ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 12,
    1990
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    PETITION OF LACLEDE STEEL
    )
    COMPANY FOR ADJUSTED STANDARDS
    FROM 35
    ILL. ADM. CODE 302201
    )
    AS 90—3
    302.208, 302.210, AND SUBPART
    )
    (Adjusted Standard)
    F,
    PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING
    WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by R.
    C.
    Flemal):
    This matter comes before the Board upon a motion to dismiss
    Petitioner’s adjusted standard petition filed March 26,
    1990 by
    the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”).
    On
    April
    2,
    1990,
    Petitioner filed
    its reply
    requesting that the
    Agency’s motion be denied.
    On March
    5,
    1990 Petitioner filed a petition for adjusted
    standard with the Board
    for relief
    from Board regulations
    governing mixing zones;
    numeric standards for cyanide, cadium,
    lead, chromium (hexavalent),
    silver, and total dissolved solids;
    and narrative standards and whole effluent toxicity standards,
    as
    those
    rules were amended by the Board in
    t:he Toxics Control
    Regulatory Proceeding,
    R88—2l(A)
    (January 25, 1990,
    effective
    February 13, 1990).
    In its motion,
    the Agency requests the Board dismiss this
    petition as “unripe, untimely,
    and inadequate under
    the
    requirements of
    35
    Ill. Adm. Code 106.705.”
    In support
    of its
    motion,
    the Agency discusses several areas
    in which it believes
    the petition contains insufficient information,
    including alleged
    lack of information on compliance alternatives and corresponding
    costs and efforts necessary
    to achieve the proposed adjusted
    standard and corresponding costs
    as required by Section 106.705
    (e) and
    (f).
    Petitioner challenges
    the Agency’s contentions,
    stating that
    its
    petition meets all regulatory requirements for petition
    contents.
    Petitioner points
    to Section 106.705(1), which allows
    that
    for initially filed petitions,
    a petitioner need not
    fullfill an informational requirement which
    it believes is not
    applicable or unduly burdensome, provided that an explanation is
    given
    in the petition.
    Petitioner then admits
    that
    it
    did not
    present any information regarding the cost of compliance
    alternatives nor any costs of compliance with a proposed adjusted
    standard, due
    to
    its desire
    to
    file the petition within the
    statutory time frame for a stay of the effective date of the R88—
    21(A)
    rules, as provided by
    Ill. Rev. Stat. lll~,par.
    110—95
    —2—
    1028.1(e).
    Petitioner submits that
    it may develop the
    information required under Section 106.705(e) and
    (f)
    in
    conjunction with
    its variance proceeding involving these same
    regulations
    (PCB 90—29),
    and can provide information as
    it
    is
    developed.
    Laclede also states that since some of
    the
    requirements of
    the new rules include actions
    to be completed
    in
    the future,
    such as determinations of mixing zones,
    that
    information can also be submitted as
    it becomes available.
    Laclede also recites some information that
    it can currently
    supply,
    if so desired.
    Lastly,
    Laclede asks
    in the alternative
    that should the Board believe
    that more
    information
    is
    required,
    that the Board
    issue an order seeking more information
    rather
    than dismissal,
    consistent with Section 106.705.
    Upon review of the alleged deficiencies and response by
    Petitioner,
    the Board finds
    the filing
    of the petition
    in this
    instance
    is indeed premature.
    The Board
    finds
    it
    is
    riot
    appropriate to order more information on this petition since
    Petitioner admits that
    it
    does not presently have basic
    information on costs and compliance alternatives and may not have
    such information for some time
    to come,
    perhaps even after
    studies are completed in September 1990
    in conjunction with its
    pending variance petition
    (PCB 90—29).
    Therefore,
    were the Board
    to request additional information,
    there
    is no date certain which
    the Board could order and be assured of receiving the information
    sought.
    Lastly,
    the impetus behind the filing of
    this petition
    without the information was apparently
    to file within
    20 days of
    the effective date of the toxics control
    rules
    to achieve the
    benefit of the automatic stay provided
    in Section 28.1(e) of the
    Act.
    The Board notes that Section 28.1(e) provides for an
    automatic stay of some newly effective rules
    if
    a petition for
    adjusted standard
    is filed within
    20 days of the effective date
    of the rules, but specifically excludes rules implementing
    an
    NPDES program.
    The toxic control
    rules implement an NPDES
    program,
    and can accordingly be stayed only by Order
    of court.
    The Board
    finds
    rio reason to keep this docket open indefinitely.
    The Agency’s motion to dismiss
    is accordingly granted.
    The
    Petition for Adjusted Standard filed March
    5,
    1990
    by Laclede
    Steel Company
    is hereby dismissed.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member J.D. Dumelle dissented.
    ~10—06
    —3—
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify
    that
    the above Order was adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ~
    ~
    ,
    1990,
    by
    a vote of
    ~
    :~\
    ~
    /
    Dorothy M. ,,~unn,Clerk
    Illinois pollution Control Board
    110—97

    Back to top