ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 22,

1986

VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE,

Petitioner,

)

 PCB 86—42

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION

 (by J.

D.

 Dumelle):

My reasons for dissenting

lie

 in the increased risk of

cancer,

 including

 leukemia,

 to new residents and the lack of

specificity as

 to hardship.

Bensenville’s combined radium level

in

 its drinking water

is

9.8 pCi/i.

 This is 96

 in excess of the standard of

 5 pCi/l.

The risk can be easily computed.

 The Federal Register

of

August

14,

 1975 gives

 it as

“...

 the potential risk due

 to radium

drinking water ingestion at

 5 pCi/i

 is estimated to

 be between

0.7 and

 3 fatal cancers annually per million exposed persons.”

40

 F.R.

 34325.

 The key word here is

 “annually.”

Since Bensenville

 is 96

 over the standard, the risk becomes

1.4

to

6

 instead of 0.7

to

3.

 These average

 to 3.7.

In

Bensenville, every individual drinking the water will have an

average risk of

 a fatal cancer

 of 3.7

 in one million each year.

That

is

 a i—in—270,000 chance.

One may argue that this risk

 is low compared to the 1—in—

5,470 chance of being killed each year

 in an auto accident

(43,500

 fatalities

 in a population of 238 million

 in 1985).

But

sometimes one must drive

 to get somewhere while here an

alternative exists

—

 the deferral

 of residential construction.

The variance here granted runs until May 22, 1991.

 In five

years,

 a new resident’s chance of getting cancer from the water

becomes five times greater than the l—in—270,000 computed above

or l—in—54,000 over that period.

 Should that risk be

 imposed

upon a largely uninformed public?

A recent paper

 in the respected Journal of the American

Medical Association of August

2,

1985

 is titled “Association of

Leukemia with Radium Groundwater Contamination”

and

 is authored

70-53

—2—

by

 a physician,

 Dr. Gary

 H. Lyman and others.

 The article points

out that “A significant association between leukemia incidence

and the extent

 of groundwater contamination with

 radiuni

is

reported herein.”

While

 the Agency seems to rely on

 certain professional

testimony and exhibits by non—medical persons,

 it did not see fit

to cite Dr. Lyman’s paper.

 A related paper,

 “Drinking Water and

Cancer Incidence in Iowa”

 by Dr. Judy A. Bean and others which

appeared

 in the American Journal of Epidemiology

 (Vol.

 116,

No.

6) was also not cited.

 This paper found that “Incidence rates of

cancers

 of the lung and bladder among males and

 of cancers

 of the

breast and lung among

 females were higher

 in towns with a radium—

226 level

in

 the water supply exceeding 5.0 pCi/i.”

It

 is quite possible that these two studies and others not

cited may result

in

 a USEPA finding that the current

 5 pCi/l

standard

 for combined radium

 in drinking water

 is too loose and

needs

 to be tightened.

 We will

 know in 1987.

Bensenviile’s statement of hardship

 is vague.

 No impending

development

 is cited.

 I would have voted

for

 the program

outlined

 in Attachment

2

 to improve fire flows, etc. but

 I would

have deferred new residential construction

 to avoid

 the real

cancer risk

 to new residents.

The Agency notes that Bensenville did not follow three

of

this Board’s conditions

set

 in PCB 80—51.

 Thus there

 is no

assurance, based

 upon past performance, that the conditions here

adopted by the majority will be met.

 Are we not overlooking past

non—compliance by granting this variance?

 Should not the Agency

have enforced the earlier variance?

 Will the

 instant variance

conditions be followed?

The Agency’s Recommendation appears somewhat

 flawed.

 On p.

10 the Agency refers

 to “the possibility of compliance with the

MAC standard due

 to blending

 or new shallow wells,

 etc.”

 Yet the

Petitioner clearly states

 in Paragraph 27 “The Petitioner has not

taken any steps

 to achieve compliance at this

 time and does not

foresee any

 in the future,

 beyond

 the Lake Michigan water.”

Would

 the Agency’s recommendation

 to grant this variance been the

same had

 it realized that shallow wells were not to

be

considered?

For

all

 these reasons

 I dissent.

Chairman

70-54

—3—

I,

 Dorothy

 M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

 hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion was filed

on the

______________

 day of

____________

 1986.

7.

Dorothy

 M. dunn,

 Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

70-55