ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 22,

1976

U.S.

 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS

)

COMPANY, DIVISION, NATIONAL

)

DISTILLERS

AND

CHEMICAL CORPORATION,)

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 76—78

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION

 (by Nr. Dumelle):

My reason for dissenting in this case is the application

of the rule of law laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Train

v. NRDC,

 43 LW 4467, April 16,

 1975.

The essence of Justice Rehnquist’s opinion is that State

variances may not be granted beyond the attainment date

 (mid-1975)

if ambient air quality standards are or will be violated.

The Petitioner,

 in its own submission,

 shows serious violations

of the 3-hour 0.5 ppm standard

 (1300 ug/m’~) for sulfur dioxide

for

Cases

 liAt! and “B”

 (see Amended Petition, Fi9ure

1)

 The Case “A”

curve shows a peak value of about 2300 ug/m~which

 is some 77

 over

the 3-hour Federal and Illinois air quality standard.

In addition,

 the Agency’s Recommendation points out an

unstudied and worst case condition as follows:

Furthermore, Petitioner has not performed

any calculation for “D” stability class and

high wind speeds.

 For sources with small stacks,

the Agency is of the opinion that

 “D” stability

with a high wind speed will often lead to higher

ground level concentrations than “A” or “B”

stability

 (Rec.

p.

5)

Thus, the 77

 excess over the standard may in fact be far

higher.

Given this obvious violation of an air quality standard,

the

—

151

—2—

Board has now fully and completely reversed its stand in Train.

It should

 so state explicitly so that the public may receive

guidance.

Submitted

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, ~ereby

 certify’ the

 hove Dissenting Opinion was submitted on

the

 ~_day

of

____________________,

 1976.

Illinois Pollution

—

152