ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

15, 1985

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

R85—14

PUBLIC ¼ATER SUPPLY

)

REGULATIONS,

35

ILL. ADM.

)

CODE 602.105 AND 602.106

)

DISSENTING OPINION

(by B.

Forcade):

I respectfully dissent from the majority on both a technical

and procedural basis.

On the ‘technical

issue

I agree with the

dissenting Opinion of Chairman Dumelle that the adopted

radium

level of

20 pCi/i

is too high.

I also agree that the practical

effect

of this “150—day” rule will

be to allow long—term radium

exposure by individuals residing

in housing that

is permitted

in

the 150—day period.

Thus, while

the duration of

the rule is

short,

its effects may last a lifetime.

My second concern

is procedural

in nature.

I disagree with

the concept of adopting one set of numerical contaminant

limitations as health—based standards and another

set

of

numerical contaminant limitations which will implement the “self—

enforcement” aspects of our environmental protection scheme.

When

the Board adopts an environmental standard, compliance

with that regulation

is largely a matter

of individual

initiative

by the members

of the regulated community.

When that individual

initiative fails,

the Environmental Protection Act provides two

mechanisms to encourage compliance:

Enforcement under Title VIII

and Permits under Title

X.

My primary concern

is with Title

X,

which provides:

TITLE

X:

PERMITS

Section 39

a.

When

the Board

has by regulation required

a permit

for the construction,

installation, or operation of any type of

facility, equipment, vehicle, vessel,

or

aircraft, the applicant shall apply to

the Agency for

such permit and

it shall

be

the duty of the Agency to issue such

a

permit upon proof by the applicant that

the facility,

equipment, vehicle, vessel,

or aircraft will not cause a violation of

this Act or

of

regulations hereunder...

Under

this provision,

the Agency may not issue

to an applicant

a

new permit or

renew an existing permit unless

the equipment will

65-337

---

—2—

not cause

a violation of

the Act or Board regulations.

This

provision encourages “self—enforcement” by members

of the

regulated community,

at least by the time they need

a permit.

Otherwise,

their permit application may be denied and they may

be

forced

to cease operations.

Today’s action by the Board

is

directly contrary to the language of Section 39(a)

of the Act

because

it purports

to authorize the Agency to issue permits

for

new water main connections ONLY where the drinking water

being

transmitted through those connections DOES NOT meet health—based

standards adopted by this Board.

I believe the approach that should have been taken was

to

re—evaluate

the existing drinking water

health—based standards.

If the scientific information supports relaxation,

as

I believe

it does

for fluoride,

then the health—based number should be

raised.

In my opinion, today’s action of allowing one set of

numbers

for “environmental protection”

and a different set of

numbers

for permitting violates Section 39 of the Act and was

accurately described by Dr. Marchi as hocus—pocus

(R.

449).

The Board’s majority has,

in today’s Order, determined

that

the new levels present “minimal additional risk of

adverse

effects on health” and eliminate “major economic and other

effects.”

With such statements now on record as the official

Board position,

I question the legal ability or willingness of

the Board

to command compliance with the lower “environmental

protection” contaminant limitations

if any Title VIII enforcement

action

is filed.

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above

ssenting Opinion was

submitted

on the

~

day of

_________________,

1985.

71

(-I

Dorothy

M.

Gunn

Clerk of the Board

Member of

the Board

65-338