BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
vs.
)
PCB No. 97-193
CLERK’S OFFICE
)
(Enforcement)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
)
JAfl
~~ 2004
INC., an Illinois corporation,
)
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
)
PQJI~t~~~
Control
Board
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Mr. Christopher Grant
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Assistant Attorney General
James R. Thompson Center
Environmental Bureau
100 W. Randolph Street, 11-500
188 W. Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL
60601
Chicago,
IlL
60601
Mr. Brad Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100W.
Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
PLEASE
TAKE NOTICE that on January 30, 2004, we filedwith the Clerk ofthe Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
an
original
and
nine
copies
of
RESPONDENT
COMMUNITY
LANDFILL COMPANY’S RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION
TO
COMPLAINANT’S
MOTION
TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT,
a copy ofwhich is attached and herewith served
upon you.
Ca~L~C.
~
Attorneyfor Respondent
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C.
Grayson
Attorney No. 37346
LaRose
& Bosco, Ltd.
734 N. Wells Street
Chicago,IIL
60610
(312)642-4414
Fax (312) 642-0434
THIS FILING IS
SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED
PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
vs.
)
PCB
No. 97-193
CLERK’S
OFFICE
)
(Enforcement)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
)
JAN
302004
INC., an Illinois corporation,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control
Board
Respondent.
)
RESPONDENT
COMMUNITY
LANDFILL
COMPANY’S RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION
TO COMPLAINANT’S MOTION TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Respondent, COMMUNITY LANDFILL
COMPAINY, INC., (“CLC”
or “Respondent”) by
and through its attorneys, LAROSE & BOSCO, Ltd., and in oppositionto thePeople ofthe State of
illinois’
(“People” or “Complainant”) Motion to
File Third Amended Complaint, responds as
follows:
I.
Introduction
After nearly seven (7) years ofintense litigation including: a complaint filed in 1997,
a First
Amended Complaint filed in 1998,
a Second Amended Complaint filed in
1999,
and
substantive
rulings onliabilityboth forand against CLCinboth 2001 and 2002, Complainant onlynow, in 2004,
seeks
leave
to
file
a
Third
Amended
Complaint naming
Edward
Pruim
and
Robert
Pruim,
individually,
as
respondents
(“proposed
respondents”).
Complainant’s
sole
allegations
against
proposed respondents
are based
on documents that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”) has had in its possession since 1993,
1995
and 1996, long beforethe original complaint
was filed in
1997.
1
The Board should deny the Complainant’s motion because~
1) it is untimely; 2) allowing the
amendment would be prejudicial to
Respondent
CLC
and the proposed respondents;
and 3) the
Complainant had previous opportunities to
amend the complaint but failed to do
so.
II.
Procedural History
OnMay 1, 1997, Complainant filed its first complaint in this matter. The original Complaint
named CLC
as the
sole
respondent
and
contained
six
(6) counts
alleging violations
relating to
managing refuse and litter, leachate flow, landscape waste, financial assurance, failure to file a sig
mod and water pollution.
Complainant then filed a First Amended Complaint on April
3,
1998;
again CLC was the only respondent.
The First Amended Complaint included four (4) additional
Counts alleging violations relating to
overheight ofthe landfill.
On November 24,
1999,
over the Respondent’s strenuous objections,
Complainant filed a
Second Amended
Complaint,
again
only
naming
CLC
as
respondent.
The
Second
Amended
Complaint included twelve(12) additional Counts allegingviolations relating to asbestos, usedtires,
the gas collection facility, leachate disposal, final cover, financial assurance, and failure to provide
revised cost estimates.
This case has been the subject ofthe exchange ofhundreds ofdocuments comprising
thousands ofpages, numerous depositions, and cross-motions forsummaryjudgment by theparties.
On April
5,
2001,
the Board ruled against CLC
on
Counts
V and
XII of the
Second
Amended
Complaint. CLC filed a motion for reconsideration on May
15,
2001.
On July 26, 2001, the Board
reversed its decision on Count XII, and found in favor of CLC on liability and dismissed that count.
The Board affirmed its ruling against CLC on Count V
and ordered a hearing on penalty.
On October2, 2002, theBoard issued an extensive order regardingthe parties’ cross-motions
for summary judgment.
The Board found in favor ofCLC on Counts XI, XVIII,
and XXII ofthe
2
Second Amended
Complaint
and
dismissed
those
counts
against
CLC.
The Board
denied
the
Complainant’s motion for SummaryJudgment on Counts 1,11, VI, XV, XVII, XIX (in part) and XX
ofthe Second Amended Complaint, and ordered a hearing on liability on those Counts. Finally, the
Board found in favor ofComplainant on Counts ifi, IV, V, VII, VIII,
IX, X, Xffl, XIV, XVI, XIX
(in part) and XXI and ordered a hearing on penalty on those counts.
On December
5,
2003,
Complainant filed the motion presentlybefore the Board wherein it
requested leave
to
file its
Third Amended
Complaint.
Complainant’s proposed Third Amended
Complaintnames Edward Pruim and RobertPruim, theprincipals ofCLC, as additional defendants.
The People’s proposed Third Amended Complaint itself was
filed on
December
30,
2003
and
containsnineteen (19) counts.1 FortheBoard’s convenience, a chart summarizingthe current status
ofthe Counts in the Second Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit A.
Only Count IV (Failure to Provide and Maintain Adequate Financial AssurancePursuant to
the April 20, 1993
Permit) and Count VII (DepositingWaste in Unpermitted Portion ofLandfill) of
the proposed ThirdAmended Complaint contain any specific allegations against Edward Pruim or
Robert Pruim.
Paragraph 22
of Count
VII alleges
that
“on
or
about
January
17,
1995,
the
Respondents submitted a Solid Waste Capacity Certificationto illinois EPA, signed by Respondent
Edward Pruim, reporting that there was no remaining capacity in Parcel B as of January
1,
1995.”
(Count VII,
¶
22 ofthe proposed Third Amended Complaint.)
Paragraph 23 ofCount VII alleges
1
Count XIX ofthe Second Amended Complaint has been effectively bifuicated by the
Board and will be heard in part on the issue ofliability and in part on the issue ofpenalty.
Complainant’s proposed ThirdAmended Complaint contains nineteen (19) counts, for which
hearings have been ordered on liability on seven (7) counts and on penalty on twelve (12) counts.
Count XII ofthe Second Amended Complaint was dismissed by the Board on July 26, 2001
after
reconsidering its April
5,
2001
order.
Even if the Board grants Complainant leave to file its
third amended complaint, Count XII should not be included.
3
that “ojn
or about January
15,
1996, the Respondents submitted a Solid Waste Landfill Capacity
Certification to Illinois EPA, signed by Respondent Robert Pruim, reporting that the Respondents
bad
received
over
540,000
cubic
yards
for deposit in
Parcel
B
between January
1,
1995
and
December31,
1995,”
(Count VII,
¶
23 ofthe proposedThird Amended Complaint).
Paragraph 21
of’Count IV alleges that “r
espondents Edward Pruim and RobertPruim failed to increase thetotal
amount of financial assurance to
$1,342,500.00 within 90 days after the Agency approved its cost
estimate on April 20,
1993.”
(Count IV,
¶
21 ofthe proposed Third Amended Complaint).
III.
Argument
The Board should deny the People’s motion to file its Third Amended Complaint because
it is
untimely, prejudicial, and
the Complainant had
several previous opportunities
to
amend the
complaint but
did not.
The courts properly recognize that
the right to
amend pleadings is
not
absolute. Hall
v.
NorthwesternUniversity Medical Clinics,
152 ill.App.3d 716, 722,
504 N.E.2d 781, 785
(1St Dist.
1987);
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Martin Automatic, Inc., 215 Ill.App.3d 622.
575
N.E.2d
592,
(2’~
Dist. 1991). In determiningwhether to grantleave to amend a complaint, itis well-settledunder
Illinois law that courts have four factors available for theirconsideration: (1) whether the proposed
amendmentwould cure the defectivepleading; (2) whetherotherparties would sustain prejudice or
surprise by virtue ofthe proposed amendment; (3) whether the proposed amendment is timely; and
(4) whetherprevious opportunities to amend thepleadingcoui4be identified. Universal Scrap Metal.
Inc. v. I. Sandman and Sons, Inc., 337 Ill.App. 3d 501, 508, 786 N.E. 2d 574,
581
(1St District 2003);
Loyola Academyv.
S&S Roof Maintenance, Inc., 146 ill.2d 263, 273,
586
N.E. 2d
1211,
1215-16
(1992); Enzenbacherv. Browning-Ferris Industries ofIllinois, Inc., 332 Ill.App.3d 1079,
1086, 774
N.E. 2d 858,
863 (2~
Dist.
2002). Only three of the four factors listed above applyto the proposed
4
Third Amended Complaint. The Complainant
does not allege that the proposed Third Amended
Complaint is
an attempt to cure a defective pleading.
The remaining three factors weigh heavily
against
allowing
the
amendment:
(1)
the
proposed
amendment
is
untimely;
(2)
previous
opportunities
to
amend the
pleading
can
be
identified;
and
(3)
to
allow the
Third
Amended
Complaint to
be filed would be
extremely prejudicial
to
Respondent CLC
and to
the proposed
respondents.
A,
The Proposed Third Amended
Complaint is
Untimely
The Board must consider whether the proposed amendment is timely. Universal Scrap
Metal, Inc. v. J. Sandman and Sons, Inc., 337 ill.App.3d 501, 508,786 N.E. 2d 574,
581
(1St District,
2003), In Tongate v. Wyeth Laboratories, 220 Ill.App.3d
952, 580
N.E. 2d 1220,
(1St Dist.
1991), the
court heldthat the trial court had not abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion forleave to
file their amended complaint where it came five weeksbefore trial, afterdiscoveryhad been closed,
and the case had been pending for nine years.
220 ill.App.3d at
970,
580
N.E.2d at
1233.
The
Illinois
Supreme Court has recognized the importance of filing
amendments within the pleading
stage.
LoyolaAcademyv. S&S RoofMaintenance, Inc., 146 Ill.2d 263,275,
586
N.E.2d 1211,
1217
(1992).
In the present matter, the original complaint
was filed on May 1,
1997,
almost seven
(7)
years
ago. Two additional
amended pleadings
were filed in
1998
and
1999.
The parties’ cross-
motions for summaryjudgment on seventeen (17) counts ofthe Second Amended Complaint were
ruled on by theBoard on October4, 2002, fifteen
(15)
months ago, and on two (2) counts, thirty (30)
months ago. In addition, discovery closed on November 25, 2003. No additional information was
gleaned by Complainant in the meantime. This case is clearlybeyond thepleading stage. The Board
should considerthat Complainant’s motion
is untimelyand deny it on that ground alone.
5
B.
Complainant has had Previous Opportunities to
Amend
the Pleadings
TheBoard must also consider whetherthe Complainant hadprevious opportunities to amend
thepleading. Universal Scrap Metal, Inc. v.
J. Sandmanand Sons, Inc., 337 Ill.App.3d 501, 508, 768
N.E. 2d 574, 581
(15t Dist. 2003). InUniversal,the First District Appellate Court recentlystated that
“a plaintiff generally is not allowed to file an amended complaint if the facts the plaintiffseeks to
add were known at the time ofthe original pleading.” 337 Ill.App.
3d 501,
509,. 786 N.E. 2d 574,
581.
Inits motionto file itsproposedThird AmendedComplaint,Complainant statesthat “b
ased
on the additional informationreceived sincethe Second AmendedComplaintwas filed, Complainant
now seeks to file its Third Amended Complaint.” (Complainant’s Motion to File Third Amended
Complaint,
¶
4). While Complainant doesnot elaborate onwhat “additional information”itreceived,
a review oftheproposed Third Amended Complaintreveals that only Count IV (Failure to Provide
and Maintain Adequate Financial AssurancePursuant to the April 20,
1993 Pennit) and Count VII
(Depositing Wastein UnpermittedPortion ofLandfill) contain any allegations directedspecifically
toward either Edward Pruim orRobert Pruim.
In regardto Count VII, Paragraph22 in Complainant’sproposedThird AmendedComplaint
alleges:
“On
or
about
January
17,
1995,
the
Respondents
submitted
a
Solid
Waste
Capacity
Certificationto illinois EPA, signed by RespondentEdward Pruim, reporting that therewas
no remaining capacity in Parcel B as of January 1,
1995.”
(Proposed Third Amended Complaint, Count VII,
¶
22).
Paragraph 23 ofCount VII in Complainants’s proposedThirdAmended Complaintalleges:
“On orabout January
15,
1996, the Respondents submitted a Solid Waste Landfill Capacity
Certification
to
Illinois
EPA,
signed
by
Respondent Robert
Pruim,
reporting
that
the
Respondents hadreceived over 540, 000 cubic yards fordepositin ParcelB betweenJanuary
6
1,
1995 and December31,
1995.”
(Proposed Third Amended Complaint, Count VII,
¶
23).
The documents referred to
in Count
VII of the proposed Third Amended Complaint have
been
in
the Agency’s possession since January,
1995
and January,
1996
respectively. They were
available to Complainant fully twenty-eight (28) and
sixteen (16) months respectively before the
original complaint was filedby Complainant. By the time Complainant filed its Second Amended
Complaint on November 24, 1999, the records had been in the Agency’s possession fornearlyfive
(5)
and four (4) years respectively.
Only now,
eight (8) and nine (9) years later respectively, does
the Complainant seek to amend the complaint based on these documents.
Similarly, in regard to Count IV, Paragraph 21
in Complainant’s proposed Third Amended
Complaint alleges:
“Respondents
Edward
Pruim
and
Robert Pruim
failed to
increase
the total~
amount of
fmancial assurance to
$1,342,500.00,
within 90
days after the Agency approved its cost
estimate on April 20,
1993.”
Obviously, any alleged failure to increase the amount offinancial assurance within 90 days
afterApril 20,
1993, was known to Complainant in approximately July,
1993,
more than ten (10)
years
ago.
This was known to the Complainant for nearlyfour(4) years before it filed the original
complaint in May, 1997, which has already been amended twice.
Count Ioftheproposed ThirdAmendedComplaint also contains several general allegations
againstEdward Pruim and RobertPruim which were known to the Agency at thetimethe Complaint
was filed on May 1,
1997. These allegations include that Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim: served
as officers and directors ofCLC; signed and submitted p~rmit
applications and reports; arranged for
surety bonds and letterof credit; and ensured CLC’s compliance with pertinent environmental laws
7
and regulations
(Complainant’s proposed Third Amended Complaint, Count I). These general
allegations were all
known to
Complainant
at the time the original complaint was filed through
documents in theAgency’s own files. Anyassertion by the Complainant to the contrary, i.e. that this
is “additional information”, can only be considered disingenuous.
Complainant has offered no good reason fornot havingpleaded these matters in the original
pleading, let alone in the first and second amended pleadings, as is required under illinois law. ~it~t
National Bank & Trust Co. ofEvanston v.
Sousanes, 66 Ill.App.3d 394, 396, 384 N.B.2d 30,3 1
(1st
Dist. 1978). It has offeredno good reason simplybecauseit cannot. Complainant’s only excusemust
be that it simplydid not bother tO
go through its own files until nearly seven years after it had filed
the original pleading, which has abeadybeen amended twice.Not only did Complainant have ample
opportunity to amend the pleading, the documents supporting the allegations contained in the
proposedThird Amended Complaint were
in the Complainant’s own files at the timethat all the
pleadings were filed.
Based on consideration ofthis factor alone, the Board should consider that
Complainant
has had
ample
opportunity
to
amend
its
own complaint
based
on
records
in
its
possession,
and therefore deny Complainant’s present motion to file a Third Amended Complaint
solely on that ground.
C.
Prejudice and Surprise to CLC
and the Proposed Individual Respondents
Complainant’s motion contains the bold and inaccurate assertions
that its proposed Third
Amended Complaint will not delay resolution ofthis matter and that
is does not believe that
additional discoverywould be required. (Complainant’sMotion to File ThirdAmended Complaint,
¶
7). Onthe contrary, if this court allows Complainant’s proposed ThirdAmended Complaint to be
filed, proposedrespondents Edward Pruim and RobertPruim would have every rightto protect their
8
interests, and would do everything possible to do so. Proposedrespondents would seek to conduct
full written and
oral discovery in order to ascertain what information Complainant possesses and
exactly
how
Complainant
intends
to
prove
its
allegations
against
the
individual
proposed
respondents. Complainant’s
assumption that no
additional discovery would be needed is
simply
untrue.
Moreover, if the Board
allows
Complainant’s Third Amended Complaint to
be
filed, the
parties will be forced into participating again in continued and protracted motion practice. Initially,
the proposed respondents
and
CLC
would file motions
to
dismiss
on the
ground that
the Third
Amended Complaint does not properly state a claim against the individual proposed respondents.
Simply alleging that
Edward
Pruim
and Robert Pruim
were
corporate
officers with
supervisory
capacity is insufficient for a findingofliability. Deby, Inc. v. Cooper Indus., 2000 WL 263985 (N.D.
ill. Feb. 29, 2000).
Inthe eventthat this matterwere to proceed under the proposed ThirdAmended
Complaint after motions to
dismiss, motions for summary judgment would then be filed by both
Edward Pruim and Robert Pmim, as well
as by Complainant. In other words, if the Board grants
Complainant’s motion, this case will start all over again.
The surprise and prejudice to CLC and the proposed respondents stems from the same facts
as were presented in thetwo previous arguments concerning untimeliness and information relied on
havingbeen available to Complainant for between eight (8) and eleven (11) years. The facts behind
the allegations concerning Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim were known to
Complainant when the
original complaint was filed on May 1,
1997, almost seven (7) years ago.
On October
2, 2002,
the Board made substantial rulings both for and against CLC
as sole
respondent on the parties’
cross-motions
for summary judgment
based on
the Second
Amended
9
Complaint. These substantive rulings include:rulings on Counts XI,XVffl, and XXII in favor ofCLC
therebydismissing those counts; rulings on Counts I, II,VI, XV, XVII, XIX (in part) and XX in favor
of CLC, finding that genuine issues ofmaterial
fact precluded
summary judgment and ordering a
hearingon liability; and rulings in favor ofComplainant on Counts ifi, IV, VII,Vifi, IX, X, Xffl,XVI,
XIX (in part) and XXI, and ordering a hearing on penalty. In addition, on July 26,
2001, the Board,
after CLC filed a motion for reconsideration, ultimately ruled in favor ofCLC on Count XII of the
Second Amended Complaint, thereby dismissing that count, and in favor ofComplainant on Count
V ofthe Second Amended Complaint and ordering a hearingon that count. In summary, atthis point,
the Board has ordered a hearing on liability for seven (7) counts, and a hearing on penalty for twelve
(12) counts, all against CLC alone.2
Ifthe Complainant is permitted to file its Third Amended Complaintnaming Edward Pruim
and Robert
Pram
as additional
respondents, those
counts
that have already
been the
subject of
summaryjudgment on liability in favor ofComplainant would need to be re-litigatedby the parties.
This would add a completely new layerto the litigation. With the exceptionofCounts IV and VII of
theproposed ThirdAmended Complaint, Complainant hasmadeno differentiationbetween CLC.and
the proposed respondents as far as which respondent each count is directed to.
The Board should deny Complainant’s motion to file its ThirdAmended Complaintbased on
a finding that it would cause surprise to and would prejudice CLC and the proposed respondents.
IV.
Conclusion
This matter has beenpending for nearly seven (7) years,
and has been the subject ofintense
litigation and the exchange ofthousands ofpages ofdocuments. Mostincredibly, Complainant seeks
2See footnote No.
1
and Exhibit A.
10
to
file a Third Amended‘Complaint based on documents that have been available to
Complainant
since 1993,
1995
and 1996, prior to the Complainant filling its original complaint in 1997.
TheBoard
should not allow Complainant to
do so.
WHEREFORE,
based
on
the
foregoing,
Respondent
Community
Landfill
Company
respectfullyrequests that the Board deny Complainant’s Motion to File ThirdAmended Complaint,
and
find that:
(1)
Complainant has had previous opportunities to
amend the pleadings, and has failed
to
do so, even though the documents in support ofits proposed Third Amended Complaint were
in the Agency’s possession prior to
its filing ~tsoriginal complaint;
(2)
the proposed ThirdAmended Complaint is untimely; and
(3)
the proposedThirdAmended Complaint is prejudicial to sole Respondent CQmmunity
Landfill Company.
Respectfully Submitted,
One ofRespondent’s Attorney
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.
734 North Wells Street
Chicago, IL 60610
(313) 642-4414
AttyNo.
37346
11
2nd
amended
complaint
count no.
Allegation
Disposition on SummaryJudgment
Proposed
3rd
amended
complaint
count
no.
I
Failure to adequatelymanage refuse and litter
Ordered hearing
on CLC liability
I
II
Failure to prevent or control
leachate flow
Ordered hearing on CLC liability
II
ifi
Failure to properly dispose of landscape
waste
CLC liable
-
ordered hearing on penalty only
ifi
IV
Failure to provide and
maintain
adequate
financial assurance
CLC liable
-
orderedhearing on penalty only
IV
V
Failure to file required sig mod
CLC liable
-
ordered hearing
onpenalty
only
V
VI
Water pollution
Ordered hearing on CLC liability
VI
VII
Depositing waste in an unpennitted portion
of
a landfill
CLC
liable- ordered
hearing on penalty only
VII
Vifi
Conducting waste disposal operation without
a permit
CLC liable
-
orderedhearing on penalty only
.
\Tffl
IX
Open dumping
.
CLC liable
-
ordered hearing on penalty only
IX
X
Violation ofSC-3
-
overheight
CLC liable
-
ordered
hearing onpenalty
only
X
XI
Improper
handling ofasbestos
In favor ofCLC; Dismissed
XII
Conducting waste disposal operation without
a
permit
.
Dismissed against CLC in Board’s order on
reconsideration
7/26/01
XI
(should notbe in)
Xffl
Improper disposal ofused tires
CLC
liable
-
ordered hearing on penalty only
Xiii
XIV
Violation of
permit
condition
-
movable
fencing
CLC
liable
ordered hearing on penalty oniy
XIII
XV
Violation of
permit
condition
-
operationof
gas facility
Ordered
hearing
on CLC liability
XIV
XVI
Violation of
pennit
condition
-
gas system
-
erosion, ponding, one inch cracks, etc.
CLC liable
-
ordered hearing on penalty only
XV
XVII
Violation of
permit condition
-
leachate
disposal
Ordered hearing on CLC liability
XVI
.
XVffl
Violation of
permit condition
-
final cover
In favor of CLC; Dismissed
XIX
.
Failure to provide
and
maintain
adequate
financial assurance
-
10/24/96
permit
.
a) CLC liable in
part for financial assurance
from $1,342,500
to $1,431,360
-
hearing
on
penalty
b) Hearing on liability as to when gas
management system began operating
XVII
‘
XX
Violation of
permit
condition
-
operating
permit and EPA
approval
Ordered
hearing
on liability
XVffl
XXI
Failure to provide revised cost estimate by
12/26/94
CLC
liable
-
ordered
hearing
onpenalty only
X1X
XXII
Failure to provide revised cost estimate by
7/26/98
In favor ofCLC; Dismissed
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
•
The undersigned,
an
attorney,
on oath
states -that she caused to
be
served
a copy ofthe
foregoing
RESPONDENT
COMMUNITY
LANDFILL
COMPANY’S
RESPONSE
IN
OPPOSITION
TO
COMPLAINANT’S
MOTION
TO
FILE
TifiR)
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
to
the following parties ofrecord, by placing same in U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,
this 30th day ofJanuary, 2004:
Ms. DorothyGunn, Clerk
illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100
W.
Randolph Street
Chicago,IIL
60601
Mr. Christopher Grant
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
188 West Randolph Street, 20th Floor
Chicago,IL
60601
Mr. Brad Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R.Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IlL
60601
Attorney for Respondent
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
Attorney No. 37346
LaRose
& Bosco,
Ltd.
734 N. Wells Street
Chicago,IL
60610
(312) 642-4414
Fax (312) 642-0434
