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