ILLINOIS POLLUTION COL~TROLBOARD

July 16,

1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

FITZ-MAR LANDFILL,

 INC.,

 AC 87-46

IEPA

NO.

 8382 AC

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by J.D.

 Dumelle):

This matter comes before

 the Board upon a May 26,

 1987,

Motion

 to Dismiss Administrative Citation

 filed by the

Respondent, Fitz—Mar Landfill,

 Inc.

 (Fitz—Mar).

 Fitz—Mar asserts

that because

 of ccncurrent actions pending

 before

 the Board

 (PCb

86—160 and PCB

 AC 87-27)

 and before the Circuit Court of Cook

County

 (No.

 87-CH-l909), all

 involving the

 same landfill,

it

would be

 an unreasonable economic hardship and fundamentally

unfair to require

it

 to litigate

all

 of the administrative and

legal proceedings because those proceedings involve the same

issues

 and facts.

On June

29,

 1987,

tne

 Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (Agency) opposed Fitz—Mar’s motion by stating that these

actions

 do not involve the same issues and facts.

 This

proceeding,

AC

 87-46,

 involves the allegation that on March

24,

1987,

 Fitz-Mar

 had uncovered

 refuse remaining from

 a previous

operating day.

 On the other

 hand, PCB 86-160

is

 an enforcement

action that ~~asfiled September

30,

 1986,

 and has not been

amended

to

 include the March 24,

 1987, violation.

 AC 87—27

is

an

administrative citation based

on

 an alleged violation occurring

on February

4,

 1987.

 The Circuit Court action,

 87—CH—1909,

is

a

two-count complaint seeking

 injunctive

 and other

 relief

for

(1)

engaging

 in a pattern and practice of continuing

 the depositing

of refuse

 in unpermitted portions of

 the Fitz-Mar Landfill,

and

(2)

 engaging

 in a pattern and practice of collecting

 and pumping

leachate and contaminants into waters within and without the

boundaries of

 its landfill

 site.

The Board

 agrees that

 these actions do not

 involve the same

precise issues and facts.

 This proceeding, AC 87—46,

 involves

the allegation

 that on

 a specific date,

 March

24,

 1987,

 Fitz-Mar

had uncovered refuse remaining from a previous operating day

in

violation

 of Section 2l(p)(5)

 of the Illinois Environmental

 Protection Act

 (Act).

 The other Board proceedings,

 PCB 86-160

and

 AC 87-27,

 allege violations on different dates and do not,

therefore, preclude the finding of

 a violation

 in this

proceeding,

87-46.

 is conceivable

 that

 the Circuit Court

action may involve similar

 issues and facts.

 That action,

79-165

—2—

however,

 seeks injunctive relief

 as well

 as penalties for

multiple days

 of violations.

 In the enforcement of the Act, the

Board

and

 the Circuit Courts have different, but concurrent

roles.

 A notable difference

 lies in the

 form of relief

requested.

 The Act does not give the Board

 the power

 to grant

injunctions.

 But the Act does grant to the Board the authority

to

 hear administrative citation cases.

 Thus,

 the Board’s

jurisdiction

 in this proceeding

 is proper.

It

 is no defense that

litigation of more than one action may cause economic hardship,

and further,

it

 is not fundamentally unfair.

 Fitz—Mar’s motion

to dismiss

 is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy

M.

 Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

 Board, herFp~certifythat

thç

 above Order was adopted on

the

 day of

~IzL_e,

 1987 by

 a vote

of

___________

7

4.

~

Dorothy

M.

 Gilnn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

79-166