TT.T~TNOTSPOT.T.HTTON CONTROT,
RflARfl
July 20,
1995
EUGENE W.
GRAHAM,
)
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 95-89
)
(UST Fund)
TLLTNOTS ENVTPONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Yi):
On July 6,
1995, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency)
filed a motion for leave to file instanter and a
motion for
clarification.
The Agency is not requesting the Board
to clarify any statement of fact or any issue of law in its
motion for clarification, but instead argues issues raised in
petitioner’s reply brief and/or raises new arguments.
As basis
for filing the motion the Agency states that petitioner presented
different facts concerning the issues in its reply brief from
its
post-hearing brief,
and, misrepresented facts in the Supplemental
Record.
The Agency asserts that it would be prejudiced if not
allowed to respond.
On July 12,
1995, petitioner filed a response to the motion
for clarification.
Petitioner argues that the motions should be
denied because they are an attempt to file a sur—reply or
additional arguments.
Petitioner’s motion then argues in
response to the arguments in the Agency’s motion.
The Board grants the motion for leave to file a motion for
clarification but denies the motion for clarification.
The
Agency states no authority which would allow it to file a sur-
reply brief and the Agency is not asking for the Board to issue
an order of clarification, but is instead asking for the Board to
rule in its favor.
No prejudice will occur if the Agency is not
allowed to respond to petitioner’s reply brief since the Agency
has already had its opportunity to respond to the arguments in
this matter.
The record in this matter is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby
that the above order was adopted pn the~2O
day of
1995, by a vote of
,
Clerk
‘ution Control Board