ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November
    8,
    1990
    CITY OF OTTAWA,
    Petitioner,
    PCB 90—100
    v.
    )
    (Variance)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION (by J.D. Dumelle):
    My reasons for dissenting lie
    in the extreme health risk to
    the people of Ottawa from the radium in the drinking water and
    the lack of public notice as
    to the length of
    the variance here
    granted.
    The average radium concentration for
    the two overlapping one
    year periods listed on
    p.
    2 of the Majority Opinion
    is 6.7 pCi/i
    of combined radium.
    At that concentration the risk to someone
    drinking Ottawa water
    for
    a 70—year
    lifetime
    is l—in—lO,670.
    That
    is
    93 times the usual l—in—l,000,000 risk on which most
    environmental standards are based.
    This
    is a high risk.
    The possibility of bone cancer
    or head
    (sinus)
    cancer
    is great.
    Should Ottawa spend the $983,116 on
    rehabilitating
    its wells?
    How much is a life worth?
    In a similar
    case decided today
    (City of Aurora
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB
    90—131)
    the City of Aurora told of spending $36,823,870
    to bring
    its
    radium levels down to the identical USEPA and IPCB
    standard.
    Aurora has a
    1980 population of
    81,293 and thus
    is
    spending $453 per capita.
    Ottawa, with 18,166 population has
    doubts about spending $983,116 or $54 per capita.
    Put another
    way, Aurora
    is spending
    9
    times more per capita
    to reduce radium
    than the amount Ottawa thinks
    is
    excessive.
    Ottawa’s own Petition only asked for variance from
    restricted status until September
    5,
    1992.
    Yet the majority has
    sua sponte inserted a condition in the Order giving a possible
    variance until November
    8,
    1995.
    That
    is
    the full
    5 year
    statutory period allowed.
    But the public did not know that the Board would do this.
    More of Ottawa’s citizens might have testified in objection to
    this variance had they known
    the majority would increase the
    period requested by 150.
    116—41
    The essence of the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Act
    is
    its pioneering and sweeping public participation possibilities as
    devised by University of Chicago Law School Professor David
    P.
    Currie.
    But that public participation is frustrated when the
    Board, on its own, goes way beyond the period
    requested by the
    Petitioner.
    How
    is the public
    to know what
    is
    in the mind of
    the
    Board?
    For these
    reasons,
    I dissent.
    —
    /
    ;/
    /
    /
    -
    -~
    ~acob
    D.
    Dumelle,
    P.E.
    /
    Board Member
    I,
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk o~the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Diss~p~ingOpinion was
    submitted on the
    /3~-~
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1990.
    ~
    Dorothy M. ,~unn,Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    116—42

    Back to top