ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

18, 1983

OLIN CORPORATION,

Joliet Plant,

Petitioner,

)

PCB

83—44

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY~

)

Respondent

CONCURRING OPINION

(by

J. 0. Dumeile):

In the discussion prior to

the

vote on the instant case

it seemed

that a sentence similar to one contained in the

Opinion and Order in ç~Jnternational Inc. v~IEPA, PCB 83-11,

of this date, would also appear in the majority

opinion~

That sentence holding that variance applicants must be out of

compliance does not appear hut is implied on page 3 of the

majority opinion~

I do not agree with that sentence for reasons stated in

my concurring opinion

in PCB 83-11,

Another sentence

occurs in

this majority

opinion that I

do

not agree

with, On

page

3 the

sentence appears

“

a

Petitioner

must

demonstrate that timely

compi

:Lance would

impose hardship

unique to its facility, that is,

not by

sources

likewise regulated

.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Act sets a require-

ment only that an arbitrary

and unreasonable hardship

must

occur for a variance to be granted. Nowhere does it require

that that hardship be “unique~. Suopose such hardships occur

to

two or three ether

firms? Is

Olin then estopped

from

variance

relief? Of course not,

I

agree with the

denial reasons ~thich:~t~.tthe lack of

maximum calculated ground level

concentrations of SO~and

other deficiencies

in the record~

5~-235

---

2

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Opinion was filed on the ~ ~ day of