ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October
    15,
    1987
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    HAZARDOUS WASTE PROHIBITIONS
    )
    R86—9(B)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.D.
    Dumelle):
    This matter comes before the Board upon
    an October
    2,
    1987,
    joint motion
    for scheduling
    of an additional
    regulatory hearing
    for purposes of presentation of legal argument filed by Citizen
    for
    a Better Environment
    (CBE),
    the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency (Agency)
    and the Illinois Attorney General’s
    Office.
    Responses were filed
    on October
    9,
    1987 by Waste
    Management,
    Inc.
    and on October
    14,
    1987 by the Illinois
    Environmental Regulatory Group
    (ERG).
    The joint rnovants requested the additional hearing
    for
    purposes of
    (1)
    the presentation
    of legal
    argument by the
    parties, and
    (2)
    an opportunity
    for Board Members and
    the Hearing
    Officer
    to ask questions on legal matters.
    The joint movants
    asserted that
    “aJ
    number
    of the important subjects to be
    addressed
    by the Board
    in
    these proceedings principally involve
    legal issues
    of statutory construction,”
    and then posed
    six
    issues
    for consideration.
    The joint movants argued that the
    public interest would
    be served by
    a “fuller elucidation”
    of the
    important legal
    issues
    in
    these proceedings through the
    presentation of oral argument by the parties and an opportunity
    for Board Members and
    the Hearing Officer
    to direct questions on
    these issues
    to the parties.
    Waste Managements
    response requested
    that the Board consider
    (1)
    whether oral argument would
    be cumulative
    of matters already
    in the record,
    (2)
    whether oral
    argument is necessary
    in light
    of
    the Hearing Officer
    order allowing public comment on any issue,
    (3)
    whether
    a hearing for oral
    argument would constitute
    judicious and economical use of limited Board funds,
    and
    (4)
    whether
    the joint motion satisfies the procedural
    requirements of
    public notice and an opportunity
    for public participation
    in any
    additional public hearing(s)
    scheduled
    in
    this matter.
    Waste
    Management indicated that
    if an
    additional
    hearing
    is scheduled,
    it may request
    to be heard
    to clarify some issues related
    to its
    proposal
    for technical standards
    to allow
    the continued land
    disposal of residuals from certain
    treatment processes.
    ERG responded that it would not object to additional
    hearings on the merits of its proposal.
    However, ERG objected
    to
    the format proposed by the joint rnovants.
    ERG noted Section
    102.101
    of the Board’s procedural
    rules which states that
    82—357
    —2—
    “h)earings
    ...
    shall
    be deemed
    in the nature of
    legislative
    hearings.”
    ERG argued that legislative hearing allows legal
    argument
    ——
    but does not limit
    the hearing
    to such argument.
    ERG
    suggested,
    in the interest of conserving
    the Board’s limited
    resources,
    that such
    a hearing
    be consolidated with the economic
    impact hearings.
    The Board agrees that
    “
    fuller elucidation”
    of
    the legal
    issues would
    serve
    the public interest.
    However,
    the Board
    is
    not inclined
    to rule on the motion
    at this time.
    The Hearing
    Officer granted
    the participants
    until October
    30,
    1987,
    to file
    written comment on any issue.
    The Board believes that because
    of
    the numerous and complex issues involved in this proceeding,
    written briefs should precede any oral argument.
    Therefore,
    the
    Board directs the Hearing Officer
    to set up
    a briefing schedule
    which establishes
    a date for the submission
    of comments
    (briefs),
    a date for
    the submission of responses, and
    a date
    for the
    submission of replies.
    After
    a review of
    the briefs,
    the Board
    will determine whether any questions remain and
    if
    so, will
    consider whether
    those questions
    can be adequately addressed
    at
    the economic impact hearing.
    The Board believes that this approach will
    alleviate
    the
    concerns of all participants,
    will
    utilize the Board’s
    resources
    most economically and will result
    in
    a more clear,
    concise
    record.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy
    M.
    Gunn, Clerk
    of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that t~ ~~çwe
    Order
    was adopted
    on
    the
    /5CC
    day of
    ~-~_-~-~,
    ,
    1987
    by
    a vote
    of
    Illmo
    Poll
    U
    n Control
    Board
    82—358

    Back to top