ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February
    3,
    1994
    TWOMEY COMPANY,
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 92—199
    )
    (UST Fund)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by E. Dunham):
    On January
    5,
    1994, Twomey Company (Twomey)
    filed a status
    report in response to the Board’s December 2,
    1993 order.
    The
    status report was accompanied by a motion to file instanter as
    the status report was filed one day after the date specified in
    the Board order.
    The Board grants Twomey’s motion to file
    instanter and accepts the status report.
    The Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (Agency) did not file a status report.
    Twomey notes that in April 1993 it met with the Agency and
    that a tentative settlement had been reached.
    However, the
    Agency requested additional documentation on some issues.
    On
    April 23,
    1993, Twomey provided the Agency with the additional
    documentation as requested.
    Twomey sent several follow—up
    letters to the Agency, but did not receive a reply from the
    Agency.
    On September 27,
    1993, Twomey received a message from
    the attorney for the Agency that the settlement agreement had
    been approved.
    However,
    a finalized settlement agreement has nt
    been received by Twomey.
    Twomey contends that the Agency has significantly delayed
    settlement in this matter through its lack of response.
    Tworaey
    also notes that it has expended a great deal of time and expensc
    in pursuing this matter.
    Twomey requests the Board to compel the
    Agency to adhere to the terms of the settlement and to pay Twolney
    the sum of $11,054.56.
    Twomey also requests the Board to order
    the Agency to pay Twomey’s attorney fees incurred due to the
    Agency’s delay and failure to respond.
    In the alternative,
    Twomey requests that the Board set a hearing to determine the
    basis for the Agency’s delay or a hearing on the merits in this
    matter.
    The Board has previously acknowledged that the “law favors
    settlements”.
    (See People v. Kershaw, PCB 92—164,
    (Order of
    August 26,
    1993 on reconsideration at p.
    6 and cases cited
    therein.)
    However, the Board lacks authority to compel the
    Agency to adhere to the terms of the settlement where there is no
    signed settlement agreement.
    Accordingly, the Board denies
    2
    Twomey’s request to compel the Agency to adhere to the terms of
    the settlement agreement.
    Twomey also requests that the Board order the Agency to
    pay
    Twomey’s attorney fees incurred due to the Agency’s failure to
    respond to this matter pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.
    101.280 and
    pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/57.8(1).
    Twomey is seeking an award of
    attorney fees based on sanctions and on a new amendment to the
    Act found in Title XVI.
    The Board finds no basis to award attorney fees as sanctions
    at this time.
    Pursuant to section 101.280 of the Act, the Board
    will impose sanctions
    if either party unreasonably refuses to
    comply with the Board’s procedural rules or order of the Board or
    its hearing officer.
    The Agency has not violated a Board order
    or a procedural rule by its failure to finalize the settlement
    agreement or respond to Twomey’s requests.
    The Agency has
    however violated the Board’s order of December 2,
    1993, by not
    filing a status report by January
    3,
    1994, as ordered.
    As for Twomey’s claim for attorney fees under section
    57.8(1)
    of the Act, the Board finds no reasoning for the relief
    requested.
    Attorney fees are only available under section
    57.8(1)
    should Twomey prevail before the Board,
    in which case
    the
    Board ~
    authorize payment of legal fees.
    In addition, no
    transition election pursuant to section 57.13(b)
    is
    in the record
    and corrective action has already been performed at the site.
    Therefore relief under Title XVI, which was adopted on September
    13,
    1993,
    is not available.
    Accordingly, the Board denies
    Twomey’s request for attorney fees.
    Twomey further requests that the Board set this matter for
    hearing on the merits.
    The Board instructs the hearing officer
    to set this matter for hearing after consultation with the
    parties.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Contro’.
    Board,~do hereby cer±4fythat the above order was adopted on th~
    ~
    ~
    day of
    ,
    1994, by a vote of
    (I
    Dorothy M.
    Illinois
    Clerk
    ~ution Control Board

    Back to top