ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 11,
1985
CtTY
OF
AURORA,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 85—51
(t~LINO1SENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
MICHAEL WEINSTEIN,
CITY
ATTORNEY,
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER;
AND
~AYNE WI~MERSLAGEAPPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
3PINION AND ORDER OF
TIlE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
this matter comes before
the Board on
the April
16, 1985
petition filed by the City of Aurora
(City)
for
a five year
variance from the
5 pCi/i radium 226 and radium 228 drinking
water standard contained in 35
Iii. Adm.
Code 604.301(a).
The
purpose
of
the
request
is to eliminate the effects of “restricted
status”, which
in this case
is a determination by the Illinois
En~iiron’nenbaiProtection Agency (Agency)
that the City’s public
water supply
is delivering finished water containing combined
radium
in excess of
the
5 pCi/i
state and federal
standards.
Pursuant to Board regulation,
the Agency may not issue permits
for new water main extensions
to a public water supply which
violates the drinking water
standard.
See
35 111.
Adm. Code
602.1.05 and 602.106.
The Recommendation of the Agency filed May 15,
1985 and
amended June 25, 1985,
is that variance with conditions should be
granted.
However,
the
Agency believes variance should
be
granted,
not from
the
radium standard, but from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 602.105 precluding Agency permit issuance.
On May
28,
1985,
the City filed
a response
to the Agency Recommendation indicating
bas.Lc agreement with the conditions suggested, but disagreement
with variance from the permit issuance rule rather than from
the
radium standard.
Various citizens filed objections
to the grant
of
variance.
As explained
in some detail
in the Board’s Order
of~
May 30,
1.985,
incorporated
herein
by reference, althou;h
some
of
the
objections were untimely,
the Board determined that the
public interest
would
be
best
served by setting this matter
for
hearing.
Hearing was therefore held
in this matter on June
25,
1985
at
the
Aurora City Hall,
some 35 members of
the
public
being
in attendance~
65~53
—2—
prior
to discussing
the hearing, recitation of various
fact’s
contained
in the petition and
the Agency Recommendation
is
i~-t
order.
The City of Aurora,
located
in Kane and DuPage Counties,
provides public services,
including
potable water supply and
distribution,
for 22,857
residential and 1,112
industrial
ar~i
commercial utility customers representing approximately 85,000
residents and approximately 40,000 employees (as
of March,
1.985).
The City’s public water distribution system
includes
1.2 deep
wells and
1 shallow well, pumps
and distribution facilities, and
1,682,650 feet
(318.7 miles)
of various sizes
of water mains,
ranging
from
1 inch
to
24 inches
in diameter.
The deep wells
(No.
8,
l2A,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
23,
and 25) currently
range
in depth
from
1.400 feet
to
2251;
the City plans
to drill
another deep well
(No.
24)
in late
1985 or early
1.986
to serve
the Butterfield Subdivision.
The shallow well,
No.
101
is
116
feet deep.
All wells discharge directly into the distribution
system, with the exception of Wells l2A and
22.
Well No.
12A
pumps
into a reservoir and Well No.
22 can be used
to pump into ~
reservoir or
into the system.
The City operates two booster
stations and three overhead towers
to obtain sufficient pressure
in
the system.
Total water production was
3,816 million gallons
in 1984, approximately 318 million gallons per month.
The City was first advised of the excessive combined radium
content of
its water by an Agency letter dated January 25,
1984,
reporting
a radium—226 content of 7.3 pCi/l and
a radium—228
content of 2.2 pCi/i;
this
is slightly in excess of twice the
5 pCi/l allowed combined concentration.
Thereafter,
the City
took samples from ten of
its deep wells
and distribution system,
as well as from two shallow wells and
the
Fox River
(none of
which are connected to the City’s distribution system.
The
analyses of
these
samples, which were performed by the
Argonne
National Laboratory,
indicate for the deep wells an average
radium 226 concentration of 6.40 pCi/I and an average radium—223
concentration of
7.54 pCi/i.
The radium concentrations for
the
sh~illowwell
and river samples were negligible.
These samples
were submitted to the Agency for
its review.
By letter
of
October
29,
1984,
the Agency advised the City that its water
supply was being placed on
restricted status,
as those samples
verified that the radiological
quality of the City’s water
had
not changed since
the taking of the earlier samples,
and the
water continued to be out
of compliance with the standards.
The City presently does not treat its water
to control
radium content.
It has identified
four possible control
strategies.
‘The first would be
to develop a shallow well fieU
~qhosewaters could
be blended with those
of the deep wells.
This
would
involve drilling of new shallow wells
for
use
in addition
to existing Well
101, acquisition of property and construction of
necessary facilities.
The City estiit~atesthat time for full
implementation of this option would be between 42 and
GO months,
with capital
expenditures amounting
to $9.75 million dollars.
65-54
—3—
The second option would be
to develop
the Fox River
as
a
water
supply.
The research and engineering data
for this
alternative would
require approximately twenty—four
(24) months
at
a cost of $500,000.
Substantial additional time and money
expenditures would
then be required
for construction of
treatmen~’.
facilitieS were this alternative chosen, just as for
implementation of
the
third option.
This third option would be construction of
treatment
facilities
in order
to properly treat all water
supplies.
This
would require construction of
a treatment plant as well as
connection
to
the existing water distribution system.
Cost could
range up to $30—40 million, and could
take
up
to
60 months
to
~:otillyimplement.
The
fourth option would be
to utilize Petitioner’s Lake
Michigan water allocation which would replace water presently
suppliud by deep wells.
Petitioner’s Lake Michigan allocation
is
effective
1.990
and
is
as follows:
1990:
14.49 million gallons
per day
(iugd);
2000:
19.51 million gallons per day (mgd);
2010:
21.01 million gallons per day (mgd);
2020:
21.45 million gallons
per day (mgd).
Possible costs are unknown at
the present time but are
projected
to be
in excess of the previous option.
Time for
~!uplebion would be
in excess of
60 months.
At this time,
the City leans towards the first option,
‘ievel.opment of shallow wells
for use
in
a blending program at ~
ratio of
1 part shallow well water
to
3 parts deep well water.
9owever,
the City has not committed
to any option, having plans
to
retain outside consultant(s)
to assist
in reviewing and
evaluating
results from data which has already been obtained fron
the State Geological Survey
(R.
Gilkeson),
a well driller
(Layne—Western),
and the State Water Survey (Adrienne Visocky),
for
resolving
the present situation.
The City anticipates
a
12
month period
of
time will be needed
to accomplish
this task.
The City asserts that denial of variance would
impose
an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship, because of
the effective
stoppage of construction
in the area.
More particularly,
construction has been unable
to proceed on
a 368 acre industrial
park to be known as Fox Valley Corporate Village,
to be developed
by Aurora Ventures, and which
is expected
to bring 5,900 jobs
to
the Aurora area.
The City asserts that there
are also
a number
of other developments which will require construction permits
in
the near future,
including three new strip shopping centers to be
built at a total cost of approximately $15,000,000, the Fox
Valley Retirement Center
(total cost approximately $10,000,000);
and Phase
II of CMD’s Meridian Business Campus (total cost
approximately $15,000,000).
Additionally, several major
landowner-developers have already submitted,
or are
in the
process of submitting, construction permit applications
for
the
exL.~nsionof water mains.
65-55
—4—
The City alleges that denial of variance
would also he
.acbitrary or unreasonable, given
its past efforts and
expenditures
to develop an adequate and safe supply of water
for
urora’s present and projected needs.
Chronologically,
these
have included:
(a)
A study completed
in 1971—72, performed by
Crawford, Murphy & Tilly,
Consulting Engineers
301
the Illinois State Water Survey,
concerning Shallow
Water
Supply.
(b)
The City’s request
in 1980 for
a Lake Michigan
Water Allocation from the Illinois Department of
Transportation;
an allocation, beginning
in 1990,
was subsequently awarded.
In
1982,
the City hecam~
a
member of
the DuPage V~ater Co~nmiss.ion.
Assessed
costs of membership were approximately
$20,000.00.
(The City resigned from
its membershi~.
in early 1983.)
(c)
In
1982,
a
study
was
completed
by
Black
and
VeaL’~h,
Consulting Engineers, concerning
the possible
use
of the Fox River
as
a suitable water
supply source.
(d)
The City,
along with Kane County and other Kane
County municipalities, conducted
a study
in
1980
-
1.982, concerning
the
feasibility of groundwater
as
a possible water supply source.
(e)
Since
1983,
the City has actively participated,
along with Kane County and
other Kane County
municipalities,
in
a shallow aquifnr study being
conducted by the State of Illinois.
The University
of Illinois,
in conjunction with the Illinois State
Geological Survey and
the Illinois State Water
Survey,
is
in charge of this study.
The City’s
proportional share of Phase One of said study has
been approximately $40,000.00.
(f)
The City has now begun
a test well program
in order
to confirm
the
initial positive findings of the
shallow acquifer
study.
The city council,
on
April
2, 1985, authorized
the expenditure of
$3,350.00 for
a
130 foot,
4 inch pilot hole.
An
additional request
for $19,475.00, which
is nnede3
to complete
the first test well, was pending before
the city council at the time of filing of
the
petition, with passage expected on April 16,
1985.
(Hearing testimony does not specifically
indicate whether
this expenditure was auth’rized,
although it was stated the City “had
a test well
scheduled.”
See
11..
71—72.)
The petition presented little information concerning
the
he’~ltheffects on the City’s consumers as
a
result of continued
65-56
—5—
consumption of
the City’s excess—radium—bearing
waters
for
sri
additional
five years.
However, this
issue was extensively
addressed
at hearing;
Richard
E.
Toohey, Ph.D., measurements
group
leader
for the Center
for Human Radiobiology of Argonne
National t~aboratory,presented scientific testimony supporting
his professional opinion that “there will be
no adverse health
cisk”
to Aurora’s water consumers
if a five year vari~riceis
granted (City
Exh.
2, p.6,
R.
15—35).
Using slides as
a visual
aid
for the hearing participants, Dr. Toohey explained that the
data concerning
actual,
as opposed
to assumed, effects
of the
ir~terrial consumption of radium,
is derived from observation of
some 3500 persons who have worked with radium in the United
States,
mostly by painting luminous watch dials
in the 1920’s or
aircraft instruments
in
the 1940’s.
Additional
information
concerning
retention of radium
in the body was obtained from
medical experiments
in the 1930’s seeking
to establish a
therapeutic use
for radium
in
the treatment of mental patients.
Based
on observations of
the radium workers,
Dr. Toohey noted
that the lowest intake of
radium to cause tumors
(boric cancers
and head carcinomas)
is 10 uCi*,
an
intake which could be
achieved by drinking
2 liters of water containing
5 pCi/I of
radium (the drinking water
standard) every day for 13,000
years.
Consumption of water containing
5 pCi/l of radium for
a
lifetime,
however, results
in an intake
of 0.06 uCi of
radium,
a
level
at which no health effects were observed
in
the radium
workers.
Dr. Toohey then noted
that,
in setting drinking
water
standards,
that certain conservative assumptions are made,
•3~sumptLonswhich he emphasized are not
to be taken as scientJH-~
facts.
These assumptions
are that
1.)
“there
is no
“safe”
level of
radium
intake; that
is, any intake, no matter how small, has a certain
probability of causing cancer
and
2)
the probability of a low dose causing cancer
is
linearly proportional
to
the dose;
that is,
if the
probability that an intake of 1000 uCi will cause
cancer
is x,
then
the probability
that
an intake of
100 uCi will cause cancer
is 0.1
x,
that
1 uCi will
cause cancer
is 0.001
x, and so
on.
Together,
these
two assumptions are known as
the linear
no—threshold model.”
(City Exh.
2,
p.
2—3)
Using such a model, USEPA originally derived
a risk factor of
about 100 excess cancers from drinking water
at the
s pci/i
level.
However, using a linear no—threshold model
to analyze
the
*The unit used for
radium intake
is uCi.
One uCi
is one—
millionth of a Curie,
or one—millionth of
a gram of radium.
(One
picoCurie, pCi,
is one—millionth of a uCi or one—trillionth of
a
Curie.)
65-57
—6—
observed
radium data yields
a
risk
factor
of
not
100,
but
42
excess bone cancers and head carcinomas per lifetime per million;
JSEPk
has
recently
revised
its
calculations
to
give
a
risk
factor
of 44 per lifetime per million, although different types of
cancers are predicted.
Assuming,
then, that the
100
cancers per
Ufetime per million figure originally arrived
at by USEPA is the
societally acceptable overall
risk,
Dr. Toohey believes that the
5 pCi/i standard could be raised by a factor of
4,
to 20 pCi/i:
1.
for
the risk factor,
which was originally calculated
at double
the revised results, and
2
for the amount of water consumed per
r~y,
which
is closer to one liter than the two liters used
in
the
USEPA calculations.
Employing the risk factor above,
Dr. Toohey
calculated
the
risk to Aurora
water drinkers,
based on
a radium
intake of
.14 pCi/l:
For
a population of
85,000
residents
arid
40,000 employees,
the calculation
is as follows:
44 cancers/lifetime
125,000 people
x
muU~i~~7F
x
14 pCi/i
x
5 years exposure
x
75 years
=
1.03 excess cancers.
However,
Dr. Toohey then demonstrated
the “bad
fit”
of
a
linear model
to the radium health effects data observed at
present:
the data shows
that the effects of a radium consumption
ace not linear but quadratic,
that
is,
the effects are not
proportional
to the dose, but are instead proportional
to the
square of the dose.
Thus, use of the linear model predicts
the
risk as being
lB bone cancers per million,
as opposed
to
the
6
pat billion predicted by the quadratic
model.
Dr. Tookey did,
however, qualify his opinion, stating:
“We must note, however, that the observation
of
a
few more bone sarcomas
in our population
could change that conclusion
arid,
in
fact,
the
linear model may become
a better
fit
If more
bone sarcomas appear.
Only time will tell.
We can’t
close the books on
it until
we have
completely followed up the populations
to the
end
fo their natural life
spans...”
Dr. Toohey believes the linear model also overestimates
~ancers because of recent evidence that indicates that previous
undecs~andingsconcerning the body’s retention of radium
in the
skeleton may have been
in error.
It
is now believed that
retention is proportional
to dose
so
that the larger
the amount
Ingested, the
longer
it
Is retained.
Thus,
it
is
now believed
that the
radium workers may have ingested more radium than
previously believed, making
the
linear model
an even worse
fit
with
the data.
65-58
—7—
Dr. Toohey also believes the no—threshold assumption of
the
linear,
no—threshold model overestimates cancer.
This is because “people don’t live forever”, and
the age
at
which cancer appears increases with decreasing radium intake.
sore particularly, said Dr. Toohey:
“If we assume that
the amount of radium ingested
from drinking water
at the
5 pCi/i limit
over a lifetim~
could all
be taken
in one year,
at age
20
say, and
if
that amount of radium were
in
fact to induce bone
cancer,
these data indicate that
the cancer would
appe-ir
at age 140.
The fact that people will die from so~ne
other
cause
long
before
their
radium
burden
could
cause
cancer
leads
to
a
practical
threshold
of
about
50
uci
radium
intake,
very close
to
what
we
actually
see
in
the
data:
the
lowest intake causing cancer
in
a dial worker was 40
uCi;
the lowest intake causing cancer
in anyone was
9
uCi
-
a young boy
8 years old given radium as
a medical
treatment.”
(City Exh.
2,
p.
5—6, also R.
34)
In summary,
then,
it
is the opinion of Dr. Toohey that the
assumed
(predicted)
risk of drinking radium bearing water
is
greater
than the actual
risk,
and that based
on all
of
the
foregoing observations, grant of variance would not pose
an
~
health risk
to Aurora citizens.
The balance of the witnesses presented by the City at
hearing explained
the economic reasons for
its variance request,
as well as the nature
of
its water
needs and water supply
system.
George Petree,
the City’s Director
of Utilities,
answered questions concerning
the
information contained
in th~
City’s variance petition
(City Exh. 1),
as well
as general
questions concerning
the public water
supply
(R.
5—6, 71—76).
Mayor David
L. Pierce generally explained that the City had
no
desire
to jeopardize
the health of its citizens,
having
a firm
commitment
to coming
into compliance with the radium standard
within three
to five years, but needed variance relief
to allow
water main extensions
“for economic development
and growth so
that we can pay the bills
to fix the
radium
problem”
(R.
6—14).
Statements
in support of grant of variance were made by Ed
Furth,
on behalf of the Greater Aurora Chamber of Commerce
(R.
37—45,
City Exh.
3,
4), by Charles Doss on behalf of
ths ;urors
Economic Development Commission
(R. 45—46),
and by Frank
H.
Gurry
on behalf of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community
Affairs
(R 45—49, City Exh.
5).
Ralph Kristensen, general
nanager
of Aurora Venture, detailed
the effect that the
restricted status permit ban is having on its development of th~
Fox Valley Villages.
One venture, which currently cannot receive
water permits,
Fox Valley Corporate Villages,
is
a $130 million
industrial
park
expected
to
employ
5,900
and contribute $53.2
to
65-59
—8—
i~urora’stax base, stands
to lose substantial sums as well
as
customers because of
inability to proceed during the summer
construction season
(R.
51—53,
City Exh.
6).
Statements were
made and/or questions asked by five citizens,
none of whom voiced
continuing objections
to variance after hearing the City’s
testimony, provided that the City were to achieve compliance with
i:he radium standard
as
it promised, and did not in so doing
affect private wells.
These were H.
Ellis Boyer, Rev. 8ob
Moisberry,
Richard Breining, Judy Range,
and Virginia Johannessen
(R.
54—74).
At hearing,
the Agency presented no direct testimony,
relying on
its Recommendation,
but asked
and answered clarifying
iu~sLions.
The Agency too believes that grant of variance
would
pose no significant health to Aurora’s water drinkers, noting
that original estimates of risk were “probably a high estimate”
and suggesting that
the
5 pCi/i standard might acceptably be
.ncreasad
to 20—30 pci/i
(Am.
Rec.
p.
7).
The Agency has no
disagreement with
the City’s estimates of compliance
costs.
Th-~
Agency did, however,
add
a caveat concerning one method
for
treatment technology for radionuclide removal,
the
ion exchange
process, which
it actively discourages, stating:
“if
an
ion exchange softener which
is regenerated with
salt
is
used,
the sodium content of
the water will he
increased significantly.
This may create a significant
risk
to persons who are hypertensive
or who have heart
problems.
In addition,
the waste
from routine
softenirij
is high
in total dissolved solids and
nay
be very
difficult to dispose of legally.
The ion exchange
process will concentrate
the radioactivity and
release
the majority of the radioactivity in the waste stream in
a concentrated form, which may be more of a hazard
at
that point
than it is
in the drinking water.
Also,
some
of
the radioactivity remains
in
the
ion exchange
material,
so that
it may be
a hazard
to anyone
subsequently working on
the softener, and disposal
of
the radioactive
ion exchange material may be
a
problem.”
(Am.
Rec.,
p.
8)
The Agency Recommendation endorses the compliance activities
proposed by
the City, and has suggested variance conditions which
would
require the City
to effectuate those plans.
tAt hearing,
the Agency agreed
to a modification of a proposed variance
condition to allow the Village
to blend
its high radium,
deep
well water
with any other low—radium water
source, as opposed
to
restricting the source
to Lake Michigan water
(R.
60—61,
Agency
6,cri.
1.
The sole disagreement between the Agency and the City
relate
to
the issue, earlier mentioned,
as
to whether
the
City
should be granted
a variance from the radium standard itself,
or
only from
the effects of restricted status.
The source
of the dispute lies in
the
interpretation
given
to
that
portion
of Section 1415 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act,
65-60
—9*
42
u.s.c.
300(g)—4,
which provides that a federal variance
may be
granted
when
“Because of characteristics of
the
raw water
sources
which
are
reasonably
available
to
the
system,
the
system
cannot meet
the requirements respecting
the
maximum
contaminant levels of the drinking water regulations
despite application of the best technology,
treatment
techniques,
and other means, which the USEPA
Administrator finds are generally available (taking
costs
into consideration);”
U: has been
the legal position of the USEPA that
the system must
*have
in place and operational,
or
in the process of being
installed,
the best technology, treatment technique,
or other
ffleans which
the Administrator finds are generally available
(taking costs
into consideration”,
and that the Administrator has
made his determination concerning treatment techniques
in the
USEPA publication “Manual
of Treatment Techniques
for Meeting
the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(May,
1977)
(P.m.
Rec.
p.
10—12).
It has been the position of
the Agency and the Board
that the Manual
is only
a guideline, as
it has not been
pcomulgated
as a regulation,
and that variance relief
is
therefore warranted even if no treatment technology has been
installed,
e.g.,
CitypfC~ystal_Lake
v.
IEPA,
PCB 84—2, May 29,
1984: Villa9eofAlt.ona, PCB 80—74, July 10,
1980.
The Agency
notes
USEPA’s
displeasure
with
the
Agency/Board
approach,
and further notes that as a result thereof USEPA could
seek
to revoke such variances granted
by the Board, and
to revoke
its determination to grant Illinois Primary Enforcement
Responsibility under
the SDWA,
resulting in a loss
to Illinois
of
$1. million
in federal funding.
The Agency therefore suggests
that
“concerns of
the public water
supplies to no
longer
be
under
the limitations of Restricted Status
and the
concerns of
the USEPA that federal variances not be
granted without installation of specific control
technology can both be met by the Board granting
a
variance from the effect of being on Restricted Status,
i.e., from 35
TEll.
Adm. Code 602.105(a)
Standards for
Issuance, and not granting
a variance from the combined
radium or gross alpha particle activity standards.
A
variance from the effect of Restricted Status
(i.e.
Standards
for Issuance) would allow water main
extensions, while
at the same time
it would not be
a
variance from national primary drinking water
regulations, and would not be a federal variance.
Hence, there
is no federal variance
for the USEPA
to be
concerned about and no risk to the State
of Illinois of
loss of Primacy.
(Public water supplies would
still
be
subject
to the possibility of enforcement for i,iolations
of the combined radium and/or gross alpha particle
65-61
—10—
activity.
However,
if the state
variance required
a
compliance plan
in, say,
three years and compliance with
the radiological standards by the end
of five years,
it
is
possible
the
USEPA
would
consider
the variance order
to he
a “Compliance Order”
and defer
federal
enforcement.)”
(Am. Rec. p.
14).
The
Board
finds that the City of Aurora
has
made
an
unusually effective and persuasive showing that deni:~lof
variance would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
The
record presents no reason to question the validity of Dr.
Toohey’s
analysis
or opinions concerning
the lack of
increase
in
health
risks
through
grant
of
a
five
year
variance.
The
economic
effects
of
the
restricted
status
construction
moratorium
on
the
City are of considerable magnitude.
The question then,
is what
‘ort of variance should
be granted.
The Board believes that,
in this factual
situation,
a
five—year variance from the radium standard
of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
604.301(a)
is warranted.
The City has only recently become ~wace
of its radium excursion.
This is not a case which involves an
is~3ueas
to whether
an “individual system need ever comply at all
wi.th national regulations”.
Rather,
the issue
is one of how a
system may best reach compliance
in a finite period, given
the
r~tureof
its current deep well raw water
sources and
its
continuing search
for additional, alternative water sources
to
attain both SDWA compliance
and
a reliable source of water
for
future needs.
The variance here granted
is
in the nature of
a
compliance order,
requiring activities which
the City has agreed
to
perform
in
order
to
reach
compliance
within
a
five
year
period.
In addition
to conditions based on those
suggested by
the Agency,
as adjusted
to establish dates certain and
to allow
th~possibility of use of any low—radium water
source
in
a
blending
program,
the Board will incorporate
the specific
i.~tivities
listed by the City
in its petition at
p.
11.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner,
the City of Aurora,
is granted variance from
the
5 pCi/i combined radium standard of
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
604.301(a)
until
July
1,
1990,
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
~.
On or before
October
15,
1985,
the
Petitioner
shall
secure
professional
assistance
(from
present
staff
and/or an outside consultant)
in investigating
compliance options,
including a review of the
possibility
and feasibility of achieving compliance by
blending water
from alternative water sources with that
of
its
deep
wells.
On
or
before
November
15,
1985,
evidence
that
such
professional
assistance
has
been
65-62
—tI—
secured shall be submitted
to the Agency’s Division of
Public Water Supplies,
FOSS
at 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield., Illinois 62706.
This information shall
include, but not be limited
to,. activities described
in
the City’s variance petition of April
15,
1985.
More
specifically,
the
city
shall
(i)
Continue with
its shallow
acquifer engineering
investigation program.
(ii)
Beginning
with
existing shallow well number 101,
construct and place on..ltne new shallow wells
in
conformance
with
the data generated by
(t),
above.
(t~i)
Tn conjunction
with the Agency, continue
the
sampling program to monitor
the
radium levels
~n
all wells
as
well as in finished water.
(iv)
Continue monitoring
the activity of
the DuPage
Water Commission
in order
to determine
the
feasibility of Lake Michigan as a water source
for the years 1990
and beyond.
9,
As expeditiously after identification of a
feasible
compliance method as
is practicable, but no later than
July
1,. 1988,
Petitioner shall submit a program (with
increments of progress)
for bringing
its system
into
compliance with radiological quality standards by
July
1,
1990.
This program should be
submitted
to the
Agency’s Division of Public Water Supplies, Permit
Section1 at ZZOQ Churchill Road, Sprtn~fletd,tll.tnois
62706.
The City shall adhere
to all timetables
contained
in
this
compliance program.
C.
Until
full. compliance
is reached,
the
City shall take
all measures with
its equipment
as
it from
time
to
time
exists
to minimize the level of combined ra4ium in its
finished drinking water.
0,
Pursuant to 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code Section 606.2Q1,
in
the
first
set of water bills issued after grant of this
variance,
the City shall
send
to each user of
its public
water
supply
a
written
notice
to
the
effect
that
the
City has been granted a variance from
the Radiurn—226
and
228 combined concentration standard.
The notice shall
state
the average concentration of Radium—226 and 228
in
samples taken since the last notice period
in which
samples
were taken.
~,
Within
forty—five days of
the
date of this Order,
the
City
shall execute
and
forward
to
Wayne
Wiemersiage,
Enforcement
Programs,
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200
Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois
62706,
a
Certificate
of
85-83
—12—
;~eptance
and
Agreement
to
be
bound
to
all
terms
and
bondi~ions
of
this
variance.
This forty—five day period shall be held
in
abeyance for any period
this matter is being appealed.
The form
of
this
certificate
shall
be
as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
The City of Aurora hereby accepts and agrees to be bound by
all
terms
and
conditions
of
the
Order
of
the
Pollution
Control
~oard in PCB 85—51, dated
Title
Date
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
1.
D. Dumelle concurred.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
o.f
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
hereby
certify
that
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
on the
J/~
day of
,
1985
by
a
vote
of
___.
7
Dorothy M.
unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
65-64
