ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 4, 1988

AMERICAN HOECHST CORP.,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 86—150

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board pursuant to our Order of

May 19, 1988 and Petitioner’s Motion and Response to Order of

Board, dated July 21, 1988.

Because this docket has languished with little apparent

activity, on May 19, 1988 the Board issued an Order requesting an

up—dated status report on the Petition For Variance including an

up—dated description of Petitioner’s current operation and an

indication of whether Petitioner intended to proceed with this

matter. The Order cautioned as follows: “If such status report

is not filed within forty—five days of the date of this Order,

this matter will be subject to dismissal.” Because of the

Independence Day holiday, Petitioner’s report was due on July 5,

1988.

On July 21, 1988, Petitioner filed its Motion For Leave To

File Instanter and Response To Order Of Board. The Motion For

Leave To File Instanter requests leave to file the accompanying

response. In support of the request the Motion alleges as

follows:

“As more fully set forth in the Response To

Board Order, counsel was awaiting the

commencement of certain actions prior to

filing a response. Counsel anticipated that

these actions would commence shortly after the

date by which a Response was due.

Unfortunately these events were delayed

...

The Motion For Leave To File Instanter is clearly

inadequate; and it is denied. The Motion was filed fully sixteen

days beyond the due date. Additionally, the only explanation for

this tardiness is a vague reference to “the commencement of

certain actions.” Finally, the Board notes that by the language

91—53

---

—2—

of the Motion itself, Petitioner never intended to file the

requested documents on the due date. The language of the Motion

demonstrates that whatever the nature of the “certain actions”,

these would not commence until AFTER the due date. Thus, even if

the commencement of “certain actions” was not delayed,

Petitioner, nonetheless, did not intend to timely provide the

requested data. At no time does the Motion explain why a Motion

to extend was not filed prior to the deadline. At no time does

the Motion or Response explain why an appropriate motion was not

filed until July 21, 1988.

In reviewing the Response To Board Order the Board notes

that it was a business decision of Petitioner (to close the

Ottawa plant) which, it is claimed, necessitated additional

discussions with the Agency.

Additionally, Petitioner has failed to explain why

construction delays and additional negotiations with the Agency

prevented it from filing the requested documents in the forty—

five days set forth in the Board’s Order of May 19, 1988.

Finally, the Board notes that even the current filings fail

to contain the data set forth in the May 19, 1988 Order and

failed to explain why this data has not yet been submitted.

As noted above, the May 19, 1988 Order contained a caveat,

warning that this action was subject to dismissal if the

requested data was not filed in forty—five days (July 5, 1988).

Because the data were not submitted, this action is dismissed;

the docket is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that th~above Order was adopted on

the

______________

day of

c~-~.--I--,

1988 by a vote

of

Illinois

ution Control Board

91—54