ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 12,
    1991
    EARL R. BRADD,
    as
    owner of
    the
    BRADD
    SANITARY
    LANDFILL,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    PCB 90—173
    (Permit Appeal)
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J. Anderson):
    On August 29,
    1991,
    the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency
    (“Agency”)
    filed a motion asking the Board to reconsider
    and vacate those portions of its May 9, 1991 Opinion and Order
    finding that denial reasons #2 through #5 were insufficient bases
    for the Agency’s denial of Earl R.
    Bradd’s Affidavit for
    Certification of Closure for the Bradd Sanitary Landfill.
    The
    Agency also asks that the Board reconsider and vacate its July
    25,
    1991 Order in which it held that denial reason #1 was an
    insufficient basis for the Agency’s denial of Mr. Bradd’s
    Affidavit.
    On September 10,
    1991,
    Mr. Bradd filed a response in
    opposition to the Agency’s motions.
    With regard to the Agency’s motion to reconsider the Board’s
    May 9,
    1991 Opinion and Order, both 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 101.246(a)
    and 101.300 provide that motions to reconsider must be filed
    within 35 days of the date of the
    order.
    The Agency did not file
    a timely motion to reconsider the Board’s May 9,
    1990 Opinion and
    Order.
    Rather, the Agency filed its motion 113 days after the
    Board issued its Opinion and Order.
    Moreover, the Agency did not
    file a response to the motion to reconsider that was filed by Mr.
    Bradd on June 13,
    1991, although 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 101.246(b)
    allows a party to file a response within 14 days from the filing
    of the motion for reconsideration.
    Accordingly,
    for the
    foregoing reasons, the Board hereby denies the Agency’s motion
    for reconsideration of its May 9,
    1991 Opinion and Order.
    As for the Agency’s motion to reconsider the Board’s July
    25,
    1991 Order, the Agency argues that its review of Mr. Bradd’s
    Affidavit for Certification of Closure must be performed in light
    of its April
    6,
    1989 denial of Mr. Bradd’s revised groundwater
    monitoring program.
    The Agency also notes that Mr. Bradd could
    be subject to an enforcement action for violation of 35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 807.505(b)
    if he attempted to address the Agency’s concerns
    regarding his groundwater monitoring program in his Affidavit for
    126—2 7
    2
    Certification of Closure.1
    At the outset, we note that the Agency is now arguing the
    issue that was previously raised by Mr. Bradd in his June 13,
    1991 motion to reconsider, to which, as noted above, the Agency
    never filed a response.
    Because the Agency never joined the
    issue at that time and because the Agency has provided no
    explanation for its previous inaction in this matter or given any
    reasons why it is filing both of these motions (except to state
    that it presumed that the Board would view the Agency as standing
    on the facts and arguments that it previously presented in this
    case)
    at this time, we will not permit th~Agency to present its
    arguments on the same issue at this time.
    If we were to allow
    the Agency to file a motion for reconsideration in this instance,
    there would be no incentive in the future for parties to proceed
    in a timely manner to a final resolution of their cases.
    Rather,
    parties would wait and take action only when the Board issued an
    adverse ruling.
    As a result, the enforceability of Board orders
    could be delayed.3
    Even if this were not the case, we note that,
    in our July
    25,
    1991 Order, we ruled that the Agency should have conducted
    a
    substantive review of Mr. Bradd’s Affidavit for Certification of
    Closure
    (in order to determine if he had an adequate groundwater
    monitoring plan at the time of closure) and that the Agency
    should not have cited its April
    6,
    1989 denial of Mr. Bradd’s
    revised groundwater monitoring program as
    a reason to deny Mr.
    Bradd’s Affidavit.
    As Mr. Bradd correctly points out, the Agency
    raises no new arguments that persuade us that this ruling was
    incorrect, nor has it explained how our July 25,
    1991 Order
    affects its right to bring an enforcement action for a violation
    of 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 807.505(b).
    According~y,based on the
    foregoing, the Board hereby denies the Agency’s motion for
    reconsideration of the Board’s July 25,
    1991 Order.
    135
    Ill.
    Adm.
    Code
    807.505(b)
    states,
    “(ajn
    operator of
    a
    waste management site shall not file an application to modify the
    closure plan less than 180 days before receipt of the final volume
    of waste.
    Failure to timely file shall not constitute
    a bar to
    consideration of such an
    application,
    but may be alleged in an
    enforcement action..
    ..“
    235 Ill. Adm. Code 101.241(b) provides that, if no response is
    filed,
    a party shall be deemed to have waived its objection to the
    granting of the motion.
    335
    Ill.
    Adm.
    Code
    101.246(c)
    provides,
    “a
    timely—filed
    motion for reconsideration.. .stays the effect of the final
    order
    until final disposition of the motion.”
    126—28
    3
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member
    B. Forcade concurred.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby cer~ifiesthat the above OLder was adopted on the
    /~Z
    day
    of
    ________________,
    1991,
    by
    a
    vote
    ~
    7-c’
    ~
    ~
    ~Dorothy
    N. ,~(ann, Clerk
    Illinois Pálllution Control Board
    126—29

    Back to top