ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

3une

25, 1987

AMERICAN

STEEL CONTAINER CO.,

PAIL SHOP,

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 86—22

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

)

Respondent,

and

AMERICAN

STEEL

CONTAINER

CO.,

DRUM

SHOP,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 86—23

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

Respondent.

AMERICAN

STEEL

CONTAINER

CO.,

)

PAIL SHOP,

)

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 87—90

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent,

and

AMERICAN STEEL CONTAINER CO.,

)

DRUM

SHOP,

)

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 87—91

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

(NOT

CONSOLIDATED)

AGENCY,

Respondent.

78-459

---

—2—

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

3.

Anderson):

On April 16, 1987,

the Board entered an Opinion and Order

granting ASCC’s request

for variance from certain VOC regulations

for

its Drum Shop and its Pail Shop.

Now pending before the

Board

are ASCC’s June

1 motions

for extension of compliance

deadlines,

and the Agency’s June

8 responses in opposition

thereto.

On June 8,

1987,

the Agency additionally filed motions

to strike ASCC’S motions as untimely,

to which ASCC filed

responses in opposition on June

12.

The April

16 grant of variance was premised on a compliance

program proposed by ASCC.

This program was

to involve venting of

fumes from the spray booths and interior ovens

in the Drum Shop

to the existing drum incinerator.

ASCC further anticipated that

the Pail Shop would also

be brought into compliance by this

method, through offsets for the Drum Shop’s reduced emissions

pursuant to the “bubble concept”.

The Order established certain

intermediate deadlines

for performance of various activities

relative to this plan,

and required that compliance be

achieved

by December

31, 1987.

After

entry of the Order,

ASCC had two routes in which

to

make a timely response

to the Order.

The first was to file a

motion

for modification of the Order within

35 days pursuant to

35

Ill. Adm. Code 103.240; such filing would have been due on May

21.

The second would have been

to file

a certificate of

acceptance

and agreement

to be bound by the terms of the variance

within

45 days pursuant

to Paragraph

2 of the Order;

such filing

would have been due on June

1,

since May

31 was a Sunday.

ASCC did neither.

Instead

it filed

a motion for extension

on June 1.

ASCC asserts that since the date of hearing

in this

matter, January 20, that

it had consulted with three additional

companies or

individuals concerning compliance efforts.

ASCC

asserts that the most recent study,

conducted by Anguil Energy

Systems,

Inc.

of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was not completed until

May 22.

This study concluded that the proposed reducting of

fumes

to the drum incinerator would pose a long—term potential

fire danger.

For this reason, ASCC will not certify acceptance

of the April 16 variance.

ASCC requests that the Board

“enter

an

order

extending

the deadlines set

forth

in

the

compliance

timetable

of

its

order

dated

April

16,

1987

for

an

indefinite

period

of

time

pending

a hearing

on modification

of said variance

order.

ASCC further

requests that

the

Board grant

it leave

to file

a supplement

to the instant motion

for modification after

ASCC receives

a revised and

final

report

from

its

consultant,

Anguil

Energy

Systems,

Inc.,

regarding the alternative compliance

programs.

Finally,

ASCC

requests

that

the

Board

78-460

---

—3—

schedule this matter

for hearing on modification of

the aforesaid order after ASCC files

its supplement

to

the

instant motion.”

The Agency’s objections to the motions

to extend are

procedural.

One procedural

objection is that the motion to

modify

is

10 days late.

Another

is that the motions should be

construed as a request for variance from the Board’s April

16

Order, and that the “petition”

is deficient as

it fails to

contain a compliance plan.

This action now resides

in a procedural morass.

As ASCC had

declined

to certify acceptance of the April

16 Order, that Order

has force and effect of only

a limited nature.

As ASCC has not

agreed

to the Order,

its conditions are not applicable to ASCC,

and ASCC has

no variance.

Thus, variance from this Order would

be

inappropriate.

On the other

hand,

the Order continues in

force

as the Board’s final determination of that matter within

the statutory decision deadline

is extended by waiver,

so that

variance cannot be deemed

to have issued by operation of law.

While there

is no entirely tidy way to handle this

situation,

the Board will attempt

to accommodate both parties’

concerns.

The Agency’s motion

to strike and dismiss are

denied.

ASCC’s June

1 motions are construed as new petitions

for

variance,

and will be docketed as PCB 87—90 and PCB 87—91.

These

petitions are deficient for failure

to contain

a compliance

plan.

ASCC is directed

to file amended petitions which contain

compliance plans and which otherwise incorporate and

update the

prior records

in these matters within 45 days of the date of this

Order,

or

these petitions will be subject to dismissal.

Hearings

will

be held

in these dockets,

but they will be scheduled only

after

receipt of complete and sufficient amended petitions.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Dorothy

M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, here~ycertify that

t

above Order was adopted on

the

~5~-

day of ___________________________,

1987 by a vote

of

__________________.

1~’

Dorothy M. GØnn,

Clerk

Illinois Pol~utionControl Board