ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 22, 1972

CHICAGO VITREOUS CORP.

v.

)

71—372

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion of the Board (by Mr. Currie)

On November 11, 1971, we granted a variance approving the

air pollution control program of Chicago Vitreous Corp., which

envisioned control of enamel smelters by December 15 of that

year (171-241). On November 30, however, the company asked

for an extension of three months until March 15, 1972 because of

“an error in judgment on my part in forecasting the completion

of the project, as well as a delay in the delivery and installation

of the control system.” Completion of the project according to

the revised schedule was expected February 7, with a grace period

to account for any further small delay. Site preparations have

been and are being done. A letter from the supplier states

that delays resulted from “the complexity of the circuit con-~

figuration and the revisions to the system” (letter of Nov.

22, 1971, from Mr. DePew of Honeywell Inc. to Chicag~oVitreous

attached to the petition for estension of the variance).

The Agency recommends that the extension be granted on certain

conditions. We agree. While we would not tolerate a series of

small delays that resulted in a substantial lengthening of the pro-

mised time for compliance, we understand that short delays

may occur through no fault of the company and that no penalties

should in such a case be imposed. The expected date for compliance

has passed, but to avoid the possibility that further problems

might necessitate still another extension we will extend the date

as requested until March 15, which allows a small cushion. We

do not expect to receive any further requests for extension.

As for conditions, the Agency asks that we require compliance

with the original order, which we shall do except for the altered

dates. EPA asks also that we limit production to three smelters

at any one time during the varinace, but because the Agency

recommendation was made quite close to the expiration of the 90-day

period in which we must decide the case, we have no time to ascertain

the effect of such a provision on the company, and it would not

be fair to impose it without opportunity to respond. Late Agency

—

619

recommendations make it impossible for the Board to compile an

adequate record. We agree with the Agency that improved

monitoring must be instituted at once to prevent incidents such

as the Agency says occurred on December 7, when neighbor-

hood complaints resulted. As for the request that we require

a bond, as in the original case we think the time of the variance

too short to justify such a requirement; the program will be

over before the bond could be filed.

ORDER

The variance granted to Chicago Vitreous Corp. November 11,

1971 (#71-241) is hereby extended to March 15, 1972, on the

following conditions:

1. All conditions of the original order shall be complied

with, except that the stack test results required by that

order shall be submitted no later than April 1, 1972;

and

2. The company shall upon receipt of this order

immediately improve its procedures for monitoring

the effects of its emissions so as to prevent the

occurrence of nuisance conditions as required by the

original order.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion this 22 nd day of

February, 1972 by a vote of 5-0.

~LJ~I ~

—

680