74.42

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

6,

1986

CITY OF ~JOLIET

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 86—121

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

THOMAS A.

 THOMAS,

 CITY OF JOLIET CORPORATION COUNSEL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF

 OF PETITIONER; AND

WAYNE

L.

 WIEMERSLAGE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

3.

 Anderson):

This matter comes before the

 Board on

 an August

12,

1986

petition for variance,

 as amended on August 19, 1986,

 filed by

the City of Joliet

 (City).

 The City seeks

 a five—year variance

from Section 39 of the Environmental Protection Act

 (Act)

 and the

Board’s public

 water

 supplies regulations,

 35 Ill. Adm. Code

602.105(a)

 “Standards

 for Issuance” and from 602.106(b)

“Restricted Status”,

to

 the extent these rules involve 35 Ill.

Adm.

 Code 604.301(a)

and

 (b), the

 5 pCi/i standard for combined

radium—226

and

 radium—228,

and

the

 15 pCi/i gross alpha activity

standard

 (including

 radiurn—226,

 but excluding radon

and

uranium).

 On October

 6, 1986,

 the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency)

 filed

 a Recommendation

 in support of

variance, with conditions, from

 the combined

 radium standard;

however,

 the Agency recommended that variance from the gross

alpha particle standard

 be denied as unnecessary,

a

recommendation with which the City concurred at hearing.

 Hearing

was ordered by the Board

 on August

14,

 1986.

On August 28,

 1986, the Board denied the City’s motions

a)

for conditional Waiver of Deadline for Board Decision;

b)

to

Rescind Board’s Order

 for Hearing;

and

c)

 for Expedited Pollution

Control Board Meeting.

On September

2,

 1986, Mrs. Gisela Topoiski

 filed

an

objection

 to grant of variance; however, at hearing,

 and by post-

hearing motion filed October

20,

 1986, Mrs. Topoiski requested

leave

 to withdraw her objection and be registered

 in support,

with certain conditions.

 The Board

 notes that

 the Hearing

74.42

—2—

Officer reserved Citizens Exhibit No.

 1 for Mrs. Topoiski’s post—

hearing submittal;

 therefore,

 the Board will grant Mrs.

Topoiski’s motion and, on

 its own motion, will incorporate Mrs.

Topolski’s October 20,

 1986 submittal

 into the hearing record as

Citizens Exhibit No.

1.

Hearing was held

 on October

20,

 1986.

 Two or three members

of the public other than those testifying were present

(R.

153).

 Testimony in support of variance was presented by citizens

Mrs. Topoiski and Mr.

 Frank Markum.

 Joliet presented testimony

of the following witnesses

 in support of its petition:

Dr.

Richard

 E. Toohey,

 a biophysicist at Argonne National Laboratory;

Mr. Dennis

 L. Duffield,

 the City’s Director of Public Works

and

Utilities;

Mr.

 Richard

A.

 Clark,

 a civil engineer responsible for

the City’s Water

 and Sewer Distribution and Production Systems;

Mr.

 Ira Markwood, acting as

 a consultant

 for the City and

formerly Manager of the Agency’s Division of Public Water

Supplies;

 and Ms.

 Ruth Calvert, Executive Vice President of the

Joliet, Will County Center

 for Economic Development.

THE EXISTING SYSTEM

The City’s water

 supply serves about

 21,000

 residential

and

1,500

 industrial

 and commercial

 users, representing about 78,000

residents and 2,500

 businesses.

On December

9,

 1985,

 the Agency notified

 the City that its

water supply exceeded the combined radium standard,

 and on

December

19,

 1985 the City was notified that it would

 be placed

on restricted

 status.

 The supporting analysis showed

 radiurn—226

at 6.5 pCi/l

and

 radium—228

 at less than

 1.0 pCi/i, which

in

combination indicates

 a concentration of 6.5 pCi/i.

The City draws

 water from 12 deep wells placed

 in operation

between 1907 and 1976,

 and five shallow wells all

 placed

in

operation

in

 1951.

 (Amend.

 Pet. p.

5)

Starting

 in January, 1986,

 the City proceeded with

resampling

 of all

 its wells and the distribution system,

 and was

receiving sample analyses

 up to the time of hearing.

 (Amend Pet.

6—8,

R.

 63—64,

 Pet. Ex.

 4,5)

The gross alpha

 standard was not exceeded

 on resampling,

and

therefore,

 as noted earlier,

 the City concurred with the Agency

that no variance from that standard was needed.

(R.

63,

 Pet.

Ex.

4 and 6)

 However,

 resampling verified the combined radium

 exceedances (Amend. Pet. p.

 7,8,

R.

 63, Pet.

Ex.

5).

Regarding notice, the City did not mail out individual

notice

 to water

 users within

 three months as required

 by Board

rules.

 The delay appeared

 to be due

 to the City’s sampling

program

 to verify the Agency’s results,

 since the Agency’s

74.43

—3—

samples were collected

in

1980

 and 1981.

(R.

 65.)

 In any event,

some notice was provided

 in June by way of news coverage of the

City Council’s public discussion of the problem and

its

determination

 to seek variance;

and

 individual notice was mailed

in October

 by separate mailing because

 the water bills are

a

postcard type.

(R.

65,

66,

 Pet.

Ex.

 3,7)

Mr. Duffield testified that the City has embarked on

a

blending program, which is possible, but only in certain parts of

the City.

 Water

 from the shallow aquifer

 is blended with water

from three deep wells

 at the Fairmont and Garvin storage

 tank.

To increase

 the flow rate,

 the City has installed

 a new pump

in

shallow Gravel Well No.

 2, as well as removing obstructions

in

the gravel packing

 of the well

 by chemical treatment.

 The City

also has contracted

 for chemical treatment on shallow Gravel Well

No.

1,

 and work is

 in progress to

 install

 a new pump on shallow

Gravel Well No.

5.

 The results calculated

for

 the blending

efforts are that the Fairmont—Garvin section will receive waters

containing

 an average and maximum radium content of 3.1 pCi/l,

and the east

 (downtown)

 section will receive waters containing

5.0 pCi/l average and 5.8 pCi/i maximum.

 However, the west side

will receive waters containing 10.0 pCi/i

 average and 11.0 pCi/l

maximum;

 since the facility

 is located west of the Des Plaines

River,

 no blending waters from the shallow wells, which are

located

 on the east side of the River, are available without

a

major construction project.

 This project would

 cost, at

a

minimum,

 over $2,000,000.

 Even then, compliance levels would not

be achieved throughout

 the system.

(R.

 70—84,

 Pet. Ex.

8

 and 9)

COMPLIANCE OPTIONS:

Mr. Clark and Mr. Markwood presented testimony regarding

compliance options:

1.

 Development of new shallow groundwater sources

 for blending

 was investigated.

 The three shallow low radium limestone

aquifers underlying Joliet are either being

 rapidly dewatered

or have already been dewatered,

 and will not produce water

in

sufficient quantities

 to be usable

as

 a municipal source.

Efforts by others

 to tap this source

 have not been

successful.

 It was also pointed out that water

 in the

dolomite

 formations is subject

 to pollution and capable of

carrying

 contaminants

 for long distances fairly rapidly

(R.

95—107,

 121,

 122,

 Pet.

 Ex. 12—15).

2.

 Treatment of the water

 from the existing deep Galesville

Sandstone aquifer,

 a formation

 in the Cambrian and Ordovician

rocks,

 is feasible, costing $15 million and requiring seven

years

 to construct and

 test.

 The treatment methods addressed

and

 the testimony concerning

 them were:

74.44

—4—

a)

 Reverse osmosis.

 This option was not considered because

of the nature of Joliet’s deep well water;

 before

utilizing reverse osmosis,

 the water

 would require

pretreatment

 to remove hardness and

 iron,

 but such

pretreatment also would remove radium and

 thus renders

reverse osmosis unnecessary.

b)

 Ion exchange.

 This option removes

 radium but increases

sodium, and may be a problem for those on

 a restricted

sodium diet.

 Also,

 the waste generated concentrates

radium as

 a liquid, which makes landfilling difficult

and, with high total

 solids, difficult to dispose of

in

any case.

 It also presents

 an exposure hazard

for

anyone having

 to work inside

the

 tank.

c)

 Lime softening.

 The resulting sludge does not create a

special landfill problem and might be used

for

agricultural purposes.

 However, lime softening of the

existing system would not leave room

 for expansion, and

installation of

a

 treatment plant would cost about the

same

treatment

plant

used

for

Kankakee

River

water.

Most

important,

the

water

level

the

deep

aquifer

dropping

from

5—&½

feet

per

year,

being

over—pumped

four

times

 its safe yield capacity, and

will

longer

viable

water

source

for

Joliet

some

future

time.

Even

were

the

aquifer

later

stabilize,

the

City

believes

may

stabilize

depth

such

that

would

longer

economically

feasible

maintain

and

operate

the

wells

(R.

75—81,

120—125).

Development

Kankakee

River

water

source.

 The City’s

preferred

option

 is development of the Kankakee River

 as the

water

 source,

 because of its iikelihood of success and

because

 it will supply more water.

 Also,

 it was pointed out

that,

 unlike the groundwater sources,

 water from the Kankakee

would

 be sufficient

 for blending

 if desired.

 This option has

been supported by previous studies,

 as early as the 1967

State

 report “Water

 for Illinois,

 a Plan

 for Action”.

The

City estimates the project will cost $35 million

and

 take

seven

 years

 to construct, plus another year to

 test out.

(Amend.

 Pet.

 Attach.

2,

 Alternative

B,

 Pet.

Ex.

10,

R.

 74—

81).

 Joliet asserts that the long time period

 is occasioned

in part by the time needed

 to issue revenue bonds

and

to

receive

 a water withdrawal permit.

 Joliet believes that

it

could

 service

 some or all of nine other nearby communities

and

 the Joliet Army Ammunition Plant,

all

 of which are on

restricted status because of excess radium.

 Notwithstanding,

the City

 is committed

 to the project even

 if financial

assistance from other communities

 is not forthcoming, and has

bonding capability sufficient to finance

 the project

independently.

 However,

if

 it proceeds alone, Joliet

believes

 it would have

 to get

 a separate withdrawal permit

74.45

—5—

rather

 than using

 the Regional Water Authority’s permit which

has already been issued

 for the area

 (R. 75—81).

HARDSHIP AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:

Ms. Calvert testified that an active major marketing program

is underway

 for the area

 (Pet.

 Ex..

 17).

 The effort was

initiated because of Joliet’s unemployment rate, which in 1983

was 26.5,

 the highest

 in the nation.

 Presently there

are

23

prospects for new development,

2

 of which are close

to

announcement.

 However, the uncertainty of water line connections

has restricted

 the marketing area and has affected

 the number of

sites that can be shown

 to prospects

 (R. 129—134).

 Mr. Duffield

testified that there are three projects now under construction

where the owners are proceeding at their own risk,

 and one

additional project has been submitted

 to the Agency for

permitting review

(R.

 81).

Dr. Toohey presented testimony regarding

 radium effects.

He

noted that some of his testimony has already been presented

in

the Board’s pending regulatory proceeding R85—l4

 (Pet.

Ex.

1).

He

 addressed three models

 in assessing risk factors:

 first,

the

USEPA model

 used for determining

 the interim drinking water

standards established

 in 1976;

 second,

 the USEPA revised model

used

 for establishing

 the pending revised standards; and

 third,

the Argonne model

 based on observed data

 for the radium diai

painters.

 Assuming

 an exposure of eight years to 78,000

residents drinking two liters

 per day of City water containing

radium at

 a level

 of 6.5 pCi/l, the

 first model calculates to

1.12 excess cancer deaths;

 the second model calculates

 to 0.51

and

the

 third ‘model calculates to 0.28.

 If Argonne’s concept of

a threshold

 is used,

 the predicted

 excess deaths would be zero,

rather

 than the one or

 less excess death using

 the no threshold

concept.

 Dr. Toohey also submitted

a

 paper

 prepared for and

completed

 in 1983 at

 the National Workshop for Radioactivity

in

Drinking Water

 under

 the sponsorship of USEPA.

 It was published

in May, 1985

in

 the Health Physics Journal.

 The paper,

“Metabolism of Ingested

 U and RA”, Wrenn et al.

 (1985),

 contains

more than 120

 references and

 concludes,

 in part:

 “The interim

226Ra limits

 in water could be relaxed by

 a factor of at least

4,

and still provide

 a very high degree of protection

for

individuals”

(R.

 30—49,

Ex.

 2, p.

 612, Recommendation No.

7).

The Agency believes that grant of variance for

the

 time

period

 in question,

 even up

to

 a maximum of four

 times the

present standard,

 should cause no significant health risk and

that hardship resulting from denial of variance would outweigh

any injury to the public

 if variance

 is granted.

 The Agency also

favorably noted

 the possibility of Joliet assisting other

communities

 in obtaining Kankakee River water

 (Agency Rec.

p.

11,

R.

 148).

74.46

—6—

The City accepted the Agency’s recommended conditions with

certain changes,

 i.e.

 that the City strike the request

for

variance from Section 39

 of the Act, and that all construction

should begin no later than three and one—half years after grant

of variance,

 rather than three years thereafter

(R.

 l39—i40).

The Agency also noted, but did not recommend, that a variance

only for

the

 16 months needed prior

 to application

for

 a permit

could be granted.

 The Agency supports variance

 for five years,

noting that any requested extensions thereafter

 could

 be denied

if Joliet has not proceeded in a timely manner.

CONCLUSIONS

Based

 on this record,

 the Board

 finds that, pursuant to

Section 35(a) of the Act, Joliet has proven that denial of

variance would

 impose

 an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

The

Board

 is persuaded that Joliet would suffer

 a high degree of

economic hardship,

 by denial of variance.

 The Board also agrees

with the Agency that grant of variance involves

 no significant

health risk.

 The Board

 is impressed

 by the City’s quick response

upon learning of its radium problem,

 including

 its immediate and

ongoing

 testing, its investments to enhance its interim blending

capabilities,

 and its commitment to

 an expensive but long—term

solution.

 The Board encourages Joliet in its effort

 to seek

a

common solution with its neighboring

 towns,

 but notes that this

effort cannot be allowed

 to unduly extend Joliet’s own compliance

schedule.

The Board

 observes that this grant of variance from

restricted

 stal~.uswill affect only those

 users who consume water

drawn from any newly extended water

 lines.

 This variance does

not affect

 the status of the rest of Joliet’s population drawing

water

 from existing water

 lines,

 except insofar

 as the variance

by its conditions may hasten compliance.

 Grant of variance may

also,

 in the

 interim,

 lessen exposure

for

 that portion of the

population

which

will

 be consuming more effectively blended

water,

significant

portion

which

water

will

contain

radium

level

below

the

pCi/l

regulatory

standard.

saying,

the

Board

emphasizes

that

 it continues

 to place

 a high priority on

compliance

with

the

radium

standards.

For

these

reasons,

variance

granted

with

conditions

some

respects,

 different

 from those recommended

 by the Agency.

Variance will

 be granted for five years, but will terminate

in

15

months

 if the compliance plan does not involve the

 use of

Kankakee

River

water.

This

five

year

grant

variance

premised

Joliet’s

determination

that

wishes

achieve

compliance

utilizing

Kankakee

River

water.

 Should another

option

chosen,

paragraph

 6 of the Order

 provides that this

variance

will

terminate

March

1988,

thus

giving

Joliet

120

days

 “lead time”

 to timely petition for another variance

utilizing

 a different compliance plan

and

 schedule.

74.47

—7—

The Board also has changed

 a number of other

 recommended

conditions.

 Paragraph

 8 alters the recommended condition so as

to provide

for

 any Agency approval

 or disapproval action to take

place

permit

setting;

 it is

 inappropriate for

 the Board

to

order

 the Agency to take timely action

Compliance

Report,

recommended, and the condition does not address what would happen

if the Agency disapproved.

 (Agency Rec.

p.

 13, paragraph

 (H))

Paragraph

 9 alters the recommended condition concerning

efforts

 to utilize

 a regional water

 supply,

so

as

 to avoid

reliance on actions of entities other than the City for

compliance.

 Paragraph

 10 rephrases the Agency’s

recommendation.

The

schedule

Exhibit

indicates

that

obtaining

right—of—way

will

take

place

immediately

following

Agency review and during the

 same time period as plans and

specifications are being prepared,

 i.e. from March

5,

1988

to

August 27,

 1989.

 The Agency condition does not reference any

starting

 date.

The

 Board has rephrased this condition to state

that the City will obtain all necessary right—of—way within

18

months of completion of Agency review.

 Paragraph

 11 rephrases

the recommendation concerning the bidding process,

 which was

unclear

 as phrased

in

 the Agency recommendation.

 (Agency Rec.,

paragraphs

 (I),

(K)

and

 (L)).

 If the Board’s understanding

of

the

 intended time frames

 in Paragraphs 10 and 11

 is incorrect,

alternate phrasing should be submitted by way of a Motion

for

Reconsideration.

 Other changes reflect similar enforceability

concerns.

Finally,

the

Board

notes

that,

while

 it respects Mrs.

Topolski’s

concerns

regarding

possible

contaminants

other

than

radium,

would

inappropriate

order

 the additional testing

she

requests;

this

proceeding

limited

‘scope

 combined

radium

exceedances

and,

further,

Board

regulations

require

Joliet

to

 test for other contaminants

 in addition

 to radium,

 and grant

of this variance does not relieve Joliet from that

responsibility.

This

Opinion

constitutes

the

Board’s

 findings of fact and

conclusions

law

this

matter.

ORDER

The

City

Joliet

 is hereby granted

 a variance from 35

Ill.

Adm.

 Code 602.105(a)

 (Standards of

 Issuance), and 602.106(b)

(Restricted

Status)

but

only

 as they relate

 to combined

radium—226 and —228,

subject

the

following

conditions:

2.

 This variance will terminate no later

 than November

6,

1991.

 However,

 this variance will terminate on March

6,

1988,

pursuant

paragraph

this

Order,

the

event

that compliance will

 not be achieved by use of Kankakee River

water.

74-48

—8—

3.

 In consultation with the Agency, the City of Joliet

 shall

continue

its

sampling

program

determine

accurately

possible

 the level

 of radioactivity in its wells and

 finished

water.

Until

this

variance

expires,

Petitioner

shall

collect

quarterly samples of water

 from its distribution system, and

shall

 composite and shall analyze them annually by a

laboratory certified by the State of Illinois

for

radiological

analysis

determine

the

concentration

the contaminant

 in question.

 The results of the analyses

shall be reported

 to the Water Quality Unit, Division of

Public Water Supplies, 2200 Churchill Road,

 IEPA,

Springfield, Illinois 62706, within 30 days of receipt of

each analysis.

 At the option of Petitioner, the quarterly

 samples may be analyzed when collected.

 The running average

the

most

recent

four

quarterly

sample

results

shall

reported to the above address within 30 days of receipt of

the

most

recent

quarterly

sample.

Within

three

months

the

grant

the

variance,

the

 City of

Joliet shall

 secure professional assistance (either

 from

present staff or an outside consultant)

 in investigating

compliance options,

 including the possibility and feasibility

of achieving compliance by blending water

 from its existing

shallow wells with that of its existing deep wells.

5.

 Within four months of the grant of the variance, evidence

that such professional assistance has been secured

 shall

be

submitted

 to the Agency’s Division of Public Water Supplies,

FOS,

 at 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

 Illinois

 62606.

6.

 Within twelve months of the grant of the variance,

 the City

of Joliet shall

 complete investigating compliance methods,

including those treatment techniques described

 in the Manual

of Treatment Techniques

 for Meeting

 the Interim Primary

Drinking Water Regulations, USEPA, may 1977,

 EPA—600/8—77—

005,

 and shall prepare

 a detailed Compliance Report showing

how compliance shall

 be achieved within

 the shortest

practicable time, but

 no later than eight years from the date

of this variance; however,

 if the compliance plan does not

involve the use of Kankakee River water, this variance

 shall

terminate on March

6,

 1988.

7.

 This Compliance Report shall be submitted within

 thirteen

months of the grant of this variance

to

 IEPA,

 DPWS.

8.

 Within

 thirty—four months of the grant of the variance, the

City of Joliet shall apply to

 IEPA,

 DPWS,

 Permit Section,

for

all permits necessary for construction of installations,

changes or

 additions

 to the City of Joliet’s public water

supply needed

for

achieving

compliance

with

the

combined

radium standard.

74-49

—9—

9.

 The City of Joliet may work with area communities

 or other

entities

 to determine

if

 a regional water

 supply from the

Kankakee River

 would

 be the best alternative for achieving

compliance,

well

consider

funding

mechanisms.

Should

 a regional entity be selected by intergovernmental

agreement or by other means

 to develop a regional water

supply, such action shall

 not relieve Joliet of its

obligation

 to comply with the terms of this variance.

 These

activities shall occur concurrently with the technical

requirements embodied

 in paragraphs 4—7

 of this order,

and

shall

 be completed before November

6,

 1988.

10. Acquisition of property

 for right—of—way shall begin upon the

final

 routing

 of the pipe line being

 established and proceed

to completion within 18 months of completion of Agency

review.

11. Within three months after each construction permit is issued

by IEPA,

 DPWS, the City of Joliet shall

 advertise for bids,

to be submitted within 60 days, from contractors to do the

necessary work described

 in the construction permit.

The

City of Joliet shall

 accept appropriate bids within

a

reasonable

 time.

 Petitioner

 shall

 notify

 IEPA, DPWS of:

1)

advertisements for bids,

2)

 names of successful bidders, and

3)

 whether Joliet accepted the bids.

12. Construction allowed by said construction permits shall begin

within

 a reasonable time of bids being accepted, but in

any

case, construction of all installations, changes or additions

necessary to achieve compliance with the maximum allowable

combined radium concentration shall begin no later

 than three

and one—half years

 from the grant of this variance,

 and shall

be completed

 no later

 than seven years

 from the grant of this

variance.

13. Pursuant

 to 35 Ill.

 Athn.

 Code 606.201,

in

 its first set of

water bills or within three months after the date of this

Var iance Order,

whichever

occurs

first,

and

every

three

months thereafter, Petitioner will send

 to each user of its

public water

 supply a written notice

to

 the effect that

Petitioner

 has been granted by the Pollution Control Board

a

variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 602.105(a) Standards of

Issuance and 35 Ill.

 Adm. Code 602.106(b)

 Restricted Status,

as

 it relates to combined

 radium—226 and —228.

14. Pursuant

 to 35 Ill. Adm.

 Code 606.201,

 in its first set of

water bills or within three months after

 the date of this

Order, whichever occurs first,

 and every three months

thereafter, Petitioner

 will send

 to each user of its public

water supply a written notice

 to the effect that Petitioner

 is not

 in compliance with the standard

 in question.

The

notice

 shall state

 the average combined radium content

in

74-50

—10—

samples taken

 since

 the last notice period during which

samples

were

taken.

15.

The

City

Joliet

shall

take

all

reasonable

measures

with

its

existing

equipment

minimize

the

level

combined

radium—226

and

—228

its

finished

water.

16.

The

City

Joliet

shall

provide

written

progress

reports

IEPA,

DPWS,

FOS

every

six

months

concerning

steps

taken

comply

with

paragraphs

10,

11,

and

15.

Progress

reports shall quote each of said paragraphs and immediately

below each paragraph state what steps have been taken

to

comply with each paragraph.

17. Within 45 days of the date of this Order,

 the Petitioner

shall

execute

and

forward

Mr.

Wayne

Wiemerslage,

Enforcement

Programs,

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

2200

Churchill

Road,

Springfield,

Illinois

62706,

Certificate

Acceptance

and

Agreement

bound

all

terms

and

conditions

this

variance.

This

forty—five

day

period

shall

held

abeyance

for

any

period

this

matter

being

appealed.

CERTIF ICATION

I,

 (We)

________________________________,

 having

 read

the

Order

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

PCB

86—121,

dated

November

1986,

understand

and

the

said

Order,

realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions

thereto

binding

and

enforceable.

Petitioner

By:

Authorized

Agent

Title

Date

74-51

—11

—

18.

 Mrs. Gisela Topolski’s October

20,

 1986 Motion

 is granted.

The Board hereby incorporates Mrs. Topolski’s Motion into the

hearing record

 as Citizens Exhibit No.

1.

ORDERED.

3.

D.

 Dumelle and

B.

 Forcade dissented.

I,

 Dorothy

 M. Gunn,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

~Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted on the

 6~~- day of ______________________,

 1986, by

a

vote of

____________.

2C~ ~

Dorothy

 M. ~unn, Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

74-52