ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    November
    4, 1993
    COUNTY
    OF
    OGLE,
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    AC 91—32
    Dockets A&B
    (Administrative Citation)
    ROCHELLE DISPOSAL SERVICE,
    INC.,
    and CITY OF ROCHELLE,
    )
    ILLINOIS,
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER
    OF
    THE BOARD
    (by C.
    A. Manning):
    This matter comes before the Board on a motion for
    reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 41 of the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Act (Act)
    on October 18, 1993, by
    Rochelle Disposal Service,
    Inc.
    (Disposal) within the statutory
    thirty—five
    (35) day deadline.
    (415 ILCS 5/40
    (1992).)
    Disposal
    is requesting the Board to reconsider the Board’s decision
    allowing for Ogle County’s hearing costs as part of the penalty
    in its order in AC 91-32
    (Docket A & B), September 23, 1993.
    On June 28,
    1991 the administrative citation action was
    initiated by the County Ogle (County) when it filed this
    administrative citation pursuant to Section 31.1 of the Act.
    (415 ILCS 5/31.1
    (1992).)
    The authority to issue administrative
    citations was delegated to the County from the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) pursuant to Section 4(r)
    of the Act.
    (415 ILCS 5/4(r)
    (1992).)
    The Board in its order in
    AC 91-32, dated September 23,
    1993,
    found
    Disposal in violation
    of Section 21(o) (1) and 21(o) (12) of the Act for refuse in
    standing water and failure to collect and contain litter from the
    site by the end of each operating day.
    Pursuant to Section 42 of
    the Act the Board assessed a fine of one thousand dollars
    ($1000.00) and opened Docket B to assess hearing cost incurred by
    the County,
    if any.
    (415 ILCS 5/21 and 415 ILCS 5/42
    (1992).)
    Disposal argues that Section 42 of the Act only authorizes
    the Board to assess hearing costs incurred by the Board or the
    Agency.
    (415 ILCS 5/42
    (1992).)
    In addition Disposal
    argues
    that
    the Board order fails to address factors of mitigation which
    could reduce the amount of civil penalty.
    The
    Board
    has
    addressed
    the
    issue of whether it is
    appropriate
    to
    assess
    hearing
    costs incurred
    by
    the
    local
    unit
    of
    government
    in
    In
    the
    Matter
    of:
    Bi—State DisDosal,
    Inc.,
    (February
    23,
    1989),
    AC 88—33; County of DuPa~ev.
    E
    & E Hau1jnc~,
    2
    Inc.,
    (February 8,
    1990), AC 88-76 and AC 88-77;
    Sa~ngamonCounty
    v. Gerald B. Miller,
    (June 3,
    1993), AC 92-37
    •
    In each of these
    cases, the Board has interpreted the legislative intent and
    statutory phrase “hearing costs incurred by the Board and the
    Agency”
    found
    in
    Section
    42(b)4 of the Act, to include the
    hearing
    costs
    incurred
    by
    a
    unit
    of
    local
    government
    which
    has
    issued an administrative citation pursuant to the Agency’s
    delegation of its authority under Section 4(r)
    of the Act.
    The facts in the instant case are no different than those in
    the above mentioned cases where the Board has decided that it is
    proper to award hearing costs to the local
    unit
    of government
    that has been delegated the authority to issue administrative
    citations.
    The County has been delegated the authority to issue
    administrative citations.
    The County issued an administrative
    citation and has potentially incurred costs relating to the
    hearing.
    The
    Board finds no reason at this time to interpret the
    statutory language and intent to mean otherwise.
    As stated above, Disposal also argues that the Board order
    fails to properly address mitigating factors which would reduce
    the one thousand dollar penalty ($1000.00).
    The Board has
    addressed the issue of mitigating circumstances on several
    occasions.
    Specifically, the Board has found that the Act, by
    its terms, does not envision a properly isi~Iedadministrative
    citation being dismissed or mitigated because a person is
    cooperative after its issuance or voluntarily cleans up the site.
    (See, IEPA v. Jack Wright,
    (August 30,
    1990), AC 89—227, 114 PCB
    863 and IEPA v.
    Dennis Grubaugh,
    (October 16,
    1992), AC 92—3,
    136
    PCB 425.)
    Accordingly, the Board accepts the October 18,
    1993 motion
    for reconsideration but affirms its order of September 23,
    1993,
    assessing hearing costs incurred by the County and a civil
    penalty of one thousand dollars ($1000.00).
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
    5/41 (1992).) provides for appeal of final orders of the Board
    within 35 days.
    The rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois
    establish filing requirements.
    See also,
    35 Ill. Adm. Code
    101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, he eby certify t at the above
    rder was adopted on the
    _________
    day of ______________________,
    1993, by
    vote of
    ~orothy
    M. G~n, Clerk
    Illinois PoiAition
    Control Board

    Back to top