ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 26,

1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS,

Complainants,

v.

)

PCB 74—226

COLLIER CARBON AND CHEMICAL

CORPORATION,

a California

Corporation,

Respondents.

INTERIM

ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

This matter comes before us on a Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement of an Enforcement case filed by the Attorney

General on June 14,

1974.

We find that Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement unacceptable.

The Complaint and Amended Complaint in this matter allege

significant air pollution violations on the part of Respondents.

In addition,

citizen testimony

—-

more in the nature, actually,

of additional complaints

--

indicate that emission problems

connected with Respondents’ operations may result in grave

damage to person and property.

The proposed settlement here makes allowance for the

payment of monies

($6,000.00) by Respondent to the State,

without any admission of violation.

But more importantly, the

proposed settlement here does not contain any definite proposal

for the abatement of any existing problems.

Instead, the

Proposed Settlement merely calls for extensive monitoring of

emissions from the Collier plant, and allows for the possibility

of future negotiations between the parties based on mutual

evaluation of monitoring results.

Nowhere does the Proposed

Settlement set forth any definite commitment on the part of

Respondents

to eliminate any excessive emissions from its

operations.

19—309

---

—2—

The purpose of enforcement proceedings before this Board

is to achieve and assure compliance with the aims and goals

of the Environmental Protection Act, and the Regulations which

we have enacted thereunder.

Indeed,

as the Appellate Courts

have often told us,

the purpose of the penalty provision of the

Act

is to assure compliance with the Act’s ultimate goals.

Where,

as

here,

there is provision for a “penalty” in settlement

of an enforcement case, without any showing that the problems

leading to that enforcement case have been or will be abated,

the Settlement fails to show that the purposes of the Act will

have been achieved.

Where,

as here,

there is a requirement in

the proposed Settlement that the case be dismissed with prejudice,

without a showing that the goals of the Act will have been

achieved, such a Proposed Settlement is unacceptable.

The matter is remanded to the Hearing Officer for further

proceedings to determine:

1.

whether there has in fact been a problem

with emissions from Respondents’

facility; and

2.

whether any such problem has been or shall

be abated, under any further settlement attempts.

The matter is remanded to the Hearing Officer for further

proceedings consistent with this Interim Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Interim Order was

~

day of

___________

1975 by a vote

Illinois Pol