ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

9, 1986

MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

v.

)

PCB 83-166

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

CONCURRING OPINION (by

J.

D.

Dumelle):

My reason for concurring

in this matter i~sthat the

procedure followed by the majority did not allow for public

participation.

On May 24, 1985 Mobil filed its Motion for Relief of Final

Order from the Board’s Order of August

22,

1984 some

9 months

earlier.

Today,

a year later,

the majority has decided this

matter.

The Motion

of May 24, 1985 should have been docketed as

a

Variance from a Board Order.

The Board’s Environmental Register

and the mandatory legal notice for variances published by IEPA

would have notified the public of the existence of this request

to significantly loosen a previously adopted Board Order.

A second point

of concern

in this proceeding is the

precedent created.

Other dischargers will now be encouraged

to

receive

a variance order from the Board, monitor their own

subsequent performance and then use this “back door” method to

loosen the limits,

all free from public scrutiny.

And even were

the public somehow to find out about the pending motion it could

arguably not comment since it would not have been an intervenor

in the original proceeding.

Comments from non-parties are not

allowed on motions.

Even though the monthly average limits for ammonia and for

sulfates are being almost doubled,

I agree with those new limits

from the technical sense.

My main objection is this procedure

which excludes public oversight

-

a keystone of the Environmental

Protection Act

hairman

69.360

---

-2-

I, Dorothy

M. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Concurring Opinion was filed

on the

______________

day of

727~_

1986.

Dorothy M.

Gu4~’n, Clerk~

Illinois Pollution Control Board