ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September
    1,
    1994
    MARY
    LOU POWELL,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 94—204
    (Enforcement)
    MR.
    M. CEISEL
    d/b/a Laser Express Auto Bath,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by C.A. Manning):
    This matter is before the Board pursuant to a complaint
    filed July 29,
    1994 by Mary Lou Powell, against the respondent,
    Mr. N. Ceisel d/b/a Laser Express Auto Bath (Auto Bath).
    The
    complaint alleges that respondent violated 415 ILCS 5/23 and 5/24
    of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    and 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code
    900.102,
    in his operation of an automatic car wash facility.1
    As
    of the date of this order, the Board has not received a response
    to the complaint.
    Pursuant to Section 31(b)
    of the Act the Board
    must make a determination as to whether the complaint filed is
    frivolous or duplicitous.
    (415 ILCS 5/31(b)
    (1992).)
    In the context of a motion to dismiss brought on frivolous
    and duplicitous grounds,
    in another citizen’s enforcement case
    involving noise pollution, the Board discussed the meanings of
    frivolous and duplicitous.
    Joseph A.
    Schrantz et al.
    v. Village
    of Villa Park et al.,
    (October 21,
    1993), PCB 93—161.
    In
    Schrantz, the Board explained the meaning of “frivolous”:
    The Board has construed “frivolous” to mean “failure to
    state a cause of action upon which relief can be
    granted.”
    (Citizens for
    a Better Environment
    v.
    Reynolds Metals Co.,
    (May
    17,
    1973)
    PCB 73—173,
    8 PCB
    46.
    The Board stated in Farmers Opposed to Extension
    of the Illinois Tollway v.
    Illinois State Toll Highway
    Auth.,
    (September 16,
    1971)
    PCB 71—159,
    2 PCB 119:
    “The
    ‘The Board’s regulations at 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 901.102(a)
    and
    (b)
    establish numerical limits for sound emission levels for
    certain land use classifications.
    Sections 23 and 24 of the Act
    are the general provisions
    prohibiting persons from emitting
    noise beyond the boundaries of their ~4~eproperty so as to
    unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or any lawful
    business or activity so as to violate any regulation or standard
    adopted by the Board under the Act.
    2
    ‘frivolous’ provision is designed to avoid expensive
    and time—consuming hearings on claims that cannot
    prevail even if the facts alleged are true.”
    After
    examining these two Board holdings,
    and Webster’s
    dictionary2, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
    District, defined a “frivolous” pleading as ‘~onethat
    is either legally or factually deficient.” Winnetkans
    Interested in Protecting the Environment
    (WIPE)
    v.Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    13 I11.Dec.
    149,
    153,
    370 N.E.2d 1176 (1st Dist.
    1977)~.
    The instant complaint requests that the Board issue an order
    directing respondents to cease and desist from the alleged
    violations,
    and to bring the facility into compliance with
    Illinois’ statutes.
    The Board has the authority to grant such
    relief if the alleged facts are proven at hearing.
    Therefore the
    Board finds that the complaint is not frivolous.
    Schrantz also discussed the meaning of “duplicitous” and in
    doing so stated the following:
    In Brandle v. RoPP,
    (June 13,
    1985), PCB 85—68,
    64 PCB
    263, the Board held:
    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.
    (Citation
    omitted.)
    A complaint
    is also duplicitous if
    it is identical or substantially similar to
    one brought in another forum.
    In League of Women Voters
    v.
    North Shore Sanitary
    Dist.,
    (October
    8,
    1970)
    PCB 70-1,1 PCB 35, the Board
    held “that the reason for the prohibition of
    duplicitous complaints is the apprehension that private
    citizens’ complaints ‘might flood the Board with too
    2Webster’s Third New Dictionary 913
    (1971) defined
    “frivolous” as “of little weight or importance:
    having no basis
    in law or fact..
    ..“
    3”The Board can grant relief by ordering a respondent to stop
    the polluting activity and by imposing a
    fine.
    The Board cannot
    grant monetary compensation for damage done to health or property
    and it cannot impose criminal sanctions such as a jail term.
    Thus,
    any request for monetary compensation or the imposition of criminal
    sanctions
    would
    be considered
    frivolous.”
    (In
    the Matter
    of:
    Duplicitous or Frivolous Determination,
    (June
    8,
    1989), RES 89—2,
    Slip Op. at 2.)
    3
    many cases raising the same issue and
    might)
    unduly
    harass a respondent.”
    WIPE v.
    IPCB,
    13 I1l.Dec. at
    153,
    citing. League
    of Women Voters, at 36.
    The complainant states that there are no other cases arising
    from the same issue in another forum or court.
    The Board
    is
    unaware of any other cases arising from the same issue therefore
    the Board finds the complaint is not duplicitous and this matter
    is directed to hearing.
    The hearing must be scheduled and completed in a timely
    manner consistent with Board practices.
    The hearing officer
    shall inform the Clerk of the Board of the time and location of
    the hearing at least 40 days in advance of hearing so that public
    notice of hearing may be published.
    After hearing, the hearing
    officer shall submit an exhibit list,
    a statement regarding the
    credibility of witnesses and all actual exhibits to the Board
    within
    5 days of the hearing.
    If after appropriate consultation with the parties, the
    parties fail to provide an acceptable hearing date or if after an
    attempt the hearing officer
    is unable to consult with the
    parties, the hearing officer shall unilaterally set a hearing
    date in conformance with the schedule above.
    The hearing officer
    and the parties are encouraged to expedite this proceeding as
    much as possible.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    f1~~
    day of
    2i~—”
    ,
    1994, by
    a vote of
    ~‘
    Dorothy N. -dunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top