ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 8, 1976

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 75—190

GRIFFITH LABORATORIES,

Respondent.

INTERIM ORDER OF

THE

BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):

Pursuant to Motion in Complainant’s Brief, the Board finds the

record in this matter inadequate, and remands the matter to the

Hearing Officer for further proceedings on the merits.

The record in the matter is neither clear nor correct. We find

that:

1. The Hearing Officer committed serious error in his dismis-

al of Count II of the Complaint. Such dismissal is wholly outside

the Hearing Of ficer~s authority. Involuntary dismissal authority,

as to either parties or Complaint pleadings, lies only with the Board.

At further hearing, the Hearing Officer shall decide whether the

allegations of Count II are now proved by sanction, or otherwise on

the pleadings. If so, relevant evidence may be admitted as regards

§S

31(c), 33(c) of the Environmental Protection Act, or otherwise

in

mitigation or aggravation. If not, relevant evidence may be admitted

on the merits as well.

2. In light of the sanctions imposed by the Hearing Officer

concerning Requests for Admission and Interrocjatories by Complainant,

it is not clear whether the hearing Officer’s admission into the

record of Answers to Requests for Admission and Answers to Inter—

rogatories (including those filed after hearing) by Respondent were

for purposes of our consideration ~KT~e merits, for use in aggra-

vation or mitigation, or our consideration under § 33(c) of the Act,

CR. 223). This needs clarification.

3. The exact nature of the sanctions which were imposed by

the Hearing Officer pursuant to our Interim Order of Dec. 4, 1975,

is not clear. It is clear that, vis—a—vis the Requests for Admission,

Count I of the Complaint stands admitted by sanctions, (letter,

filed Jan. 22, 1976 by Hearing Officer). How the sanctions extend,

or do not extend, into matters raised by Complainant’s Interroga—

tories, and hence affect our consideration of § 33(c) in light of

such admission, is not clear. The same clarification is needed for

Count III.

21

—23

---

—2--

4. The Hearing Officer’s statement that “Count III stands

admitted in fact,” (letter, filed Jan. 22, 1976 by Hearing Officer),

appears to be an improper judgement on the merits of the case.

5. The Hearing Officer’s various statements on the quality

of Complainant’s evidence are improper findings on the merits.

At further hearing, the Hearing Officer will clearly delineate

on the record the full and final extent of the sanctions thus far

imposed. He shall additionally show the extent to which he has

admitted to the Record Respondent’s Answers to Requests for Admission

and Answers to Interrogatories. Additional testimony or other evi-

dence shall be admitted on those remaining issues not foreclosed by

sanction. The Hearing Officer shall require briefs on the issue of

the effect of sanctions on our consideration of the factors in

§33(c)

of the Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certi y the above Interim Order was adopted

on the ~

day of

‘

,

1976, by a vote of

___________

Christan L. Moffett,

k

Illinois Pollution C ol Board

21