ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 4, 2004
    HARTFORD WORKING GROUP,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 05-74
    (Permit Appeal - Air)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore):
    On October 21, 2004, Hartford Working Group (HWG) timely filed a petition asking the
    Board to review a September 14, 2004 determination of the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency (Agency) imposing a contested special condition in an air permit.
    See
    415 ILCS
    5/40(a)(1) (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(b), 105.Subpart B. The air permit, which is a joint
    construction and operating permit, concerns the “Hartford Area Hydrocarbon Plume Site.” Also
    on October 21, 2004, HWG filed a motion to stay the effectiveness of the contested special
    condition of the permit. For the reasons below, the Board accepts the petition for review but
    reserves ruling on the motion for stay.
    The petition explains that HWG consists of Atlantic Richfield Company, Equilon
    Enterprises, L.L.C., d/b/a Shell Oil Products US, and The Premcor Refining Group Inc. Petition
    at 1. HWG was established to perform remediation work and share costs for the Hartford Area
    Hydrocarbon Plume Site “pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent from the United
    States Environmental Protection Agency.”
    Id
    .
    Under the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5 (2002)), the Agency is the
    permitting authority, responsible for administering Illinois’ regulatory programs to protect the
    environment. If the Agency denies a permit or grants one with conditions, the permit applicant
    may appeal the Agency’s decision to the Board.
    See
    415 ILCS 5/40 (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    105. In this case, HWG states that it submitted an air permit application to the Agency under
    Section 39 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/39 (2002)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.163 “to construct and
    operate three vacuum extraction systems” at the site. Petition at 1-2. The Agency issued a joint
    construction and operating permit containing the contested special condition, Special Condition
    2.0, which states in part that “unless [HWG] is determined to be a separate source from the
    Premcor Refining Group, 201 East Hawthorne, Hartford,” HWG “must submit its complete
    CAAPP [Clean Air Act Permit Program] application for the extraction system within 12 months
    after commencing operation.”
    Id
    . at 2, Exhibit A (quoting Special Condition 2.0).
    HWG requests that Special Condition 2.0 be deleted from the permit “because HWG is a
    separate source from the Premcor Refining Group facilities,
    i.e.
    , the Premcor Hartford
    2
    Distribution Center, as ‘source’ is defined in the Act.” Petition at 2. HWG appeals on the
    grounds that the special condition “does not reflect the current applicable requirements at the
    facility, and is thus arbitrary, capricious, without merit, and poses an unreasonable hardship on
    HWG.”
    Id
    . HWG’s petition meets the content requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 105.210.
    The Board accepts the petition for hearing. HWG has the burden of proof.
    See
    415 ILCS
    5/40(a)(1) (2002);
    see also
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 105.112(a). Hearings will be based exclusively on
    the record before the Agency at the time the Agency issued its permit decision.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 105.214(a). Accordingly, though the Board hearing affords a permit applicant the
    opportunity to challenge the Agency’s reasons for denying or conditionally granting the permit,
    information developed after the Agency’s decision typically is not admitted at hearing or
    considered by the Board.
    See
    Alton Packaging Corp. v. PCB, 162 Ill. App. 3d 731, 738, 516
    N.E.2d 275, 280 (5th Dist. 1987);
    Community Landfill Co. & City of Morris v. IEPA, PCB 01-
    170 (Dec. 6, 2001),
    aff’d sub nom.
    331 Ill. App. 3d 1056, 772 N.E.2d 231 (3d Dist. 2002).
    Hearings will be scheduled and completed in a timely manner, consistent with the
    decision deadline (
    see
    415 ILCS 5/40(a)(2) (2002)), which only HWG may extend by waiver
    (
    see
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.308). If the Board fails to take final action by the decision deadline,
    HWG “may deem the permit issued” absent the contested condition. 415 ILCS 5/40(a)(2)
    (2002). Currently, the decision deadline is February 18, 2005, which is the 120th day after the
    Board received the petition.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 105.114. The Board meeting immediately
    before the decision deadline is currently scheduled for February 17, 2005.
    Unless the Board or the hearing officer orders otherwise, the Agency must file the entire
    record of its determination by November 22, 2004, which is the first business day following the
    30th day after the Board received HWG’s petition.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 105.212(a). If the
    Agency wishes to seek additional time to file the record, it must file a request for extension
    before the date on which the record is due to be filed.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 105.116. The
    record must comply with the content requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 105.212(b).
    Accompanying HWG’s petition for review is a motion to stay the effectiveness of Special
    Condition 2.0. The Board reserves ruling on the motion for stay until after the 14-day timeframe
    for the Agency to file a response to the motion.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(d).
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on November 4, 2004, by a vote of 5-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top