ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

May

23,

1972

IN

THE

MATTER

OF

PETITION

FOR

VARIANCE BY

)

PCB

72401

MERLAN,

INC.

Sebat,

Swanson

and Banks,

Attorney for

Petitioner

William

J.

Scott,

Illinois

Attorney

General,

by

Thomas

Immel,

Assistant

Attorney

General

for

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency

OPINION OF

THE

BOARD

(by Mr.

Dumelle)

This

matter

is

now before

us

on

a Petition

for Extension

of

Time.

This

case

was

originally

before

us

upon

the

complaint

of the employees

of

Holmes

Bros.,

Inc.

(FCB

71-39)

alleging

that

Merlan,

Inc.

created

a public

nuisance,

violated

Section

9(a)

of’ the

Environmental

Protection

Act in

causing

air

pollution,

violated

Section

9(b)

of

the

Act,

and violated

Section

21(b) and

(e)

of the

Act in dumping

excessive

water

on the street,

On

September

16,

1971,

we ordered

Merlan

to

cease

and desist

its

violations

of Section

9(a) of the

Act,

and

also,

among other

things,

to

lower

their

grizzly

and enclose

their

conveyor

system

by October

15,

1971,

Thereafter,

Merlan

filed

a petition

for variance

(PCB

71~-292)and on

December

27,

1971

we

extended the

time

to

comply

with the

provisions

of

the

September

16 order

to March

30,

1972.

The

instant

Petition

for

Extension

of

Time,

filed

March

7,

1972,

requests

a further

extension

until

July30,

1972

in which to

lower

the

grizzly,

Merlan1s

main

argument

in support

of its

petition i~that

in order

to

proceed further

it

would

be necessary

to

shut the

plant

down for

two

weeks

in order

to

dig

the

pit and

install

the

equipment.

Merlan

claims

that to

shut

down for

two

weeks at the

present

time

will

work an unreasonable

hardship

upon

its

sole

customer

in that

it will

disrupt the material

flow

necessary

for its

customer~s operation.

Merlan

suggests

that

its

customer

will

be

closed

for

two

weeks

in

July,

1972,

and at that

tinie

Merian

could also

he

closed

to complete

the project

without

imposing

any hardship

upon

its

customer,

The

instant petition

does

not

appear

to

change the prior

situation.

If

Merlan

were

concerned

for the

welfare

of its

customer,

the

point

should

have

been raised

in the earlier

proceedings

before

us.

Merlan

had every

opportunity

to ascertain

before

now that

its

customer

would be

closed

in July.

Merlah,

4

—~

559

---

however,

elected

to proceed

on the

basis

of

completing

the project

by

March

30,

1972.

We cannot grant

a further

extension

under these

circumstances

(See

Decker

Sawmill

V.

EPA,

PCIB

72-~75, May 17,

1972).

This

opinion

constitutes

the

Board’ s findings

of fact

and conclusions

of

law,

ORDER

It is

ordered

that

the

Petition

for Extension

of’ Time

be

and hereby is

DENTED.

I,

Christan

L,

Moffett,

Clerk

of the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the

above

Opinion

and Order

was

adopted

on the~~ay

of

May,

1972 by

a vote of

4’_-(~

~‘~L\

~

Christan

L,

Moffett,

Clerk”

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

4

560