ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 25,
1989
ALLIED—SIGNAL,
INC.
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 88—172
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by M. Nardulli):
This matter comes before the Board upon a May 16, 1989
Motion for Modification
of the Board’s May 11,
1989
Order filed
by Allied Signal,
Inc.
(Allied).
Allied requests that
the Board
modify
its May 11 Order requiring
an additional
hearing
to delete
the order compelling the appearance of Allied’s witnesses and
to
clarify that the Objectors, Association of Concerned
Environmentalists
(ACE), may make oral
or written statements,
but
that they have no right
to cross—examine witnesses.
While no response has been filed,
the response period has
not yet expired.
However, circumstances surrounding
this
proceeding have changed sufficiently
to enable the Board to
address
this issue with
a view to resolving
the problem.
On May
19,
1989, Allied submitted
a waiver of the decision date until
August
31,
1989.
The Board’s May
11 Order was issued under the
June
22,
1989 decision deadline.
The Board believes that this
additional
time may be helpful
in arriving at an equitable resolution of the problems resulting
from the notice defect.
The Board
is aware
that at hearing
on
April
20,
1989,
a representative
of ACE was present and
testified.
ACE’s representative
stated:
I have
a list of questions that we would like
answers
to.
I
imagine
that we can’t get them
all today,
but we would like
to receive them
on paper:
What bio—monitoring plans will
be
implemented?
How will they be conducted?
Over what time period will
they be
conducted?
Will
the public be notified
of
when,
what,
how,
and results
of these tests?
What are the impacts of
9.2 pounds
of daily
arsenic
and 26 daily maximum on the Ohio
River,
and has the Ohio River sediment ever
been tested downstream
from Allied?
If not,
then what change
in circumstances created this
problem?
Define dilution.
If arsenic
is
a
99—263
—2—
heavy metal,
then just exactly how does
it mix
with water?
Is
it true that Allied buys
its
flourspar from Mexico for
a cheaper
rate, and
that this
is the origin
of some of the arsenic
contamination?
Where did Allied used to
purchase
its flourspar?
Does Allied have an
agenda
for zero discharge?
(R.
at 34.)
After
the testimony of ACE’s representative, Counsel
for Allied
stated:
I just have one comment, and that
is,
if you
will furnish me with
a copy of your written
statement that has those questions you raised,
some of the questions that you raised will be
answered by reading the testin~ony
Otherwise, we will be happy
to attempt
to
answer those questions which might not be
answered
in that testimony,
if we can.
(R.
at
37.)
In
light of
the particular circumstances of this case,
and
given
the articulated willingness of Allied
to answer,
in
writing,
the questions of ACE,
the Board believes that the
written question and
answer period should be formalized so as
to
permit ACE
to obtain answers to
its questions
to facilitate
its
preparation for hearing.
Therefore, ACE
is directed
to submit
its questions to Allied,
with
a copy to
the Board,
no later
than
June
5,
1989.
Allied
is directed
to submit
its answers to
the
questions to
ACE, with copies to the Board,
no later than June
19,
1989.
The
Board
takes
its
action
today
so
that
the questions
and
answers can be completed
in time
for
the Board to render
a
decision on Allied’s motion
at the June
22,
1989 Board Meeting.
The Clerk
is directed
to send copies of
this Order to Allied,
the
Agency, and ACE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy
N. Gunn, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify
that the above Order was adopted on
the
______________
day of
~r-~
,
1989 by
a vote
of
7-0
Lon Control Board
99—264