SFRCE
OCT
162008
0
Pofl
STATE
OF
Control
ILLINO
Bod
OFFICE
OF THE
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Lisa Madigan
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
October
14, 2008
John
T.
Therriault,
Assistant Clerk
Assistant
Clerk of the
Board
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
James
R. Thompson
Center, Ste. 11-500
100 West
Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
Re:
People
v. Dr. Charles R. Boyce
PCB No.
08-052
Dear
Clerk:
Enclosed
for
filing
please find the original
and one copy
of a Notice of Filing,
Motion
for
Relief
from
Hearing
Requirement and
Stipulation and
Proposal
for
Settlement in regard
to the
above-captioned
matter.
Please file
the originals and
return
file-stamped
copies to me
in
the
enclosed
envelope.
Thank you
for your cooperation
and
consideration.
Very
truly
yoirs,
/
L
V
.J:L. Horv{an
Environmental
Bureau
500 South Second
Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217)
782-9031
J
LH/pjk
Enclosures
500 South
Second Street,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
• (217) 782-1090 • ‘PT’Y: (877)
844-5461 • Fax:
(217)
782-7046
100 West
Randoloh
Street,
Chicaeo,
Illinois
60601
• (312)
814-3000 • TTY:
(800)
964-3013 • Fax:
(312)
814-3806
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB
No.
08-052
)
(Enforcement)
DR.
CHARLES
R.
BOYCE,
dibla
)
CHATHAM
VETERINARY
CLINIC,
)
)
Respondents.
NOTICE
OF
FILING
cBK’S
To:
Claire
A.
Manning
OC
b
2O0
Brown, Hay
&
Stephens, LLP
205
S. Fifth
St.,
Suite
700
STPf
Contro’
Board
P.O.
Box
2459
Springfield,
IL
62705-2459
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE that
on
this
date
I mailed
for
filing
with
the
Clerk
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
of the
State
of
Illinois, a
MOTION
FOR
RELIEF
FROM
HEARING
REQUIREMENT
and
STIPULATION
AND
PROPOSAL
FOR
SETTLEMENT,
copies
of
which
are
attached
hereto
and
herewith
served
upon
you.
Respectfully
submitted,
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney
General
of the
State
of Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental
Enforcement/Asbestos
LitigatiQn
Division
L/
BY:
/
J.L.HOMAN
Assistant
Attorney
General
Environmental
Bureau
500
South
Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
October
14,
2008
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I hereby
certify
that
I did on
October
14, 2008,
send
by
First
Class
Mail,
with
postage
thereon
fully
prepaid, by
depositing
in
a
United
States
Post
Office
Box
a
true
and
correct
copy
of the
following
instruments
entitled
NOTICE
OF FILING,
MOTION
FOR
RELIEF
FROM
HEARING
REQUIREMENT
and STIPULATION
AND
PROPOSAL
FOR
SETTLEMENT:
To:
Claire
A.
Manning
Brown,
Hay
&
Stephens,
LLP
205 5.
Fifth
St.,
Suite
700
P.O.
Box
2459
Springfield,
IL 62705-2459
and
the
original
and
ten
copies
by
First
Class
Mail
with
postage
thereon
fully
prepaid
of the
same
foregoing
instrument(s):
To:
John
T.
Therrault,
Assistant
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James
R.
Thompson
Center
Suite
11-500
100
West
Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
A
copy
was
also
sent
by
First
Class
Mail
with postage
thereon
fully
prepaid
to:
Carol
Webb
Hearing
Officer
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
1021
North
Grand
Avenue
East
Springfield,
IL 62794
I
1
J. L”HOAN
L•Assistant
Attorney
General
This
filing
is
submitted
on
recycled
paper.
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB
No. 08-052
)
(Enforcement)
DR.
CHARLES
R. BOYCE, dibla
)
ECEVED
CHATHAM
VETERINARY
CLINIC,
)
CLERKS
OFFICE
Respondents.
OCT1b2008
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
MOTION
FOR
RELIEF FROM HEARING
REQUIREMENT
NOW
COMES Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF
THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney
General of the State
of Illinois, and pursuant
to
Section
31(c)(2) of the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act (“Act”), 415
ILCS 5/31
(c)(2)
(2006), moves that
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
grant the
parUes in the
above-captioned matter
relief from the
hearing
requirement
imposed
by
Section
31(c)(1)
of
the Act, 415 ILCS
5/31(c)(1) (2006).
In support of
this
motion,
Complainant
states as
follows:
1.
The
parties
have
reached
agreement on all
outstanding issues
in this matter.
2.
This
agreement is
presented to
the
Board
in a
Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement,
filed contemporaneously
with this
motion.
3.
All
parties
agree
that a
hearing on the
Stipulation and
Proposal
for
Settlement
is
not
necessary,
and
respectfully
request
relief from such a hearing
as
allowed
by
Section
31(c)(2)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/31(c)(2) (2006).
1
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF
ILLINOIS, hereby requests
that the
Board grant this motion for relief from the hearing requirement set forth in
Section
31(c)(1)
of the Act, 415 ILCS
5131(c)(1) (2006).
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigat.on;ivision
BY:
/
J.L. Imah
Environmental Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
October
14, 2008
2
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB NO. 08-052
)
(EnforcemenCEV
DR.
CHARLES R. BOYCE, d/b/a
)
CHATHAM VETERINARY CLINIC,
)
)
Respondent.
)
OF
iiutOfl
CO
STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL
FOR SETTLFMENT
Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney
General of
the State of Illinois, the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency (“Illinois
EPA”),
and DR. CHARLES R.
BOYCE, d/b/a
CHATHAM
VETERiNARY CLINIC,
(“Respondent”
or
“Boyce”),
have
agreed
to
the making of this Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement
(“Stipulation”)
and
submit it
to the
Illinois
Pollution Control Board (“Board”) for approval.
This
stipulation of facts
is made and agreed upon for purposes
of settlement only and as a factual
basis for the Board’s
approval of this Stipulation
and issuance of relief. None of the facts
stipulated
herein shall be
introduced into
evidence in any other proceeding
regarding
the
violations of the
Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (“Act”), 415 ILCS
5/1 et seq. (2006),
and
the
Board’s
Regulations, alleged in the Complaint
except as otherwise provided herein.
It is the
intent of the
parties to this Stipulation that it
be a final adjudication of this
matter.
I.
STATEMENT OF
FACTS
A.
Parties to the
Stipulation
1.
On
March 13, 2008,
a
Complaint
was filed on behalf
of the People
of
the
State of
1
Illinois
by Lisa
Madigan,
Attorney
General
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
on
her own
motion
and
upon
the
request
of
the
Illinois
EPA,
pursuant
to Section
31 of
the Act,
415 ILCS
5/31
(2006),
against
the Respondent.
2.
The Illinois
EPA
is an
administrative
agency
of the
State
of
Illinois,
created
pursuant
to
Section
4 of the
Act,
415 ILCS
5/4
(2006).
3.
At all
times relevant
to the
Complaint,
Respondent
was
and
is an
Illinois
resident
doing
business
under
the
name
Chatham
Veterinary
Clinic.
At
all times
relevant
to the
Complaint,
Respondent
operated
a
facility
located
at
1500
North
Main
Street
(the
clinic)
and
1300
North
Main
Street
(the
garage
and
open
lot),
Chatham,
Sangamon
County,
Illinois
(collectively,
the “site”).
Patricia
Smith
Boyce
is the
owner
of
the site.
4.
On
June 15,
2006,
the
Illinois
EPA
inspected
the
site.
Upon inspecting
the clinic,
the
inspector
observed
potentially
infectious
medical
waste
in two
cardboard
boxes.
Personnel
at
the clinic
informed
the
inspector
that
the
clinic
had
not
retained
a
service
to
remove
and
dispose
of
its
potentially
infectious
medical
wastes.
East
of
the clinic
in
a hay
field
the
inspector
observed
landscape
wastes
and
wood
boxes
piled
in an
area
of recent
open
burning.
Scalpel
blades,
intravenous
needles
and vials
were
observed
by
the inspector
in the
ashes.
In the garage
located
at 1300
North
Main
Street,
the
inspector
observed
unused
medicines
and sharps
alongside
various
miscellaneous
equipment.
East
of
the
garage
the inspector
observed
another
open
burning
area
with
needles
and glass
vials
among
the
ashes.
5.
The site
was
not
permitted
as a
potentially
infectious
medical
waste
(“P1MW”)
treatment,
storage
or
transfer
operation.
2
B.
Allegations
of
Non-Compliance
Complainant
contends
that the
Respondent
has violated
the following
provisions
of
the
Act
and
Board regulations:
Count
I:
Open Dumping
Violations
of Section
21(a),(p)(1)
of the
Act,
415 ILCS
21(a),
(p)(l)(2006).
Count II:
Open
Burning Violations
of
Section
9(a),©)
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(a)(c)(2006).
Count
III:
Potentially
Infectious Medical
Wastes
Violations
of
Section 56.1
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS 5/56.1(2006),
and
Sections
1420.105,
1421.111,
1421,121,
1421.131
of the
Board’s
regulations,
3511.
Adm.
Code
1420.105,
1421.111,
1421.121,
and 1421.131.
C.
Non-Admission
of
Violations
The
Respondent
represents
that he has
entered
into this
Stipulation
for
the
purpose of
settling
and
compromising
disputed
claims
without having
to incur
the
expense of
contested
litigation.
By
entering
into
this
Stipulation
and complying
with its
terms,
the Respondent
does
not
affirmatively
admit
the
allegations
of violation
within
the
Complaint
and
referenced
within
Section
III.B
herein,
and
this
Stipulation
shall
not
be
interpreted
as including
such
admission.
D.
Compliance
Activities
to Date
Respondent
implemented
preventative
measures
subsequent
to the alleged
violations
that
are
the subject
of the
Complaint
in
this matter.
Specifically,
the
Respondent
engaged a
service
to
properly
dispose
of
potentially
infectious
medical
wastes.
Respondent
has
subsequently
complied
with
the
Act and
the
Board
Regulations.
3
II.
APPLICABILITY
This
Stipulation
shall
apply
to and
be
binding
upon
the Complainant, the
Illinois
EPA
and
the
Respondent,
as
well
as any
successors or assigns
of the
Respondent. The
Respondent
shall
not raise
as
a
defense
to
any
enforcement
action
taken
pursuant
to
this Stipulation
the
failure
of any
of
its officers,
directors,
agents,
employees or
successors
or
assigns
to
take
such
action
as
shall
be
required
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
Stipulation. This
Stipulation
may
be
used
against
the
Respondent in any
subsequent
enforcement
action
or permit
proceeding
as
proof
of a
past
adjudication
of violation
of
the
Act
and
the Board
Regulations
for
all
violations
alleged
in the
Complaint in
this
matter,
for
purposes
of Sections
39
and
42 of
the
Act,
415 ILCS
5/39
and
42 (2006).
III.
IMPACT
ON
THE
PUBLIC
RESULTING
FROM
ALLEGED
NON-COMPLIANCE
Section
33(c)
of
the Act,
415
ILCS
5/33(c)(2006),
provides
as
follows:
In
making
its
orders
and determinations,
the
Board
shall
take
into consideration
all
the facts
and
circumstances
bearing
upon
the
reasonableness
of
the
emissions,
discharges,
or
deposits
involved
including,
but
not
limited
to:
1.
the
character
and
degree
of
injury
to, or
interference with
the
protection of
the
health,
general
welfare
and
physical
property
of
the
people;
2.
the
social
and
economic value
of
the pollution
source;
3.
the
suitability
or
unsuitability of
the
pollution
source
to
the area
in
which
it is
located,
including
the
question
of priority
of location
in the
area
involved;
4.
the
technical
practicability
and
economic
reasonableness
of reducing
or
eliminating
the
emissions,
discharges
or
deposits
resulting
from
such
pollution
source;
and
5.
any
subsequent
compliance.
4
In
response
to these factors,
the
parties to this Stipulation
state
the
following:
1.
Improper management
and
disposal
of P1MW threatens
the public health
and the
environment.
2.
The parties agree
that Respondent’s veterinary
clinic is of social
and economic
benefit.
3.
The parties
agree that Respondent’s
veterinary
clinic is located in a suitable
area.
4.
It was
practical
and economically
reasonable for
Respondent
to
properly
handle,
or
to engage a
service
to
properly handle,
the
P1MW.
5.
Respondent
implemented
preventative measures
subsequent to
the alleged
violations
that
are the subject of
the Complaint
in this
matter.
Specifically,
the
Respondent
engaged a
service to
properly
handle the
potentially infectious
medical
wastes. Respondent
has
subsequently
complied
with
the Act and the
Board
Regulations.
IV.
CONSIDERATION
OF SECTION
42(h) FACTORS
Section 42(h)
of
the Act,
415 ILCS
5/42(h)(2006),
provides
as
follows:
In determining
the
appropriate
civil penalty to be imposed
under.
. . this Section,
the Board is
authorized to consider
any
matters
of record
in
mitigation
or
aggravation
of
penalty,
including
but not limited to
the
following
factors:
•
1.
the duration
and gravity
of the violation;
2.
the presence
or absence of due
diligence on
the part
of the
respondent
in
attempting to
comply
with
requirements
of this
Act
and regulations
thereunder
or to secure
relief therefrom as provided
by
this
Act;
3.
any economic
benefits
accrued by the
respondent because
of delay in
compliance
with requirements,
in which
case the economic benefits
shall
be
determined
by
the lowest
cost
alternative
for achieving
compliance;
5
4.
the
amount of
monetary
penalty
which
will serve
to deter
further
violations
by the
respondent
and
to
otherwise
aid
in enhancing
voluntary
compliance
with
this
Act
by the respondent
and other
persons
similarly
subject
to
the Act;
5.
the
number,
proximity
in
time,
and
gravity
of previously
adjudicated
violations
of
this
Act by the
respondent;
6.
whether
the respondent
voluntarily
self-disclosed,
in
accordance
with
subsection
i
of
this
Section,
the non-compliance
to the
Agency;
and
7.
whether
the
respondent
has agreed
to undertake
a
“supplemental
environmental
project,” which
means
an
environmentally
beneficial
project
that
a respondent
agrees
to undertake
in settlement
of an
enforcement
action
brought under
this Act,
but which
the
respondent
is
not otherwise
legally
required
to
perform.
In response
to these
factors,
the parties
to this Stipulation
state
as follows:
1.
The
Complainant
alleges
that
on
June
15, 2006,
the
Illinois EPA
inspector
observed
used
sharps,
scalpel
blades, intravenous
needles,
vials, and/or
unused
medicines
in the
clinic,
the open
field
east of
the
clinic,
in the open
field east of
the
garage
(specifically
in
the
open
burning
area
in among
the ashes)
and in the
garage
at
the
site. At
a time subsequent
to the
filing
of
this
Stipulation
and
better
known to
the
Respondent,
the
Respondent
has resolved
those
issues.
2.
Respondent
implemented
preventative
measures subsequent
to the alleged
violations
that are
the
subject
of the
Complaint
in this
matter.
Specifically,
the Respondent
engaged a
service
to
handle
P1MW.
3.
Complainant
acknowledges
any economic
benefit
realized
by the
Respondent
through improper
handling
and disposal
of P1MW
is
offset
through the
costs incurred
in
remediating
the site
and the
penalty.
6
4.
The assessed penalty in the
amount of seven thousand one hundred dollars
($7,100) is a
reasonable amount
based on the violations alleged
in the Complaint, will serve
to
deter
further violations of the Act and will aid in enhancing
voluntary compliance with the Act.
5.
In the past five years Respondent Dr. Charles Boyce,
d/b/a Chatham Veterinary
Clinic,
has had no
other violations.
6.
Self-disclosure is not
at
issue in this matter.
7.
The settlement
of this
matter does not include a supplemental
environmental
project.
V.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
A.
Penalty Payment
1.
The
Respondent shall pay a
civil penalty in the sum of seven
thousand one
hundred
dollars
($7,100.00) within thirty
(30) days from the date
the Board adopts and
accepts
this
Stipulation.
B.
Payment
Procedures
All payments
required by this
Stipulation shall be made by
certified check or
money
order
payable to
the Illinois
EPA
for
deposit into the
Environmental Protection Trust Fund
(“EPTF”).
Payments
shall
be sent by
first class mail and
delivered
to:
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency
Fiscal Services
1021 North Grand Avenue
East
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
The
name,
case
number and the
Respondent’s federal tax identification number
shall appear on
7
the
face of the
certified
check
or money
order.
A
copy of the
certified
check
or money
order
and
any
transmittal
letter shall
be
sent to:
Environmental
Bureau
Illinois
Attorney
General’s
Office
500
South Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
C.
Release
from Liability
In consideration
of
the Respondent’s
payment
of the
$7,100.00
penalty
and any specified
costs and
accrued
interest,
completion
of all activities
required
hereunder,
and
upon
the
Board’s
approval
of
this
Stipulation,
the
Complainant
releases,
waives
and discharges
the
Respondent
from any
further
liability
or
penalties
for the
violations
of the Act
and
Board
Regulations
that
were the
subject
matter
of
the
Complaint
herein.
The release
set
forth
above
does
not extend
to
any
matters
other
than
those
expressly
specified
in Complainant’s
Complaint
filed on
March
13,
2008.
The
Complainant
reserves,
and
this
Stipulation
is
without prejudice
to,
all rights
of the
State
of
Illinois
against
the
Respondent
with respect
to
all
other matters,
including
but not
limited
to, the
following:
a.
criminal
liability;
b.
liability for
future violation
of
state,
federal,
local,
and common
laws and/or
regulations;
c.
liability for
natural
resources
damage
arising
out
of the alleged
violations;
and
d.
liability or
claims
based
on the Respondent’s
failure
to satisfy
the
requirements
of
this
Stipulation.
Nothing
in
this
Stipulation
is
intended as
a
waiver,
discharge,
release,
or covenant
not
to
sue
for
any
claim
or cause
of
action,
administrative
or
judicial, civil
or criminal,
past
or
future,
in
8
law or in equity,
which the
State of Illinois or the
Illinois EPA may have against any person, as
defined by
Section 3.3 15 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.315, or entity other than the
Respondent.
D.
Enforcement
and
Modification
of Stipulation
Upon the
entry of the Board’s Order
approving and accepting this
Stipulation, that
Order
is
a
binding
and enforceable order of the
Board and may be enforced as
such through
any
and all
available
means.
E.
Execution of
Stipulation
The
undersigned
representatives
for each party to
this
Stipulation
certify
that
they are
fully authorized by
the party
whom they
represent to
enter into the terms
and
conditions of this
Stipulation
and to
legally bind
them to it.
9
WHEREFORE,
the
parties
to this
Stipulation
request
that
the Board
adopt
and accept
the
foregoing
Stipulation
and Proposal
for
Settlement
as written.
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney
General
State
of
Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement!
Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:
DATE:
THOMAS
DAVIS,
Chief
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
Jo/Id
/o
DR.
CHARLES
BOYCE,
d!b!a
CHATHAM
VETERINARY
CLINIC
BY:
7AL?BOc_
DR.
CHARLES
BOYCE
FOR
THE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
DOUGLAS
P.
SCOTT,
Director
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
BY:
DATE:
DATE:
.
I
1
//3
/oy
R0BEWrA.
MESSINA
Chief
Legal
Counsel
10
