ILLINOIS POLLUTION CO1~TROLBOARD

August

6,

1987

ALLIED-HASTINGS BARREL AND

DRUM SERVICE, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 86-21

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

ALLIED-HASTINGS BARREL AND

DRUM SERVICE,

INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 87—123

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTiON AGENCY,

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

3.

Anderson):

On February

19.,

1987,

the Board entered

an Opinion and Oráer

granting Allied-Hastings’

request for variance

from certain VOC

regulations

for

its Drum Shop and its Pail Shop.

Now pending

before the Board are Allied—Hastings’

July

10 motion for relief

from final Order, the Agency’s

July

22 motion to strike and

response

to motion,

and Allied—Hastings

July 31 replies

thereto.

The February 19 grant of variance was premised

on

a

compliance program proposed by Allied—Hastings.

This program was

to involve venting

of fumes from its spray booths and interior

ovens

in the Drum Shop to the existing drum incinerator.

The

Order established certain intermediate deadlines

for performance

of various activities relative

to this plan,

and required that

compliance

be achieved

by December

31, 1987.

The Order also required Allied—Hastings

to

file

a

certificate of acceptance within

45 days.

A conditional

certification filed

on March

30 was

rejected by the Board

by

Order of April

1,

1987;

the Order granted

leave

to refile

on

or

before April

15.

Allied—Hastings filed an amended certification

on April

17,

twelve days late.

80—63

---

—2—

In its motion for modification, Allied—Hastings asserts that

pursuant

to the variance condition requiring application for

a

construction permit1

it

retained by Anguil Energy Systems,

inc.

of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

to conduct an engineering study. This

May

19 study concluded

that the proposed reducting

of fumes

to

the drum incinerator would pose

a long—term potential fire

danger.

Allied-Hastings therefore requests

the Board

to reopen the

record in this proceeding

to enable

it

to “present testimony

concerning the impossibility of

the

previous)

compliance plan

and the compliance options recommended

by

its consulting

engineer”.

The Agency’s motion

to strike Allied—Hasting’s filing was

premised on Allied—Hasting’s

failure

to support the facts alleged

by affidavit,

a defect which Allied—Hastings has since

cured.

Accordingly,

the Agency’s motion

is denied

as moot.

The Agency opposes Allied’s motion on the grounds that there

is no variance to be modified

by reason of the fact that the

certificate of acceptance was filed twelve days late.

In support

of

this position,

the Agency cites

the Board’s recent ruling

in

American Steel Container Co.

v.

IEPA,

PCB 86—22—PCB

86—23, June

25,

1987.

In that case,

the Board had issued

a variance Order

which included

a compliance plan virtually identical to this

one.

ASCC had retained the same consultant

as did Allied—

Hastings,

and the results

of the study were the same.

ASCC did

not file

a certificate

of acceptance of

the variance,

it moved

for modification of the Order.

Although the Board determined

that no variance was in force which could

be modified, and that

new petitions for variance were therefore required.

Here,

although filed

late, Allied—Hastings did submit

a

signed Certificate of Acceptance agreeing

to be bound by

the

terms of the Board’s February

5,

1987 Order.

The Board will

accept

the late

filing.

Therefore,

the variance

is

in effect,

and modification

is therefore possible.

The question therefore becomes whether

it

is more desirable

to require the commencement of

a new variance proceeding,

or

to

reopen this one.

The Board believes that

it

is

the better course

in this case to require commencement of

a new proceeding

for

variance from the PCB 86—21 Order

for several

reasons.

Given the

length of

time

since

the Board’s last action in this case,

the

case has been purged from the Board Members’

individual

files;

the Board cannot assume

the burden of duplication of the previous

record.

Additionally, Allied—Hastings has stated that

it intends

to present various information concerning

its compliance plan at

hearing.

The issues will not properly

be crystallized

for

hearing unless Allied—Hastings

files

a petition containing

the

80—64

---

—3.—

information so that the Agency

can analyze the information filed

a Recommendation.

Allied-Hastings motion to modify

is denied.

However,

the

Board will construe the motion as

a new petition for variance

which will

be docketed as PCB

87

123.

The Board will calculate

its decision period

as commencing

today.

Allied—Hastings

is

directed

to file an amended petition which contains

a compliance

plan and which otherwise incorporates and updates the prior

record

in these matters within 45 days of

the date of

this Order,

or the petition will

be subject to dismissal.

Hearing will

be

held,

but will be scheduled only after receipt

of

a complete and

sufficient amended petition.

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy

M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certif~that the above Order was

adopted on

the

.1r

day

of

z-...(

,

1987,

by

a vote

of

~

Dorothy M./Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board