Sr4,
    ~
    (~)
    ~i:
    .rLECEIVED
    ~K’S
    OFFICE
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    AUG
    2
    4
    2001
    REGION 5
    77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
    ~
    ~
    tJ1
    ILLINOIS
    CHICAGO,
    IL
    60604-3590
    Pollution
    Control Board
    REPLY TO THE
    ATTENTION OF:
    WG-15J
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    100W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Dear Ms.
    Gunn:
    Please find enclosed our review ofDocket Number R01-20,
    Safe Drinking
    Water Update,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulation (July
    1, 2000, through December
    3 1, 2000),
    Proposed Rule, Proposal for Public Comment.
    The docket was reviewed by the Ground Water
    and Drinking Water Branch and Office ofRegional Counsel.
    The sections reviewed in this
    docketinclude:
    -
    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for radionculides.
    Enclosed you will find:
    1) Comments to IPCB Docket ROl- 20, June 21,2001,
    Proposed Rule,
    Proposal forPublic Comment.
    Thank you for the opportunity
    to review your proposed drinking
    water rule.
    Sincerely,
    Rita Garner
    Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch
    Enclosures
    cc: Mike McCambridge, IPCB
    Printed on Recycled Paper

    MEMORANDUM:
    Comments to IPCB Docket R0l-20 June 21, 2000,
    Proposed Rule, Proposal
    for Public Comment
    TO:
    Mike McCambridge, Illinois Pollution Control Board
    FROM:
    Rita
    Garner,
    Ground
    Water and Drinking Water Branch
    DATE:
    August 23,
    2001
    I have reviewed IEPA’sJune 21, 2001, Proposed
    Rule,
    Docket R01-20 from the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, SDWA Update, USEPA Amendments, (July
    1, 2000, through December
    3 1,2000)
    (65
    Fed.
    Reg. 76708
    (December 7, 2000).
    I have the following comments.
    Page
    13,
    Section 611.79 is missing a footnote for Uranium.
    Page 15, the
    Board
    Note to
    Section 611.130 (g) (2), Section
    142.65(a)(2), this section uses the
    word “variance”.
    In the State’s Variance and Exemption rule, the word relief is used in place of
    Variance and Exemption.
    We are not sure if the State intends to use the word “Variance” or the
    word “Relief’ in section.
    These terms are not defined in the definition section.

    Back to top