ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 11, 1991
CITY OF ST. CHARLES,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 91-58
(Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION (by J.D. Dumelle):
I dissent from the Board’s decision to accept this new case
because the filing submitted by the City of St. Charles is
deficient in at least two areas. Section 104.121 of the Board’s
rules state:
To enable the Board to rule on the petition for variance,
the following information, where applicable, shall be
included in the petition.
***
(f) A detailed description of the existing and proposed
equipment or proposed method of control to be
undertaken to achieve full compliance with the Act
and regulations, including a time schedule for the
implementation of all phrases of the control program
from initiation of design to program completion and
the estimated costs involved for each phase and the
total cost to achieve compliance;
***
(i) A discussion of the availability of alternate
methods of compliance, the extent that such methods
of compliance, the extent that such methods were
studied, and the comparative factors leading to the
selection of the control program proposed to achieve
compliance.
Because these requirements were not met, I would have refused
to accept the case. The purpose of obtaining a variance is to
allow more time for an entity to comport with the provisions of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act. In this case, the
petitioner has not supplied this Board with a specific compliance
program.
12 1—83
Of what use is the rule? Acc
/Th
_
~
~E,
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk~ófthe Illinois Pollution Control
Board hereby certify t t the above Dissenting Opinion was
submitted on the
/ -
day of
_______________,
1991.
Dorothy M.,4unn, Clerk
Illinois PI~&lutionControl Board
racob D. Dumelle, P. E.
Board Member
12 1—84