ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November
    17,
    1988
    VILLAGE OF SUGAR GROVE,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 88—147
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    3.
    Anderson):
    On November
    7,
    1988,
    the Illinois Environmental. Protection
    Agency (“Agency”)
    filed
    a Motion To Dismiss
    the petition for
    variance filed
    by the Village of Sugar Grove
    (“Sugar Grove”).
    Sugar Grove
    filed
    a response
    to the Agency’s motion on November
    15,
    1988,
    together with
    a second amendment
    to the petition.
    The
    latter recites
    new facts
    not previously presented
    to the Board
    and
    is accepted for filing.
    Sugar Grove
    filed
    its petition on September
    9,
    1988.
    In
    that petition,
    Sugar Grove sought
    a variance for five years from
    the restricted status provisions
    of
    35
    Ill.
    Adm.
    Code 602.105(a)
    and 602.106(b)
    as
    they pertain to radium.
    Sugar Grove indicated
    that
    it
    intends
    to blend waters from two wells
    so
    as
    to achieve
    compliance with the radium standards
    “as
    the short term
    solution”.
    During
    the period
    of any variance, Sugar Grove would
    also explore other compliance options.
    On September
    22, 1988,
    the Board issued an Order
    requesting
    that Sugar Grove explain
    “why five years are necessary
    to
    implement the compliance option
    of blending”.
    On October
    28,
    1988,
    Sugar Grove filed
    its response to the
    Board’s request.
    Petitioner contends that its economic condition
    precludes the near—term expenditure of
    the sums necessary to
    implement blending.
    More particularly,
    Sugar Grove states that
    it
    is in negotiations with various developers, which
    it
    anticipates will culminate
    in agreements under which
    the
    developers will essentially
    bear the cost
    of
    installing the
    needed water
    lines
    and blending equipment.
    Sugar Grove asserts
    that:
    “it
    appears
    that
    within
    the
    five
    year
    period
    the
    entire
    10,300
    feet
    length
    of
    main
    and
    the storage
    tank and booster pump can be installed
    at little or
    no cash cost to the Petitioner”.
    93—459
    —2—
    The Agency’s motion to dismiss notes that
    35
    Ill.
    Adrn.
    Code
    104.121 requires
    that the Petitioner provide
    a detailed
    description of the proposed method of control
    to
    be undertaken
    to
    achieve
    full compliance with the Act and regulations,
    including
    a
    time schedule
    for
    the implementation.
    The Agency asserts and
    Sugar Grove denies that Sugar Grove’s petition,
    as augmented
    by
    its response of October
    28, fails
    to meet
    the requirements
    of
    that
    rule.
    The Board agrees with
    the Agency.
    However, without going
    to the merits,
    it appears
    to the
    Board that with the filing
    of the second amendment
    to its
    petition,
    Sugar Grove
    has
    responded
    to the Board’s September
    22,
    1988 Order.
    This change
    in circumstance
    in any event requires
    the denial of the Agency’s Motion to Dismiss
    as
    moot;
    the Agency
    may,
    of course,
    file
    a new Motion to Dismiss or other response
    to
    the amended petition.
    For the reasons stated above,
    the Agency’s Motion To Dismiss
    is denied.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    of
    the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
    the
    J7-~
    day
    of
    ~
    ,
    1988,
    by
    a vote
    of
    ~
    ~fL44
    ~
    /~
    Dorothy M./Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois ~ol1ution
    Control Board
    93—460

    Back to top