ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 5,
1988
ALTON PACKAGING CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 83—49
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C.
Flemal):
Alton Packaging Corporation (~A1tonu)filed
a Motion
for
Reconsideration and Rehearing on March 31,
1988,
and a correction
to that motion on April
18,
1988.
The Board construes the latter
filing to be
an Amended Motion for Reconsideration and Rehearing.
On April 20,
1988 the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“Agency”)
filed
a Motion for Extension of Time
to file
a
response
to Alton’s motions.
By Board Order
of April
21,
1988
Respondent was granted leave
to file said response on or
before
April 29,
1988.
The Agency failed
to file its response within
the timeframe provided by the Board,
therefore the response
is
stricken.
In its motion,
Petitioner requests that the Board reconsider
its February 25,
1988 Opinion and Order involving the compliance
plan and economic hardship issues.
In the alternative Petitioner
requests the Board grant
it a rehearing on the issues
of
compliance alternatives and coal costs.
Petitioner makes two
basic claims
in support of
its motion:
1)
that the currently
filed PCB83—55 adjusted standard proceeding along with
a
commitment
to burn lower sulfur coal within three years
if the
adjusted standard
is not granted,
is
a proper compliance plan;
and
2)
that the use of low sulfur
coal,
the only viable
Compliance option outside of
an adjusted standard, would impose
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon Alton.
The Board finds
that
it has sufficiently discussed and
considered each
of these issues
in its Opinion and Order.
The
only case precedent which Alton cites
in its motion which the
Board did not discuss
is the October
1,
1987 Opinion and Order
Schrock
v.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 86—
205.
The Board believes that its discussion contained in its
previous Schrock Order, PCB 86—205, March
5,
1987 is supportive
of
the general rationale which the Board has followed regarding
compliance plans,
and was cited as such.
However,
the factual
89—01
—2—
situation as presented
in Schrock
is disparate and not supportive
of the relief which Alton seeks.
The Board believes that
the type of information Alton now
seeks
to present regarding low sulfur
coal pricing
and the other
compliance options would not alter
the Board’s determination of
the lack of
a compliance plan nor would
it change the outcome of
the proceeding.
Moreover, Alton’s assertions that utilization of
any of these compliance options and the use
of low sulfur
coal
would
be so costly as
to constitute an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship,
are indicative
of a lack of commitment
to
a compliance
plan.
In so noting, the Board does not intend to reverse
its
holding that Alton failed
to prove
it would suffer an arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship if denied variance relief,
or
its
holdings on other matters as stated
in the Opinion and Order, but
merely seeks to illustrate Alton’s continued lack of commitment
to a compliance plan which ensures that compliance will be
achieved
by a date certain.
A new hearing on these matters
is
consequently unwarranted.
Alton’s Motion for Reconsideration and Rehearing is
therefore denied.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
the
~
day of
___________________,
1988,
by
a vote
of
7_()
.
Dorothy
M. G nn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
89—02