ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 12, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 73—216

WILLIAM A. DILLON AND CITY OF CHICAGO,

Respondents.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.):

This is a complaint filed by the Environmental Protection

Agency against the above designated respondents alleging

violations of the Environmental Protection Act and the Rules

and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities, with

respect to the operation of an alleged refuse disposal site.

The City of Chicago has filed a motion to dismiss, alleging

in substance that the complaint fails to state a cause of

action, the absence of need for the City to obtain a permit,

the character of the refuse involved as not being subject to

statutory control or limitation, the absence of jurisdiction of

the Pollution Control Board over the City of Chicago based upon

the home rule provisions of the 1970 Illinois Constitution, the

alleged possibility of an imposition of a criminal penalty by

the Board, and the alleged inability of the Board to resolve

constitutional issues. We find the contention of the City of

Chicago wholly lacking in merit and deny the motion to dismiss

in its entirety.

An examination of the complaint discloses allegations of

violation that are of sufficient specificity to inform respond-

ents as to the nature of the violations alleged. Any detail or

amplification necessary to properly prepare a defense may be ob-

tained by resort to pre-trial discovery procedures as provided in

the Board Rules.

Whether or not the activities of the respondents and the

refuse involved are susceptible to statutory and regulatory

provisions and ultimate Board order can only be determined

after a full hearing on the facts of the case. Nothing in the

8— 503

---

—2—

Illinois Constitution nor the Environmental Protection Act

suggests in any way immunity of home rule municipalities from

State regulation of a sort here involved. In fact, the exact

opposite is the case. (See Environmental Protection Agency v.

James McHugh Construction Company et al, PCB72-9l.) Any penalty

assessed by the Board would be a civil and not a criminal

penalty. The Board is not promulgating constitutional rulings,

but only carryinq out its legislative function as mandated by

the General Assembly pursuant to the Environmental Protection

Act.

Because the foregoing contentions can be disposed of with-

out oral argument, none will be heard. Motion to dismiss is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the above Order was adopted by the Board on the

/

day of

-

1973, by a vote of

____

to 0

/~

8— 504