ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 27,
    1990
    TAZEWELL COUNTY,
    Complainant,
    AC 90—40
    v.
    )
    (Administrative Citation)
    (Tazewell Docket No.
    90-EH-3)
    STEVE ZIMMERMAN and WASTE
    LTD.,
    INC.,
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    by J. Anderson):
    Currently bef
    the Board
    in this case are
    1)
    a
    “Motion to
    Strike, or DisaL~~
    spon~entisMotion_t~~~D
    miss!’. tha•t--~as~-made-
    by Tazewell County
    Tazewell”)
    at the July
    31, 1990 hearing
    in
    this matter,
    and 2
    ~i
    “Motion for Additional Time to File
    Response” that was
    iled by the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency
    (“Agency”)
    c: September 20,
    1990.
    Tazewell’s Motion to Strike or Disallow Respondent’s Motion to
    Dismiss
    Tazewell’s Motion to Strike comes in response to
    a Motion to
    Dismiss that was fi:Led by Steve Zimmerman and Waste Ltd.,
    Inc.
    (“Z
    & W”)
    on July 2~, 1990.
    On August 31,
    1990,
    Tazewell filed a
    “Memorandum in Support of Complainant’s Motion to Strike or
    Disallow Respondents Motion to Dismiss”.
    On September 17,
    1990,
    Z
    & W filed “Respondents’
    Consolidated Brief in Lieu of Closing
    Arguments and Response to Complainant’s Motion to Strike”.
    In its Motion to Strike,
    Tazewell asks the Board to enter an
    order denying
    Z
    & Ws Motion to Dismiss, find
    Z
    & W in violation
    of Counts
    1 through 34 of the Administrative Citation,
    and award
    cost to Tazewell.
    in support
    of its Motion to Strike,
    Tazewell
    states that the Administrative Citation was served on May 22,
    1990, and that
    Z
    & W failed to file their Motion to Dismiss
    within 21 days of service of the Administrative Citation as
    required by 35
    Ill. Adm.
    Code 101.243.
    Specifically, Tazewell
    states that the Motion to Dismiss should have been filed by June
    12,
    1990,
    rather than July 27,
    1990.
    In response,
    Z
    & W state that the pleading requirements of
    35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 1C1.243,
    as well
    as the more specific
    provisions of 35
    Ill.
    Adm.
    Code 103.140, apply to enforcement
    actions brought pursuant to Section 31 of the Environmental
    Protection Act
    (“Act”)
    rather than Administrative Citation
    actions brought pursuant to Section 31.1 of the Act.
    At the outset, the Board denies
    Z
    & W’s request to file
    a
    memorandum supplementing their arguments opposing the Motion to
    ii
    5-147
    2
    Strike.
    The Board also notes that neither Section 31 nor 31.1
    reference the Board’s procedural rules.
    Thus,
    it
    is not clear
    whether the 35 Ill.
    Adin. Code 101.243
    time, frame or the 35
    Ill.
    Adm.
    Code 103.401 time frame applies.
    In any case,
    it is clear
    that
    z
    &
    w
    did not file their Motion to Dismiss within either
    time frame.
    For purposes of this case, however, the Board will
    give
    Z
    & W the benefit of the doubt and waive the time frame for
    filing the Notion to Dismiss.
    Accordingly, Tazewell’s Notion to
    Strike is denied.
    Agency’s Motion for Additional Time to File Response
    The Aiency’s Mot ‘~onfor Additional Time to File
    comes in response to
    ~.
    September
    13,
    1990 Order directing
    Tazewell and the Ag?
    ‘y to respond to Z
    & W’s Motion to Dismiss.
    The Board,
    in it-~-~~
    r,
    ~
    to file a reply to
    Agency’s September 20, 1990 response.
    The
    Board specified that ~uch reply was to be filed no later than
    October
    1,
    1990.
    On September 26,
    1990,
    Z
    & W filed a “Response
    to Illinois Envrironmental Protection Agency’s Notion for
    Additional Time.”
    In its Motion for Additional Time to File Response, the
    Agency requests the Board to grant it until October 31, 1990 to
    respond to
    Z
    & W’s Motion to Dismiss.
    In support of its motion,
    the Agency states that additional response time is required
    because the Agency
    ha.s not been following the case until the
    Board joined it as a party on August 30,
    1990. As a result,
    the
    Agency has no documents other than a copy of the Administrative
    Citation Complaint
    in, its possession,
    and has had to request the
    pending pleadings and motions form the Clerk of the Board.
    In
    their response,
    Z
    & W state that they have no objection to the
    Agency’s motion,
    but request that they be given until November
    11,
    1990,
    to reply to the Agency’s response.
    Although 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 101.241(b)
    states that the Board
    will not rule on a motion before the expiration of the seven day
    response period,
    the Board hereby grants the Agency’s motion in
    order to avoid undue delay.
    The Agency
    is directed to file its
    response no later than October 31,
    1990.
    Because the Board
    is
    granting the Agency’s Motion for Extension,
    it also grants
    Z
    & W
    a corresponding extension in which to file their reply to the
    Agency’s response.
    Such reply must be filed with the Board no
    later than November
    11,
    1990.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    115-~148
    3
    I,
    Dorothy N.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board~.herebycertify that the above Order was adopted
    on the
    ~
    day of
    47
    ~
    ,
    1990, by a vote of
    7
    —~
    .
    /
    /•
    I
    ~
    -~
    I
    /
    Dorothy N.
    Gunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    115—149

    Back to top