ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 31, 1986
VILLAGE OF LEMONT,
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—54
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
MR. JOHN ANTONPOULOS, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER; AND
MR.
WAYNE
WIEMERSLAGE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter comes before the Board upon an April 23,
1986,
Amended Petition for Variance filed on behalf of the Village of
Lemont
(Village).
The Village requests variance for five years
from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 602.105(a), Standards for Issuance,
and
Section 602.106(b), Restricted Status,
but only to the extent
those
rules involve the combined Radiuin—226 and Radium—228
(combined radium) and the gross alpha particle activity
(gross
alpha)
drinking water standards
(Section 604.301(a) and
(b)
The Illinois Environmental ?rotection Agency (Agency)
filed its
recommendation on June
6, 1986,
advising that variance
be granted
for one year,
subject
to conditions.
Objections to the granting
of variance were filed
by Donna Paris on May 5,
1986,
and George
Podrebarac, Katherine Murphy, James Murphy and Cecilia Kovalic on
May 6,
1986.
Hearing was held on July 11,
1986,
at which members
of the public were present.
The Village
is
a non—home rule municipality located
in
southwestern Cook County and serves the water needs of
approximately 5,300
residents.
The Village owns and operates
a
public water supply distribution system consisting of two deep
wells,
one shallow well,
pumps
and distribution facilities.
The
Village supplies water
to all residential, commercial
and
industrial users
(Amended Pet.,
pp.
3—4).
The Village’s deep wells draw water
from the Galesville
aquifer which contains very high quality groundwater with little
or
no iron content and no algae or hardness problems, but
it does
contain naturally occurring radium.
(R.
14).
The Village has
the following number
of wells
(with their depths and ages):
71-396
—2—
Gallons
Depth
Age
Per
Minute
Well
No.
2
172
feet
31
years
400
Well No.
3
1662 feet
17 years
940
Well No.
4
1657
feet
8 years
940
(Amended Pet.
p. 4)
The Agency’s Public Water Supply Division notified the
Village
in October,
1984, that
its public water supply would be
placed on Restricted Status
because
its water exceeded the
maximum allowable concentration for combined radium.
The
Agency’s analysis showed a combined radium content
of
18 pci/i
which exceeds the
5 pCi/i standard.
Also,
the Agency conducted
gross alpha tests with the following results
(the standard
is 15
pci/i):
pCi/i
July, 1983
10.6
September,
1983
4.46
December, 1983
24.2
May,
1984
18.7
July, 1984
21.20
October,
1984
17.59
January,
1985
11.0
April,
1985
8.0
(Rec.
p.
8)
The Village seeks variance from being placed on Restricted
Status.
Restricted Status means that a public water supply may
no longer
be issued a construction permit without causing
a
violation of
the Act
or
the Board’s public water supply
regulations.
Granting the Village variance from Restricted
Status and Standards for Issuance will mean that the Village will
no longer be denied construction or operating permits from the
Agency because of violations of the drinking water standards for
combined radium and gross alpha, and the Village will be removed
from the Agency’s Restricted Status list.
The
issue before the
Board is whether denying variance will impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship on the Village.
For the following reasons,
the Board finds
that the Village has failed
to establish that
denying variance would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship’and, therefore,
the Board denies the Village’s variance
request.
Environmental Impact
The Village has not performed
a formal assessment on the
environmental impact
of granting this variance, but incorporates
71-397
—3—
the testimony and exhibits presented
by Dr. Richard Toohey,
Ph.D.,
and Dr. James Stebbings, Ph.D., both of Argonne National
Laboratory,
in R85—l4, Proposed Amendments to Public Water
Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.105 and 602.106
(Amended Pet.,
p.
10).
This testimony is cited
for the proposition that
granting
of the variance will not cause any significant harm to
the environment
or the people served by the water system for the
limited time period
of the requested variance.
Also,
Dr. Toohey
testified at the hearing, on behalf of the Village,
that there
will
be
no significant health effect due
to the granting of this
variance.
(R. 32).
The Agency contends that while radiation at any level
creates some risk,
the risk associated with the levels
experienced
in the Village
is very low.
The Agency believes that
the
limited population served by the new water main extensions
will experience
no significant health risk for the time period of
this variance.
(Rec.
pp.
7—8).
In contrast,
Mr.
George Podrebarac presented exhibits at
hearing which raised questions concerning
the above
conclusions.
Specifically, two articles,
one entitled “Drinking
Water and Cancer Incidence
in Iowa”
and another entitled
“Association of Leukemia with Radium Groundwater Contamination”,
were cited
for the proposition that granting this variance may
expose
the people who drink
the Village’s water
to
a risk of
developing
some
types of cancers greater than that espoused by
Dr..
Toohey.
(R.
pp.
211—215).
The Village’s drinking water exceeds the maximum allowable
concentration for combined radium and gross alpha;
the combined
radium standard being exceeded
by approximately a factor
of
four.
It appears that there
is
a health risk in drinking water
containing radium levels
above
5 pCi/i;
the controversy exists
over what level of risk
is associated with drinking water
containing radium above
S pci/i.
For purposes
of this variance,
the Board need not reach
a conclusion on the environmental impact
of granting this variance since
the variance
is being denied
for
other reasons.
Hardship
The Board previously granted the Village variance from the
gross alpha standard on May
1,
1981 (PCB 80—48), which expired on
January
1,
1984.
The conditions imposed
in this variance
required that the Village commence testing
its water
for combined
radium,
investigate compliance alternatives and whether landfill
sites are available
to accept lime softening process waste,
submit
a compliance plan
no later than January
1, 1984, and
notify the public
of the grant
of variance and the average
content
of gross
alpha and combined radium in the Village’s
water.
The Agency contends that the Village has not adequately
71-398
—4—
complied with its prior variance and,
therefore,
recommends
variance
be granted for one year instead of five years.
The
Agency expressed concern over the lack of compliance, citing that
no compliance plan was filed with the Agency by the January
1,
1984,
deadline.
(Rec.
p.
9).
The Board
is equally concerned over the Village’s lack of
compliance with the conditions imposed
in the prior variance.
Though it appears that the Village has investigated various
alternatives
to achieve compliance with the gross alpha and
combined radium standards and has complied with the notification
requirements,
the Board cannot condone the Village’s dilatory
actions
to achieve compliance with the gross alpha and combined
radium standards.
The Village has been cognizant of its water
problems since
1979 and has failed
to devise a viable compliance
plan in nearly seven years.
The Board cannot overlook the fact
that the Village not only did not submit a compliance plan to
the
Agency by January
1,
1984, but also has not formulated
a
compliance plan in the 2—1/2 years since the prior variance
expired.
What the Village is asking the Board to do
is
grant
it
an additional five years
to study the problem and achieve
compliance with
a plan that is both technologically feasible and
economically justified.
The Board notes that such
a compliance
plan was required
as a condition of the prior variance.
Therefore,
the Board finds that denying the Village variance
would not constitute an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship
because any hardship experienced
by denying this variance would
be largely self—imposed because of the Village’s own delay
in
developing an adequate compliance plan and its lack
of compliance
with its prior variance.
The Board
is cognizant of the fact that
a contrary decision
was reached on a similar
fact scenario in Village of Hampshire
v.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 85—114.
The
Hampshire proceeding concerned
a variance from the barium
drinking water standard which the Board, by a 5—2 vote*,
granted
for a one—year period.
The Board believes that the instant
proceeding
is distinguishable from the Hampshire proceeding
in
that the Village of Hampshire,
knowledgeable
of the impending
lapse of its current variance,
timely filed
for
an extension.
In
contrast, Lemont not only did not timely file for an extension
but also waited approximately two years
to file a new variance
petition.
Had Lemont timely filed for another variance,
it at
that time,
could have asserted mitigating factors
for non-
compliance far more credibly,
and most importantly, Lemont would
have been two years closer to compliance.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings
of
fact and
*Thjs vote also included two concurrences.
71-399
—5—
conclusion of law in this matter.
ORDER
The Village of Lemont,
Illinois,
is hereby denied variance
from 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 602.105(a), Standards for Issuance,
and
Section 602.106(b), Restricted Status,
to the extent
those rules
involve
combined radium—226 and radium—228 and gross alpha
particle activity
Section
604.301(a)
and
(b)
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Chairman J.D. Dumelle and Board Members J. Anderson and
B.
Forcade concurred.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
~
day of
_____________,
1986,
by
a
vote
of
3-o
.
/
e~/
~
~
Dorothy M.~unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
71-400