BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARd~~CE~V~D.
CLERK’S OFFICE
PEABODY COAL COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation,
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
David R. Joest
Peabody Coal Company
1951 Barrett Court
P.O. Box 1990
Henderson, KY 42420-1990
Stephen F. Hedinger
Attorney at Law
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
W. C. Blanton
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP
2300 Main Street, Suite 1000
Kansas City, MO 64108
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this date I mailed for filing with the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board of the State of Illinois, ANSWER TO RESPONDENT’S THREE REMAINING
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated: July 1, 2003
MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation Division
BY: ~
~
,—‘IANE E. McBRIDE
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB NO. 99-134
)
(Enforcement)
JUL
7 2003
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
RECEIVED
CLERK’S
O1~FfCE
I hereby certify that I did on July 1, 2003, send by First Class Mail, with postag~L1h1i~red1~IZ11~3
prepaid, by depositing in a United States Post Office Box a true and correct ~
instruments entitled NOTICE OF FILING and ANSWER TO RESPONDENT’S
T~P.~41~1c~oard
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
To:
David R. Joest
Stephen F. Hedinger
Peabody Coal Company
Hedinger Law Office
1951 Barrett Court
2601 South Fifth Street
P.O. Box 1990
Springfield, IL 62703
Henderson, KY 42420-1 990
W. C. Blanton
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP
2300 Main Street, Suite 1000
Kansas City, MO 64108
and the original and ten copies by First Class Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid of the same
foregoing instrument(s):
To:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Ste. 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
A copy was also sent by First Class Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid
To:
Brad Halloran
Hearing Officer
Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Ste. 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, IL 60601
E. McBride
Assistant Attorney General
This filing is submitted on recycled paper.
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
R~C~V~D
CLERK’S OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
JUL
7 2003
P
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
)
Pollution
Control
Boar
v.
)
PCB NO.
99-134
)
(Enforcement)
)
PEABODY COAL COMPANY, a Delaware
)
corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
ANSWER TO RESPONDENT’S THREE REMAINING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COMES~,Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, and as its answer
to the Respondent’s three remaining affirmative defenses, number 4, 5 and 6, states as follows:
Fourth Affirmative Defense
1.
Respondent sets forth its fourth affirmative defense as follows:
For its fourth affirmative defense to Counts I, II, and III, and each of them, PCC
states that the State’s claims against it are barred wholly or in part by the
doctrine of laches, in that the State has for many years possessed full
knowledge of all material aspects of both PCC’s conduct at Eagle No. 2 and the
consequences thereof complained of but has failed to address those matters in a
timely fashion and PCC has been prejudiced thereby.
2.
Complainant denies the allegations contained in Respondent’s fourth affirmative
defense.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
3.
Respondent sets forth its fifth affirmative defense as follows:
For its fifth affirmative defense to Counts I, II, and Ill, and each of them, PCC
states that the State’s claims against it are barred wholly or in part by the
doctrine of waiver, in that PCC’s conduct at Eagle No. 2 complained of in the
Complaint was carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of
permits issued by agencies of the State that possessed full knowledge of all
material aspects of both P00’s conduct that would be carried out pursuant to
those permits and the consequences of that conduct complained of.
4.
Complainant denies the allegations contained in Respondent’s fifth affirmative
defense.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
5.
Respondent sets forth its sixth affirmative defense as follows:
For its sixth affirmative defense to Counts I, II, and III, and each of them, PCC
states that the State’s claims against it are barred wholly or in part by the
doctrine of estoppel, in that P00’s conduct at Eagle No. 2 complained of in the
Complaint was-carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of
permits issued by agencies of the State that at the time of issuing such permits
possessed full knowledge of all material aspects of both PCC’s conduct that
would be carried out pursuant to those permits and the consequences of that
conduct complained of, P00 carried out the conduct complained of in reliance
upon the State’s issuance of those permits to PCC to its detriment, and the State
knew at the time it issued those permits to PCC that PCC would rely upon the
State issuing those permits in carrying out the conduct complained of.
6.
Complainant denies the allegations contained in Respondent’s sixth affirmative
defense.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General ,State of Illinois
MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement Division
BY: ~2—.~-
L
,,—~JANEE. MCBRIDE
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Dated: July 1, 2003
2