ELLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 30,
1992
AMERICAN FLY ASH COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 92—106
)
(Permit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
3.
Anderson):
On July 20,
1992, American Fly Ash Company
(AFA)
filed a
“Petition for Review of Permit Denial”.
In its petition, AFA
seeks review of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s
(Agency)
refusal to accept financial assurance tendered by AFA
pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 805.605(c) (1), for the following
three facilities:
Indian Creek Landfill located near Hopedale
in Tazewell County,
Illinois,
Renwick landfill located near Lockpoi~tin
will County,
Illinois,
and
Newport Landfill located near Zion in Lake
County,
Illinois.
AFA alleges that the Agency’s refusal
is manifested by the
Agency’s issuance of three Administrative Warning Letters, dated
June 12,
1992,
against the above-mentioned sites.
In addition,
AFA alleges that the Agency’s failure to return 1991 letters of
credit when offered substitute financial documentation
representing funding for the closure and post—closure care cost
estimates for the sites constitutes a
refusal to approve a
reduction in the amount of the letter of credit pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 805.605(c) (5).
AFA requests that the Board set this matter for hearing,
enter an order staying “administrative enforcement proceedings”
against the above-mentioned facilities until this case is
resolved,
and find AFA in compliance with the financial assurancE
provisions of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.603(a),
807.661(c),
807.664(c) (2),
and 807.641.
The Board declines to set this matter for hearing at this
time because AFA’s petition is deficient.
35 Ill.
Adin.
Code
807.605(c)
provides,
in part, that the Agency’s refusal to accept
0135-0187
2
financial assurance and to approve a reduction in the amount of a
letter of credit may be appealed as a permit denial to the Board.
The Environmental Protection Act (Act)
and the Board’s procedural
rules provide that permit appeal hearings are to be held in the
county in which the alleged violation occurred.
(see Section 40
of the Act and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 103.125.)
Because the
facilities are located in three different counties, AFA must file
separate petitions for each facility.
Each petition should
include the following information:
1.
copies of the 1991 letters of credit drawn
upon the First Midwest Bank, N.A.
in Buffalo
Grove,
Illinois, and the 1992 letters of
credit drawn upon LaSalle Bank Lake View in
Chicago, Illinois; and
2.
a copy of the applicable Agency
Administrative Warning Notice, dated June 12,
1992;
The Board also directs both AFA and the Agency to provide the
following information:
1.
whether the Agency’s issuance of the
Administrative Warning Letters constitutes an
appealable “Agency action”,
as that phrase
is
used in 35 Ill.
Adxn. Code 807.605(c),
2.
if the Agency’s issuance of the
Administrative Warning Letters
is not an
appealable Agency action,
a)
an identification of the Agency
action,
if any, that is appealable,
b)
the date on which such action was
taken,
and
c)
whether AFA’s petition was timely
filed before the Board.
The replacement petitions and the requested information must
be received by the Board no later than September 15,
1992.
The
filing of separate petitions will restart the Board’s time clock
for purposes of calculating in Board’s statutory decision
deadline.
If AFA does not file the separate petitions and the
requested information within such time frame, this matter will be
subject to dismissal.
Finally,
in light of the above
deficiencies and because the Agency has not yet filed any
administrative enforcement proceedings against AFA’s three
0135-0188
3
facilities,
the Board denies AFA’s request
th:.~.. it enter an order
staying “administrative enforcement proceedings”.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certif
that the above order was adopted on the
3o~zT
day of
___________,
1992, by a vote of
~-O
Control Board
0135-0189