ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March
    9,
    1989
    VILLAGE OF SAUGET,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 86—57
    )
    PCB 86—62
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENThL
    )
    (Consolidated)
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    MONSANTO COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 86—58
    PCB 86—63
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    (Consolidated)
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by R.
    C.
    Flemal):
    This matter comes before the Board upon
    a
    Motion
    to Vacate
    Proposed Modified Permit filed by the Village
    of Sauget
    (“Sauget”)
    on February 14,
    1989.
    The Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (“Agency’t)
    filed
    its response on February
    22,
    1989.
    Also,
    the Board will
    first address
    a portion of Sauget’s
    Motion for Reconsideration, entitled “Relief Requested”, which
    was not disposed of by the Board
    in
    its February 23,
    1989 Order
    on the Motion for Reconsideration.
    Relief Requested
    Sauget requests
    that the Board
    “clarify the status of the
    contested conditions
    from January
    21,
    1987 until
    the issuance of
    the modified
    permit..”
    Sauget suggests that the “status of the
    conditions” would be clarified if the Board were
    to extend
    the
    stay previously granted
    for the
    AB permit which
    the Board
    declined
    to extend in,its June
    2,
    1988 Order.
    In the absence
    of action
    staying
    the effectiveness of
    conditions,
    a Board directive
    to modify
    or vacate
    any conditions
    to
    a permit would
    be effective
    ab initio.
    In this proceeding,
    a
    discretionary stay of the effectiveness of the conditions was
    97—97
    —2—
    granted which expired January 21,
    1987.
    The Board declined to
    extend that stay
    in an Order dated June
    2,
    1988.
    The
    modifications which the Board ordered on December 15,
    1988 are
    effective on the date of expiration of the stay, which is January
    21, 1987.
    Sauget is essentially asking the Board
    to grant
    a
    discretionary stay from January 21,
    1987,
    the time of expiration
    of the prior stay
    in this proceeding, not only until
    the time of
    final decision of the Board, but until
    the Agency permit as
    modified
    is
    no longer
    an appealable administrative action.
    The Board believes
    that its June
    2,
    1988 Order declining
    to
    grant any additional discretionary stays
    in this matter was
    correct based on the facts before the Board
    at that time.
    The
    Board declines
    to now grant
    a stay retroactive to the expiration
    of the prior
    stay because
    the Board has now issued
    its final
    order
    in this matter.
    Therefore
    a stay of the conditions pending
    final Board determination
    is unnecessary.
    The Board believes
    that it has now clarified
    the status of the conditions as
    modified as being effective January 21,
    1987.
    The Board
    finds no
    orders regarding specific conditions
    in addition to those already
    contained in its December
    15,
    1988 Order and
    its Order on
    Reconsideration are necessary.
    The Board also declines to grant a stay of the contested
    conditions subsequent
    to the Board’s final Order
    in this matter..
    Motion to Vacate
    Sauget asks the Board
    to Vacate
    a Modified Permit which the
    Agency,
    on January 20,
    1989, apparently sent to
    IISEPA
    for its
    review.
    Sauget alleges that the
    proposed modified permit was
    untimely filed with USEPA due
    to the then pending motions
    for
    reconsideration before the Board, and
    is inconsistent with the
    Board’s directives contained
    in its December 15,
    1988
    Opinion and
    Order.
    The Agency states that before
    it may issue
    a modified permit
    pursuant to the Board’s directives,
    it must secure review and
    approval
    of the permit by USEPA pursuant to the Memorandum of
    Agreement
    (“MOA”)
    (Sauget Ex.
    23.).
    The MOA states
    in part:
    Except
    for those permits for which
    the Regional
    Administrator has waived rights of review,
    no NPDES
    permit will
    be issued by the State
    until
    it receives
    a letter from the Regional Administrator approving
    such issuance or no comment
    is received by the State
    from USEPA within 90 days of receipt of the proposed
    permit by USEPA.
    (MOA at 6.)
    97-98
    —3—
    The Board declines to comment on the timeliness of the
    Agency’s submittals to USEPA.
    How ever
    the ~gency chooses
    to
    communicate with USEPA in fulfilling
    its obligations under
    the
    MOA
    regarding submittal of a proposed modified permit is outside
    the jurisdiction of the Board.
    On the
    issue of
    the consistency
    of the proposed modified permit, the Board finds that,
    under
    Section 40
    of the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”),
    it only
    has jurisdiction to review permits with conditions issued by the
    Agency
    to the applicant,
    not proposed modified permits sent
    to
    USEPA
    for USEPA review.
    The Motion
    to Vacate Proposed Modified
    Permit
    is denied.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
    the
    9~’-
    day of
    ___________________,
    1989,
    by a vote
    of
    7—0
    ~
    ~.
    Dorothy M.4unn,
    Clerk
    Illinois P’állution Control Board
    97—99

    Back to top