.
.
.
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
17—93