ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July

 24, 1975

MODERN

FOUNDRY

 AND MANUFACTURING CO.~,

)

Petitioner,

)

PCB

75—132

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

despondent.

OPINION

AND

OF~DEROF THE

BOARD

 (by Dr. Odeil)

On March

25,

 1975, Modern Foundry and Manufacturing

Co. filed its Petition For Variance with the Illinois Pollu-

tion Control Board

 (Board).

 Subsequent to the Board’s More

Information Order on April

 4, Petitioner filed its Amended

Petition For Variance on May 1,

 1975.

 The Illinois Environ-

mental Protection Agency, already in receipt of the May

1

data,

 filed

its

Recommendation of grant on April 24,

 1975.

Petitioner operates

 a grey iron foundry in Mascoutah,

St.

 Clair County,

 Illinois.

 The foundry is located near the

edge of town in an area partially rural and partially residen-

tial.

 The City’s

 population

 is 5,000.

 Seventy-five people work

for the Petitioner, the City’s second largest employer.

The

weekly payroll from Modern Foundry~sproduction of castings

totals $12,000.00.

Petitioner seeks a variance from Rule 206(e)

 of the

Board’s Air Pollution Regulations

 (Chapter

2)

 until December

25,

 1975.

 Petitioner is presently exceeding the carbon

 mon-

oxide standard in Rule 206(e)

 of 200 ppmand

 requests suf-

ficient time tD install an afterburner to control its emis-

sions.

 Rule 206(e) was effective December 31,

 1973.

The

emission source is the No.

 5 Whiting cupola operated approx-

imately 10 hours per week at a process rate weight of 16,003

pounds per hour.

 Calculat±onsby both parties establish that

approximately 5,000 ppm of carbon monoxide are emitted by

Petitioner

‘

s operations.

Petitioner first became aware of its pollution pro-

blem after

it

was

denied renewal of its Operating Permit be-

cause of failu:~eto meet Rule

 206(e)

 standards,

 Because the

Agency denied ?etitioner’s construction permit on April

3,

1975 for lack of sufficient information, the variance is re-

quested until December 25, 1975.

 The parties agree that the

afterburner will remedy the problem.

 The Agency recommended

that only a six-month variance be granted, since Petitioner

stated that installation of the afterburner could be completed

in

 25 weeks.

 The Agency has received no objections to the grant

of the variance.

18—181

—2—

To satisfy the test of arbitrary or unreasonable hard-

ship Petitioner stated that it

 “has made a good faith effort to

achieve compliance as soon as practicable following its notice

of possible non-compliance.”

 Petitioner also indicated the

severe economic impact that curtailling plant operations would

have on the couhxnunity and its employees.

 Petitioner also added

that it

 “would

 faced not only with a loss of profits, but

suits for breacri of contract with resultant damages to Peti-

tioner for its inability to meet contract commitments

 to its

customers for prcduction of grey iron castings.”

We deny the variance.

 The delay

 in achieving com-

pliance is self-imposed.

 Although Petitioner may not have

been aware

 of its pollution problem until recently, this does

not excuse non—compliance.

 To grant a variance with reliance,

in fact,

 on Petitioner’s ignorance of the magnitude of its ex-

cessive emissions levels, would discourage others from scru-

tinizing their plant operations.

 In this case, Petitioner’s

emissions are 25 times the standard under Rule 206 (e).

Al-

though Petitioner is now making good faith efforts to achieve

compliance, this does not warrant the grant of a variance, be-

cause such efforts do not establish arbitrary or unreasonable

 hardship.

 While we realize that the community and company

employees may undergo severe hardship due to denial of this

variance, such arguments cannot be used as a means

 to avoid

the consequences of one’s failure to comply with the regula-

tions.

 Fina.1)v, granting a variance under the circumstances

of this case would only reward Petitioner for its delay in

achieving

compliance.

In Train v. Natural Resources Defense Concil,

 Inc.

43 LW 4467

 (April

15,

 1975)

 the United States Supreme Court

ruled that variances from implementation plans can be granted

provided that the national ambient air quality standards are

not

violated.

Petitioner

has

 not submitted any data on the

ambient air quality for carbon monoxide in the area in which

it is located.

 If a subsequent similar variance request is

made it should include ambient air quality data for carbon

monoxide in the area.

 A variance from Rule 104(b)

(2)

of

Chapter

 2 may ~lso be needed in order to obtain a construction

permit from the Agency.

Based on the facts of this case, Petition for Variance

is denied without prejudice.

 ORDERED.

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

Board, hereby certiJ~Ythat the above Opinion and Order ~as

adopted on the

~‘/

“

 day of July,

 1975, by a vote of

18— 182