ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 26, 1973

REPUBLIC STEEL

CORPORATION

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

)

v.

)

#R71—23

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

CLARK

OIL

& REFINING CORPORATION

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

UNITED

STATES

STEEL

CORPORATION

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

INTERLAKE,

INC.

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(BY

SAMUEL

T.

LAWTON,

JR.):

All

of

the

above-captioned

corporations

have

filed

appeals

in

the

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, seeking adminis-

trative

review

of

the

recently

adopted

Air

Pollution

Control

Regula-

tions

of

the Pollution Control Board, effective April

14,

1972

and

originally

docketed

before

this

Board

as

#R7l—23.

Each

of

the

above

corporations

has

filed

a

petition

before

this

Board

for

stay

of

certain

portions

of

the

Regulations

as

applica-

ble to each corporation, respectively,

to which the Agency has

filed responses in opposition thereto.

While

it

does

not

appear

that

the

Board

entered

a

formal

order

of

consolidation

with

respect to the hearings on the stay proceed-

ings,

the Attorney General moved for oral argument on the petitions

and oral argument was initiated on September 12, 1972.

Thereafter,

8— 649

---

consideration of all stay proceedings above specified was re-

ferred to a Hearing Officer designated by the Board, who conducted

a series of hearings on the foregoing petitions.

Subsequent there-

to,

International Harvester Company and Republic Steel Corporation

filed petitions for variance which are presently pending, the dis-

position of which could moot the stay petitions.

Efforts

at reso-

lution of the various issues in dispute were made with respect to

the contentions of Clark Oil

& Refining Corporation, United States

Steel Corporation and International Harvester Company, but appear

to have been unsuccessful.

We have recently received a motion for severance and decision

filed by the Attorney General with respect to the last three named

corporations.

We sever from the present order the stay petitions

filed by International Harvester Company and Republic Steel Cor-

poration and shall enter such further orders as appropriate respect-

ing these corporations, following dispositions of their variance

proceedings.

We deny the stay of Rules 103 and 104 as requested by Clark

Oil

& Refining Corporation, United States Steel Corporation and

Interlake,

Inc.

These sections,

in substance,

require the applica-

tion for and obtaining of permits by specified dates and the submis-

sion as conditions thereto of compliance programs and project com-

pletion schedules by specified dates.

The contentions raised by

Clark, United States Steel and Interlake relate essentially to the

cost,difficulties

and

inconvenience

to

which

they

would be subjected

in

complying

with

the

Regulations

aforesaid.

We

do

not

believe

a

stay is the proper

method

by

which

such

relief

might

be

achieved.

We note that the companies have not asked for stay of the entire

Regulation but only those relating to permit applications.

We

further note that the companies~principal objections

are not

to the specific regulations adopted by the Board, but rather the

manner in which they have been implemented by the Environmental

Protection Agency.

We believe the Environmental Protection Act

has provided the proper means for relief in such circumstances

if,

in fact,

petitioners’ contentions are meritorious.

If the

companies believe that what the Agency

is seeking is beyond the

legal authority vested in it by the Regulations,

a permit denial

appeal proceeding before this Board would be the appropriate route

to pursue.

If the companies,

on the other hand,

are not contend-

ing an absence of legality in the Agency~sprocedures, but rather

contend that unreasonable hardship would result, the variance

procedure is available.

In sum, we

are

not

persuaded

on

the record before us

that a stay

of

our Reguiatior~is warranted,

and,

accordingly, the petitions for

stay of Regulations 103 and 104 filed

by

Clark Oil

& Refining Cor-

poration, United States Steel Corporation and Interlake,

Inc.

are

denied,

8

—

650

---

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the above Order was adopted on the

~ca”)

day of July,

1973,

byavoteof

i./

to

~

I’

—3—