ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

February

2,

1978

U

~OIS,

INC.,

Petitioner,

PCB 77—288

TAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

~bE

BOARD

(by Mr. Young):

nuary

13,

1978, Respondent

Environmental Protection

led an Objection to and seeking

reversal of an Order

that date by the Hearing

Officer directing,

by

3.

11(a)

and 11(b)

of the

Order,

the Respondent

to

rtain interrogatories.

On

January 16,

1978,

the

fleer requested

a Board ruling

on the Objection,

to

Rule 313(f) of the Procedural Rules.

Petitioner,

‘

±8,

1978,

entered an Objection

to Paragraph 11(c)

~ring Officer~s Order together with

a memorandum in

Paragraph 11(a)

and

11(b)

of the Order.

3ope

of discovery permissible in an

action to con-

~y

denial

of

a permit under Section

40

of

the Act

lied

by

the

general issue presented;

obviously

~to matters outside

of

the

general issue will not

~jevant evidence and should

not be allowed.

proper

to

inquire,

and

discovery should be allowed,

that

the record filed by the Agency is complete and

I

of the material

concerning the permit application

cfcre

the

Aquncy

when

the

denial statement was

o

Agency knows or ascertains,

during the pendency

application,

that either

the facts

or conclusions

by

the

applicant are inaccurate

or incomplete,

the

t

disclose

such

information in writing during the

oermit

review

period or in

the detailed written

of

the

reasons

for denial

required by Section

39

~.

The

Agency

may not

at

hearing assert reliance

~eria1

not included

in

the

record and disclosed

to

L

ant

in

the

manner

described

above,

as the basis for

31a1

of the permit,

any more than

the applicant may

new

material

in

support of the application that was

~ the Agency at the time of denial.

29

—

175

---

The Board,

having

r~oncwed

the

)rder

of

the

Hearing

Officer entered

January

13

~)78

sustains

the

action of

the Hearinc

Officer

in

Para,raoh

I~(c)

of

the

Order,

The

Board reverses

the

decision

of

tho

Vearlnq

Officer

in

Paragraoh 11(b);

Agency

ooIc;

in

~ne

eranting

of ether

permits

is not

prorery

at

issue

and

he

discovery

sought

is not relevant.

Paragraph

II(a

of

tie

Order

will be

sustained but

only

~f

iimi3.ect

to

insuring

that

the record

filed by the Agency is

cornolote

ord

~h~t

no

material outside

of

the record

was

reLied

upon

i

suu~ort

of

the

decision to

deny the permit.

The matter

is

remanciec

to

3.le

hearing

Officer

for

revision of

his

Order

of

7arua~j

13

J

78,

consistent

with

the foregoing.

IT

IS

SO

ORDEFF

~1r.

Nels

verner

diss~t~

I,

Christan

L.

Noffet4,

C

or

c~ ttn

Illinois

Pollution

Control

hoard,

he

eb~’ cci

t

~y

the

a

~

e

Order

was

adopted

on

the

~

day

o~

1978

by

a

vote

of

~

ntrol Board