:~L:NL5~

~

IA

SCL

c~

Of

9,

240,

242,

~243,

~‘

~245,

-~246

IDATED

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

A..

Goodman,

IhIs

matbax

ib

ncf~re ~ne

LO

-~

~

Appeal

Petitions

tiled

by

the

City

of

Spririqfela

(cs~)

on

Se~~e

her

19,

1977,

a1leg~

ink.

~:a~

the

Enoiro~imaata1

:

i

~n~v

~jon

~i)

Improperly

~Lni2d

idriocs

operati

~

Ai~

Pollution

fu~

oe~~iln Cults,

ico~t~. ?r~~

L,jiCdL~~~

Bc~iers

at

the

~

iiallitian

and

Ldk~inn

~cn~

~

Tnose

Petitions

t

~

i

illdated,

W~ flute

LliaL

In

uct~

J

L

~

~i~iL ~

hoLe

ii

ed (~t~aiaiitLj

a

~-tC~

Ut

dU

derial

ootsfication

~ic,

~

hat,

Rules

103,

i

‘ilo

~dtad

nO

ach P~

uJ tiOi1~)

Ifle

the Act

I1~ hev~

ntd

C

I.

3

~

(i

~

o~

~iqniticantl~

him

ts

the

p~Lont1a~

ies

~

~,

w_

n

perhaps

tat~i1implications for the

~ ~

~ti~n

~~hc

thy

apparently

JoeL

ot

~noo~c

t)

CU

i~a~a

~-r~i

~ac

Ie~ao

ot

on ~t

~a

adequacy

of

those

portions

of

Lhe

Ag~nc;th

~imic

denai

ijuotea

above,

except so far

as

the cinen ~ute~ may be relateh.

to

other, more

detailed ~easons

~

ian n’

LIC

Ag~neytOL permit denial

which the

City h~schosan

lii c.

~si

again, see

p~3

of each

Petition.)

Petnnps most

s jni

i~dIJ~

I~,

i

~‘y’s

Petittono

do

not

discuss

compliance with

RULO

30/

ala

~3

which spethf~ ~inbient

air quality

standards rot particuiate ma

cc

and SO2

~3q~

e

find

n ao

tne

~i

.y

city

has

~—

AJeflCy~S permit

-

thice

stated

only

~

3,

307

and

3O~~

nuLiote

p.3

of

au

on

§39(a)

u~

~nu

In

i~

---

—2—

By the terms of its Petitions,

the City has

noL

I

~

to

place all the issues of legal or factual adequacy oh

i

penmit

applications or the Agency’s permit denial before

tnis Board

This raises

the

possibility that the City’s

Peti’

nay

all be inadequate on their face.

The Board has

~rcvL

~tated

that the Agency’s determinations in permit matters

en~

s ~re~

sumption of validity and adequacy.

It would appear

t~at his

presumption would apply,

unless contested,

to

the a9enc1

citation

of the rules set out above

in its denial of the

City

~rious

permit applications,

Given such a presumption,

what paqosc

is to

be served by reviewing the Agency’s decisions on

othe-~reasons

for

permit denial?

Inasmuch as the denial

as a whole

WUULQ

thill stand,

based on such presumption, our review of those

portions

CL

the

denial

which the Cit~tchooses to contest might be futile

The City had

(and will have under the terms

or

~

iuer)

the option of bringing before this Board the legal

aaequa

of

certain portions of the Agency’s permit denial;

it

dJL)

in

(and

will have)

the option of using discovery to

determine

tic racrual

basis

—

if any

-

for the

Agency’s determinations

witr

d

to the

rules cited above,

(e.g.,

noncompliance with

ambient.

ci’r quality

standards).

Rather than face the possibility of having

to

dth.

~

so!

n~rie

Petitions, we shall therefore grant the City leave

no

d~uE? (I

its

Petitions within twenty-one days of the date of

this Order,

in

conformity with our discussion above.

Failure to

so amend

ts

Petitions may subject them to dismissal for

inaaequd

~‘

e

9u~day

decision period set by statute for decision in

pernil

~

~i matters

shall commence with the filing of such amended

Petitic~ns.

Mr. Young abstained.

I, Christan L~Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois P~ u

Control

Board, hereby

certify

the above Order was adopted

or U e

~‘

lay

~

,

1977 by a vote of

~

-~

-~

Christan

L.

~th

Illinois

Poliut:1n--

Unit :~

~.

boaid