ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 1, 2003
     
    CITY OF KANKAKEE,
     
    Petitioner,
     
    v.
     
    COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
    BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
    MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
     
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 03-125
    (Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
    Siting Appeal)
    ______________________________________
     
    MERLIN KARLOCK,
     
    Petitioner,
     
    v.
     
    COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
    BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
    MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
     
    Respondents.
     
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 03-133
    (Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
    Siting Appeal)
    ______________________________________
     
    MICHAEL WATSON,
     
    Petitioner,
     
    v.
     
    COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
    BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
    MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
     
    Respondents.
     
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 03-134
    (Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
    Siting Appeal)
    ______________________________________
     
    2
     
     
    KEITH RUNYON,
     
    Petitioner,
     
    v.
     
    COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
    BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
    MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
     
    Respondents.
     
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 03-135
    (Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
    Siting Appeal)
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
     
    On April 28, 2003, the City of Kankakee (City) filed a motion captioned “Motion to
    Reconsider Discovery Rulings” with the Board. The City requests that the Board overrule
    decisions made by the Board’s hearing officer during an April 24, 2003, telephone status call.
    On April 29, 2003, the County of Kankakee filed a response. Both the motion and the response
    ask the Board to rule on the motion if possible on May 1, 2003.
     
    On April 30, 2003, the City filed a motion for leave to file and a “Response to County of
    Kankakee’s Response to City’s Motion to Reconsider Discovery Rulings”, which is in effect a
    motion for leave to file a reply and a reply. On April 30, 2003, the County filed a “Response to
    City’s Motion for Leave to File ‘Response to County’s Response to City’s Motion to Reconsider
    Discovery Ruling’” and a Surreply. The Board’s procedural rules allow the filing of a reply to a
    response only by permission of the Board or hearing officer to prevent material prejudice. See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(e). The Board finds that the reply is not necessary to prevent
    material prejudice and therefore the motion for leave to file the reply is denied. Because the
    Board has not accepted the reply, the County’s filing is moot.
     
    The Board has reviewed the motion, the response and the hearing officer’s written order
    in this matter. The Board finds that the arguments set forth by the City are unpersuasive.
    Therefore, Board denies the motion to overrule the hearing officer and affirms the hearing
    officer’s rulings of April 24, 2003.
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
    3
     
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on May 1, 2003, by a vote of 7-0.
     
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top