ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    April
    25, 1991
    TRANSTECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 91—39
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by B.
    Forcade):
    On March
    1,
    1991,
    TransTechnology Corporation filed a
    Petition for Review of Cleanup Objectives.
    By Order
    of March
    8,
    1991,
    the Board directed the Darties
    to file briefs on the issue
    of the Board’s ~urisdict~on in this matter.
    On March 22, 199?,
    Petitioner
    filed its response to the Board’s Order.
    Also on
    March 22,
    1991,
    the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”)
    filed its comments and motion to dismiss.
    Petitioner asserts that jurisdiction
    .s based on due process
    considerations,
    the Board’s quasi—judicial authority to review
    final determinations under Section 5(d)
    of
    the Environmental
    Protection Act
    (“Act”),
    and the Board’s
    rulemaking authority
    under Title V of
    the Act, Land Pollution and Refuse Disposal.
    Petitioner asserts that
    it believed filing of the petition was
    necessary to preserve its rights which would have been
    extinguishe•.~by the
    passage of the filing deadline.
    See Pet.
    Resp.
    at
    p.
    3.
    The Agency states that the Board lacks jurisdiction because
    the Agency has not set a “standard”
    under Section 5(b)
    of the
    Act.
    Furthermore, Petitioner
    is not required to meet the
    objectives
    nor
    is Petitoner subject
    to sanctions.
    The Agency also argues that
    neither Section
    5(d)
    of
    the Act
    nor Section 105.102
    of the Board’s rules establish the Board’s
    jurisdiction since neither
    a permit appeal
    nor closure plan
    appeal
    is involved.
    Furthermore,
    the Agency’s letter
    is not
    a
    final Agency determination,
    which terminates
    the matter before
    the Agency or affects Petitioner’s legal
    rights,
    duties or
    privileges.
    In support
    of
    its position,
    the Agency cites
    the
    Administrative Review Act
    (Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    1989,
    ch.
    110, par.
    1—101 et seq.);
    Castleman
    v.
    Civil Service Commission of City of
    Springfield.,
    58
    Iii.
    App.
    2d
    25,
    206 ~.E.2d 514
    (1965);
    and the
    absence of Board regulations which provide for hearings on this
    matter.
    12 1—651
    —2—
    The Ag?~ncystates also that Petitioner can seek modification
    or recons±d&~rationof the objectives with the Agency.
    Petitioner
    can withdra~from the voluntary program and enjoy
    “the same
    rights as
    if:
    the services of the IEPA were never requested.”
    Ag.
    Comments
    at
    ,p.
    4.
    For th?~ reasons articulated by the Agency,
    the Board finds
    that it
    lack:.s jurisdiction to hear this matter.
    This
    issue has
    been
    resol!iet~1similarly on the federal level
    in the case of
    Burnharn Corp
    v. EPA,
    32 ERC
    1666
    (S.D.
    Ohio,
    No. C2—88—0562
    October
    25,
    1990).
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorcthy
    N.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereb~ycertify that the above Order was adopted on
    the
    _______
    _____
    day of
    ____________________,
    1991 by a vote
    of
    _______
    ___.
    ,~1L~1
    ~?.
    Thorothy M. ,qunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois
    Po’Ilution Control Board
    12 1—652

    Back to top