ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

December

20,

1984

WILLIAM

H.

CLARKE and

)

PIONEER PROCESSING,

INC.,

)

Petitioners,

v~

)

PCB

84~l5O

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE

BOARD (by J.

D.

Dumelle):

This matter

comes

before the Board upon

a

November

29,

1984,

motion to join

necessary

parties filed

on

behalf of William H.

Clarke

and

Pioneer Processing,

Inc~. (Petitioners),

Responses to

that motion were

filed

by the County of LaSalle,

Rosemary

Sinon,

Marie Madden and

Joan

Benya Bernabei (Objectors)

and the

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) on December

7,

1984,

On

December

17,

1984,

Petitioners

filed

a reply and,

in the

alternative,

a motion to amend its original motion, which

was

accompanied by

a

motion to file

its

reply instanter.

Leave

to file

instanter is

hereby granted.

The original

motion

requests that the

Board join the

Objectors,

the People

of the

State of

Illinois,

the

Village

of Naplate,

the

City

of Ottawa,

the Village of

Ottawa, the

Village

of Utica,

the

Ottawa Township

Board of Trustees,

the Town

of Ottawa and

Residents

Against Polluted

Environment

as necessary

parties.

The

Objectors

objected to joinder

since over

60 days of

the 90 day statutory

period

for decision

have

already run*,

thereby severely

prejudicing

their rights.

They,

therefore, move that

the joinder motion

be

denied unless

petitioners

would agree

to

extend the statutory

decision date

to 90 days

from the date of

joinder.

They

conclude

that “absent

aich agreement,

the motion

should

be denie~and

the

permit appeal

should be

denied

(sic)

for

failure to join

necessary

parties.”

The

Agency

also objects to the

joinder motion

if

there

is not an

additional

waiver

of the statutory

decision

period.

In

its reply, Petitioners~reque~st“that the

Board grant

Petitioners’

Motion to Join

Necessary

Parties,

as amended

herein,

and

that the

*The Board notes

that

Pioneer has waived the

decision date

until

February 21,

1985,

bet

that such waiver would

not

allow 90

days

from the date

of joinder.

62-21

---

2

persons or entities

named

in Petitioners’

motion

he

served

and

that

they

be

permittedc

by

a

date

certain,

to

~ntsrvene

as

party

(sic)

herein.~

First,

the

Board

finds

that

the

persons

who

are

requested

to

be

joined

as

parties

in

the

original

motion

are

not

necessary

parties

in

the

sense

that

the

Board

cannot

exercise

lurisdiction

in

this

case

absent

their

joinder.

Even Petitioners have

admitted

as

niich

(and

in

their

reply

rephrase

the

original

motion

as

a

“Motion

to

Allow

Additional

Parties

to

be

Designate&).

While

the

Objectors

contend

that

the

appeal

should

be

lenied

for

failure

to

join

necessary

parties,

their

only

support

for

the

proposition

that

there

are

necessary

parties

who

have

not

been

-joined is

that

the

Petitioners

have

acknowledged

them

to

be

so~

7~s

noted

above,

that

acknowledgement

(if it

ever

existed

in

the

sense

that

Petitioners’

contend)

has

been

withdrawn.

Thus,

the

various

pleadings

contain

no

basis

from

which

the

Board

cen

conclude

that

there

are

any

necessary

parties

who

must

be

joined~.

Perhaps more

importantly,

given

Petitioners’

request

in

its

reply~

there

no

longer

appears

to he any

motion

before

the

Board

rec~esting

the

joinder

of

necessary

parties.

Second,

the

Petitioners’

amended

request

that

the

Board

serve

the

persons

named

as

necessary

parties

in

the

original

motion

and

a:Llow

their

intervention

by

a

date

certain

is

denied,

The

Board

can

find

no

reason

to

change

its

usual

notice

and

service

procedures

Hearing

notices

and

mailings

of

Board

opinions

and

orders

will

he

handled

in

accordance

with

the

Act

and

Board

rules,

if

Petitioners,

or

anyone

else,

wishes

to

serve

these

persons,

they

can

do

so.

Further,

the

Board

will

not

allow

intervention

when

no

petition

for

intervention

is

before it,

nor

will

the

Board

set

any

arbitrary

cut-off

date

for

intervention

petitions

to

be

fi1ed~

Third,

the

Objectors

motion

to

deny

joinder

ci: alternatively

to

deny

the

permit

appeal

are

not

properly

before

the

Board

since

the

Objectors

are

not:.

parties

to

this

action

and

h~we not

intervened.

However,

the

effect

of

this

Order

is

to

grant

the

motion

to

deny

joinder.

IT

IS SO

ORDEREC,

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Po1:iut:~on

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

Order

was

adopted

on

the

~

day

of

_____________________,

1984

by

a

vote

of

5—o.

26~

__

~

~

)~‘

V

~

~

Dorothy

M.

G

nn,

ci1~T

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board