(a) The General Assembly finds: (1) that economic and population growth and new methods of manufacture, packaging, and marketing, without the parallel growth of facilities enabling and ensuring the recycling, reuse and conservation of natural resources and solid waste, have resulted in a rising tide of scrap and waste materials of all kinds; (2) that excessive quantities of refuse and inefficient and improper methods of refuse disposal result in scenic blight, cause serious hazards to public health and safety, create public nuisances, divert land from more productive uses, depress the value of nearby property, offend the senses, and otherwise interfere with community life and development; (3) that the failure to salvage and reuse scrap and refuse results in the waste and depletion of our natural resources and contributes to the degradation of our environment; (4) that hazardous waste presents, in addition to the problems associated with non-hazardous waste, special dangers to health and requires a greater degree of regulation than does non-hazardous waste; (5) that Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P
(415 ILCS 5/20) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 1020) Sec. 20. (a) The General Assembly finds: (1) that economic and population growth and new
methods of manufacture, packaging, and marketing, without the parallel growth of facilities enabling and ensuring the recycling, reuse and conservation of natural resources and solid waste, have resulted in a rising tide of scrap and waste materials of all kinds;
(2) that excessive quantities of refuse and
inefficient and improper methods of refuse disposal result in scenic blight, cause serious hazards to public health and safety, create public nuisances, divert land from more productive uses, depress the value of nearby property, offend the senses, and otherwise interfere with community life and development;
(3) that the failure to salvage and reuse scrap and
refuse results in the waste and depletion of our natural resources and contributes to the degradation of our environment;
(4) that hazardous waste presents, in addition to the
problems associated with non-hazardous waste, special dangers to health and requires a greater degree of regulation than does non-hazardous waste;
(5) that Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580), as amended, provides for comprehensive regulation of the treatment, storage, disposal, transportation and generation of hazardous waste;
(6) that it would be inappropriate for the State of
Illinois to adopt a hazardous waste management program that is less stringent than or conflicts with federal law;
(7) that Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580), as amended, provides that the United States Environmental Protection Agency shall implement the hazardous waste management program authorized therein unless (a) the State is authorized by and under its law to establish and administer its own hazardous waste management program, and (b) pursuant to such federal Act, the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency finds that the State hazardous waste program is equivalent to the federal program;
(8) that it is in the interest of the people of the
State of Illinois to authorize such a hazardous waste management program and secure federal approval thereof, and thereby to avoid the existence of duplicative, overlapping or conflicting state and federal programs;
(9) that the federal requirements for the securing of
such State hazardous waste management program approval, as set forth in Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580), as amended, and in regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant thereto are complex and detailed, and the General Assembly cannot conveniently or advantageously set forth in this Act all the requirements of such federal Act or all regulations which may be established thereunder;
(10) that the handling, storage and disposal of
hazardous substances and petroleum pose a danger of exposing citizens, property, natural resources and the environment to substantial risk of harm or degradation, that the Agency is authorized by this Act to use public funds to respond to and correct releases of hazardous substances and petroleum, that by doing such the value of property is enhanced or preserved, that persons should not receive a financial benefit at the expense of public funds when the Agency performs a cleanup, and that establishing environmental reclamation liens on property subject to response or corrective action will help assure that public funds are recompensed;
(11) that Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580), as amended, provides for comprehensive regulation of the disposal of solid waste;
(12) that it would be inappropriate for the State of
Illinois to adopt a solid waste management program that is less stringent than or conflicts with federal law;
(13) that Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580), as amended, provides that the United States Environmental Protection Agency shall implement the solid waste management program authorized in that Act unless (i) the State is authorized by and under its law to establish and administer its own solid waste management program, and (ii) pursuant to such federal Act, the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency finds that the State solid waste program is equivalent to the federal program;
(14) that it is in the interest of the people of the
State of Illinois to authorize such a solid waste management program and secure federal approval of the program, and thereby avoid the existence of duplicative, overlapping or conflicting State and federal programs;
(15) that the federal requirements for the securing
of State solid waste management program approval, as set forth in Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580), as amended, and in regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency under that Act are complex and detailed, and the General Assembly cannot conveniently or advantageously set forth in this Act all the requirements of the federal Act or all regulations which may be established under the federal Act.
(b) It is the purpose of this Title to prevent the pollution or misuse of
land, to promote the conservation of natural resources and minimize
environmental damage by reducing the difficulty of disposal of wastes and
encouraging and effecting the recycling and reuse of waste materials, and
upgrading waste collection, treatment, storage, and disposal practices;
and to authorize, empower, and direct the Board to adopt such regulations
and the Agency to adopt such procedures as will enable the State to secure
federal approval of the State hazardous waste and solid waste management
programs pursuant to the provisions of subtitles C and D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580), as amended, and federal
regulations pursuant thereto. (c) It is in the public interest to encourage the recycling and reuse
of materials such as paper and paperboard and that the Board and the Agency
in their planning and in the adoption, interpretation, and enforcement of
regulations and standards shall encourage such recycling and reuse to the
extent consistent with federal requirements. (d) The General Assembly finds: (1) that an increase in the hazardous waste disposal
fee is necessary to provide increased funding for hazardous waste cleanup activities;
(2) that there are wastes currently being treated,
stored or disposed of on-site which, because of changing federal regulations or other factors, may be disposed of off-site;
(3) that State policy and programs should be
developed to assist local governments and private industry in seeking solutions to hazardous waste management problems;
(4) that there are wastes which may have reduced
environmental threat when disposed of in monofills because they are non-putrescible, homogeneous, do not contain free liquids, or for other reasons;
(5) that both permitted or interim status on-site and
off-site hazardous waste disposal facilities are covered by financial responsibility requirements to assure funding removal or remedial actions;
(6) that the disposal of wastes in monofills
receiving only the same type of waste or compatible materials may facilitate future recovery of materials when it becomes technically feasible;
(7) that for these and other reasons there are
limitations on the amount of hazardous waste treatment and disposal fees on various activities under current law, and that a similar limitation is appropriate for generators disposing in monofills.
(e) The General Assembly finds that: (1) It is the policy of the State of Illinois, as
expressed in the Environmental Protection Act, the Illinois Solid Waste Management Act, the Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act and other laws, to collect information about the disposal of waste at landfills and incinerators in Illinois.
(2) Some disposal facilities in Illinois are quickly
using up scarce waste disposal capacity because of the importation of waste from outside the State.
(3) In order to evaluate current waste handling
capacity and future trends in waste handling, the State of Illinois needs to collect information on the quantities of waste being brought into the State for disposal.
(4) By collecting data relating to the movement of
solid waste into Illinois, the State of Illinois will be able to more effectively assign resources to educate persons about, and assure compliance with, Illinois disposal restrictions, and will be able to more effectively plan for future waste management needs.
(Source: P.A. 87-484; 88-496.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Giles v. Chicago Drum, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 2d 981 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
Giles v. Chicago Drum, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 2d 981 (N.D. Ill. 2009). · cites it 2דIn that complaint, Plaintiffs alleged for the first time claims of civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs allege generally that Defendants conspired to unlawfully process hazardous wastes, in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.”
People Ex Rel. Ryan v. McFalls, 728 N.E.2d 1152 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2ד415 ILCS 5/20 et seq. (West 1996). Section 21 of the Act lists a number of prohibited acts.”
Sampson v. Miglin, 664 N.E.2d 281 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “These purposes are akin to the purposes of title V of the Environmental Protection Act (the Act) (415 ILCS 5/20 (West 1992)). Title V explicitly defined "corrective action” for an oil spill as: "an action to stop, minimize, eliminate, or clean up a release of petroleum or its…”
NBD Bank v. Krueger Ringier, Inc., 686 N.E.2d 704 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “In addition, there is no clear need for civil actions under the statute; the existing legislative scheme, which provides for prosecution by the State of Illinois and allows contribution claims against third-party violators, more than adequately serves the purpose of the statute,…”
Rice v. Marathon Petroleum Corp., 2024 IL 129628 (Ill. 2024). “In addition, implying a private right of action for third parties to recover for personal injuries is not necessary to provide an adequate remedy for violations of the LUST Program.”
People ex rel. Madigan v. Lincoln, Ltd., 2016 IL App (1st) 143487 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “415 ILCS 5/20 et seq. (West 2002). Section 21 of Title V lists various prohibited acts.”
Bond Drug Co. v. Amoco Oil Co., 654 N.E.2d 540 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “” 415 ILCS 5/20(a)(10) (West 1992). Thus, EPA violations due to leakage from underground gasoline storage tanks causing environmental contamination are clearly health code violations.”
People Ex Rel. Madigan v. Dixon-Marquette Cement, Inc., 796 N.E.2d 205 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2ד415 ILCS 5/20 (West 2002). To achieve this end the legislature established a permit system controlling waste-disposal activities.”
Rice v. Marathon Petroleum Corp., 2024 IL 129628 (Ill. 2024). “In addition, implying a private right of action for third parties to recover for personal injuries is not necessary to provide an adequate remedy for violations of the LUST Program.”
Sampson v. Miglin, 664 N.E.2d 281 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “These purposes are akin to the purposes of title V of the Environmental Protection Act (the Act) (415 ILCS 5/20 (West 1992)). Title V explicitly defined "corrective action" for an oil spill as: "an action to stop, minimize, eliminate, or clean up a release of petroleum or its…”
Bond Drug Co. v. Amoco Oil Co., 654 N.E.2d 540 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “” 415 ILCS 5/20(a)(10) (West 1992). Thus, EPA violations due to leakage from underground gasoline storage tanks causing environmental contamination are clearly health code violations.”
— 415 ILCS 5/20(b) — 3 cases
NBD Bank v. Krueger Ringier, Inc., 686 N.E.2d 704 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “In addition, there is no clear need for civil actions under the statute; the existing legislative scheme, which provides for prosecution by the State of Illinois and allows contribution claims against third-party violators, more than adequately serves the purpose of the statute,…”
Rice v. Marathon Petroleum Corp., 2024 IL 129628 (Ill. 2024). “In addition, implying a private right of action for third parties to recover for personal injuries is not necessary to provide an adequate remedy for violations of the LUST Program.”
Rice v. Marathon Petroleum Corp., 2024 IL 129628 (Ill. 2024). “In addition, implying a private right of action for third parties to recover for personal injuries is not necessary to provide an adequate remedy for violations of the LUST Program.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.