotopes (Petition, Exh 4—5), The Agency has
elaborated on these reports in its Recommendation:
To provide help for small communities, a long—term,
USEPA--funded project has been undertaken to
evaluate the single contaminant removal processes
(activated alumina and ion exchange) versus the
desalting processes (electro—dialysis with reversal
and reverse osmosis). To accomplish this project,
contaminated water sources in a series of small
U.S. communities are being studied with the use of
a mobil drinking water treatment research facility.
The objectives of the pilot—scale studies conducted
at the Mobile Drinking Water Treatment Research
Facility in Lemont and the bench—scale research
undertaken at the University of Houston include the
following:
1. To evaluate RO (reverse osmosis), IX (ion
exchange), EDR (electro—dialysis with
reversal) and specific adsorbents for the
treatment of Lemont and similar small—
community water supplies for the removal of
radium, and to a lesser extent barium,
2. To obtain valid design and cost information
for the scale—up of these processes.
3. To develop recommended means for the most
economical operation of each of these
processes, i.e. to establish: pretreatment
requirements for all processes, bypass water
allowances for all processes, types of
adsorbents including Isoclear beads, acid—
regenerated filter sand (Valentine’s method)
and Dow radium selective adsorbent, type of
resins, optimum detention times and capacity
changes during cyclic operation, regenerant
dosage, concentration and flow direction
(cocurrent or countercurrent) and types of
membranes including polyamide, thin film
composite, and cellulos triacetate.
4. To evaluate radium removal efficiency of
point—of—use treatment systems consisting of
77-167
—4—
cellulose acetate and thin—film composite RO
modules.
5.
To
make a techno—economic comparison of RO,
IX, EDR and specific adsorbents for central
treatment.
This study began in January, 1987 and will end in
mid—March, 1988, according to Dr. Dennis Clifford
Prof. Eng., Associate Professor and Director,
Environmental Engineering Program of the Department
of Civil Engineering, The University of Houston—
University Park, ~iouston,TX 77004.
A second study may be done by Iso—Clear Systems
Corporation of Yorkville, Illinois which says it
has developed a product for the efficient removal
of Radium from drinking water. The material is
used in packed vertical columns, through which the
drinking water is passed. As the water passes
through the column, radium is adsorbed into the
resin and retained.
Iso—Clear is currently
negotiating with the State of Illinois to establish
design parameters for full—scale usage. A mobile
trailer mounted pilot plan is proposed which would
allow testing water from various municipalities.
The Agency has been informed it would take about
six months to complete the study but the starting
date is uncertain as it is dependent on the company
getting a state grant for the study.
After the studies are completed, USEPA approval is
likely required. (35 Ill. Adm. Code 653.202(b)).
The Village asserts that denial of variance during tne
period in which it is exploring compliance options would impose
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. The village notes that
the investigation of the resin absorption method will take
several months, and that in the interim the Village does not wish
to have proceeded with more expensive alternatives which may not
completely solve its radioactivity problem. The only hard
economic data which the Village has presented concerns its
ability to pay Lor improvements, including bonding authority, the
Village states that its 1985 assessed valuation is $31,517,555,
that the statutory debt limit of assessed evaulation (8.625 of
assessed valuation is $2,718,389, and the Village’s legal debt
margin (1985—86 FY Audit) is $2,638,280. No data is given
concerning the level of current water use charges, or other
projects which would place demands on the Village’s bonding
capability.
77-168
—5—
The Village notes that because it is on restricted status,
that the Agency cannot lawfully issue permits for water main
extensions. The Village asserts that there is a great need for
the expansion of the water distribution system in order to serve
the domestic and fire protection requirements of the local
population. The Village states that its current system is in
need of new mains to “loop” the existing mains to increase fire
flow, The Village additionally states that it anticipates future
water service demand from and need for water main extensions to
land which is currently vacant, The Village has provided no
further details concerning the above stated assertions,
The Village has made no formal assessment of the effect of
this variance on the environment, although it refers the Board
and Agency to the testimony and exhibits presented by Richard E
Toohey, Ph.D. and James Stebbings, Ph.D. both of the Argonne
National Laboratory, on July 30 and August 2, 1985 in R85—i4,
Proposed Amendments to Public Water Supply Regulations, 35 Ill,
Adm. Code 602.105 and 602.106, However, it is the opinion of the
Village that the granting of this variance for the limited time
period of the requested variance will not cause any significant
harm to the environment or to the people served by potential
water main extensions that would be allowed if this variance is
granted.
In its Recommendation, the Agency does not dispute any of
the Village’s contentions. The Agency believes that while
radiation at any level creates some risk, the risk associated
with the level in the Village’s water is very low, The Agency
further believes an incremental increase in the maximum allowable
concentration (MAC) for radium even up to a maximum of four times
the current 5 pCi/i should cause no significant health risk for
the limited population served by new water main extensions for
the time period of this recommended variance. The Agency notes
that the MAC for combined radium is currently under review at the
federal level, but also that the Agency does not expect any
proposal to change the standard before 1987 or early 1988.
The Agency’s conclusion is that:
the hardship resulting from denial of the
recommended variance from the effect of being on
Restricted Status would outweigh the injury of the
public from grant of that variance, In light of
the cost to the Petitioner of treatment of its
current water supply, the likelihood of no
significant injury to the public from continuation
of the present level of the contaminant in question
in the Petitioner’s water for the limited time
period of the variance, and the possibility of
compliance with the MAC standard
..,
the Agency
concludes that denial of a variance from the
77-169
—6—
effects of Restricted Status would impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon Petitioner.
The Agency observes that this grant of variance
from restricted status affect only those users who
consume water drum from any newly extended water
lines. This variance should not affect the status
of the rest of Petitioner’s population drawing
water from existing water lines, except insofar as
the variance by its conditions may hasten
compliance. Grant of variance may also, in the
interim, lessen exposure for that portion of the
population which will be consuming more effectively
blended water. In so saying, the Agency emphasizes
that it continues to place a high priority on
compliance with the radium standards,
The Agency recommends a grant of variance with conditions
for the full five year term requested by the Village. The Agency
agrees with the Village that use of a promising treatment method
should not be forciosed by requiring submittal of a compliance
plan which does not consider the new methods due to lack of data
whose development is ongoing. The Agency would therefore
recommend that the petitioner be given 18 months in which to
investigate compliance options and file a compliance plan, with
the balance of the five year period to be devoted to
implementation of the selected plan.
Based on all of the facts and circumstances here presented,
the Board finds that denial of variance would impose an arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship.
The Board does not, however, believe that the grant of a
five year variance is appropriate in this case, and will instead
grant a twenty—two month variance. The Board believes that the
Village’s situation merits review before the end of five years.
The Village has been aware since October, 1985 that the combined
radium content of its water is nearly double the 5.0 pCi/i, and
since May, 1986 that the gross alpha particle activity level
exceeds the 15 pCi/l standard by nearly 5 pCi/i, However, this
petition indicates that the only step the Village has taken
toward compliance is testing to confirm the violation; moreover,
the petition is largely devoid of facts to support conclusory
assertions even as to economic hardship. While the Board might
well deny this petition for insufficiency, the Board believes
that the better course is to grant variance subject to conditions
which require the Village secure professional assistance, to
begin seriously investigating compliance costs and feasibility of
options. In recognition of the fact that studies concerning the
resin absorption method for radioactivity removal will not end
for approximately one year, the Board will accept the Agency’s
suggestion that the filing of a compliance plan not be required
77-170
—7—
before the end of 18 months, and the Board will add four months
to this period to provide for Board deliberation of any timely—
filed petition for variance.
However, while the Agency has suggested that reports
concerning compliance activities be filed every six months, the
Board will require that reports be filed every three months to
insure the Village’s diligence. A twenty—two month variance will
provide the Village 18 months in which to perform additional
sampling and testing, to complete its studies, to choose and
commence a compliance option; the four months added to this
period provides for Board deliberation of any timely filed
petition for extension of variance.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1. Petitioner, the Village of Plainfield is hereby granted a
variance from 35 Ill, Adm, Code 602.105(a) (Standards of
Issuance) and 602.106(b) (Restricted Status) but only as they
relate to the 5 pCi/i combined radium—226, radium—228
standard of 35 Ill, Adm. Code 604,301(a), and the 15 pCi/i
gross alpha particle activity standard of 35 Ill. Adm, Code
604,301(b) subject to the following conditions:
A) This variance expires on February 15, 1989, or at such
earlier time as either analysis pursuant to 35 Ill, Adm.
Code 6O5,105(a) shows that compliance with the
radioactivity standards has been achieved or for failure
by Petitioner to file a variance petition pursuant to
paragraph 1 (I) of this Order;
B) In consultation with the Agency, Petitioner shall
continue its sampling program to determine as accurately
as possible the level of radioactivity in its wells and
finished water. i) As to sampling the finished water,
until this variance expires, Petitioner shall collect
quarterly samples of its water from its distribution
system, shall composite and shall analyze them annually
by a laboratory certified by the State of Illinois for
radiological analysis so as to determine the
concentration of radium—226 and radium—228, The results
of the analyses shall be reported to the Water Quality
Unit, Division of Public Water Supplies, 2200 Churchill
Road, IEPA, Springfield, Illinois 62706, within 30 days
of receipt of each analysis. At the option of
Petitioner, the quarterly samples may be analyzed when
collected. The running average of the most recent four
quarterly sample results shall be reported to the above
address within 30 days of receipt of the most recent
77-17 1
—8--
quarterly sample, ii) As to sampling the raw water in
the wells, Petitioner shall follow the procedures
outlined in subparagraph i) above, except that only four
quarterly samples shall be collected and analyzed for
each well,
C) Within 3 months of the grant of the variance, the
Petitioner shall secure professional assistance (either
from present staff or an outside consultant) in
investigating compliance options, including the
possibility and feasibility of achieving compliance by
blending water;
D) Within 4 months of the grant of. the variance, evidence
that such professional assistance has been secured shall
be submitted to the Agency’s Division of Public Water
Supplies, FOS, at 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois 62706;
E) Within 17 months of the grant of the variance, the
Petitioner shall complete investigating compliance
methods, including those treatment techniques described
in the Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, USEPA, May
1977. EPA—600/8—77—005, and prepare a detailed
Compliance Report showing how compliance shall be
achieved with the shortest practicable time; but no
later than five years from the date of this variance;
F) This Compliance Report shall be submitted within 18
months of the grant of this variance to IEPA, DPWS;
G) Within three months thereafter Petitioner shall apply to
IEPA, DPWS, Permit Section, for all permits necessary
for construction of installations, changes or additions
to the Petitioner’s public water supply needed for
achieving compliance with the maximum allowable
concentration for radium;
H) If compliance has not been earlier achieved, and if
Petitioner has not filed a variance petition on or
before October 15, 1988, this variance shall terminate;
I) Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm, Code 606.201, in its first set
of water bills or within three months after the date of
this Variance Order, whichever occurs first, and every
three months thereafter, Petitioner will 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 35 Iii. Adrn. Code
602.105(a) Standards of Issuance and 35 Ill. Adm. Code
77-172
—9--
602.106(b) Restricted Status, as it relates to the
combined radium standard;
J) Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm, Code 606.201, in its first set
of water bills or within three months after the date of
this Order, whichever occurs first, and every three
months thereafter, Petitioner will send to each user of
its public water supply a written notice to the effect
that Petitioner is not in compliance with the combined
radium—226, radium—228 standard. The notice shall state
the average combined radium in samples taken since the
last notice period during which samples were taken;
K) The Petitioner shall take all reasonable measures with
its existing equipment to minimize the level of radium
in its finished water;
L) The Petitioner shall provide written progress reports to
IEPA, DPWS, FOS every 3 months concerning steps taken to
comply with paragraph B and F. Progress reports shall
quote each of the above paragraphs and immediately below
each paragraph state what steps have been taken to
comply with each paragraph.
2. Within forty—five days of the date of this Order, Petitioner
shall execute and forward to Thomas Davis, 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 ~f the variance. This forty—five day period shall
be held in abeyance during any period that this matter is
being appealed, The form of Said Certification shall be as
follows:
I (We), ________________________, having read the Order of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 87—9, dated April 16,
1987, understand and accept the said Order, realizing that such
acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and
enforceable,
Petitioner
By: Authorized Agent
Title
77- 173
—10--
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J, D. Duinelle and B. Forcade dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certiy that the above Opinion a~dOrder was
adopted on the /c~1 day of
~-~‘A~C~
,
1987 by
avoteof
____________,
Dorothy M. Günn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
77-174
