ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July

27, 1989

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF THE NUTRASWEET

)

COMPANY AND CONSUMERS

)

AS 89-3

ILLINOIS WATER COMPANY FOR AN

)

ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35

ILL.

)

ADM. CODE 304.105 OR 302.208

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Marlin):

On June 30, 1989,

the NutraSweet Company (NutraSweet) and

Consumers Illinois Water Company (CIWC)

filed a Motion

to Accept

Filing as Either a Petition

for Adjusted Standard or

for

a Site

Specific Rule.

On July 12,

the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency)

filed a Motion for Extension of time

in order

to

file a response to the petitioners’ June 30th motion.

That

motion

is granted

in as much as

the Board has accepted the

Agency’s Response which was filed on July

26, 1989.

In the petitioners’ motion,

the petitioners state that they

have filed a petition for adjusted standard (docketed as AS 89—3)

in order

to comply with a condition of a variance which the Board

granted

to CIWC on December

15,

1988

in PCB 88—84.

The

NutraSweet Company v.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

PCB 88—84,

slip op. at

13

(condition 9(a)),

(December

15,

1988).

The condition required NutraSweet and CIWC to file a

site—specific petition by July

1, 1989.

The petitioners contend

that a petition for adjusted standard

is not literally the same

as

a petition for site—specific regulatory amendment.

However,

the petitioners contend that an adjusted standard

is similar

enough to a site—specific rule change that the Board should

accept the petition for adjusted standard as complying with the

variance condition.

The petitioners alternatively request

that

the petition be treated as a request for site—specific rule

change if an adjusted standard does not afford compliance with

the variance.

The Agency states

in its Response that

it “declines to take

a substantive position on this issue at this time”.

The petitioners do not request a modification of

the terms

of the December 15th variance as

it pertains

to Condition 9(a),

rather,

they request

that the Board make

a finding

that the

petitioners have complied with

that condition.

The Board does

not believe that

this is the proper procedural context

to

determine whether

the petitioner~’action

is

in compliance with

the Board’s Order.

Such findings are more appropriately made in

an enforcement proceeding.

To that extent,

the petitioners’

motion

is denied.

101—353

---

2

Notwithstanding that

conclusion,

the Board notes that the

intent behind requiring the filing of a site—specific petition

was to ensure that the petitioners sought to obtain a standard

which was specific to the petitioners’ operations.

At the time

of the Board’s December

15,

1988 Order the adjusted standard

mechanism was not available to the petitioners’ discharges in

question.

Now, due to recent amendments to the Environmental

Protection Act

(Act),

the petitioners may pursue an adjusted

standard under Section 28.1 of the Act.

A site—specific standard

adopted through the adjusted standard procedure has the same

force and effect as a standard adopted by way of a site—specific

rulemaking.

In summary,

the petitioners have filed a petition for an

standard proceeding.

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M.

Gurin, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify th,at the above Order was adopted on

the

~

day of

______________,

1989, by a vote

of

‘~‘

,7.

Dorothy M.

çtinn,

Clerk

Illinois Po~’lutionControl Board