ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 9, 1986

VILLAGE OF BURLINGTON,

)

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 85—183

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION (by J. D. Dumelle):

My dissent is based upon the health threat posed by the

majority grant of this variance, the vagueness of the basis for

the variance, and the past poor record by Burlington in the

following previous Board orders.

The barium content in the Burlington water is 2.7 mg.1. The

new Federal standard is 1.5 mg/i. The content is therefore 80

over this health—based standard. Does that not give cause for

concern? Barium, at excessive levels, leads to hypertension

which in turn may bring on strokes or heart attacks. The grant

of this variance will allow new residential construction which

will expose additional persons to these high barium levels and to

adverse health effects. The time period for inducing

hypertension from barium is not clear and may be well under five

years.

Burlington’s claim of hardship here is vague. No new

development awaiting this grant is alleged. Any other

municipality can make the same claim and will then presumably be

granted a similar variance. The entire basis for Restricted

Status is thus destroyed. The rule might just as well be

repealed if such vague claims are granted.

Most disturbing is Burlington’s past conduct. The Agency

has recommended denial but the majority has seen fit not to

follow that recommendation. Four of the five conditions set out

by this Board in PCB 80—203 were not followed by Burlington.

That is an 80 rate of non-compliance. No compliance plan was

submitted before January 1, 1984 yet the instant variance again

requires a compliance plan. What assurance does this Board have

that it will be prepared and submitted? How many bites at the

apple are to be allowed?

69-404

---

—2—

Burlington’s failure to observe Condition “E” in PCB 80-203

means that its own residents were not notified of the high barium

levels in their drinking water. They might have chosen to use

bottled water if they themselves were hypertensive or cardiac

problems. But they were never told!

The Board majority has here rewarded non—compliance with its

previous orders by a new grant over the Agency’s objections.

Board orders will never be respected if this practice continues.

I, Dorothy M. Gunri, Cle~.kr”of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion was filed

on the

—

/~-

day of

____________

1986.

(-I

//

acot D. Dumelle, P.~.

:hairman

Ill

lution Control Board