ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 22, 1975
    AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS DIVISION,
    )
    North American Rockwell,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—136
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)
    On April 1, 1975, the Automotive Products Division of
    North American Rockwell (Rockwell) filed a Petition For Variance
    with the Illinois Pollution, Control Board (Board)
    .
    Petitioner
    requested a variance from Rule 203(a) of the Air Pollution Re-
    gulations (Chapter Two) until September 30, 1975, “at which time
    Petitioner will have eliminated the source of pollution.” Rock-
    well planned to permanently close down the emission source at
    that time. Petitioner operates a facility on the southern edge
    of Centralia, Illinois where fiberglass underbodies are produced
    for Chevrolet Corvettes.
    Rockwell alleged that the preform machines have a process
    weight rate of 320 pounds per hour and emit 13.5 pounds per hour
    of particulate matter. Rule 203(a), effective April 14, 1972,
    limits emissions to 1.0 pound per hour. Petitioner alleged that
    the time and expense of controlling the excessive emissions would
    impose an unreasonable hardship upon it. Rockwell estimated that
    it would take 4 to 6 months to control the emissions and would
    cost “between $50,000 and $100,000” to comply with Rule 203(a) of
    Chapter Two.
    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed
    a recommendation of denial on April 30, 1975. The Agency noted
    that Petitioner’s emission rate was an estimated figure based on
    similar operations at a facility in another state. The Agency
    believed that a stack test was the only acceptable method of de-
    termining actual emissions. The Agency pointed out that Peti-
    tioner’s estimate of cost and time for compliance was unsupported
    by documentation in the pleadings. Finally, the Agency stated
    that the Petitioner did not supply any information on past efforts
    to achieve compliance.
    We dismiss the Petition For Variance on grounds of inade-
    quacy. We concur with the expressions of the Agency that addi-
    tional evidence should have been submitted regarding hardship,
    17
    —
    171
    —2—
    particularly the reasons why compliance has been delayed for
    almost 3 years. We also note that the evidence has not been
    submitted to satisfy the requirements of Train v. Natural
    Resources Defense Council 43 LW 4467 (April 15, 1975) in which
    the U.S. Supreme Court held that states could grant variances
    from their implementation programs provided that the national
    ambient air quality standards were not violated. No evidence
    has been introduced to show compliance with the particulate
    standards in Petitioner’s area. Such information must be
    submitted to enable the Board to rule on the Petition For
    Variance.
    For the reasons stated, the Petition For Variance is
    dismissed without prejudice for inadequacy.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certi~,ythat the above Opinion and Order was
    adopted on the
    ~
    day of May, 1975, by a vote of
    ,~ —
    Christan L. Moffe-bt’, clerk
    Illinois Pollution~~ControlBoard

    Back to top