ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July
    10, 1975
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—l79
    CITY OF CARBONDALE,
    Respondent.
    INTERIM OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Goodman):
    On June
    23,
    1975,
    City of Carbondale
    (Carbondale)
    filed
    before the Pollution Control Board
    (Board),
    a Motion
    to
    Dismiss
    for Lack of Jurisdiction,
    or,
    in the alternative,
    Motion
    to Dismiss for Failure to P~1legea Complaint,
    or
    Cause of Action Against the Respondent.
    This motion
    is in
    response
    to a complaint filed by the Environmental Protection
    Agency
    (Agency)
    on April
    28,
    1975,
    alleging development and
    operation of a solid waste management site without the
    necessary permits
    in violation of Rule
    201,
    202(a)
    Solid
    Waste Regulations,
    and Section 21(e)
    of the Environmental
    Protection Act
    (Act)
    Initially,
    the
    Motion
    to Dismiss was untimely.
    Rule
    308(a)
    of Procedural Rules provides that
    “all motions
    to
    dismiss
    or strike the complaint or challenging the juris-
    diction of the Board must be filed within
    15 days after
    receipt of the complaint...”
    Respondent received the com-
    plaint on or about April
    30,
    1975.
    The Motion
    to Dismiss
    was not filed until June
    23,
    1975.
    The Board’s jurisdiction
    is proper.
    Carbondale con-
    tends that the Board lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
    Respondent,
    as
    a Home Rule City, pursuant
    to Article VII,
    Section 6-a of the 1970
    Illinois Constitution,
    has enacted
    local environmental legislation.
    Respondent contends that
    the State has authority to pre-empt such Home Rule legisla-
    tion only pursuant to specific constitutional authorization
    and
    procedure;
    i.e.,
    that pre-empting legislation must do so
    specifically and be passed by
    a three-fifths majority of the
    State Legislature.
    Respondent contends in conclusion that
    as the Legislature did not proceed in that manner in passing
    the Act,
    therefore
    the Act was not specifically passed as,
    and
    does not constitute legislation pre—empting the powers
    of Home Rule Municipalities such as Respondent.
    The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois has held in
    City of Chicago
    V.
    Pollution Control Board,
    59
    Ill.
    2d 484,
    that
    home-rule units under Article VII of the 1970 Illinois
    18
    —
    73
    Constitution are not exemptcd from regu1aticr~under
    the
    provisions of the Act regardless of whether they have en-
    acted their own legislation on the environment.
    The complaint adequately states a cause of action.
    Respondent alleges
    in the alternative,
    that the complaint
    fails
    to state a cause of action,
    contending
    that,
    “no
    concise statement of facts upon which respondent is deemed
    to be in violation”,
    is advanced.
    Respondent cites Pro-
    cedural Rule 304(c) (2)
    to this effect.
    Rule
    304 as respon-
    dent cites
    it, has been superceded.
    Under the Procedural
    Rules adopted by the Board as of February 14,
    1974,
    Rule
    304(c) (2)
    requires a complaint
    to contain,
    “the dates,
    location,
    events, nature,
    extent,
    ..
    .of discharges or
    emissions and consequences alleged
    to constitute violations
    of the Act or regulations.
    ..“
    The wording of the complaint
    adequately puts the respondent on notice as to the dates,
    location and nature of the alleged violations as well as
    informing it of the specific law and regulations alleged to
    have been violated.
    Respondent also alleges the complaint fails
    to state
    what constitutes operation of
    a solid waste management site.
    The very use of the term “solid waste management site”
    is
    sufficient as description.
    Rule 104(u)
    of Solid Waste
    Regulations, defines solid waste management as,
    “the pro-
    cesses of storage, processing or disposal of solid wastes...”.
    Rule 104 also defines solid waste disposal,
    “refuse”, and
    “site”.
    These definitions adequately describe the activity
    of
    “solid waste management site operation,
    for the purpose
    of allowing respondent
    to adequately respond to the complaint.
    denied
    Therefore,
    Carbondale’s Motion to dismiss must be
    ORDER
    It
    is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the
    City of Carbondale’s motion
    to dismiss be and hereby
    is
    denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
    were adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ,
    1975 by a
    vote of
    -~
    stan
    L.
    Mo.
    Illinois Pollution
    trol Board
    18 —74

    Back to top