ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

July 19,

1984

VILLAGE

OF

SAUGET,

)

Petitioner,

PCB 79—87

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

Respondent.

MR. JEFFREY C.

FORT, MARTIN CRAIG CHESTER & SONNERSCHEIN,

APPEARED FOR PETITIONER ALONG WITH MR. HAROLD G~BAKER,

JR.,

BAKER

& SCRIVNER;

MR. GARY

P.

KING, ATTORNEY—AT-LAW, APPEARED FOR

RESPONDENT;

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B.

Forcade):

On April

17,

1979,

the Village of Sauget VSauget”)

filed a

petition to review the NPDES permit issued

for its wastewater

treatment plant.

On May

14,

1979, the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (“Agency”)

filed the certification and record

on appeal.

On June 20,

1979, the Monsanto Company petitioned to

intervene.

After several Board Orders

to promote rapid disposi-

tion of this case,

a hearing was finally held January 31,

1984.

Final Briefs were filed by Sauget on March 19,

1984, and by the

Agency on April

19,

1984.

Sauget is a municipality organized and existing under the

provisions of the Illinois Municipal Code of 1961,

as amended

(Ill. Rev. Stat,

1975,

ch.

24,

§1—1—1 et.

~

it

is located

on the Mississippi River

in St. Clair County,

Illinois between

the City of East St.

Louis and the Village of Cahokia,

Saugat.

owns and, under contract, causes to be operated a physical-

chemical waste treatment plant for treatment of its effluent

which discharges

into the Mississippi River.

The

plant provides

physical and chemical treatment for removal

of metals and

insoluble organics.

Unit operations include solids revmoval,

neutralization,

flocculation and clarification, and oil

skimming

(Pet.,

p.

1—2),

Sauget applied for and on March 19, 1979, was issued an

NPDES permit, numbered 1L0021407, which is the subject of this

permit appeal.

Sauget objected to

17 terms,

conditions,

monitoring requirements or effluent limitations contained in that

permit

(Pet.,

pp.

3—18).

The disposition of these

17

issues

would involve complicated matters of fact and

law.

The parties

to this proceeding have never addressed the proper resolution of

the

17

issues.

At hearing, the parties submitted a Petition for Acceptance

of Stipulation and Settlement (Joint Exhibit #1).

At hearing,

there was no discussion of the merits of the case nor what

disposition the Board should make with this matter.

The only

59-09

---

—2—

matter discussed

in the six pages of transcript

is that

Sauget

and the Agency had disagreements in the past which are now

resolved

(R.

3,6.

See also Exhibit No. l~p.

2,

and ~(4,

p.

4).

Exhibit No.

1 then proceeds to identify what terms and conditions

will or will not be included in any future NPDES permits issued

to

Sauget (Ex.#l,

p.

4,

et. ~

Monsanto,

it appears,

is

in

agreement

(R.

5).

This Board cannot accept, reject or evaluate

an agreement on a permit that has not yet been issued,

The

effect of that document, as a contract,

is not a proper matter

for

Board resolution.

In final briefs,

the parties disagreed on what action the

Board should take.

Sauget urged continuation

of this case on the

Board’s docket or dismissal striking the conditions

Sauget found objectionable.

The Agency urged total dismissal

with leave to re-file.

Each party objected to the other’s sug-

gestions.

More than 5 years ago, Sauget filed this permit appeal

asking the Board to resolve

17 disputes

it had with the Agency

involving issues such as what are the appropriate limitations on

toxic chemicals and whether statutory or regulatory authority

exists for certain limitations.

Neither

party

has

ever

provided

legal

or

factual

arguments

to

this

Board

regarding

the

17

issues

involved

in the 1979

permit.

Now

the

Board

is

being asked to specifically not

decide

those

issues

as

the parties are

in agreement.

The sole

function

of

the

Board

in

a

permit

appeal

is

to

resolve

disputes

concerning

that

permit.

Here,

there

are

no

disputes

concern-

ing

the

terms

and

conditions

of

the

1979

permit

presented

for

Board

disposition.

The

Board

will

dismiss

this

matter.

Since

the

parties

are

now in agreement

(R.

3,

6;

Ex.

#1,

pp.

2,4)

and

the

Board is not being asked to resolve any disputed conditions of

the

1979 permit, there is no case or controversy

for

the Board to resolve.

Any Board disposition would,

there-~

fore, be an advisory opinion, which is beyond the power

of this Board.

ORDER

The Petition of Village

of Sauget

for

review of NPDES

permit is hereby dismissed.

IT

IS SO

ORDERED,

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Order was

adopte~on the

~

day of

_______,

1984, by a vote

Dorothy

M.

Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

59-10