ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 26, 2001
     
    B.L.T., INC.,
     
     
    Complainant,
     
     
    v.
     
    SIXTH STREET DEVELOPERS LIMITED
    PARTNERSHIP, ORF, INC., ROLAND
    INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, VT
    PROPERTIES, INC., and FREESEN, INC.,
     
     
    Respondents.
    ______________________________________
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
     
     
    PCB 01-128
    (Enforcement – Citizens, Land)
     
     
     
     
    SIXTH STREET DEVELOPERS LIMITED
    PARTNERSHIP, and FREESEN, INC.,
     
     
    Counter-Complainants,
     
     
    v.
     
    B.L.T., INC.,
     
     
    Counter-Respondent.
    ______________________________________
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
     
    PCB 01-128
    (Enforcement – Citizens, Land)
     
     
     
     
    SIXTH STREET DEVELOPERS LIMITED
    PARTNERSHIP, and FREESEN, INC.,
     
     
    Third-Party Complainants,
     
     
    v.
     
    FIATALLIS,
     
     
    Third-Party Respondent.
     
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 01-128
    (Enforcement – Citizens, Land)
     
     
     
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
    On March 19, 2001, B.L.T., Inc. filed a citizen’s enforcement action alleging respondents
    Sixth Street Developers Limited Partnership, ORF, Inc., Roland Industries Incorporated, VT
    Properties, Inc. and Freesen, Inc. caused or allowed violations of the Environmental Protection
     
    2
    Act (415 ILCS 5/1
    et seq.
    (2000)) and the Board’s rules. On May 3, 2001, the Board accepted
    this matter for hearing. On May 16, 2001, Freesen, Inc. (Freesen) filed three motions with the
    Board. On May 24, 2001, Sixth Street Developers Limited Partnership (Sixth Street Developers)
    filed two of the same motions. The first motion filed was for leave to file a counter-complaint
    against the complainant. The second motion was a motion for leave to file a third-party
    complaint against FiatAllis. The third motion, filed only by Freesen, was a motion to add
    Anderson Excavating and Wrecking Co. (Anderson Excavating) as a respondent in this
    proceeding.
     
    The Board grants both motions to file a counter-complaint against B.L.T., Inc.
     
    As to the motions to file third-party complaints, Section 103.212(a) of the Board’s
    procedural rules directs the Board to determine whether or not a citizen’s complaint is
    duplicitous or frivolous. It provides:
    Any person may file with the Board a complaint against any person allegedly
    violating the Act or any rule or regulation thereunder or any permit or term or
    condition thereof. When the Board receives a citizen’s complaint, unless the
    Board determines that such complaint is duplicitous or frivolous, it shall schedule
    a hearing. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.212.
    An action before the Board is duplicitous if the matter is identical or substantially similar to one
    brought before the Board or in another forum. Brandle v. Ropp (June 13, 1985), PCB 85-68, 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 101.202. An action before the Board is frivolous if it requests relief which the
    Board cannot grant or if the complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which the Board can
    grant relief. Lake County Forest Preserve Dist. v. Ostro (July 30, 1992), PCB 92-80, 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 101.202.
    On June 19, 2001, the Board received proof that the motions to file third-party complaints
    had been served on B.L.T., Inc., and Fiat Allis, the third-party respondent. Based on the record
    before the Board, the Board finds that the third-party complaints are neither duplicitous nor
    frivolous and the complaints are accepted for hearing.
    As to Freesen’s motion to add Anderson Excavating, the Board denies that motion.
    Section 103.206 of the Board’s procedural rules allows the Board to add a respondent “if a
    complete determination of a controversy cannot be had without the presence of the person who is
    not already a party to the proceeding.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.206. The Board finds that
    Freesen’s motion fails to demonstrate that a complete determination of the controversy requires
    the presence of the Anderson Excavating and the motion is denied.
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member E.Z. Kezelis abstained.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that the
    above order was adopted on the 26th day of July 2001 by a vote of 5-0.
     
    3
     
      
      
      
      
      
     
      
     
      
      
      
      
      
      
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
      
      
     
      
      
       
      
      
      
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
     

    Back to top