ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 26,
1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
Complainants,
v.
)
PCB 74—226
COLLIER CARBON AND CHEMICAL
CORPORATION,
a California
Corporation,
Respondents.
INTERIM
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Zeitlin):
This matter comes before us on a Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement of an Enforcement case filed by the Attorney
General on June 14,
1974.
We find that Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement unacceptable.
The Complaint and Amended Complaint in this matter allege
significant air pollution violations on the part of Respondents.
In addition,
citizen testimony
—-
more in the nature, actually,
of additional complaints
--
indicate that emission problems
connected with Respondents’ operations may result in grave
damage to person and property.
The proposed settlement here makes allowance for the
payment of monies
($6,000.00) by Respondent to the State,
without any admission of violation.
But more importantly, the
proposed settlement here does not contain any definite proposal
for the abatement of any existing problems.
Instead, the
Proposed Settlement merely calls for extensive monitoring of
emissions from the Collier plant, and allows for the possibility
of future negotiations between the parties based on mutual
evaluation of monitoring results.
Nowhere does the Proposed
Settlement set forth any definite commitment on the part of
Respondents
to eliminate any excessive emissions from its
operations.
19—309
—2—
The purpose of enforcement proceedings before this Board
is to achieve and assure compliance with the aims and goals
of the Environmental Protection Act, and the Regulations which
we have enacted thereunder.
Indeed,
as the Appellate Courts
have often told us,
the purpose of the penalty provision of the
Act
is to assure compliance with the Act’s ultimate goals.
Where,
as
here,
there is provision for a “penalty” in settlement
of an enforcement case, without any showing that the problems
leading to that enforcement case have been or will be abated,
the Settlement fails to show that the purposes of the Act will
have been achieved.
Where,
as here,
there is a requirement in
the proposed Settlement that the case be dismissed with prejudice,
without a showing that the goals of the Act will have been
achieved, such a Proposed Settlement is unacceptable.
The matter is remanded to the Hearing Officer for further
proceedings to determine:
1.
whether there has in fact been a problem
with emissions from Respondents’
facility; and
2.
whether any such problem has been or shall
be abated, under any further settlement attempts.
The matter is remanded to the Hearing Officer for further
proceedings consistent with this Interim Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Interim Order was
~
day of
___________
1975 by a vote
Illinois Pol
19—310