ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July
    8,
    1976
    SALEM GRAVURE, DIVISION OF WORLD
    )
    COLOR PRESS,
    INC.,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 76-51
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by Mr. Dumelle):
    My dissent in this case rests upon three considerations:
    1.
    The variance flies
    in the face of a U.S.
    Supreme
    Court decision.
    2.
    The episode—type control required ignores all of the
    recent findings on oxidant precursor transport.
    3.
    The monitoring program required has no cost estimates
    and may be impossible for fulfillment because of
    equipment delivery time.
    1.
    The U.S.
    Supreme Court Decision
    ~ñ
    April
    16, 1975 the U.S.
    Supreme Court in Train v. NRDC,
    43 LW 4467,
    forbade states from issuing variances which would
    interfere with the attainment of national ambient air quality
    standards after mid—1975.
    The 83.9 tons of solvents to be
    emitted at this location until October
    1976 will
    “enhance’t the
    production of photochemical smog and ozone
    (Majority Opinion,
    p.
    2).
    Ozone
    is a problem all over Illinois as is verified by
    the 1975 Annual Air Quality Report issued by the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency.
    In this report,
    the statement
    appears
    “Statewide, all air quality control regions having ozone
    monitors recorded violations in 1975 even though not every
    site within a region had a violation”
    (p.
    41).
    23
    —
    39
    —2—
    Thus this variance is squarely against the US.
    Supreme
    Court’s decision.
    (See also interim order in King—Seeley Company
    v. Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 75-159, April 24,
    1975,
    16 PCB 505.)
    2.
    Episode Control and Oxidant Transport
    The variance imposes shutdowns on the Petitioner when ozone
    levels exceed 0.17 ppm after the third consecutive day of such
    levels.
    The reactive hydrocarbons emitted are precursors
    (ingre-
    dients)
    in the formation of oxidant.
    But the oxidant so formed
    may be 100 miles or more away when it is formed and thus never be
    detected on monitors based in or around Salem.
    The oxidant air
    quality problem may manifest itself in Olney or Effingham or
    Mattoon or Charleston.
    Yet a source of the oxidant would continue
    to operate indefinitely under this variance as drawn because of
    the point of measurement.
    3.
    Monitoring Costs and Equipment Delivery
    No cost estimates appear in this record for the monitoring
    program ordered.
    Since in-stack and ambient air monitoring equipment
    is required for both ozone and hydrocarbons “proximate to its
    printing facility” it can be seen that at least ten
    (10)
    separate
    monitors are needed even if only four wind directions are covered.
    We know nothing of the total cost or equipment availability.
    It is quite probable that such a monitoring program, including
    technician labor and data analysis would run to at least $50,000
    for the one year period ordered.
    But if the equipment is not
    available,
    then performance becomes impossible.
    In summary then, the Board has granted a variance which is
    not within its power to grant under law.
    The variance sets up
    shutdown conditions which are ill—conceived and mandates
    a monitoring
    program which is expensive and perhaps impossible to
    implement
    within the stated time period.
    I respectfully dissent.
    Submitted by ___________________________________
    Jacob
    D. Dumelle
    I, Christan L~Moffett,
    Clerk
    the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board~,hereby certify the above Dissenting Opinion was submitted on the
    /‘7’~
    day of July,
    1976.
    Illinois Pollution
    1 Board
    23 —40

    Back to top