ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August
    31,
    1989
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    GROUNDWATER PROTECTION:
    REGULATIONS
    )
    R89-5
    FOR EXISTING AND NEW ACTIVITIES WITHIN
    )
    SET-BACK ZONES AND REGULATED RECHARGE
    )
    AREAS
    (35 ILL. ADM. CODE
    601, 615
    616 AND 617)
    CONCURRING OPINION
    (by B.
    Forcade):
    I agree with the major
    thrust of this proposal,but
    I
    disagree with one component.
    Therefore,
    I concur.
    I also have
    significant questions about
    the pesticide storage
    and handling
    provisions
    of subpart
    I.
    As presently written,
    the proposal requires
    a “new”
    regulated activity
    in a “sensitive
    area” to take
    initial
    samples
    of the groundwater quality.
    If that facility causes groundwater
    contamination,
    the facility owner must clean—up the groundwater
    to approximately the same purity as
    it was
    in the initial
    samples.
    An “existing”
    regulated activity in
    a “sensitive
    area”
    is
    also required to take initial samples.
    However,
    if the existing
    facility pollutes the groundwater,
    it
    is not required
    to clean
    it
    up
    to the level
    of purity of the initial samples.
    It
    is only
    required
    to clean—up
    if,
    and
    to the level
    that,
    this Board adopts
    some numerical standard.
    Take
    a hypothetical
    chemical, DMD.
    Assume that
    it is
    present
    at
    a level
    of
    1
    or
    2 parts per million
    (ppm), but that
    the Board has set
    a standard of 100 ppm based
    on protection
    of
    human health.
    Assume that
    a new facility takes samples and finds
    DMD at 1—2 ppm.
    Later,
    the facility accidently causes
    contamination
    of the groundwater
    up
    to a level
    of 110 ppm.
    The
    “new” facility would be required
    to clean—up the groundwater from
    110 ppm
    to approximately the original
    1—2 ppm level
    of DMD.
    In an exactly similar situation,
    an “existing”
    facility
    would only be required to clean—up from 110 ppm down
    to 100
    ppm.
    That
    is not right.
    In
    a situation where
    the Board has not yet adopted any
    health—based numbers,
    the new facility would be required
    to
    clean—up from 110 ppm down to 1—2 ppm.
    The existing facility
    which caused
    the same contamination would
    not be required
    to
    clean—up at all
    (in fact
    it would not be violating any laws,
    since
    the Board had not set a health—based standard).
    The Board
    102—545
    —2—
    has already stated that we cannot set numerical limits
    for the
    majority of toxic substances because
    the necessary studies have
    not been done (P88—21, First Notice
    August
    30, 1989,
    p.
    2).
    The current proposal allows existing facilities to
    contaminate the groundwater from whatever level of purity
    presently exists, up to some arbitrary level selected by the
    Board as
    “safe.”
    If no “safe” level has been set by this Board,
    then any amount of contamination would presumably be acceptable.
    I do not think this
    type of degradation should be allowed.
    Also,
    it creates certain problems:
    1.
    What
    if
    we
    decide
    the
    original
    100
    ppm
    level
    for
    DMD
    is
    not
    safe
    and
    that new scientific evidence demands
    10
    ppm
    as
    a
    safe
    level.
    Do we
    go
    back
    and
    make
    all
    the
    existing
    facilities
    clean—up
    the
    groundwater
    they contaminated from
    1—2 ppm up to
    100 ppm?
    2.
    What
    if
    a
    “new”
    facility
    and
    an
    existing facility are
    located
    in the
    same
    sensitive
    area
    and
    levels
    of
    DMD
    rise
    from
    1—2
    ppm
    to
    99
    ppm.
    Who,
    if anyone, has
    to clean—up?
    Is
    that fair?
    I would have taken
    the corrective action clean—up standards
    of Section 616.211(d)
    for new facilities
    and added them to the
    present standards
    for existing facilities
    at Section 615.211.
    That way, both new and existing facilities will
    be held
    to the
    same clean—up standard.
    I
    also have concerns with
    the pesticide provisions of
    subpart
    I.
    The
    record
    in~ic-3tes
    that
    a
    1987
    Illinois Department
    of Public Health
    (“IDPH”)
    study tested wells around
    81 agri—
    chemical dealerships and found pesticide contamination in 65
    of
    the wells
    tested
    (P.
    68).
    This
    is an alarmingly high frequency
    of contamination, yet none of
    the participants provided copies
    of
    the IDPH
    study and
    no one from IDPH
    testified.
    At a minimum,
    this
    indicates
    a need
    for strong enforceable controls.
    More
    information would be helpful
    in determining whether
    the existing
    proposal
    is adequate.
    102—546
    —3—
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that the above Concur ing Opinion was
    submitted on the
    /.-?t~
    day
    of
    __
    ,
    1989.
    Dorothy M.
    G)Øln, Clerk
    Illinois Po1~iutionControl Board
    102—547

    Back to top