ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 22, 1993

CITIZENS AGAINST REGIONAL LANDFILL,

Petitioners,

v.

)

PCB 92—156

(Landfill Siting)

THE COUNTY BOARD OF WHITESIDE COUNTY

)

and WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,

)

INC.,

Respondents.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):

This matter comes before the Board on a motion for

reconsideration filed by Citizens Against Regional Landfill

(CARL) on April 1, 1993. CARL requests the Board to reconsider

the decision in its February 25, 1993 order concerning the

submission of the deposition transcript of Attorney Barrett.

Waste Management of Illinois Inc. (WMII) filed a response to the

motion on April 12, 1993. Whiteside County (County) filed its

response to the motion on April 13, 1993.

In its February 25, 1993 opinion and order, in ruling on

CARL’s “Motion for Review of Hearing Examiner Rulings Pertaining

to Discovery and Hearing Record”, the Board affirmed the hearing

officer’s rulings concerning the deposition of Attorney Barrett

and affirmed the hearing officer’s submission of portions of the

deposition transcript to the Board as an offer of proof. The

Board found that the entire deposition transcript need not be

submitted and that the portions submitted provided a sufficient

basis for the Board to review the hearing officer’s rulings.

CARL contends that, at the very least, the entire

deposition should have been received as an offer of proof. CARL

further contends that the Board erred in not reviewing the

deposition transcript when reviewing the hearing officer’s

rulings concerning the deposition.

WMII and the County argue that the motion for

reconsideration should be denied because petitioner presents no

new evidence or errors of fact or law but merely repeats its

previous arguments. The County also contends that petitioner did

not make an adequate offer of proof at the hearing and therefore

has waived the issue of exclusion on appeal.

The Board denies CARL’s motion for reconsideration because

the arguments presented in the motion for reconsideration are the

same as those presented in CARL’s previous motion and have been

fully considered by the Board. CARL has presented no new

evidence or errors in fact or law. However, the Board wishes to

O1L~t-O223

---

2

clarify that when ruling on CARL’S motion for review of the

hearing examiner’s rulings, it reviewed the portions of the

deposition transcript submitted by the hearing officer as an

offer of proof and the December 18, 1992 hearing transcript.

Further, the Board considers this to be an adequate offer of

proof in that it showed what the expected testimony would be, by

whom it would be made and its purpose. (Scaggs v. Horton (5th

Dist, 1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 854, 411 N.E.2d 870.) The Board

also notes that the attorney for CARL stipulated that those

portions of the deposition transcript submitted to the Board

would be protected as an offer of proof. (Hrg. Tr. at 137.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. Theodore Meyer abstained

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS

5/41 (1992)’) provides for appeal of final orders of the Board

within 35 days. The Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois

establish filing requirements.

I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that th~aboye order was adopted on the

~

day of

,

1993, by a vote of

-.5-0

.

j

Dorothy N. ~tinn,)~.Clerk

Illinois Pc6jlution Control Board

Previously codified at Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 111½, par.

1041.

1JIL~~

-O22Li~