ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

March

22,

1971

C.W.

SHUMWAY

& SONS

V.

)

PCB

#71—45

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)

Opinion and Order of the Board

(by Mr. Currie):

Shumway asks

a variance allowing emissions in excess of the particulate

regulations from a small foundry cupola in Batavia,

The petition is

insufficient and is hereby dismissed.

Procedural Rule

401 spells out in some detail

what

a petition

must contain, including

a statement of the degree of harm to the

community if the variance

is granted.

There

is no such statement

in

the

petition.

It should

be added that

a mere

conclusion that

the

emissions will not

be harmful will not

suffice;

the facts on which

such

a conclusion

is based

must be alleged.

City of Jacksonville v.

EPA,

#70—30

(Jan.

27,

1971).

We cannot say

that

the emission of

30

pounds per hour of particulates

is harmless when the regulation

prescribes

a much smaller emission,

It is alleged that nine months are required for the installation

of control equipment,

and that the company and

its employees would

suffer hardship if forced to shut down in the meantime,

If the

regulation in question were brand new, we might well find this time-

table reasonable,

But there is no allegation as

to why

this improvement

was not made

four years

ago, when the regulation was adopted.

The

regulation allowed

a grace period during which existing sources could

be brought into compliance without closing down,

People who did not

take advantage of the grace period are in no position to complain

that

a later shutdown causes them hardship.

The hardship is such

a case is self—inflicted and is no excuse for non—compliance.

See

Decatur Sanitary District v.

EPA,

#71-37

(March

22,

1971),

To allow

an unexplained delay to justify

a variance would deprive the deadlines

set in the regulations of any force

and pull the teeth from the

pollution control program.

It follows that even if the allegations in the petition were

proved no variance could be granted.

Therefore

no hearing will be

held,

and the petition is dismissed,

PCB Regs,,

ch,

1, Rules

401,

405

(b)

(1).

A new petition meeting

the requirements of the rules

may be

filed,

This opinion contitutes

the Board~s findings of

fact, conclusions

of law,

and order,

I, Regina E.

Ryan,

do hereby certify that the above Opinion and

Order were approved this

22nd0 day of

~

1971.

RE~IWAE. RYAN,

CLERK

OF THE BOARD