ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    August
    21,
    1980
    VILLAGE OF HILLSIDE, a Municipal
    )
    Corporation, and SAVE THE TOWNSHIP
    )
    OF PROVISO, INC.,
    a Not—for—profit
    Illinois Corporation,
    Complainants,
    v.
    )
    PCB
    80—60
    JOHN SEXTON SAND
    & GRAVEL CORP.,
    an Illinois Corporation, BROWNING-
    FERRIS
    INDUSTRIES OF ILLINOIS,
    INC.,
    an Illinois Corporation, and
    )
    CONGRESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, an
    Unknown Corporation,
    )
    Respondents,
    CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,
    Intervenor.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    I.
    Goodman):
    On July
    11,
    1980 the Respondents filed a motion
    to strike
    Count III of the amended complaint which was filed June 16,
    1980.
    Count III alleges violation of
    sections of the Illinois Environ-
    mental Protection Act
    (Act) and the Board’s Chapter
    7:
    Solid
    Waste Rules and Regulations
    (Rules)..
    Sections 2(b),
    3(1) and 20
    of the Act contain no rules which Respondents could conceivably
    violate.
    Section 21(f) of the Act
    is unrelated to the allegations.
    Rule 207 applies only to the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency
    (Agency), which
    is not a party.
    Rule 314 provides for
    approval
    of alternative modes of operation by the Agency and there
    is no allegation that such have not been approved.
    Complainants have attached to the complaint copies of a
    zoning ordinance and map
    (Ex.
    25,
    26).
    The Board is
    without
    authority to enforce this ordinance.
    These exhibits are not
    written instruments upon which the claim is founded (Section
    36
    of the Illinois Civil Practice Act,
    Ill.Rev,Stat.
    1979,
    ch.
    110).
    Because of the above deficiencies, Count III is striken.
    Complainants will be granted leave to amend again within twenty—one
    days.
    If they do so, the Board requests that Complainants shorten
    their pleadings.
    Complainants will have an opportunity to intrc—
    duce evidence at
    a hearing.
    Respondents’ July
    29,
    1980 Motion to
    Reply to Response is granted; Complainants’ July 23,
    1980 motion
    to extend time to file memorandum opposing motion to strike is
    granted.
    —2—
    On July 25,
    1980 Respondents filed a renewed motion to recon-
    sider the Board’s denial of Respondents’ motion to dismiss Count
    I
    (Orders of May
    1 and May 29,
    1980).
    The renewed motion is denied.
    Complainants’ August
    6 motion to strike the motion is denied.
    Respondents’ August 13 motion for leave to reply is granted,
    The
    findings of the Illinois Commerce Commission in both 79—0291 and
    80-0119 related to whether the proposed land use by Commonwealth
    Edison’s transferee Sexton,
    et al. was a legal use and to whether
    Commonwealth Edison’s transfer of its landfill permit without the
    approval of the Commission either violated §27 of the Illinois
    Public Utilities Act or constituted the conveyance of a property
    right.
    The Commission’s findings were not made under the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Act and did not determine the issues
    under that Act of
    (1) whether Commonwealth Edison had authority to
    transfer the landfill permit, and
    (2) whether Sexton, et al,
    had
    authority to sign as operator of the site.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L.
    Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control ~Board,here y cer ify that the above Order wa~adopted on
    the
    ~/~“day
    of
    _____________,
    1980 by a vote of
    ~Q.
    Christan L. Moff
    lerk
    Illinois Pollution
    ontrol Board

    Back to top