ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

September 2,

1982

TRO1ThN CORPORATION (Wolf Lake),

)

Petitioner,

I

v.

I

PcB 82—23

I

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY

)

I

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by D. Anderson):

On

August

30,

1982

the

Illinois Environmental Protedtion

Agency

(Agency)

filed a motion to continue hearing and motion

for expedited consideration.

The dispute arises out of a

letter to the Agency dated August

6, 1982 from Howard E.

Hesket1~..P.E., on

behalf

of

Trojan

Corporation.

The

letter

alters

Troj an

Corporation

s

variance

proposal in

several

respects,

increasing

the

amount

of

ball

powder

to

be

burned

daily,

changing the location of ball

powder

burning,

decreasing

the

number

of

buildings

to

be

burned

and

increasing

the

total

weight

of

buildings0

The

Agency

asks

that

this

be

deemed

an

amended

petition

and

that the September

3

hearing

be

postponed

to.

give

it time to

review

the data.

The

Board

notes

howe.ver that

this

letter

was

not

forwarded

to

the

Board

until

long

after it

was

received

by

the

Agency.

To

construe

it

as

an

aniendrnent

at

this

time

would

unfairly

advance

the

decision

date,

Furthermore,

this

exchange

of

information

was

requested

by

the

Agency

and

ordered

by

the

héàring

officer

on

July

20,

1982.

The

Board

therefore

finds

that

the

August

6

letter

was

not

an

amendment,

but

a

portion

of

the

discovery

leading

up

to

the

hearing

on

a

contested

petition.

The

Board

notes,

however,

that

the

hearing

officer

may restrict

evidence

at

the

hearing

to

the

petition

before

the

Board

as

previously

amended.

It

is

evident

from

this

proceding

that

the

Board

has

created a potenti~tlprocedural problem by construing a filing

from a third party as an amended petition.

In the future the

Board will reject all such attempts to amend.

With. respect to

the

motion for continuance, the Board

notes

that

the

Agency

will

have had the letter for nearly

30

days

by.

the

date of the September 3 hearing.

This

is the

length of time

which

the

Agency

has in

which

to

prepare

a

recommendation

on

a

new

petition.

The

time

is

adequate

for

response to discovery.

48-83

---

—2—

The

Agency~s.

motion

for

expedited consideration is granted,

and

the

motion

for

continuance

is

denied.

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

I, christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control B~d, hereby certify that the above Order was ~adopted

on the

°~

day of

____________

1982 by a vote of

~

~hristan L.

of

fei~~

clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board