ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 11,
    1990
    WELLS MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 86—48
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by R.C.
    Flemal):
    On September 28,
    1990,
    the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency
    (“Ageiicy”) responded to the Board’s Order of August 30,
    1990.
    In its Order,
    the Board requested that the parties provide
    a legal analysis of the suggested course of action in light of
    the Appellate Court mandate in this matter.
    (Wells Manufacturing
    Company
    v.
    IEPA,
    552 N.E.2d 1074
    (1st Dist.,
    1990).
    Also,
    the
    Board requested that the Agency provide clarification as to who
    is presently authorized to represent the Agency in the matter.
    The Agency presents a letter dated September
    5,
    1990 in
    which the Agency requested that the Attorney General represent it
    in this matter.
    Although represented by both the Attorney
    General and the Cook County State’s Attorney in the original
    permit appeal,
    and before the Appellate Court,
    the Agency
    believes that its representation in the current remand should be
    by the Attorney General.
    The Agency letter also provides an analysis of the
    Appellate Court Opinion and requests that the Board remand this
    matter to the Agency for further action:
    The Agency proposes that the Board remand the
    matter to the Agency for further action consistent
    with the opinion of the Appellate Court.
    The
    Court said that “the manner
    in which the Agency
    compiled information denied Wells a fair chance to
    protect its interest.”
    The Court further rejected
    the Agency’s assertion that the Board hearing gave
    Wells the opportunity to challenge the information
    relied upon in its permit denial.
    The Court said,
    “(t)his
    is by no means the same as being allowed
    to submit evidence, sometime during the
    application process
    (emphasis added)
    .“
    The
    Court then remanded “for further proceedings
    consistent with this opinion.”
    It
    is clear that further Board hearings will not
    correct the deficiency that the Court found.
    The
    115—253
    2
    deficiency can only be corrected in the
    application process.
    So,
    if the matter is sent
    back to the Agency,
    it could request Wells to
    submit additional evidence into the permit
    application bearing on the air pollution issues
    raised earlier.
    The Agency could then consider
    all the evidence,
    including the new materials
    submitted by Wells, and make the appropriate
    decision.
    The Agency attorney further states that the attorney for
    Wells Manufacturing Company
    (“Wells”) affirms that Wells stands
    by the position indicated in its July 27,
    1990 filing that this
    matter should be remanded to the Agency.
    Based upon the above,
    the Board hereby remands this matter
    to the Agency for further action consistent with the First
    District Appellate Court Opinion.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on the
    //(/
    day of
    •‘~‘
    ‘~
    /(
    ,
    1990,
    by a vote of
    ~
    ~
    ,~
    ~)
    Dorohty M. .Gunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    1 15—254

    Back to top