ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

20,

1986

CENTRAL ILLINOIS UTILITY CO.,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 86—53

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

CONCURRING OPINION (by J. Anderson):

At the outset,

I wish

to assure

the Agency that

I appreciate

why it felt the need

to recommend the addition of the “not to

exceed

4 mg/l” condition.

However,

I concurred

in order

to make clear

that

I voted

affirmatively solely to assure that the variance became

finalized, and not because the underlying

rationale was

persuasive.

I cannot fathom what purpose

is

served by the addition of

the condition.

On the one hand,

the Agency bases

its request in

part on the fact that the Petitioner’s raw water has yet to

exceed 4.0 mg/l;

therefore, the condition at best is useless.

On

the other

hand,

if the fluoride content of the raw water were

actually to exceed

4 mg/l, exactly what changed compliance action

is expected of the petitioner?

Nothing

is stated.

Would

the USEPA revoke the variance because it does not

contain

a changed compliance plan with increments of progress?

One could continue to speculate.

But the point is that the

condition as

it now stands leads nowhere;

it

is actually an

exhortation to the groundwater source to behave itself.

Conditions that lead nowhere are not harmless.

A variance

condition,

if

it is to be effective in assuring environmental

protection, must at

a minimum articulate what it expects of the

petitioner and be enforceable.

This condition does not pass this

test.

Therefore,

I concur.

k

~Joan G. Anderson

74-101

---

—2—

I, Dorothy N.

Gunn, Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Concurring Opinion was

submitted on the

~

day of ______________________,

1986.

,~.

/~~

Dorothy M. /Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

74-102