ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    July 7,
    1995
    GENERAL BUSINESS FORMS,
    INC.,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    PCB 95—155
    v.
    )
    (Variance-Air)
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by G.
    T. Girard):
    This matter is before the Board on two motions by the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency).
    The first is
    a motion to dismiss. which was filed on June 20,
    1995,
    and the
    second is a motion for extension of time to file the
    recoimnendation.
    The Board received a response to the motion to
    dismiss on June 27,
    1995,
    from the petitioner.
    The Agency argues that the petition for variance is
    “procedurally improper” as the “only compliance plan included in
    the petition is that GBF (petitioner)
    intends to seek an adjusted
    standard”.
    (Not. at
    1-2.)
    The Agency maintains that it is
    “procedurally inappropriate” to seek a stay of a regulation
    through a variance proceeding when ultimately the relief being
    sought is an adjusted standard.
    (Not. at
    2.)
    The petitioner maintains that the Agency’s motion to dismiss
    should be denied as there is no statutory or regulatory authority
    which would allow the dismissal of the petitioner’s petition.
    (Res.
    at 3.)
    The petitioner also argues that the stay which the
    petitioner
    has
    received while this variance is pending is a stay
    to “the same extent” that petitioner would have received if
    filing an adjusted standard petition.
    (Res. at 4.)
    A variance by its nature is a temporary reprieve from
    compliance with the Board’s regulations.
    (Monsanto Co.
    v. IPCB
    (1977),
    67 Ill.2d 276,
    367 N.E.2d 684.)
    A variance petitioner
    accordingly is required,
    as a condition to grant of variance,
    to
    commit to a plan that is reasonably calculated to achieve
    compliance within the term of the variance.
    (City of Mendota v.
    IPCB
    (3d Dist.
    1987), 161 Ill. App.
    3d 203,
    514 N.E.2d 218.)
    However, the Board has found that in some exceptional
    circumstances variance may be granted even though petitioner does
    not have a final compliance plan.
    See Mobil Oil v. IEPA (Sept.
    20, 1984,
    60 PCB 99; IPC, Clinton Plant v.
    IEPA
    (May 22,
    1989),
    PCB 88—97,
    100 PCB 181); Amerock
    v.
    IEPA
    (Nov.
    11,
    1985),
    PCB
    84—62,
    66 PCB 411;
    Zeigler Coal v.
    IEPA
    (Aug.
    22,
    1991),
    PCB
    91—12,
    125 PCB 331.)
    In each of these exceptional circumstances
    the Board has required assurance,
    commonly through conditions
    2
    attached to the grant of variance, that negative environmental
    impact during the term of the variance be minimal and temporary.
    The Board has found that a variance request premised upon
    petitioner’s filing of a proposal for site-specific relief is not
    a compliance plan,
    since it is a matter of speculation whether
    such regulatory relief may be granted.
    (Citizens Utilities
    Company of Illinois v. IPCB et al.
    (3rd Dist.
    1985),
    134 Ill.
    App.
    3d
    111,
    479 NE2d
    1213.)
    The pendency of a rulemaking does
    not stand by itself as grounds for grant of a variance.
    (Section
    35(a)
    of the Act;
    Citizefls Utilities company_~fIllinois v.
    IPCB,
    supra; City of Lock~ortv.
    IEPA (September 11, 1986), PCB 85—50,
    72 PCB 256,
    260; General Motors Corporation, Electro-Notive
    Division v. IEPA (February
    19,
    1987), PCB 86—195,
    76 PCB 54,
    58;
    Altori Packaainct Corn.
    V.
    IEPA (February 25,
    1988), PCB 83-49,
    86
    PCB 289,
    299, Borden Chemicals v.
    IEPA (October 25,
    1990)
    PCB
    90—130,
    115 PCB 453.)
    The
    Board today finds that
    a potential request for adjusted
    standard relief is likewise not a compliance plan.
    As the Board
    rarely grants variance relief absent a compliance plan, the Board
    finds this petition deficient.
    Therefore, the Board directs the
    petitioner to file an amended petition with the Board no
    later
    than August 11,
    1995,
    or this matter will be dismissed.
    The Board grants the motion for extension of time to file
    the recommendation.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board
    do hereby cert)4y that
    the above order was adoptedpn the
    -‘
    day of
    ____________,
    1995,
    by a vote of
    —
    ~
    AL,
    Dorothy
    M.
    9d~n,
    Clerk
    Illinois P~’~)ution
    Control Board

    Back to top