ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 3, 2002
     
     
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
     
    Complainant,
     
    v.
     
    MICHEL GRAIN COMPANY, INC. d/b/a
    MICHEL FERTILIZER, an Illinois
    corporation, CARLYLE MICHEL, RONNIE
    TODD and RONNIE TODD LAND TRUST,
     
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
     
    PCB 96-143
    (Enforcement - Water, Land)
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C.A. Manning):
     
    On August 22, 2002, the Board ordered the People of the State of Illinois (People) to file
    a third amended complaint in this matter to include the required notice to Michel Grain
    Company, Carlyle Michel, and Ronnie Todd (respondents) regarding the consequences of failure
    to answer the complaint.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204(e), (f). On September 20, 2002, the
    People filed an amended four-count complaint against respondents.
    See
    415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1)
    (2000)
    as amended by
    P.A. 92-0574, eff. June 26, 2002.
     
    Based on alleged contamination from two fertilizer and agrichemical facilities, one in
    Jefferson County and the other in Hamilton County, the People have pled water pollution and
    land pollution violations of the Environmental Protection Act (Act
    ) (415 ILCS 5/12(a), (d), 21(d)
    (2000)
    as amended by
    P.A. 92-0574, eff. June 26, 2002) and Board regulations (35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 302.203, 304.106, 808.121(c)(1)).
     
    On December 27, 1995, the People filed the original complaint, naming only Michel
    Grain and Michel as respondents. The complaint alleged water pollution violations of the Act
    and Board regulations concerning pesticide and fertilizer spills at a grain elevator and liquid
    agrichemical facility in Ina, Jefferson County. The People’s first amended complaint, filed on
    April 25, 1996, added similar allegations regarding a fertilizer and agrichemical facility located
    in Broughton, Hamilton County. On October 4, 2001, the People filed a second amended
    complaint, naming Ronnie Todd (Todd) as an additional respondent and alleging that he was the
    current owner of the Broughton facility. On July 2, 2002, Todd filed a motion to be dismissed
    from this proceeding, as the property had been transferred to the Ronnie Todd Land Trust. On
    August 22, 2002, the Board denied Todd’s motion to dismiss. The People’s third amended
    complaint now requests that the Board add the Ronnie Todd Land Trust as a respondent.
     
    The People allege that respondents violated Sections 12, 21, and 22 of the Act. 415 ILCS
    5/12, 21, 22
    as amended by
    P.A. 92-0574, eff. June 26, 2002. The People further allege that
    respondents have caused or allowed pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and fuels to contaminate
     
    2
    soil since at least January 9, 1992, that respondents have unlawfully disposed of waste, and that
    contaminants have entered the drainage way causing water pollution.
     
    The Board accepts the complaint for hearing, grants the People’s request to add the
    Ronnie Todd Land Trust as a respondent in this matter, and amends the caption in this order
    accordingly. A respondent’s failure to file an answer to a complaint within 60 days after
    receiving the complaint may have severe consequences. Generally, if respondents fail within
    that timeframe to file an answer specifically denying, or asserting insufficient knowledge to form
    a belief of, a material allegation in the complaint, the Board will consider respondents to have
    admitted the allegation. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204(d). The Board directs the hearing officer to
    proceed expeditiously to hearing.
     
    The Board directs the hearing officer to proceed expeditiously to hearing. Among the
    hearing officer’s responsibilities is the “duty . . . to ensure development of a clear, complete, and
    concise record for timely transmission to the Board.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.610. A complete
    record in an enforcement case thoroughly addresses, among other things, the appropriate remedy,
    if any, for the alleged violations, including any civil penalty. Accordingly, the Board further
    directs the hearing officer to advise the parties that in any summary judgment motions and
    responses, at hearing, and in briefs, each party must: (1) propose a remedy, including whether to
    impose a civil penalty, and support its position with facts and arguments addressing the Act’s
    Section 33(c) factors; and (2) propose a civil penalty, if any, including a specific dollar amount,
    and support its position with facts and arguments addressing the Act’s Section 42(h) factors.
    See
     
    415 ILCS 5/33(c), 42(h) (2000).
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on October 3, 2002, by a vote of 5-0.
     
     
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
     

    Back to top