ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 26, 1987
    JOLIET SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 86-459
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):
    On January 22, 1987, Joliet filed a renewed emergency motion
    to permit additional hearings in this matter. The motion was
    accompanied by a waiver of the decision date until February 12.
    The Agency filed a response in opposition on January 23.
    On January 26, 1987, approximately four hours before today’s
    scheduled Board meeting, Joliet filed a supplement to its January
    22 motion. The supplement was accompanied by a waiver until
    March 5. The Agency filed a response to this supplement.
    Joliet’s motion is denied. In support of its motion, Joliet
    asserts that the waiver until March 5:
    “will provide the Board with 38 additional days,
    beyond today when the Board meets to consider this
    matter. Petitioner believes this additional time
    should be more than enough to accomodate the
    additional 21—day notice that the Board apparently
    feeld (sic) is necessary, time for several days of
    additional hearings as requested by Petitioner, and
    time for the Board to decide this matter.”
    The Board strongly disagrees with this statement; the time
    available is barely sufficient, even if no major delays occur
    beyond the Board’s ability to control. Based on the Board’s
    general experience, as well as its experience in this case, the
    only days on which hearing could be held would be Monday and
    Tuesday, February 23—24. These dates are premised upon the time
    needed for preparation of the notice by the Board, receipt of the
    notice by a Joliet newspaper, and insertion of the notice into
    the paper. The Board has no direct control over the latter two
    events. Assuming no, or at best minimal, hitches, and that
    notice is published on Saturday, January 31, the earliest hearing
    could commence would be Saturday, February 21. As most of the
    persons required to attenc~ hearing are state employees, weekend
    75.151
    —2—
    hearings are not feasible, thus pushing the hearings to Monday
    and Tuesday. Were the Board to order expedited transcripts (at
    its own expense), the Board would not anticipate that all Board
    Members would receive transcripts before Friday, February 27; any
    minor delay could push that date to Monday, March 2. This would
    leave the Board at best 3 to 4 working days to review the
    transcripts, to deliberate the case, and to draft an opinion and
    order for entry at its March 5 meeting.
    The prejudice to the Board’s ability to deliberate the
    merits of this case are obvious. The prejudice to the Agency and
    its counsel, the Attorney General, is also obvious: in the event
    that the schedules of counsel and of necessary witnesses (most of
    whom would be present at Joliet’s request) cannot accomodate the
    only feasible hearing days, the state could be argued to be in
    “default” of its obligations to Joliet in this litigation, and
    could, as well, be deprived of its ability to adequately defend
    its permitting decisions in this matter.
    Given the practical realities of this situation, the Board
    cannot and will not grant a motion which will cause the integrity
    of its processes to be so abused. The matter is scheduled for
    disposition at the Board’s February 5, 1987 regularly scheduled
    Board meeting.
    However, the waiver until February 12 will allow the Board
    to establish a short, simultaneous briefing schedule; the Hearing
    Officer had previously required all arguments to be made on the
    Hearing record in light of the time constraints posed by the
    previous January 28 due date. The parties may file briefs in
    this matter on or before February 2. While this, again, leaves
    the Board only three working days to consider this component of
    the case, this is “do—able” given the prior availability of the
    transcripts.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    J. D. Durnelle and B. Forcade concurred.
    ~J.T. Meyer dissented.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that e above Order was adopted on
    the
    ___________
    day of
    (~,
    ~
    ,
    1987 by a vote
    of
    _____________.
    /1
    1
    Illino
    Pollut
    Control Board
    75.152

    Back to top