ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 24, 2000
JAMES GLASGOW, VICKIE GLASGOW, BILL HOPPE,
and PAT HOPPE,
Complainants,
v.
GRANITE CITY STEEL,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 00-221
(Enforcement, Citizens - Noise)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.J. Melas):
This matter comes before the Board on a June 19, 2000 filing of a citizen’s complaint (complaint) by James
Glasgow, Vickie Glasgow, Bill Hoppe, and Pat Hoppe (complainants) against Granite City Steel (respondent).
Respondent did not file a motion to dismiss or a challenge to the Board’s jurisdiction within the allotted 14 days, nor
did respondent file any other type of response within 30 days. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.122, 103.140(a). Therefore, the
Board makes its determination based on the allegations in the complaint.
The Board finds that the noise pollution allegation pertaining to Section 23 of the Act and the air pollution
allegation are frivolous and will not accept those allegations for hearing. The Board finds that the remaining noise
pollution allegations in this matter are not duplicitous or frivolous and therefore accepts those allegations for hearing.
BACKGROUND
Complainants reside on Edwardsville Road in Granite City, Madison County, Illinois, and respondent has a
facility with a coke plant and coal piles nearby at Highway 162 and Alexander, also in Granite City. Complainants
allege that noise and air pollution comes from dust, trucks, the movement of coal, and a “caterpillar” used to push
coal to the top of stacks at the facility. Complaint at 3. Complainants also allege that the noise and air pollution
adversely affect their sleep, depress their property values and generally have a negative impact on the use and
enjoyment of their properties. Complaint at 4.
Complainants claim that respondent is violating Sections 23 and 24 of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act (Act), and Sections 900.102, 901.102(a), and 901.102(b) of the Board’s rules. 415 ILCS 5/24 (1998); 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 900.102, 901.102(a), and 901.102(b). Complaint at 2.
DUPLICITOUS / FRIVOLOUS DETERMINATION
Section 103.124(a) of the Board’s procedural rules directs the Board to determine whether or not a citizen’s
complaint is duplicitous or frivolous. If the complaint is duplicitous or frivolous, the Board shall enter an order
setting forth reasons for so ruling and shall inform the parties of its decision. If the Board rules that the complaint is
not duplicitous or frivolous, this does not preclude the filing of motions regarding the insufficiency of the pleadings.
35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.124(a).
Duplicitous
2
An action before the Board is duplicitous if the matter is identical or substantially similar to one brought in
this or any other forum. Walsh v. Kolpas (September 23, 1999), PCB 00-35; Brandle v. Ropp (June 13, 1985), PCB 85-
68. Nothing in the complaint indicates that this action has been brought before another forum. The complaint is not
duplicitous.
Frivolous
A complaint before the Board is frivolous if it requests relief that the Board does not have the authority to
grant or fails to state a cause of action upon which the Board can grant relief. People v. State Oil (August 19, 1999),
PCB 97-103, slip op. at 3; Lake County Forest Preserve District v. Ostro (July 30, 1992), PCB 92-80.
Complainants allege that respondent has violated Section 23 of the Act. Section 23 is merely the General
Assembly’s statement of purpose for the Title VI of the Act, the Title which addresses noise. Section 23 contains
neither a directive nor a prohibition. The Board cannot grant relief here because there can be no violation of Section
23. Brunson v. MCI Worldcom, Inc. (January 7, 1999), PCB 99-71. The alleged violation of Section 23 is frivolous,
and the Board dismisses it.
With respect to the remaining noise pollution allegations, complainant correctly cites the noise pollution
provisions in the Act and the Board’s rules. Complainant also alleges facts which, if proved at hearing, could result
in a finding of noise pollution. Complaint at 3. The Board has the authority to grant relief from the alleged noise
pollution if the facts are proved at hearing.
Complainants also allege that respondent is causing air pollution at its property but do not cite to any
provisions in either the Act or the Board’s rules that addresses air pollution. Both the Act and the Board’s rules state
that the complaint must cite the provisions in the Act or the Board’s rules which the respondent is allegedly violating.
415 ILCS 5/31.1(d) (1998); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.122(c)(1). The Board could hear the air pollution allegation if it
was properly pled, but here the allegation is not properly pled. The Board finds that the air pollution allegation is
frivolous. See also Snyder
et al.
v. Waste Management of Illinois, (May 18, 1995), PCB 95-1, slip op. at 2-3; Conway
v. Johnson (August 7, 1997), PCB 97-221, slip op. at 2, 4. Complainants may file an amended complaint alleging air
pollution if they plead the allegation in accordance with Section 103 of the Board’s rules.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that, pursuant to Section 103.124(a) of its procedural rules, the noise pollution allegations
at Section 24 of the Act and Sections 900.102, 901.102(a), and 901.102(b) of the Board’s rules are neither duplicitous
nor frivolous. Those allegations will be accepted for hearing. The Board finds that the noise pollution allegation
pertaining to Section 23 of the Act and the air pollution allegation are frivolous and will not accept those allegations
for hearing.
The hearing in this matter must be scheduled and completed in a timely manner consistent with Board
practices. The hearing officer and the parties are encouraged to expedite this proceeding as much as possible.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that the above order was
adopted on the 24th day of August 2000 by a vote of 7-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
