ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
26,
1990
METRO UTILITY CO.
(Chickasaw
Hills division),
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 89—210
(Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION
(by
J. Dumelle,
B.
Forcade, and M.
Nardulli):
We believe that
the poor water quality,
poor service, and
general unresPonsive attitude
to public complaints make any
hardship largely self—imposed.
We would have denied this grant
of variance until Metro Utility
Co.
(~Metro”) showed good faith
and a change
in corporate attitude.
The testimony showed instances
of low or
no pressure (R.68,
116,
134,
157).
A public health danger exists whenever pressure
is zero because
of the danger of contamination from
a cross—
connection through a garden hose or elsewhere.
That
is the
reason for
“boil orders” when pressure drops
to zero.
Metro and its predecessor
firm are said
to have known about
the iron problem since
1971 and “consistently from 1978
on”
(R.49
and Petition, Attachment
2).
Thus the hardship
is self—
imposed.
Remedial actions should have come much earlier.
Most disturbing
is
the corporate attitude toward citizen
complaints.
It appears
that the number
of citizen complaints
received by
the utility has been misstated
to
far lower figures
than the number actually received
(R.70,
105,
135,
137,
144).
Th
addition,
it appears
that answers given
to at
least one citizen
were not correct
(R.l40).
The utility company has an obvious
credibility problem.
Objections were filed
in this ~roceeding
by the
following
persons or governments:
County Executive,
Will
County
Two
Members, Will County Board
Planner, Homer Township
-.
Supervisor, Homer Township
President,
Bonnie Brae Forest Manor
Sanitary
District
Eight
FamiJies
lIfl—3S3
Obviously,
all
of these governments or families were not
satisfied with the utility’s performance.
The Board majority,
in writing conditions for
its grant of
variance,
inserted a loose requirement
for the iron removal
equipment at Well No.
3.
The testimony indicates that
it may be
operational
by June
1,
1990
(R.33).
The majority give
16 months
to accomplish this.
While the Agency
is
to be commended
for surveying the
residents
as to water quality
(408 of 538 stated it was
“unacceptable”)
it seems
not
to have aggressively followed up on
its own long-standing recommendations.
The Agency’s
Recommendation
(p.6)
states:
the Agency
in the past
strongly recommended
to the suppy
that
it add an additional well
and provide water storage
at least
equal
to an
average day’s use,
considering future
increases
in service connections.
The dates are not given
for these past recommendations.
Perhaps,
if they had been followed up,
at least the dangerous “no
pressure’ episodes would have been avoided.
The public
is
fortunate that
a health—threatening contamination of
the water
supply did not occur.
7
~
~
~//~
;//
~.
Jacob
D.
Dumelle
Bi~l1
~.
)~‘cy~cade
7
/
/~/L/~ (
/,
~‘t~
~
Michael
L.
Nardulli
I, Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify
that the above Dissenting Opinion was
submitted on the
____________
day of
___________________
1990.
//
~
;//.
~
Dorothy
MZ
Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois~PollutionControl Board
110—334