ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
5,
1982
DONALD
J.
HAMMAN
)
Petitioner,
PCB 82—15
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D.
Dumelle):
On September 22, 1982 Intervenors
in this matter filed
a
petition to dismiss and to void permit or in the alternative
to immediately rule on motions to continue, stay and issue
subpoena which were filed with the Board on May 21,
1982.
A motion for expedited consideration was filed on September 24,
1982 by Donald J.
Hamman.
Hamman’S motion for expedited consideration is hereby
granted while all of Intervenors’ motions are denied.
The
Board does not accept the Intervenors’
reasoning that the
Appellate Court’s Order concerning PCB 80-153 effectively voids
the developmental permit issued December
31, 1981 for the site
at issue here.
All that Order and the Board’s September 15,
1982 Order purport to do is to require the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency) to issue a developmental permit with
an added condition regarding the upgrading of 111th Street.
That condition is immaterial with respect to this action, and
to hold that such modification of the permit voids the previous
permit and,
therefore, moots this action which attacks that permit,
would require that
the identical action be refiled under
a different
docket number,
causing unnecessary delay and elevating form over
substance.
Further,
Intervenors’ request for an immediate decision
on the May 21,
1982 motions is premised upon its concern that
failure to so rule could cause the permit to issue by operation
of law.
Such fear is unwarranted in that the decision date was
extended
by
Hamman
until
90 days
from Lhe date that the Appellate
Court
rendered its decision concerning PCB 80—153.
The Board
determines this to have occurred on September
3,
1982, the dat’?
of mandate issuance,
thus making the decision date December
6,
1982.
Despite Intervenors’
apparent misunderstanding of the
decision date, the Board hereby rules upon those motions and
49-33
2
denies them since the right to a decision runs to Hamman,
and
the Intervenors’ must accept the case at the point they enter
it
.
While
it was within the hearing officer’s discretion to
allow a continuance, the Board upholds his denial.
Intervenors intervened after discovering that the Board
had denied their motion
to dismiss for lack of standing in
the context of a ~‘SpecialLimited Appearance” contesting the
jurisdiction of the Board to hear this case.
The Board has now
rejected that jurisdictional argument,
The only other argument
advanced for continuance is the desire to examine Thomas Cavanagh,
the Agency Manager who signed the permit, apparently to
determine his thought processes.
While some testimony of
that sort might be relevant, the prejudice caused to Hamman by
further delay outweighs its likely probative value,
and denial
of continuance was proper, thus rnooting the motion for issuance
of a subpoena.
To avoid further delay the Board hereby grants Hamman’s
motion for expedited consideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control ~Q~ard,hereby cer
ify
that the above Order was adopted
on the
~—
N~day of
~
____•,
1982 by a vote
of~ç1
__
Illinois Poll
ntrol
Board
49-34