ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 18, 2004
     
    HARTFORD WORKING GROUP,
     
    Petitioner,
     
    v.
     
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
     
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 05-74
    (Permit Appeal - Air)
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore):
     
    On October 21, 2004, Hartford Working Group (HWG) timely filed a petition asking the
    Board to review a September 14, 2004 determination of the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency (Agency) imposing a contested special condition in an air permit.
    See
    415 ILCS
    5/40(a)(1) (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(b), 105.Subpart B. The air permit, which is a joint
    construction and operating permit, relates to remediation of the “Hartford Area Hydrocarbon
    Plume Site” and specifically concerns vacuum extraction systems for HWG’s Hartford, Madison
    County facility. Also on October 21, 2004, HWG filed a motion to stay the effectiveness of the
    contested special permit condition.
     
    On November 4, 2004, the Board accepted HWG’s petition for review but reserved ruling
    on the motion to stay the effectiveness of the contested special permit condition—Special
    Condition 2.0. The Board reserved ruling on the motion for stay until after the 14-day timeframe
    for the Agency to file a response to the motion.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(d). That
    response time has expired without any response from the Agency. Accordingly, the Agency
    waives any objection to the Board granting the motion for stay.
    Id
    .
     
    Motions to stay a proceeding must be “accompanied by sufficient information detailing
    why a stay is needed.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.514(a). Special Condition 2.0 states in part that
    “unless [HWG] is determined to be a separate source from the Premcor Refining Group, 201
    East Hawthorne, Hartford,” HWG “must submit its complete CAAPP [Clean Air Act Permit
    Program] application for the extraction system within 12 months after commencing operation.”
    Petition at 2, Exhibit A (quoting Special Condition 2.0).
     
    HWG argues that a stay of this permit condition is needed to prevent “irreparable harm”
    to HWG and to protect HWG’s “certain and clearly ascertainable right . . . to appeal permit
    conditions.” Motion at 2. According to HWG, no adequate remedy exists at law and HWG has
    a “probability of success on the merits.”
    Id
    . HWG further states that the Agency, the public, and
    the environment “will not be harmed if a stay is granted.”
    Id
    . The Board grants HWG’s motion
    to stay the effectiveness of Special Condition 2.0 until the Board takes final action in this appeal
    or until the Board orders otherwise.
     
     
     
    2
     
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on November 18, 2004, by a vote of 5-0.
     
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
     

    Back to top