.

.

.

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 22

,

1975

.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

.

Complainant,

)

v.

)

PCB 74-389

BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF

)

ILLINOIS,

INC.,

a Delaware

corporation,

)

Respondent.

.

Mr. Marvin Medintz, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for the Complainant;

Mr. Richard Stables, Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.

.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Zeitlin):

.

The Complaint in this matter was filed by the Attorney

General for the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

October

25,

1974.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent

L~rowning-FerrisIndustries of Illinois,

Inc.,

a Delaware

Corporation,

(Browning-Ferris), had operated a solid waste

~vanagement site

in Cook County, Illinois without the required

crating permit from the Agency,

in violation of Rule

202

(b) (1)

of Chapter

7:

Solid Waste, of the Pollution Control

Board

(Board)

Rules and Regulations, and Section 21(b)

of

~theEnvironmental Protection Act

(Act).

Subsequently, on

U

March 28,

1975 the Attorney General filed a Motion for Leave

to file an Amended Complaint;

the Amended Complaint is

.

essentially similar to that originally filed, differing only

in that it adds an allegation of violation of Section 21(e)

of the Act by Browning-Ferris.

At

a hearing held in the matter on January 28,

1975,

U

the parties entered a Stipulation and Proposed Settlement

(Stipulation),

which forms the basis for our Opinion and findings here.

In

U

that document, Browning-Ferris stipulated that it had in

fact operated a solid waste management site without the

U

required permit from July 27,

1974,

(on which date the

operating permit requirement of Rule 202 (b) (1) for existing

U

solid waste management sites became effective), until November

1,

1974, on which date

the subject facility was permanently

.

closed.

Browning—Ferris also agreed that under the terms of

the settlement it would pay a civil penalty of $2,000 for

the admitted violation.

U

The Board finds the Stipulation and Proposed Settlement

(Stipulation)

in this matter acceptable for several reasons:

U

U

U

17—91

---

U

U

U

—2—

U

U

1.

Browning—Ferris had planned before July 27,

1974

to close the subject facility and open another solid

U

waste management site on adjacent property.

Browning—

Ferris employed consulting engineers to prepare a

U

permit application for the proposed new facility, and

it completed many other necessary arrangements for

U

opening the new facility,

also prior to July 27,

1974.

That facility was never placed in operation due to the

U

failure of Browning-Ferris to obtain the proper zoning.

2.

The parties have stipulated that after July 27, 1974

U

when the subject facility was nearly filled to capacity,

Browning-Ferris continued to operate it only on

a sharply

U

limited basis, in expectation that the proposed new

facility on adjacent property would receive the various

U

permits and zoning changes required.

U

3.

The parties have stipulated that

a primary purpose of

Browning—Ferris in continuing

to operate the old facility

U

after July 27,

1974 was to avoid laying off the three

employees who operated the old facility, who had longevity

U

of 19,

10 and

4 years with Browning-Ferris at that

facility, pending approval of the new facility.

U

4.

Browning—Ferris has, since November 1,

1974, proceeded

to apply final cover to the subject facility,

in compliance

U

with the applicable Board Regulations; that final cover

is now substantially completed.

U

These factors allow the Board to accept the Stipulation

U

in this matter, and provide

a sufficient basis for our

finding of violation and acceptance of the stipulated civil

U

penalty.

U

Turning now to procedural matters,

we must deal with

the Attorney General’s Motion for Leave to file an Amended

U

Complaint.

Browning—Ferris objected in

a pleading filed

before the Board on April

2,

1975,

to the Attorney General’s

Motion insofar as the Amended Complaint continues an allegation

U

of violation of Section 21(b)

of the Act, Insofar as the

Amended Complaint,

by adding an allegation of violation of

U

Section 21

(e)

of the Act, merely conforms the pleadings to

the proof adduced at hearing and in the Stipulation,

as is

U

proper under the Board’s Procedural Rules,

the Motion will

be granted.

But in keeping with our precedent in this

U

matter the Board will dismiss that portion of that Complaint,

as amended, which alleges a violation of Section 21(b) of

U

the Act.

EPA v. E

& E Hauling, 74—473

(March 26,

1975).

U

U

U

U

17—92

U

---

—3—

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

Respondent Browning-Ferris Industries of Illinois,

Inc.,

a Delaware corporation,

is found to have operated a

solid

waste

management

site in Cook County, Illinois, from

July 27,

1974 until November 1,

1974 without the required

operating permit from the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency,

in violation of Section 21(e) of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act and Rule 202 (b) (1) of Chapter

7:

Solid Waste, of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.

2.

Respondent Browning-Ferris Industries of Illinoi~

Inc.,

shall pay as a penalty for such violations the sum of

$2,000, payment to be made by certified check or money order within

35 days of the date of this Order to:

State of Illinois

Environrii~talProtection Agency

Fiscal Services Division

2200 Churchhill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

3.

That portion of the Complaint,

as Amended,

alleginc;

violation by Respondent Browning-Ferris Industries of

Illinois,

Inc.,

of Section 21(b)

of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act,

is dismissed.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby certif~th~ the above Q~inionand

Order

were

adopted

on

the

~

~

day

of

Fi)&.._~,

1975

by

a

vote

of

~

to

p

0

Illinois Po1lüt~

1 Board