ONE NORTH
FRANKLIN
STREET, SUITE 1200, CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS 60606
TELEPHONE:
312-251-9600
FACSIMILE: 312-251-9601
EMAIL:
GCARTER@CRMLAW.COM
GARRETT C. CARTER
CONNELLY ROBERTS & McGIVNEY LLC
CLE~K~F~ED
STATE OF ILLINOIS
April
8,
2005
Pollution Control Board
VIA U.S. MAIL
Mr. John Therriault
Illinois Pollution
Control Board, Clerk’s
Office
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Re:
Grand Pier Center LLC et a!.
v. Kerr-McGee Chemical
LLC,etaL
PCBO5-157
Dear John:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation from this morning, enclosed please find
nine copies ofExhibit “C”.
Please accept this exhibit as an addendum to Kerr-McGee
Chemical LLC’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
If you have any questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Garrett(~arter
Enclosures
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
APRil2005
Page
Citation
Found Document
Rank(R)
1 cth.~.
atabase
1985 WL 21380
(Ill.Pol.Control.Bd.)
oar
(Cite
as:
1985 WL 21380
(I11.Pol.Control.Bd.))
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State of Illinois
*1 PATRICK BRANDLE, JOEL DALY, LESTER HOSTE,
STEPHEN LAMBERTI MICHAEL
PASSMORE
AND
CHARLES WELTY,
COMPLAINANTS,
V.
DONALD ROPP,
RESPONDENT.
PCB 85-68
June
13,
1985
ORDER OF THE BOARD
by J. Theodore Meyer
This matter comes before the Board on a May 6,
1985 complaint filed by Patrick
Brandle,
Joel Daly, Lester Hoste, Stephen Lamberti, Michael Passmore and Charles
Welty
(Complainants) against Donald Ropp
(Respondent).
The complaint alleges
that on or about the 1st day of March,
1985 Respondent began operating a waste
disposal operation without a permit issued by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency)
in violation of Section 21(d) (1)
of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
The Respondent moved on May 28 to dismiss
the complaint stating that the instant proceeding was duplicative of an action
presently pending in Circuit Court.
Complainants respondent to the motion to
dismiss on June
5,
1985.
Complainants state that they have no objection to resolving this matter in
Circuit Court and that
it is their intent to do so. However, they suggest that
it would be ‘more appropriate’
to enter a general continuance of the Board
proceeding until what matters will be resolved in the court are known.
Under Section 30(b)
of the Act the Board is required to schedule hearing in
enforcement cases such as this unless it determines that the complaint is
‘duplicitous or frivolous’. Duplicitous is not defined in the Act but has been
interpreted to apply to complaints which duplicate ‘allegations identical or
substantially similar to matters previously brought before the Board.’
Winnetkans Interested in Protecting the Environment
(WIPE)
v.
Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
370 N.E.
2d 1176,
(Ill.
App.
Ct.
1977). A complaint is also
duplicitous if it is identical or substantially similar to one brought in
another forum.
The complaint herein consists of ten allegations; allegations eight through ten
concern the alleged waste-disposal operation.
The Board finds that the
allegations are duplicitous of those currently pending in the Circuit Court for
the Fourteenth Judicial District in Cause No.
85-MR-104.
Although the complaints are not precisely identical the issues are
substantially similar to those pending before the Circuit Court.
One of the
issues at the court level concerns whether a Development Permit was properly
issued in accordance with an ordinance of the Village of Colona; resolution of
the issue of whether an Agency permit is required is a prerequisite to the
outcome.
The defendant (Respondent herein)
disputes the necessity of obtaining
an Agency permit and in fact, has filed a third-party complaint against the
Agency requesting a Declaratory Judgment to determine whether the activity
complained of requires an Agency permit.
The Board finds that the most expeditious and complete resolution of this issue
will be accomplished at the court level. Continuance is inappropriate where,
as
(C)
2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
v~aw
Page
1985 WL 21380
(Cite
as:
1985 WL 21380,
*1
(I11.Pol.Control.Bd.))
here,
the complaint cannot meet the threshold test for Board acceptance.
Accordingly, this matter is dismissed, without prejudice.
*2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
1985 WL 21380
(Ill.Pol.Control.Bd.)
END OF DOCUMENT
(C)
2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
W~Uaw
