ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    January 18,
    1991
    GALL?~TINNATIONAL COMPANY,
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—183
    (Variance)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    CONCURRING OPINION
    (by B. Forcade):
    I respectfully concur with today’s Opinion.
    I agree with
    the action taken, but would have provided the following
    additional explanation.
    My reading of today’s action is that
    it
    in no way reduces the environmental protection which must be
    engineered into the design of this facility.
    Gallatin must still
    meet all technology standards;
    it must also demonstrate that it
    will not cause any violation of background water
    quality
    standards.
    Gallatin agrees that it must make a demonstration of
    no addition of contaminants to the existing groundwater system.
    (R.
    27-32; Reply Brief p.
    3-4).
    I see nothing in today’s order
    which prevents the Agency from making the best possible permit
    decision, premised on all available information.
    In short,
    I see
    no reduction in the regulatory compliance or environmental
    protection which Gallatin must meet.
    I am somewhat concerned about the short time frames
    established for Agency action
    following submissions by
    Gallatin.
    Presumably the Agency would seek reconsideration if these time
    frames are too short.
    Board Member
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify tha
    the above Concurring Opinion was filed
    on the
    ~1oE~
    day of
    __________________,
    1991.
    orothy N.
    G
    n,
    Clerk
    Illinois P01
    tion Control Board
    118—111

    Back to top