ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
5,
1989
THE EUREKA
COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB
88—85
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
)
CONCURRING OPINION (by J.D. Dumelle):
My reason for concurring
is
that the majority’s grant
of variance begins
on January
5’,
1989, and leaves
the Eureka
Company liable to
an enforcement
action by anyone for the period
from
January
1,
1988 through January 4,
1989.
The
rule from which variance was
granted
is
a part of the
State
Implementation
Plan
and when approved by the U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
would presumably
be enforceable under the U.S. Clean
Air Act.
At the
very least, the
“gap”
in protection
is now enforceable under the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act.
The arguments counter
to this are that the Erueka
Company filed
late
(on
May 10.
1988) and amended
its petition on August
17,
1988.
On August 21, 1988
it
waived the due date
for 120 additional days
(most
of which had already
occurred
because
of
the
amendment
to
the
petition).
This
is
a
company
which
has
not
often
appeared
before
the
Board.
Why
they
filed
in
May
of
1988
instead
of
in September 1987
is
unknown.
It may
have
been
oversight
or
perhaps
they
were
hoping
for
success
in
paint
refomati on.
If
the
Board
is
to
grant
variance
I
feel
it
should
give
full
protection
against
future
enforcement
actions
unless
bad
faith
is
shown.
Bad
faith
was
not
shown
here.
In
this
case
I
would
have
granted
the
variance
to
cover
the
370
calendar
days
for
which
the
Eureka
Company
remains
liable
to
prosecution.
Board
Member
95—33
—2-
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby
certify that the above
Concurring Opinion was submitted on the
//~
day
____________,
1989.
Ill
S
on
Control
Board
n5—34