ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
2,
1982
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainant,
and
)
PCB 78—233
FLORENCE FARMER,
Intervenor,
vs.
GRANITE CITY STEEL DIVISION
OF NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION.
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
I.
G. Goodman):
On October
4,
1982 the Respondent filed
a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Boardts September
2,
1982 Order in this
matter.
Leave to file this motion was granted on October 14,
1982 and responses allowed until October
22,
1982.
No response
has been filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Complainant.
On November 29,
1982,
the Intervenor
filed both
a Motion to File Instanter and a Response.
Leave to file
is
granted.
Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration is granted.
Two
issues are raised by the Respondent’s motion.
Th~
Respondent argues that the Appellate Court remand does not
vacate the Stipulated Agreement entered into by the Agency and
Respondent.
In support,
the Respondent contends that interven-
tion was not sought until after
that Agreement had been filed;
and that the Appellate Court’s
ruling on a motion and also by
its final order limited the issue in that appeal to the right
of intervention.
Despite the Respondent’s first contention, it was only when
the Board fully incorporated the Agreement into its Order of July
10,
1980 that the Agreement became final, and intervention was
sought prior to that.
Furthermore,
to interpret the Court’s
remand as solely allowing intervention but not vacating the final
Order, and therefore the Agreement, would he contrary to the
rationale of the remand.
This interpretation would leave
the
Intervenor with having gained
a right and yet without any
available remedy.
50-17
2
Secondly,
the Respondent argues that pursuant
to the Board’s
Procedural
Rules,
the Intervenor is barred from alleging viola-
tions prior to those alleged
in the original complaint.
Respon-
dent contends that since the Intervenor must take the case as
“she finds
it,”
like the Complainant she is
limited pursuant to
Procedural Rule
326(b) to amending the pleadings with allegations
of violation subsequent or continuing after the initial pleading
was filed.
The legal maxim forwarded by Respondent
is correcb.
It does
not, however, mean that an Intervenor cannot
so amend
the pleadings,
The Board must also consider the two—fold purpose
of intervention:
1)
to protect an interest which might otherwise be adversely
affected by the outcome,
and 2) to expedite litigation by dis-
posing of the entire controversy among the persons involved in
one action,
and so to prevent multiplicity of actions.”
Strader
v.
Board of Education,
351 Ill. App.
438,
115 N.E.
2d 539, at
547
(1953).
Exercising its discretion,
the Board has allowed the Inter—
venor to amend Counts
I through IV
in a limited manner.
No new
issues are raised,
so the Intervenor has taken the case as she
found
it.
Yet the purposes of intervention,
in this case granted
by the Fifth District, have been preserved.
The September 2,
1982 Order
is reaffirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Chairman
3.
Dumelle dissented.
Board Member
D.
Anderson
concurred.
I, Christan L.
Moffet, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Boar~,hereby certify that the above Order was adopted
on the
-~.
‘~‘~
day of
~
1982 by a vote of
Christan
L. Mof~E~,?,Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
50-18