ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 8, 1976
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—190
GRIFFITH LABORATORIES,
Respondent.
INTERIM ORDER OF
THE
BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):
Pursuant to Motion in Complainant’s Brief, the Board finds the
record in this matter inadequate, and remands the matter to the
Hearing Officer for further proceedings on the merits.
The record in the matter is neither clear nor correct. We find
that:
1. The Hearing Officer committed serious error in his dismis-
al of Count II of the Complaint. Such dismissal is wholly outside
the Hearing Of ficer~s authority. Involuntary dismissal authority,
as to either parties or Complaint pleadings, lies only with the Board.
At further hearing, the Hearing Officer shall decide whether the
allegations of Count II are now proved by sanction, or otherwise on
the pleadings. If so, relevant evidence may be admitted as regards
§S
31(c), 33(c) of the Environmental Protection Act, or otherwise
in
mitigation or aggravation. If not, relevant evidence may be admitted
on the merits as well.
2. In light of the sanctions imposed by the Hearing Officer
concerning Requests for Admission and Interrocjatories by Complainant,
it is not clear whether the hearing Officer’s admission into the
record of Answers to Requests for Admission and Answers to Inter—
rogatories (including those filed after hearing) by Respondent were
for purposes of our consideration ~KT~e merits, for use in aggra-
vation or mitigation, or our consideration under § 33(c) of the Act,
CR. 223). This needs clarification.
3. The exact nature of the sanctions which were imposed by
the Hearing Officer pursuant to our Interim Order of Dec. 4, 1975,
is not clear. It is clear that, vis—a—vis the Requests for Admission,
Count I of the Complaint stands admitted by sanctions, (letter,
filed Jan. 22, 1976 by Hearing Officer). How the sanctions extend,
or do not extend, into matters raised by Complainant’s Interroga—
tories, and hence affect our consideration of § 33(c) in light of
such admission, is not clear. The same clarification is needed for
Count III.
21
—23
—2--
4. The Hearing Officer’s statement that “Count III stands
admitted in fact,” (letter, filed Jan. 22, 1976 by Hearing Officer),
appears to be an improper judgement on the merits of the case.
5. The Hearing Officer’s various statements on the quality
of Complainant’s evidence are improper findings on the merits.
At further hearing, the Hearing Officer will clearly delineate
on the record the full and final extent of the sanctions thus far
imposed. He shall additionally show the extent to which he has
admitted to the Record Respondent’s Answers to Requests for Admission
and Answers to Interrogatories. Additional testimony or other evi-
dence shall be admitted on those remaining issues not foreclosed by
sanction. The Hearing Officer shall require briefs on the issue of
the effect of sanctions on our consideration of the factors in
§33(c)
of the Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certi y the above Interim Order was adopted
on the ~
day of
‘
,
1976, by a vote of
___________
Christan L. Moffett,
k
Illinois Pollution C ol Board
21
—24