ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

6,

1991

MARSCO NFG. CO.,

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 91-235

)

(Variance)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONNENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by B. Forcade):

On November 27,

1991, Marsco Mfg.

Co.

(“Marsco”),

filed a

petition for variance for its facility located at 2857 S. Haisted

Street,

Chicago, Illinois.

That petition is deficient in that it

fails to provide:

1.

Data describing the nature and extent of the present

failure to meet the numerical standards or particular

provisions from which the variance is sought and a

factual statement why compliance with the Act and

regulations was not or cannot be achieved by the

required compliance date, as required by 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 104.121(e);

2.

A detailed description of the existing and proposed

equipment or proposed method of control to be

undertaken to achieve full compliance with the Act and

regulations,

including a time schedule for the

implementation of all phases of the control program

from initiation of design to program completion and the

estimated costs involved for each phase and the total

cost to achieve compliance,

as required by

35 Ill.

Adrn;

Code 104.121(f);

3.

An assessment, with supporting factual information,

of

the environmental impact that the variance will impose

on human, plant and animal life in the affected area,

including,

where applicable,

data describing the

existing air and water quality which the discharge may

affect,

as required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.121(g);

In particular, Marsco has failed to specify what numerical

regulatory limitations would apply, what level of current

emissions violate those levels, when non—compliance started,

and

why compliance could not be achieved when required.

Marsco cites

several technical reviews and stack tests

in paragraphs

2 through

5, but has provided no supporting technical material to this

Board.

In addition, Narsco has not stated in what manner it is

128—73

---

2

in violation of Section 9(a)

of the Act.

Second,

Marsco has not submitted a compliance plan.

At

best,

Narsco has submitted a process to develop a compliance

plan.

Marsco states,

in paragraph 7, that it intends to present

its compliance plan in more detail at hearing.

This is

inadequate.

The Agency, the Board, and the public have a right

to review Narsco’s compliance plan at the time the variance

petition is filed so that the Agency recommendation and the

public hearing can be conducted in a meaningful manner.

Third, Marsco has failed to provide any supporting factual

information on environmental impact, especially as it pertains to

odor.

Marsco has failed to provide a statement of consistency with

Federal law as required by Section 104.122 or a hearing request

or waiver as required by Section 104.124.

However,

as this is an

air variance request, hearing must beheld.

The Board notes that this is a variance request on the eve

of enforcement and after pre—enforcement conferences with the

Attorney General.

Consequently, the Board will serve a copy of

today’s Order on the Attorney General and add them to the notice

list.

Unless an amended petition is filed within 45

days of the

date of this Order, curing the above-noted defect(s), this matter

will be subject to dismissal.

The Board notes that for purposes

of calculation of the decision deadline pursuant to Section 38 of

the Act, the filing of an amended petition will restart the

Board’s 120 day deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy N. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Bpa~L,.hereby cer1t4ify that the above Order was adopted ~p the

~-

day of

--1-~tj-&_1

,

1991,

by a vote of

/

~

~z

~.

~DorothyN.

9~n, Clerk

Illinois Po~~1ution

Control Board

128—74