ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 26, 1990

THE ENSIGN-BICKFORD COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 90—83

(Provisional Variance)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION (by J. Dumelle):

My reason for dissenting is that I feel the provisional

variance portion of the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) was

not intended for situations such as this one.

The Ensign—Bickford Company (“Petitioner”) certainly knew a

long time ago that it would be burning these two buildings. It

would have had to know this for intelligent corporate planning

and for its preparations to build two buildings.

The provisional variance provision was designed for

“unanticipated” problems that arise and must be handled

quickly. But its use necessarily omits public scrutiny and

oversight which are hallmarks of the Act.

In this case the petitioner could have timely applied for an

air variance and the public would have be,en afforded an

opportunity to comment or to~ask for~a he~ring.

-,

~ ~/,/

:

2

Jacob D. Dumelle, P.E.

//

Board Member

7’.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the. Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion ~as

submitted on the

~

day of

________________

,

1990.

/

7-’,

‘~“

~

/

_.// ,‘,

~

~

5orothy M. ,~unn, Clerk

Illinois P’ôllution Control Board

110—423