ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 7, 2000
    CHRYSLER REALTY CORPORATION,
    Complainant,
    v.
    THOMAS INDUSTRIES, INC., and
    TDY INDUSTRIES, INC.,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
        
     
    PCB 01-25
         
    (Enforcement – Citizens, UST)
    DISSENTING OPINION (by R.C. Flemal):
    I respectfully dissent from the majority’s order delivered today because I believe that
    the Board does not have authority to hear third-party cost recovery cases. As a creature of
    statute, the Board has no authority except that expressly provided by statute. See Village of
    Lombard v. Pollution Control Board, 66 Ill. 2d 503, 363 N.E.2d 814 (1977), (“An
    administrative Agency, such as the Pollution Control Board, has no greater powers than those
    conferred upon it by the legislative enactment creating it.”). Neither the Environmental
    Protection Act, nor any other statute, grants authority to the Board to hear third-party cost
    recovery cases. Absent any explicit authority, no authority exists.
    That portion of the complaint that seeks recovery of remediation costs accordingly
    should have been dismissed as frivolous, because the Board does not have the authority to
    grant the relief requested.
    For this reason, I dissent.
      
    Ronald C. Flemal
    Board Member
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above dissenting opinion was submitted on the 7th day of December 2000.
      
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top