ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 19, 2004
SALINE COUNTY LANDFILL, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 04-117
(Permit Appeal - Land)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
The Board today will rule on two outstanding motions in this permit appeal. First, on
January 28, 2004, Saline County filed a motion to intervene (Mot.I.) in this permit appeal
proceeding. On February 13, 2004, petitioner filed a response to the motion to intervene (Pet.
Resp.). The second motion pending concerns a request by the petitioner, Saline County Landfill,
Inc., to hold the hearing in this matter in Sangamon County (Mot.HH.)
1
. On February 10, 2004,
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a response to that motion
(Ag.Resp.). For the reasons discussed below the Board grants the motion to intervene but denies
the request to hold the hearing in Sangamon County.
Motion to Intervene
Saline County seeks intervention in this proceeding because the issue underlying the
appeal is whether or not siting has been granted by Saline County for the area covered by the
permit application. Mot.I. at 1. Saline County is represented by the State’s Attorney for Saline
County, a constitutional officer possessing the authority to represent the interests of the people of
Saline County to ensure a healthful environment.
Id
. Saline County is seeking intervention to
protect the interests of the citizens of Saline County and if intervention is not allowed, Saline
County asserts material prejudice to the citizens of the county will result. Mot.I. at 2. Saline
County asserts that this request to intervene is consistent with prior precedent and cites several
cases in support including Pioneer Processing, Inc. v. IEPA, 102 Ill. 2d 199, 464 N.E.2d 238
(1984) and Saline County Landfill, Inc. v. IEPA PCB 02-108 (Apr. 18, 2002).
Petitioner objects to allowing Saline County to intervene and argues that unlimited
participation in the proceedings is not necessary to protect the interests of the citizens of Saline
County. Pet. Resp. at 2. Petitioner alternatively argues that if the motion to intervene is allowed,
the participation of Saline County be limited pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.402(e).
Id
.
1
The Board notes that the filing indicates the motion is filed with the hearing officer. However,
the hearing officer set this matter for hearing in Saline County after discussion with the parties
on February 4, 2004. Therefore, the Board will address this motion.
2
Specifically, petitioner asks that Saline County: (1) be barred from serving discovery,
interrogatories, and requests to admit; (2) abide by all hearing officer orders issued; (3) not
control any decision deadline; and (4) not be allowed to raise any issues that were raised or
might have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings. Pet. Resp. at 2-3.
The Agency has not filed a response to the motion to intervene. Therefore, pursuant to
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(d), any objections to the Board granting the motion by the Agency
are waived
The Board has reviewed the cases cited by Saline County and agrees that Saline County
may intervene in this matter. The Board finds that the citizens of Saline County may be
materially prejudiced. Therefore, the Board grants the motion to intervene. However, the Board
understands the concerns of the petitioner in this matter and therefore pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 101.402(e) will limit Saline County’s participation. Specifically, Saline County must abide
by all prior Board and hearing officer orders including decisions by the hearing officer regarding
discovery and the setting of the hearing.
MOTION TO HOLD HEARING
Petitioner argues that the Board’s procedural rules do not require that the hearing be held
in Saline County and that the potential witnesses for the hearing are all located in Sangamon
County. Mot.HH. at 1-2. The hearing can be completed in one day in Sangamon County instead
of multiple days in Saline County.
Id
. Thus, argues the petitioner, convenience of all “known
potential witnesses”, the attorneys for both parties, and the Board “call for an order” to hold the
hearing in Sangamon County.
Id
. Finally, petitioner points out that in a prior permit appeal
involving the same parties, the hearing was held in Sangamon County.
Id
, citing Saline County
Landfill, Inc. v. IEPA PCB 02-108 (Apr. 18, 2002).
The Agency concurs in the request to hold the hearing in Sangamon County to allow the
Board and the Agency to “conserve administrative resources.” Ag.Resp. at 1.
The Board agrees that the express provisions of the procedural rules do not require that a
hearing be held in the county where the facility is located. However, the Board’s procedural rule
at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.600 relied on by petitioner is a part of the Board’s general procedures
governing hearings for all types of Board proceedings. In most permit appeal proceedings, the
hearing is held in the county where the facility is located. The Board is not bound by the prior
decision in PCB 02-108 to allow the hearing to take place in Sangamon County. At this time, the
Board finds that to ensure a full airing of issues in this case, the hearing must be held in Saline
County. Therefore, the motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above order on February 19, 2004, by a vote of 5-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
