ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

20,

1988

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

3 AND R LANDFILL,

INC.,

)

PCB #AC 88—23

PCB #AC 88—34

Respondent.

(88—3—SC—St.

Clair Co

(88—6—SC—St. Clair Co.

)

County Docket)

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

3.

Anderson):

This matter

comes before the Board on the Respondent’s

Consolidated Motion

to Dismiss

(“Motion”),

received by the Board

September

27,

1988.

No response

to the Motion was filed by

Complainant,

St. Clair County.

Respondent’s motion recites, with respect to each of the

causes involved,

that the respective Administrative Citations

were served upon the Respondent by certified mail

(on or about

March 15,

1988 and April

29,

1988,

respectively),

and that in

each case,

“the certified mail envelope contained only the

Administrative Citation with no attachments”

(Motion, page

1,

numbered paragraphs

1

and

2).

The Motion asserts that the

provisions

of Section 31.1 are jurisdictional and that “the

failure of Petitioner

(sic)

to properly serve the Respondent with

a citation conforming

to the requirements of Section 31.1

precludes the Illinois Pollution Control Board from exercising

jurisdiction over the claims raised

in said Administrative

Citation”.

In view of the complainant’s failure to respond

to the

Respondent’s motion,

the Board must assume that the Complainant

has waived objection to the Motion pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

lO3.140(c)

and,

thus must assume

the correctness

of the facts

alleged by the Respondent

in its motion.

Section 31.1(b)

of the Act,

in relevant part,

states:

“Each

such

citation

issued

shall

be

served

upon

the

person

named

therein...,

and

shall

include the following information:

1.

a

statement

specifying

the

provisions

of

subsection

(p)

of

Section

21

of which

the

person was observed

to be

in violation;

93—249

---

—2—

2.

a

copy

of

the

inspection

report

in

which

the Agency or local government recorded the

violation,

which

report

shall

include

the

date

and

time

of

inspection,

and

weather

conditions

prevailing

during

the

inspection;

3.

the

penalty

imposed

by

subdivision. (b)(4)

of Section 42 for such violation;

4.

instructions

for

contesting

the

administrative

citation

findings

pursuant

to

this

Section,

including

notification

that the person has 35 days within which

to

file

a petition for review before

the Board

to contest the administrative citation; and

5.

an affidavit by the personnel observing the

violation,

attesting

to

their

material

actions and observations.”

From the above,

it

is clear

that the Act contemplates that

service

of

an administrative citation lacking the information and

documentation enumerated

in subparagraphs 1—5

is incomplete;

inclusion of such information and documentation

is mandatory.

Since the complainant has evidently failed

to conform. to such

mandatory requirements

for service, no jurisdiction has been

conferred thereby upon the Board.

For the foregoing reasons,

the Consolidated Motion

to

Dismiss these proceedings

is granted with prejudice.

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, h~ebycertif

that the above Order was adopted on

the

,~~-‘day

of

_____________,

1988,

by a vote of

7~

1111

Control Board

93—250