ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 11, 1986
VILLAGE OF ROUND LAKE BEACH
Petitioner
V.
)
PCB 86—59
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
and
)
ELIZABETH BOWDEN, BARBARA ELLENWOOD,
)
MICHAEL KARASINSKI,
JEAN KENNEDY,
)
CHRISTINE MEEK, STEWART SLAVIK,
)
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,
)
AND THE LAKE COUNTY DEFENDERS
)
Intervenors.
DISSENTING OPINION (by
B.
Forcade):
I dissent from today’s action by the majority as an
imprudent policy decision based
on improper factual manipulation
of the record.
Many areas
in Illinois draw water from deep aquifers whose
naturally occuring combined radium concentration exceed the
legally established level.
From all
indications those aquifers
have had high radium levels
for so long (compared to
a human
lifetime) and deliver water
of such constant radium quality
(assuming stasis
in withdrawal and recharge rates)
that the
levels can be considered a
constant
over all
relevant times
for
health planning.
In other words,
if you are currently drinking
water with high radium levels you have probably been drinking
it
all of your life or since the last change
in the water supply
system.
The Board
has established
a
5 pCi/i
standard for combined
radium 226 and 228 based on health effects and the economics of
control technologies.
Public water supplies that fail to deliver
water at that quality are precluded from extending their
service
to new customers (restricted status).
This prevents unsafe water
from being delivered to new users and,
since limitations on
growth are generally considered detrimental, provides
an
incentive for the system
to clean
up the water
it provides to its
existing customers.
The
recent results of testing have shown
72.291
—2—
many Illinois municipalities
to be above the 5 pCi/l standard and
they have been placed on restricted status.
When the
recent testing
results placed
The Village of Round
Lake Beach
on restricted status it frustrated
its growth
potential.
The Village’s dilemma was further complicated when
it
became
clear that safe water would be delivered to users almost
immediately by blending low contamination shallow well water
with
higher contamination deep wells,
so long as
total water
usage did
not increase.
If, however, water
usage was
increased by
annexation, then immediate compliance was not possible and the
alternative of new safe water sources for blending
or some form
of treatment would
be required
for future compliance.
In other
words, safe water now but
no growth
or growth now and safe water
at some point
in the future.
Round Lake Beach chose the latter
approach and petitioned
this Board
for
a variance.
The arguments presented
in favor
of variance were low health
risk,
and improved financial condition
if variance were
granted.
These arguments, however, deserve closer attention.
The basis
for health related contamination levels
for
drinking water
are fairly simple.
First you determine how much
drinking water
the person you want
to protect drinks,
then you
determine what level
of risk should apply
to the person who
drinks
that much water.
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the Pollution Control Board have decided
that it
is appropriate
to protect those individuals who drink two
liters per day.
Proponents of
the variance presented Dr.
Richard
E.
Toohey who testified as follows:
‘~There is one reference of a study of drinking
water consumption
in Canada which actually
followed about 10,000 people, and their
average intake
in Canada was 1.34 liters per
day.
You don’t have
to be
a scientist
to
understand that 1.34 is closer
to one than
it
is
to two.~’
(R.47)
Dr. Toohey’s assumption
(one liter
per day consumption) has
several serious flaws
from
a health protection standpoint.
First,
it
is entirely inapprorpriate to use averages for water
intake.
It could be that nearly one—half of the people drink
more than the average person drinks.
If so, they do not receive
the stated level of protection.
The more appropriate approach
is
to decide what portion of the population you wish
to protect and
what consumption level will cover those people.
The second flaw
is reducing 1.34
to
1.0.
No empirical or
logical basis
for the
reduction is provided.
This means that even the average person
will no longer receive the stated
level of protection.
The third
flaw is more subtle.
Water consumption
is
to
a certain extent
temperature related;
in hot weather we may drink more.
Without
72-292
—3—
more detail on the temperatures involved in the Canadian study
it
may
be
inappropriate to apply those values to Round Lake Beach.
In summary,
Dr. Toohey’s arguments do nothing to convince me that
the two liter
per day consumption value should be abandoned for
estimating health risks.
In
a similar vein Dr. Toohey has criticised the linear dose—
response model
for estimating health risk for low level exposure
to radiation.
First,
it should be noted
that there
is no
experimental data
(or
at best questionable data)
at levels
involving
a few picocuries per liter.
Models are used to predict
effects at these low levels based on reliable data obtained at
much higher
levels.
The linear model
is used because
it is a
conservative model
and because
it places its greatest reliance on
the lowest dose (presumably this data point would most accurately
reflect the mechanisms which are
in effect
in the sub—
experimental dose range).
The question then becomes how
conservative should we be
in predicting the unknown, where health
effects are involved.
Dr. Toohey suggests we should be
substantially less conservative
in predicting
the unknown than
the linear model.
I do not know of any governmental agency that
has abandoned the linear model
for health planning purposes and
Dr. Toohey certainly does not provide compelling evidence to do
so.
I also question Dr. Toohey’s assertion that a risk level of
100 excess cancers per million exposed
is acceptable
(R.
48).
Most environmental health planning strives
for
an excess lifetime
cancer rate of not more than one per million exposed;
if that
level were applied
to radium
in drinking water
the acceptable
levels would
be 0.05 pCi/l.
Dr. Toohey’s arguments were
in large
part based on how many people we should protect, how conservative
our health planning should be, and what level
of risk
is
acceptable.
To the extent these arguments are presented
as an
individual opinion on social policy they are appropriate.
To the
extent they are presented as representing
a “reasonable degree of
scientific certainty”
(R.
58,
59,
60,
61)
they reflect
the worst
kind of bad
science.
Science does not tell us what portion of
the public
to protect.
Science does not tell us how conservative
our health planning should be.
Science does not tell us what
level
of
risk
is acceptable.
These social policy decisions
should not be cloaked
in a scientific Shroud of Turin
to provide
legitimacy to the author’s viewpoint.
The second argument made by variance proponents is that
hooking
up new users would provide additional revenue
(from
the
hook—up
fees) which would more easily allow system improvements
(R.
205—210).
At hearing variance opponents attempted
to show
that the new users would not only generate new revenues from
hook—up fees, but also new costs
in other fiscal areas that might
make the overall
financial position worse.
When the witness
began his presentation he was interrupted
as follows:
72-293
—4—
“Hearing Officer:
Just
a moment.
Are you
speaking
to the annexation
,
or are you
speaking
to
the water variance?
Witness:
I am talking about the cost of
water.
I don’t see, Mr. Chairman, how we can
separate water
costs and school costs, because
if
the annexation
—
—
if the water variance
is
going
to be given
to allow annexation and
growth,
then the other side of the coin has to
be explored, because they may give them a
reasonable water bill but
it
is going to give
them a skyrocketing tax bill for the schools.
Hearing Officer:
I am going
to be capricious
and arbitrary and ask you
to limit your
comments to the water variance, not the
annexation.
So within those parameters you
got four minutes left.
Witness:
Well, you know,
I don’t see how they
can
be separated.
And
if that
is your ruling
Hearing Officer:
I am asking you to do the
best you can
Witness:
If that is your
ruling,
it certainly
is going
to put a curb on me.
Hearing Officer:
I would hope
so.
I believe the hearing officer ruling was
in error.
If the
new developments
are being justified
as
a source of revenues that
are necessary
to fund the water system improvements by the Mayor
(R.
205—210),
then the costs
of the development
to the overall
financial picture should also be relevant and material
to the
decision.
Due
to the one—sided health related testimony of Dr. Toohey,
and the exclusion of information on the costs of the development,
I believe
the Board was provided with
a factually manipulated
record that only showed one side.
72-294
—5—
I also believe that the Board’s decision to grant variance
relief established an imprudent policy.
In the past radium
variance cases the Board
has been presented with situations where
the contaminated wells provided such
a large portion of the water
supply that blending (which
is relatively inexpensive) was not an
option.
In those cases the Board was asked to allow continued
growth while
the municipality was constructing treatment
facilities or alternative sources to come into compliance.
Today
the Board has for
the first
time allowed growth instead
of
compliance.
I cannot support that philosophy and accordingly,
I
dissent.
~
Board Member
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the 1above Dissenting Opinion was filed
on the
/9zZ~
day of
?~~4i~tI
1986.
Control Board
72-295