ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 20, 1989
    LACLEDE STEEL COMPANY,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCE 89—202
    (Variance)
    ILLINOIS EN7IRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):
    Or.
    December 12, 1989, Laclede Steel Company (“Laclede’~)
    filed a petition for variance and a motion to stay. Laclede
    requests a ;ariance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 728.150, as it applies
    to Section 728.133, which was adopted in P89—I, effective
    November 27, 1989. The former Section prohibits the storage of
    restricted hazardous waste; the latter restricts K061, electric
    arc furnace dust.
    The motion for stay is denied. The motion fails to state a
    basis for the granting of a stay. Section 38(b) of the
    Environmental Protection Act
    (“Act”)
    provides for automatic stays
    when a variance petition is filed concerning a newly—adopted
    rule. However, Section 38(b) provides that it does not apply to
    rules which implement the RCRA program. Section 728.122 and
    728.150 clearly were adopted to implement to the RCRA program.
    The Board grants leave to Laclede to file a new motion to
    stay citin~ a sufficient basis.
    The Board also finds the petition for a variance to be
    deficient. Laclede’s attention is directed to RCRA procedural
    rules adopted in P84—10, December 20, 1984, and January 10, 1985,
    62 PCB 87, 349; 9 Ill. Req. 1381, effective January 16, 1985.
    From
    the petition it is not clear whether Laclede is following
    the RCRA procedural rules or not. If they are intending to
    follow the RCRA procedures, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.126(b) requires
    them to identify the RCRA variance as such. Proper
    identification allows the Clerk’s office to route the variance
    according to the specified procedures, which include notice to
    USEPA pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.142.
    It is not certain that the petition is
    a
    “petition for a
    RCRA variance,” as defined in 35 III. Ad;n. Code 104.104(a). A
    petition is a ‘RCRA variance” if it either requests a variance
    from certain specified Parts, or if it asks the Board to order
    1’)E—437
    _~1~~L
    the Agency to issu? or modify a ROSA permit. 35 Iii. Adm. Code
    728 is not amcng the specified Parts, because it had not yet beer.
    adopted at the time Section 104.104 was adopted. However, Part
    728 is as much a part of the RCRA program as the Parts which are
    listed.
    The petition is also not clear as to c~’hether it is asking
    that the Board order the Agency to issue a RCPA permit for the
    “HTMR” furnace. This appears to be a hazardous waste treatment
    unit, although it could be exempted under prc;isions, such as 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 720.131. It is also not ciesr whether this
    modification can be effected under the current interim st~~.cus
    rules (35 Ill Adm. Code 703.155), or whether it could be effected
    under the amendments proposed in P89—9 (December 6, 1989). If
    the modification canr.ct be effected under interim status, a Part
    B permit application is required, and the variance could be
    tantamount to directinc the Agency to issue the per it.
    Assuming that the petifion is not a ‘petition for ROSA
    variance,” it is still deficient under 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    104.122(f), which requires
    A detailed description of the existing and
    proposed equipment or method of control to be
    undertaken to achieve full compliance with the
    Act and regulations, including a time schedule
    for the implementation of all phases of the
    control program from initiation of design to
    program completion and the estimated costs
    involved for each phase arid the total cost to
    achieve compliance.
    Although the petition includes the total cost of the treatment
    unit, and offers to provide copies of the contractual agreements
    to construct the unit, it does not specify details of the unit,
    or include a construction schedule. The petition is deficient
    because, based on the information provided: the Agency and Board
    could not form an independent judgment as to whether the
    treatment unit will successfully treat the wastes; and, the Board
    could not condition the variance on interim compliance dates.
    The petition is also vague as to whether Laclede is in
    compliance with Section 728.150 (which must be alleged under 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 104.122(e)). Section 728.150 includes a mechanism
    by which the Agency can approve storage of wastes “in tanks or
    containers,” without resort to a variance. Laclede alludes to
    these provisions, but does not clearly state whether the wastes
    are in “tanks or containers.” If Laclede is asking for a
    declaration that the waste is being properly stored under that
    Section, the request should be directed to the Agency.
    106—43B
    —3—
    The Board, therefore, finds the petition is deficient.
    Unless an amended petition is filed within 45 days of the date of
    this Order, curing the above—noted defects, this matter will be
    subject to dismissal. The Board directs Laclede to comply with
    the RCRA variance procedures in any amended petition seeking a
    variance from any provision of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 728.
    IT IS SO ORDERED
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify tha,~the above Order was adopted on
    the~~’~Z~day of _______________________, 1989, by a vote
    of
    -7—c
    .
    L~2._~‘~‘
    Dorothy M. ,~nn, Clerk
    Illinois P~,XlutionControl Board
    1fl6—43~)

    Back to top