ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
April
1,
1982
COUNTY OF
LaSALLE,
ex
rel. GARY PETEPLIN,
)
STATE’S ATTORNEY OF LaSALLE
COUNTY:
THE
)
VILLAGE OF
NAPLATE,
a municipal corporation;
)
THE CITY OF OTTAWA,
a municipal corporation;
)
THE VILLAGE
OF UTICA, a municipal coropration;
OTTAWA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
ex tel.
THE TOWN OF OTTAWA;
RESIDENTS AGAINST POLLUTED
ENVIRONMENT,
an Illinois not—for-profit
)
corporation; ROSEMARY SINON; MARIE MADDEN;
)
and JOAN BENYA BERNABEI,
)
Petitioners,
v.
)
PCB 81—10
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;
)
~~7ILLIAMCLARKE; PIONEER DEVELOPMENT;
PIONEER PROCESSING,
INC.,
and WILMER AND
EDITH BROCKMAN,
)
Respondents.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D.
Dumelle):
On March 17, 1982 Petitioners filed a motion for stay and
on March
24,
1982 Petitioners filed what the Board construes as
a motion for reconsideration of its March 1~, 1982 Order in this
matter.
On March
31,
1982 Respondents filed a response to the
motion for stay.
In justification for the stay, Petitioners in effect ask the
Board to find that it
is likely that the courts will overturn the
Board’s ruling in this matter.
This the Board will not do in the
absence
of compelling evidence or argument.
The motion for stay
is hereby denied.
In the March 24 motion, Petitioners correctly point out that
a Certificate
of Service was filed the same day as the Motion for
Admission of Exhibits,
and that the Board’s March
19 Order was
incorrect
in that regard due
to a clerical error.
Petitioners
argue further that “it
is now too late for the Board to
retroactively attempt to “cure”
its February 16th Order denying
Petitioners Motion For Admission of
Exhibits” and request simply
that the incorrect statement be deleted from the March
19 Order.
46—9
The
Board~s
error
:Ln
this
regard
is
regrettable.
However,
that
error
cannot
function
to
change
what
the
Board
actually
considered.
The
Board
has
never
intended
to
rule
upon
the
motions
for
admission
of
offers
of
proof
and
exhibits,
for
it
was
under
the
now
apparent
misapprehension
that
these
motions
were
not
properly
pending
before
the
Board
due
to
lack
of
proof
of
service.
Further,
as
of February 16,
1982
these
motions
were
not
ripe
in
that
the
response
time
has
not
run
pursuant
to
Procedural
Rule
308(c),
The
Board
also
notes
that
these
motions
were
filed
the
day
after
the
close
of
hearing
and
could
not
have
been
made
any
sooner,
while at the same time the Board
was
under
a
statutory
duty
to decide this case within two business days after the
motions were filed and prior
to
the
motions having become ripe.
Give~ithis situation,
the Board grants Petitioners motion
to the extent that the third paragraph of
its March 19 Order is
hereby
deleted
in
its
entirety.
The Board also will clarify its February 16,
1982 Order as
it
regards
the motions
for
admission.
For
the
reasons stated above,
the Board did not intend
its
February
16
Order
to
deny
the
motions
for admission.
The
Board
did
in
fact
consider the entire record
presented
to
it,
including
all
offers of proof and all exhibits
offered
for
admission
into
evidence.
By
so
acting,
the
Board
does
not
mean
to
imply
that
this
information
was
material,
relevant,
of
probative value, and
otherwise
unobjectionable, but
all
materials
filed with the Board had
to
be
considered in that the Board had
not had an opportunity to act upon the pertinent motions prior
to a decision in this case.
The Board did attempt, however, to
delineate the
scope of review in this matter in its March
4,
1982
Opinion
and
all
information was glven
the
weight
which
was
deemed
appropriate under those standards of review.
To that extent,
these motions were
in effect,
granted, despite their apparent
denial
in the February
16 Order,
and no prejudice to Petitioners
could,
therefore,
have
resulted.
IT
IS SO ORDERED,
D. Anderson abstained.
I, Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby cert~fy that
the
above
Order
was adopted on
the
I~
day of
_____
____
1982 by a vote
of
~
Christan
L. Moff~±~t,
Clerk
Illinois
Polluti~
Control Board
46—10