ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    22, 1976
    METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF
    )
    GREATER CHICAGO,
    A
    municipal
    corporation,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—338
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Goodman):
    This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
    (Board)
    upon the April
    1,
    1976,
    motion of the Environmental Protection
    Agency
    (Agency)
    to reconsider and vacate the Board Orders herein,
    of February 26 and March
    11,
    1976.
    The Agency makes this motion
    because
    it feels the Board has
    “overlooked and rnisapprehended”
    certain issues raised in this proceeding.
    The Agency states that
    the “Board should not consider” the impact of permit conditions on
    “unpermitted activities,”
    The “unpermitted activities” are those
    which are under review in
    a separate action
    before this Board appeal—
    ling the denial of
    Metropolitan Sanitary
    District’s
    (MSD) Compre-
    hensive Permit
    (PCB 75-133).
    It is implicit in the Agency’s argument
    that the stricken conditions do not prejudge the aforementioned
    permit appeal.
    ~et the Comprehensive Permit includes “Sludge trans-
    portation system,
    sludge storage facilities and sludge application
    fields.
    .
    .
    -“
    (Permit #1974—DB—444—OP)
    .
    The Board will not rule on each
    of the sub-issues raised by the Agency.
    However the Board holds that
    the conditions stricken by the Board, herein, were beyond the scope
    of the permit sought.
    Their sole purpose was to control activities
    upon property which are the subject of a separate permit.
    The argu-
    ments the Agency propounds
    in
    its motion are,
    at best,
    spurious.
    Having determined that the stricken condition was beyond
    the
    power of the Agency to impose
    in the instant permit,
    the Board need
    not decide herein whether MSD has carried its burden of proof as
    to
    the issues concerning violation of Sections
    9(a)
    or 12(b)
    of the Act
    21—225
    —2—
    with regard to the operation of the sludge
    storage facitilies.
    The
    issue of the Agency’s power to impose said conditions is dispositive.
    To decide the other issues raised would only add dictum to the
    Opinion.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Board will deny the
    Agency’s Motion to reconsider and vacate.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Young abstained.
    I, Christan
    L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Supplemental Opinion and Order were
    adqpted on the
    ~
    day of
    ,
    1976 by a vote of
    _______*
    Christan L. Mo fett,
    rk
    Illinois Pollution C
    ol Board
    21
    —
    226

    Back to top