ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    October 11, 1990
    JOSEPH P. COMER and
    )
    MICHELLE S. COMER d/b/a
    )
    FL7~NINGO
    L7~KE,
    Complainants,
    )
    PCB 90—145
    (Enforcement)
    V.
    GALLATIN NATIONAL CO..,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson)
    This matter is before the Board on Respondent Gallatin
    National Co.’s (“Gallatin”) Motion to Dismiss filed August 13,
    1990. Complainants filed their response on September 19, 1990.
    The Respondent’s motion argues that the Complaint filed is
    duplicitous and frivolous. For reasons given below, the motion is
    denied.
    The Respondent’s motion requests dismissal because the
    complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
    granted.” The Complaint requests relief for sound emissions which
    emanated from construction of Respondent’s balefill. The emissions
    stopped over one year ago. Gallatin claims that the Board cannot
    grant relief for violations which have now ceased. In this regard,
    Gallatin is mistaken. These claims are not barred by any statute
    of limitations that Gallatin has shown us.
    Gallatin also claims the matter is frivolous because it
    requests injunctive relief which is prospective only. Our review
    of both the Complaint and Response reveals that the Complainants
    ask for finding of violations based upon Gallatins’ prior conduct
    and also request relief related to noise emissions expected from
    future construction activities. The Board may not grant
    prospective injunctive relief for noise violations. (See Section
    24 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Ill. Rev. Stat.
    1989, ch. lii 1/2, par. 1024). It may, however, issue a cease and
    desist order if past violations are proven as alleged. Therefore,
    the Board does not find the Complaint to be frivolous.
    Lastly, Gallatin claims the complaint is duplicitous because
    its development permit currently pending discusses steps it will
    take to monitor sound emissions levels near Complainant’s property.
    The Board finds this circumstance irrelevant to its determination
    on this matter.
    For the above reasons, Gallatin’s Motion to Dismiss is
    denied.
    115—323
    2
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, do hereby ~
    the above Order was adopted on the
    /i~
    day of
    ___________________
    _______
    1990, by a vote of
    C-°
    Doroth
    C1erk~’
    /L~
    Illinois PoX~utionControl Board
    115—324

    Back to top