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