ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May
    8,
    1975
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—118
    STAR UTILITY COMPANY AN ILLINOIS
    CORPORATION:
    AND MIDWEST UTILITY
    COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION
    )
    Respondent
    INTERIM ORDER AND OPINION
    OF’ THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Irvin Goodman):
    This matter comes before the Board on the motion of
    Respondent, Star Utility Company,
    to dismiss the complaint
    on various grounds.
    Respondent’s
    first contention attacks the standing
    of
    the Attorney General
    of
    the State of Illinois to commence and
    prosecute actions before the Pollution Control Board without
    specific legal authority in the form of
    a statute.
    The powers and duties of the Attorney General include
    not only those powers conferred upon him by statute, but
    also those powers and duties inherent in the office as it
    existed at common law,
    People v.
    Crawford Distributing Co.
    (1972)
    53 Ill.2d.
    332,
    291 NE
    2d.
    648.
    Article 11
    §2 of the .1970 Illinois Constitution speaks in
    terms of
    “each person”, expanding the rights of citizens to bring
    actions against polluters regardless of special in~jury. The
    constitutional commentary
    suggests that it was not the intent
    thereof to prevent the Attorney General from having standing
    to
    bring such suits.
    Indeed, the term “person”
    as defined in the
    “Environmental Protection Act”,
    111 1/2 Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    §1003
    is sufficiently broad to include the Attorney General as repre-
    sentative of the State.
    111 1/2 111.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    §1031
    (b)
    therefore, grants the Attorney General the requisite standing
    to bring this action.
    16—635
    —2—
    Respondent’s second contention involves an alleged conflict
    of interest in having the Attorney General prosecute this action
    as the Attorney General represents the Illinois Commerce
    Commission to which respondent is also subject.
    We find this
    allegation specious in
    view of the lack of any definite damage to
    the respondent.
    Respondent fails to state whether there are
    pro-
    ceedings
    pending before the I.C.C.,
    involving Respondent,
    which are
    in conflict with the instant proceeding.
    In any event,
    the I.C.C.
    does not have jurisdiction to hold hearings or issue orders con-
    cerning violations
    of the Environmental Protection Act.
    The next two contentions of Respondent involve, interpreta-
    tions of Rule 602(b).
    In both contentions, Respondent argues
    that 602(b)
    refers only to Combined Sewers and Treatment plants
    bypasses.
    The language of 602(b)
    states:
    “..
    ,Overflows from
    sanitary sewers are expressly prohibited.” As the respondent ad-
    mits to operating
    a sanitary sewer, Rule 602(b)
    plainly applies
    to
    it.
    We find that Rules 602(b)
    and 601(a)
    are not so vague, in-
    definite or ambiguous and arbitrary as to be unenforceable or
    contrary to the constitutions of the State of Illinois or the
    United States.
    Respondent~scontention that it has a duplicate power plant
    does
    not meet all the allegations of paragraph
    6 of the com-
    plaint,
    It does raise a question of fact which will be dis-
    posed of after a hearing on the merits.
    The Complaint does state dates of alleged violations of the Act
    and
    sufficiently puts the Respondent on notice of specific violations
    complained therein so as not to be subject to
    a motion to
    dismiss.
    See EPA
    v.
    Ashland Chemical Co.
    & et al PCB 72-
    188.
    Finally, Respondent contends that the Board does not
    have authority
    to impose monetary penalties
    or
    cease and
    desist orders.
    It
    is well settled that the Board
    does
    have
    authority to impose monetary
    penalties
    and cease and desist
    orders.
    Such authority is neither an unlawful delegation of
    judicial power
    or
    a denial of due process and equal protection
    of law.
    Cobin v.
    P.C.B.
    et al
    16 Ill. App.3d.
    958,
    397 NE
    2d.
    191
    (1974);
    City of Monmouth v~E.P.A.
    et al
    57 I11.2d
    482,
    313 NE 2d 161
    (1974);
    Ford v. E.P.A.
    et al,
    91 Ill.
    App.
    3d.
    711,
    292 NE 2d. 540
    (1973);
    City of Waukegan v.
    P.C,B.,
    57 Ill.2d.
    170,
    311 NE 2d 146
    (1974).
    16
    —636
    —3—
    It is the opinion of the Board the Respondent’s motion to
    Dismiss be denied.
    IT IS SO
    ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and orde~were adopted on
    the~~ day of
    ,
    1975 by a vote of~—O
    4-
    Illinois Pollution Cottrol Board
    16—637

    Back to top