ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 14, 1975
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75-95
PCB 75—118
STAR UTILITY COMPANY,
)
an Illinois Corporation,
and
MIDWEST UTILITY COMPANY,
)
an Illinois Corporation,
Respondents.
INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
On July
17, 1975,
Complainant in the above captioned
cause filed a Motion for Leave
to File an Amended complaint.
Respondent,
on Ju1~ 29,
1975,
filed its objections to this
motion.
The Board deals with these objections
as
follows:
1.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
is
hereby joined as a party
to the proceeding.
Respondent
contends that the Agency may be joined in an action only as
an Intervenor under Procedural Rule
310 or as a party Respondent
under Rule 303(c).
Procedural Rule
303(c)
states,
in part,
“If a person not a party has an interest which the order may
effect,
the Board on its own initiative or on application,
may direct him to be made a party.”
Rule 303(c)
does not
refer exclusively to Party Respondents.
The Agency
is
charged under Section
4 of the Environmental Protection Act
with surveillance and enforcement duties under the Act.
Clearly, as the Agency has an interest in the environment of
Illinois and that environment will be affected by any Order
of the Board, the Agency is an interested party within the
meaning of Rule 303(c).
Complainant’s motion contained in
part,
the Agency’s request, via its counsel,
the Attorney
General,
to be made a party.
This,
in conjunction with the
Agency’s obvious interest,
is sufficient “application” under
Rule
303
(C)
2.
çp~1ainant’s Motion to File an Amended Complaint
is granted.
Respondent’s contentions as to the Attorney
General’s multiple representations
of the People,
the Agency
and the Board constituting a violation of law is totally
without merit.
Furthermore, Complainant’s motion is timely
in
view
of the discovery of additional violations of the
Act.
The purpose of an amended complaint
is to facilitate
a
complete resolution of the issues in an action.
18—359
3.
¶7 of Count lof the amended complaint
is stricken.
Count
I of the Amended Complaint is identical
to Complainant’s
original complaint in PCB 75-95
to which the Board Order of
March 26,
1975, applies.
4.
For the same reasoning as above,
¶V of Respondent’s
March ll~ 7975 Motion to Dismiss,
seeking to strike
¶9
of the complaint is hereby applied to the amended complaint
and
will be taken with the case.
5.
Resj~ndent’sMotion
To
Dismiss
Count
II of the
Arnenaec
or,~nsnt, is denied
As Count 11 is identical to
the original complaint in PCB 75~-ll8, said motion is denied
on the same ~nrcunds stated in the
Board
Order
of May
8,
1975.
6~ Counts
III,
IV, and V are adequate under the Procedural
Rule 304(c) notice pleading requirements.
7.
Respondent’s contentions as
to the applicability of
deadline extensions under Rule 404(f)
and 409 of the Water
Regulations are groundless
in the face of the express wording
of the cequlstion
applying
the
extension
only
to
munici~alities
and sanitary
districts.
IT
IS SO
ORDERED.
I, Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby cer~ifythe above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~
~‘
day of
,
1975 by a
vote of
_____
Illinois
Pollution
C~
Board
18
—
360