ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 31,
    1986
    VILLAGE OF LEMONT,
    )
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB 86—54
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    CONCURRING OPINION
    (by J. Anderson):
    I
    do not feel that the Board~saction denying variance was
    an unreasonable response to Lemont’s unacceptable failure
    to
    vigorously respond
    to the conditions
    of the Board’s prior
    variance order.
    However,
    I am concerned that this outright denial might
    drive Lemont,
    in
    its effort
    to accommodate
    its new developments,
    to invest
    in
    a permanent compliance option that
    involves
    treatment of
    its raw water which creates
    a radioactive
    sludge.
    Even assuming that Lemont can find
    a place
    to dispose of this
    sludge,
    any such compliance option may result
    in attainment of
    compliance more quickly,
    but would
    be
    far less environmentally
    acceptable,
    than Lemont’s utilization
    of its Lake Michigan water
    allocation,
    which would eliminate any problem associated with
    radium removal.
    This record indicates
    that Lake Michigan water should be
    affordable
    if Lemont can
    a)
    collect the sizeable
    tap—on fees
    projected from its proposed
    hospital/senior citizen/commercial/-
    residential developments, which
    fees would allow
    it to finance
    the operations,
    b)
    increase its borrowing power,
    as
    a result of
    these projects,
    tripling of its assessed valuation and
    C)
    reduce
    the per customer construction costs, presently estimated at
    $7,650 per customer.
    I believe,
    the Board might have brought Lemont
    into
    compliance more effectively,
    and potentially more quickly,
    if
    it
    had granted
    a short—term variance with conditions placing Lemont
    on a
    “fast track” program.
    I would have preferred that the Board
    grant variance for nine months,
    but with automatic termination
    in
    five months
    if at that time no variance petition had been filed
    by Lemont which included the selection
    of
    a specific option,
    and
    a firm compliance plan with increments
    of progress and compliance
    timetables.
    Additionally,
    if Lake Michigan water was
    the chosen
    71-401
    —2—
    option,
    I would have wished
    the petition to contain
    a copy of
    a
    formal agreement between Leinont and the entity providing delivery
    of the water,
    as well as
    a statement any interim measures that
    could be taken
    to either achieve compliance or
    reduce the radium
    levels, particularly by blending.
    On the other
    hand,
    if blending
    were the chosen option,
    I would have required the petition to
    state the specific additional well water
    sources referred to
    in
    the record.
    As Leinont has already hired
    a consultant
    to get “hard”
    figures on costs of getting Lake Michigan water,
    I believe five
    months would have been sufficient time for Leniont
    to make a
    decision about how best
    to achieve compliance and to get any
    necessary agreements from Orland Park or whatever other hook-on
    source
    is preferred and available.
    In any event,
    I reiterate my hope that Leinont will consider
    any compliance option other than use of Lake Michigan water only
    as
    an interim measure.
    For these
    reasons,
    1 concur.
    ~
    ~
    Joan G. Anderson
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Concurring Opinion was
    submitted
    on the
    ~21Z
    day
    of
    _____________________,
    1986.
    ~4
    ~
    Dorothy M.
    dunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    71-402

    Back to top