ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 22,
    1990
    THE CITY OF METROPOLIS,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 90-8
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    This matter is before the Board on two motions.
    On February
    5,
    1990,
    the City of Metropolis
    (City)
    filed
    a motion for summary
    judgment.
    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    filed its response
    in
    opposition
    to
    that motion
    on February
    13,
    1990.
    Additionally, on February 13,
    1990 the Agency filed a motion
    to file its permit record instanter.
    The Agency’s motion to file
    the record instanter is granted.
    The City seeks summary judgment
    in this permit appeal based
    upon the fact that the Agency’s letter denying the City’s permit
    application did not contain information required by Section 39(a)
    of the Environmental Protection Act (Act).
    Ill.Rev.Stat. 1987,
    ch.
    111 1/2, par. 1039(a)
    .
    Although the denial letter contains reasons
    for the Agency’s decision,
    the letter does not specify either the
    sections of the Act or the applicable regulations which might be
    violated if the permit was granted, as required by Section 39(a) (1)
    and
    (2).
    The City contends that because the permit denial
    letter
    failed to meet all statutory requirements, that denial was null and
    void.
    Therefore,
    the City asserts
    that the
    Board
    should
    grant
    summary judgment and enter an order reversing the permit denial and
    directing the Agency to issue the permit.
    In response, the Agency maintains that Section 39(a) primarily
    requires the Agency, to inform the applicant of specific reasons why
    the permit was denied.
    The Agency contends that the information
    included in the instant denial letter can be construed to give the
    applicant
    an
    indication
    of
    the
    sections
    of
    the
    Act
    and
    the
    regulations
    which
    are
    of
    concern
    to
    the Agency.
    Finally,
    the
    Agency cites Mathers
    v
    Pollution Control
    Board,
    107
    I1l.App.3d
    729, 438 N.E.2d 213 (3d Dist.,
    1982),
    for the proposition that even
    where
    a
    denial
    letter
    does
    not
    include
    some
    of the
    information
    required by Section 39(a), the evidence presented at hearing is to
    be evaluated to determine whether the applicant has met his burden
    of
    proving
    that
    no
    violation
    of
    the
    Act
    would
    occur
    if
    the
    requested permit was granted.
    Therefore,
    the Agency argues that
    103—23 7
    2
    summary judgment
    is not appropriate
    in this case.
    After reviewing the parties’
    claims, the Board will deny the
    City’s motion for summary judgment.
    The City is correct that the
    Agency denial letter does not contain some information required by
    Section
    39(a).
    However,
    the
    letter
    does
    contain
    sufficient
    information
    to
    inform the City as to the basis
    for the Agency’s
    denial.
    The
    Board
    rejects
    the
    petitioner’s
    claim
    that
    the
    Agency’s failure
    to comply with all of the statutory requirements
    renders the denial letter null and void.
    The Board finds that the
    Agency issued its denial letter in a timely fashion, and will not
    order the issuance of the permit by operation of law simply because
    the Agency’s denial letter
    is
    incomplete.
    The intent of Section
    39(a)
    is to require the Agency to issue
    its decision
    in a timely
    manner, with information sufficient for the applicant to determine
    the basis
    for the Agency’s determination.
    The denial
    letter
    in
    this
    case
    satisfied
    those
    aims,
    and
    therefore
    the
    motion
    for
    summary judgment is denied.
    However, the language of Section 39(a)
    is clear that the Agency must specifically set forth the applicable
    sections
    of the Act and the regulations upon which
    it
    based
    its
    denial.
    Compliance with this requirement helps focus the Board’s
    review of this permit denial appeal.
    Therefore,
    the Agency shall
    provide the missing information to the City and the Board within
    14 days of the date of this Order.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy N.
    Gunn,
    hereby certify that the above Order was
    adopted
    on the
    -
    -
    ‘
    day of
    .
    ,~.
    ,
    1990,
    by a vote
    of
    /
    ‘
    .
    -
    Dorothy
    N,” Gunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    1
    flS—23$

    Back to top