ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 17,
1977
ASHLAND
CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB
76~186
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
CONCURRING OPINION
(by
Mr.
Zeitlin):
While
I concur in
the
decision
of
the
majority
in
this
case,
denying Petitioner’s Permit Appeal,
I
must respectfully disagree
with certain elements of the majority Opinion’s rationale,
I feel that the majority Opinion fails to give adequate weight
to our earlier Opinion and Order in Ashlandv._EPA,
PCB 75-174.
Although the majority is correct in stating that
res judicata cannot
be the basis of our finding
in this case,
its conclusion that
the
doctrine is wholly
inapplicable seems incorrect.
Petitioner has
simply failed
to show that
all the elements
in PCB 75~l74 are
present
in the instant matter,
unchanged.
The majority’s decision on the matter of the Agency’s motives
(i.e.,
‘they are not an issue’), raises serious questions.
The
dates involved in the Agency’s denial of Ashland’s permit with
regard to the expiration of the Variance
in PCB 75~l74,and
certain
testimony at hearing
(e,q,,
N.
~4),
indicate that the Agency may
he
u~ir~j
the
vrIi
~y~Lem
( o ~
eumv(’r1t
etir
~(ljud
i(’dt
ive
deci
ions,
The Agency’s
I3riei makes
the
issue clear:
“Surely
it
does not
follow
the course of good
administrative
logic
when
a
quasi-judicial
Board
requires
a technical
administrative agency to be bound by that
Board’s
decision with regard to a technical
issue,”
(Brief
of Jan.
20, 1977,
pages unnumbered.)
It
is clear at least
to me that the scheme set
up under the Environmental Protection Act envisions just such
a
binding effect for
our decisions.
24
—
794
It is
often said thu
n~xI ci
c
be the case here,
Our dec~ion b~uu
holdinq
that res
judicita or
s
adeauately
raised
by PeciL
e~
facts
are
the
same,
We
~t
other
issues
which
a~c~t
ope’
With
these
reser~atac~
I,
Christan L
ho
Con~ro1
Bo~rd,
here
y
11
)~flI
t
(
(1
(
)
7