ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August
    31, 1989
    MOTOR OILS REFINING COMPANY,
    INC.,
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    V.
    )
    PCB 89—116
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by R.
    C. Flemal):
    On July
    14,
    1989, Motor Oils Refining Company,
    Inc.,
    (“MORCO”) filed an appeal of the decision of the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”) denying its
    application for
    a supplemental permit for its waste streams,
    permits 000044 through 000051
    (“the permits”).
    In its permit
    appeal,
    MORCO requested the Board grant
    it a stay of the effect
    of the Agency’s decision,
    thereby allowing
    it
    to continue to
    receive
    its waste streams, pending the outcome of this
    proceeding.
    On July 25,
    the Agency
    filed a Motion in Opposition
    to Stay.
    On August
    10,
    1989,
    the Board
    found that the automatic
    stay provision of Section 16(b)
    of the Illinois Administrative
    Procedure Act
    is inapplicable to MORCO’s appeal.
    However,
    the
    Board ordered the parties to address the issue of whether
    a
    discretionary stay
    is appropriate, such consideration to
    include
    the potential for environmental harm in light
    of certain
    statements made in the Agency’s June 15,
    1989 denial letter.
    The
    Board ordered that such filings be received no later than August
    23,
    1989.
    On August
    23,
    1989, MORCO filed its response to the Board
    Order.
    The Agency’s response was
    received by the Board on August
    24,
    1989 with a motion to file instanter.
    Although received one
    day later than that ordered by the Board,
    service on MORCO was
    had on August
    23,
    1989 and the Board
    finds no prejudice resulted
    from the one—day delay.
    The motion
    to file instanter is granted.
    The Agency,
    in its response entitled Motion
    in Opposition to
    Discretionary Stay,
    states that although there are no specific
    standards set by the Board for
    issuing stays,
    Illinois law
    provides
    for standards under which such equitable relief
    is
    appropriate.
    These are:
    1)
    a certain and clearly ascertainable right needs
    protection
    102—249
    2)
    irreparable injury will occur without the
    injunction;
    3)
    no adequate remedy at law exists; and
    4)
    there
    is a probability of success on the merits.
    Junkunc
    v.
    S.J. Advanced Technology
    & Mfg., 101 Iii.
    Dec. 671,
    498 N.E.2d 1179
    (Ill. App.
    1 Dist.
    1986).
    MORCO’s response addresses only one of the four, alleging
    that a discretionary stay should be granted for reasons
    of
    irreparable injury to its business.
    Although the Board may look
    to these factors in making its determination of whether
    to grant
    a discretionary stay, the liklihood of environmental harm should
    a stay be granted is of particular concern
    for
    the Board.
    (See,
    Album,
    Inc.
    v.
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
    41 PCB
    323
    (May 1,
    1981).
    The Agency states
    in its response that the permit denial
    letter discusses various matters,
    including alleged unpermitted
    receipt of hazardous waste and the alleged existence of soil
    contamination at the site.
    MORCO generally denies the statements
    made in the Agency’s permit denial letter,
    and further points
    to
    the fact that no enforcement actions have been filed
    for the
    allegations stated in the Agency’s letter.
    Both MORCO and the
    Agency have attached documents
    to
    their responses in support of
    their positions.
    Upon review of the responses and attached
    documents,
    the Board finds that it
    is not persuaded that
    continued operation under the terms of the expired permits
    pending outcome of this appeal would not result
    in environmental
    harm.
    MORCO’s motion for stay
    is accordingly denied.
    In so
    ruling,
    the Board makes no findings on the merits of the permit
    appeal,
    nor does
    it make any finding on the bearing which any of
    the filed documents may or may not have on the issues
    in this
    appeal.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy
    M.
    Gunn, Clerk of
    the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify
    thffi,t
    the above Order was adopted on
    the
    j/~-~ day of
    /~/t~
    ~
    ,
    1989, by
    a vote
    of
    ~
    ~.
    ~~t1~7A~&
    Dorothy M.
    G
    n,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    102—250

    Back to top