Residents of Sauk Village, Ill. want some
answers about vinyl chloride that has been contaminating their water since
2009, but there have been few answers coming their way, according to this article, and this one.
During June and July 2012, crowded, anger-infused public
meetings resulted in one of them being shut down as people accused the local
government and the state of not providing enough information on the dangers of
the contamination. Distressed residents also wondered why so little had been
done since the pollution was discovered three years ago.
By early August 2012, air strippers were operating at the
village’s wells #1 and #2, and seven test wells were planned for installation
throughout August to sample water and determine not only contamination levels
but also the direction contamination is moving through the ground, according to
this Illinois document.
Environmental officials don’t know the source of the
contamination and have said that it may never be known. But the lack of that
information hasn’t been as contentious as the lack of reliable and consistent
information on when it was safe to use the water and when it was not safe. At
one time residents were told that officials could not confirm whether the water
was safe. Part of that issue stems from Environmental Protection Agency
guidelines on vinyl chloride in water. The agency sets a limit of 2 parts per
billion as the action level -- the amount of the contamination that requires
action to reduce its presence. The EPA however also states that no amount of
vinyl chloride is safe in drinking water. Meanwhile, Illinois has an action
level of 1 ppb as a safety level to ensure contamination is caught in time to
take action before it reaches the federal limit.
Other concerns arose over the nature of vinyl chloride. As a
volatile organic compound it easily transfers to air, posing vapor intrusion
risks in buildings where it can be inhaled by occupants. That same
characteristic is what makes it easier to deal with by stripping it out into
air in specially-designed water cleaning systems. Still, residents have been
left wondering about their exposure to the water during the time it was not
being treated. Those concerns extended to uses other than for drinking, such as
using it for bathing, washing dishes and boiling foods. Businesses, especially
restaurants, had received conflicting guidance that left them wondering if
their premises were safe, or whether they should be serving food. Even after
treatment, questions remain about safety if any of the contaminant still
remains, even amounts below the state’s action level.
