ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

12,

1971

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS,

et

a?.

)

)

)

v.

)

##

70—7,

70—12,

70—13,

70—14

)

NORTH

SHORE

SANITARY

DISTRICT

)

Goinion

of the Board on Motion

to Reopen

(by Mr.

Currie):

Our decision

in this case was handed down March 31, 1971,

ordering

the Sanitary District to proceed with its program for

abating

water

and

a:Lr

pollution

from

its

sewage

treatment

facilities

and

prohibiting

new

sewer

connections

within

the

District

until

compliance

was

achieved.

The

ban

on

sewer

connections

has

produced

a

substantial

number

of

variance

requests,

most

of

which

we

have

scheduled

for hearing,, involving

claims of individual

hardship.

It

has

also

generated

the

present

request

by

the

~aukegan—North

Chicago

Chamber

of

Commerce,

Lake

County

Building

Trade

Council,

and

Zion—Benton

Chamber

of

Commerce,

to intervene

in

the

original

case

and

for

a

rehearing

with

respect

to

the

sewer

ban.

The

motion

alleges

that

because

the

sewer

ban

affects persons

other

than

the

Sanitary

District

the

Board

was

required

either

to

notify

all

persons

affected

before

rendering

such

a decision

or

proceed

by

way

of

rule—making

rather

than

adjudication.

Neither

content:ion

has

merit.

One

might

just

as

well

argue

that

all

employees

and

customers,

as

well

as

any

taxing

jurisdiction,

must

be

made

partff~es to

a

case

involving

a

possible

shutdown

of

an

indu~3trial

tacility

for

pollution;

the

proceeding

would

become

impossibly

cumbersome.

The

Board

complied

fully

with

the

notice

:m’eqOrements

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

in

connection

with

the

o:rioiraai

case.

Ample

protection

for

non—parties

affected

by

the

decision

is

afforded

by

the

variance

procedure,

which

many

have

invoked

in

this

very

situation.

As

for

the

contention

that

such

a

ban

can

be

imposed

only

in

a

rule—making

proceeding,

the

order

is

a

means

of

ensuring

compliance

with

existing

laws

and

regulations

that

forbid

water

pollution

and

limit

the

contaminants

in

effluents

discharged.

As

our

March

31

opinion

explained,

the

ban

is closely

analogous

to

an

order,

which

we

typically

enter,

forbidding

any

increase

in pollutant discharges during

the time

a violation continues.

That

the order is

important does not mean it must

be

done

in a

rule—making proceeding.

1

—

576

---

As to the question whether the

Board

should exercise its

discretion to reopen the case, we think it more appropriate that’

issues going to the hardships that might be Imposed by the

ban

be raised in the numerous pending variance cases rather

than

by

reopening the principal case.

The question of what remedy to

impose throughout the District as a whole

has

been amply considered

and

decided by the Board; we do not think the cause of pollution

abatement would be well served by litigating it all over again.

In cases of individual hardship, as we have indicated in authorizing

a number of variance hearings, we are willing to consider facts

that have not been presented to us in the original proceeding.

The present petitioners are welcome to seek to intervene in variance

proceedings in order to make their positIon clear

and

to bring

the relevant facts to the Board’s attention, subject

to the Board’s

rules respecting the orderly conduct of proceedings.

The motion to intervene and to reopen the case is denied.

of law, and order.

I, Regina E. Ryan do hereby certify that the above Opinion

was approved by the

Board

on the

12

of

May

,

1971.

•

•~

qy

...-.r.

~~r4L~

U-

I

—

577