ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 10,

1976

WINNETKANS

 INTERESTED IN

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

(WIPE)

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 76—215

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Young):

Complainant’s Motion,

 filed on October 18,

 1976,

 seeking

reconsideration

 of our Order dismissing the Complaint in this

matter is hereby denied.

 In accordance with Procedural

 Rule

306, however,

 the Board will set forth the reasons for dis-

missal.

 The Complaint is composed basically of seven allega-

tions lettered

 4 (a) through

 4 (g).

The Board finds that the substance of allegations

 4 (a),

4(b),

 4(c),

 4(d)

 and 4(f)

 are duplicitous of the matter now

before the Board in WIPE v.

 The Village of Winnetka

 (PCB 75-363).

The Board believes that the most expeditious and complete reso-

lution of the entire controversy,

 i.e., whether or not certain

boilers owned and operated by the Village of Winnetka are opera-

ting

 in violation of the emission limitations prescribed by the

Regulations and if the requisite permits have been issued in

accordance with the Act and Regulations, will be accomplished

by appropriate pleading and proof

 in that case.

The

Board

finds

 loqati on

 4 (e)

fri

voion~ in

 that no

 facts

are

dli

ccjed

which

to

hOW

~L1

I

(‘(jod

t~eOflR’fl

t~

1)0

~W0C11

WIPH ~ind

tue

Viii

aqe

oL

 Wi nnCLkU

I)

LflCt~

LIie

I:nvj ioiiiuoiiLji

Pro

tection Agency.

 Totally absent are any facts

 showing that the

Agency was

 a party to the alleged agreement or had a duty,

as

a matter of law, not to consider a stack test submitted in

support of a permit application until all possible interested

persons had assented

 to Agency consideration of such test.

The Board finds allegation

 4(g)

 frivolous in that it recites

the bare conclusion that the Agency issued a permit as the re-

sult of improper pressure, undue influence and actual or implied

—

257

—

threats of economic and political reprisal.

 A mere averment

that

act

was

done

with

 a certain purpose or intent is

a

conclusion of law and is not a sufficient allegation.

 Com-

plainant admits inability

 to plead with greater specificity

because of the lack of any facts on which

 to base the allega-

tion.

 The Board believes that any complaint which it sets

for hearing must be based on something considerably more sub-

stantial than an unsupported recital of a mere suspicion of

irregularity.

 The Board further believes that the pertinent

part of Section 31(b)

 of the Act relating to the Board’s deter-

mination of whether or not a complaint is duplicitous or frivo-

lous was specifically included

 in the Act to prevent the possi-

bility of harrassment which could flow from such an allegation

as the one in question here.

 Finally, because of the deficiency

in allegation 4(g) which compels our dismissal,

 it is unnecessary

for us to determine whether the Board has jurisdiction

 to hear

such

 a matter if sufficient facts were alleged,

 or whether such

a matter is properly within the criminal jurisdiction of the

circuit court.

Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration

 is denied.

IT

 IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above

 pinion and Order were

adopted on the

 J6~~

day of

1)

 1976 by a

vote of

_____

Q~tanL.Mof’f~k

Illinois

Pollution

trol

Board

—

258