ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 8, 1976
    TRILLA COOPERAGE, INC.,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    v
    )
    PCB 75—414
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):
    This matter comes before the Board on a Variance Petition
    filed by Petitioner Trilla Cooperage, Inc., (Trilla), on
    October 23, 1975. The Recommendation of the Environmental
    Protection Agency, (Agency), was filed on December 19, 1975.
    No hearing was held in this matter.
    Trilla seeks a Variance from a portion of an earlier Board
    Order concerning its drum reconditioning facility at 3201 S. Millard,
    in Chicago. In its Order in EPA v. Trilla Cooperage, PCB 72—309,
    12 PCB 181 (1974), wherein Trilla was found to be in volation of
    Section 9(a) of the
    Environmental Protection Act, Ill.
    Rev. Stat.
    Ch. 111-1/2, §1009(a), the Board provided that,
    • .
    Respondent, Trilla Cooperage, Inc., shall:
    1. Within 60 days of the date of this Order
    file with the Agency a statement detailing the abate-
    ment procedures it intends to implement in order to
    achieve compliance with the Act within one year.
    Respondent shall obtain all necessary permits pursuant
    thereto.
    2. $1,500 penalty imposed
    . . . .‘
    Trilla now seeks an additional 120 days from the date of any
    Order entered in the instant case to file the compliance plan
    required by Order No. 1 in PCB 72-309.
    To justify the requested Variance, Trilla lists a series of
    actions which it has taken to achieve substantive compliance with
    the Act and
    the
    Air Pollution Regulations, and states that,
    19— 615
    —2—
    “While the aforesaid is not intended to
    expiate Part I of the Board’s Order, it is
    presented to show the good faith exercised by
    the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner
    never filed a compliance plan was a mere over-
    sight and should be excused in light of other
    efforts to achieve substantial compliance with
    the requirements of Part I of the Board’s Order
    PCB 72—309
    . .
    Trilla states that it believes it is now in compliance with
    Section 9(a) of the Act and Rule 205(f) of the Board’s Air Pollution
    Regulations. PCB Begs., Oh. 2: Air Pollution, Rule 205(f).
    In its Recommendation the Agency disagrees, and states that it
    is “of the opinion that the steps taken by Petitioner have not
    brought the facility into compliance.’t The Agency points out that
    Petitioner has already had nineteen months to develop a compliance
    plan, and asks that the Petition be denied.
    We agree with the Agency, and shall dismiss the Petition. Trilla
    has not shown
    any
    hardship which would result from a denial of the
    Variance. The Petition does not sufficiently show that the grant of
    additional time for the filing of a compliance plan will not adversely
    affect either the environment or the residents surrounding the drum
    reconditioning plant. The testimony of various residents in PCB 72-309
    is sumr~arized in our earlier Opinion, and indicates that a serious
    problem existed near Trilla’s plant; the Petition fails to adequately
    show that the conditions described there do not still exist.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
    law of the Board in this matter.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE OkDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that the Petition
    for Variance in this matter be dismissed without prejudice.
    Dr. Donald Satchell abstained.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above Final Opinion an~Order were
    adopted on the
    ~
    day of january, 1976 by a vote of
    ~&d~of~flk~rk
    Illinois Pollutio ontrol Board
    19— 616

    Back to top