ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

9,

1971

ELECTRIC WHEEL CO.

)

BCE

 71—55

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion of

 the Board

 (by Mr. Currie):

Electric Wheel operates an iron foundry in Quincy whose

particulate emissions exceed those allowed by

 the Rules and

Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution.

 The company’s

program for bringing its emissions into compliance

 (ACERP)

 was approved

by the Air Pollutior Control Board

 in 1969,

 with

 a compliance date

of April,

 1972.

The company petitions for approval of

 a modification of this

program,

 saying it now expects compliance by December

31,

 1971.

Because it seemed unlikely we would

 find

 a need

 to shut

 the company

down this close to the end of

 a three—year program approved by

our

predecessors

 and pursued with more than

 good

 faith,

 we did not

schedule

 a hearing, believing

 the case could easily be resolved on

the basis of the Agency’s recommendation.

But the Agency made no recommendation on

 the merits;

it

 requested

us

 to hold

 a hearing,

on

 the ground the petition did not allege facts

sufficient

 to enable us

 to make an informed decision.

 Had we received

this request in reasonable time,

 we should of course have held

a

hearing.

 The Agency is entitled to put its case,

 and to put the

petitioner

 to its proof.

 But the petition was filed on March 19

and the Agency’s motion was not filed until May

24

 two months

later

 and less than thirty days before the date on which, under

the 90-day statutory limit,

 the Board mustdecide

 the case.

By

the time we were asked to hold

 a hearing it was oractically impossible

for us

 to do

so.

 And we are left with no guidance yet from the

Agency as to how the case should be decided.

The statute requires

 the Agency

 to file

 its recommendations

“promptly”

 (Section 37),

 and we

 urge that it do

so

 inthe

 future.

Not only is this necessary if

 the Board is

 to act upon

 a full

 record

within

 the statutory period, which is difficult enough

 at best,

 Both

the petitioner and

 the public have

 a right to expect

 a prompt

decision; any unnecessary delay can only serve to defer

 the correction

of pollution and

 to discredit the control program.

in the absence of

 a hearing,

and

 on the basis

 of the only

information before us,

 we think the petitioner has established that

the revised program is

 a decided improvement on

 the one approved in

1969.

 While

 an ACERP must,

 like any other variance,

 be renewed

annually on

 a showing of adequate progress

 (section

36

 (b))

and

while we have authority

 to reexamine, when asked to renew an ACER?,

the entire question whether the hardships of immediate compliance

—

689

(i.e., shutting down)

 seriously outweigh the benefits

 (see EPA

v.

Commonwealth Edison Co.,

 70—4, February

17,

 1971), we will not

automatically assume

 the Air Pollution Control Board was

 in error

in approving the original program.

 We are always prepared to receive

evidence

 that it was, given time

 to hold

 a hearing.

 But we give some

weight here,

as

 we have before

 (see Sandoval Zinc

Co.

v,

 EPA,

 71-10,

April

14,

 1971),

 to the fact of APCB approval

 and to the company’s

good faith reliance in carrying out

 the approved program.

Giving the precedent of

 the APCB approval due weight;

 considering

the short time remaining before compliance,

 the fact that the old

cupola will be progressively

 less used during the debugging period

that is

 to begin within the coming week,

 the nontoxic nature of the

emissions,

 the company’s location in an industrial

 zone,

 and the

fact that a denial of this renewal would put over 100 employees out

of work,

 and in the absence of any contrary evidence, we

 think the

variance should be granted subject to certain conditions.

This opinion constitutes

 the Board’s findings of

 fact and

conclusions

 of law.

ORDER

Electric Wheel

Co.

 is hereby granted permission

 to emit

particulate

 air contaminants

 from its cupola in Quincy,

 Illinois,

subject to the following conditions:

1)

 This variance shall terminate December

31,

 1971,

2)

 Electric Wheel

 Co. shall conform to all conditions

 of its

Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program approved by the

Air Pollution Control Board

 in 1969,

 including the filing

of progress reports.

3)

 The emission of contaminants

 shall not be increased during

the period of this variance.

4)

 The company shall adhere

 to the following schedule of

improvements

 as described in its petition:

a)

 installation complete and new equipment to begin

operation by June

15,

 1971;

b)

 Shutdown of existing cupola melting furnace, by

December

31,

 1971,

5)

 After June

15,

1971

 the company shall make maximum use

of

 the new equipment consistent with debugging requirements

and shall utilize the present cupola melting furnace only

to the extent necessary to avoid

 a reduction in pre—existing

production levels during debugging,

6)

 The company shall post with

 the Agency before July

15,

 1971,

a bond or other security in the amount of $20,000, which

shall be forfeited in the event the terms of this order

are violated.

I,

 Regina E.

 Ryan, Clerk of the Board, certify

 4h~t

the Board adopted

the above Opinion and Order this

 ~day

of

_________,

 1971.

~//

—

691