ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 19, 1987

CITY OF YOR!(VILLE,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 87—33

PCB 86—24

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (By 3. Marlin):

This matter comes before the Board on a Petition for

Extension of Prior Variance filed on March 12, 1987 by the City

of Yorkville (Yorkville). On May 9, 1986, in PCB 86—24, the

Board granted Yorkville a variance, which expires on May 9, 1989,

from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.105(a), Standards for Issuance, and

602.106(b), Restricted Status, as they relate to the combined

radium standard of Section 604.301(a). In its May 9, 1986 Order,

the Board set forth a time schedule for Yorkville’s

implementation of a compliance plan during the variance period.

The instant petition of Yorkville requests a six—month

extension for various deadlines contained in the compliance

schedule of the May 9, 1986 Order. Specifically, Yorkville

requests an additional six months in which to present a detailed

plan for compliance and subsequently apply for necessary permits

needed to implement a compliance alternative. Yorkville is not

requesting an extension for the compliance date of May 9, 1989.

The reason behind the extension request is that Yorkville is

considering, as a compliance alternative, a new filtering system

which is manufactured by Iso—Clear. The Iso—Clear system is

currently being tested, and the results of these tests will not

be known for at least six months. Yorkville does not wish to

install an Iso—Clear system until detailed scientific data is

available which demonstrates the success of the system.

The Board notes that the Iso—Clear system is a technology

which shows some promise in the field of radium removal. An

additional six months would allow Yorkville to more accurately

evaluate the Iso—Clear system as a control alternative. It is

important to emphasize that Yorkville is not requesting an

extension of the length of the previously granted variance.

Rather, it is merely seeking to alter the scheduling of certain

steps in achieving compliance. Due to the above factors, the

Board will view the March 12, 1987 petition as a Motion for

Modification under the original docket in this case, PCB 86—24,

pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.241.

76.381

---

If either Yorkville or the Agency objects to the

characterization of the instant petition as a Motion for

Modification, then it should file such an objection with the

Board by March 30, 1987. If no objection is received by the

Board by that date, the Clerk will re—docket the petition

accordingly. The Agency should file any response to the Motion

for Modification by April 13, 1987.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

J.D. Dumelle dissented.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby~certifythat the above Order was adopted on

the

/5~’-~ day of Y7z~L

,

1987 by a vote

of ~c—,

7

I:

~

~

Dorothy ~ Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board