ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 5,
    1989
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    AC 88-24
    81—STATE DISPOSAL,
    INC.
    )
    AC 88-33
    Docket
    A
    Respondent.
    )
    ORDER
    OF THE BOARD
    (by M.
    Nardufli):
    On January
    3,
    1988, Bi-State Disposal
    filed
    a Consolidated Request for
    Reconsideration and Clarification
    in the above-caption?
    matter.
    The Board
    hereby grants the motion for reconsideration to clarify
    its Opinion and Order
    and in
    so doing stands
    by
    its decision
    in the Opinion and Order.
    The first
    argument presented by
    the Respondent
    is that the Respondent had
    requested hearing
    on the Administrative Citations issued by the County
    of
    St.
    Clair.
    This hearing was scheduled for September 8, 1988.
    Bi-State maintains
    that no hearings were ever held on these Administrative Citations, but at the
    election
    of the County
    of
    St. Clair,
    a new proceeding was initiated concerning
    the Amended Administrative Citation presented by the county
    at hearing on
    September 8, 1988.
    Bi-State maintains that because
    it
    agreed
    to
    pay the fine
    to dispose
    of the Amended Administrative Citation, did
    not seek
    a hearing
    on
    the Amended Administrative Citation and did not receive
    a hearing
    on the
    original Administrative Citation,
    it should not be assessed hearing costs
    in
    the matter.
    The Board disagrees with Bi—State’s assessment that
    it did not receive
    a
    hearing
    on the original Administrative Citations as
    it had
    requested.
    The
    hearing
    on September 8,
    1938, was
    in fact, held on the Administrative
    Citations as
    requested by
    the Respondent.
    At hearing, these Administrative
    Citations were amended to eliminate certain
    counts
    in the complaint.
    The
    amendments
    to
    the original citations were made on
    a joint motion
    of the
    parties
    (R.
    6).
    The hearing officer clearly indicated that he was
    acting
    on
    the motion by withdrawing or excluding the counts
    from the original
    administrative citations
    as
    requested in the joint motion, and then forwarding
    the proposed settlement of the original administrative citations
    to the Board
    (R.
    8).
    This is distinctively different from the Respondent’s
    characterization of the hearing officer’s action
    as failing to hold
    a hearing
    on the Administrative Citation and instead holding
    a hearing
    on the Amended
    Administrative Citation.
    The Respondent was given the hearing he requested
    and
    had the opportunity to present arguments against the counts
    in the
    Administrative Citations.
    The fact that Bi—State chose to enter into an
    agreement
    and file
    a joint motion to amend instead of using the forum to prove
    its innocence or justify
    its action does not excuse
    it
    from paying hearing
    costs
    imposed by the Board.
    The other arguments presented by Bi—State
    is that there
    is
    no basis
    for
    an award
    of hearing cost to the County
    of
    St.
    Clair because Section 42(b)(4)
    of the Act only provides
    for assessment
    of
    “hearing costs
    incurred by
    the
    Q5—39
    -2-
    Board and the Agency.”
    However, Section 4(r)
    of the Act allows
    the Agency to
    delegate
    its inspecting, investigating and enforcement function to any unit of
    local
    government.
    The Agency has delegated its authority
    in this matter to
    the County of St. Clair.
    Therefore,
    in this matter, the County of St. Clair
    is
    in the position of the Agency and acts as the legal
    representative of the
    Agency.
    The hearing costs
    incurred by the County of St. Clair should
    therefore be reimbursed by the Respondent and given
    to
    the Illinois General
    Revenue Fund as directed
    in the Opinion and Order.
    The Board upholds
    its
    Opinion and Order
    in this matter.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy M Gunn,
    Clerk
    of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby
    certify
    at the above Order was
    adopted
    on the
    ~
    day
    of _________________________,
    1989,
    by
    a vote of
    O~t~7~
    ~4~’
    Dorothy M. ~
    Clerk,
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    95—90

    Back to top