ILLINOIS POE~LUTIONCONTROL BOARD
    May 1, 1980
    VILLAGE OF HILLSIDE, a Municipal
    )
    Corporation, SAVE THE TOWNSHIP OF
    PROVISO, INC., a Not—for—profit
    )
    Illinois Corporation,
    Complainants,
    v.
    )
    PCB 80—60
    JOE-IN SEXTON SAND & GRAVEL CORP.,
    an Illinois Corporation, BROWNING-
    FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF ILLINOIS,
    INC., an Illinois Corporation,
    and CONGRESS
    DEVELOPMENT
    COMPANY,
    an Unknown Corporation,
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Board Member Goodman):
    Respondents’ April 15, 1980 Motion to Dismiss is
    granted in part as follows:
    This complex complaint concerns Respondents’ legal
    standing to obtain transfer of development permits.
    COUNT I
    On August 14, 1979 the Agency allegedly approved
    Respondents’ May
    9, 1979 application for transfer of permits
    held by Commonwealth Edison.
    On August 15, 1979 the Agency
    allegedly approved Respondents’ May
    9, 1979 application for
    modification
    of other permits.
    Application
    for these permits was allegedly made before
    Edison petitioned
    the Illinois
    Commerce Commission to allow
    sale of the facility
    to Respondents pursuant to Section 27
    of the Public Utility Act, Ill.Rev.Stat..,
    ch. 111—2/3
    (1977). Also alleged is Respondent’s continued development
    activities at the site from March 1, 1979 through December
    3, 1979.
    The complaint alleges violations of Solid Waste Rule
    205(d) because Respondents did not submit sufficient
    evidence with the May 9,
    1979 applications either that
    Edison had authority to sign as transferor or that
    Respondents had authority to sign as operators. Therefore,
    the permits are alleged to be void under law. Respondents’
    2
    continued deveopment activity is alleged to
    he
    illegal
    because the
    Respondents are neither owners nor operators of
    the site, and because Edison, the owner, had
    no authority to
    allow the transfer.
    There are several questions
    of eact presented by this
    complaint. There is no lactual allegation that Respondents
    were not in fact operators on May 9, 1979 other than that
    inferable from the fact that the ICC had not yet approved
    Edison’s contract of sale to Respondents. However, on
    October 19,
    1978 the Agency allegedly notified Respondents
    that the transfers granted that August would be effective
    upon the date the sale to Respondents took effect.
    Because whether or not the contract of sale was
    consummated prior to Respondents ability to assume status as
    operators is
    not wholl~’ a question
    of law, the motion to
    dismiss Count
    I is denied as to all named respondents.
    COUNT II
    This count alleges that
    because Respondents had known,
    since
    August 14, 1979, that
    the Agency never had adopted
    permit transfer procedures pursuant to Solid Waste Rules 211
    and
    21.3, that they
    had
    no standing
    to receive and accept the
    transfers. This
    count
    is dismissed inasmuch as knowledge of
    transfer procedures is not an element of legal standing to
    apply for or receive such transfers.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the above Order was
    adopted on the
    ~‘~
    day of
    çy~
    1980 by a vote of
    ~
    ____
    Christan L. Mo ~t, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top