ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    4,
    1992
    COUNTY
    OF OGLE,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    AC 91—32
    (91—R—1002)
    )
    (Administrative Citation)
    ROCHELLE DISPOSAL SERVICE,
    )
    INC., and CITY OF ROCHELLE,
    )
    ILLINOIS,
    Respondent.
    ORDER
    OF THE
    BOARD
    (by J.C. Marlin):
    This action was initiated on June 28, 1991 by the filing of an
    administrative citation
    (AC) by~the County of Ogle
    (County).
    The AC charges Rochelle Disposal Services (Rochelle Disposal)
    and
    the City of Rochelle
    (City) with violation of Section 21(p) (1) and
    (12) of the Act.1
    Both respondents filed a petition for review on
    July 3,
    1991.
    The pending motions are Rochelle Disposal’s
    April
    7,
    1992
    motion
    for
    leave
    to
    file
    instanter
    accompanied
    by
    a
    motion
    to
    strike and dismiss the
    complaint.
    The County
    filed motions to
    strike and dismiss Rochelle’s motions on April
    15,
    1992.
    On April 15, 1992, Rochelle Disposal also filed a motion for
    summary
    judgment.
    The County filed
    a response
    in opposition on
    April
    22.
    The Board has delayed decision on the pending motions
    until its receipt of the hearing transcript and exhibits in AC 91-
    45,
    a case involving similar motions by these parties.2
    The basis for Rochelle Disposal’s motions are that it
    is not
    a proper party to this action.
    Rochelle Disposal argues that it
    is not a proper party to this action because the City is the person
    which
    holds
    the
    permits
    for
    this
    site,
    and
    because
    it
    was
    previously
    dismissed
    as
    a
    party
    to
    AC
    89-68
    pursuant
    to
    ‘Section
    21 of the Act was
    amended
    by
    Public
    Act
    87-752,
    effective
    January
    1,
    1992.
    As
    a
    result,
    the
    two
    subsections
    enforceable through the administrative citation process have been
    changed from 21(p)
    and 21(q) to 21(o)
    and 21(p)
    respectively.
    21n the interests of consistency, the Board has also delayed
    decision on similar motions pending
    in another appealed AC case
    involving these parties:
    AC 92-26.
    134—105
    2
    stipulation.
    There is no dispute that the City holds all permits
    at the
    site,
    or that Rochelle Disposal conducts waste
    disposal
    operations at the site on the City’s behalf pursuant to contract.
    The
    County
    argues
    that
    Section
    21(p)
    of
    the
    Act,
    under
    which
    Rochelle
    Disposal
    is
    charged,
    is
    not by
    its
    terms
    limited
    to
    holders of permits.
    The Section in pertinent part provides that
    “no
    person
    (emphasis
    added)
    shall
    conduct
    a
    sanitary
    landfill
    operation which is required to have a permit under subsection
    (d)
    of this Section,
    in a manner which results in any of the following
    conditions”.
    The preamble to the contract between the City and Rochelle
    Disposal provides that it is “for the operation of the City owned
    landfill”.
    Article I goes on to provide that Rochelle Disposal
    ii
    to “furnish all equipment and labor necessary for the collection of
    garbage within
    the City...together with
    the
    landfill
    operation
    necessary to dispose of all the solid waste
    in conformance with”
    the Act and Board regulations, as well as other requirements (City,
    April 22,
    1992 Response to Motion, Contract,
    p.
    1).
    The Board agrees with the County that, under the circumstances
    of this case, Rochelle Disposal is properly a party .to this action
    as a person conducting a waste operation at a permitted site.
    The motions
    to dismiss and for summary judgment are hereby
    denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certif
    that the above order was adopted on the
    -4~-
    day of
    _________________,
    1992, by a vote of
    7c’
    I
    Control Board
    134—106

    Back to top