ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 20, 1996
VILLAGE OF LAKE IN THE HILLS,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 95-108
(Variance - Public Water Supply)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter is before the Board on a June 4, 1996 Motion for Extension of Time and to
Reinstate Variance, filed by Village of Lake in the Hills (Village). The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency) did not file a response. Village essentially is requesting the
Board to reopen a case and to extend the time for execution of a Certificate of Acceptance; the
desired result is to “resurrect” the variance granted on July 7, 1995.
Briefly, petitioner first came before the Board with a Petition for Variance from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 602.105(a) “Standards for Issuance” and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.106(b)
“Restricted Status” to the extent they relate to barium requirements under 35 Ill. Adm. Code
611.301(b). On July 5, 1995 the Board granted the requested variance, subject to certain
conditions. (Village of Lake in the Hills v. IEPA (July 7, 1995) PCB 95-108.) The Board’s
order clearly directed Village to execute within 45 days a Certificate of Acceptance to the
Agency if it deemed the variance acceptable. (Id. at 9.) The order also distinctly stated that
“[f]ailure to execute and forward the Certificate within 45 days renders this variance void”.
(Id.) Village failed to do so; instead, it submitted an “amended petition for variance” to the
Board on September 6, 1995. On September 21, 1995 the Board ordered docket 95-108 closed
due to Village’s failure to timely execute a Certificate of Acceptance. The Board also stated
that it would not accept an amendment to a petition after the case had been closed and the time
for reconsideration had expired. Instead, the Board accepted the “amended petition” as a new
petition, and opened docket PCB 96-67. On October 12, 1995 Village filed a Motion for
Voluntary Dismissal of its newly filed petition, which the Board granted on October 19, 1995
thereby closing the docket.
Village now explains that after filing the second petition for variance, Stephen Ewart,
Deputy Counsel for the Agency, contacted Village and stated that he found no substantive
differences between the two petitions, and recommended that Village send an executed
Certificate of Acceptance to the Agency. Mr. Ewart acknowledged that the 45-day period had
expired, but explained that the Agency would accept the late submission of the executed
2
Certificate of Acceptance. The Village mailed its certificate to the Agency on September 29,
1995.
Village states that it anticipates water shortages this summer similar to those it
experienced last summer. Therefore, it requests that the late submission of its executed
Certificate of Acceptance be allowed, and that the Board’s July 7, 1995 opinion and order be
reinstated.
Aware of citizen anxiety regarding the Village’s water supply as reported in local
papers, the Board was surprised that Village did not timely submit its Certificate of Acceptance
to the Agency, and that it waited until now to address the situation. However, having received
no response from the Agency, the Board accepts the explanation of events offered by Village,
and supported by affidavit. The motion to extend the time in which a Certificate of
Acceptance can be submitted to the Agency is granted. The September 29, 1995 executed
Certificate of Acceptance sent by the Village of Lake in the Hills is deemed timely filed, and
the variance granted in Village of Lake in the Hills v. IEPA (July 5, 1995) PCB 95-108 is
deemed to be in full force and effect.
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 _____ day of ___________, 1996, by a vote of
______________.
___________________________________
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board