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.

~

~//~

;//

Jacob

D.

 Dumelle

Bi~l1

 )~‘cy~cade

/

/~/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

 Gunn,

 Clerk

Illinois~PollutionControl Board

110—334