ILLtNOIS

POLLtJTIO~ CONTROL

BOARD

May

1,

1980

MISSISSIPPI RIVER GRAIN ELEVATOR,

INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCT3

80—19

I LI1 I~~1O

IS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGE NC

Respondent.

SUPPLEMENTAL

STATE~ENT (by

Chairman

Durnelle):

The

instant

case

has

“Catch—22~

ramifications.

If

the

variance were not granted, the Petitioner could not obtain

the

construction permits necessary

to come into compliance

with

the

Board regulations.

A

denial

would

lengthen the

period of violation.

The

floard’s

duty

is

to

reduce pollution.

The record is not

clear

as

to

the

actual

emissions.

The

parties differ

in

their

~51:.imat:es

by

a

fact:or

01

69.

The

requlation,

however,

requires

a

spec

if

ied

captur~~e I

fic

lency

that

must

be

met.

At

some

point

then,

the

emissions

prior

to improved control will have

to

be

known

in

order

to

certify

compliance.

The

Clean

Air

Act

requirements

for modelling and monitoring

should not work

to delay

installation of pollution abatement

equipment.

Where

an industry

is willing

to install control

equipment

it ought

to

be given a green light as was done

in this

case.

Jacob 0.

Dumelle

I,

Chrlsta!1

L.

£~tffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Ccntrol

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

Supplemental

Statement

was

filed

on

the

(~

day

of

(~

,

1980.

_~_t~

~

(~)~

Christan

L.

~offett,

~lerk

Illinois

Pollution

Ccritrol

Board