ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

28,

1971

GAF CORPORATION

4~

71~J1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Alvin Liebling,

for the Attorney General

Delbert Haschemeyer,

for

the Environmental Protection Agency

Robert

W~

Thomas of Gray,

Thomas,

Wallace,

Feehan

& Baron,

Joliet,

and Robert

H~

Joyce

of

Seyfaith, Shaw, Fairweather

& Geraidson,

Chicago,

for GAF Corporation

Opinion of the Board

(by Mr~ Currie):

On April

19 we entered an order granting

a two~monthvariance

to GAF,

on certain conditions,

to discharge wastes

to the Des Plaines

River while pursuing

a construction program

to brina itself into

compliance with the regulations~

The two months, we knew, was

not ample time

for completion of the program;

the order contem~

plated

that the company would seek an extension of the variance

by submitting

a firm schedule

for the remaining

wor~.

On June

17

the company submitted

a

supplemental petition

asking that the variance he extended to April,

1972,

the new

accelerated completion date

for its secondary treatment f.aciJitie~s~

The petition recited eteps taken since

the ~pnil

19 order

and. set

forth the company’s programs

The company also filed,

June

11..,

a renuest for an interim

extension of the variance,

as also expressly contemplated

by

our order, pending resolution of merits of the supplemental netition~

GAF appeared before the Board June

21

to argue

in support of the

motion

for interim, relief,

pointing out

that to deCy the extension

would expose

its employees

to possible criminal penalties

for

violating the regulations

if the plant remained

in operation~

The Attorney General, appearing for

the Agency,

asked that we defer

deCision on the interim motion until June

23,’

roni.s nq

that. ~‘w.

complaint would be filed

for operation prior

to our decision on

this motian~

The parties appeared before

us again Ju~ 23

fnr

~

argument

We grant the motion

for extension of the variance

for 90

days,

or until our decision on the merits of the suaplenental. uet~tion ‘is rondsr~

ed

whichever

is

sooner

The original order provided

for’

a.u.oh

a

extension

only

if

certain conditions were

mete

Not

all of them

have been~

The

money penalty imposed has

not been paid,

hut

that

2

—~

57

---

is understandable since its legality has been appealed.

The bond

we required has not been filed, again because of an appeal over

its form

and

content.

The company has, however, agreed that

adequate security will be promptly posted if its program is

approved, and the nature of the security will be fully litigated

in the coming proceeding.

There were several other departures

from the literal requirements of the initial order.

But, without

determining the extent of compliance with the order, we think the

company

has shown suffi~cientgood faith conmitment to curing its

pollution problem to entitle it to continue operating while we

pass

upon

the

merits

of

its

program.

The

problem

of

permits

has

apparently been corrected; overtime will be utilized whenever it

will save significant time; the principal equipment has been ordered;

construction of the secondary facilities will begin in a matter

of days;

further study has

shown

reduced lead concentrations,

and

a schedule for further reductions, if necessary, will be presented

in the pending proceeding.

Our

action today, the parties have

stipu.ated,

in no way shall prejudice the rights of any party,

including the Board, either in the pending appeal or in the

subsequent proceeding on the merits of

the

supplemental petition.

Because of the substantially

new

fact situation, we hereby

authorize a hearing on the supplemental petition.

I, Regina B. Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the Board adopted the above

n

this

28~~.-

day of

June

,

1971.

-