ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July
    9,
    1981
    VILLAGE
    OF WAUCONDA,
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB
    81—12
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    Anderson):
    This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
    variance of the Village of Wauconda (Village),
    filed January 28,
    1981 and amended April
    20,
    1981.
    The Village seeks variance
    fror,
    the 1.0 mg/i maximum barium concentration limitation of Rule 304
    (B)(4)
    of Chapter
    6:
    Public Water Supplies.
    The Board had
    previously denied the Village variance from this standard in
    Village of Wauconda v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 79—185
    (October 18,
    1979), which
    record was incorporated into this action by the Board Order of
    February
    5,
    1981,
    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) filed its Recommendation that this variance request also
    be denied on May
    15,
    1981.
    Hearing was waived and none has been
    held.
    The Village of Wauconda, in Lake County,
    has four wells wit~i
    which
    it could supply water to approximately 6000 people.
    It is
    currently supplying its users with water only from shallow Wells
    1,
    2,
    and
    3, which are located in the southwest; section of the
    Village in near proximity to a 100,000 gallon elevated tank.
    These
    wells are in compliance with the Board’s barium standards.*
    How-
    ever,
    the waters of these wells contain iron in excess of 0.3 mg/i,
    and have very high hardness of about
    370 mg/i.
    This has been the
    cause of complaints to the Village about “rusty water,
    tastes,
    and
    odors” since 1979 when these three wells began to be used as primary
    water
    sources.
    From 1973 to 1979, deep Well
    #4 with its barium content of
    3.6 mg/l was the Village’s primary water
    source.
    This well’s
    water contains 0.0 mg/l of iron (sic),
    and 220 mg/i of hardness,
    and is accordingly preferred to that of the other wells for
    domestic use.
    Well
    #4 is connected
    to a 500,000 gallon elevated
    tank in the northeast portion of the Village.
    *The Board notes a considerable discrepancy
    in the barium
    levels recited for these wells
    in PCB 79—185
    (0.2,
    0.3,
    and
    0.8, mg/i),
    and in the instant petition
    (0.06,
    0.06,
    0.07 mg/i).
    43—21
    2
    As the Board found in PCB 79—185, Wells
    1,
    2,
    and
    3 are
    adequate to handle the Village’s ordinary water needs, but not to
    handle emergency needs
    such as firefighting.
    The Village reasserts
    here that without use of its fourth well with its large storage
    tank,
    that it cannot maintain proper water storage capacity for
    fire protection.
    The petition in PCB 79—185 was dismissed as inappropriate,
    since it anticipated and sought variance for “an emergency con-
    dition before the fact”,
    The instant petition differs from the
    earlier one in that
    it alleges that water users have complained
    about the quality
    of the shallow wells’ water, and that it notes
    that
    the deadline date
    for
    exemptions under the Safe Drinking Water
    Act have been extended.
    Also, an engineering report supplied with
    the amended petition notes that the existing design of the pumping
    controls for maintaining storage capacity in the two tanks results
    in a hydraulic head loss
    in
    the mains between the tanks during peak
    demand unless Well
    #4 is also
    in use,
    leading to an inability to
    maintain proper water storage capacity
    for
    fire protection.
    While
    the Board obviously
    is concerned about the Village maintaining
    sufficient supply capacity to serve its needs,
    the Board has
    insufficient information as to why the system cannot be adjusted
    so that Well
    #4 can be used either
    for auxiliary backup or
    in such
    other manner that the system can continue to comply with the barium
    standard,
    short of use for fire protection during peak loads.
    The Agency recommends denial
    of variance for failure to prove
    arbitrary and unreasonable hardship, characterizing the petition
    as involving only a question of
    “a matter of taste” preference for
    non-complying water over complying water.
    The Agency also notes
    that the water from
    Wells
    1,
    2,
    and
    3 is still well within the
    Board’s standards for ininerological quality.
    While
    the Board
    is not unheeding of the unpleasant qualities
    of the shallow wells’ waters,
    it cannot find that this inconvenience
    is of sufficient magnitude as to amount to an arbitrary or unreason-
    able hardship.
    The Board declines to grant variance to allow the
    Village to move from a state of compliance to one of non—compliance.
    Variance is accordingly denied.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s
    findings of fact and
    conclusions of law
    in this matter.
    ORDER
    Petitioner,
    the Village of Wauconda, is hereby denied
    variance from Rule 304(B)(4) of Chapter
    6:
    Public Water Supplies.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Anderson abstained.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Orde.r was
    adopted on the
    ‘Y~
    day of
    ____________,
    1981 by a vote of
    ~
    (I
    ~
    ~/‘~ç)~/1,~
    (:(.
    Christan L. Moffetl~J~lerk
    Illinois Pollution tth~trolBoard

    Back to top