ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December
    6,
    1989
    MOTOROLA,
    INC.,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 89—193
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by B.
    Forcade):
    On November
    28,
    1989, Motorola,
    Inc.
    (“Motorola”)
    filed a
    petition for hearing
    to review certain conditions imposed
    by
    the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”)
    in
    its RCRA
    closure plan permit.
    To facilitate appropriate notice of
    hearing,
    the Agency
    is directed
    to file with the Board,
    as soon
    as possible,
    any notice list
    it may have developed during the
    process
    of issuing this permit.
    This matter
    is accepted
    for
    hearing.
    As originally filed with the Board,
    the 120-day decision
    deadline for this matter
    is March
    28,
    1990.
    Motorola has
    provided the Board with an “open waiver”
    of decision deadline,
    ‘not subject
    to revocation,
    until June
    1,
    1990.”
    An open waiver
    is not subject
    to revocation,
    therefore,
    the Board construes
    this
    as a limited waiver until June
    1, 1990
    (i.e.,
    for an additional
    65 days).
    Motorola has filed a motion for extension
    of hearing
    dates.
    The Board will refer this
    to the hearing officer.
    Any
    extension of hearing dates must be consistent with the time
    constraints
    of this Order
    and any extensions
    of the decisio~:
    deadline which may be granted
    by Motorola.
    This matter concerns closure and post—closure care issues,
    and the parties are particularly directed to Board Opinions and
    Orders
    in Browning—Ferris
    Industries
    v.
    EPA,
    ?CB 84—136, Ma~ 5,
    1988,
    aff’d,
    179 Ill.
    App.
    3d
    598,
    534 N.E.2d 616
    (2d Dist.
    1989); Marley—Ingrid
    (USA),
    Inc.
    v.
    EPA,
    PCB 88—17, January
    19,
    1989;
    Tesror
    Corporation
    v.
    EPA,
    PCB 88—191,
    November
    2,
    1989
    for
    discussions of
    standards
    of review and burdens of proof.
    he
    only issues before the Board are whether
    correct permitting
    procedures were followed and whether
    the application demonstrates
    that the Thvironmentai Protection Act and board regulations will
    or will not be violated.
    11)6—59

    —2—
    For each contest?~dcondition,
    the Board expects, and
    strongly encourages
    the parties to state the applicable
    regulatory
    la~.. and relevant
    facts, with appropriate record
    citations, which demonstrate that
    a violation
    is likely or
    unlikely
    to occur.
    The parties are urged to focus
    on RCRA
    ~p~ate,
    USEPA Regulations,
    R87—39,
    February
    25, 1988 and June
    16,
    1988 and R67—26,
    December
    3,
    1987.
    Hearing must
    be scheduled within 14 days of the date of this
    Order and completed within 60 days of
    the date of
    this Order.
    The hearing officer shall
    inforT
    the Clerk of
    the Board
    of the
    time and loc~:tionof the hearing as expeditiously
    as possible
    but
    at
    least
    40 days
    in advance
    of hearing so that public notice
    :f
    hearing may be published.
    After hearing, the hearing officer
    shall submit an exhibit
    list,
    and all actual exhibits
    to the
    Board within
    5 days of
    the hearing.
    Any briefing schedule shall
    provide
    for final
    filings as expeditiously
    as possible and
    in. no
    event later than 70 days from the date of this Order.
    If after appropriate consultation with
    the parties,
    the
    parties
    fail
    to provide an acceptable hearing date or
    if after
    an
    attempt
    the hearing officer
    is unable
    to consult with the
    parties,
    the hearing officer shall unilaterally
    set a hearing
    date
    in conformance wit;h the schedule above.
    This schedule will
    only provide
    the Board a very short
    time period to deliberate and
    reach a decision before the due date.
    The hearing officer
    and
    the parties are encouraged
    to expedite this proceeding
    as much
    as
    possible.
    ~iLhin
    10 days of accepting this case,
    the Hearing Officer
    shall enter
    a Hearing Off~cer Scheduling Order governing
    completion of
    the record.
    That Order
    shall
    set a date certain
    for each aspect of the case including:
    briefing schedule,
    hearing date(s), completion of discovery
    (if necessary)
    and pre—
    hearing conference
    (if necessary).
    The Hearing Officer
    Scheduling Order may be modified by entry of
    a complete new
    scheduling
    order conforming with the time requirements
    below.
    The hearinq officer may extend this schedule only on a
    waiver of the decision deadline by the petitioner and only
    for
    the equivalent
    or
    fewer
    number of
    days that the decision deadline
    is waived.
    Such waivers must
    be provided
    in writing
    to
    the Clerk
    of
    the Board.
    Any waiver must be an “open waiver”
    or
    a waiver of
    decision until
    a date certain.
    Because of requirements regarding the publication of notice
    of hearing,
    no scheduled hearing may
    be canceled unless the
    petitioner provides an open waiver
    or
    a waiver
    to
    a date
    at least
    120 days beyond
    the date
    of the motion
    to cancel hearing.
    This
    should allow ample time for the Board to republish notice of
    hearing and receive transcripts from the hearing before the due
    date.
    Any order by the hearing officer granting cancellation of
    1116—(-M

    —3—
    hearing shall
    include a complete new scheduling order with a new
    hearing date at least
    40 days
    in the future and at least
    30 days
    prior
    to the new due date and the Clerk of the Board shall
    be
    promptly informed of the new schedule.
    Because
    this proceeding
    is the type for which
    the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Act sets
    a very short statutory deadline
    for decisionmaking, absent a waiver,
    the Board will grant
    extensions or modifications only
    in unusual circumstances.
    Any
    such motion must set forth an alternative schedule for notice,
    hearing, and final submissions,
    as well
    as the deadline for
    decision,
    including response
    time
    to such a motion.
    However,
    no
    such motion shall negate the obligation of the hearing officer
    to
    establish a scheduling Order pursuant
    to the
    fifth paragraph of
    this Order,
    and
    to adhere to
    that Order
    until modified.
    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
    ~
    ~
    ,
    1989,
    by a vote
    of
    ~
    .
    /
    /7
    j
    ~)
    ~
    Dorothy M.
    G~5i~n,Clerk
    Illinois Po/jzution
    Control Board
    106—f~1

    Back to top