ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 17, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

V.

)

#72—288

ACME SOLVENTS RECLAIMING, INC.,

a corporation and VITO PUMILIA

)

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.)

On July 7, 1972, complaint was filed by the Environmental

Protection Agency against Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc., a corpor-

ation and Vito Pumilia, alleging operation of a refuse disposal and

landfill site in Winnebago County, which operation allegedly violated

certain provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the

Rules for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities. The case was referred

to a hearing officer on July 28, 1972.

Hearing was originally set for September 5, 1972 and continued

to September 25, 1972. After an unrecorded colloquy between the

Assistant Attorney General, counsel for respondents,.and the hearing

officer with respect to the violations alleged and the possibility

of compliance, hearing was begun and testimony taken relative to

certain aspects of the respondents’ operation. On the basis of what

appears to be an agreement between the Assistant Attorney General

and counsel for respondents, premised on the possibility of ultimate

compliance, the hearing officer continued the case to April 2, 1973.

The foregoing procedure is wholly contrary to approved practice

before the Board and must be vacated and set aside. If respondents

concede the violation, this should be embodied in a stipulation and

submitted

to the Board for approval, at which time the subject of

penalties may be considered on the basis of the agreed facts. If

a variance is sought by lèspondent in order to bring its operation

into compliance within a reasonable period of time, petition for such

variance should be filed pursuant to the Rules of the Board, which

proceeding could be consolidated with the enforcement case, record

made

and

the

entire matter disposed of in an orderly fashion. If

the parties do not elect to pursue either of the foregoing procedures,

the case should go to trial, transcript and record prepared, which

when

submitted to the Board, will enable an appropriate decision to

be

rendered. A six-month continuance allegedly enabling the Respondent

to bring

its

operation into compliance in effect divests the Board

5

—

695

---

of its jurisdiction already established and is completely

antithetical

to recognized practice and procedures that have

maintained before the Board during the two years of its operation.

Cf. Environmental Protection Agency v. Ralston Purina Co., #71-88,

Preliminary Order dated November 23, 1971.

This opinion constitutes

the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the BoarO.

IT IS

THE

ORDER of the Pollution Control Board, as follows:

The September 25, 1972 Order of the Hearing Officer, con-

tinuing the hearing to April 2, 1973, is vacated and set aside.

The Hearing Officer shall, upon receipt of this Order, set a new

date for hearing that shall not be in excess of thirty days from

the date of this Order, prior to which date the Respondent may file

a petition for variance, which if not dismissed by the Board,shall

be consolidated with the pending enforcement action, or, alterna-

tively, the parties may submit a stipulation for settlement of the

cause for disposition by

the

Board.

The Board shall enter such

further Orders upon receipt of the foregoing documents as shall be

appropriate.

If neither a variance petition nor stipulation are

received within the 30-day period

above provided, the. Hearing

Offi-

cer shall proceed with hearing on the complaint on the new hearing

date set pursuant to this Order.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution, Control Board,

certify that the above Order wa~adopted on the

/ 7 ~

day of

October, 1972, by a vote of ~) to Ci~

~~

—2—

5

—

696