ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 26,
1975
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75-95
STAR UTILITY COMPANY,
an Illinois
corporation; and MIDWEST UTILITY
COMPANY,
an Illinois corporation,
Respondents.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Zeitlin)
The Complaint in this matter was filed by the Attorney
General on February 26,
1975.
On March
11, 1975 Respondents
filed
a Motion to Dismiss alleging various defects in the
Complaint.
The Attorney General filed
a Response in Opposition
to Respondents’
Motion to Dismiss on March
12,
1975.
Respondent’s ~otion to Dts~i~salleged t~eiollowing
points:
I.
The Attorney General has no legal authority to
bring an enforcement action before the Pollution Control
Board.
II.
The Attorney General’s representation of the
Illinois Commerce Commission, which regulates Respondent
as a public utility, may present a conflict of interest
in the Attorney General’sProSeCUtionof
this matter before
the Board.
III.
The Complaint in the matter violates Board Pro-
cedural Rule 304(c) (2)
in that it insufficiently specifies
the dates, location,
events, nature,
extent, duration and
strength of the discharges complained of;
Respondents
have
not been adequately advised of the full extent and nature
of the matters complained of, and is not therefore given
an adequate opportunity to prepare
a defense.
16
—
243
—2—
IV.
Rule 305 of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies
of the Board’s Rules and Regulations does not become ef-
fective as regards existing public water supplies for a
period of one year after the effective date of that chap-
ter. Respondents were and are an existing public water
supply, and therefore should not be subject to prosecution
under Rule
305 for a period of one year after December
21,
1974.
V.
The complained of offensive odor and taste
are merely sensory perceptions; such sensory perceptions
do not fall within the ambit of Section
18 of the Environmental
Protection Act and cannot constitute
a violation thereof.
VI.
The various Sections of the Environmental Pro-
tection Act,
the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
and the
Department of Public Health Public Water Supply Rules and
Regulations are all
so vague, indefinite, ambiguous,
and
overly broad as to be unconstitutional.
VII.
The Board does not have the power to grant as
relief a cease and desist order, or the imposition of a
penalty.
The Board has in p~viouscases considered most of the alle-
gations in this motion,
The majority of Respondents’ motion,
(paragraphs I,
II, VI and VII, above),
can be denied without
citation or discussion. Paragraph III
is unfounded insofar
as Respondent
is in fact given adequate notice of the matters
with which it is charged, and is given sufficient opportunity
to prepare its defense;
this portion of the motion must also
be denied.
Paragraph V,
(regarding offensive odor and taste
as violation),
the Board will consider when reaching its
decision on the merits of this matter.
Paragraph IV of Respondents’
Motion, however, will be
granted. The complaint herein alleges on its fact that
Respondents have operated a public water supply since at
least July
1,
1970,
and has continued to do so until the
present.
The Board’s Public Water Supply Regulations were
adopted on December 21,
1974.
Rule
305 of the Public Water
Supply Regulations states that Rule shall not apply to
existing public water supplies for a period of one year
after its effective date.
For this reason, paragraph
7 of
the Attorney General’s complaint,
alleging a violation of
Rule 305, must be dismissed.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L.~Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board hereby certif
the above Order was adopted on
the
~
day of
W
,
1975 by
a
vote of
___
to
()
,
~
)
Christan L. Mo
ett, ~lerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
16—244