ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 12,
    1991
    GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—65
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by B.
    Forcade):
    This matter is before the Board on the August 15,
    1991
    agreed motion to dismiss filed by General Electric Company
    (“GE”)
    and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”).
    The
    parties request that the Board dismiss this proceeding without
    hearing or an adjudication of the issues therein, but for the
    reasons and upon the conditions stated in the Agreement.
    The
    Agreement sets forth detailed technical determinations and
    proscribes certain actions by the Agency and GE with respect to
    clean closure of this RCRA container storage area.
    The Board has previously articulated its reluctance to
    accept settlement agreements in both permit appeals and
    variances.
    As it pertains to variances, the Board stated:
    As
    a general
    matter, the Board has held
    that
    stipulations and
    settlement
    agreements
    have only limited propriety
    in variance pro-
    ceedings, being appropriate only to the extent
    that they may serve to
    convey
    to the
    Board
    those
    factors
    upon
    which
    the
    parties
    find
    agreement
    (e.g, Rowe Foundry & Machine Company
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 81—49,
    51 PCB 89).
    Conversely,
    stipulations
    to
    issues
    which
    are
    the
    sole
    province of the trier of fact
    (the Board)
    are
    not
    appropriate
    (e.g.,
    Olin
    Corporation
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 81—117,
    45 PCB 415).
    Such issues
    include findings of arbitrary and unreasonable
    hardship
    (u.)
    and,
    as
    is
    the
    case
    here,
    findings of whether Board rules are applicable
    to
    the
    particular
    circumstances
    faced
    by
    a
    petitioner
    (See
    Container
    Corporation
    of
    America
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB
    87—183,
    Interim Order,
    June 2,
    1988).
    (R.R.
    Donnelley
    &
    Sons,
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB
    88-79,
    February 23,
    1989).
    126—15
    As it pertains to permit appeals, the Board stated:
    The Board has difficulty in dealing with
    settlements
    in
    permit
    appeal
    cases
    which
    involve Agency issuance of negotiated permits
    containing
    conditions
    for
    which
    no
    record
    exists “setting out sufficient technical facts
    and legal
    assertions
    to
    allow
    the Board
    to
    exercise its independent judgeinent and to make
    proper
    findings
    of
    fact
    and
    conclusions
    of
    law.”
    Caterpillar Tractor
    Co.
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB
    79-180,
    Interim Order,
    June 2,
    1983,
    p.
    1—2.
    The Board has not issued Orders incorporating
    the terms
    of
    such stipulations
    as the Board
    does
    in
    enforcement
    cases.
    The
    Board
    has
    issued
    Orders
    dismissing
    the
    appeal
    and
    allowing ratification of
    a “voidable permit,
    e.g.,
    Caterpillar.
    supra,
    Final
    Order,
    June
    14,
    1982;
    an
    Order
    simply
    dismissing
    the
    appeal, Village of Sauget v.
    IEPA, PCB 79-87,
    July
    19,
    1984;
    and
    an
    Order
    remanding
    the
    permit to the Agency, Caterpillar Tractor Co.
    v.
    IEPA, PCB 83-58, March
    7,
    1985.
    (Electric Energy v.
    IEPA, PCB 85-14, June 13,
    1985)
    See Also, Marathon Oil Company v. IEPA, PCB 83-26, November 21,
    1985; W.R. Grace and Co.
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 89-193, November 2,
    1989;
    and Motorola v.
    IEPA, PCB 89—193, October 25,
    1990.
    Where,
    as here, the parties seek to implement a Settlement
    Agreement containing both technical and legal conditions the
    above stated concerns are relevant.
    This is especially true in a
    RCRA proceeding in which no hearing is to be held.
    Accordingly,
    the Board will adopt a simple voluntary dismissal Order.
    That
    dismissal will not adopt the terms and conditions of the
    Settlement Agreement.
    If the parties wish another course of
    action, they may file a motion for reconsideration demonstrating
    how that action is consistent with the concerns expressed above.
    This matter is dismissed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify ~at
    the above Order was adopted on the
    /~tZ~
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1991, by a vote of
    0
    )~.
    //~~Y
    Dorothy M.Munn,
    Clerk
    Illinois ~6llution Control Board
    126—16

    Back to top