ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
22, 1976
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF
)
GREATER CHICAGO,
A
municipal
corporation,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—338
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
upon the April
1,
1976,
motion of the Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
to reconsider and vacate the Board Orders herein,
of February 26 and March
11,
1976.
The Agency makes this motion
because
it feels the Board has
“overlooked and rnisapprehended”
certain issues raised in this proceeding.
The Agency states that
the “Board should not consider” the impact of permit conditions on
“unpermitted activities,”
The “unpermitted activities” are those
which are under review in
a separate action
before this Board appeal—
ling the denial of
Metropolitan Sanitary
District’s
(MSD) Compre-
hensive Permit
(PCB 75-133).
It is implicit in the Agency’s argument
that the stricken conditions do not prejudge the aforementioned
permit appeal.
~et the Comprehensive Permit includes “Sludge trans-
portation system,
sludge storage facilities and sludge application
fields.
.
.
-“
(Permit #1974—DB—444—OP)
.
The Board will not rule on each
of the sub-issues raised by the Agency.
However the Board holds that
the conditions stricken by the Board, herein, were beyond the scope
of the permit sought.
Their sole purpose was to control activities
upon property which are the subject of a separate permit.
The argu-
ments the Agency propounds
in
its motion are,
at best,
spurious.
Having determined that the stricken condition was beyond
the
power of the Agency to impose
in the instant permit,
the Board need
not decide herein whether MSD has carried its burden of proof as
to
the issues concerning violation of Sections
9(a)
or 12(b)
of the Act
21—225
—2—
with regard to the operation of the sludge
storage facitilies.
The
issue of the Agency’s power to impose said conditions is dispositive.
To decide the other issues raised would only add dictum to the
Opinion.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Board will deny the
Agency’s Motion to reconsider and vacate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mr. Young abstained.
I, Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Supplemental Opinion and Order were
adqpted on the
~
day of
,
1976 by a vote of
_______*
Christan L. Mo fett,
rk
Illinois Pollution C
ol Board
21
—
226