ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 10, 2008
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Complainant,
v.
C. JOHN BLICKHAN,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AC 07-24
(IEPA No. 304-06-AC)
AC 08-19
(IEPA No. 23-08-AC)
(Administrative Citation)
(Consolidated)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore):
On October 20, 2006, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) timely
filed an administrative citation against C. John Blickhan in AC 07-24. The Agency alleged that
the respondent violated Sections 21(p)(1), (p)(3), and (p)(7) of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act) (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (p)(3), and (p)(7) (2006)). The Agency further alleged that the
respondent violated these provisions by causing or allowing the open dumping of waste resulting
in litter, open burning, and the deposition of general construction or demolition debris or clean
construction or demolition debris at a facility located at Lock and Dam Road, Quincy, Adams
County. On November 9, 2006, the respondent timely filed a petition to contest the
administrative citation. In an order dated November 16, 2006, the Board accepted the petition
for hearing.
On February 29, 2008, the Agency timely filed an administrative citation against C. John
Blickhan in AC 08-19. The Agency alleged that the respondent violated Sections 21(p)(1),
(p)(3), and (p)(7) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (p)(3), and (p)(7) (2006)). The Agency
further alleged that the respondent violated these provisions by causing or allowing the open
dumping of waste in a manner resulting in litter, open burning, and the deposition of general or
clean construction or demolition debris at a facility located at Lock and Dam Road, Quincy,
Adams County. On March 24, 2008, the respondent timely filed a petition to contest the
administrative citation. In an order dated April 3, 2008, the Board accepted the petition for
hearing.
On June 10, 2008, the Agency filed a motion to consolidate for purposes of hearing
(Mot.). The Agency argues that “[t]he parties and attorneys in these two cases are identical,
Illinois EPA’s main witnesses are likewise identical, and the burdens of proof are identical.”
Mot. at 2. The Agency further argues that “consolidation for the purpose of hearing is in the
interest of convenient, expeditious, and complete determination of claims in each of these cases.”
Id.
The Agency claims that “[n]o material prejudice would be caused by consolidating these
cases for hearing.”
Id
.;
see
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.406 (consolidation of cases).
2
Section 101.500(d) of the Board’s procedural rules provides that, “[w]ithin 14 days after
service of a motion, a party may file a response to the motion. If no response is filed, the party
will be deemed to have waived objection to the granting of the motion, but the waiver of
objection does not bind the Board or the hearing officer in its disposition of the motion.” 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 101.500(d). The Board has received no response to the motion to consolidate from
the respondent.
The Board grants the Agency’s motion to consolidate. The appeals are consolidated for
hearing, but not necessarily for Board decision.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.406. Future filings
must reflect the caption of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that
the Board adopted the above order on July 10, 2008, by a vote of 4-0.
___________________________________
John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board