ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 6,

1976

HOLLYWOOD BRANDS,

)

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 76—121

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

The Petition for Variance in this matter states,

in part,

that,

“ajchieving

compliance

is not and has not been the problem.

.

.

•“

Petitioner states that

it

is capable of immediate compliance with

the requirements in Rule 204 of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution, from which

a Variance is sought, but it nonetheless seeks

a five—year Variance

for purely economic reasons.

This is insufficient hardship to

support the grant of a Variance.

In the first two cases decided by this Board,

Swords

v.

EPA,

PCB 70-6,

1 PCB 5

(1970), and EPA v. Lindgren Foundry Co., PCB 70-1,

1 PCB 11

(1970), we held that the concept of “arbitrary and unreason-

able hardship” under the Environmental Protection Act does not

include a situation where compliance

is merely more expensive than

non-compliance with the applicable Regulations.

That being the only

“hardship” claimed by Petitioner, the Petition does not allege suffi-

cient hardship to support the grant of a Variance.

The Petitioner also cites in the Petition the ambient air quality

in the relevant area.

That fact alone cannot grant a Variance.

The

Board has previously held that such a justification would be tanta-

mount

to abandonment of the emission standards.

Illinois Power Co.

V.

Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 72-190,

6 PCB 17

(1972).

In light of the above,

the Petition in this matter is inadequate

and must be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Order was adopted on

the

L~”~

day of

__________,

1976, by a vote of

~S-.o

C ristan

L. No

ett,

r

Illinois Pollution C

ol Board