ILLINOIS POLLUTION
    CONTROL BOARD
    August
    6,
    1987
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 86-9
    TRILLA STEEL DRUM CORPORATION,
    Respondent.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENC~,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    POE 8à-56
    TRILLA STEEL DRUM CORPORATION,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by 3.D.
    Dumelle):
    This matter
    comes before
    the Board upon
    a July
    16,
    1987,
    Motion
    for Modification
    of the Board’s June
    25, 1967
    Order,
    filed
    by Trilla Steel Drum Corporation
    (Trilla).
    Trilla requests that
    the Board
    reconsider
    and modify
    its Opinion
    and Order
    of June
    25,
    1987, with respect to
    (1)
    the cease and desist order,
    and
    (2)
    the
    imposition of the $10,000 penalty.
    On July
    31, 1987 the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) filed
    its objections
    to
    Trilla’s motion.
    For reasons
    to
    be discussed below,
    Trilla’s
    motion
    is granted
    in part and denied in part.
    First, Trilla
    requested that the Board reconsider
    its cease
    and desist order because
    it
    is hoped
    that
    an operating permit
    will
    be granted.
    It would
    like
    to continue operating
    and thereby
    preserve its financial viability and the jobs of
    its fifty
    (50)
    employees.
    Trilla stated that
    in March of 1986 and
    on May 19,
    1987, Trilla submitted applications
    for the
    renewal
    of operating
    permits
    to the Agency.
    Trilla stated that
    it understood when
    it
    filed
    the March,
    1986,
    application that the Agency could not
    grant
    the permit
    until
    the Board granted
    a variance.
    Trilla
    noted that on February
    5,
    1987,
    in PCB
    86—9,
    it received a
    variance.
    Therefore, Trilla
    is hopeful that,
    based
    on that
    variance,
    the Agency will issue
    the operating permit based on the
    May 19,
    1987 application.
    80—59
    The Agency responded
    that Trilla has
    no variance authorizing
    the Agency
    to grant
    the permit.
    Relying
    on American Steel
    Container
    Co.
    v.
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB
    86—22,
    86—23,
    87—90
    and
    87—91
    (June
    25,
    1987),
    the Agency argues
    that because Trilla failed
    to
    file
    a timely Certificate
    of
    Acceptance,
    as required by Board Orders
    of February
    5
    and April
    1,
    1987,
    the variance does not exist.
    Therefore,
    the Agency
    argues,
    it cannot grant any permit until
    after Trilla applies
    for,
    and
    obtains,
    a new variance.
    The Board believes
    that
    the Agency’s reliance on American
    Steel
    is misplaced.
    That case
    is distinguishable
    in that
    American Steel
    never submitted
    the Certificate of Acceptance
    to
    the Board.
    Here,
    although
    filed
    late,
    Trilla did submit
    a signed
    Certificate of Acceptance
    agreeing to
    be bound
    by the terms
    of
    the Boards February
    5,
    1987 Order.
    The Board will accept the
    late filing.
    Thus,
    the variance
    is
    in effect.
    The Board will stay
    the cease and desist order
    for sixty
    (60)
    days to allow
    sufficient
    time
    for the Agency to take
    final
    action
    on Trilla’s May
    19,
    1987 application.
    If the permit
    is
    granted,
    tnen Trilla will not
    be required
    to cease
    operations.
    If,
    however,
    the permit
    is not granted, then the cease
    and desist
    order will apply.
    Trilla has been operating without
    a permit
    in
    violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    and
    Board rules since January 1,
    1985,
    and that must cease.
    Second,
    Trilla requests
    that the Board reconsider
    the
    $lu,000 penalty imposed
    for violating the Act and Board Rules.
    Trilla argues that
    it does not need
    a $10,000 “incentive”
    to
    apply
    for operating permits.
    The Agency responded that because
    of Trilla’s history
    of knowing and repeated failure
    to take
    timely action
    to secure
    the required variances and permits,
    the
    Board’s conclusion
    that
    a $10,000 penalty would
    be added
    incentive
    is appropriate.
    Further,
    the Agency noted Wasteland,
    Inc.
    v.
    Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    118 Ill.
    App. 3d
    1041,
    1055,
    456 N.E.2d
    964
    (1983), which
    recognized
    that
    a penalty
    serves
    the
    legislative purpose
    of aiding
    enforcement of the Act
    by providing
    a deterrent effect on would
    be violators.
    The Board believes
    that the June
    25,. 1987, Opinion and Order
    adequately addresses the basis
    for the
    imposition of the $10,000
    penalty and will not
    repeat
    that justification here.
    The Board
    believes that
    the penalty does give Trilla needed incentive
    to
    come into compliance,
    and also furthers the State’s interest
    in
    guarding public health and safety by encouraging general
    observance
    of permit
    laws.
    As the Board believes the penalty
    is
    necessary and appropriate, Trilla’s motion
    as
    to the $10,000
    penalty
    is denied.
    IT
    IS
    SO ORDERED.
    80—60
    —3—
    I,
    Dorothy
    M.
    Gunn, Clerk
    of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    here~y
    certify that the above Order was adopted
    on
    the
    ______________
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1987 by
    a vote
    of
    C
    -
    c
    Dor
    Ill
    s Pol
    on Control Board
    80—61

    Back to top