ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 7,
1996
WEST
SUBURBAN RECYCLING
)
AND ENERGY CENTER, L.P.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 95-119,
95-125
)
(Permit Appeal
-
Land & Air)
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
)
Consolidated
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C. Flemal):
On February 20,
1996 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a
“Motion for Reconsideration and Request that Board Issue a Certificate of Importance”
-
The
Agency requests that the Board reconsider its February 1,
1996 other denying the Agency’s
motion for summary judgment.
In the event the Board affirms its February
1
order, the
Agency requests a Certificate of Importance to immediately
appeal a specific question of law
to the appellate court.
On February 23,
1996 West Suburban Recycling
and Energy Center,
L.P. (WSREC), filed an “Objection to
the Agency’s Motion for Reconsideration and Request
for Certificate of Importance”.’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In ruling on a motion for reconsiderationthe Board is to consider, but is not limited to,
error in the decision and facts in the record which may have beenoverlooked.
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 101.246(d).)
In Citizens Against Regional Landfill v.
County of Board of Whiteside
(March
11,
1993),
PCB
93-156,
we observed 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
ofthe existing law.
(j~orogluyan
v.
Chicago Title
& Trust Co.
(1st Dist.
1992), 213
Ill.App.3d 622,
572
N.E.2d 1154,
1158.)”
1
The Agency
filed a “Motion forLeave to File Reply and Reply to West Suburban Recycling
and Energy Center, L.P. ‘s Objection to the Agency’s Motion For Reconsideration and Request
for Certificate of Importance” on March 4,
1996.
The Agency’s motion for leave to reply was
filed ten days after WSREC’s response, beyond the usual seven-day response time,
and is not
allowable without permission by the Board.
The motion is denied.
(See 35111.
Adm.
Code
101.241(c).)
2
The Agency
requests that the Board reconsider its February
1,
1996 order denying the
Agency’s motion for summary judgment.
The motion for reconsideration simply realleges the
same arguments previously raised in the Agency’s January 23,
1996 motion for summary
judgment.
We find the motion presents the Board with no newevidence, change in the law, or
any other reason to
conclude that the Board’s original decision was in error.
The Board therefore denies the Agency’s motion to reconsider its February
1,
1996
order denying the Agency’s motion for summary judgment.
CERTIFICATE OF IMPORTANCE
The Agency requests that the Board issue a “Certificateof Importance” pursuant
to
Supreme Court Rule 308(a).
As an initial matter,
WSREC is incorrect in its argument that the
Board lacks authority to grant the relief requested by the Agency.
Although the Board does
not use the title “Certificate of Importance”, the Board can grant the same type of relief
requested in the form of an interlocutory appeal order.
The Board has previously granted
interlocutory appeals pursuant to the Board’s procedural rules at 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
101.304,
consistent with Rule 308 of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules.
(See People v.
Pollution
Control Board,
129 Ill.App.3d
958, 473 N.E.2d 452
(1st Dist.
1984);
Land
and Lakes Co.
v.
Village ofRomeoville
(April
11,
1991),
PCB 91-7).)
Therefore, through its own procedural
rules and judicial interpretation, the Board has the authority to issue the requested certificate
for appeal.
Illinois appellate courts have routinely held that appeals under Rule 308 should only be
available in exceptional cases where there are compelling
reasons for rendering an early
determination of a critical question oflaw and where a determination of the issue would
materially advance the litigation.
(Kincaid v.
Smith,
252 Ill.App.3d 618 (1st Dist.
1993);
Renshaw v.
General Telephone Co.,
112 Ill.App.3d 58,
445 N.E.2d 70(1983);
Voss v.
Lincoln Mall Management Co.,
166 Ill.App.3d 442,
519 N.E.2d 1056
(1988).)
Illinois courts
have repeatedly stated that Supreme Court Rule 308
should be
strictly construed and sparingly
exercised.
(Kincaid v.
Smith, 252 Ill.App.3d 618
(1st Dist.
1993);
Schoonover v.
American
Family Insurance Co., 214
Ill.App.3d 33,
572 N.E.2d 1258 (1991).)
The Board believes that thedecision we rendered on the Agency’s motion for summary
judgment was straightforward and unambiguous,
and that there are no compelling
reasons for
early review of that decision by the appellate court.
The Board also finds nothing in the Agency’s arguments that allow us to conclude that
certifying the question at hand now would materially advance the termination of the litigation.
We note that the Board’s decision deadline In the permit appeals is May 16,
1996,
slightly
over two months from today.
As the Board reasoned in Waste Management of Illinois v.
McHenry County Board (April 21,
1988), P03 88-39 the Board doubts that an interlocutory
appeal canbe heard within such a short time frame.
Supreme Court Rule 308(e)
states:
“(t)he
application forpermission to appeal or the granting thereofshall not stay proceedings in the
trial court unless the trial courtor theAppellate Court or a judge thereof shall so order”.
The
3
Board will not and cannot stay this matter to allow the Agency to proceed with the requested
interlocutory appeal.
The Board must continue its hearing and decision process to
avoid
issuance of thepermit by operation of law pursuant to section 40 of the Act.
Therefore the Board will not issue a certificate of importance or an order of
interlocutory appeal.
Chairman Manning and Board Member McFawn concurred.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
(3unn, Clerk of ~
Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
the above order was adopted on the
Dl--’
day of
?2I
tzt~c4’
,
1996, by a vote of
~
i&
2L~
Dorothy M,4~unn,Clerk
Illinois Pot),zftion Control Board
