ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

December 17,

1992

SUSAN A. CURTIS

AND

)

MARCY

DIESING,

)

)

Complainants,

)

and

)

)

CITY OF CRYSTAL LAKE,

)

)

Intervening-Complainant,

)

)

V.

)

PcB

91—30

(Enforcement)

VILLAGE OF LAKE IN THE

HILLS

)

)

Intervening-Respondent,

)

)

and

)

)

MATERIAL

SERVICE CORPORATION

)

)

Respondent.

)

)

_________________________________________________________________________________)

MATERIAL

SERVICE

CORPORATION,

)

)

Cross-Complainant,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF CRYSTAL LAKE,

)

)

Cross—Respondent.

)

)

Order of the Board

(by 3.

C. Marlin):

This matter is before the Board on motion to dismiss

tiled

by Material Service

Corporation (MSC)

on

Novemb.r 20, 1992.

On

November

3,0,

1992,

intervening

respondent,

Village

of

Lake in the

Hills

(Village)

filed

a

respons.

to

ssc’s

motion.

The

complainants,

Susan

Curtis

and

Marcy

Diesing

filed

a

response on

December

1, 1992.

MSC in its motion

states

that

the

Board should grant its

motion to dismiss because this

proceeding

has

been

rendered

moot.

In support of this statement,

MSC

alleges that

it

has

completed

all of its mining

operations on

the

land

north of

the

Lake

in

the

Hills airport which includes the Cohen property which is at

issue

in this case.

(MSC Mot. at 2.)

Further,

MSC

states that it

does

013800’ei

---

2

not plan any additional extraction in the area.

(XSC

Not. at 2).

However, MSC does state that it will be

performing reclamation

activities in

the

area.

(MSC Mot. at 2.)

MSC

also states that

atdilenry

County

has

acquired the 200

foot

wide strip of land

separating the Coventry Subdivision

(where complainants

live) and

uSC’s

land

for

construction

of

a

the

Randall

Road

Connector.

(MSC

Plot, at 2.)

Finally,

MSC contends that because the

“noise

and

alleged air pollution0

connected

with

its

mining

operations

on the land in question has ceased forever,’ this case is

moot.

(MSC Plot,

at 2.)

Included with

NSC’s

motion

is

an affidavit frca &avid P.

Olsen,

Assistant

to

the

Vice

President

of

Operations

of

uSC.

~C1sen’s

affidavit states

that

he is familiar with

the

company’s

operations

in

the area in question and

that

KSC has

completed

mining

in

that

area.

(Affidavit

at

1.)

‘Olsen

also

states

that

KSC

does not plan any further mining on

that

property.

(Affidavit at 1.)

Finally, he states

that

uSC

is

in

the process

of removing all equipment from

the

property in question.

(Affidavit at 2.)

In its response, to NSC’s motion, Village states that it has

no objection to dismissal.

(Village Resp. at 1.)

The

complainants

in

their

response

object to

NBC’s motion to

dismiss.

(Complainants

Reap.

at.1.)

Theyargue

that

the

scope

of their complaint was never limited to the: land

north

of the

Lake

in

the

Hills

airport..

(Complainants

Reip.

‘at

1.)

In

fact,

.they

argue

that

their

complaint

predated

MSC’s

entry

into

the

area

north

of

the

airport

and

that

their

complaint

includes

tracts

“A”,

“B”,

and

“C.”

(Complainants

Rasp. at~,l.)

The

cOiplainants

state

in

their response that MSC

did mDt etate in

its

motion

that: the

mining

in

tracks

“A”

and

“B”

are

completed.

(Complainants

Resp.

at

1.)

Complainants *lso a~guethat uSC has

not

defined

“customary

reclamation activities” or indicate

the

time

when it will be performing reclamation.

(Complainants

Reap.

at 2.)

Finally, complainants

argue

that

PicHenry

County’s

acquisition of the land separating their subdivision

and

MSC’s

land

is irrelevant to this case.

(Complainants

Reap. at 2.)

The

Board

will

first

address

MSC’a

argument

that ‘this

case

is

moot.

MSC’s

alleged completion of mining in th. area in

question

ignores

the

fact

that

KSC’s alleged past

violations

are

ati~’

properly

before

the

Board.

The

complainants

or.

n .~tled

to

an

adjudlcation

of

the

case.

Bearings

have

takan

place

in

this

case

and

the

Board

has

before

it

a

complete

record.

Additionally,

the

Board

notes

that

the complaint and amended

complaint filed by

Curtis and

Diesing in

this,

case did not

specify a particular piece of land where the violation was

occurring.

Instead, complainants allege that MSC’s mining

-activity is causing

both

noise and air pollution

and

that the

mining

is

interfering

with

complainants’

lives

in

violation

of

35

01 38O0~2

---

3

Ill.

Adm.

Code

900.101

and

900.102

and

Sections

9(a),

23

and

24

of

the.

Environmental

Protection Act (Act).

(Ill. Rev. Stat.

1991,

ch.

112,

1/2,

par.

1009,

1023

and

1024.)

(Comp. at 2.)

Additionally, the Board agrees

with

complainants that the

purchase

of

the

strip

of

land

between

MSC’s

property

and

the

Coventry ‘Subdivision by McEer~ry

County

is

immaterial

to

the

case

at hand.

Finally,

thern Board notes that

any

argument

about noise

or

dust

pollution

from

the

planned

reclamation

by

NBC

is

irrelevant to this case.

The complaint

was filed and

the

hearings were held prior to any reclamation activity;

therefore,

reclamation activity is not an issue in this action.

MSC’s

motion to dismiss is

hereby

denied.

The

Board

will

issue a final order and opinion in this case

as

expeditiously as

possible consistent with its resources

and

decision

deadlines.

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Boa~d,hereby certi

that

the

above order

was

adopted

on

the

j7~/_’

day of

,

1992, by a vote of

“7-0.

4~Tsh.

Dorothy 11. ,4unn, Clerk

Illinois ~&lution

Control Board