ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

 30, 1990

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

V.

)

 AC 90—27

IEPA No.147—90—AC

(Administrative Citation)

JOHNSON

BLACKWELL,

)

Respondent.

ORDER

THE

BOARD

(by

Marlin):

This matter

before

the

Board

the

June

27,

1990

Motion

to Reconsider or Vacate the Default Order of May 24,

 1990 filed

by the respondent,

 Johnson Blackwell.

 The administrative

citation against the respondent was filed by the Agency on April

9,

 1990.

 In support of his motion,

 respondent states that after

the inspection of his property he “was lead to believe that no

action would be taken against me until after June

1,

 1990,

because

 I agreed to comply.”

Respondent agreed to comply at an Agency initiated “Pre-

Enforcement Conference”

 (conference)

 The letter from the Agency

establishing the date and time of the conference stated that the

Agency’s intent was to “refer this matter to the Attorney

General’s Office for the filing of a formal complaint.

 Prior to

taking such action, however, you are requested to attend a Pre—

Enforcement Conference”.

 This letter did not mention the

administrative citation enforcement mechanism under which this

matter was brought.

 At the conference the respondent and the

Agency discussed and agreed to a compliance program for clean up

of the site by June

1,

 1990.

 The compliance program was detailed

in

 a letter from the Agency to the respondent.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

 (Agency)

 filed

a response to the motion to vacate on July

12,

 1990.

 The Agency

contends that it agreed not to file any “formal enforcement”

action but that there were no agreement concerning any

administrative enforcement action.

The respondent filed a response to the Agency’s response on

July 25,

 1990.

 Pursuant to the Board’s Procedural Rules,

 35 Iii.

Adm.

 Code

 101.241(c),

 a moving person shall not have the right to

reply except

 if permitted to prevent material prejudice.

Th~

Board does not find that material prejudice will result and will

not consider this response in

 its opinion.

I ~

According to the two pleadings before the Board, the

sequence of events leading up to the motion for reconsideration

are as follows:

March

6,

1990

 Inspection by Agency personnel.

April

3,

1990

 Respondent receives “Pre—Enforcement

Conference Letter” from Agency.

 Letter

establishes meeting date of April

16,

 1990,

states Agency’s intent to file with the

Attorney General and does not mention the

administrative citation enforcement

mechanism.

April

9,

1990

 Respondent receives Administrative Citation

in mail.

April

13,

1990

 Agency files Administrative Citation with

Pollution Control Board.

April

16,

1990

 Respondent attends pre-enforcement

conference with Agency personnel to “discuss

the validity of the apparent violation(s)

and to arrive at a program to eliminate

existing and/or future violation(s)”.

April

17,

1990

 Agency writes a letter, addressed to

respondent and stating the “terms of the

compliance program” which were “discussed

and agreed to at the conference”.

 These

terms

 include a final date of June

1,

1990

for clean up.

May 13, 1990

 Final date for filing an appeal of the

administrative citation with the Board.

May 24,

1990

 Board meeting in Chicago.

 Default Order

issued against respondent.

 Fine of

$1,500.00.

June

1,

1990

 Agreed upon final date for clean up of site.

June 13,

1990

 Reinspection of site.

June 27,

1990

 Respondent files timely motion of

reconsideration with the Board.

July 12, 1990

 Agency response to respondent’s motion filed

with the Board.

Section

 31.1(a)

 of the Environmental Protection Act

 (Act)

states that violations of Section 21(p)

 or 21(q)

 “shall be

enforceable either by an administrative citation under this

Section or as otherwise provided by this Act.”

 (emphasis added)

The Agency has several methods for handling an alleged violation:

file an administrative citation

 (Section 31.1),

 or seek voluntary

compliance

 formally (per Section 31(d))

 or informally

 (through

agreement)

 Failure to achieve voluntary compliance under the

pre—enforcement process of Section 31(d)

 of the Act

 is normally

followed by a formal enforcement action under Section 31(a)

of

the Act. A plain reading of the statute indicates that the

General Assembly did not intend that a citizen be charged for the

same violation under both the administrative citation provisions

and the formal enforcement provisions of the Act.

11

!~-~(~fl

The administrative citation process is designed for prompt

 and efficient enforcement of a limited number of the Act’s

provisions as compared to the more lengthy and widely used formal

enforcement process provided by the Act.

 The Board has found in

previous cases that the expeditious nature of the administrative

enforcement process is greatly slowed by the simultaneous use of

different methods for handling an alleged violation.

 This

simultaneous use causes confusion with citizens unfamiliar with

the Act and its enforcement mechanisms.

 IEPA v.

 Adolph La, AC

89—191,

 December 6,

 1989;

 IEPA v. Gary W. Jacobs,

 AC 89—237,

December

6,

 1989; IEPA v. James Lauranzana, AC 89-202,

 December

20,

 1989.

 The citizen respondents

 in those cases believed that

the clean up agreements with the Agency removed the threat of an

enforcement action and relieved them of the duty to respond to

the administrative citation.

Simultaneous use also affects the efficiency of the

administrative citation enforcement when the Agency files with

the Board and then is prompted to move to dismiss because

informal pre—enforcentent action has resulted in clean up of the

site.

 IEPA v. Kissner Company, AC 89-247,

 February

8,

 1990; IEPA

v.

 City of Freeport, AC 89-153, January 11,

 1990; IEPA v. John

Buns,

 Jr.,

 AC 89—147,

 November 2,

 1989;

 IEPA v. Raymond Tanqman,

 AC 89—210, November

2,

 1989.

In this matter, the April

3,

 1990 letter from the Agency

expressly stated the Agency’s intention to file a formal

complaint with the Attorney General and includes a statement that

the letter constitutes the notice required under Section 31(d)

of

the Act for filing a formal complaint.

 The same letter also

begins an informal pre-enforcement action.

 On April

9,

 1990 the

Agency filed with the Board and served upon the respondent the

administrative citation for the same violations referred to in

the April

3,

 1990 letter.

 The Board finds that in light of the

Agency’s stated intention and notification to the respondent to

pursue formal enforcement, the administrative citation in this

matter was issued improperly.

 The Default Order of May 24,

1990

is vacated and this matter is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Board members

3.

 Theodore Meyer and B. Forcade dissented.

I,

 Dorothy M.

 Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify t~atthe above Order was adopted on the

5o’~

 day of

_______________,

 1990, by a vote of

Dorothy

M.

 Gt)z~n, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

114—391