ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

20,

1979

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

and THE METROPOLITAN

SANITARY

DISTRICT

OF GREATER CHICAGO,

Complainants,

‘7.

INTERLAKE,

INC.,

Respondent,

PCB 75—13

and

)

PCB 75—44

Consolidated

INTERLAKE,

INC.,

Petitioner,

V.

)

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

INTERIM ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

The Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement

(Stipulation)

presented to the hearing officer on July 31, 1979

is rejected.

Neither

a stipulation nor a settlement proposal in an

enforcement proceeding may have the effect upon its adoption

by the Board of granting or denying a variance from the Board’s

regulations.

This

is true whether a variance petition is con-

solidated with an enforcement complaint or whether

it

is

docketed alone.

The Board’s Order of April

4,

1975 consoli-

dating PCB 75-44 with PCB 75—13

“for hearing and decision”

does not have the effect of altering the respective burdens

of proof attendant upon the respective proponents.

The Stipulation in this matter

is material to the

enforce-

ment proceeding only insofar as

it states other than facts.

The Board does accept stipulations

in variance proceedings, but

their effect

is limited to the facts involved and not the merits

of granting or denying a variance.

In enforcement proceedings,

neither Complainant nor Respondent

need plead the detailed

35—36 1

---

—2—

facts in the Board’s Procedural Rule 401(a),

and the Environ-

mental Protection Agency

is not required to file recommenda-

tions.

It is to be noted that the Board’s Procedural Rules

provide for a particular settlement procedure

in enforcement

proceedings but are silent about settlements in variance pro-

ceedings.

Paragraph 20 of

the Stipulation conditions effect of the

settlement

of the enforcement proceeding upon the Board’s gran-

ting

a variance from Rule 703(a)

of its Water Regulations.

Paragraph 21 details conditions to be applied to such proposed

variance.

Neither paragraph can be given effect by the Board.

The Board finds that the record in the variance petition

herein, PCB 75—44,

is insufficient for purposes of enabling a

decision.

The proposed settlement agreement by the parties

will he immaterial

to that record as

it does not constitute

the pleading of facts.

However, the Board will not disallow

stipulations by Petitioner to facts.

The Stipulation is rejected for the additional reason that

it imposes

a contingent,

future penalty and provides for a sus-

pension of penalty, or a “credit”.

The Board does not favor

such provisions.

ORDER

It

is the Order of the Pollution Control

Board that:

1)

The Stipulation submitted in the consolidated matters

PCB 75—13 and PCB 75—44

is rejected.

2)

The consolidated matters PCB 75—13 and

PCL3 75—44 are

hereby severed

for all purposes for the expeditious

determination of claims and in the interest of conven-

ience, with further hearings to be conducted as may be

necessary to complete the records.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, he~y certify the a ove Interim Order was

adopted ,~nthe~b

day of

_________________,

1979 by a

Christan L.

Mo fe

erk

Illinois Pollution

trol Board

35—362