ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 24,

1979

VILLAGE OF CARY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 77—339

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent,

MR~ BERNARD

J.

 NARUSIS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

MR. DEAN HANSELL,

 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF

 OF THE AGENCY.

SUPPLEMENTARY

 OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Dumelle):

On March 16,

 1978 the Board denied Petitioner a variance

from the standard for barium in Rule

 304 B

 4 of Chapter

6:

Public Water Supplies.

 On April

27,

 1978 the Board granted

Petitioner~smotion for a rehearing

 on this matter.

A

hearing was held on March

1,

 1979 at the Village Hall in

Cary

Petitioner’s water supply draws

 from three wells.

 Well

#3

 is a

shallow well which pumps

 an average of 300 gallons

per minute with no barium (R.29,32).

 Well

#4

 is a

deep well

which pumps an average of

460 gallons per minute with an

average concentration of 4.0 mg/l barium

 (R.35,29,33).

 Well

#6

 is a deep well which pumps an average of 780 gallons per

 minute with an average concentration of 8.0 mg/l barium.

Petitioner does

not provide for barium removal

 at any of

these sources

 (R,33) although the standard for barium is 1.0

mg/l,

 Well

 #3 and Well

 #4 supply water to an elevated

250,000 gallon tank which maintains pressure

 in the area

served by these wells

 (R.21,23).

 Well

 #4 supplies water

to

an independent 250,000 gallon ground level storage tank

which maintains pressure for that well’s service area

 (R.48).

The entire

system serves a population of 6500 with 1300-1400

industrial,

 commercial and residential

 users

 (R.16,17).

Petitioner feels

 it would suffer an arbitrary and

unreasonable hardship if it were required to comply with the

present 1.0 mg/l standard for barium.

 Water from Well #4

would require softening

 at a capital

 cost of approximately

$250,000,

 Water from Well

 #6 would require softening with

33—55 7

—2—

the addition of

 lime,

 caustic

or soda ash to prevent corro-

sion at a capital

 cost

of $250,000

 (Ex.19),

 Additional

annual operating costs

of

$40,000-$60,000 would be incurred

 to maintain these

improvements.

 Petitioner feels that these

costs are rendered

unreasonable because there are

 no adverse

health effects known

from

long term consumption of barium in

drinking water,

 Petitioner

supports this contention by

referring to a recently

completed study which sought to

compare human mortality

and morbidity rates

 in Illinois

communities which exceeded or met the barium standard

 (Ex.2).

The authors of that study stated

that there was not enough

information available to

conclude

that there were or were

not adverse health effects

from barium consumption

 (Ex,4).

In

Exhibit

6,

 the Director of the

U.S. EPA Health Effects

Research Laboratory

confirmed

the finding that no positive

or negative

conclusions could be drawn.

 Petitioner

 feels

that water softening would

result in increased sodium and

a

resulting danger to users

who already suffer from hyper-

tension and related conditions

 (R.134,

 Ex,11).

 The author

of Exhibit

 2 does

not feel

that there

 is evidence of adverse

 health effects attributable to consumption of softened

water,

 U.S. EPA concurs with

the recommendations

 of the

American Heart Association which specify sodium restricted

diets for several disease conditions

 (Ex,6),

In

 of Cr~ystal

Lake

 EPA,

 PCB 77—332, March 29,

1979 and ~fl~of

 Algonquin

 EPA, PCB 78-3,

 April

26,

1979 the Board granted

variances from the barium standard on

the condition

 (inter al.) that those communities maintain a

level of 4,0 mg7Tb~riumduring their variances.

 Petitioner

feels that this condition cannot be achieved in this instance.

Although Wells

 3 and

6

are

 both supplying water to the

elevated

storage tank,

 this mixture

 would not affect the

quality of finished water at

the tap

 (R,91),

 If Well

#6

was

removed from the system,

 thereby eliminating high barium

levels, Wells

 3 and 4 could not meet peak demand

 (R,30).

Well

 #6 could be set to start

up only during times of water

main breaks,

 fires and malfunctions

 (R,51),

but

 it is not

clear how often this would occur.

 This type of control

would not be very expensive

 (R.37)

but it is not immediately

available,

 The Cary Fire

Protection District has indicated

that all three wells are needed

at all times

 to maintain

adequate pressure for fire flows

 (R,137,

 Ex,22).

Wells

 3 and

 6 could be connected and mixed to achieve

a

4,0 mg/l barium concentration

at

a

cost

of approximately

$100,000

 (R.106),

 This alternative might require rebuilding

the pump

 at Well

 #6 since

 it would have to be throttled to

match the smaller volume from Well #3.

 This alternative

is

not presently available

and would result in wasted power

(R,65),

 Petitioner has planned to add 200 homes to its

system in 1979

 (R.122)

and

presently has two industrial

parks attempting to hook

on.

 Although the relationship

between industrial development and this proceeding is not

33—558

—3—

clear,

it

would appear that without Well

#6

 in regular

operation,

 these developments can not proceed (R.130,131).

Petitioner’s water capital fund is presently operating

at a

deficit of $2,300

 (R,114),

 but the record is silent on

whether future home and industrial connections would remedy

this problem.

 There

 is also no evidence

 to show whether

Petitioner’s rate structure could be adjusted without arbi-

trary or unreasonable hardship.

If this variance were denied again,

 Petitioner would be

required to provide all of its drinking water from Well

#3.

This

would constitute hardship because Well

#3

 is not suffi—

ciently productive

 or reliable to meet the task.

 This hard-

ship is rendered arbitrary

 or unreasonable when it is compared

to the

unknown health effects of barium ingestion in drinking

water.

 The barium levels in Petitioner’s

 system which are

listed in the Agency’s Amendment to its Recommendation do

not disclose

any immediate threat to public health.

Since the Board has concluded that relief

 is needed,

the issues remaining are the length and conditions of the

relief.

 When the Board selected 4.0 mg/l

as

 an interim

standard for barium in City of Crystal Lake and Village of

Algonquin,

 cited above,

 the standard was based on draft

guidance from U.S. EPA and present capabilities of those two

water supplies.

 In this instance,

 the 4.0 mg/l standard

is

not immediately achievable.

 Consequently the Board will

limit this variance to a period of

 six months.

 This way the

Board and the Agency will remain apprised of Petitioner’s

efforts

 to correct this noncompliance.

 Section 35 of the Act

states that variances must be consistent with the Federal Safe

Drinking Water Act.

 In order to assure that Petitioner meet

the barium standard by January

1,

 1981, which

 is the Federal

deadline,

 the Board will require a detailed analysis of Peti-

tioner’s plans

 to reach timely compliance.

One of Petitioner’s witnesses

 stated that blending the

water from Wells

 3 and 6 could result in the formation of a

barium sulfate precipitate which could be removed through

filtration

 (R,89).

 This alternative should be investigated

along

with

conventional

 softening techniques.

 Petitioner

has indicated

that new shallow well sites are being investi-

gated

 (R,84,98-101),

 Petitioner’s plans should address the

possibility of using these sources for blending.

 The record

is silent on the chemical composition of the barium compound

presently found in Petitioner’s supply and whether it could

 be removed without blending through some other treatment tech-

nique.

 Petitioner~splans should include a laboratory analysis

of the form

of barium compound being detected and an evaluation

of alternatives based on that analysis.

3 3—55 9

—4—

The Board agrees with the Agency’s position that Petition-

er not be required to conduct

 a survey of blood pressure

levels among its high risk residents as recommended in the

U.S.

 EPA guidance document.

 A survey of this nature would

involve considerable expense and would be of dubious value

in

 light of the inconsistent results obtained in Exhibit

2.

In a similar vein,

 the Board will not set a specific sampling

schedule for the Agency.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions

 of law in this matter.

ORDER

1,

 Petitioner

 is hereby granted a variance from the

standard for barium in Rule 304

B

 4 of Chapter

6:

Public Water Supplies for six months from the date

of this Order.

2.

 Within 90 days of the date of this Order Petitioner

shall submit a Petition for an Extension of this

variance in compliance with Procedural Rule 402

which shall include, but not be limited to,

the

following:

a)

 A detailed laboratory analysis of the form of

the barium compound being detected in Peti-

tioner’s water supply;

b)

 A detailed evaluation of costs and timetables

necessary to meet the barium standard by

January

 1, 1981 through blending or any other

additional means of treatment;

and

c)

 An analysis

 of the means by which Petitioner

will raise the necessary revenues to finance

any necessary improvements.

3.

 Within 45 days of the date of this Order,

 Petitioner

shall execute a Certificate of acceptance and

agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions

of this variance.

 The Certificate shall

 be forwarded

to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

Division of Public Water Supplies,

 2200 Churchill

Road,

 Springfield,

 Illinois

 62706.

 This 45 day

period shall be held in abeyance if this matter is

appealed.

 The form of the Certificate

 shall be

as follows:

33—560

—5—

CERTIFICATION

I

 (We), ___________________________,

 having read and

fully understanding the Order in PCB 77-339, hereby accept

that Order and agree to be bound by all

 of its terms and

conditions.

SIGNED __________________________

TITLE __________________________

DATE

_____

_________________

IT

 IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

 hereby certify the _~oveSupplementary Opinion

and Order were adopted on the

______

 day of

____________I

1979byavoteof~S—~

Christan L.

 Moffett, ~,X~rk

Illinois Pollution Con’f~rolBoard

33—56