ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

April 8, 1976

AMERICAN FOUNDRY

AND

MANUFACTURING

)

COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—345

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

Mr. Charles Shaffer appeared on behalf of Petitioner.

Mr. John Palincsar appeared on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):

This matter comes before the Board upon Petition of the Ameri-

can Foundry and Manufacturing, Salem Foundry Division, (American

Foundry) for variance from the Air Pollution Control Regulations

for its cupola operation near the city of Salem, Marion County,

Illinois. On September 19, 1975, the Illinois Environmental Protec-

tion Agency (Agency) moved to dismiss the petition without prejudice

for failure to meet seven of the procedural requirements enumerated

in Board Procedural Rule 401. On October 14, 1975, the Board granted

Petitioner’s request that it consider the Motion to Dismiss with the

facts of the case after a hearing on the matter.

The Board deferred the consideration of the Agency’s Motion

to Dismiss in hopes that the Petitioner, during the hearing, would

rectify the deficiencies as noted by the Agency in their Motion,

so as to allow the Board to make a decision on the merits of the

case. Unfortunately Petitioner failed to cure the defects in its

Petition at the hearing. Instead it proposed that variance be

granted from the Air Regulations for their cupola solely upon the

heavy financial burden which would be imposed upon it.

The Agency’s Motion to Dismiss included seven specific defects

in the Petition for variance under Procedural Rule 401, all of which

concern themselves with the fact that Petitioner has no plans for

eventual compliance with the Regulations and indeed has no intention,

according to the Petition before the Board, to bring their facility

into compliance. A certain amount of evidence was produced by

21 —57

---

—2—

Petitioner at the hearing in support of their allegation of financial

hardship, but this fact by itself, is not sufficient for the Board to

grant a variance. The Board finds from the evidence presented that

Petitioner, in addition to the failure to provide for a compliance

plan and schedule for an eventual compliance with the Regulations,

has not fully investigated potential sources of capital which would

allow them to purchase the necessary abatement equipment.

The Board will therefore grant the Agency’s September 22, 1975,

Motion to Dismiss and orders the Petition for Variance dismissed with-

out prejudice as inadequate.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that American

Foundry and Manufacturing Company’s Petition for variance be, and

is, hereby, dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Mr. Dumelle and Mr. Young concurs.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify t e above Opinion and Order were adopted on the

_________day of

,

1976 by a vote ~

Christan L. Moffett, rk

Illinois Pollution

rol Board

21 —58