ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    May
    14,
    1981
    CITY OF WEST CHICAGO,
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 80—227
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    JOEL G. FINA, HAROLD
    J. SPELMAN AND ASSOCIATES, APPEARED ON
    BEHALF OF PETITIONER.
    DAVID RIESER
    AND
    MARILI McFAWN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE
    BOARD
    (by J. Anderson~:
    This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
    variance of the City of West Chicago
    (City),
    filed December 15,
    1980 and amended December
    24,
    1980.
    The City seeks variance from
    the
    5 pCi/i radium and the 15 pCi/i
    gross alpha particle activity
    limitations of Rule 304(C)(1) of Chapter
    6:
    Public Water Supply.
    On January
    22,
    1981,
    the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) filed its Recommendation in support of grant of variance.
    A brief hearing was held on March
    30,,
    1981,
    at which one member of
    the public was present.
    The City
    of West Chicago,
    located in DuPage County,
    distributes drinking water to approximately 12,000 residents and
    90 non—residents.
    Their water needs
    are currently served by the
    water
    from three deep wells, one or
    aLli
    of which. are
    in violation
    of the gross alpha standard:
    a Decerrtber,
    1980 Agency analysis of
    the water from the City’s distribution system showed gross alpha
    particle activity of 21.8 ±6.47 pCi/i.
    Tests for radium 226 and
    228 had not been performed
    (Pet.
    6-7).
    While the single gross alpha test is sufficient to indicate
    violation of the standard for variance purposes, variance from
    the radium standard cannot be granted when no tests have been
    performed.
    Variance from the radium standard is therefore denied
    as unwarranted at this time.
    The City has applied for and received a Lake Michigan water
    allocation, but the allocation is not available until
    1985
    (Rec.
    2—3).
    Prior to receipt of the allocat.ion,
    the City had determined
    that development of an additional watE~rsource to blend with its
    current water source was the most cosi~effective compliance option.
    41—421

    2
    As of the filing date of the petition,
    the
    City
    had already
    expended $45,000 in the process of drilling two new shallow wells.
    The total cost of the project
    is expected to be $350,000,
    and
    t~i~
    pumps are expected to be operational by July,
    1982.
    The
    City
    seeks
    variance
    to
    allow
    it
    to
    continue
    to
    distrib’~t’~
    water
    from
    its
    deep
    wells
    pending
    completion
    of
    the
    shallow
    w’~ll;.
    The City states that during the life of
    the
    variance
    that
    it would
    modify its operating procedure,
    to restrict the running time ot
    the wells with the higher radioactivity levels
    (Pet.
    4).
    The City did not put on additional evidence at hearing.
    ‘~h-~
    ~.gency
    presented testimony of one employee—witness,
    Mrs. Dor~th;
    Bennett.
    Mrs. Bennett testified that in her expert opinion th~
    risk to the health of the City’s water users from consuming water
    from the deep wells until the shallow wells were completed
    “should
    be minimal at these
    (gross aiphal
    levels”
    (R.
    15).
    The Board finds that denial of variance from the gross
    alplv:
    standard would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,
    in
    view of the City’s past efforts and expenditures towards com-
    pliance, the short term of the variance requested, and the
    miriir~l
    risk to health.
    Variance,
    subject to the conditions outlined in
    the attached Order, is granted until September
    1,
    1982.
    The tern
    has been extended three months beyond the term requested to
    allow
    a slight cushion for start—up problems and delay
    in putting
    the
    two new wells on—line.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    1.
    Petitioner, the City of West Chicago,
    is granted a
    variance from the
    15 pCi/i gross alpha particle activity limit~.-
    tion of Rule 304(C)(1)(b)
    of Chapter
    6:
    Public Water Supplies,
    until September 1,
    1982,
    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.
    Petitioner shall expeditiously continue development
    of two new shallow wells as an additional source
    to blend with its current well source.
    C.
    The Petitioner
    shall modify its operating procedures
    so as to minimize the level of radioactivity
    in the
    water delivered
    to its users.
    D.
    Pursuant to Rule 313(D)(1) of Chapter
    6,
    in its
    first set of water bills or within three months
    41—422

    3
    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 a variance from the
    radiological quality standards by the Pollution
    Control
    Board.
    The
    notice
    shall
    state
    the
    average
    content of gross
    alpha particle activity and
    radium,
    including available results from samples
    taken since the last notice period.
    2.
    Variance from the radium standard of Rule 304(C)(lUa)
    is
    denied as unnecessary at this time.
    3.
    Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
    Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agenc~(,PWS Enforcement Pro9rams,
    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
    PCI3
    80—227,
    dated __________________________, understand and accept the said
    Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
    conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
    Petitioner
    By:
    Authorized Agent
    Title
    Date
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
    were adopted on the
    J4h
    day of
    /y’~
    ~.
    ,
    1981 by
    avoteof
    &i~
    .
    (1
    Christan L. Moffett~~~~1erk
    Illinois Pollution ~C~ntrol~oari
    41—423

    Back to top