ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
5,
1987
CITY OF OTTAWA,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—179
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent..
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
3. Anderson):
This matter comes before
the Board on the petition for
variance filed by the City of Ottawa
(City)
on October
14,
1986,
as amended November
6,
1986.
The City seeks variance from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 602.105(a)
“Standards for Issuance”,
and 35
Ill.
Adin.
Code 602.106(b)
“Restricted Status”,
as they relate
to the
exceedance of the City’s public water supply of the
5 pCi/i
combined radium—226
and
radium—228 standard contained in 35
Ill.
Adin. Code 604.301.
On December
1,
1986,
the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed
its Recommendation
in support of grant of variance.
Hearing was waived and
none has
been held.
The City of Ottawa,
LaSalle County,
supplies drinking water
to
a population of 6,000
residential and 500 industrial
and
commercial utility customers representing some 18,000
residents.
The City’s public water supply system includes three
deep wells currently in
use, storage
tanks, pumps
and
distribution
facilities.
The wells pump directly to the
distribution system without
treatment except for the addition of
chlorine and fluoride.
By letter of October
4,
1985,
the Agency advised
the City
that an annual analysis of the composition of four quarterly
samples from the City’s distribution system showed
a combined
radiuw—226,
radium—228 concentration of 6.2 pCi/l.
By letter
of
December
19,
1985,
the Agency advised the City that its public
water supply was being placed on restricted
status, with the
result that the Agency would
be unable
to issue permits for water
main extensions.
In response
to
this notification,
the City contracted with
Argonne National Laboratory
to resample its water, which results
were transmitted
to
the City
in June,
1986.
The following
table
correlates these
sampling results with other
information provided
by the City concerning
its wells:
76-98
—2—
Pumping Capacity
Combined
Depth
in
in gallons
Radium
Well No.
feet
per minute
in pCi/l
7
(not provided, not in use)
9.48 * 0.78
8
1180
1360
not provided
10
1220
905
10.36
* 0.70
11
1203
1440
3.96 ±0.42
Distribution System Sample
6.21 ±0.56
As
an initial
response to these results, the City directed its
water operators
to make maximum use of Well No.
11.
The City
reports that in 1985 this well supplied 47
of the City’s
total
pumpage, but that since approximately July,
1986, Well No.
11 had
accounted
for 65
of the total usage.
The City has supplied no
results of distribution system sampling since
it has maximized
use of Well No.
11.
The City’s inquiries to date concerning compliance
alternatives have produced three potential
options.
The City
identifies and describes these options
as follows:
a)
“Drilling
several
shallow
wells
into
other
sandstone
formations
and
blending
the
discharge
with f1ow~ from existing
deep
wells.
Two
to
five
shallow
wells
could
be
drilled
to
provide
sufficient dilution
to the present supplies.
Water
from shallow wells
in this area however are high
in
iron and Hydrogen (sic)
sulfide content.
Therefore
water
from
the
shallow
wells
would
have
to
be
pumped
to
a
central
location
for
removal
of
these
chemicals prior
to blending.
Estimates $1,000,000
to $2,000,000.
b)
Utilizing
water
from
the
Fox
River
to
blend
with
discharge
from
existing
wells.
This
alternate
would
also
require
construction
of
treatment
facilities because of questionable quality of water
in
the
Fox River.
Tests indicate turbidity
of
40—
50
(JTU),
Fecal
coliform
450
per
100 ML and Fecal
Streptococcus
75
ML
(sic).
Estimated
cost
$1,000,000
to $1,500,000.
c)
Construction
of
Ion
Exchange
or
Lime
Softening
treatment
facilities
to
reduce
radium
levels
of
existing
supplies.
Estimated
costs
$2,000,000
to
$4,000,000.
It may be possible
to treat water
from
76-99
—3—
on
(sic)
of
the
three
deep
wells
and
blend
the
finished
water
with
raw
water
from
the
remaining
wells.”
(Pet. p.8)
The City has not as yet completed its review and evaluation of
its radium problem,
and intends
to retain an outside consultant
to assist
it
in this task.
However,
the City presently
anticipates implementation of the third alternative:
construction of
a treatment plant to process all or part of the
flows from existing wells.
The City anticipates that
it will
need approximately 12 months
to make
a final
compliance option
determination;
if the
treatment plant alternative
is chosen it
expects that between 36—60 months could
be necessary to implement
the option.
The City states that one of the reasons additional
time
is
needed
to analyze compliance options
is that its financial
situation
is such that
funding alternatives are limited and must
be explored with the assistance of
a bond consultant.
The City
has determined
that its non—referendum bonding authority as of
April,
1986 was $455,000,
far short of the sums required
to
address the radium problem.
The City additionally states that
its consultants have recommended that additional improvements be
made to
the water
supply system totaling $1,989,000.
(The Board
notes
that the need for multi—million dollar improvements
to the
City’s sewage treatment plant were
a subject of discussion
in
another recent variance proceeding,
City of Ottawa
v.
IEPA,
PCB
86—165, January 22,
1987.)
The City’s funding difficulties fare exacerbated by other
economic consi~3erations.
The City estimates that the cost
to
construct treatment facilities would be
in the range of $55 to
$220 per capita
(based on
a $l—4 million capital cost) as
a one-
time expense,
or
a $5—$l8 increase
in quarterly water
bills
for
15 years.
The increase
in operation, maintenance
and sludge
removal costs would
impose
an additional $3—sb
increase per
water
bill
for the
indefinite future.
The unemployment rate
in
the Ottawa area
is
in excess of 13,
which raises concerns over
the customers’
ability
to aborb an
increase.
In
further support of its allegations that denial
of
variance would impose
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship, the
City states that portions of its area have been designated by the
State as
an Enterprise
Zone.
The City’s ability to seek
industrial development for eight undeveloped sites
in the Zone
area on
the
south and west sides
of the community is
impeded, as
these sites require extensions
of water
as well
as sewer mains.
The City has also identified other
areas which would require
servicing by water
main extensions:
“a) Northwood
Addition,
a
residential
subdivision
on
the city’s north side.
The construction permit for
76-100
—4-,
the
initial
extensions
serving
3
lots
has
been
denied
because
of
the
current
listing
on
the
restricted status.
b)
Briarcrest
Subdivision,
an
83
lot
residential
development on the city’s
south
side.
The
initial
phases
serving
27
lots
has
been
completed.
Developer
wishes
to
begin
phase
three
serving
20
additional
homes.
c)
Commercial
development
on
north
side.
Developers
plan
a
seven
store
strip
mall
in
the
southwest
quadrant of
Pt.
23 and 1—80.
d)
Looping
to
dead
end main
to Community Hospital
of
Ottawa.
The
Community
Hospital
and
several
doctor’s offices
are connected
to
a dead
end main
that
crosses
the
Fox
River.
We
have
had
several
breaks
in
the
main
in
recent
years
necessitating
the
extension
of
800
feet
of
fire
hose
to
temporarily supply
the
hospital.
The city plans
a
1,000
linear
ft.
extension to
improve pressure and
provide
an alternative supply.
e)
Enterprise Zone extensions.
f)
Gracefield Subdivision,
a
ten lot subdivision zoned
for duplex construction on the city’s north side.
g)
MWM Subdivision,
a
four lot
commercial
subdivision
northwest
of
the
Pt.
23
and
1—80
interchange.”
(Pet.
p.
5—6)
Finally,
as
to
the environmental and health effects of its
request,
the City asserts that
it believes that grant of variance
will impose
no significant health risk
to persons who will
receive water
from the new service connections during the term of
this variance.
In support of this belief,
the City has referred
to the Board
to the testimony and exhibits presented by Dr.
Richard
E. Toohey,
Ph.D and Dr. James Stebbings, Ph.D., both of
Argonne National Laboratory,
at the hearing held on July 30 and
August
2,
1985
in R85—l4,
Proposed Amendments
to Public Water
Supply Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code at 602.105
and 602.106.
In its Recommendation,
the Agency does not dispute the
City’s various assertions.
The Agency believes that while
radiation at any level create some risk,
the risk associated with
the 6.2 pCi/l
level
in petitioner’s water
is low.
The Agency
further
states:
“The
Agency
believes
that
the
hardship
resulting
from
denial
of
the
recommended
variance
from
the
76-101
—5—
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
likelihood
of
compliance
with
the
combined
radium)
standard,
the Agency concludes that denial
of
a variance from the effects
of Restricted Status
would
impose
an
arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship
upon Petitioner.
For these
reasons, the Agency recommends grant of a five
year variance, subject
to conditions.
The Board
finds that,
in light
of all
the facts and
circumstances of this case,
denial of variance would
impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
However, the Board believes
that,
if the City makes maximum use of Well #11,
testing might
show that the City
is able
to achieve compliance earlier than
the
five years
that may be necessary to assure long term
compliance.
Also,
since
this variance is granted without
committment to a specific compliance plan,
the Board would like
to review the City’s progress towards committing
to and achieving
compliance before extending the variance for the full five
years.
The Board will accordingly grant
a variance for two years
or as otherwise determined pursuant
to paragraph
(A)
of its
Order, and
subject
to the pre—construction conditions similar
to
those outlined by the Agency.
The Board
notes that grant of variance from restricted
status will affect only those users who consume water drawn from
any newly extended water lines,
it will not affect the status of
the rest of
the City’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.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of law in
this matter.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner,
the City of Ottawa,
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), subject
to
the following conditions:
76-102
—6-’
A)
This variance expires on March
5,
1989,
or
at such
earlier time
as either
analysis pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 605.105(a)
shows that compliance with the radium
standard has been achieved or
for
failure by Petitioner
to file
a variance petition pursuant to paragraph
(J)
of
this Order;
B)
The combined
radium—226,
radium—228 concentration of
water
from the City’s distribution system shall
not
exceed 10.0 pCi/l;
C)
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.
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 quarterly sample;
D)
Within three 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;
E)
Within four 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;
F)
Within nine 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;
76-103
—7—
G)
This Compliance Report
shall
be submitted within ten
months of the grant of this variance
to
IEPA, DPWS;
H)
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;
I)
Within three months after each construction permit
is
issued by IEPA,
DPWS,
Petitioner
shall
advertise for
bids from contractors to do the necessary work described
in the construction permit and shall
accept appropriate
bids within
a reasonable
time;
J)
If compliance has not been earlier achieved,
and if
Petitioner
has not filed
a variance petition on or
before November
5,
1988,
this variance shall terminate;
K)
Pursuant
to 35
Ill.
Adin.
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 Ill.
Adm. Code
602.105(a) Standards
of Issuance and 35
Iii. Adm. Code
602.106(b)
Restricted Status, as
it relates
to the
combined radium standard;
L)
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 that
the last notice period
during which samples were taken;
M)
That Petitioner
shall take all reasonable measures with
its existing equipment
to minimize the level
of radium
in its finished water.
At a minimum Petitioner
shall
continue
to maintain maximum use of Well No.
11 during
the period of this variance;
N)
The Petitioner
shall provide written progress reports to
IEPA,
DPWS,
FOS every six months concerning steps
taken
to comply with paragraph
B and G.
Progress reports
shall quote each of the above paragraphs and
immediately
76-104
—8-’
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 of this variance.
This forty—five day period
shall
be held in abeyance for any period this matter
is being
appealed.
I,
(We),
_____________________,
having read the Order
of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in PCB 86—179, dated March
5,
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
Date
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
J.
Dumelle and
B.
Forcade dissented.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
~5”t
day of
7)—)
~-‘~-c~~
,
1987
by a vote of
_________________
~
Dorothy
M.
G’unn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
76-105