ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

5,

1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 73-30

W.

F. HALL PRINTING COMPANY and

CHICAGO ROTOPRINT COMPANY,

)

Respondents.

Mr. Lee A. Campbell, Special Assistant Attorney General, appeared

for Complainant;

Ms. Gayle Haglund, Attorney, appeared for Respondents.

INTERIM OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

This matter was originally filed as an enforcement action on

January 26,

1973, the Complaint alleging that Respondents had caused

air pollution in violation of §9(a)

of the Environmental Protection

Act

(Act).

Ill. Rev. Stat.,

Ch.

111—1/2,

§1009

(1975).

Although

there has been some delay by reason of litigation, Hall v. EPA,

16

Ill. App.

3d 864,

306 N.E.2d 595

(197.4),

the case has now been

actively dontested before this Board for approximately three years.

As the parties note, the Record now contains more than 1,300 pages

of testimony and over 60 exhibits,

(R.

1339).

At a hearing on July 12, 1976, the parties entered a “Tentative

Settlement Agreement,” which is the subject of this Interim Opinion

and Order.

With several observations, we approve of that instrument.

The entry of the

“Tentative Settlement Agreement” does not mean

that the parties have reached actual agreement on the main issues in

this case.

On the contrary,

that instrument

is largely

a recitation

of the areas in which they disagree.

Although there is agreement

that the main issue here is an alleged odor problem

with Respondent

Hall’s printing plant, there is disagreement on whether Hall

is

responsible for any odors or, assuming such odors, whether it is

economically reasonable and technically feasible to abate them.

The purpose o~the “Tentative Settlement Agreement”

is the

evaluation of a new “low heat set” ink formulation recently insti-

tuted by Hall,

(R.

1347).

Hall contends,

“but the record does not

demonstrate” that these inks are “virtually

‘smoke free’”

(id.),

apparently further contending that if an odor problem did exist,

these inks have abated the problem.

23—185

---

—2—

What is yet to be determined before these inks can be

declared to be the feasible solution to emissions at the

Hall plant is whether or not the persons who live in the

vicinity of Respondent’s plant agree with the predictions

that the emission from these inks

is low odor or odor

free.

In order to accomplish this last objective,

the

Complainant and Respondent Hall propose to survey the

neighborhood under conditions agreed upon between the

parties.

(R.

1348).

The Board agrees that the survey program, which is quite

extensive and will cover both previous witnesses and many other

neighborhood residents,

should in fact determine whether the new

inks have abated any possible past problems.

The parties have agreed that the results of the survey will be

submitted to the Board.

If the parties disagree after the survey

as to whether Hall is a cause of air pollution,

the survey will be

submitted to the Board as a joint exhibit for use in reaching a

conclusion on the merits of the case.

If the parties agree that Hall is not presently causing air

pollution,

the parties further agree to then request a Board Order

on the following final settlement provisions, under which Hall

is

to:

A)

Keep and maintain at its plant for a period of at

least two years records of the following:

1)

Ink and solvent purchases;

2)

Production and operating records; and

3)

Type and quantity of inks used.

B)

Make the aforesaid records available for inspection

by representatives of the EPA and Illinois Attorney

General’s office during normal business hours.

C)

Continue to use low heat set inks exclusively on its

presses until or unless a new technological break-

through occurs in this technically fluid field.

D)

Respondent would continue to pursue other techno-

logical solutions which would guarantee results

the same as or better than those now being achieved

with the low heat set inks.

In either case,

W.

F.

Hall would submit the necessary permit applications

to the EPA for approval.

Although there is no mention of

a finding of violation,

and

only Respondent Rotoprint would be dismissed, Hall would pay $10,000

into the General Revenue Fund of the State,

“a figure which represents

a substantial reimbursement to the State of Illinois of the costs

and expenses incurred by it in this litigation.”

(R.

1352).

23

—

186

---

—3—

If circumstances warrant presentation of a final settlement

to the Board,

that settlement should be supported by briefs justi-

fying it in light of the extensive Record in this matter.

It is not clear that our acceptance of a settlement containing

future requirements upon one or both parties would be binding in

the absence of a finding of violation.

If a finding of violation

is not necessary,

the settlement’s adequacy to fulfill the purpose

of the Act should be clarified.

With regard to the issue of Hall’s payment to the General

Revenue Fund,

it is not clear that the Board could accept payment

in lieu of a penalty for the purpose stated above.

See, City of

Monmouth v. Pollution Control Board,

57 Ill.2d

482,

313 N.E.2d 161,

166

(1974); City of Waukegan

v.

Pollution Control Board,

57 Ill.2d

170,

311 N.E.2d

146,

153

(1974).

Without need of citation,

the Board notes that it has a greater

interest in the terms of settlements before it than might

a similarly

situated court.

Although agreeability to the parties is of course

essential to any settlement,

a settlement must also be agreeable to

the Board; any settlement must demonstrate to the Board that compli-

ance has been or will be attained.

The Board cannot and will not be

bound to approval of a final settlement unless such demonstration

is

forthcoming.

After a long and arduous litigation,

the parties’ attempt at

resolution

is laudable.

It

is merely the Board’s wish to be sure

that any settlement is adequate,

fair, complete and enforceable.

INTERIM ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that the

“Tentative Settlement Agreement” submitted by the parties to this

matter be approved, in conformity with the foregoing Interim Opinion.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby ce tify the above Inter’m Opinion and Order w re

adopted on the

~1

day of

_________~,

1976, by a vote of

—~

Christan L. Moffett~)Lerk

Illinois Pollution ~~trol

Board

23

—

187