ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 11,
1993
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
THE PETITION OF CABOT CORP. FOR)
AS 91-10
AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM THE
)
(Adjusted Standard)
REQUIREMENTS OF 35 Ill. Adm.
)
Code 725.293
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter is before the Board on the February 25,
1993
motion for reconsideration filed by the Cabot Corp.
(Cabot).
The
motion seeks reconsideration of the January 21,
1993 order
disposing of Cabot’s December 15,
1992 motion for stay or in the
alternative to dismiss without prejudice.
The Agency did not
respond.
For the reasons explained below,
the Board denies
reconsideration.
The motion for reconsideration takes issue with two
assertions in the January 21,
1993 order,
and the motion states
that the order is unclear as to which tank systems
it applies.
First, the motion disputes the Board’s assertion that the time
has now passed for filing a petition for adjusted standard as to
the West Galigher Sump.
Second,
it states that the order implies
that Cabot must file a separate petition for TK-0048 and TK-0051.
The Board believes that Cabot misunderstood the order.
Cabot’s December 15,
1992 motion sought a stay or, in the
alternative, voluntary dismissal of the petition.
By
highlighting the deadlines for filing a petition no less than 24
months before the compliance deadline and a completed
demonstration no later than 180 days after the filing of the
petition (35 Ill. Adm.
Code 725.293(h) (1)
&
(h) (3)),
the Board
intended to indicate that dismissal was not appropriate if each
unit were viewed separately.
Based on this, the following latest
hypothetical deadlines would apply:
Applicable Deadline
Petition
Completed
Unit Viewed Separate
Compliance
Filing
Demonstration
North Galigher Sump
1-1—94
1—1—92
6—28—92
West Galigher
Suinp
1—1-95
1—1—93
6—29—93
AB Unit Trench
1—1-98
1—1—96
6—28—93
Tank Farm Sump
7—1—99
7—1—97
12—27—97
D Unit Trench
8—1—99
8—1—97
1—27—98
TK—0048
&
TK—005l
5—1—02
5—1—00
10—27—00
This
means that as of January 21,
1993,
if Cabot were to begin
the process anew by filing a new petition, the petition filing
deadline has passed as to both the North Galigher Sump and the
West Galigher Sump.
Because it is too late to file a petition,
Ot~O-OI17
2
it is also too late to file a completed demonstration in such a
new proceeding.
Therefore, the Board’s statement,
as follows,
was accurate:
The time for filing the petition
(and, thus,
the
completed demonstration)
is now past,
at the very least
as to the West Galigher
Sujup and the North Galigher
Sump.
These are dates derived from federal
regulations, and the Board cannot simply waive them.
Therefore, dismissal without prejudice is not possible
at least as to those two “tanks”.
January 21,
1993 order at
2.
Early in the course of this proceeding, Cabot and the Agency
disputed the number of tank systems involved.
Cabot viewed each
unit noted above as a separate “tank system”.
The Agency viewed
them conjunctively as a single “tank system”.
The Board has not
resolved this issue, and when we drafted the January 21,
1993
order
(and,
still, as of this date), we have only Cabot’s
assertion that the parties have resolved it.
This issue has
important implications on the deadline for seeking relief.
If
all of Cabot’s units are a single “tank system”, the compliance
deadline is January
1,
1994,
and the deadline for filing a
petition for an adjusted standard was January 1,
1992.
If each
unit constitutes a separate “tank system”, the deadlines are as
tabulated above.
The Board is not in the habit of resolving contested issues
based on the assertions of only one side as to the position of
the other.
To avoid appearina to resolve the issue, and ~
remind Cabot that dismissal could trove fatal if the Board
determined that all units constituted a single “tank system”, we
added the following caveat to the January 21,
1993 order:
By this order,
the Board does not rule on any issues
related to the petitioner’s assertions other than the
stay.
Specifically, we take no position on Cabot’s
ability to file another petition for an adjusted
standard for any of its AB Unit Trench, Tank Farm Sump,
or D Unit Trench “tanks”.
The “single tank system”—
“multiple tank systems” issue was formerly contested
and we have no recent direct representations from the
Agency that it has been resolved.
January 21,
1993 order at
2.
The Board expressly avoided deciding a vital issue that the
record still does not clearly indicate is no longer contested
between the parties.
The Board expressly avoided granting a
prayer for relief that could have severely prejudiced Cabot’s
OIL~O-Oi18
3
ability to seek relief if the resolution of that open issue
turned against Cabot’s position.
Finally,
in its prayer in the motion of February 25,
1993,
Cabot states as follows:
WHEREFORE, Cabot Corporation respectfully requests that
the Board amend its January 21,
1993 Order in this
matter to make clear that the Stay applies to the
adjusted standard petition and demonstration for all
the tank systems at Cabot’s Tuscola,
Illinois facility
except the North Galigher Sump.
February 25,
1993 Motion for Reconsideration at
5.
We expressly refuse to do so.
The stay applies to this
proceeding before the Board,
and not to the petition and
demonstration as to any particular units.
If Cabot wishes to not
seek relief as to any particular units,
it is free to do so, but
the Board reserves any ruling on the issue as to what constitutes
a “tank system”.
However, we remind Cabot that until the Board
grants an adjusted standard as to a particular “tank system”,
whether a single unit or combination of units, compliance is
required on the compliance deadline.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, do hereby certify that the a~oveorder was adopted by the
Board pn the
~
day of
~
,
1993,
by a vote
of
~
O11~QO~
19
Dorothy M.
Illinois
Control Board