ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    July
    1,
    1993
    MINNESOTA MINING
    AND
    )
    MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 91—162
    )
    (Variance)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by B. Forcade):
    On June
    18,
    1993,
    Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company
    (3M) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    filed a joint status report.
    The parties report that 3M
    currently has a Fl? Revision Petition pending before the United
    States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
    3M and the
    Agency state that the matter before the Board should not proceed
    to hearing until the USEPA reaches a determination on the FIP
    Revision Petition or alternative capture efficiency protocols.
    The parties request that additional status reports be filed by
    September
    1,
    1993.
    The status report was filed in response to a Board order
    issued on April 22,
    1993.
    This order noted that no substantive
    action has taken place
    in this matter since the filing of the
    petition almost two years ago.
    The Board also noted the
    continual filing of short term limited waivers in this matter and
    how the use of limited waivers taxes the resources of the Board.
    The order also discussed relevant time constraints involved in
    matters with decision deadlines.
    The Board specifically noted
    that a date for hearing must be set at least
    120 days prior to
    the decision deadline to allow sufficient time to notice the
    hearing and for the Board to meet the decision deadline.
    The Board notes that the current decision deadline is
    December
    1,
    1993.
    Despite the Board’s admonition that adequate
    case management requires scheduling a hearing at least 120 days
    before the decision deadline
    (about August 3,
    1993), the parties
    have requested to file a status report only 90 days prior to the
    decision deadline (September
    1,
    1993).
    This is unacceptable.
    Given the present decision deadline of December
    1,
    1993,
    a
    hearing date must be set at the beginning of August,
    1993 to
    allow time for notice of the hearing, the filing of briefs,
    and
    Board deliberation.
    The parties have requested to file status
    reports at a time when the hearings should be held in this
    matter.
    2
    The Board is aware of the parties desire to postpone hearing
    before the Board until after a determination is reached by the
    USEPA.
    If this desire were accompanied by an open waiver, the
    scheduling problems would disappear.
    However, the repeated short
    term
    extensions of the decision deadline forces the Board to
    track the status of the case on an all too frequent basis in
    order to ensure that
    it proceeds
    in accordance with the schedules
    necessary to reach a decision by the statutory deadline.
    As the
    Board stated
    in its prior order in this matter:
    This
    a
    deadline
    case
    where
    6
    limited
    waivers have been submitted and 1 hearing has
    been
    cancelled.
    The
    continual
    filing
    of
    limited
    waivers
    and
    the
    cancellation
    of
    hearings taxes the administrative resources of
    the
    Board.
    Further,
    the cancellation
    of
    a
    hearing
    that
    has
    already
    been
    noticed
    in
    newspapers of general circulation wastes the
    Board’s resources and misinforms the public.
    To allow adequate time for the filing of
    briefs
    and
    Board
    deliberation
    before
    the
    deadline, the Board requires that hearings be
    scheduled approximately 120 days prior to the
    decision deadline.
    It
    is the responsibility
    of the petitioner to provide adequate waivers
    and
    Proceed
    with
    the
    matter
    in
    a
    timely
    fashion,
    vet
    not
    to
    cancel
    hearings
    after
    notice has been published without substantial
    lustification.
    Failure
    to
    provide
    the
    Board
    with
    an
    pdectuate
    waiver
    or
    cancellation
    of
    noticed
    hearings may subiect this matter to dismissal
    for want of prosecution.
    (Emphasis added)
    The Board emphasizes that 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.105 allows
    for the filing of open waivers.
    The Board maintains that in
    cases,
    such as the one before the Board, where a schedule for the
    completion of the case cannot be determined,
    an open waiver is
    preferable to short term limited waivers.
    When an open waiver is
    filed the Board typically requires the filing of periodic status
    reports to keep the Board informed of any progress in the case.
    The Board further notes that once the record has been completed,
    the parties can petition the Board for an expedited decision.
    As noted in the Board’s prior opinion,
    failure to provide an
    adequate waiver may subject this matter to dismissal for want of
    prosecution.
    3
    The
    Board
    will
    order
    the
    parties
    to
    file
    an
    additional
    status report to be received at the Board offices not later than
    4:30 on Monday, August
    2,
    1993.
    If an “open waiver”
    is not filed
    prior to the receipt of the status report, the Board may take one
    of the following actions at the regularly scheduled August
    5,
    1993 Board meeting: dismissal of the petition for want of
    prosecution or setting the matter for hearing in accordance with
    the present decision deadline despite objections from the
    parties.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify4hat the above order was adopted on the
    ~
    day
    of
    ,1993,
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    7~
    ‘I
    ~
    Dorothy
    M.,4unn,
    Clerk
    Illinois P~1lutionControl Board

    Back to top