iLLINOis
    P3LLLJTI0~sTCO~JTROLBOARD
    March
    27, 1986
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    PETITION
    FOR
    SITE—SPECIFIC
    )
    R 84—48
    R~GULATIO~APPLICABLE TO
    PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
    LF~1
    STEEL COMPA~’S
    CHICAGO WORKS HOT SCARFING
    MACHI~ES (35 Il1~
    Admn.,
    Code
    212,451)
    )
    DISSENTIN3 STATEMENT (by R1
    Flernal):
    Thile
    I agree with the
    facts and determinations as presented
    in the majority Opinion,
    I believe t~iatthe rule as proposed
    is
    inconsistent with these same facts~
    LTV has made
    a convincing
    ar3urnent t~iatto upgrade existing pollution control
    equipmer-it on
    its hot scarfing machine would
    impose
    an arbitrary or
    unreasonable financial burden~ Given this circumstance,
    it
    is
    the combination of
    the pollution control equipment and the hot
    scarfing machine,
    and not just the hot scarfing machine
    (as
    proposed by the majority),
    to which
    the exception
    is
    appropriately a~pliei,
    To determine otherwise
    is to allow
    that
    LTV could alter
    the pollution control equipment, conceivably into
    configurations where financial burden could
    no longer
    be
    successfully argued,
    and yet continue to operate under
    the
    exceptiorL.
    There
    are several methods
    by which
    the discrepancy between
    the Opinion and the proposed rule could be rectified~.
    The most
    straight~orwardwould have been to include
    the pollution conttol
    equipment within
    the portion of the proposed rule which defines
    the equipment
    to which
    the exception applies,
    as follows:
    Provided,
    however,
    that
    the existing hot scarfin3
    machine and its existing pollution control
    equipment operated by the LTV Steel Company,
    Inc4,
    at its Chicago Works, may emit particulate
    Alternatively,
    the proposed rule could have included
    a
    provision whereby the rule expire
    at some specified future
    dated
    At this future date the justification could
    then be
    reviewed to ascertain whether
    it continues
    to exist~
    For
    these reasons,
    I dissent
    Board Member
    —2—
    I, Dorothy
    M,
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that
    trie above Dissenting Statement was
    submitted on the
    ~
    day of
    __________________,
    1986w
    ~
    ~
    ,~
    Dorothy ~
    ann, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control

    Back to top