ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 20,

1995

VILLAGE OF NORTH AURORA,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 95—42

(Variance

—

PWS)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by M. McFawn):

This matter is before the Board on a January 20,

1995

petition for extension of variance filed by the Village of North

Aurora (Village, North Aurora or petitioner).

North Aurora seeks

an extension of its previously granted variance from the

requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.105(a),

“Standards for

Issuance”,

and 602.106(b),

“Restricted Status”,

to the extent

those rules are applicable to the maximum contaminant level

(MCL)

for combined radium-226 and radiuni-228 of

5 picocuries per liter

(pCi/l).

That standard is set forth at 35

Ill. Adm. Code

611.330(a).

North Aurora requests a five year extension of the

variance granted in PCB 93-164,

i.e., until January 20,

2000.

The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the

Environmental Protection Act

(Act).

(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.

(1992).)

The Act authorizes the Board to grant variance from

Board regulations

whenever compliance would impose an arbitrary

or unreasonable hardship upon petitioner.

(415 ILCS 5/35(a)

(1992).)

Initially,

the Board granted North Aurora a three-year

variance from the requirements of

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 602.105(a)

and 602.106(b)

in PCB 87-83 on October

15,

1987.

Subsequently,

the Board granted an extension of variance until September 30,

1993,

in PCB 89—66 on February 8,

1990.

The Board granted a

second extension of variance for one year in PCB 93—164 on

January 20,

1994,

which expired on January 20,

1995.

In the

present proceeding, the Village requests a third extension of

variance from January 21,

1995, until January 20,

2000,

or until

analysis pursuant to

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 605.104(a)

shows

compliance with the combined radium standard, whichever comes

first.

On February 27,

1995, the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (Agency)

filed its variance recommendation concerning the

original variance petition.

The Agency recommended that the

variance be granted, subject to certain conditions.

The Village

waived hearing and none was held.

Subsequently, on March 29,

1995, the Village filed an amended petition for extension of

---

2

variance requesting a five—year extension of the variance granted

in PCB 93—164,

i.e.,

until January 20,

2000.

The Agency then

filed its amended recommendation for extension of variance on

April

11,

1995,

recommending that the variance be granted until

January 20,

2000, or until two years after USEPA action, but only

as the regulations relate to radium-226 and radium-228.

For the following reasons, the Board finds that the Village

has presented adequate proof that immediate compliance with the

Board’s regulations for “Standards for Issuance” and “Restricted

Status” would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

Accordingly, the variance is granted for a period of five years

beginning on the date of this opinion,

subject to conditions set

forth in the attached order.

BACKGROUND

The Village is

a municipality located in Kane County,

Illinois.

(Rec.

at 3.)!

The Village provides potable water for

residential, commercial, governmental and industrial customers.

(Pet. at 3.)

Petitioner maintains the public water distribution

system which includes

4 deep aquifer wells,

two one—half million

gallon reservoirs,

pumps and distribution facilities.

(u.)

Petitioner’s average daily water use in 1994 was greater than one

million gallons per day, resulting in an approximate annual use

of 413 million gallons.

(u.)

The total population served by

the Village is approximately 9,000 persons.

(u.)

By letter dated December

8,

1986, the Agency first advised

North Aurora that the Village’s water supply exceeded the maximum

allowable concentration for combined radium.

(Pet.

at 5.)

Recent tests indicate that petitioner’s combined radium level

consistently exceeds

5 pCi/l.

(Pet.

Exh.

C.)

North Aurora

currently has no equipment in place to control the radium levels

in the water supplied to its customers who receive water from

petitioner’s deep wells.

(Pet.

at 4.)

Since January 1993, construction permits have been issued

for 300 single family residences,

29 multifamily residences,

four commercial and five industrial establishments.

(Pet.

at 9.)

Plans for the construction of an additional

288 residential units

were approved, and construction has started.

(j~.)

As a result

of this growth, North Aurora needs to apply for and obtain

construction permits

in order to expand or extend the water

distribution system to meet the new user demand.

(Rec.

at 3.)

The petition shall be cited as

(Pet.

at

.)

and the

Agency’s recommendation shall be cited as

(Rec.

at

.).

---

3

According to the most recent analyses which were completed

on June 28,

1994,

the combined radium levels

in North Aurora’s

water supply are as follows:

Location

Radium-226

Radium-228

Combined

Well #3

4.0

5.2

9.2 pCi/i

Well #4

3.4

3.8

7.2 pCi/i

Well #5

2.5

1.0

3.5 pCi/i

(Pet.

Exh.

C; Rec. at 5.)

The results were obtained from

analyses of composite samples compiled from four consecutive

quarterly samples; the levels in wells #3

and #4 exceed the

5

pCi/i combined standard for radium-226 and radium-228.

(Rec. at

5.)

REGULATORY

FRAMEWORK

The instant variance request concerns two features of the

Board’s public water supply regulations:

“Standards for Issuance”

and “Restricted Status”.

These features are found at 35 Iii.

Adm. Code 602.105 and 602.106, respectively.

The principal effect of these regulations

is that public

water suppliers are prohibited from extending water service due

to their inablity to obtain the requisite permits, unless and

until their water meets all of the standards for finished water

supplies.

In this case,

a denial of the construction permit

would prevent the Village from building and operating new water

main extensions.

In determining whether any variance is to be granted, the

Board is required to determine whether a petitioner has presented

adequate proof that immediate compliance with the Board

regulations at issue would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship.

(415 ILCS 5/35(a)

(1992).)

Furthermore, the petitioner

must show that compliance with the regulations would result in an

arbitrary and unreasonable hardship which outweighs the public’s

interest in preserving the environment and protecting the public.

(Willowbrook Motel v. Pollution Control Board,

(1st Dist.

1985)

135 Ii1.App.3d 343,

349,

481 N.E.2d

1032,

1037.)

Only with such

showing will the claimed hardship rise to the level

of arbitrary

or unreasonable hardship.

Further,

a variance is, by its nature,a temporary reprieve

from compliance with the Board’s regulations, and compliance is

to be sought regardless of the hardship which eventual compliance

presents an individual polluter.

(Monsanto Co.

V.

Pollution

Control Board,

(1977)

67 Ill.2d 276,

287,

367 N.E.2d 684,

688.)

Accordingly,

a variance petitioner is required,

as a condition to

grant of variance, to commit to a plan which

is reasonably

calculated to achieve compliance within the term of the variance,

---

4

unless certain special circumstances exist.

A grant of variance from “Standards for Issuance” and

“Restricted Status” neither absolves a petitioner from compliance

with the drinking water standards at issue,

nor insulates a

petitioner from possible enforcement actions for violation of

those standards.

The underlying standards remain applicable to

the petitioner regardless of whether variance is granted or

denied.

Pursuant to Section

36 of the Act, the Board may grant an

extension of variance where the petitioner has demonstrated

satisfactory progress.

(415 ILCS 5/36(b)

(1992).)

Section 36(b)

states in pertinent part that a “variance may be extended from

year to year by affirmative action of the Board,

but only if

satisfactory progress has been shown.”

(u.)

FEDERAL STANDARDS

Standards for radium and gross alpha particle activity in

drinking water were first adopted as National Interim Primary

Drinking Water Regulations

(NIPDWR5)

by the U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency

(USEPA)in 1976.

The standards adopted were

5

pCi/l for the sum of the two isotopes of radium, radium-226 and

radium—228

(combined radium), and 15 pCi/l for gross alpha

(particle activity).

Shortly thereafter Illinois adopted the

same

limits.

Although characterized as “interim” limits, these

MCLs nevertheless are the maximum allowable concentrations under

both federal and Illinois law,

and will remain so unless modified

by USEPA.2

Since their original promulgation, the current radium and

gross alpha particle activity standards have been under review at

the federal level. USEPA first proposed revision of the standards

in October 1983

in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

(48

Fed. Reg.

45502

(1983).)

It later republished this advance

notice in September 1986.

(51 Fed. Reg. 34836

(1986).)

By

publication on June 18,

1991,

USEPA announced a proposal to

modify both standards.

(56 Fed.

Reg. 33050

(1991).)

USEPA

proposes to replace the

5 pCi/l combined radium standard by

separate standards of 20 pCi/l for both radium-226 and

radium—228.

(~.

at 33082,

33126.)

The gross alpha particle

activity standard is proposed to be replaced by an adjusted gross

alpha particle activity standard which would still have a 15

2

In anticipation of USEPA revision of the radium standard,

the legislature amended the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

at Section 17.6 in 1988 to provide that any new federal radium

standard immediately supersedes the current Illinois standard.

---

5

pci/i value, but would no longer include alpha particle activity

associated with radium or uranium decay.

(~.

at 33102,

33126.)

Under USEPA’s current calendar, these standards are scheduled to

be promulgated after September,

1995.

(Rec.

at 7.)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

North Aurora has made no formal assessment of the effect of

this variance extension upon the environment.

However, North

Aurora referenced the testimony and exhibits presented by Richard

E. Toohey and Dr. James Stebbings on July 30, and August

2,

1987,

in R85—14, In the Matter of:

Proposed Amendments to public Water

Supply Regulations,

35 Ill.

Adm. Code Sections 602.105 and

602.106.

Based on Drs. Toohey and Stebbings’ testimony,

North

Aurora believes that there will be little,

if any, adverse impact

as a result of this variance extension.

(Pet.

at 4—5.)

The

Agency agrees with that assessment:

“While radiation at any level creates some risk,

the

risk associated with this level

is very low.”

(Rec.

at

7.) The Agency believes that an increase in the

allowable concentration levels should not cause any

significant health risk for the limited population

served by new water main extensions for the time period

of the recommended variance.

(Rec.

at 9.)

PAST COMPLIANCE EFFORTS

In its October 15,

1987 order granting the initial variance

(PCB 87-83), the Board directed North Aurora to negotiate a

contract with the City of Aurora

(City)

to obtain water service

and to begin construction of a water treatment facility starting

no later than October

15,

1989.

(Pet.

at 5.)

However, contract

negotiations between North Aurora and the City were delayed due

to revisions by the City of the design and engineering of its new

water treatment system.

(u.)

As a result, North Aurora was

able to complete the designs for, but not begin, construction of

the distribution system.

(u.)

On March

16,

1989, during the

discussions between North Aurora and the City, USEPA announced

that it would not force any municipality to spend funds preparing

a final design or constructing a treatment system to comply with

the interim combined radium standard of

5 pCi/l.

(Pet.

at 5-6.;

Rec.

at 8.)

North Aurora was granted a variance extension until

September 30,

1993,

(PCB 89—66)

on February 8,

1990.

In August

1990,

the City terminated negotiations with North Aurora.

(Pet.

at 6.)

Thus, North Aurora’s compliance plan, which relied on

receiving treated water from the City, was no longer a viable

final compliance alternative.

(a.)

In September 1990, North

Aurora retained Rempe-Sharpe

& Assoc.

Inc.

(Rempe-Sharpe) to

pursue a compliance alternative that would require the blending

---

6

of treated shallow well water existing deep well water.

(Id.)

On September

3,

1993,

North Aurora filed an amended petition

for variance with the Board seeking

a further extension of the

variance granted in PCB 89-66.

(Rec.

at 4.)

In PCB 93-164,

the

Board granted North Aurora a one—year extension of variance for

the period of January 20,

1994, to January 20,

1995.

(u.)

COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES

Rempe-Sharp has concluded that the blending of shallow well

water with existing deep well water is the most practical and

cost—effective alternative for North Aurora to achieve compliance

with the radium standards.

(Pet.

at 6.)

In general, the blending

alternative would blend treated shallow well water,

which

contains little,

if any radium, with deep well water to meet the

combined radium standard of

5 pCi/l.

(u.)

This compliance

alternative requires North Aurora to construct the following:

three 700 gpm shallow wells,

each requiring a one acre site; two

MGD lime-softening water treatment plant and sludge lagoons;

a

16—inch shallow well water transmission main from the shallow

wells to the water treatment plant

site;

a 16-inch potable water

transmission main from the blending tank at the water treatment

plant site to two elevated tanks;

and an altitude valve at the

west elevated tank.

(u.)

In addition, existing deep well No.

4

would be modified to reduce capacity from 1200 gpm to 700 gpm.

(u.)

North Aurora estimates the cost to complete the blending

project is $11,541,000 based on January 1995 cost data.

(Pet.

at

7.)

This figure does not include the cost of acquiring the six

to eight acre site for the treatment plant,

the one acre sites

for each of the new wells

or the easements for the transmission

and distribution mains.

(Pet.

at 6-7.)

In October 1990,

North Aurora received a grant from Kane

County to conduct both the necessary preliminary engineering to

route the 16 inch water transmission main and the required

Seismic Refraction Survey

(SRS)

to locate an aquifer suitable for

the siting of the shallow wells.

(Pet.

at 7.)

On March 22,

1991, North Aurora contracted with the Illinois State Geological

Survey

(ISGS)

to determine the location of the necessary aquifer.

ISGS completed the SRS in November 1991.

(u.)

North Aurora has also authorized Rempe—Sharpe to develop a

preliminary design to locate feasible routing of the transmission

main.

(j~.)

In order to construct the transmission main,

North

Aurora needed to obtain an easement from Commonwealth Edison for

the placement of the transmission main.

Discussions between

North Aurora and Commonwealth Edison regarding the easement began

in May 1992.

(u.)

In September 1992,

North Aurora performed a

study to ensure there would be no adverse impact on wetlands.

(u.)

The successful study alleviated Commonwealth Edison’s

concerns and resulted in the grant of the necessary easement to

---

7

North Aurora for $80,000.

(Pet.

at

8.)

On August 16,

1993, North Aurora received a permit from the

Agency to construct “Phase I” of the water main extension.

(Pet.

Exh.

F.)

The construction was completed in August 1994.

(Pet.

at

8.) North Aurora estimates that the transmission line, water

treatment plant and necessary storage and related equipment

required to extract water from the shallow wells will cost over

$11.8 million based upon January 1995 cost data.

(u.)

The Agency believes that petitioner has demonstrated

continuing progress and will continue its good faith efforts

towards compliance while awaiting final promulgation of the

federal standard.

(Rec.

at 7.)

ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP

North Aurora believes that denial of a variance extension

would constitute an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship since the

grant of a variance extension will cause little,

if any, adverse

environmental impact.

(Pet.

at 4-5,

9.)

Additionally, North

Aurora believes denial of the variance extension would result in

the termination of the significant development taking place in

North Aurora that requires the extension of the water supply

system.

(Pet.

at 9.)

North Aurora argues that the adverse economic impact

resulting from the compliance plans would far outweigh any health

effects associated with the consumption of North Aurora’s water

for the limited time period of the requested variance extension.

(Pet.

at 9-10.)

North Aurora claims denial of the extension of

variance will result in an unreasonable hardship due to the level

of growth and development that the Village is experiencing, the

expense it will incur in completing the proposed water treatment

system, the low level of radium activity in North Aurora’s water,

and the positions of the Agency and USEPA regarding combined

radium standards.

(Pet.

at 10.)

Moreover, North Aurora believes continued construction of

the water treatment system is inconsistent with USEPA’s position

that it will not intervene in variances that trigger final design

and construction of compliance equipment by the date which USEPA

revised the MCL5 for radium.

(Pet.

Exh.

G.)

If USEPA enacts a

20 pCi/l standard for both radium-226 and radium-228, North

Aurora believes it would be in immediate compliance with the

regulations and would not need to build the new water treatment

system.

(Pet.

at 9.)

The Agency’s position is that a grant of the extension of

variance would not impose significant injury to the public or to

the environment for the limited time period requested.

(Rec. at

9.)

Additionally, the Agency believes that denial of the

---

8

recommended extension of variance would impose an arbitrary and

unreasonable hardship on petitioner.

(a.)

CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW

A grant of the requested variance is consistent with the

Safe Drinking Water Act

(42 U.S.C.

300(f)

et seq.

(1992))

and

corresponding regulations

(40 CFR Part 141

(1991)) because the

variance does not apply to the national primary drinking water

standards.

(Rec.

at 10.)

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Section 36(b)

of the Act, the Board may grant an

extension of variance where petitioner has made satisfactory

progress toward achieving compliance.

(415 ILCS 5/36(b)

(1992).)

The record indicates that North Aurora has been diligent in its

efforts to comply with the conditions of the initial variance

granted on October 15,

1987.

The Board finds that North Aurora

has presented adequate proof of satisfactory progress towards

compliance.

In addition, based upon the record, the Board finds that

immediate compliance with the “Standards for Issuance” and

“Restricted Status” regulations would impose an arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship on the Village of North Aurora.

The Board

also agrees with the parties that granting this variance does not

pose a significant health risk to those persons served who are

affected by the variance, assuming that compliance

is timely

forthcoming.

Timely compliance by the Village may be affected by pending

USEPA action to promulgate new standards for radionuclides in

drinking water, now anticipated after September,

1995.

USEPA is

under an amended consent order to take final action with respect

to the proposed radium-226 and radium-228 standards by April 30,

1995.

(Miller v.

Browner, No. 89—6328—HO

(D.Or. June 25,

1990),

Pet.

Exh. B at 4.)

However, Congress has prohibited funding for

promulgation of final radon standards for federal fiscal years

1994 and 1995.

(Rec.

at 8.)

As a result, USEPA is unable to

promulgate new standards for radium—226 and radium-228.

(Rec.

at

9.)

Thus,

USEPA will seek an interim extension of the consent

order deadline until September 15,

1995, to reflect the

congressional prohibition.

(u.)

During the extension, USEPA

will not take action regarding the substance of the combined

radium standard for radium-226 and radium-228,

but it will

attempt to negotiate a new schedule for release of the final rule

with the plaintiffs in Miller.

(u.)

USEPA’s proposal of

separate 20 pCi/l standards for both radium-226 and radium—228,

(56 Fed.

Reg.

33082,

33126

(1991)),

if adopted, could

significantly alter the Village’s need for a variance or

alternatives for achieving compliance.

---

9

Accordingly, the Board hereby grants the Village of North

Aurora an extension of variance subject to the conditions stated

below.

Today’s action

is solely a grant of variance from

standards of issuance and restricted status.

The Village is not

granted variance from compliance with the combined radium

standard, nor does today’s action insulate the Village in any

manner against enforcement for violation of these standards.

North Aurora has requested that the term of the variance

begin January 21,

1995.

It is well established that the term of a

variance begins on the date the Board renders its decision,

unless unusual or extraordinary circumstances are shown.

(See,

e.g. DM1,

Inc.

v.

IEPA, PCB 90-227,

128 PCB 245

-

249, December

19,

1991.)

While North Aurora is expanding the existing system

to accommodate the current level

of growth in the area, the Board

finds that the instant circumstances are not sufficiently unusual

to warrant the retroactive start of the extension of variance as

requested by the Village and recommended by the Agency.

Therefore, the extension of variance is effective from the date

of this order.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

The Village of North Aurora

is hereby granted a variance

from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 602.105(a),

“Standards for Issuance”,

and

602.106(b),

“Restricted Status”, only as they relate to the

standards for combined radium-226 and radium-228 in drinking

water as set forth in 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 611.330(a),

subject to

the following conditions:

(A)

For purposes of this order,

the date of USEPA action

shall consist of the earlier date of the:

(1)

Date of promulgation by USEPA of any regulation

which amends the maximum contaminant level

(MCL)

for combined radium, either of the isotopes of

radium, or the method by which compliance with

a

radium MCL is demonstrated; or

(2)

Date of publication of notice by USEPA that no

amendments to the

5 pCi/l combined radium standard

or the method for demonstrating compliance with

the

5 pCi/l standard will be promulgated.

---

10

(B)

Variance shall terminate on the earliest of the

following dates:

(1)

Five years from the date of this order;

(2)

Date of publication of notice by USEPA that no

amendments to the

5 pCi/l combined radium standard

or the method for demonstrating compliance with

the

5 pCi/l standard will be promulgated.

(C)

In consultation with the Agency, petitioner shall

continue its sampling level of radioactivity in the

wells and finished water.

Until this variance

terminates, petitioners shall collect quarterly samples

of water from the distribution system at locations

approved by the Agency.

Petitioner shall composite the

quarterly samples from each location separately and

shall have them analyzed annually by a laboratory

certified by the State of Illinois for radiological

analysis so as to determine the concentration of

radium-226 and radium-228.

At the option of

petitioner, the quarterly samples may be analyzed when

collected.

The results of the analyses shall be

reported within 30 days of receipt of the most recent

sample to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Compliance Assurance Section

Drinking Water Quality Unit

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794—9276

(D)

Within three months of USEPA action, petitioner shall

apply to the Agency at the address below for all

permits necessary for the construction, installation,

changes or additions to petitioner’s public water

supply needed for achieving compliance with the MCL for

combined radium or with any other standard for radium

in drinking water then in effect:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Public Water Supply Program

Permit Section

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

IL 62794—9276

(E)

Within three months of the issuance of each

construction permit issued by the Agency, petitioner

shall advertise for bids,

to be submitted within 60

days,

from contractors to do the necessary work

described in the construction permit.

The petitioners

shall accept appropriate bids within a reasonable time.

---

11

Petitioner shall notify the Agency, Division of Public

Water Supplies, within 30 days,

of each of the

following actions:

(1) advertisements for bids,

(2)

names of the successful bidders, and

(3) whether

petitioner accepted the bids.

(F)

Construction allowed on said construction permits shall

begin within a reasonable time of bids being accepted,

but in any case, construction of all installations,

changes or additions necessary to achieve compliance

with the MCL in question shall be completed no later

than two years following USEPA action.

One year after

completion of construction will be necessary to prove

compliance.

(G)

Pursuant to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 611.851(b),

in the first

set of water bills or within three months after the

date of this order, whichever occurs first, and every

three months thereafter, petitioner will send to each

user of their public water supply a written notice to

the effect that petitioner is not

in compliance with

the standard in question.

The notice shall state the

average content of the contaminants in samples taken

since the last notice period during which samples were

taken.

(H)

Pursuant to 35

Ill. Adm. Code 611.851(b),

in its first

set of water bills or within three months after the

date of this order, whichever occurs first,

and every

three months thereafter,

petitioner will send to each

user of its public water supply a written notice to the

effect that petitioner has been granted a variance by

the Illinois Pollution Control Board from 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 602.105(a), Standards of Issuance, and 35 Ill.

Adm.,

Code 602.106(a),

Restricted Status, as it relates

to the MCL standard in question.

(I)

Until full compliance is achieved, petitioner shall

take all reasonable measures with existing equipment to

minimize the level of combined radium-26-26 and

radium—228,

in its finished drinking water.

(J)

Petitioners shall provide written progress reports to

the Agency at the address below every six months

concerning steps taken to comply with paragraphs C,

D,

E,

F, G and H of this order.

Progress reports shall

quote each of said paragraphs and immediately below

each paragraph state what steps have been taken to

comply with each paragraph.

---

12

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Public Water Supply

Field Operations Section

2200 Churchill road

Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276

IT IS SO ORDERED.

If the Village chooses to accept this variance subject to

the above order, within forty-five days of the grant of the

variance, the Village must execute and forward the attached

certificate of acceptance and agreement to:

Stephen C. Ewart

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

P.O. Box 19276

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276

Once executed and received, that certificate of acceptance

and agreement shall bind the Village to all terms and conditions

of the granted variance.

The 45-day period shall be held in

abeyance during any period that this matter is appealed.

Failure

to execute and forward the certificate within 45—days renders

this variance void.

The form of the certificate is as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I

(We),

_____________________________________

hereby accept and agree to be bound by all terms and

conditions of the Order of the Pollution Control Board

in PCB 95—42, April 20,

1995.

Petitioner

Authorized Agent

Title

Date

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,

(415 ILCS

5/41

(1992)), provides for appeal of final Board orders within 35

days of the date of service of this order.

The Rules of the

Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.

(See

also 35

Ill. Adm. Code 101.246.

“Motions for Reconsideration”.)

---

13

also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246.

“Motions for Reconsideration”.)

I, Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order was

adopted on the

~TZ

day of

______________,

1995,

by

a vote of

___________.

1

~

~

Dorothy N. G~4~n,Clerk

Illinois Poi~jutionControl Board

‘I