ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

29,

1982

CITY

OF

WENONA,

)

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB

82—11

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION

AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

J.

Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board

on the February

3,

1982

petition for

variance filed by the

City of Wenona

(CitY).

The

City seeks

a five year variance from the 15 pCi/i gross alpha

particle activity

limitation of

Rule 304(C)(1)

of Chapter 6:

Public

Water Supplies,

On March 18,

1982 the Illinois Environ-

mental

Protection Agency

(Agency)

moved to file its Recommendation

in support

of grant of variance

until january

1,

1984 instanter,

which

motion is granted.

Hearing was waived and none has been

held.

The City

of

Wenona, Marshall County, supplies water to its

500 users

(population approximately

1,100)

from one primary deep

(1837

feet) well pumping approximately 100,000

gallons per day.

One

additional shallow

(62 feet)

well exists, but its water

is not

further treated at

the

City’s treatment plant and is used only for

emergencies

as its long term yield has

been only

25 gallons per

minute.

May

7,

1981 test

results from a composite of

four

distribution

samples showed

gross

alpha particle activity levels

of

42,9 ±

9,86 pCi/i, and

gross beta levels of 31.1 ±9.62 pCi/i.

No

tests

for radium 226,

228 or uranium were

performed.

Based on its own experience

since 1930 in attempting to

locate shallow aquifer water sources,

and

on reports

of the State

Water and Geological Surveys,

the City believes

no alternative

shallow groundwater supply exists with which to replace its deep

Well

#5.

No sufficient alternative surface water supplies have

been located.

Accordingly, the City

is of the opinion that

compliance can be achieved only through treatment

of

its deep

well water by a lime softening method,

since the zeolite process

would

add to the water’s already high sodium content.

A

softening

plant is estimated to require capital expenditures of

$270,000,

and additional annual operation, maintenance,

and

sludge disposal

fees of

$20,000.

The City alleges that

achieving compliance in

this manner would impose an arbitrary

or unreasonable hardship on

46—219

---

2

its citizens.

Financing of bonds for the initial capital cost

would require

a 25

to 34

increase in property taxes

(currently

$5.38 per $100 assessed valuation),

Monthly water bills would

also he raised to cover the increase

in annual expenditures, from

the current $8.62 to $12.45

(44).

Imposition of these costs

is

viewed as particularly onerous as no adverse health e~ectshave

been observed, and as the City

is aware that some

experts have

recommended

to USEPA that the gross alpha

particle activity

limitation can safely be raised to 90 pCi/l.

The Agency does not disagree with the

facts

and assertions

presented by the City.

The Agency recommends that variance relief

he made

available only through January

1,

1984,

the deadline date

for

exemptions under §1416 of the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA).

The Board observes that neither the City nor the Agency has

considered or discussed the possibility

of blending the waters of

the

shallow well with those of the deep well,

so as

to 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—third

(36,000

gpd) of the water pumped by the deep well

(100,000 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 City’s water

if variance is granted

(see

~

v.

IEPA,

PCB 80-48,

April 30,

1981).

The Board

will therefore grant a short—term variance subject to conditions,

until January

1,

1983, during which time the City shall investigate

the

blending option.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s

findings of fact and

conclusions of

law in this matter,

ORDER

1.

Petitioner,

the City of Wenona,

is granted a variance

from the 15 pCi/i gross alpha particle activity limit of Rule

304(C)(ii(b)

of Chapter

6:

Public Water Supply until January

1,

1933,

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

he commenced.

h.

Petitioner shall investigate the possibility

and

economic feasibility of blending water from its shallow well

with that of its deep well

to reduce the radiation level

in

its finished water,

Beginning

on or about August

1,

1982,

arid at six month intex~alsthereafter,

Petitioner

shall

communicate with the Agency to determine whether

gross alpha

particle removal techniques specifically applicable

to small

46—220

---

3

systems have been developed and identified.

As expedLtiously

after identification of a feasible compliance method as

it

practicable, hut no later than April

1,

1983,

Petitioner

shall

submit to the Agency a program

(with

increments of

progress) for bringing its systen into co~ç~liance

~tth

radiological quality standards.

c.

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

whicii 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 ~ll terms and conditions

of this ~rariarice.

This forty—five day period shall be held in abeyance for

dfl~

period

this matter is being appealed.

The form of the certificate

~haT1

be

CERTIFICATE

I,

(We),

________

____

______

_____,

the Order of the Xllinois Pollution Control Board

in PCB 82-11,

dated

__________________

—,

understand and accept the

said Order,

realizing that

such

acceptance

renders

all

terv~s

and

conditions

Petitioner

~3y:

Authorized

Agent

Title

Date

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED

I,

Chri~stinL. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board.,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

~ias

on

the

~

day

of

1982

by

a

vote

of

Christan L.

Moff

Illinois

Polluti

46—221