ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

8,

1975

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Complaintant,

v.

)

PCB 75—119

ARBURY UTILITIES,

INC,.,

AN

ILLINOIS CORPORATION,

Respondent,

INTERIM ORDER

AND

OPINION

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Irvin

S.

Goodman):

This matter comes before the Pollution

Control

Board

(Board)

on Respondent’s motion

to

dismiss,

Respcndent~s

first contention

is

that

as

there

is

a

pending

action

before

the

Illinois

Commerce

ConLmisSion

in

which

Arhury

Utilities

is

a

respondent,

the

Board

should

dismiss

the

instant

action

in

order

to

avoid

duplicative

or

inconsistent

orders.

As

the

Board

is

the

only

agency

having

jurisdiction

to

determine

violations

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act,

we

find

that

the

possibility

of

inconsistent

orders

or

dupli~-

city

is

sufficiently

remote

so

as

not

to

warrant

dismissal

on

those

grounds.

The second,

third, and

eighth

contetitions

of

the

Respondent

are

substantially

similar

to

those

of

~jj~Utilit

,

PCB

75~-1l8,

and

are not

supported

by the law,

As

we

have explained

in

the

~

al

opinion, today, the Attorney General

has standing to bring actions before the Board and no conflict

of interest arises solely from the fact that the Attorney General

also

represents

the Illinois Commerce Commission.

The issue of

the ~

authority to impose monetary penalties and cease and

desist orders

has been resolved by the courts of

Illinois in favor

of the Board, Cobin

v.

P.C.B,

et

al,

16 Ill.App.3d.

958,

397 NE2d

191

(1974);

City of Monrnouth

v.

E.P.A.

et al,

57 Ill.2d.

482,

313

NE2d.

161

(1974): Ford

v.

E.P.A.

et

al,

91 Ill.App.3d.

711,

292

NE2d.

540

(1973):

City of Waukegan

v.

P.C.B.,

57 Ill.2d.

170,

311

NE2d.

146

(1974)

16

—639

---

—2

Section

18 of the Act is not so vague, indefinite, ambiguous,

without standards,

overly broad,

or

stitutional,

under either the State or Federal Constitutions.

The Board finds that the allegations

in

the complaint

as

to dates, location,

events, nature,

extent, duration,

and

strength of discharge or emissions conform to the pleading

rules as promulgated

by

the

Board

and give

the Respondent

sufficient notice of the

acts

therein

complained

of

so

as

to reasonably allow Respondent

to prepare

a defense.

It is the oninion

of

the

Board that the Respondent’s

motion

to

dismiss

be

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of

the

Illinois Pollution Control

Boar,~hereby certify

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

~e

adopted~

~on

the

~

day

~

1975

by

a

vote

of

______________

Christan L.

goffet~

erk

Illinois Pollution

trol Board