ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 18, 1975

ALLIED METAL COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—217

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(By Mr.

Zeitlin):

The original Petition in this Variance proceeding was

filed on May 28,

1975 by Petitioner Allied Metal Company

(Allied)

seeking relief from Rules 203(a)

(particulates),

and 103(b)

(operating permits)

of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution,

of the Pol1ut~onControl Board

(Board)

Rules and Regulations;

and Section 9(a)

(Air Pollution)

of the Environmental

Protection Act,

Ill. Rev.

Stat.,

Ch. 1111/2, §1009

(1973);

PCB Regs.,

Ch.2,

Rules 103(b),

203(a).

In an Interim Order

dated May 29.

1975,

the Board found the Petition inadequate

in several

~~espects, and directed that an

Amended

Petition

containing the necessary information be filed.

An Amended

Petition was filed by Allied on June 30,

1975;

a Reconimendatior

by the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) followed on

August 21,

1975.

No hearing was held in this matter.

Allied’s Amended Petition is also inadequate.

The

Interim Order of the Board directed that an Amended Petition

address the issue of whether

a grant of the requested Variance

would result

“.

.

.

in a violation of the national ambient air

quality standards,

or a failure to maintain these standards.”

(Citations oiritted.)

Allied’s Amended Petition fails to

sufficiently allege that this test under Train v.

N.R.D.C.I

43 U.S.L.W.

4467,

(U.S., April

16,

1975),

has been met, much

less bear its burden of proof for the grant of a Variance.

Allied alleges only that while the 1973 levels for

particulate matter at the closest ambient air quality

monitoring station showed levels excëedin9 the nationa~

standard,

(79ug/m3 annual average,

as against a 7Sug/m

primary standard),

lowered industrial activity

in the area

would probably result in lower particulate concentrations.

The basis for tI~isconclusion was not shown. The Agency’s

Recommendation,

on the other hand,

shows that

1974 levels

for particul~ites in the area were 84ug/m3. Based on the

record befort3 us, we can only reach the conclusion that

Petitioner ALlied has wholly failed to show that it does not

cause or contribute to demonstrated violations of the national

ambient air quality standard.

As we interpret the Train

decision, supr~, this precludes our grant of a Variance.

18

—

559

---

—2—

Ipsofar as a grant of the requested Variance

is thus

precluded,

we shall not address ourselves to the adequacy of

the remaining portions of the Amended Petition or the matters

raised in the Aciency Recommendation.

Some or all of

the

matters discussed there may be material to the case of

People

v.

Allied, PCB 75-94,

an enforcement matter now

pending before the Board, and we feel that unnecessary

comment on them might be unfair or prejudicial.

The Petition for Variance and the Amended Petition for

Variance will be dismissed without prejudice.

Petitioner

Allied

is invited

to file

a new petition for Variance more

fully addressing th’~points

in our May 29, 1975 Interim

Order.

As guidance on the matters which should be covered

in any new Petition, Petitioner

is referred to the Board’s

Interim Order of April

24,

1975,

in the case of King—Seeley

v.

EPA, PCB 75-159,

where we set out fully the burden of

proof which must be met under the Train case.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THAT the

Petition for Var.Lance and Amended Petition for Variance

in

this matter be dismissed without prejudice.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certfy

the above 0

mi

n and Order

were adopted on the

__________

day ~

1975 by a

~

Illinois Pollution

trol

18

—