ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 15, 2005
     
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
     
    Complainant,
     
    v.
     
    SAINT-GOBAIN CONTAINERS, INC., a
    Delaware corporation,
     
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 03-22
    (Enforcement - Air)
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore):
     
    On October 5, 2005, the Office of the Attorney General, on behalf of the People of the
    State of Illinois (People), filed a motion to stay this enforcement action brought against Saint-
    Gobain Containers, Inc. (Saint-Gobain). For the reasons below, the Board grants the motion.
     
    By way of background, the People filed a complaint against Saint-Gobain on
    August 26, 2002. The People allege that Saint-Gobain violated air pollution control
    requirements at the company’s glass manufacturing facility located at 1200 North Logan in
    Lincoln, Logan County. On September 5, 2002, the Board accepted the complaint for hearing.
    int on December 12, 2002. Since then, the parties
    have been conducting discovery and discussing potential settlement.
     
    Motions to stay a proceeding must be “accompanied by sufficient information detailing
    why a stay is needed.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.514(a). In the People’s motion for stay filed on
    October 5, 2005, the People state that on August 3, 2005, the United States Environmental
    Protection Agency (USEPA) extended to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency “an
    invitation to participate in a joint federal and state global initiative to address possible violations
    of federal and state law and regulations” by Saint-Gobain. Motion at 1. According to the
    motion, USEPA has identified concerns related to several Saint-Gobain facilities in the United
    States, including the Lincoln facility. The People further assert that USEPA’s concerns with the
    Lincoln facility “mirror technical issues and PSD [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] and
    state permitting violations alleged within the State’s Complaint filed with the Board.”
    Id
    . at 1-2.
     
    The People’s motion for stay states that the “federal action will develop an appropriate
    technical remedy and seek resolution of the same violations alleged in the State’s Complaint
    independent of the State’s enforcement action in the instant case.” Motion at 2. According to
    the People, if both this action before the Board and the federal action “proceed independently, a
    substantial likelihood exists for overlapping or inconsistent injunctive relief in each case.”
    Id
    .
    The People continue:
      
     
    2
    Judicial economy and practicability clearly dictates that it would be a waste of
    resources for all involved to proceed with the instant case until such time as the
    resolution of the federal matter is known because, in all probability, resolution of
    the federal matter will also resolve and render technical and legal issues in the
    instant case moot.
    Id
    .
     
    Saint-Gobain has not responded to the People’s motion for stay. Therefore, Saint-Gobain
    waives any objection to the Board granting the motion.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(d). The
    Board grants the People’s motion and accordingly stays this proceeding until the Board orders
    otherwise.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.514.
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on December 15, 2005, by a vote of 4-0.
     
     
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
     
     

    Back to top