BEFORE THE
    ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    RECEIVED
    CLERK’s OFFICE
    PEOPLE
    OF
    THE
    STATE
    OF
    ILLINOIS,
    AUG 10 2005
    Complainant,
    )
    STATEOFILLINOIS
    Pollution Control Board
    vs.
    )
    PCB No.
    03-191
    (Enforcement-Land)
    COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
    INC.,
    an Illinois corporation,
    and
    the CITY OF MORRIS,
    an Illinois
    municipal corporation,
    Respondents.
    to: Mr. Mark La Rose
    Mr. Bradley
    P.
    Halloran
    La Rose & Bosco
    Hearing Officer
    200 N. La Salle Street,
    #2810
    Illinois Pollution
    Chicago,
    IL 60601
    Control Board
    100 W.
    Randolph Street
    Chicago IL 60601
    Mr. Charles Helsten
    Hinshaw
    & Culbertson
    100 Park Avenue
    Rockford IL 61105-1389
    NOTICE OF FILING
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today, August
    10,
    2005,
    filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,
    an original and nine copies of Complainant’s
    Response to Motion for Extension of Time,
    a copy of which is
    attached and herewith served upon you.
    Respectfully submitted,
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
    ex
    rel.
    LISA MADIGAN
    Attorney
    Generpl
    of
    the
    Stat
    of
    Illiijois
    (/1
    IA
    __
    BY:
    \j
    tA/~,.A
    /\iV
    V~~\1
    Cf~ISTOPHER
    GRANT
    A~istant
    Attorneys
    General
    Environmental
    Bureau
    188
    W.
    Randolph
    St.,
    20~ Flr.
    Chicago,
    IL
    60601
    (312)
    814-5388
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    RECEIVED
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
    ILLINOIS,
    )
    CLERIcS OFFICE
    Complainant,
    AUG
    102005
    )
    STATE OF ILLINOIS
    vs.
    )
    PCB No.
    03-191
    Pollution
    Control Board
    )
    (Enforcement-Land)
    COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
    INC.,
    )
    an Illinois corporation, and
    )
    theCITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois
    )
    municipal corporation,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE
    TO MOTION
    FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
    NOW COMES the Complainant,
    PEOPLE OF THE
    STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    through its
    attorney, LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State ofIllinois, and responds to
    Respondent’s, COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY INC.’s (“CLC”) Motion for Extension
    ofTime
    to Respond to
    Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to
    Set a Briefing
    Schedule (“Motion to Extend”),
    as follows:
    1.
    Complainant filed its
    Motion for
    Summary
    Judgment (“Motion”) on July 21,
    2005, and served Counsel for both Respondents the following day.
    Complainant’s Motion
    seeks
    a
    finding of liability, wilful violation, and interim relief in the form ofa Board Order compelling
    the Defendants
    to immediately cease disposal of all materials at the Morris Community Landfill
    (“Site”), and to immediately obtain closure/post-closure financial assurance meeting the
    requirements of35
    Ill. Adm.
    Code Sections 811.700 and
    811.706.
    Complainant’s request is
    based on its determination that the Respondents have been continuing to dispose ofgeneral
    debris and petroleum contaminated soil at the Site, despite the fact that no closure/post-closure
    1
    financial assurance had been arranged for or provided.
    These continuing waste
    disposal
    operations are being done
    in flagrant violation ofthe pertinent regulations,
    and the Act.
    2.
    The issues presented in this case are quite simple:
    are the Respondents conducting
    a waste disposal
    operation, and if so are they doing so without adequate financial assurance?
    Complainant has provided compelling evidence that the Respondents are,
    in fact, doing so.
    The
    exhibits
    attached to Complainant’s motion prove that the Respondents obtainedpermitsfor solid
    waste disposal at the Site,
    submitted reports acknowledging the continued acceptance ofwaste
    from 2000 through 2002,
    have vigorously litigated the issue ofthe noncoinpliant Frontier surety
    bonds, and, as of the date ofIllinois EPA’s last inspection on May 19, 2005,
    were continuing to
    accept waste materials
    in the form ofpetroleum-contaminated soil.
    3.
    The Complainant has also provided proof,
    in the form ofan Illinois
    EPA affidavit,
    that the Respondents
    do not have financial assurance, as required by the pertinent regulations.
    4.
    The Respondents do not need significant discovery on these issues.
    They are
    certainly aware of the permits theyapplied
    for and obtained, as well as the landfillxeportsJhey
    submitted.
    Because they own and operate the Site (and
    are therefore familiar with its daily
    operations), they know ofmaterials brought to
    the Site,
    and ongoing waste disposal activity.
    Moreover,
    they have litigated the issues related to the Frontier Bonds, are aware that this
    ‘financial assurance’
    is inadequate, and know whether they have provided alternate, compliant
    financial assurance.
    There is no need for discovery related to these issues, although continuing
    discovery may be necessary for issues relating to 415 ILCS
    5/33(c) and
    5/42(h)
    (2002).
    5.
    The Respondents were served with
    Complainant’s Motion on July 22, 2005.
    However, as ofthe date of filing this Response to
    the Motion to
    Extend, neither Respondent has
    2
    served discovery related to the Motion.
    No depositions have been requested, no interrogatories
    sewed.
    Clearly, by seeking to delay in Board’s decision on Complainant’s Motion, the
    Respondents intend to
    continue their waste disposal operation as long as possible, without
    complying with the financial assurance requirements contained in the regulations and their
    permits.
    Thus, there is
    a serious urgency
    to the Board’s consideration ofComplainant’s Motion.
    6.
    Complainant acknowledges that the fourteen-day response deadline provided
    within
    35
    Ill. Adm.
    Code
    101.5 16 may be inadequate.
    However, in light
    of the simplicity of the
    issues presented in Complainant’s Motion, and considering the Respondents’
    failure to take
    advantage oftime already passed since service of the Motion,
    Complainant suggests that the
    Board require the Respondents to
    respond, if at all, no later than September
    6, 2005.
    WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF
    THE STATE OF
    ILLINOIS,
    respectfUlly requests that the Board deny the Respondents
    CLC’s request to extend time to
    respond until October
    11,
    2005, require the Respondents to
    respond, if at all, by a date no later
    than September
    6, 2005,
    and take such other action as the Board believes to be appropriate and
    just.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    BY:_
    STOPHER GRANT
    Assistant Attorney General
    Environmental Bureau
    188 W.
    Randolph St.,
    20th
    Flr.
    Chicago, Illinois
    60601
    (312) 814-5388
    3
    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,
    Respondents.
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I,
    CHRISTOPHER GRANT,
    an attorney,
    do certify that
    I caused
    to be served this 10th day of August,
    2005,
    the foregoing
    Complainant’s Response for Motion to Extend Time,
    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
    I linois.
    CHRISTOPHER GRANT

    Back to top