ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 11, 1995
    INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
    AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE
    AND
    AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS
    OF AMERICA
    AND
    UAW
    LOCAL
    974;
    AND
    CITIZENS FOR A BETTER
    ENVIRONMENT,
    Complainants,
    v.
    CATERPILLAR INC.,
    )
    PCB 94-240
    )
    (Enforcement)
    Respondent,
    )
    )
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Party-in-Interest.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C. A. Manning):
    This matter is before the Board on a motion to strike
    affirmative defenses filed by the complainants on December 13,
    1994 in which they object to all 16 affirmative defenses raised
    in the respondent, Caterpillar Inc.’s December 2, 1994 answer to
    the complaint. Caterpillar filed a response to the motion on
    December 22, 1994 asking that we deny the relief requested in the
    motion.
    In general terms, the affirmative defenses concern the
    sufficiency of the pleadings, the reasonableness of the
    respondent’s corrective action at the site and Caterpillar’s
    participation in the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s
    4(q) program. The complainants suggest that the affirmative
    defenses are repetitive of argwiients raised in Caterpillar’s
    motion to dismiss this case which we denied on November 3, 1994.
    Complainants also argue that the defenses are insufficiently pled
    because they do not constitute “facts” and are merely conclusions
    of law.
    We hereby deny the motion to strike in its entirety. We
    will not deprive Caterpillar the opportunity to offer facts and
    arguments at hearing which would support or prove any of the
    affirmative defenses raised in the answer. While Caterpillar may
    have set forth its affirmative defenses without pleading any
    additional facts to those already alleged in the complaint,
    Caterpillar was under no requirement to do so.
    When
    the defense
    2
    is directed to the facts set forth in the complaint, no
    additional facts need be pled. (Fitzpatrick v. City of Chicago,
    131 Ill. App. 3d 582, 475 N.E. 2 995, 998 (1985); see also 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 103.122(d).)
    Moreover, though many of Caterpillar’s affirmative defenses
    are similar to the arguments put forth in Caterpillar’s motion to
    dismiss, we do not find this to be an adequate basis to strike
    these defenses. Our November 3, 1994 order merely determined
    that the complaint pled sufficient facts to survive a motion to
    dismiss. Our denying Caterpillar’s motion to dismiss did not
    foreclose Caterpillar from raising defenses that based on a fully
    developed record, may show that the alleged violations of the
    Environmental Protection Act did not occur or that the relief
    requested by the compliant is improper. Further, many of the
    defenses relate to Caterpillar’s participation in the Agency’s
    4(q) program and as we have already determined in our November 3,
    1994 order (see page 4), we will not deny Caterpillar, or the
    complainants, the opportunity to offer proof regarding this
    issue.
    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
    ~
    day of
    __________________,
    1995, by a vote of
    ~
    _
    /2
    Thorothy N. G~nn, Clerk
    Illinois Poll.ution Control Board

    Back to top