ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

6,

1991

INDIAN REFINING,

Petitioner,

)

PCB 91—159

v.

)

(Provisional Variance)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION (by J.D. Dumelle):

There

are

two main reasons

for dissenting

in this matter.

First

is the

failure by

Indian Refining or IEPA to give enough

facts as to possible environmental effects of this 40

increase in

sulfur dioxide emitted.

Will the 3,360 lbs/hr.

of sulfur dioxide

here allowed by the majority cause aviolation of National Ambient

Air Quality Standards under downwash or fumigation conditions?

The

record

is silent and the Board has not been informed.

Residences

are said to be located only 1,000 feet north of the center of the

refinery’s

process

area

according

to

the petitioner.

If

the

emitting stacks are

at

the

north

edge

of the process area

the

residences could be quite close to the sulfur dioxide source.

How

tall are the emitting stacks?

That fact is also not given.

Had

these

two

fact

deficiencies

(actual

distance

to

residences

and

stack heights)

been given

an estimate of maximum sulfur dioxide

concentration could have been made.

The

second

reason

for

dissenting

lies

in

the

possible

violation

of

the

Clean

Air

Act

Amendments

“anti-backsliding’1

provisions.

This refinery and the Board process weight rule long

ago accepted by USEPA evidently holds the refinery to 2,400 lbs/hr.

of sulfur dioxide emissions.

How then can this Board countenance

backsliding by 40

to 3,360

lbs/hr?

On July 26,

1991 this Board

adopted

P91-7

and

R9l-8

(PACT

Deficiencies).

The

prohibition

against backsliding

(in this example

from

a promulgated Federal

Implementation Plan)

was much in mind in the discussion and vote

on R91—7 and R9l-8.

A related legal concern

is the lack of opportunity

for the

public to request a hearing and to comment.

An air variance, which

this

is,

when

processed

in

the

usual

mode

(i.e.

not

as

a

provisional variance) has a public hearing always scheduled for it

and

30

days

legal

notice

published.

How can

an

air variance

granted through the provisional variance route without

a public

hearing or opportunity for one comport to Federal requirements?

Finally,the contrast in content of this proceeding with some

six provisional variances

(approved unanimously by the Board

on

September 12,

1991)

is of interest.

In PCB 91—164,

165,

167, 168,

126—03

---

169

and

170

the

IEPA

recommendation

states

that

grant

of

the

variance

is

consistent with

RCPA

(PCB

91—164,

165)

or that

no

Federal

laws preclude its being granted

(PCB

91—167,

168,

169,

170).

No such statement by IEPA as to the applicability or non-

applicability of Federal law to the instant matter exists

in the

IEPA Recommendation in PCB 91-159.

Because of the lack of environmental effects information and

because of possible violation of Federal

law,

I dissent.

//Jacob

D.

Dumelle, P.E.

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn, ~1~rk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board

hereby

certify

jc~a/,t the

above

p’iss

ting

Opinion

was

submitted on the

/~~

day of

,--C,~t~&j

,

1991.

Dorothy M./9’unn, Cle~k

Illinois ~‘~~LlutionControl Board

125—04