ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 28,
    1991
    SEXTON ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS,
    INC.
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    PCB 91-4
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J. Anderson):
    On February 25, 1991, the Agency filed a Motion for Summary
    Judgment asserting that there was no genuine issue as to material
    fact and that the Agency was entitled to Judgment as a matter of
    law.
    On February 27, 1991,
    Sexton Environmental Systems
    (SES)
    filed a motion for extension of time until March 26, 1991, to
    respond to the summary judgment motion,
    stating
    that,
    “...SES...
    believes that information developed at hearing will assist the
    Board
    in deciding the Motion for Summary Judgment”.
    The Motion for extension of time
    is granted only insofar as
    Sexton may file its response no later than March 7,
    1991.
    If the
    Board were to grant
    the extension as requested,
    it would be faced
    with two unacceptable choices:
    if the March 11 hearing is
    cancelled in order
    to await Sexton’s March
    26 response, the Board
    would not be able
    to schedule and notice another hearing before
    the decision deadline, and thus the Board would risk thismatter
    going by operation of
    law;
    if the Board allows a “ministerial”
    hearing to beheld and then continued,
    the Board would be using
    its extremely limited hearing money for no substantive purpose.
    Therefore,
    the Board intends
    to act upon the summary
    judgment issue on Friday, March
    8,
    1991.
    If the Agency’s motion
    is granted, the March 11 hearing will be cancelled.
    The Board
    will accept a
    “fax” copy of Sexton’s response
    to be followed by a
    formal filing pursuant to Section 101.103 of the Board’s
    procedural rules.
    We also note that Sexton
    is asserting a non—sequiter
    to
    state that facts developed at hearing will help the Board
    determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact.
    SES
    has not disputed in its motion for extension the Agency’s
    assertion that there
    is no issue
    of material fact.
    Unless SES’s
    response can clearly identify disputed issues of fact from this
    record, hearing will be denied.
    Due to
    a fiscal shortfall, the
    Board
    is involved in the painful process of deferring some
    119—69
    —2—
    hearings, and prioritizing others,
    as funds are presently
    insufficient to allow hearings
    to be held
    in all pending cases.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Bill Forcade dissented.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, h~rebycertify t~t the above Order was adopted on
    the
    c~c~I-’day
    of
    ~
    ,
    1991, by a vote of
    ~5~—~/
    S
    Control Board
    119—70

    Back to top