ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 20,

1985

CITY OF GENEVA,

)

Petitioner,

)

V.

)

PCB 85-93

)

ThLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY.,

)

Respondent.

)

DISSENTING

OPINION

(by

J.D.

Dumelle):

The

Board

majority,

by

a

4-3

vote,

has

granted

a

13-month

variance

beyond

January

12,

1986.

The

health consequences

of

this

variance

grant

are

that

additional bone cancers or leukemias may be induced.

The Board

instead should have dismissed the instant variance

as moot

in

light

of the enactment of R85-14 on August

15,

1985.

There are two major problems with granting this variance.

First, there may be no hardship existing after January

12,

1986.

All of the potential developers may well have been granted

their permits by that date.

What then is the hardship after that

date

until

March

30,

1987?

it

is

simply speculative.

Second,

the

Board

majority

here

relies

on

the

Aurora

testimony

of

July

11

and

completely

neglects

the

later

filings

and

testimony

in

R85-14.

The

August

2,

1985

issue

of

the

Journal

of

the

American

Medical

Association

carried

a

major

article

UtT~

“Association

of

Leukemia

With

Radium

Groundwater

Contamination”.

(See

Dissenting

Opinion

in

R85-14

by

J.D.

Dumele

which

discusses

its

import.)

This

Board

can

consider

material

in

its

own

rulemakings.

Yet

here

the

Board

majorit.y

has

chosen

to

put

on

blinders

and

not

look

at

a

record

developed

before

it

on

the

identical

subject.

Since

the

August

:L5,

1985

enactment

of

R85-14,

additional

important exhibits

have gone into that proceeding.

One exhibit

from

Dr. Edward

J. Calabrese’s book shows absorption approaching

iOO~,

in infants which directly contradicts

Dr. Toohey’s use of

a

20

absorption factor.

Another exhibit is

a Canadian study of

water consumption which refutes Dr. Toohey’s use of one liter

per

day

and

indicates

that the conventional two liter per day figure

is

the

more

accurate

and

better

figure

to

use.

These two

later

exhibits

were

not

in the instant variance

record.

The

Board

majority

should

have denied the instant

65-523

---

-2-

variance

as moot.~called attention to these new and

important

exhibits and asked that any new filings consider and discuss

their import.

Finally, the

U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency is

expected to issue

its

re-evaluation of the radium standard this

month.

The

“dismissal

as moot”

order,

if enacted, would have

bought time

to receive and consider the latest scientific opinion

from

that

agency.

I would urge

~

public officials of

Geneva to examine the

scientific

art i~ :.~cussedabove.

In view of the far higher

absorption rat~~

:~nfants (400)

and thus

the possible danger

of inducing le~::

-r cancer in children

I would

urge that only

low-radium wat~~:.•:led or softened water) be given

to children

or to pregnant

Finally.I would urge Geneva to obtain

a

low-radium

water

~iy

as

soon

as

possible.

acob D. Dumelle,

P.E

Chairman

I,

Dorothy

14.

.unn,

Cle

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board, hereby cer~~ythat the

above Dissenting Opinion was

filed

on the

j~4~

day of

~

.

~.

~

~

Dorothy M. ~unn, Clerk

--

Illinois Pollution Control Board

65-524