ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 17, 1993
    ST. LOUIS AUTO SHREDDING,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    V.
    )
    PCB 93—45
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ST. LOUIS AUTO SHREDDING,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 93-46
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    (Consolidated)
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C. Flemal):
    On Nay 28, 1993 St. Louis Auto Shredding (SLAS) filed a
    motion for continuance of hearing and a waiver of the decision
    deadline (to July 1, 1994) in this matter. On June 9, 1993 the
    hearing officer denied the motion to continue. SLAS filed a
    motion to review the hearing officer’s denial on June 10, 1993.
    In his denial document, the hearing officer stated that he
    had previously cancelled a hearing set for May 3, 1993, and that
    he believes that the request to continue the second hearing date
    is not consistent with the need to expeditiously resolve cases
    before the Board.
    SLAS alleges that holding the hearing as scheduled on July
    1, 1993 will interfere with SLAS’ and the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency’s (Agency) efforts to resolve this matter in an
    expeditious manner. SLAS points to its efforts to prepare a new
    permit application and states that “i)nstead of working on the
    new permit application, SLAS will have to prepare for the hearing
    and briefing
    * * *
    .“
    (Motion at 2). SLAS states that its best
    opportunity to receive a permit promptly is to continue to
    negotiate with the Agency and to file a new permit application in
    early August, and not to “interrupt the ongoing process with a
    hearing and briefing on this appeal”. (Motion at 4). SLAS
    reports that the Agency agrees with the motion for continuance.
    0 LL~3-O197
    2
    The hearing officer is correct that lengthy continuances are
    not in the interest of expeditiously disposing of cases. The
    Board also understands the parties’ efforts to negotiate to
    attempt to partially or totally resolve issues prior to hearing
    and that this effort serves also to conserve hearing resources.
    The Board observes that SLAS’ June 10 filing indicates SLAS’
    intent at this time to solely pursue a new permit application
    rather than pursuing the merits of its appeal of the permit
    denial. As such, it would have been more appropriate for SLAS to
    file a motion for stay of the proceeding to allow time for
    negotiations to continue, especially when the negotiations
    prevent pursuit of the instant appeal.
    SLAS further states that it provided ample time for
    cancellation of hearing by filing the motion for continuance with
    the hearing officer by May 28, 1993. The Board observes that
    notices of the July 1, 1993 and May 3, 1993 hearings were
    published in newspapers of general circulation prior to filing of
    the motions for continuance. The cancellation of a hearing that
    has already been noticed in newspapers of general circulation
    wastes the State’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 proceed with the
    matter in a timely fashion, yet not to cause cancellation of
    hearings after notice has been published without substantial
    justification.
    The Board reluctantly grants SLAS’ motion for continuance.
    To ensure that this matter proceeds in as expeditious manner as
    possible, and as no substantive action has taken place in this
    circumstance, the Board directs the parties to submit status
    reports. The parties are to submit status reports to the Board
    and hearing officer to be received by August 15, 1993.
    Future failure to provide the Board with an adequate waiver
    or cancellation of noticed hearings may subject this matter to
    dismissal for want of prosecution. The hearing officer may
    proceed to continue the hearing to a date consistent with this
    order.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member B. Forcade abstained.
    0 ~.3-0
    98
    3
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board hereby certify t at the above order was adopted on the
    _______day of
    ,1993, by a vote of~O.
    I
    Dorothy M.
    Illinois Pol
    ,,
    Clerk
    ion Control Board
    0 ~3~0 I 99

    Back to top