ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 21, 2000
    STEVEN P. LOGSDON,
    Complainant,
    v.
    TILFORD R. BOWMAN,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
        
     
    PCB 01-42
         
    (Enforcement – Citizens, Noise)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C.A. Manning):
    This citizen’s noise and air pollution enforcement complaint was filed on August 28, 2000, by Steven P.
    Logsdon (Logsdon) against Tilford R. Bowman (Bowman) regarding Bowman’s sawmill and pallet making operation
    located in Ripley, Brown County, Illinois. Bowman has made no filing in response to the complaint. Therefore, the
    Board makes its determination on whether to accept this matter for hearing based on the allegations in the
    complaint.
    THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
    The complaint alleges that Bowman operates a sawmill and pallet making operation (facility) in the
    proximity of Logsdon’s properties. Comp. at 3. The complaint alleges that since the facility opened, Bowman has
    engaged in operations that produce noise pollution from sunrise to sunset, seven days a week.
    Id.
    The complaint
    also alleges that air pollution is caused by sawdust and motor exhaust blowing on Logsdon’s properties.
    Id.
    Logsdon alleges that the noise constitutes noise pollution in violation of Sections 23 and 24 of the
    Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/23, 24 (1998)) and the Board’s regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    900.102. Logsdon further alleges that:
    The noise generated by the sawmill operated by the Respondent has resulted in
    an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of complainant’s
    properties, disturbance during sleep which endangers the physical and
    emotional health and well-being of the complainant, and depresses the value of
    complainant’s properties. The noise is causing the complainant headaches and
    hearing problems. The air pollution is causing breathing problems. Comp. at 4.
    The complaint requests that the Board enter an order directing Bowman to cease and desist from further violations.
    DUPLICITOUS/FRIVOLOUS DETERMINATION
    Section 31(d) of the Act and Section 103.124(a) of the Board’s procedural rules provide that the Board need
    not set for hearing a citizen’s complaint that is duplicitous or frivolous. If the complaint is duplicitous or frivolous,
    the Board will 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, and sets the complaint for hearing, this does not
    preclude the filing of motions regarding the insufficiency of the pleadings. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.124(a).
    Duplicitous
    An action before the Board is duplicitous if the matter is identical or substantially similar to one brought in
    this or any other forum. See 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 matter is identical or substantially similar to any other action
    2
    brought before the Board or 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. See People v. State Oil (August 19,
    1999), PCB 97-103, slip op. at 3; Lake County Forest Preserve Dist. v. Ostro (July 30, 1992), PCB 92-80.
    Air Pollution
    Logsdon’s complaint alleges that Bowman caused air pollution. Comp. at 3. The Act requires that a
    complaint specify the provisions of the Act or regulations allegedly violated. See 415 ILCS 5/31(c), (d) (1998).
    Likewise, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.122(c)(1), a complaint must contain a “reference to the provision of the
    Act and regulations which the respondents are alleged to be violating.” Although the complaint here alleges that
    sawdust from the plant and motor exhaust are causing air pollution, the allegations fail to refer to any provision of
    the Act or regulations that Bowman is violating. The alleged air pollution violation is accordingly frivolous. See
    Glasgow v. Granite City Steel (August 24, 2000), PCB 00-221, slip op. at 2 (finding frivolous certain allegations in a
    complaint for failing to cite to any provision of the Act or regulations as having been violated).
    The Board notes that it can hear a properly pled allegation of air pollution. Logsdon may file an amended
    complaint alleging air pollution if he pleads the allegation in accordance with the Act and the Board’s procedural
    rules. See Glasgow, slip op. at 2.
    Section 23 of the Act
    Logsdon alleges that Bowman has violated Section 23 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/23 (1998)). Section 23 is 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 prohibition. There can be no violation of Section 23. Logsdon has failed to state a
    cause of action upon which the Board can grant relief. See Brunson v. MCI Worldcom, Inc. (January 7, 1999), PCB
    99-71. The alleged violation of Section 23 is frivolous.
    Prohibitions on Noise Pollution
    Logsdon alleges that Bowman has violated Section 24 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/24 (1998)) and 35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 900.102. Both of these provisions are prohibitions on noise pollution. Logsdon seeks a cease and desist order.
    Logsdon states a cause of action and requests relief that the Board is able to grant. The alleged violations of Section
    24 and Section 900.102 are not frivolous.
    CONCLUSION
    The Board finds that the alleged air pollution violation and the alleged violation of Section 23 of the Act are
    frivolous and will not accept those allegations for hearing. The Board finds the remaining alleged violations are
    neither duplicitous nor frivolous and, accordingly, accepts them for hearing. The allegations accepted for hearing
    therefore are the alleged violations of Section 24 of the Act and Section 900.102 of the Board’s rules.
    The hearing must be scheduled and completed in a timely manner consistent with Board practices. The
    Board will assign a hearing officer to conduct hearings consistent with this order and Section 103.125 of the Board’s
    procedural rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.125). The Clerk of the Board shall promptly issue appropriate directions to
    the assigned hearing officer.
    The assigned hearing officer shall inform the Clerk of the Board of the time and location of the hearing at
    least 30 days in advance of hearing so that a 21-day public notice of hearing may be published. After hearing, the
    hearing officer shall submit an exhibit list, a statement regarding credibility of witnesses, and all actual exhibits to the
    Board within five days after the hearing.
    3
    Any briefing schedule shall provide for final filings as expeditiously as possible. If, after appropriate
    consultation with the parties, the parties fail to provide an acceptable hearing date or if, after an attempt the hearing
    officer is unable to consult with all of the parties, the hearing officer shall unilaterally set a hearing date. The hearing
    officer and the parties are encouraged to expedite this proceeding as much as possible.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    4
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that the
    above order was adopted on the 21st day of September 2000 by a vote of 7-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top