ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

10,

1990

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 88—199

(Enforcement)

SEEGERS GRAIN,

 INC.

an Illinois CorDoration,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION

 (by 3. Anderson):

I believe

 that

 the Board should have ordered

 that

 this case

go

 to hearing.

 I believe

 that such action would be consistent

with the Board’s desire

 to “move cases along” and also

 that such

action would

 not prejudice

 the interests of either party.

It appears,

 at this

 juncture,

 that either

a)

 the stipulated

settlement

 earlier presented at hearing has already been altered

and

is

 likely to be

 further altered by the parties during post—

hearing negotiations or

b)

 rio new settlement will he forthcoming

at all.

In either case,

 another hearing will have

 to be held before

the Board can decide this matter.

 I do

 not. see how th~Board’s

procedural

 rules regarding enforcement proceedings,

 more

particularly

 the Settlement

 Procedure at

35

 Ill.

 Adm.

 Code

103.180,

 allow otherwise.

That procedure

 requires the parties proposing

 a settlement

to file with the hearing officer

 a signed, written statement

essentially containing

 full details, including

 the penalty.

 Then

the hearing officer

is

 to conduct

 a hearing at which all

interested persons

 can testify on

 the violations and the proposed

settlement.

It

is

 that settlement and hearing record which

the

hearing officer

is

 to submit

 to the Board

for

 its consideration.

It

 is true

 that after hearing and prior

to

its

consideration,

 the Board has accepted post—hearing signatures,

but only

 to the settlement

 as presented at hearinc.

 However,

the

whole purpose of

 requiring presentation of

 a settlement

at

hearing

 would be thwarted

if

 the parties initiate afterwards

a

renegotiated new settlement

 for direct presentation

to

the

Board.

 We should require

 the parties

 to go

 to another hearing,

since the settlement

 as earlier presented

is,

 for all practical

111

—

 1 (33

purposes, withdrawn.

 Whether

or

 riot the parties present to the

hearing officer

 a new settlement

 or instead contest the issues at

hearing

is

 for them to decide.

 In the event

 that the parties

decide to go back to the settlement as presented at the earlier

hearing,

 they can request that the new hearing be cancelled.

I believe that

 the action of

 the majority simply

 to grant

the motion

 to defer decision for

 30 days

 to allow for

renegotiation

 is ill—advised, and

 is particularly

 so when

considering the “turn” this case has taken.

It

is

 for these reasons

 that

 I respectfully dissent.

~

Joan

 G. Anderson

“

I,

 Dorothy M.

 Gunn,

 Clerk of

 the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

 hereby certify

 that the above Dissenting Opinion was

submitted on the

~i-~-~-

 day of

 1990.

~~L1

)~.

Dorothy M./Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

I

 1—104