ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September
    16,
    1971
    DALE MOODY
    v.
    )
    H
    70—36,
    71—67
    FLINTKOTE CO.
    Order
    on Motion for Rehearing
    (by Mr. Currie):
    We entered an order August
    13,
    1971,
    after exhaustive hear-
    ings,
    finding air pollution violations and ordering certain remedial
    measures
    to be taken.
    An explanatory opinion was adopted September
    2.
    On August
    31 we received from the company
    a motion to clarify
    or modify our order and
    to postpone the posting of
    a performance
    bond.
    The Agency filed
    a response
    in opposition,
    and we deny the
    motion for reasons stated below,
    Flintkote asks
    first that we allow
    it,
    if
    it proves desirable,
    to operate its asphalt reduction equipment without additional
    controls,
    As the Agency points out,
    Flintkote in its variance
    petition and testimony agreed to terminate the use of this equipment,
    and we will
    not modify
    an order entered after great expenditure
    of time and effort because the company has changed
    its mind.
    The
    entire subject of the reduction equipment was completely explored
    at the hearing,
    and now
    is
    no time
    to reopen
    it.
    Flintkote asks several revisions regarding the requirement
    of
    a bond,
    arguing first that
    a forfeiture bond is not contemplated
    by the
    statute,
    We disagree;
    as we have held numerous times before,
    that
    Is
    just what the statute contemplates,
    as assurance that
    it will be more expensive to default than to comply.
    The question
    of exactly what sum is to be forfeited upon various types of
    default,
    also questioned by the company,
    is
    one we
    left to be
    worked out between the company and the Agency,
    not to be litigated
    at length before the Board after completion of the case.
    Flintkot&s
    next argument is that we should not have ordered
    correction of the limestone dust problem admitted by
    the companj
    and amply proved in the record.
    As with the asphalt reduction
    equipment,
    the company
    is asking us to undo what it itself promised
    in the record and what we found reasonable after
    full consideration.
    The violation was amply proved,
    and we will not depart from our
    initial order.
    2
    —
    399
    Flintkote next asks us to extend the period allowed for
    a
    report on emissions from storage tanks
    and suggests there was in-
    sufficient proof of any violation from these
    tanks.
    There was
    ample evidence that the tanks
    in which hot asphalt is held are open
    to the air
    so that fumes
    can escape and that asphalt has
    a
    significant odor.
    This
    is enough to place
    the burden on the company
    under the statute to show that
    it
    is doing
    all it can or that the
    problem
    is insignificant.
    Our order requires the company to do
    that.
    It is also justifiable
    as
    a condition to thevariance
    we
    grant as to other violations;
    in order to obtain special dispensation
    from the law,
    a company must accept reasonable conditions designed
    to assure that related operations
    do not cause trouble.
    See
    Greenlee Foundries,
    Inc.
    v.
    EPA,
    #
    70-33
    (March 17,1971).
    As
    for
    the time element, we agree with
    the Agency that tests
    can be done
    on days when the rest of the plant
    is
    not
    in operation,
    and ample time
    is allowed.
    Paragraph
    E of the motion
    is addressed once more to the de-~
    tails
    of the required bond,
    Once again these are
    to be worked out
    with the Agency.
    For example,
    if
    as contended much of the money
    required has already been spent,
    no security will be necessary to
    assure its expenditure.
    Paragraph
    10
    of our order was intended
    not to preclude
    expanded use of facilities after brought
    into full compliance with
    the
    law and regulations but to preclude increased use
    of facilities
    that have not been brought under control.
    We trust this opinion has clarified both whatever ambiguity
    may have existed
    in our order and our position with respect to
    motions for rehearing.
    It should be clearly understood
    that we
    will
    not reexamine every order
    as soon
    as we issue
    it,
    or allow
    reargument of matters that were fully hashed
    out or should have
    been in the initial proceeding.
    Our orders are intended to be
    final,
    not provisional,
    and rehearing or reexamination will
    not be
    permitted except
    in the most extraordinary circumstances.
    To
    do so would work for interminable litigation
    and delay the correction
    of pollution.
    The motion to modify and to postpone the filing of a bond is
    denied.
    This opinion stands
    as
    a clarification
    of the order.
    I,
    Regina
    E.
    Ryan,
    Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify
    that the Board adopted the above Order
    on Motion for Rehearing
    this
    16
    day of
    September
    2
    —
    400

    Back to top