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

    Back to top