ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 17, 1996
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    v.
    AMERICAN WASTE PROCESSING, LTD.,
    an Illinois corporation,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 96-264
    (Enforcement - RCRA)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C. A. Manning):
    This matter comes before the Board on a motion to reconsider filed on September 4,
    1996 by American Waste Processing, Ltd. (American Waste). American Waste requests
    reconsideration of the Board’s August 1, 1996 order denying its motion to dismiss. The
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a response to the motion for
    reconsideration on September 19, 1996. On September 26, 1996, American Waste filed a
    motion to strike the affidavit of Mark Schollenberger attached to complainant’s response
    pleading. The Agency filed its reply to the motion to strike on October 7, 1996.
    MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIDAVIT
    American Waste argues that the affidavit of Mark Schollenberger, a permit reviewer
    with the Agency, should be stricken because the affidavit does not meet the requirements of
    Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191. Specifically, American Waste contends that the affidavit
    should be stricken for the following reasons: 1) it does not state that it is made on personal
    knowledge of the affiant; 2) is based on speculation; 3) does not specify a time period for Mark
    Schollenberger’s involvement with the permit review; and 4) does not exclude that someone
    other than the affiant made the alleged representations to the respondent.
    Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191 requires that affidavits:
    be made on the personal knowledge of the affiants; shall set forth with
    particularity the facts upon which the claim, counterclaim, or defense is based;
    shall have attached thereto sworn or certified copies of all papers upon which
    the affidavit relies; shall not consist of conclusions but of facts admissible in
    evidence; and shall affirmatively show that the affiant if sworn as a witness, can
    testify competently thereto.
    The Board finds that the affidavit sufficiently satisfies the requirements of Illinois
    Supreme Court Rule 191. Therefore, the Board denies the motion to strike the affidavit.
    Specifically, the Board finds that the affidavit is based on the recollection of the affiant.
    2
    Moreover, the Board notes that respondent mostly challenges the factual basis of the affidavit
    rather than the technical aspects.
    MOTION TO RECONSIDER
    In its motion for reconsideration, American Waste submits the affidavit of Joseph
    Strosnik, Director of Corporate Development for American Waste. American Waste states
    that it was unable to attach the affidavit to the original motion due to time constraints that
    prohibited it from being able to review the affidavit for accuracy. Additionally, American
    Waste reasserts its arguments of equitable estoppel and
    res judicata
    . American Waste also
    asserts that the complaint is contrary to Illinois public policy of bringing actions before
    respondent has had an opportunity to correct or compromise the alleged violation. As evidence
    of its argument, American Waste cites to the August 1, 1996 amendments to Section 31 of the
    Environmental Protection Act (Act). (P.A. 89-596.) American Waste further contends that
    the Agency’s attempt to enforce federal law is unconstitutional.
    In Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. County Board of Whiteside (March 11, 1993),
    PCB 93-156, the Board stated that "the intended purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
    bring to the court's attention newly discovered evidence which was not available at the time of
    hearing, changes in the law or errors in the court's previous application of the existing law.”
    (Korogluyan v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 213 Ill.App.3d 622, 572 N.E.2d 1154, 1158 (1st
    Dist. 1992).)
    In addition to presenting a change in the law, American Waste also attempts to reargue
    its position in the motion for reconsideration. Any new evidence presented in the motion for
    reconsideration was available to American Waste at the time that the motion to dismiss was
    filed by American Waste. Therefore, the Board will not reconsider its order since the evidence
    presented by American Waste in the motion for reconsideration is not newly discovered
    evidence. Further, the amendments to Section 31(a) of the Act effective August 1, 1996, apply
    prospectively and, therefore, do not apply to this action. The Board finds no reason to review
    its previous decision and denies American Waste’s motion for reconsideration.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member K.M. Hennessey abstained.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the _______ day of _____________, 1996, by a vote of
    ______________.
    ___________________________________
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top