ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    ~ugust
    4,
    1988
    VILLAGE OF SAUGET
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    PCB 86—58
    ___________________________________
    )
    (Consolidated with
    )
    PCB 86—63)
    MONSANTO COMPANY,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF TUE BOARD
    (by R.
    C.
    Flemal):
    On July
    7,
    1988 the Village of Sauget
    (“Sauget”)
    filed
    a
    Motion
    for Reconsideration requesting
    that the Board reconsider
    its June 2,
    1988 Interim Order
    in which
    the Board denied Sauget’s
    April
    28,
    1988 Motion
    to Extend Stay.
    In its Motion,
    Sauget
    requested stay of enforcement
    of certain condition’s of Sauget’s
    NPDES permit #IL0065145
    for its American Bottoms Regional
    Wastewater Treatment Facility (“AB Plant”) pending final
    determination of the instant proceeding or until September
    19,
    1988,
    the current decision deadline.
    On July
    18,
    1988,
    the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”)
    filed an
    objection to Sauget’s motion for reconsideration.
    In its Interim Order, the Board considered whether Section
    16(b)
    of the Illinois Administrative Procedure
    Act
    (“APA”)
    conferred
    an automatic stay of the enforcement of the conditions,
    and
    if not,
    whether the Board
    should,
    in its discretion,
    grant
    the stay.
    The Board
    finds Sauget’s arguments presented
    in its Motion
    for Reconsideration unconvincing and therefore denies the
    motion.
    The Board believes that its interpretation of the
    automatic stay provision of Section
    16(b)
    of
    the APA
    is
    a
    reasonable interpretation and not
    a narrow construction,
    as
    Sauget claims.
    The Section clearly refers
    to an “application for
    the renewal of
    a license or
    a new license with reference to an
    91—51
    —2—
    activity of
    a continuing nature”,
    as triggering
    the automatic
    stay.
    The Board
    therefore disagrees with Sauget’s position that
    the
    activity
    is now of
    a continuous nature and should therefore
    be sufficient
    for the granting of an automatic stay.
    As
    to the
    discretionary stay,
    the Board reaffirms its reasons for denial as
    stated
    in its Interim Order.
    The Board notes that Sauget’s
    arguments here are
    of the type which would best be presented in
    Sauget’s case
    in chief.
    At
    best, Sauget attempts
    to point out
    situations which would apply
    to any entity contesting permit
    conditions under
    the Act.
    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
    _______
    day of
    ________________,
    1988, by
    a vote
    of
    7_O
    j~2
    /~
    Dorothy M.~7Gunn,Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    91—52

    Back to top