ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 21,
    1992
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    PETITION OF THE STIFFEL
    )
    AS 92-1
    COMPANY FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD
    )
    (Adjusted Standard)
    FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART
    )
    218,
    SUBPART F
    )
    ORDER OF THE
    BOARD
    (by J. Anderson):
    This matter comes before the Board on the Agency’s April 23,
    1992 motion to extend the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    response date by sixty days.1
    Section 106.714(a)
    of the
    Board’s procedural
    rules provides
    that an Agency response to
    a
    petition for adjusted standard is due 30 days after the filing of
    the petition.
    (35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.714(a).)
    The Agency asserts
    that the Stiffel Company has no objection to the extension.
    The
    Agency also asserts that Stiffel has a compliance plan pending with
    the Agency that negates the need for an adjusted standard.
    By order of May 7,
    1992, the Board sought clarification on a
    threshold
    issue.
    The Board directed the Agency and the Stiffel
    Company to submit explanations as to why,
    if a facility is out of
    compliance,
    a compliance plan by itself “negates the need” for an
    adjusted standard or other.relief from the Board.
    On May 18,
    1992,
    the Agency filed a response stating:
    1.
    On February 7,
    1992, the Stiffel Company filed with the
    Agency
    a
    proposed compliance plan
    which
    provides
    for
    eventual
    compliance with
    Part
    218,,
    Subpart
    F.
    The
    proposal
    is still under negotiations and the parties in
    good faith believe that an agreement is imminent.
    2.
    When a mutually acceptable compliance plan is developed,
    the
    compliance
    plan
    will
    be
    incorporated
    into
    an
    enforcement consent decree to be filed with the Board.
    Stiffel
    would
    thereafter
    withdraw
    its
    petition.
    Therefore, an acceptable compliance plan negates the need
    for an adjusted standard.
    In conclusion,
    the Agency stated that Stiffel supported its
    response,
    voted that the case had been set
    for
    a June
    4
    status
    call,
    and renewed its request for a 60 day extension of time.
    1The Board notes that the Agency filed
    an identical
    “motion
    instanter”
    for
    a
    sixty-day
    extension
    of
    time
    within
    which
    to
    respond on April 30,
    1992.
    I :33—573
    2
    As the parties have demonstrated that satisfactory progress
    towards
    resolution
    of this action
    is being made,
    the Board will
    grant the Agency an extension of time through June
    23,
    1992
    in
    which to file
    its response to Stiffel’s petition.
    In so doing,
    however, the Board makes no finding as to the appropriateness or
    approvability
    of any agreement which the Agency
    and Stiffel may
    reach.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    ~-~?/-~‘~day
    of ______________________,
    1992, by a vote of
    7-a.
    /
    Dorothy M. pi~n,Clerk
    Illinois Poflution Control Board
    133—574

    Back to top