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

    Back to top