ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 1, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
AMERICAN WASTE PROCESSING, LTD.,
an Illinois Corporation,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 96-264
(Enforcement - RCRA)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by E. Dunham):
On July 12, 1996, American Waste Processing (American Waste) filed a “Motion to
Dismiss in Lieu of Answer”.
1
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a
response to the motion on July 22, 1996.
American Waste asserts that the matters alleged in the complaint occurred between
October 21, 1982 and September 29, 1995, when respondent was issued a Part B permit for its
facility. American Waste maintains that these matters were compromised and settled and all
alleged violations, which respondent denies, were merged into the permit. American Waste
contends that this action is a violation of the settlement and compromise. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency in an April 18, 1995 letter to American Waste recognized
that all previous violations have been resolved. American Waste contends that the Agency has
compromised and waived the issues it now seeks to raise in the complaint.
The Agency characterizes the motion as arguing that the doctrines of
res judicata
and
equitable estoppel bar the complaint. The Agency maintains that the issuance of the Part B
permit did not absolve respondent of any past violations. The Agency argues that American
Waste has not plead sufficient facts to establish equitable estoppel. In addition, the Agency
contends that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is not to be applied to public bodies except in
compelling circumstances. (Tri-County Landfill Co. v. IPCB, 41 Ill. App. 3d 249, 255, 353
N.E. 2d 316, 322 (1976)(citations omitted).) The Agency asserts that the doctrine of
res
judicata
is not applicable because the alleged violations have not been previously settled or
otherwise purged. The Agency further asserts that respondent is incorrect in asserting that the
complaint is untimely because the complaint contains only past violations.
The Board hereby denies respondent’s motion to dismiss. Respondent has not provided
any proof of settlement with the Agency and its motion to dismiss was not supported by
1
The Notice of Filing states that “Respondent’s Answer to Complaint’s Complaint” is being
filed.
2
affidavit. While American Waste maintains that the alleged violations were compromised and
settled, it has not provided any documentation of the terms of that agreement. The issuance of
a Part B permit by itself or subsequent compliance with the regulations does not impede the
Agency from bringing an enforcement action for past violations.
Respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied. Respondent is granted leave of the
Board to file its answer to the complaint on or before August 30, 1996
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
the above order was adopted on the _____ day of ___________, 1996, by a vote of
______________.
___________________________________
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board