ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August
    29,
    1972
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    —vs--
    )
    PCB No.
    72—65
    EARL
    B.
    ARCHDALE,
    Respondent.
    INTERIM OPINION AND ORDER
    (by Mr.
    Henss)
    This case
    is submitted
    to
    us for final decision pursuant
    to Stipulation of the parties, but we are unable to decide the
    case from
    the
    materials presented.
    A brief recital of what
    has taken place
    is necessary for our interim Order.
    The EPA filed its complaint against Respondent Earl B.
    Archdale alleging that he committed numerous violations of the
    Environmental Protection Act and the Rules and Regulations for
    Refuse Disposal Sites
    and Facilities
    in
    his
    operation of
    a
    landfill in Fulton County,
    Illinois.
    The first five paragraphs
    of
    the complaint consist of allegations of law and quotations
    from the Statute and the Regulations.
    The answer filed by
    Respondent’s attorney neither admits nor denies those allegations
    of
    law.
    Paragraph
    6 of the complaint alleges that Respondent
    operated a refuse disposal site and facility and gives its legal
    description in Fulton County.
    Respondent’s answer admits
    this
    allegation.
    Paragraphs
    7
    through
    11 allege specific instances
    of open burning on six dates
    in
    1971 and 1972 and open dumping,
    failure to provide vector control, and failure
    to spread and
    compact refuse on nine dates.
    There is
    an allegation that refuse
    was deposited in standing water on one of the dates.
    These alle-
    gations of fact were denied by Respondent’s pleading.
    Paragraph
    12 alleged and Respondent admitted that he was notified of the
    deficiencies on four occasions.
    Subsequently the Agency filed its Motion to Amend Complaint,
    which Motion is entirely out of step with the pleadings which
    precede
    it.
    The Motion purports
    to reallege the language of
    Paragraph
    6
    (which had already been admitted)
    as Paragraph
    1 so
    that the identical language regarding ownership of the landfill
    would be included in the complaint twice.
    The Motion would add
    to Paragraphs
    2,
    4,
    5 and
    6
    by simply listing the dates:
    December
    16,
    1971,
    January
    19,
    1972,
    January
    31,
    1972,
    March
    16, 1972
    and July
    18,
    1972.
    To permit such an amendment would add confusion since the
    dates
    do
    not relate to any language contained in those paragraphs.
    5
    —
    277
    —2—
    We have tried to make sense of the pleading by experimenting
    with our own renumbering of the paragraphs, but the new sub—
    paragraphs do not fit very easily into any part of the original
    complaint.
    No amended complaint was in fact filed.
    One week after the Motion was filed, the parties appeared
    for a hearing.
    The attorneys then entered into
    a Stipulation
    which they now submit for our decision on the merits.
    The
    Stipulation provides in part:
    “1.
    That the Respondent was the owner of the property
    referred to in Paragraph 1 of the amended complaint.
    2.
    That the allegations of Paragraphs
    2,
    3,
    4,
    5,
    6
    and 7 of the amended complaint are true as demon-
    strated by the exhibits attached to this Stipulation
    and identified consecutively as Nos.
    1 through 35,
    both inclusive.”
    It was further agreed that “the witnesses” would testify
    that the EPA reports and photographs were true and accurate;
    that Respondent desired to close the site and was a man of
    modest means.
    The parties then jointly suggested the terms of
    an order to be entered by this Board.
    Because of the obvious desire of the parties to close this
    matter without further hearing, we did attempt to make our
    findings of
    fact and law from the materials which were presented
    to
    us.
    We find,
    however,
    that the combination of the nonsensical
    pleadings and the reliance upon them as a basis for the Stipu-
    laticn of Facts
    frustrates our purpose.
    Any determination of
    facts from this record would constitute the Board’s own Stipu-
    lation of Facts.
    We
    see no alternative but to return the case to
    the Hearing Officer for further proceedings.
    The Motion to Amend
    is denied.
    An appropriate record of
    testimony or Stipulation of Facts shall be submitted to this Board.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of
    the Pollution Control Board,
    certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order at the
    __________
    day of August,
    1972 by
    a vote of
    ~T’
    Christan L. Moffett,/çzerk
    Illinois Pollution c~O~itrolBoard
    5
    —
    278

    Back to top