LINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    February 27,
    1992
    MICHAEL L.
    CHRISTIANSON,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—59
    (Enforcement)
    THE AMERICAN MILLING CO.,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by N. Nardulli):
    This matter is before the Board on the January 31, 1992 filing
    of complainant’s motion to supplement the record.
    On February 11,
    1992, respondent filed its objection to.the motion.’
    On February
    24,
    1992, complainant filed an additional motion to supplement the
    record.
    Although respondent’s response time for responding to the
    second motion to supplement has not yet expired, the Board will
    address both motions to supplement because they are very similar
    and the Board has the benefit of respondent’s initial objection.
    On November 21,
    1991, the Board found that noise emitted from
    respondent’s property unreasonably interfered with complainant’s
    use and enjoyment of his property.
    (Ill. Rev. Stat.
    1991, ch.
    Ill
    1/2,
    par.
    1024;
    35
    Ill.
    Adm.
    Code 900.102.)
    The Board ordered
    respondent
    to
    enforce
    its
    policy
    of
    prohibiting employees
    and
    independent drivers from “beating, pounding and hammering on trucks
    and train cars to loosen gluten” and directed respondent to “cease
    and desist from such conduct at all times,
    day and night.”
    The
    Board
    also
    directed
    respondent
    to respond to
    the
    testimony
    at
    hearing suggesting certain abatement measures or submit
    its own
    abatement
    study.
    On
    February
    3,
    1992,
    respondent
    filed
    its
    response and suggested abatement measures.
    On February 24,
    1992,
    complainant filed its response.
    Complainant now seeks to supplement the record to establish
    respondent’s repeated violation of the Board’s order.
    The January
    31,
    1992 motion to supplement contains copies of several Tazewell
    County complaint forms alleging that respondent has continued to
    On February 24,
    1992,
    the Board received complainant’s
    reply to respondent’s response objecting to the motion to
    supplement.
    Section
    101.241(c)
    provides
    that
    “t)he
    moving person shall not have the right of reply, except
    as permitted by the Board
    ...
    .“
    (35
    Ill.
    Adin.
    Code
    101.241(c).)
    The Board finds no reason to deviate from
    the
    general
    rule
    that
    replies
    are
    not
    allowed.
    Consequently, the Board will not consider complainant’s
    reply.
    130—209
    2
    beat and pound on trucks and train cars in violation of the Board’s
    order
    and
    an
    official
    report
    of the
    Tazewell County
    Sheriff’s
    Department which states that “complainant
    requested that a report
    be on file with the Sheriff’s Office in reference to” respondent’s
    violation of the Board’s order.
    Complainant’s February 24,
    1992
    motion to supplement contains another complaint form and numerous
    signed statements alleging repeated violatIons of the Board’s order
    prohibiting beating and pounding on the trucks and train cars.
    Respondent notes that the complaint forms are not accompanied
    by any indication that the forms were ever filed with the Tazewell
    County
    State’s
    Attorney’s
    Office
    nor
    do
    these
    “self—serving”
    documents reflect the independent observation or investigation of
    the sheriff’s department.
    Respondent contends that it would be
    prejudiced by the introduction of such evidence without first being
    able to cross examine the complainant.
    Respondent
    also asserts
    that such information is irrelevant to the remaining issue before
    the Board
    (j~.,
    what abatement measures should be taken to remedy
    the noise pollution).
    Complainant
    seeks
    to
    supplement
    the
    record
    to
    establish
    respondent’s repeated violation of the Board’s January
    21,
    1991
    •interim opinion and order.
    If the Board found that respondent was
    in
    violation
    of
    the
    Board’s
    order,
    the
    Board
    would
    have
    the
    authority to impose a penalty against respondent.
    (Ill. Rev. Stat.
    1991,
    ch.
    111
    1/2,
    par.
    1042.)
    However, the Board cannot reach
    such
    a
    determination
    solely
    on
    the
    basis
    of
    the
    information
    supplied by complainant; respondent must be given the opportunity
    to
    cross—examine
    complainant
    and
    others
    who
    have
    alleged
    respondent’s repeated violations.
    Therefore,
    the complainant’s
    motions to supplement the record are denied.
    Should complainant wish to pursue the allegations of repeated
    violations,
    he should notify the Clerk’s office by letter and
    a
    hearing will be scheduled consistent with Board resources.
    The
    issue at hearing is limited to the alleged repeated violations of
    the Board’s November 21,
    1991 order.
    The question of appropriate
    abatement measures will be addressed by opinion and order after the
    Board
    has
    reviewed
    respondent’s
    proposal
    and
    complainant’s
    response.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Boar~,hereby cer~,,ifythat the above Order was adopted on the
    ~27c~-
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1992 by a vote of
    7~
    ,
    ~.~erk
    lution Control Board
    Illinois
    130—210

    Back to top