ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 13, 1982
VILLAGE OF ROUND LAKE,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 82—17
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the February 23, 1982
petition for variance filed by the Village of Round Lake (Village).
The Village seeks variance until December 31, 1984 from the 15
pCi/i gross alpha particle activity limitation of Rule 304(C)(1)
of Chapter 6: Public Water Supply. On March 24, 1982 the Illinots
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its Recommendation
in support of variance. Hearing was waived and none has been heLL
The Village of Round Lake, Lake County, serves the water
needs of its approximately 2,578 (the Agency estimated 3,107)
residents from two wells. Well #2 is a shallow (359’ deep) well
supplying approximately 120,000 gallons per day (gpd), while Well
#3 is a deep (1241’ deep) well supplying approximately 240,000
gpd. Analysis on May 12, 1980 of Agency samples of water taken
from the Village’s distribution system April 7, 1980 showed a
gross alpha particle activity level of 22.3 ±4.26 pCi/l.* A
composite of four quarterly distribution system samples taken
between April 7, 1980 and June 9, 1981 showed a gross alpha
level of 19.9 ±3.64. (No test results concerning radium 226 and
228 levels were provided to the Board.)
Thereafter, the Village engaged Hazeiton Environmental
Sciences Corporation to perform additional sampling. Attached
as Exhibit C to the Village’s petition is the result of one
distribution system sample taken October 8, 1981 showing a gross
alpha particle activity level of 2.0 ±1.2 pCi/i, a level well
within the Board’s standard. The Agency contacted Hazelton
*The Agency did not comment on the accuracy of the analyses
of these samples, which took place during a period of time when
the Agency subsequently discovered that there were problems with
the testing procedures.
47-23
2
concerning this result on March 1, 1982, and discovered that
Hazelton did not know from where the sample had been taken. The
Agency noted that it could have been taken near well #2 or even
from a house with a water softener. The Agency also found that
Hazelton had, however, also determined that the gross alpha
particle activity level of shallow Well #2 was less than 1.0 pCi/i,
while that of deep Well #3 was found to be 16.1 ±3.9 pCi/i.
Finally, Agency distribution system samples taken in November and
December, 1981 showed gross alpha particle activity levels,
respectively in pci/i, of 9.07 ±2.67 and 8.45 ±2.48, again, well.
within the Board’s standard.
The threshold question, then, is whether variance is even
necessary, given these varying analyses. Rule 309(C)(1)(a)
provides in part that “Compliance (with Rule 304J shall be based
on the analysis of an annual composite of four consecutive
quarterly samples...” The Board has previously held that, a
single sample is a sufficient indicator of non-compliance and the
need for variance relief, even though no enforcement action could
be brought until a non—complying composite sample had been obtained
(e.g. City of Rolling Meadows v. IEPA, PCB 80—70, July 14, 1980).
Fortunately, the Board need not rely in this case on non—composite
analysis alone, as the Agency analysis of the composite of the
April, 1980 through June, 1981 quarterly samples shows gross alpha
levels of 19.9 ±3.64. Therefore, the Board finds that the
Village’s system is out of compliance, for the purpose of justi-
fication of need for, and Board consideration of, the Village’s
variance request.
In support of its petition, the Village states that it
understands that installation of a water softening system to
remove radioactivity would cost approximately $400,000
-
$500,000.
The Village believes that immediate compliance would impose an
unreasonable economic hardship. This is based on the fact that,
as of the petition’s filing, the Village had outstanding a
principal balance of $347,000 for bonds relating to water works
and sewer improvement. In addition it noted that its residents
were being faced with increased sewer charges (a dispute between
the Village and Lake County as to whether the total monthly charge
should be $6.00 or $9.00 as evidenced in Ex. E—F to the petition).
The Village also states, however, that it is its intention to
engage a water resource consultant to consider compliance
requirements and options.
The Agency does not dispute the Village’s hardship assertions,
and states its belief that grant of variance “will not result in
an unreasonable risk to health”. The Agency therefore recommends
grant of variance until January 1, 1984 subject to conditions
including engagement of a water resource consultant within four
months.
Based on the Village’s uncertainty as to whether variance
was necessary, the Board does not find the petition’s lack of data
concerning compliance options to be a fatal deficiency in light oE
the Village’s asserted willingness to develop such information.
47-24
3
The Board observes that neither the Village nor the Agency has
presented details about the distribution system. Nor have they
discussed whether the waters of the two wells are already blended
or, if so, whether better blending might deliver finished water
in compliance with the radiological quality standards. Based on
the information presented, the Board cannot assess the economic
feasibility of this option, but does note that the shallow well
is capable of pumping roughly one—half (120,000 gpd) of the water
pumped by the deep well (240,000 gpd).
The Board does find, however, that to require immediate
compliance would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,
particularly since there would appear to be little immediate
risk to health from consuming the Village’s water if variance is
granted (see Village of Lemont v. IEPA, PCB 80—48, April 30, 1981).
The Board will therefore grant a short—term variance subject to
conditions, until June 1, 1983, during which time the Village
shall investigate blending and any other compliance options. In
addition, given the divergent sample results, it is even more
than usually important that testing continue, and the Board will
so order.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1. Petitioner, the Village of Round Lake, is granted a
variance from the 15 pCi/l gross alpha particle activity limit o~
Rule 304(C)(1)(b) of Chapter 6: Public Water Supply until June 1,
1983, subject to the following conditions:
a. Petitioner shall, in consultation with the Agency,
continue its sampling program to determine as accurately as
possible the level of radioactivity in its wells and finished
water. Testing for radium 226 and 228 shall be commenced.
b On or before September 15, 1982 the Petitioner
shall secure professional assistance in investigating
compliance options, including the possibility and feasibility
of achieving compliance by blending water from its shallow
well with that of its deep well. On or before October 15,
1982, evidence that such professional assistance has been
secured shall be submitted to Wayne Weimersiage, Enforcement
Programs, at the address stated in paragraph 2, below.
c. As expeditiously after identification of a
feasible compliance method as is practicable, hut no later
than April 1, 1983, Petitioner shall submit a program (with
increments of progress) for bringing its system into
compliance with radiological quality standards to the Agency’s
Division of Public Water Supplies, FOS, at the address stated
in paragraph 2, below.
47-25
4
d. Pursuant to Rule 313(D)(1) of Chapter 6, 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 has been granted by the Pollution Control Board
a variance from the 15 pCi/l maximum gross alpha particle
activity standard. The notice shall state the average
content of gross alpha particle activity in samples taken
since the last notice period during which samples were taken.
2. Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, PWS Enforcement Programs, 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 certificate shall
be as follows:
CERTIFICATE
I, (We),
____________________________—~
,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 82—17,
dated __________________________________, understand and accept the
said Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By: Aut1~rizedAgent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, here~ certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the ~ day of fr)
,
1982 by a vote of
Christan L. Moffe 1~)/t~lerk
Illinois Pollution ‘t~~trolBoard
47-26