ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November
    4,
    1993
    COUNTY OF OGLE,
    )
    Complainant,
    v
    )
    AC 92—64
    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 September 21,
    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 92—64
    (Docket A
    & B), August 26, 1993.
    On
    October
    14,
    1993,
    Disposal filed an amended motion for
    reconsideration accompanied with a motion to file instanter.
    The
    Board grants the motion to file instanter and the amended motion
    for reconsideration.
    On September 10, 1992, 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 92-64,
    dated August
    26,
    1993,
    found Disposal
    in violation of
    Section 21(0) (5)
    of the Act for lack of daily cover.
    Pursuant to
    Section 42
    of the Act the Board assessed
    a fine of five hundred
    dollars
    ($500.00)
    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
    2
    In the Matter of: Bi—State Disposal,
    Inc.,
    (February 23,
    1989), AC
    88-33, County of DuPage v.
    E
    & E Hauling, Inc.,
    (February 8, 1990),
    AC 88—76 and AC 88—77;
    SangaTnon County v
    Gerald
    13. 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
    five hundred dollar penalty ($500.00).
    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
    issued
    administrative
    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
    14,
    1993 amended
    motion
    for reconsideration but
    affirms
    its order
    of August
    26,
    1993,
    assessing hearing costs
    incurred by the County and a civil
    penalty of five hundred dollars
    ($500.00).
    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
    M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that
    the
    above
    order
    was
    adopted
    on the
    1,Z~
    day of ______________________,
    1993,~bya vote
    of
    _______•
    ~
    Dorothy N.,-~unn,Clerk
    Illinois 1?Øllution Control Board

    Back to top