ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May
9, 1986
VILLAGE OF BURLINGTON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 85-183
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a Petition from the
Village of Burlington
(Burlington) filed on December
10,
1985.
The December 10 Petition requested extension of an existing
variance until
April
1,
1991,
from the maximum allowable barium
concentration of Rule
304 of Chapter
6,
Public Water Supply Rules
and Regulations
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, codified
at 35 111. Adm.
Code 604.202.
The Board
on December
20, 1985,
ordered that Petitioner
clarify and supplement
its petition.
While the Board was doing
this, Petitioner already was
in the process of preparing a First
Amended Petition (Amend.
Pet.)
for variance which was received by
the Board on December
30,
1985.
This Petition asks for variance
from Standards
for Issuance and Restricted
Status relating to
barium, but not from the actual barium standard.
The Amended
Petition also includes
a twelve-point proposed program (Amend.
Pet.,
p.
12-13)
to bring
Burlington into compliance with the
barium standard.
The Board on January
9,
1986 directed Petitioner to clarify
and supplement its
First Amended Petition.
Petitioner on
February
7, 1986 filed
a Supplement to First Amended Petition.
On March
19, 1986,
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed its recommendation
(Rec)
in this matter.
The Agency recommends
that variance be denied on the belief
“that
Petitioner has not taken adequate steps
to comply with its prior
variance and therefore denial of a variance from the effects of
Restricted Status would not impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship upon Petitioner”
(Rec.,
p. 10).
The Agency additionally
recommends that, should the Board grant the variance request,
the
grant be conditioned on an eleven-point program designed to bring
Petitioner’s water supply into compliance with the barium
standard
(Rec.
p. 10-13).
This program is similar in all major
provisions
to that proposed by Burlington.
69-390
-2-
Burlington waived hearing in its December
30 filing.
Since
no objections have been filed with the Board, no hearing has been
held.
RELI.EF SOUGHT BY PETiTIONER
Burlington requests
a five-year variance from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 602.105(a),
Standards of Issuance, and from 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 602.106(b), Restricted
Status, but only to the extent those
rules involve the barium standard of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 604.202.
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 602.105(a) states
in full:
a)
The Agency shall not grant any construction or
operating permit required by this Part unless the
applicant submits adequate proof that the public
water supply will be constructed, modified or
operated so
as not to cause
a violation of the
Environmental Protection Act
(Ill.
Rev. Stat.
1981,
ch. ~
~
pars. 1001 et.seg.)
(Act),
or of this
Chapter.
35
Ill. Adm. Code 602.106(a) and
(b) states
in full:
a)
Restricted status shall be defined as the Agency
determination, pursuant to Section 39(a) of the Act
and Section 602.105, that
a public water supply
facility may no longer be issued
a construction
permit without causing a violation of the Act or
this Chapter.
b)
The Agency shall publish and make available to the
public,
at intervals of not more than six months,
a
comprehensive and up-to-date list of supplies
subject to restrictive status and the reasons why.
35 Ill. Adm Code 604.202 states
in pertinent part that the
barium concentration in finished water shall not exceed 1.0
milligrams per liter
(rng/l).
The asserted
purpose of the requested variance is to allow
continued operation of Petitioner’s water supply and distribution
system,
expansion of or extension to the distribution system as
necessary, and removal of the facility from the Agency’s
Restricted Status List
(Amend. Pet., par.
1).
The Board notes that Petitioner’s ability to continue
operation of its water
supply and distribution system would not
be affected by either
a grant or denial of the requested
relief.
However, the decision on relief could affect
Petitioner’s ability to provide the additional domestic and fire
protection requirements of the local population as well as deter
future development.
69-39 1
—3-
BACKGROUND
Burlington,
located in Kane County, provides public
services, including potable water,
to
a population of
approximately 450 residents and
a small number of industrial and
commercial customers.
Burlington owns and operates the
distribution system in question.
Raw water
is derived from a system of three wells with the
following characteristics:
Well No.
1
This well was drilled
in 1936 to
depth of 108 feet.
It has
a six
inch casing,
a centrifical pump
and can produce,
at the maximum,
35 gallons per minute.
Well No.
2
This well was drilled
approximately
in
1960 to
a depth
of 1,105
feet.
It
is
10 inches
in diameter, and is equipped with
a 40 horse power,
16 stage,
8
inch diameter submersible pump.
It.
is capable of pumping 200
gallons per minute.
Well No.
3
This well, completed
in August,
1982,
is
1,140 feet deep.
It
is
equipped with a 60 horse power,
16 stage,
9 inch diameter
peerless submersible pump, which
is currently set at 457 feet
down.
It has the capacity to
pump 300 gallons of water per
minute.
Well
#3 was developed on the recommendation of Petitioner’s
then consulting engineers
in an attempt to respond to
Burlington’s problems with barium.
The belief was that blending
of water from Well
#2 and the new Well
#3 would reduce barium to
an acceptable level.
However, Well
t3 also proved to provide
water of high barium concentration.
Thereupon Petitioner sought
a permit for general use of Well
#3.
This permit was denied by
the Agency
in October,
1982, and use of the well was restricted
to emergencies.
Petitioner further notes that Well
#1 has insufficient
capacity to provide water as needed.
Accordingly, Petitioner
must rely upon the water supplied from Well #2
as
its primary
source of water.
69-392
PREVIOUS VARIANCE
Burlington previously sought variance from the Board’s
Public Water Supply standard for barium* in PCB 80-203.
An Order
granting the variance for a period of five years was entered by
the Board on April 2,
1981**.
The variance is now expired.
The
grant of variance was subject to the following conditions, among
others:
A.
By September
1,
1.981,
the Petitioner shall submit
to
the Agency a report on the economic feasibility of
blending water from Well #1 with the high barium water
from Well
#2
so that finished water with
a barium
content of 1.0 mg/i or less may be delivered.
B.
Beginning on or about June
1,
1981,
and at six month
intervals thereafter,
the Petitioner shall communicate
with the Agency
in order
to ascertain whether barium
removal techniques specifically applicable to small
systems have been developed and identified.
C.
As expeditiously after identification of a
feasible
compliance method as
is practicable, but no later than
January
1,
1984, Petitioner shall submit to the Agency
a program (with increments of progress)
for bringing
its system into compliance with barium standards.
D.
Petitioner shall take all reasonable measures with its
existing equipment
to minimize the level of barium in
its water supply and shall not allow the barium
concentration to exceed 2.7 mg/i.
E.
Pursuant
to Rule 313 (D)(1)
of Chapter
6, on or before
April
30,
1981 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 the 1.0 mg/i maximum barium standard.
The notice
shall state the average content of barium in
samples taken since the last notice period during which
samples were taken.
~On June
4,
1981,
the Board additionally received a copy of a
letter written by the Village to the Agency,
requesting variance
from the Board’s gross
alpha particle activity standard.
On June
10,
1981,
the Board ordered that this deficient
“petition” be
amended within
45 days, or it would be subject to dismissal.
No
amended petition was
filed, and that action was dismissed on
August
20,
1981.
**Th±sdate
is identified as April
1,
1981,
throughout the
filings of Petitioner.
69-393
—5—
Burlington asserts that
it has made reasonable attempts to
comply with all terms and conditions of the variance.
Burlington
additionally asserts,
and the Agency does not challenge, that it
has met condition A of the variance.
In support thereof
Burlington has submitted as Exhibit
A to its Amended Petition a
copy of the report required by condition A.
This report
concludes that
it was not then feasible to blend water from Well
#1 with water from Well
#2 such that finished water with a barium
content of 1.0 mg/i or less could be delivered.
Burlington also
cites
its development of Well
#3
as an attempt, albeit failed, to
meet the conditions of the variance.
The Agency contends, however, that Burlington has not
complied with the remaining four conditions,
B through E.
Specifically
it asserts that Agency records do not show that
conditions
B,
C, and
E have been meet, and that Agency records do
show that Burlington violated condition
D by allowing barium
concentrations to exceed
2.7 mg/i.
In support of the latter
assertion,
the Agency provides the following data, with barium
measured
in mg/i, for Petitioner’s finished water from Agency
records
as based on reports
submitted by Petitioner
(Rec.,
p. 7):
Petitioner has provided less extensive analyses of the
barium concentrations in its finished water which
it.
reports
as
follows (Amend. Pet.,
p.
7-8):
Dat.e~of.Samp1e
December,
1982
January,
1983
April,
1983
July,
1983
September,
1983
February,
1984
February, 1985
April,
1985
September,
1985
Resu•lts
1.0
2.2
1.6
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
3.7
2.4
4—6--Bi
2.0
4—5-83
1.6
6-9—81
2.5
7—5-83
2.0
7—6—81
2.8
10—11-83
2.1
8-4-81
2.1
1—3-84
2.0
10—14—81
2.5
4—2—84
2.2
11—9—81
2.8
7—16—84
2.4
1-12-82
2.5
10-1-84
2.33
4-5—82
2.2
2—19—85
2.1
7-27-82
2.6
4—1-85
3.73
10-5—82
2.5
9—19—85
2.4
1-11-83
2.2
1—13-86
2.19
69-394
—6—
HEALTH -RISK
Petitioner has made no analysis of the possible health risk
associated with its requested variance
(Amend.
Pet., par
.30).
However,
Burlington does assert,
without further elaboration,
that compliance with the maximum allowable barium concentration
standard would
“not significantly benefit. the public or
environment, and compliance may
in fact harm both”
(Amend.
Pet.,
par. 35)
The record also does not contain any information on how many
people might be additionally exposed to elevated barium
concentrations should the variance be granted.
The Agency,
in its review of environmental impact,
concludes
that
“an incremental increase
in the allowable concentration for
barium,
even up to a maximum of 3.4 mg/i,
should cause no
significant health risk for the limited population served by new
water main extensions
f-or the-limit-ed-t.ime-.period-of-the
r-eq-uest-ed-v-ariance”
(Rec.,
p.
7,
emphasis as
in original).
This situation is similar to that previously
faced by the
Board
in Vi1-1egeof~Hai~pshir-e,PCB 85-114, November
7,
1985.
In
that case the Board agreed with the Agency’s assessment of health
risk, but emphasized:
...the particular implication of the underscored
qualification.
That
is, while
a rational conclusion would
allow that short-term exposure would produce no significant
health risk, the same conclusion can not
be reached under
conditions of long—term exposure.
It
is
in part because
situations such as this exist that the Safe Drinking Water
Act
(“SDWA”), and the Board in its enforcement of the SDWA,
entertain the possibility of short—term relief via
variances.
But implicit
in the variance process
is that
compliance will be achieved in some timely fashion, and that
long-term exposures and attendant health risk will thereby
not be allowed to occur.
Burlington notes that the United
States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) currently has its 1.0 mg/i barium
standard under review.
Burlington makes this observation as
a
prelude to the conclusion that “substantial expenditure of public
funds
for treatment facilities which may become obsolescent
in
the near future
is not
in the public interest and does not grant
a corresponding benefit to the public”
(Amend.
Pet., par.
41).
However,
the Board notes that the USEPA action also provides
perspective on the health risks associated with barium.
In the similar case of Hampshire the Board commented on the
review process:
The Board notes that the first step in this review process
has been completed.
Namely,
the USEPA has proposed that-the
69.395
—7—
Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level
(RMCL)
for barium in
drinking water be 1.5 mg/i (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,
Office of Drinking Water,
Barium Health Advisory,
Draft,
September 30,
1985).
Several aspects of this action
warrant notice.
First, RMCL’s are proposed at
levels at
which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health
of persons occur;
they are nonenforceable and considered as
health-related goals rather than as standards.
Second,
the
USEPA action
to date has been only to propose an RMCL for
barium;
the proposal may be altered subject to information
received during a mandated comment period of 120 days
following publication.
Third, when and if the USEPA sets
a
final RMCL,
it must then proceed to set
a Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(MCL)
which,
in addition to health
effects, also considers matters such as the availability and
performance of analytical methods and treatment technologies
and assessment of the costs of the applicable
technologies.
In the ideal an MCL will be set equal to its
RMCL;
in no case may the MCL be less than the RMCL.
Fourth,
the MCL is
a federally enforceable maximum concentration.
However,
a state which holds primacy under the SDWA,
as does
Illinois, may elect to support
a standard more stringent
than the federal standard.
In view of the conditions laid out
in the preceding
paragraph,
the Board notes that a change in the USEPA
posture regarding barium in drinking water, be such change
viewed as either favorable or unfavorable to Petitioner,
cannot be expected with any immediacy.
The Board can not
therefore lay great credulence on Hampshire’s implied
position that its requested variance
is supported by actions
at the federal level,
at least as these actions have
proceeded to date.
In fact, such weight as may be given to
the recent federal action would seem to imply that
Petitioner’s drinking water does impose
a long-term health
risk: all of the samples taken from the distribution system
since 1982 contain concentrations in excess of the USEPA’s
Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level.
An additional facet of the health risk issue
is that the
State of Illinois currently supports
a 1.0 mg/i standard.
Federal action will occasion
a change
in the State standard
only if a more stringent federal standard supersedes the
State standard, or
if the federal review process produces
a
less stringent standard and the
State finds the federal
position sufficiently compelling to warrant a change
in the
State rule.
That any such change might occur is too
speculative to be given weight
in the instant matter.
Accordingly, the Board must consider that the appropriate
standard,
and attendant health risk level,
is 1.0 mg/i.
The Board notes that the situation respecting modification
of the barium standard existent at the time of the Hampshire
Opinion remains unchanged.
Moreover,
the Board also notes that,
69-396
-8-
as was the case in
Hampshire,
all of Burlington’s reported barium
analyses are
in excess of the 1.5 mg/i USEPA RMCL.
Therefore,
the Board must again conclude that such weight as may be given to
the recent federal action would seem to imply that Petitioner’s
drinking water does impose a long-term health risk.
HARDSHIP
With respect
to the matter
of
a
showing of arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship,
the Board notes that
§35(a) of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act mandates that
a variance
may be granted only
if Petitioner demonstrates that immediate
compliance would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Burlington only briefly addresses the issue of the hardship
that would
exist absent grant of the requested variance.
Specifically,
this would entail inability to make extensions
to
the existing distribution system during
a time when
“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”
(Amend.
Pet., par.
43).
Elsewhere
Petitioner also asserts that retention of Burlington on the
Agency’s Restrictive Status List
“would mislead developers and
other persons who check the Restricted
Status List”
(Amend.
Pet.,
par. 9).
In neither case does Petitioner estimate the number of
individuals who would be affecte,d as
a consequence of retention
of either the extension ban or restricted status listing.
Rather, the principal hardship argument made by Petitioner
focuses on the costs associated with coming
into compliance with
the barium standard.
Petitioner envisions two alternatives by
which compliance might be achieved:
a.
Drilling at least one and possibly more wells and the
construction of related facilities for blending
purposes.
Without having had the benefit of expert
advice,
it
is
estimated that construction costs could
equal at least
$20,000.00 per well while the estimated
time for implementation would be a minimum of
36 to a
maximum of
60 months depending on the number of wells
needed.
b.
Constructing treatment facilities
in order to properly
treat all water supplied by the existing wells.
Any
new treatment facilities needed and their individual
specific costs cannot be ascertained without expert
advice, but it
is estimated that it could perhaps total
in excess of $500,000.00.
The estimated time for
implementation would be
60 months
(Amend.
Pet., par.
22).
69-397
—9—
Burlington estimates that the cost of drilling
a
new well
and constructing related facilities would be approximately $45.
per capita, based on a resident population of 450 (Amend.
Pet.,
par. 23).
Absent having had any formal expert financial and
engineering advice,
Petitioner asserts that
it is difficult to
provide
a hard estimate of
the cost for constructing a treatment
facility to remove barium
(Amend.
Pet., par.
24).
The Board
notes, however, that if the above cited $500,000 figure is
correct, the per capita cost would be approximately $1,111.
At
present, each resident water user pays $240 per year
in water
bills
to fund reduction of bonded indebtness created
in 1980
(Amend. Pet., par. 25).
Burlington also asserts that it has neither the financial
ability nor bonding authority to enable it to provide immediate
compliance with the barium standard.
Petitioner notes
that its
annual budget since the
1980-81 fiscal year has not exceeded
approximately $225,000 (Amend.
Pet., par. 36).
Petitioner also
notes that in 1980 it committed itself to thecreation of bonded
indebtedness having a face value
of $416,000 for the purpose of
making capital improvements to the then existing public water
supply system, which at that time was
in serious disrepair
(Amend. Pet., par.
37).
The bonds are scheduled to be completely
retired
in 2018 (Supplement to Amended Petition,
p.
2).
Uncertainty regarding the future of the assessed value of taxable
property, which
in 1984 amounted to $2,587,021, makes
it
difficult to estimate when additional bonded indebtedness could
be incurred.
Petitioner speculates that this could
be in the
year 2009.
The Agency does not disagree with Burlington’s estimates of
the cost of compliance with the barium rule (Rec.,
p.
19).
Rather,
the Agency believes that Petitioner has not proven
economic hardship because
it has not complied
in full with its
prior variance
(Rec.,
p. 19).
CONCLUSIONS
AND -FIND1-NGS
The
matter
before
the
Board
in this proceeding is whether
variance from an extension ban and restricted status
is warranted
by the evidence presented concerning hardship and health risk.
This issue is partly obscured by extensive consideration by both
Petitioner and the Agency of matters related to the barium
standard itself.
The Board notes that the merit of the barium standard
is not
a proper issue
in the instant matter.
However,
the Board is
compelled to comment on one aspect
of the record relating to
compliance with the barium standard.
Although
it believes the
perspective to be seriously flawed,
the Board can understand
Petitioner’s hope that at some future time the USEPA will
determine that barium levels such as those encountered in
Petitioner’s water do not constitute
a health risk.
The Board
69-398
-10-
can also appreciate Burlington’s position as
a small community
desirous of providing the best possible services to its residents
within the framework of
a
limited
financial
base.
It
is
also
possible to appreciate that of the problems facing a community
such as Burlington, correction of a small excess above
a water
standard may not be viewed by the community as requiring first
priority attention.
However, none of these perspectives serve to
wish away what
is
a real problem that requires real action.
It
would be remiss of Burlington,
and of this
Board, to promote any
action injurious to the health of the citizens we serve.
Accordingly, the Board, for its part,
intends
to take such
actions
as will cause the most expeditious rectification of the
barium problem faced by Burlington.
The only matter on record which speaks to the question of
health risk on the particular issue before the Board
is that
there should be no significant health risk if exposure is for
a
limited time.
Burlington’s request is basically that
it be
allowed to expose an additional unidentified number of persons to
its
excess barium levels by extending water service to them, and
that
such additional exposure be for
a term not to exceed five
years.
The critical item here
is the term of five years or
less.
In view of the Agency’s determination that exposure over
this time frame would cause no significant health risk for the
limited population
served by new water main extensions, the Board
finds that granting of the requested variance would produce no
significant health risk.
On the matter of hardship, no estimation of the number of
homes or other facilities which would be without service absent
the variance
is given by Petitioner.
However, Petitioner clearly
expects
some
requests
for
water
service
extensions.
Petitioner
also asserts
that fire protection and the prospect of future
development will be hampered by its placement on the Restricted
Status List.
The Board
finds that arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship would exist absent the variance.
Although not stated clearly, the Agency’s position appears
to be that the present hardship
is self-imposed because
Petitioner failed to come into compliance with the barium
standard during the term of the past variance.
Indeed, had
Petitioner come into compliance during the term of the past
variance,
it would have no need for the new variance it now
requests.
The Board believes that
a finding of self-imposed
hardship
would
be
necessitated
if
Petitioner
had
taken
no
action
to
come
into
compliance.
However,
it
is
clear
that
at
the
minimum Petitioner did attempt to develop an alternate water
supply
via
Well
#3,
which,
had
it
been
successful,
would
have
allowed compliance.
The record is not sufficiently clear for the
Board
to
determine
whether
Burlington
itself
is
at
fault
for
the
failure of Well
#3.
Accordingly,
the Board will allow the
benefit of the doubt,
and finds that Petitioner’s hardship is not
self-imposed.
69-399
—11—
The
Board
notes
that
both
Petitioner
and
the
Agency
are
in
agreement that,
should the variance be granted, there be
a set of
conditions which prescribes
a program of action to relieve the
need for extension bans and restricted status listing.
The Board
finds
that.
these
conditions
are
necessary
and
appropriate
and
therefore will condition the grant
of variance upon them.
The
Board will also add an additional condition,
which is that the
maximum
barium
concentration
shall
not
exceed
2.7
mg/i.
The
Board points out that these conditions, including the added
condition,
are similar in content to those imposed by the Board
and
accepted
by
Petitioner
in
PCB
80-203.
The
Board
also
notes
that
Petitioner
has
been
challenged by the Agency
as to whether
it has in fact complied with these previous conditions.
Such
conditions
are
fully
binding
and
enforceable
and
the
Board
wishes
to impress upon
Petitioner
the
necessity
for
full
compliance
with
each
condition.
Finally, the Board notes that
l:he
USEPA has challenged
several Board issued variances from the barium standard
as being
inconsistent
with
the
State’s
obligations
under
the
Safe
Drinking
Water Act
(SDWA).
However,
the variance requested here
is solely
from the
State regulations
establishing the restricted status
mechanism
and
not
from
the
national
primary
drinking
water
regulations.
That
being
the
case,
such
variance
will
not
insulate
Burlington
from
the
possibility
of
enforcement
for
violations
of
the
underlying
barium
standard.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of
law
in
this
matter.
ORDER
The
Village
of
Burlington
is
hereby
granted
variance
from
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
6O2.105(a)
Standards
of
Issuance,
and
602.106(b)
Restricted
Status,
but
enl-y
as
they
relate
to
the
barium
standard
of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 604.202,
subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Variance
shall
be
effective
this
date
and
shall
extend
through
May
9,
1991.
2.
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.
3.
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.
69.400
-12-
4.
Within nine
months
of
the
grant
of
the
variance,
the
Petitioner shall complete investigating compliance
methods,
including those treatment techniques described
in the Manua1.ofTreatrnent-Techniques-.for.Meeting~.the
Int~erimTP~rimary.Drink.iri~g~Water.Regu.la.tions,
USEPA, May
1977,
EPA-600/8-77-005,
and
shall
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.
5.
This
Compliance
Report
shall
be
submitted
within
ten
months
of
the
grant
of
this
variance
to
IEPA,
DPWS,
for
its
approval.
6.
Within six months after submission of the Compliance
Report,
unless there has been
a written extension of
time by the IEPA, 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 the standard
in question.
7.
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.
8.
Construction allowed on said construction permits shall
begin within
a reasonable time of bids being accepted,
but
in
any
case,
construction
of
all
installations,
changes,
or
additions
necessary
to
achieve
compliance
with the maximum allowable concentration in question
shall
begin
no
later
than
three
years
from
the
grant
of
this
variance
and
shall
be completed no later than four
and
one
half
years
from
the
grant
of
this
variance.
9.
Compliance shall
be
achieved
with
the
maximum
allowable
concentration in question no later than five years
from
grant of this variance.
10.
Pursuant to
35 Iii. 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 Ill.
Adm.
Code
602.105(a)
Standards
of
Issuance
and
35
Ill.
Adni.
Code
602.106(b)
Restricted
Status,
as
it
relates
to
the
barium standard.
69-401
-13-
11.
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 barium
standard
(35 Ill. Adm.
Code 604.202).
The notice shall
state
the average content of barium samples taken
since
the last notice period during which samples were taken.
12.
Petitioner shall take all reasonable measures with its
existing equipment to minimize the level of barium in
its finished water and shall not allow the barium
concentration to exceed 2.7 mg/l.
13.
Within forty-five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to Wayne
Wiemerslage, 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.
The form of the
certification shall
be as follows.
CERTIF’ICATION
The Village of Burlington, having read the Order of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board,
in PCB 85-183 dated May
9,
1986, understands
and accepts the said Order,
realizing that such
acceptance renders all terms and conditions
thereto binding and
enforceable.
Village of Burlington
By:
Authorized Agent
TIE.
e
Date
69.402
—14—
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Members, Jacob D.
Dumelle and Bill Forcade dissented.
I,
Dorothy
M. Cunn,
Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board, hereby ce~tifythat the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day of
~‘~7
,
1986, by
a vote
of
5~-~
..
7
Ill
s
Pollut:
rn Control Board
69-403
