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

    Back to top