ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 2, 1982
    U
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    and
    FLORENCE FARMER,
    )
    Intervenor,
    V.
    )
    PCB 78—233
    GRANITE CITY STEEL
    )
    DIVISION OF NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by I. Goodmanh
    By Order of the Board this matter was reopened on March 19,
    1982 pursuant to the appellate court’s mandate in Florence Farmer
    v.Illinois Pollution Control Board, No. 80—377 (5th Dist, 1982).
    On June 3, 1982 Intervenor, Florence Farmer, filed an ~n~endedCom-
    plaint which 1) named the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) as a Respondent and 2) alleged additional and continuing
    violations by the original Respondent, Granite City Steel (Granite
    City).
    The Agency moved to dismiss those counts in the Intervenor’s
    Amended Complaint alleging violations by the Agency on June 9,
    1982. On June 21, 1982 the Intervenor filed a Response to the
    Agency’s motion and requested additional time to file a memorandum
    of law in support thereof. The Board granted the additional time
    on July 1, 1982, On July 14, 1982 the Intervenor filed her memo-
    randum, Without leave, the Agency filed a Reply on July 22, 1982
    and the Intervenor filed a Response thereto on August 30, 1982
    and amended the complaint naming the Director of the Agency as
    Respondent, as opposed to the Agency itself.
    The Agency’s motion to dismiss was premised on the Supreme
    Court’s holding in Landfill,
    Inc.
    v. Pollution Control Board,
    74 Ill,2d 541, 387 N.L2d 258 (1978), that the Agency was not a
    person that could be sued under the Environmental Protection
    Act for failure to properly exercise its duties. Throughout its
    responses, the Intervenor argued that the Landfill decision was
    distinguished in that it dealt with a permit denial, as opposed
    to an enforcement action. However, the Court’s language is
    48-55
    2
    explicit:
    ~Prosecution under the ~lct~
    is against
    polluters,
    not the Agency~
    at
    p.
    264~
    Despite
    the quasi~’:~udicial duties delegated to the
    Board
    under the Act,
    this body cannot consider actions in
    contravention
    of the
    Landfill decision0 Furthermore, the Board, as an adrninis-
    trative~~dy,cannot decide issues for which the remedy is a writ
    of mandamus~
    This is reserved for the :iudiciary0 Therefore, the
    Agency’s
    motion
    to dismiss is granted and Counts Vi,
    VII,
    VIII
    and IX of the Amended Complaint of August 30, 1982
    are stricken,
    As stated above, the :ntervenor s Amended Complaint
    alleged
    violations by Granite City in addition to those already brought
    by the
    Agency’s complaint in this matter, On June
    14,
    1982
    Granite
    City moved for an extension of
    time to respond
    and
    filed
    a motion to strike or d~Lsmiss Intervenor’s Amended Complaint and
    Memorandum in Support thereof on June
    28,
    i982~ (The additional
    time was granted by the Board at its regu.anlv scheduled meeting
    on July 1, 1982,)
    On
    July 14, 1982 the Intervenor requested until July
    28, 1982
    to
    respond to Granite City~smotion, which was granted on July
    21,
    1982,
    On August
    30, 1982 the Intervenor filed the response with
    a motion to
    file Instanter,
    The motion is granted~.
    In
    the Amended Complaint filed by the Intervenor, three counts
    in addition to those alleged originally by the Agency are set out.
    The counts
    allege violations of Section 39 of
    the Act, Chapter 2:
    Air
    Pollution, Rules 102, 103(a), 103(b), :L10, 203(d)(2), 203,
    204
    and
    307, and Rule 331(a) of the Board’s Procedural Rules.
    The
    Intervenor
    alleges violations of the Act and Chapter 2
    from 1975
    and
    1972,
    respectively, up until the present.
    The Board will
    allow the additional counts, but the time frame will be limited.
    The Board acknowledges that the Stipulation is vacated by the
    Fifth District~s action, but believes that the Intervenor should
    be allowed to
    amend only
    as
    to violations
    and the
    time
    period
    prior to the time she attempted to intervene0
    The Board notes
    that she is free to bring a separate enforcement action for
    violations she wishes to al:Lege since that time,
    Thus, Granite
    City’s
    motion
    to dismiss is denied and the motion to strike
    is
    granted
    in part~
    IT IS SO ORDERED,
    Board Members D. Anderson
    and J, Dumelle concurred,
    I, Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control
    ~oard, hereby certify
    that
    the above Order
    was
    adopted
    on
    the ~
    day of
    ~
    1982 by a vote
    of
    ____
    Q
    Christ a~I~Thof~ Clerk
    Iil~noisPolluti~ Control
    Board
    48-58

    Back to top