ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December
    6,
    1991
    THE GRIGOLEIT COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 89—184
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION (by B.
    Forcade and J.
    D. Dumelle):
    We respectfully dissent from today’s action.
    We continue to
    believe that the original Agency permit decision should have been
    affirmed.
    We reaffirm generally our Dissenting Opinions of
    November 29,
    1990 and June 20,
    1991.
    We specifically emphasize
    our continuing concern on two issues:
    (1)
    this Board limiting the
    Agency information gathering actions on remand in contravention
    of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. Illinois Pollution
    Control Board and Centralia Environmental Services,
    No.
    5—91—
    0099
    (Order, June 14,
    1991) while still allowing Grigoleit
    unfettered opportunity to supplement the record; and
    (2)
    this
    Board mandating permitting of the two new emission sources
    Grigoleit has added that were never previously permitted
    (the
    Lithograph machine, and a new Systems Group H) despite the fact
    that the Agency denial letter of October 11,
    1989 denied the
    facility a permit because the application did not demonstrate
    compliance with 35
    Ill.
    Adm. Code 215.301.
    As explained below, today’s decision further compounds those
    errors by holding for the first time that facilities need not
    demonstrate hourly compliance with the hourly organic material
    emission limitations of
    35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 215,
    if they can
    demonstrate annual compliance across multiple lines.
    Since those
    regulations govern our State Implementation Program (“SIP”)
    for
    ozone which must be approved by USEPA,
    such a holding may have
    dire consequences for any future SIP approval.
    In the July 20,
    1990 Order this Board specifically approved
    the Agency information request of October 11,
    1989 at 2(a) and
    (b), which stated:
    a.
    Provide usage and percent by volume for each
    ingredient in ink and solvent used for each
    coating application.
    b.
    Provide the weight percentage of the volatile
    organic compound in the ink and solvent ~
    the amount of ink and solvent used per hour.
    128—19
    2
    In today’s Opinion and Order for the first time the Board
    reverses the July 20, Order and holds that:
    However,
    the Board notes that the standard in 215.301,
    although expressed in pounds per hour, does not
    explicitly state that only hourly data must be used to
    show compliance.
    We also note that the Agency allowed
    the use of yearly usage data in Grigoleit’s prior
    permit approval.
    If the method of calculation used in
    the past, which allowed averaging of organic material
    usage over
    a year and across Grigoleit’s six sources
    (A1-A6),
    has not changed, the Board must conclude that
    the requested information is unnecessary.
    (Opinion, p.6)
    We have no doubt this particular paragraph will prove fruitful
    for future adjudication regarding organic material emission
    sources located in ozone non—attainment areas of northern
    Illinois.
    Since we cannot support cross line averaging and
    annual emissions compliance we must dissent.
    ~
    ~
    ~
    (~
    4.
    D.
    Dumelle
    oard Member
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, here~certify tha
    the above Dissenting Opinion was filed
    on the
    ‘~
    day of
    __________________,
    1991.
    Doiothy N. q~in,Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    Board Member
    128—20

    Back to top