ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 8,
    1993
    COUNTY OF OGLE,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    V.
    )
    AC 91—45
    Dockets A
    & B
    (County No.
    91-R—1003)
    ROCHELLE DISPOSAL SERVICE,
    )
    (Administrative Citation)
    INC.,
    and CITY OF ROCHELLE,
    )
    ILLINOIS,
    Respondents.
    ORDER
    OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    C. Marlin):
    This matter is before the Board on a motion for
    reconsideration of the Board’s January 7,
    1993 order in this
    matter.’
    The motion was filed on February 8,
    1993,
    by respondent
    Rochelle Disposal, Inc.
    (Disposal).
    The City of Rochelle did not
    join in the motion or file its own motion for reconsideration.
    The County of Ogle
    (County) did not file a response.
    In its motion for reconsideration, Disposal makes three
    arguments.
    First, Disposal argues that the only credible direct
    evidence concerning the alleged violations demonstrates that
    Disposal complied with the daily cover requirement.
    (Motion at
    1.)
    Next,
    Disposal argues that contrary to the Board’s June 4,
    1992 order, Disposal should not be subject to enforcement actions
    under the Environmental Protection Act (Act).
    (Motion at 4.)
    (415 ILCS 5/01 g~.
    ~.
    (1992).)
    Finally, Disposal argues that
    the Board should decrease the amount of money Disposal is
    required to pay under docket B of this action.
    (Motion at 7.)
    The Board hereby grants Disposal’s motion for reconsideration in
    order to address arguments one and three.
    The issues raised by Disposal in argument two of its motion
    specifically address the Board’s June 4,
    1992 order.
    (See,
    motion at 4.)
    Disposal’s motion does not raise any new issues of
    law or fact.
    Therefore, the Board denies Disposal’s motion for
    reconsideration with respect to argument two.
    DOCKET A
    The Board now moves to Disposal’s first argument.
    In its
    ‘Citations to the Board’s January
    7,
    1993 opinion will be
    opinion at.
    01
    L~
    I-UI
    L~5
    2
    motion, Disposal argues that the only credible direct evidence in
    this action demonstrates that Disposal did comply with the daily
    cover requirements at the landfill.
    (Mot.
    at 1.)
    Additionally,
    Disposal argues that the violation may not be inferred from
    circumstantial evidence when the existence of another fact
    inconsistent with the violation can be inferred with equal
    certainty from the same evidence.
    (Mot.
    at 2.)
    In support of
    this argument Disposal cites,
    Royal Elm Nursinc~v. Northern
    Illinois Gas Co.,
    172 Ill. App.
    3d 74,
    526 N.E.2d 376,
    122 Ill.
    Dec. 117
    (1st Dist.
    1988).
    The Board notes that Disposal does
    not raise any new issues of fact.
    The Board disagrees with Disposal’s argument that a
    violation may not be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
    The
    Illinois Supreme Court
    in Mort v. Walter,
    98 Ill. 2d 382,
    457
    N.E.2d
    9,
    75 Ill.
    Dec. 219
    (1983),
    stated:
    The use of circumstantial evidence is not limited to
    those instances in which the circumstances support only
    one logical conclusion.
    Instead, circumstantial
    evidence will suffice whenever an inference may
    reasonably be drawn therefrom.
    citations
    omitted
    (98 Iii. 2d at 396.)
    Additionally,
    in People v. Robinson,
    14 Ill. 2d 325,
    153 N.E.2d
    65
    (1958), the Supreme Court stated that,
    “the law makes no legal
    distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as to the
    weight and effect thereof.”
    (14 Ill.
    2d at 331.)
    Recently,
    in
    Moore v.
    Swoboda,
    213 Ill. App.
    3d 217, 571
    N.E.2d 1056,
    157 Ill.
    Dec.
    37
    (4th Dist.
    1991), the fourth
    district declined to follow Royal Elm because the appellate court
    concluded that Royal Elm supported a result contrary to the
    unequivocal holding of the Supreme Court in Mort.
    Therefore, based upon the applicable case law,
    the Board
    reaffirms its opinion and order of January
    7,
    1993.
    DOCKET B
    Section 42(b)(4)
    of the Act provides that any person found
    in violation of an administrative citation
    (AC) provision shall
    pay a fine of $500.00 per violation plus any hearing costs
    incurred by the Agency and the Board.
    On January 7,
    1993, the
    Board found respondents in violation of Section 21(o) (5)
    of the
    Act and imposed a penalty of $500.00.
    The Board also directed
    the Clerk of the Board and the Agency to file statements of costs
    within 30 days of the January 7,
    1993 opinion and order.
    On
    January 14,
    1993 the Clerk of the Board filed a statement of
    costs totaling $739.37.
    The Agency did not file a statement of
    ~
    L~
    1-01 i~6
    3
    costs in this matter.
    Disposal’s third argument in its motion
    for reconsideration is an objection to these costs.
    The Board
    notes that no objection to docket B costs was filed by the City
    of Rochelle.
    Disposal objects to $396.00 of the Board’s costs which were
    incurred for the hiring of a shorthand reporter and preparation
    and delivery to the Board of a hearing transcript.
    Disposal
    argues in its motion that because it paid for its own copy of the
    transcript that it should not be required to pay for the Board’s
    copy.
    (Mot. at 7.)
    The Board is required to base its decision
    on a transcribed record and Disposal’s access to a transcript
    is
    not relevant to the Board’s own needs.
    Additionally, Disposal seems to believe that because the
    Board requires
    7 copies of the transcript that the costs include
    those seven copies.
    (Mot.
    at 7.)
    The $396.00 incurred by the
    Board was the total cost of hiring a court reporter and receiving
    one copy of the transcript.
    It is the Board’s practice to make
    the additional six copies of the transcripts in AC cases at the
    Board offices.
    The additional amount of $343.37 in hearing costs
    to the Board resulted from the costs of hiring a hearing officer
    for the hearing in this matter.
    The Board finds that the Clerk’s statement of costs totaling
    $739.37 accurately reflects the hearing costs incurred by the
    Board.
    Therefore, the total hearing costs of $739.37 ae are
    assessed against the respondents, Rochelle Disposal and the City
    of Rochelle.
    This constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in docket B of this matter.
    ORDER
    1)
    It is hereby ordered that within 30 days of the date of
    this order, the City of Rochelle and Rochelle Disposal Inc.
    shall,
    by certified check or money order payable to the State of
    Illinois and designated for deposit in the General Revenue Fund,
    pay as compensation for hearing costs incurred by the Board,
    the
    amount of $739.37 which is to be sent to
    :
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, IL 62706
    2)
    Docket B is hereby closed.
    OIL~I-UIL~7
    4
    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.
    (But see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    101.246, Motions for Reconsideration, and Castenada v. Illinois
    Human Rights Commission
    (1989),
    132 Ill.
    2d 304, 547 N.E.2d 437
    and Strube v.
    Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    No.
    3-92-0468,
    slip op.
    at 4—5
    (3d Dist. March
    15,
    1993).)
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that~theabove order was adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ~
    c~
    ,
    1993, by a vote of
    _________________________
    .
    /
    /
    /
    L
    ~
    ~
    ‘~
    ~
    ~Dorothy
    M. Gu~in,~Clerk
    Illinois Pol1ut~ionControl Board
    ‘I
    01
    L~.
    I-U It~8

    Back to top