ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 11,

1985

STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO..,

INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 85—26

LLLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

)

Respondents

CONCURRING OPINICN

(by J..D. Dume11e)~

My reason

for

concurring

is that

the majority’s grant of

the

instant variance does

not protect Stauffer Chemical Co.

from

future enforcement actions

for

the period from March

1,

1985

to

July 11,

1985.

Condition No.

1

in the Order

gives the beginning of this new

variance not from the date of the expiration of PCB 79—230

(March

1,

1985)

but from the date of the Order.

Since

the Board majority had agreed

to grant

the variance

it

seems

to me

it ought to have also granted relief

for that “gap”

of 133 days.

One may also argue

that the Board’s late decision

on July

11.

should

not deny Stauffer protection from at least April 19,1985

when all

of

its pleadings had been filed.

When industrial plants relocate to other

states or when

management decides not

to expand at an existing site those

decisions may rest on the perception of sincere interest by the

State

of Illinois

in industry’s wellbeing.

This lack of

full

legal protection,

evinced here by the

majority,

if coupled with other actions by other

state agencies,

might

cause

decis~~or~ot~r

not to expand or modernize.

/

~

Dumelle,

65-43

---

2

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that 1~heabove Concurring Opinion was filed

on

the ~~day

of

_______________,

1985.

(

_____

?~

Dorothy

M. ~unn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

65-44