ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

7,

1974

ABEX CORPORATION,

AMSCO DIVISION,

Petitioner,

PCB 73—525

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF

THE BOARD

(by

Mr.

Henss)

Petitioner Abex Corporation operates a manganese steel

foundry in Chicago Heights, Illinois.

On December

6,

1973

the Company filed a Petition requesting a three month variance

from Rule 203(b)

and

(c)

of the Air Pollution Control Regulations,

to continue its torch cutting operations while completing in-

stallation of a baghouse control system~ Petitioner states that

the particulate matter emitted to the atmosphere from the torch

burning operations

is 72.7 lbs./hr,

The emissions are primarily

metallic oxide and were being vented directly to the atmosphere

without controls.

The allowable emission rate under Rule 3-3.111

of the Air Rules which was effective to December

31,

1973, was

39.7 lbs./hr.

Since Petitioner~sfacility was not in compliance

with Rule 3-3.111 by April

14,

1972 Petitioner is required to meet

the Standards of Rule 203(a)

of Chapter

2, Part II of the Rules

following December 31,

1973.

The allowable emission rate under

Rule 203(a)

is

17.9 lbs./hr.

Rule

203(b)

and

(c)

are not applicable, but the Agency has

regarded this Petition as

a request for variance from Rule 3—3.111

until December 31,

1973 and a request for variance from Rule 203(a)

ufltil February 28,

1974.

On February 1,

1973 Petitioner commenced a program to bring

its operation into compliance with the Regulation.

The program

was approximately 80

complete when Petitioner filed the request

for a variance.

Petitioner states that the baghouse collection

system will control 99

of

the

emissions.

The Agency substantially

agrees with this allegation and believes that the emission rate

will be reduced to less than

1 lb. per hour.

This

is equivalent

to an annual reduction of

65

tons of particulates.

The cost to

Petitioner for installation of this system will be around $250,000.

11—477

---

The plant

is

located

in an area~

~ofheavy

industry

and the Agency

has received

no

citizen complaints.

The

Agency states

that

the timetable proposed

by

Petitioner

is reasonable but recommends

a

denial

of the

variance because

of

delays

in

getting underway with

the

project.

The EPA in its

Recommendation states:

~Petitioner has

been

violating

applicable emission

standards for

quite

some

time~

1?

did

not

begin to

plan

its compliance

prouram

until

February 1973.

The

Agency

is

strongly

ib favor of

Petitioner~s

current

efforts to

comply

with

E,tand~irds.

The Agency wishes

to take no position which

may

delay

or

interfere

with

this greatly

needed

prolect.

However,

Petitioner~s

past

delays

preclude

the

Agency

from

recommending

that

the

variance

be

granted.

The

Agency

considers

a

variance

to

be

a

shield

from

prosecution.

This

shield

is

•to

be

allomed

only

in

those

circumstances

when

to

hold

otherwise

would

create

an

•arb.i tr cry

orunreasonalle

hardship.

The.

~

iycli~•ves

that

the

major

reason

Petetioner

caniw

~cum

j

~i

sna~c~

Le

standards

is

due

to past

delay.

Petitioner

has

not

augqes ted

•mny

reason

for

the

delay

and

we

must

conclude

that

Abex

has

failed

t

a

carry

to.

burden

of

proof

in

that

regard.

Abex

does

say

that

ten

extreme

hardship

would

be

placed

upon

this

steel

f(.aJrh:~

~..if

the

Isurning

operations

were

curtailed

in

any

manner

pale a

to

the

completion

of

the

control

system.”

Our

denial

of

a

variance

is

not

in

itself

an

order

to

curtail

operations.

Our

Order

merely

ndicates

that

Petitioner

has

failed

to

establish

that

..it

should

be

free

from

prosecution

for

its

excessive

emissions.

Whether

a

slrosecition

will

actually

occu.r

we

have

no

way

of

knowing,

and.

if

a

comp:Laint

is

in

fact

filed,

Abex

may

stili

promo

a

reasonable

excuse

for the delay in

its

program.

It

is

the

burden

of

the

Petitioner

to

prove

that

compliance

with

the

Rule

would

impose

an

arbitrary

or

unr’~asonab1e

hardship.

Since

no

reason

is

~jlven

for

the

delay

in

instituting the

control

program,

we

tiod

that

Pet~1tioner

has

tas led

to

sustain

its

ouraen

of

proof

anci

ace

variance

will

be

denied,

It

is

the

Order

of

the

Pollute

on

Control

Board

that

the

Petition

for

Variance

cc

ce~oec

to’~o~o~

o~e~ueum

---

—3--

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this

71~

day of

1974 by

a vote of

..~