ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    14,
    1971
    The League of Women Voters
    of Illinois,
    et al.
    )
    PCB 70—7
    70—12
    v.
    )
    70—13
    70—14
    North Shore Sanitary District
    Opinion of
    the Board
    (by Mr. Kissel):
    On ADril
    1,
    1971,
    the Com’~lainants,Loraine Facktor,
    Emanuel
    Winston,
    et ux Paul
    Brown,
    et ux,
    and the Committee to Save Highland
    Park, through their attorney, Mr.
    Joseph
    A.
    Lamendella, filed
    a Motion
    with
    the Pollution Control Board to withhold
    a decision in this matter
    pending the introduction of additional medical evidence,
    The Motion
    states that the evidence would consist of the testimony
    of
    a micro-
    biologist who would testify, inter alia, on the matters
    of “epidemiology
    of waste-associated disease,”
    The microbiologist would also testify,
    according
    to the Motion, concerning studies of sewage treatment methods
    as reported in various
    lournals which were published in 1966,
    1967,
    1968 and
    1970.
    The Comolainants would
    also introduce “additional
    testimony of Dr.
    Bertram Carnow.”
    The Motion alleges that the informa-
    tion came
    to the attention of the attorney
    for the Complainants
    on
    March
    30,
    1971,
    and an additional
    30
    days would be necessary to
    compile the medical factors
    and to request
    a study of epidemiology
    of waste-associated disease by the Department
    of Public Health
    of the
    State of Illinois.
    The Pollution Control Board rendered its decision in the above
    case on March
    31,
    1971,
    one day before the Motion had actually been
    received in the offices of the Pollution Control Board.
    While
    this
    would be reason enough to deny the Motion,
    this Board feels that Motions
    of this kind after
    a full hearing has been held must not be granted
    unless there
    is
    new. evidence not available before or during the hearing
    which comes to the knowledge of
    the oarties subsequent to the hearing
    in
    the
    case.
    The new evidence in this case would consist of testimony
    of
    a microbiologist who would testify
    as to articles which were
    published much before the hearing was held
    in thi~case,
    in November
    and December of
    1970,
    Certainly,
    this evidence was available to the
    Complainants prior
    to the date
    of the hearing had
    they done an adequate
    job in investigating their own
    case.
    The other testimony which they
    wish
    to introduce
    is
    “additional testimony ~f
    Dr.
    Carnow,”
    Dr.
    Carnow
    I
    —
    433
    appeared as
    a witness in the hearing and presented direct evidence and
    was cross examined by the other parties in this
    case.
    There
    is no
    allegation that the evidence
    Dr.
    Carnow would present is new or novel
    or was learned by
    Dr. Carnow subsequent
    to the date of the hearing.
    Motions such
    as
    these after
    a full hearing has taken place would
    merely cause
    a delay
    in the enforcement
    of an already published
    decision of
    the Board.
    Therefore,
    the Motion must be and is hereby
    denied.
    Samuel
    T.
    Lawton,
    Jr. did not participate
    in the consideration
    of or decision in this matter.
    I, Regina
    E.
    Ryan,
    Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,
    certify
    that the Board adopted the above opinion this
    14th day of April,
    1971.
    1
    —
    434

    Back to top