ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

28,

1971

CHICAGO-DUBUQUE FOUNDRY CORP.

v.

)

#71—130

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion of the Board

(by Mr.

Currie):

In 1967 the Air Pollution Control Board adopted emission

standards

for particulate air contaminants

In 1971 the Chicago-

Dubuque Foundry Corp., having installed no equipment to meet the

1967 standards, petitions

for permission

to do nothing about its

emissions

for another year on the ground that

the federal govern-

ment

is in

the process of adopting ambient air quality standards

that allegedly might make any device that might be installed ob-

solete.

We dismiss the petition on the ground that even if all the

allegations were proved no variance could be granted.

No purpose

save further delay would be served by

a hearing on

the present

petition.

In the first place no explanation

is offered for the extreme

tardiness of the company in complying with the 1967 regulation.

We have held that

a petitioner cannot qualify for

a variance

simply by defaulting on its obligations;

any hardship in such a

case

is self-inflicted.

Moreover,

there

is

no

adequate

allegation

with respect to the issue of the harm

that

a variance grant

would inflict on the community,

an essential element of the

petitioner~s case.

Decatur Sanitary District v,

EPA, *71-37

(March

17,

1971).

If these were

the only problems, we might schedule

a hearing

and direct an amendment

to the petition in order

to promote rapid

resolution

of the

case.

But there

is

a more serious deficiency

here.

The petitioner~scase

is based upon the wholly unacceptable

premise that all progress toward reducing pollution must come to

a screeching halt whenever any government attempts to reassess

the adequacy of the present standards.

It would

be

one thing

to permit extra time

to complete control program that had to be

revised in midstream to conform with tightened regulations.

But

we could not conceivably

grant an open—ended exemption

from the

present lonc-standing rules, without even

so

much as

a program

for achievinp compliance, merely because of the possibility that

the federal agency might

some day require still better controls.

Not only is the company~sclaim predicated upon an untenable

thesis, but

the factual premises of its argument are unsound.

The

petition alleges that the adoption of national air-quality standards

is

a thing of

the

uncertain

future, when

in fact the standards

2—65

---

were adopted April

30,

1971.

36 F,R,SI8~These standards,

it should

be said,

do not directly limit emissions

from individual plants;

they prescribe maximum permissible concentrations in the air as

a

whole.

The federal government has no direct authority to

prescribe emission limits.

The States are to do that,

subject

to federal

review.

Federal thoughts on the matter of emission limits

are indicated by the model regulations published as

a guide to

the States in developing implementation plans

to achieve compliance

with the air-quality standards,

36F.

R.

6680,

7971.

Anyone

worried about federally influenced regulations would appear

quite safe in designing to meet the model federal regulations.

But we may very well tighten those limits ourselves.

We

have so proposed for the Chicago and St.

Louis areas

(*#R71-4,

R7l-8)

and may well do

so statewide.

The testimony

is that the

proposed new standard can be met on

a foundry cupola with a

scrubber of 98

efficiency, which is clearly available and

in

common use

(Transcript,

##R70-l5

and R7l-4, pp.79—~0. An in-

telligent

foundry owner with no control equipment would install

such

a scrubber as soon

as is physically possible in an effort

to avoid both

a shutdown

for violating the present law and the

risk of being required tQ rebuild within

a very short time.

The

likelihood that a more stringent emission regulation than that

proposed for Chicago will be adopted by anybody for East Dubuque

is remote indeed and does not justify further delay.

The petition is dismissed.

The company would be well advised

to file an amended petition

at once embodying

a firm program for

complying with the regulations in the ubortest possible

time.

The question whether by

its delay the company has used up its

time

to pollute while correcting

the problem will be the principal

issue, together with the question of money penalties

for the delay

unless it can be satisfactorily explained.

A complaint by

the

Agency would also appear to be called for.

I,

Regina E.

Ryan,

Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify

that the board adopted the above

Opinio~this 28 day of June,

1971.

2—86