ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
January 18,
1991
GALL?~TINNATIONAL COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 90—183
(Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
CONCURRING OPINION
(by B. Forcade):
I respectfully concur with today’s Opinion.
I agree with
the action taken, but would have provided the following
additional explanation.
My reading of today’s action is that
it
in no way reduces the environmental protection which must be
engineered into the design of this facility.
Gallatin must still
meet all technology standards;
it must also demonstrate that it
will not cause any violation of background water
quality
standards.
Gallatin agrees that it must make a demonstration of
no addition of contaminants to the existing groundwater system.
(R.
27-32; Reply Brief p.
3-4).
I see nothing in today’s order
which prevents the Agency from making the best possible permit
decision, premised on all available information.
In short,
I see
no reduction in the regulatory compliance or environmental
protection which Gallatin must meet.
I am somewhat concerned about the short time frames
established for Agency action
following submissions by
Gallatin.
Presumably the Agency would seek reconsideration if these time
frames are too short.
Board Member
I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify tha
the above Concurring Opinion was filed
on the
~1oE~
day of
__________________,
1991.
orothy N.
G
n,
Clerk
Illinois P01
tion Control Board
118—111