ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

14,

1975

OLIN CORPORATION

(Joliet),

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—214

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

on Olin Corporation’s

(Olin) peititon for variance

from Rules

204(c) (1) (A) and 203(c) (1) (A)

and

(C)

of the Air

Pollution Control Regulations

for their manufacturing facil-

ity in Joliet,

Illinois.

Olin presents a novel approach in its petition for

variance,

requesting that the variance be granted until such

time as the Illinois Supreme Court acts on the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(Agency) appeal of the

First District Illinois Court of Appeals Decision in Common-

wealth Edison Company

v. Pollution Control Board of the State

of Illinois No.

57487.

Olin alleges that the status of the

sulphur oxide limitations of Rule 204(c) (1) (A)

is substan-

tially in doubt

in view of the decision of the Illinois

Appellate Court in the Commonwealth Edison case, supra,

and

that

it would be an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship to

require Olin to comply with the Rule before the Supreme

Court acts on the appeal.

By its very nature,

this petition cannot have

a com-

pliance schedule ~

it is Olin’s intent not

to comply until

such time

as the Supreme Court acts on the appeal.

It

is

well established that the Board may not grant a variance

unless some positive plan

for compliance

is included in the

petition.

The purpose of the variance procedure

is to

enable the Board to allow a Petitioner enough time to de-

velop and institute

a compliance program without working an

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon him.

Since

a compliance schedule is a necessary part of the

petition for variance and since Olin’s petition is not only

devoid of such compliance schedule but indeed requests var-

iance from the need to develop such compliance

schedule, we

must therefore strike the petition for inadequacy.

18— 376

---

—2—

On July

30,

1975,

the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed its Motion for a Hearing in this matter.

As

Olin’s petition is striken, the Agency motion is moot and,

therefore,

must be denied.

Olin has filed a waiver, pur-

suant

to Procedural

Rule

408,

until November

15,

1975.

This Opinion constitutes the finds of fact and con-

clusions of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Or.~ierof the Pollution Control Board that

Olin Corporation’~peititon for variance for their Joliet

facility be and is hereby stricken with leave granted to

Petitioner

to file an amended petition herein, and that the

Agency’s motion for hearing be and is hereby denied.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the

_________

day of

_________,

1975 by a

vote of

__________—.

Illinois Pollution

18

—