BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
1
)
Complainant,
)
1
VS.
)
PCB No. 03-191
)
(Enforcement-Land)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation, and
)
the CITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois
1
municipal corporation,
)
)
Respondents.
1
to: Mr. Mark La Rose
Mr. Bradley P.
Halloran
La Rose
&
Bosco
Hearing Officer
200 N. La
Salle Street, #2810
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Chicago, Illinois 60601
100
W. Randolph,
Chicago, IL 60601
Mr. Charles Helsten
Mr. Scott Belt
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson
105 East Main Street
100 Park Avenue
Suite 206
Rockford IL 61 105-1389
Morris, Illinois 60450
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today, February 9,2007, filed with the Office of
the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, by electronic filing, Complainant's Motion to
Set Hearing Date or Alternatively for Severance of Claims, a copy of which is attached and
herewith served upon you.
BY:
p/hA
C
ssistant
RISTOPHER
Attorneys
GRANT
L
General
Environmental Bureau
1 88
W. Randolph St., 20th Flr.
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-5388
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
VS.
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC.,
an Illinois corporation, and
the CITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois
municipal corporation,
Respondents.
PCB NO. 03-191
(Enforcement-Land)
COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO SET HEARING DATE OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR
SEVERANCE OF CLAIMS
NOW COMES Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, and respectfully
requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") set a date for hearing on remedy in
this matter.
In the alternative, Complainant request that the Board order severance of
Complainant's claims against Respondent CITY OF MORRIS ("Morris")
from its claims against
Respondent COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY ("CLC") in order that hearing may go
forward against Respondent Morris without further delay.
I.
INTRODUCTION
In this case, the State of Illinois is addressing serious and ongoing violations of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act ("Act"), 415 ILCS
511 et seq., and the Board's financial
assurance regulations. The complaint in this matter was filed with the Board on April 17,2003.
On July 21,2005, Complainant moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the
Board on February 16, 2006. The Board reaffirmed its decision on June 1,2006 in its denial of
the Respondents7 request for reconsideration. During
the entire pendency of this matter, and
1
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
continuing until the date of filing this Motion, no compliant financial assurance has been in place
for the
closwre of the Morris Community Landfill ("Landfill"), or for maintenance and repair
following
closwre. Conditions. at the Landfill continue to degrade, in violation of the Board's
regulations, and creating a threat to the welfare of the citizens of Illinois.
The Board has consistently refused to grant any relief in this case, including an order for
the Respondents to correct the violations, until it considers evidence relating to Sections
33(c)
and 42(h) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act ("Act"), 415 ILCS 5/33(c) and 5/42(h)
(2004).. Complainant has repeatedly requested that this hearing be expedited.
11.
.
HEARING ON REMEDY IS CURRENTLY INDEFINITELY STAYED
On September 22,2006, Respondent Community Landfill Co. ("CLC") filed a Motion to
Cancel Hearing, requesting that the Board strike the October 24-27,2007 hearing date because of
the illness of Mr. Edward Pruim, a corporate officer of Respondent CLC. Attached to
CLC's
Motion was a letter from Timothy S. Wollner, D.O., essentially stating that preparing for hearing
would detrimentally affect Mr. Pruim's health.
CLC claimed, in essence, that Mr. Pruim's unavailability denied it a fair opportunity to
prepare its case and that it needed Edward Pruim's testimony.
The City of Morris ("Morris")
file a Response in support of cancellation, also claiming that Edward Pruim's testimony was
an
important element of its case. CLC's Motion was granted by the Hearing Officer and affirmed
by the full Board on Interlocutory Appeal.
At the request of the Hearing Officer, CLC provided an updated medical evaluation from
Daniel A. Rowan, D.O., on January 3 1,2007. In summary, Dr. Rowan's letter states that Mr.
Pruim continues to be physically unable to participate in legal proceedings, and that his medical
2
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
condition should be evaluated again in several months. There is presently no date set for hearing
.on the sole issue of remedy, and no way of predicting when Edward Pruim's physicians'will
declare him fit for hearing preparation and testimony.
111.
THE BOARD SHOULD NOT ALLOW A CONTINUED DELAY
Edward Pruim's medical condition should not be allowed to indefinitely delay final
resolution of this case. He is not a party, but merely a stockholder and officer of Respondent
CLC. His testimony was not disclosed by either CLC or Morris in response to witness
interrogatories served as early as 2004. Moreover, his participation
andlor testimony is not so
necessary or unique that his absence at hearing will prejudice either Respondent.
a.
Edward Pruim Was Not Personally Involved with Financial Assurance Matters
The subject matter at hearing will be the appropriate remedy for the Respondent's failure
to provide compliant closure/post closure financial assurance for the Morris Community Landfill.
However, it appears that Edward Pruim was not involved in
CLC's arrangements for financial
assurance. Attached as Exhibit 'A' are CLC's responses to Complainant's First Set of
Interrogatories. The response to Interrogatory 4 (Exhibit A, p.3) provides:
4.
IdeiltrJjl all oficers, en~ployees or ngeilts of Respoildent CLC who negotiated,
solicited or arranged for
financial assztrance pzlrszrant to the requirement of
Permits No. 2000-1
55-LFM and 2000-1 56-LFM.
ANSWER:
R. Michael
McDermont
[CLC EngineerIConsultant],
Mark. A. LaRose
[CLC
counsel]
and Robert Pruim.
CLC's sworn Response clearly demonstrates that Robert Pruim, not Edward, was the
CLC officer responsible for arranging financial assurance.
b. Robert Pruim Can Adequately Represent Respondent CLC
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
Robert Pruim, not Edward Pruim, is President of CLC, and has verified all of CLCYs
discovery responses in this matter. Clearly, he possesses a comprehensive understanding of this
case, and financial operations of the corporation. Such understanding should be presumed: CLC
is a small, closely held company, with only two shareholders, Robert Pruim and Edward Pruim.
At deposition in
People
v.
Community LandJill Co.,
PCB 97- 193 (now consolidated with
PCB
04-208), Robert Pruim testified about his and Edward Pruim's responsibilities during the
period
from 1990 to 1997.
Q. W%at are yozrr resporzsibilities as president of the company?
Mr.
LaRose 1990 to 199 7?
Mr. Grant: Sure.
A.
Seczrre czrstomers for the IandlJill, paying bills, collections, jzrst typical corporate
functions.
Q
.
And what would your brother's responsibilities be?
A. Pretty much the same.
Q.
Woztld yozr say that you share responsibilities. in running the conpany---?
'
A. Yes.
Q-is
that accurate? Board of directors, who are currently the directors of the company
Mr. LaRose: '90 to 97?
Mr. Grant: No, currently
A. Probably all along has been the two of us, Ed and Bob.
(Deposition Transcript Excerpts attached as Exhibit 'By.)
There is no evidence that the joint responsibilities of Robert and Edward Pruim changed
in any way after 1997. Moreover, Robert Pruim confirmed that they were the sole members of
the CLC Board as of the date of deposition (October
29,2003), indicating that the Pruim's joint
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
management had continued through that date. There is no evidence that Edward Pruim was ever
the 'Chief Financial Officer' of CLC, as previously claimed by the City of Morris, or that such a
position existed. Having shared the same tasks as Edward Pruim, Robert Pruim can certainly
assist in
CLCYs preparation for hearing on the sole issue of the proper remedy to address the
company's violations. Also, based on Robert Pruim's involvement in arranging financial
assurance, and prior testimony about joint operation between the two stockholders, Morris' stated
concern that they would be 'whipsawed' by Edward Pruim's absence has no merit.
c.
Edward Pruim is Not a Necessary Witness for Morris
The City of Morris twice supplemented its Response to Complainant's witness
interrogatories. However, at no time prior to October 2,2006, did the City of Morris ever notify
Complainant that it would call Edward Pruim as a witness. Moreover, to the date of filing this
Motion, Morris has not properly identified the subject matter of any testimony it would seek from
Edward Pruim, nor specified any 'unique' testimony he may offer apart from Robert Pruim.
Notably, although Morris took four depositions during discovery, it did not depose Edward
Pruim. However, five days
after CLC filed its Motion to Cancel Hearing on the basis of Mr.
Pruim's medical condition, Morris added Edward Pruim to the final witness and document list
required by the August 17,2006 Hearing Officer Order.' As demonstrated above, Robert Pruim
can adequately testify on behalf of the Respondent Corporation. The Board should recognize
'
In its October 22, 2006 Order, the Board found that CLC had properly named Edward
Pruim as a witness through submission of its final witness list. Complainant believes that the
Board was referring to the City of Morris' disclosure on October 2,2006. Neither Respondent
named Edward Pruim in response to Complainant's Supreme Court Rule
213(f) witness
interrogatories. Complainant believes that naming a witness for the first time in response to a
hearing officer witness list request, 22 days prior to hearing, neither complies with the Board's
'
discovery rules nor provides sufficient notice to the opposing party.
5
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
Morris' claim for what it is: a blatant attempt to delay final resolution of this case
-
a case where
its liability has already been established.
IV.
CLOSURE
&
POST CLOSURE CARE IS OVERDUE
The Landfill is now in a deteriorating condition as a result of the lack of financial
assurance. On December 8,2006, the State of Illinois was compelled to initiate an action in the
' .
Circuit Court of Grundy County for immediate injunctive relief. This newly-filed case (0'6 CH
184) stems from the alleged failure of CLC and the City of Morris to install and operate a
compliant landfill gas collection and control system. As shown by the attached affidavit of
Matthew Cookingham (Exhibit C), inspections in 2005 and 2006 disclosed direct venting of
landfill gas to the atmosphere, failure to operate a flare or other landfill gas collection and control
device, non-functional gas extraction wells, and the presence of strong landfill gas odors.
In its
Circuit Court case, the State has alleged over thirty violations of the Act, the Defendants'
CAAPP Permit, and regulations contained in 35 111. Adm. Code, Part 220, Subpart B.
In the absence of financial assurance, and as the Landfill continues to deteriorate, the
State will be required to engage in additional enforcement litigation to address violations directly
related to failure to provide adequate maintenance and long-term care. However, the Board has
consistently refused to order the Respondents to provide financial assurance until after hearing
evidence on the factors described in 415
ILCS 5/33(c) and 5/42(h). It is just such hearing that the
. .
Complainant now seeks to schedule.
V.
MOTION TO SEVER
If the Board continues to find that Edward Pruim's assistance is necessary in preparation
of
CLCYs hearing, its should now sever the State's claims for relief against CLC and the City of
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
Morris. Because the pertinent regulations require both owners and operators to maintain
financial assurance, each is individually responsible for compliance2.
The City of Morris cannot claim that it requires Edward
Pruim's assistance to prepare for
hearing as their interests are obviously adverse. Nor can the City legitimately claim that Edward
Pruim's testimony is necessary for a fair hearing on remedy for its
own
violations. Implicit in the
Board's earlier findings is the fact that the City of Morris, and Community Landfill Company,
were
&
required to ensure that closure and post-closure financial assurance was maintained for
the Morris Community Landfill. Since no later than December 5,2002, when the Illinois
Supreme Court denied the Respondents' Petition for Leave to Appeal the adverse ruling in the
Appellate Court3
,
the City has known that no compliant financial assurance was in place. The
decisions, actions,
andlor omissions of one officer of CLC have no relevance to the City's failure
to act thereafter. Moreover, as shown by Exhibits
A and B, Edward Pruim had no role in the
provision of financial assurance for the Landfill. To the extent that the City seeks to elicit
testimony regarding
CLC's failure to provide financial assurance (if that is even relevant to its
defense), Robert Pruim, President of CLC, can adequately serve.
For the foregoing reasons, the City of Morris can claim no prejudice from the Board's
severance of this Action. However, the State will clearly be prejudiced by failure to either order
both Respondents to hearing or to sever this case.
An indefinite delay due to the continuing ill
See,
e.g.,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 81 1.706 (c), which provides, in pertinent part:
(c)
The owner or operator of an MSWLF unit shall provide financial
assurance utilizing one or more of the mechanisms listed in subsection (a) within
the following dates:
...
202 Ill. 2d 600 (Dec. 5,2002).
7
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
health of Edward Pruim will prevent the State from obtaining the relief that is now required
-
a
court enforceable order requiring the City of Morris to immediately post financial assurance for
closure and long term care of this deteriorating landfill. If hearing against either Respondent
continues to be delayed by a doctor's opinion regarding the medical condition of one individual
officer and stockholder, the State will be prevented from effectively enforcing the Board's
regulations and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
In the event that the Board severs this action, it may, in the interest of economy, consider
consolidation of the remaining remedy issues against CLC in PCB 03-191, with hearing on PCB
97-193104-208.
In that matter, also involving violations and alleged violations at the Landfill,
Edward Pruim is a named Respondent, but the City of Morris is not a party.
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Board:
1)
Order the Hearing Officer to establish a date for hearing on the issue of remedy
against the Respondents;
2)
In the alternative, order this case to be severed for hearing on remedy against each
Respondent, and order the Hearing Officer to establish a date for hearing on the issue of remedy
against the City of Morris;
3)
Provide such other relief as the Board deems appropriate and just.
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney
BY:
Christopher Grant
Jennifer
Tomas
Assistant Attorneys General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St., 20th Flr.
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312) 814-5388
(312) 814-0609
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, by
LI.SA MADIGAN,
)
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois,
Plaintiff,
vs
.
)PCB NO. 97-193
COMMUNITY LANDFILL CO., an
)
Illinois Corporation,
Defendant
..
This is the deposition of
ROBERT PRUIM, called
by.the Plaintiff for
Code 101.161, 35
Ill. Adm. Code 101..622 and
Supreme Court Rule 206 (a)
(1)
,
taken before
*
PEGGY A. ANDERSON, a Notary Public within *and
for the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and
a Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state,
at 188 West Randolph Street, 20th Floor,
Chicago, Illinois, on the 29th day of October
A.D. 2003, at
11:30 o'clock a.m.
TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
12
1
brother?
2
A Yes.
3
Q What is his current title and has
4
that remained the same during the same period?
5
A I believe he's secretary, treasurer;
-
6
and it's remained the same.
7
(Z What are your responsibilities as
8
president of the company?
,
9
MR. LaROSE: 1990 to 1997?
10
MR. GRANT: Sure.
11
BY THE WITNESS:
1
12
A Secure customers for the landfill,
f
I
13
paying bills, collections, just typical
6
!
t
I
14
corporate, functions.
1
e
E
15
BY MR. GRANT:
16
(1 And what would your brother's
17
responsibilities be?
18
A Pretty much the same.
19
Q Would you say that you share
20
responsibilities in running the company
--
21
A Yes.
22
Q
--
is that accurate? Board of
23
directors, who are currently the directors of
24
the company?
vnn~rv DCDADTTXTP
131
1\
OC~ nrnn
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
13
1
MR.
LaROSE: '90 to 97?
2
MR. GRANT: No, currently.
3
BY THE WITNESS:
4
A Probably all along has been the two
5
of us, Ed and Bob.
:
.
6
BY MR. GRANT:
7
Q Is Community Landfill Company
i
I
8
currently in good standing? By that, I mean is
9
it still registered with the Secretary of State
10
as a
--
11
A To the best of my knowledge, it is.
12
Q Have you paid franchise taxes and
i
13
whatever corporate fees are required for this
i
C
14
year, 2003?
1
15
A I believe we have.
F
i
16
Q
Mr. Pruim, you stated that when you
i
t
17
purchased Community Landfill Company, it had an
1
l8
ongoing relationship with the city of Morris;
i
19
is that correct?
i
20
A Yes.
i
21
Q In your responsibilities as
I
22
president, did you work with the city of Morris
23
on the operator-owner relationship
--
Let me
24
Strike that.
TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648
.
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
. .
I
AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW COOKINGHAM
1, Matthew Cookingham, aRer being duly sworn on oath, state that if called upon to
testify in this matter,
I would competently testify as follows:
1.
I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from Valparaiso
University in
1994.
2.
1 have been employed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois
. .
EPA") since May, 1994.
3.
My title is Environmental Protection Engineer for the 1llinois EPA Bureau of Air.
As part of my responsibilities,
I inspect municipal solid waste landfills
, .
for compliance with
regulations governing the collection and control of landfill gas.
I have performed more than one
hundred inspections of landfill gas collection and control systems at Illinois landfills, and
am
familiar with the proper operation of these systems. I am qble to recognize the odor of landfill
'
gas.
I
4.
Municipal solid waste and garbage degrades within landfill to form landfill gas.
Landfill gas consists of methane, carbon dioxide,
sulh compounds, and various non-methane
result
organic
in
chemicals.
nausea and headaches.
Landfill gas has a noxious, characteristic odor. Exposure to landfill gas can
I
sources,~including
5.
My
the
current
orris
responsibilities
Community Landfill,
include conducting
1501 Ashley
inspections
Road, Morris,
of various
Grundy
emission
County,
I1
I
Illinois (hereinafter "Landfill").
I
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
6.
The Landfill is classified as a municipal solid waste ("MSW) landfill. Illinois
EPA Bureau of Land waste disposal permits list the City of Moms as permitted owner, and
-
Community Landfill Co. as permitted operator.
7.
On November 19, 2002, Illinois EPA issued Clean Air Permit Program
("CAAPP") Permit No. 0004069.
The CAAPP permit also lists the City of Moms as owner,
and Community Landfill Co. as operator.
8.
,
A landfill gas collection and control system is present at the Landfill, and consists
of vertical wells, designed to extract landfill gas
fiom waste disposal cells, lateral gas collection
pipes or 'headers', a main header, and a landfill gas control flare.
Aside from
the gas control
flare,, no other landfill gas
control/destruction device is present at the Landfill.
9.
I visited the Landfill on July 27, 2005, May 8, 2006, and October 18, 2006. At
each inspection
I spoke with Mr. James Pelnarsh, Site Manager for Community Landfill Co..
10'.
,
At the July 27, 2005 inspection, the gas control flare was present at the landfill,
but was not connected to the landfill gas wells or collection piping, and was not operating.
Mr.
d
Pelnarsh did not have records of operation of the landfill gas collection and control system at the
landfill, nor records pertaining to the landfill's CAAPP Permit. He advised me that the City of
Morris was
in charge of the operation of the Landfill, and directed me to City Mayor Richard
Kopczik for more information.
. .
11.
On July 27, 2005, I visited the offices of the City of Morris, and spoke with City
b
Clerk John Enger. Mr. Enger was not able to provide any records of operation of the landfill gas
collection and control system, or records required by the landfill's CAAPP Permit. Mr. Enger
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
suggested to me that the landfill's environmental consultants might be in possession of the
records.
12.
On May 8, 2006,
I again visited the Landfill for the purpose of inspection.
The
gas control flare was present at the Landfill, but was not connected or operating.
A
strong,
. .
noxious odor characteristic of landfill gas was present in the vicinity of the flare, and within 50
b
yards of Ashley Road.
13.
On May 8,2006, I observed a 13-inch pipe discharging landfill gas directly to the
atmosphere. Mr. Pelnarsh told me that high landfill gas pressure in the pipe prevented him
from
closing off this source of landfill gas emissions.
e
14.
On October
18, 2006, I again visited the Landfill for the purpose of inspection.
A
strong, noxious odor characteristic of landfill gas was present near the entrance to the Landfill,
and within
50 yards of Ashley Road. The Gas Control flare was connected to pipes, but was not
operating at the time
I arrived. Mr. Pelnarsh told me that the pipes connected to an underground
,
leachate storage tank. Mr. Pelnarsh also advised me that representatives of the City of Morris
4
had directed him not to operate the flare, but that he was running the flare about 3 hours per day
because landfill gas odors were very strong.
15.
On October 18, 2006,
Mr. Pelnarsh advis'ed me that the majority of gas extraction
*
wells at the Landfill were 'watered in', and nonfunctional, i.e. not extracting any landfill gas
from waste disposal cells.
16.
On October 18, 2006,
I inspected gas extraction wells at the Landfill. Many of
.
the wells had hoses disconnected, were shut down, or not connected to lateral header lines. Mr.
Pelnarsh advised me that the only visible header leading from the landfill surface area to the
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
-
vicinity of the flare was being used to transport leachate, which is liquid extracted from waste
disposal cells.
17.
At the October 18, 2006 inspection the 13-inch pipe, previously observed at my
May 8, 2006 inspection, was open and actively discharging landfill gas directly to the
atmosphere. This pipe appeared to lead from the underground
leachate storage tank identified by
Mr. Pelnarsh.
I
18. Based on my inspection and experience with landfill gas collection and control
systems,
I was able to determine that landfill gas from the ynderground storage tank would be
discharged directly to
the atmosphere when the flare was not operating.
P
FURTHER
AFFIANT SAYETH
NOT
,
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
:.
.- ' . -
Complainant,
#
,
. .
v.
PCB NO. 03-191
(Enforcement)
COMMUNITY
LANDFILL
COMPANY,
)
INC., an Illinois Corporation, and the
CITY
OF
MORRIS,
an Illinois
municipal corporation,
1
\
1
Respondents.
\
RESPONDENT COMMCJNITY LANDFILL COMPANY'S
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
AND
REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
, .
i
. ,
,
,
'~es~ondent,
COMMUNITY
LANDFILL
COMPANY (CLC), by its' attorneys
Mqk A.
*
.
,
LaRose and Clarissa C. Grayson of LaRose
&
Bosco, Ltd. pursuant to Illinois supreme Court Rule
'
213 and 214, and 35
111.
Adm.
Code 101.616, serves Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, the following Response to the Complainant's First Set of Interrogatories
andRequest for
,
the Production of Documents.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
1.
Identify each person who supplied information for answers to these interrogatories
and further state for which interrogatories each person so identified supplied information.
2
,
ANSWER.
..
Respondent CLC objects to this interrogatory as no Board rule or Illinois Supreme Court
rule requires this
infomation to be provided, and since it is not relevant
,
or calculated to lead to
the discovery of relevant evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
information provided in these intenbgatories was supplied by CLC.,
' \
' ,
2.
Identify each and every fact witness who may be called by Respondent CLC as a
witness
in any hearing in this matter,
qd
state his or her area of knowledge.
ANSWER:
\
,
Although Respondent CLC has not yet idenaed all individuals it expects to call
as
\
.
..
,
,
witnedies at any hiari.ng, it expects to call current IEPA employees Joyce Munie aid
. .
Blake
Harris;
fomer IEPA employee
~hn
Taylor; and any witnesses named by Complainant.
Respondent
CLC
will supplement this response as required.
3.
Identify each and every opinion witness who may be called by Respondent CLC
as a witness at any hearing in this matter, and state:
a) his or her area of knowledge;
b) the subject matter on which the opinion witness
will
testify;
c) the conclusions and opinions of the opinion witness and the bases therefore;
d) the qualifications of the opinion witness.
ANSWER:
Respondent CLC has not yet identified all opinion witnesses it expects to call
as
witnesses in any hearing. Respondent CLC
will
supplement this,response as required.
'
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
4.
Identi@ all officers, employees, or agents of Respondent CLC who negotiated,
solicited or arranged for
hancial assurance pursuant to the requirement of Permits No. 2000-
ANSWER:
R
Michael ~c~innont,
Mark
A.
LaRose and Robert Pruim.
5.
For all financial assurance provided or maintained by Respondent CLC fo; the
Morris Community Landfill
from January 1,2000 until the present, state:
'.
1) The amount and type of financial
.
.
assurance qanged for andor
.,
maintained;
'I
.
.
.
,
2) The dates that the financial assurance became effective and the dates on which
the
linancial assurance was disconthued or cancelled;
3) The amount and type of financial assurance in place at
ihe
present [i.e. the date
these interrogatories were served upon Respondent];
4) The
fee(s) paid by Respondent CLC for financial assurance arranged for andlor
maintained.
ANSWER:
1)
Frontier Bond Nos:
158465
3 1 May 2000
-
3
1 May 2005
$10,081,630.00
158466
3 1 May 2000
-
3 1 May 2005
5,906,016.00
91507
14 June 1996
-
14 June 2005
'
1,439,720.00
.
2)
See above for effective dates.
3)
See above for type of
£inancia1 assurance.
4)
Respondent CLC objects subpart (4) of this interrogatory as it is not relevant or calculated
3
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
to lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to the subject matter of this complaint.
6.
Did any person, excepting Respondent CLC, arrange for andfor maintain financial
..
.
'
assurance, as defined herein, related to permits 2000-155-LFM and 2000-156-LFM?
, , '
If so:
1) Identify the amount and type of financial assurance arranged for and/or
,
maintained;
.
2) State the dates that the financial assurance became effective and the dates on
which the
kcial assurance was discontinued or cancelled;
3)
State the amount
and
iype of financial assurance in place at the present [i.e. the
date these interrogatories were served upon Respondent];
4) State the fee(s) paid by Respondent CLC for financial assurance arranged for
and/or maintained by others.
I
ANSWER:
,
$3
Yes. City of Morris, Morris City Council, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, John
Kim, Joyce Munie, John Taylor, Christine Roque, Frontier Insurance,
,
Emerald Insurance Agency.
7.
For each year fcom 2000 until the present, state the amount paid by Respondent
:
CLC to the City ,of Morris for:
a. Lease payments;
b
.
Royalty payments;
.
c. Reimbursement of surety bond expenses incurred by the city of Morris.
,
ANSWER.
4
,
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
' ,.
Respondents object to this interrogatory as it is not relevant or calculated to lead to the
discovery of evidence relevant to the subject matter of
this
complaint.
8.
For each year fiom 2000 until the present, state the amount paid by CLC
as
bond
premium for the Frontier Bonds,
as herein defined.
ANSWER:
Respondents object to
this
interrogatory as it is not relevant or calculated to lead to the
I
discovery of evidence relevant to the subject matter of this complaint.
'
,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1.
Any and
all
documents relating to answers to the above interrogatories,
I
and
all
documents identified
in the course of answering the above &terrogatories, and any and all
.- 2
documents consulted or reviewed in order to answer the above interrogatories.
',
ANSWER:
See attached documents produced pursuant to Complainant's Request for Production of
Documents.
2.
All
correspondence and any and
all
documents relating to correspondence
between Respondent CLC and
any person which relate to proposals, quotes, costs, or
-
applications for financial assurance for the Moms Community Lana, from 1999 until the
present.
ANSWER:
5
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
Respondent CLC objects to tbis interrogatory as it is not relevant or calculated to lead to
the discovery of evidence relevant to the subject matter of this complaint.
3.
Any and all documents which Respondent will enter into evidence or otherwise
,
use at hearing in this matter.
ANSWER:
Respondent CLC does not, at this time, have a complete List of documents to be used at
I
heari.uk and will supplement
this
productiin request
as
required.
I
8
P
,
aJJ-Whct
(T;IL-~Z
~ttorney for Respondent
Community Landfill Company
Mark
A.
LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
LAROSE
&
BOSCO, ~td.
200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2810
Chicago
IL
60601
(3
12) 642-4414
,
!
,
6
-
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
*
,'-I
?'
.
VERTPI CATION
I, Robcrl
Pruittl,
bcing
lirsl
duly
sworn on
oath,
dcposcs
and
states
:IS
follows:
I.
1
'am
thc
President
of Community ~mdliil Colporation;
2,
1
havc read
the
foregoing Respondent
Community
Landfill
Company's
Answcr to
Complainant's First Set of
Intcrroyatoric.
and Rcc1uest
for
thc koductior~
or
Dociunents
and
statc
that
thc
mswcn
therein
arc
truc
a~nd
corrcct
to
the
best
of'rny
knowlecige and bclief.
I
\
I'
I
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
4,
' .
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Clarissa C. Grayson, an attorney hereby ceq that I served
RESPONDENT
COiWMSMTY LANDFILL COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S FlRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMEWS
by placing copies of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid this 1 1' day of June
2004, addressed as follows:
I
I
Mr. Christopher Grant
Environmental Bureau
!
Assistant Attorney General
188 West Randolph Street,
20' Floor
+
Chicago,
IL
60601
\
Mr. Charles Helsten
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson
,
100 Park Avenue
Rockford,
IL
6 1 105
*
?$.
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
LaRose
&
Bosco, Ltd.
Attorney No. 37346
200
N. LaSalle Street
Suite 28 10
Chicago,
IL
60601
I
(3
12) 642-4414
Fax (3 12) 642-0434
1
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007
BEFORE THE,ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
VS.
PCB No. 03-191
(Enforcement-Land)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation, and
)
the CITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois
municipal corporation,
1
1
Respondents.
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, CHRISTOPHER GRANT, an attorney, do certify that I caused to be served this 9th day
of February, 2007, the foregoing Motion to Set Hearing
Date,or Alternatively for Severance of
Claims, and Notice of Filing, upon the persons listed on said Notice by placing same in an
envelope bearing sufficient postage with the United States Postal Service located at 100
W
Randolph, Chicago Illinois.
"
CHRISTOPHER GRANT
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 9, 2007