ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 17, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 72—470

CHICAGO MAGNESIUM CASTING COMPANY,

Respondent.

James

I. Rubin, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of

Complainant;

Stephen E. Kitchen and George P. Sullivan on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Seaman):

On May

3,

1973,

Respondent, Chicago Magnesium Casting Company,

located in Blue Island, County of Cook,

filed a Motion to Re-

consider and Vacate.

Respondent’s prayer is that this Board

reconsider and vacate those portions of its Opinion and Order of

April

17, 1973

in which the Board found the Respondent had violated

Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act and imposed a

penalty of

$1,000.

Respondent contends that it was neither economically reason-

able nor technically feasible for the Respondent to bring its

emissions into compliance with the Act or the regulations adopted

pursuant thereto.

In its brief in support of

this motion

(p.

2,

III), Respondent

argues that under the Act and the decisions of the Board unreason-

ableness of compliance is a complete defense.

Respondent1s position

cannot be sustained.

Section

9(a)

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

provides as

follows:

SECTION

9.

“No person shall:

(a)

Cause or threaten or allow the discharge or emission

of any contaminant into the environment in any State so as

to cause or tend to cause air pollution in Illinois, either

alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources,

or so as to violate regulations or standards adopted by the

Board under this Act;”

8—23

---

—2—

Respondent,

by its own admission, has violated this pro-

vision.

Section

33(c)

and

(iv)

of the Illinois Environmental Pro-

tection Act provides as follows:

SECTION

33.

“(c)

In making its orders and determinations,

the Board

shall take into consideration all the facts and circum-

stances bearing upon the reasonableness of the emissions,

discharges, or deposits involved including,

but not

limited to:”

(emphasis added)

“(iv)

the technical practicability and economic

reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions,

discharges

or deposits resulting from such pollution

source.”

The Board is satisfied,

therefore,

that although due

consideration should be given the technical practicability and

economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating emissions,

this

is only one of the many considerations involved in a decision,

and unreasonableness of compliance

is not per se a complete

defense.

Such

a stance would constitute an abdication of the duty and

discretion conferred upon this Board under the Act to the

People of Illinois.

The public will not be made to suffer due

to the state of technology in a particular field.

Respondent’s

motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify

that

the

above Opinion and Order was adopted by

the Board on the /i~day of

_____________,

1973,

by

a vote of

~4

to

r~