ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
December
4,
1990
SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
PCB 88—60
v.
)
(Variance)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D. Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board on Sonoco Products
Company’s
(“Sonoco’)
filing dated October 29,
1990.
Contained
within this filing is a letter from Sonoco requesting
an
extension of an alleged December
1,
1990 construction deadline
pursuant to this Board’s Order of September
8, 1988.
That Board
order granted Sonoco a variance from the effluent standards
for
five-day biochemical oxygen demands
(BODç) and total suspended
solids
(TSS) until March
1,
1990.
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (“Agency”)
filed its Motion to Reject
Petitioners Request for Extension on November
5,
1990.
The Agency contends that a new petition for variance should
be filed “because the schedule which Sortoco seeks to have
extended is contained in an expired variance such that the Board
no longer has jurisdiction to modify its terms”.
(Respondent’s
Motion,
pg.
2).
For its part,
Sonoco asserts that the
construction delay was a result of obtaining the necessary
permits to build on a flood plain.
And further, that this delay
will not affect the ultimate compliance date of September
1,
1991.
The motions filed in this case indicate that some confusion
exists regarding the Board’s variance Opinion and Order
of
September
8,
1988.
The Opinion portion discussed Sonoco’s
compliance plan and notes a construction completion date of
December
1,
1990 with total compliance being achieved not later
than September
1, 1991.
(PCB 88—60, pgs.
8—9).
Yet the Board
did not endorse this plan.
Rather,
it noted that construction
and ultimately compliance was contingent upon a determination of
whether the plan was technically feasible and economically
reasonable.
(Id at
pg.
9).
That
is, Sonoco had indicated that
if
its compliance plan
(a plan which required further study) was not
economically viable,
it would seek site—specific relief.
This being
the case,
the Board held that
it would only grant
a variance for a period in which
a facility was actively working
117—01
—2—
toward achieving compliance.
Accordingly,
the Board granted
Sonoco a variance until March
1,
1990
—
120 days past the
deadline of the Data Analysis and Selection of Compliance
Alternative portion of Sonoco’s compliance plan.
In short,
the
Board retained jurisdiction for four months subsequent to
Sonoco’s deadline to determine whether or
not its plan was
feasible.
If
it was, the facility had four months to file an
extension of the variance.
Any confusion which might exist is furthered by the
statement that “The Board accepts the compliance plan and
schedule proposed by Sonoco and will incorporate it
into the
Board’s Order below.”
(PCB 88—60 pg.
11).
Yet the Order
reflects the discussion regarding the inherent contingency of the
compliance plan and provision
(4) clearly states,
“This variance
shall end on March
1, 1990”.
While the wording contained in the
Opinion section of the Board’s September 8,
1988 analysis
is
perhaps
less than clear, the Order prevails.
Accordingly, Sonoco’s motion is denied and the Agency’s
motion
is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member J. Anderson dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereb
certify that the ~bove Order was adopted on
the
_______________
day of
~-C-~z.t_LL&)
,
1990 by a vote
of
Dorothy M.
nn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
117—02