ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 15, 1979
    STANADYNE,
    INC., CHICAGO DIVISION,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—120
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Goodman):
    This Opinion supports the Board Order of November 1, 1979,
    herein.
    This variance petition seeks an extension of the variance
    granted Petitioner
    in PCB 78-267 through and including November
    30, 1979.
    The Agency recommends denying the petition until
    such time as Petitioner can demonstrate compliance with Section
    113(d)(1)(D) of the Clean Air Act regarding dates of compliance
    with Rules
    203(a)
    and 204(f)(2)(B)(i)
    of the Boardts Air Pol-
    lution Control Regulations.
    Stanadyne/Chicago Division,
    a division of Stanadyne,
    Inc.,
    (Stanadyne) filed a petition for variance for its facility in
    Bellwood,
    Illinois on June 14,
    1979.
    The Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    filed its recommendation in this
    matter on October
    9,
    1979.
    No hearing was held,
    and the Board
    has received no public comment.
    Section
    35 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    requires that variances from the Board’s Air Pollution
    Control Regulations must be granted consistent with the Clean
    Air Act Amendments
    of 1977.
    Section 113(d)(1)(D)
    of the Clean
    Air Act allows the Board to extend a final
    compliance date to
    July
    1,
    1979 or three years after the date specified in the
    SIP.
    On January
    4,
    1979 the Board,
    in PCB 78—267,
    extended
    the date of compliance
    to July
    1,
    1979, more than two months
    after the date Petitioner had requested.
    On June 22,
    1979 the Board ordered Petitioner to file a
    legal memorandum arguing the Board’s authority to grant Peti-
    tioner a variance beyond July
    1,
    1979,
    subject otherwise to a
    dismissal of the petition for inadequacy.
    Petitioner has
    demonstrated
    to the satisfaction of the Board that denial of
    36—113
    —2—
    the petition would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hard-
    ship as defined in Section 35 of the Act.
    However,
    Petitioner
    has not convinced the Board that the status of the State
    Implementation Plan has changed due to the submission of the
    SIP revisions to the U.S. Environmental Protection P~gencyby
    the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year.
    The Board finds that Petitioner must demonstrate compliance
    with Section 113(d)
    of the Clean Air Act
    in order for any
    variance granted herein
    to have any practical effect.
    The
    Board
    finds further that Petitioner has not adequately demon-
    strated such compliance.
    The Board must find that although
    Petitioner has met his burden under
    the laws and regulations
    of the State of Illinois,
    it
    is constrained
    to deny a variance
    in this case by the phrase in Section 35 of the Act which
    requires variances
    to be granted consistent with the Clean
    Air Act Amendments of
    1977.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclu-
    sions
    of law of the Board in this matter.
    I, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois
    Pollution
    Contro
    Board, hereby certfy
    the above Opinion was adopted on
    the
    j
    day of
    ___,
    1979 by a vote of
    _______
    Christan
    L. Moffett~yglerk
    Illinois Pollution ~~ntrol
    Board
    36—114

    Back to top