PCB 75—222

)

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

October 9,

1975

My

reason for dissenting

in

this

case

is

because

no

data

were

submitted by the Petitioner as to whether the present paint

discharge

violates ambient air quality standards in the immediate

vicinity of

the source.

It

seems to me that

this

proof is necessary under the intent

ot Train

V.

NRDC (Apr11 16, 1975).

In

a

variance

proceeding this

then becomes the Petitioner~s

burdenS

We know that these dis-

charges

were

a nuisance and excessive since in the earlier case,

(PCB

73-~-547,

decided November 22,

1974)

testimony was entered

as to

the

need to “no longer wash our

windows,

we scrape them”.

The distance at which the paint dsschrrqes have been in

ba~ been rcducec. “fivefo

c,

-in

aeapor~rv

retaining

tonce

whicn is

25

teet in nesgtir.

:~haai~orwnaa

sti~i

escapes

~Ci3t(S

t~c

Faera~ and Iihnoi~ ~se~a~a ~art~cuiate

weight

standards

is not known on this recora.

The Petitioner

did not carrr ~

~n~rd.en under Train

and

i

would have denied the Petition for! aI~is rca:

I,

Christan L, Moffett, Clerk

a

nerrbv

certify the

above

Disse:

$~~day

of October,

1975.

Christan L.

Moffety~/~rk

Iilino:Ls

Pollution ~~ro1

Board

ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD,

CENTRALIA SHOP,

Petitioner,

V.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

DISSENTING

OPINION (by

Mr. Dumeile):

acob D, Dumelle

.e Illinois

Pollution Control Board

.g Opinion was submitted on the

19— 35