ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
14,
1983
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC WATER
)
POLLUTION RULES AND REGULATIONS
)
R81—19
APPLICABLE TO
CITIZENS UTILITIES
COMPANY OF ILLINOIS’ DISCHARGE
TO LILY CACHE CREEK
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
3.0,
Dumelle):
The following have been filed in this matter since the
Board’s May
5,
1983 Final Order
of dismissal:
1.
Citizens Utilities’ June 9,
1983 motion for rehearing:
2.
Citizens Utilities’ June
9,
1983 motion for oral argument;
3.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s~(Age~icy’s)
June 27,
1983 response to motion for rehearing;
4.
Citizens Utilities’
July 11,
1983 motion for leave to
file instanter and supplement to motion for rehearing;
5.
Agency’s
July 11,
1983 motion to strike or in the
alternative to allow Agency response: and
6.
Citizen’s Utilities’
July
11,
1983 motion to strike
Agency’s motion and alternative motion for leave to file
answer,
7.
village of Bollingbrook’s July 14,
1983 motion for rehearing
and other
relief.
Several of the motions deal with the rights of parties to
additional argument beyond the original motion and response which
are specifically allowed by
35 Ill. Mm, Code 103.140(c),
The
Board notes that under that subsection as well
as subsection
(d),
replies and oral argument are not allowed absent Board permission
or direction.
The rules contemplate that such permission or
direction be gained by way of an appropriate motion specifying
the need for such additional filings or argument.
However,
the
failure to file such a motion
is not necessarily fatal
to Board
acceptance.
In this case the Board accepts all
filings, denies the request
for oral argument in that no compelling reason therefore has been
presented and denies all motions to strike.
The Board notes, however,
that the existence of an ongoing study by the United States Geological
Survey in conjunction with the Agency as pointed
out Citizens
53-61
—2—
Utilities’
July 11 supplement, as well as the Agency’s July 11
response including an Illinois Commerce Commission Order regarding
Citizens Utilities have little or no relevance to this proceeding.
That there is an ongoing study does not serve to establish that
there is sufficient evidence to support the proposal.
Rather,
it
serves to establish that at some future time there may be.
As
such, it may be relevant in the context of
a variance proceeding,
but
it is not relevant here.
The
Board hereby grants reconsideration and affirms its
May
5, 1983 Order of dismissal.
None of the filings present any
relevant information which was not considered in that Order.
While it
is true that state and federal actions ~
result in
revision of water quality standards for most of the major river
basins in the state within the next five years, that alone does
not justify placing all compliance plans on hold during that
period.
The Board also notes that Citizens Utilities, while stating
that the Agency acted improperly as
a “recalcitrant adversary”
(June
9,
1983 Motion for Rehearing,
p.
14), appears to believe
that the Board’s decision in regulatory matters should be based
upon which participant presented the strongest case.
That
is
not,
and never has been, the basis
for Board rulemaking.
The
Environmental Protection Act and the Board rules allow the Agency
to participate
in any regulatory proceeding and take any posture
the Agency chooses. The Board bases its decision upon whether the
record as
a whole contains sufficient information
to justify
adoption of the regulation,
In this case the Board determined
that it did not, and nothing presented in these filings demonstrates
that decision to have been wrong.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member D. Anderson dissented.
I,
Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control ~~q~ard
hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
the _______________day of ______________________,
1983 by a
vote of
.3-f
Christan L. Moffet~,c~)erk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
53-62