ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 26,
    1991
    JEFFERSON SNURFIT CORPORATION,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 88—175
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONI’4ENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by B.
    Forcade):
    On September
    6,
    1991, Jefferson Smurfit Corporation
    (“Smurfit”)
    and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agencyt’)
    filed a Joint Notion for Agreed Order.
    That motion
    requests that the Board remand this matter back to the Agency.
    The motion appears to contain language which will obligate the
    Agency to pursue particular matters in reissuance of a permit
    pertaining to boron limitations,
    iron content of storm water,
    and
    Agency development of compliance plans.
    The Board will grant the
    remand,
    but will not adopt any obligations concerning the remand.
    To adopt such conditions would be tantamount to accepting a
    settlement agreement
    in a permit appeal without
    a hearing on the
    merits.
    The Board has previously articulated its reluctance to
    accept settlement agreements
    in both permit appeals and
    variances.
    As it pertains to variances,
    see Rowe Foundry &
    Machine Company v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 81-49,
    51 PCB 89; Olin Corporation
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 81-117,
    45 PCB 415; Container Corporation of America
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 87-183,
    Interim Order,
    June
    2,
    1988; and R.R.
    Donnelley
    &
    Sons,
    v.
    IEPA, PCB 88-79, February 23,
    1989.
    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 judgement 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
    126—263
    2
    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;
    Motorola v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 89—193,
    October 25,
    1990; and General
    Electric Company v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 90-65, September 12,
    1991.
    Where, as here, the parties seek to implement an Agreed
    Order containing both technical and legal conditions the above
    stated concerns are relevant. Therefore the Board will adopt a
    simple remand Order.
    This matter is remanded to the Agency and this docket is
    closed.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby cert4~,fythat the above Order was adopted on
    ~
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1991,
    by a vote of
    ~
    Dorothy M4kunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois ~ôl1ution
    Control Board
    126—2 64

    Back to top