ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 14,
    1971
    CHICAGO-DUBUQUE FOUNDRY CORP.
    V.
    )
    #
    71—309
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    Opinion and Order of the Board
    (by Mr.
    Currie)
    Chicago-Dubuque
    filed a variance petition May
    27,
    1971, which
    we dismissed as inadequate, partly because
    it did not contain any
    program for achieving
    compliance.
    Chicago-Dubuque Foundry
    Co.
    v.
    EPA,
    #
    71-130
    (June 28,
    1971).
    The company filed
    a new petition
    in August, stating~with’accompanying documents that
    it had ordered
    a baghouse,
    hired
    a contractor to install
    it, applied for
    a permit,
    and begun final engineering, with compliance expected in
    38 weeks
    or less after the issuance
    of
    a permit.
    The Agency’s recommendation,
    received October 12, does
    not say whether or not
    the permit has
    been granted but implies that the installation will be adequate
    by asking that we grant the variance on certain conditions
    for
    a period of seven months from the date of the recommendation,
    that
    is,
    until May
    12,
    1972, which
    is about the same date suggested
    by the company
    on the assumption the permit was quickly granted.
    Ideally we should prefer to have more facts as to the relative
    hardships
    to the company if forced to close and to the community
    if the variance
    is granted before taking action,
    But two months
    have passed with no hearing scheduled,
    and
    time forbids
    our holding
    a hearing and studying a transcript within the tight 90-day period
    in
    which the statute requires we make
    a final decision.
    Since both
    parties agree that there should be
    a grant rather than a shutdown,
    we will grant the variance for seven months
    on several conditions
    as suggested by the Agency.
    One of the Agency1s most critical recommendations
    is that the
    variance should be conditioned upon
    the payment of a money penalty
    for delays that are alleged in some detail in bringing the facility
    into compliance and
    for failure to adhere to
    its earlier program
    as approved
    in 1968.
    In past cases
    we have imposed such conditions,
    e.g., Marquette Cement Co.
    v.
    EPA,
    #
    70-23
    (Jan.
    6,
    1971).
    In the
    present case time does not permit postponing resolution of
    the variance
    case pending
    a hearing on the Agency~s allegations,
    and the company
    is entitled to
    a hearing.
    We therefore construe the recommendation
    as
    a complaint charging violations and asking money penalties and
    authorize
    a hearing
    to be held on that complaint.
    The variaince
    granted today shields the company from prosecution for operation
    in accord with
    its terms during the next seven months, but
    it
    2
    --
    669
    is not to be read as excusing any past violations that may have
    occurred.
    ORDER
    1.
    Chicago—Dubuque Foundry Corp.
    is hereby granted a variance
    to
    operate
    its cupola in excess of the particulate emission limits
    until May
    12, 1972, subject to the following conditions~
    a.
    The company shall proceed with
    its purchase and installation
    of the control equipment
    as set out
    in its P~mendedPetition
    for Variance and shall obtain all necessary permits without
    delay.
    h.
    Thecompany shall
    file
    a complete assessment of emissions
    from its core ovens
    and shakeout area with the Agency
    within two months after receipt of this order,
    and,
    if such assessment indicates
    a need
    for reduction of
    emissions, shall by the same date
    file with
    the Agency
    and the Board
    a firm program for achieving such reduction;
    c.
    The company shall within 35 days after receipt of this
    order post with the Agency
    a bond or other security in
    the amount of $50,000 to assure prompt compliance with
    the conditions
    of this order;
    d.
    The company shall file monthly progress reports with
    the
    Agency;
    e.
    Failure
    to adhere to the conditions of this order shall
    be grounds for revocation of the variance.
    2.
    A hearing is hereby authorized upon
    the Agency~s counter-
    complaint for money penalties
    for violations prior to August,
    1971.
    Nothing in paragraph
    1 of this order shall be
    construed to excuse any such earlier violations.
    I, Regina E.
    Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify
    that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order of the Board
    this
    14
    day of
    October
    ,
    I ~
    /
    2
    67~

    Back to top