RECE~IVED
CLERKS OFACE
JuN
21
200k
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Lisa Madigan
ATTORNEY GENERAL
June
16,
2004
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
100 West
Randolph
Street
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
Illinois 60601-3286
Re:
People v.
John Prior,
dlbla
Prior Oil
Co.
& James
Mezo
PCB 02-1 77
Dear Clerk Gunn:
Enclosed for filing please find the original and ten copies of a
NOTICE OF FILING and
COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION in regard to
the
above-captioned
matter.
Please file the originals and
return
a file-stamped copy to our office
in
the enclosed self-addressed stamped
envelope.
Thank you
for your cooperation
and
consideration.
Sincerely,
~
/j
~L.
oman
t~-’A~’ssistant
Attorney General
500
South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
JLH/pp
Enclosures
500
South Second Street,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
•
(217)
784-1090
•
1”I’Y:
(217)
785-2771
•
Fax:
(217)
782-7046
100
\Vest
Randolph
Street,
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
•
(312)
814—300()
•
1’li:
(312)
814—3374
•
lax:
(312)
814—3806
11)01
1
tsr
\l tin
(
irhond ik
Illinois
(2901
(61~)
~29 6401)
1
1 \
)61~)~29
640~
I
ix
(618)
a29
6416
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
~VED
CL~K
S
OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
JOHN
PRIOR,
dibla
PRIOR OIL COMPANY,
and JAMES
MEZO,
dlbla
MEZO OIL
COMPANY,
Respondents.
JUN
2 ~2C~4
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution
Control Board
PCBNO.
02-177
)
(Enforcement)
NOTICE
OF FILING
To:
John
Prior
421
North Morrison
Central
City,
Illinois 62801
James
Mezo
418 East Main
Street
P.O.
Box 220
Benton,
Illinois 62812
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that on this
date
I
mailed for filing with the Clerk of the Pollution
Control
Board of the State of
Illinois, COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE TO
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION,
a copy of which is attached
hereto and
herewith served
upon you.
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
June
16, 2004
Respecifully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
~AssistantAttorney General
Environmental Bureau
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I
hereby certify that
I
did
on June
16,
2004,
send by
First Class
Mail, with
postage thereon
fully prepaid,
by depositing
in
a United
States
Post Office
Box a true
and
correct copy of the
following instrument entitled
NOTICE OF FILING and
COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE TO
MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
To:
John
Prior
James
Mezo
421
North
Morrison
418
East Main Street
Central
City,
IL 62801
P.O.
Box 220
Benton,
IL 62812
and
the original
and ten copies by
First Class
Mail with
postage thereon fully
prepaid of the
same foregoing
instrument(s):
To:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
State
of Illinois Center
Suite
11-500
100
West Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
A copy was also sent by
First
Class
Mail with
postage thereon fully
prepaid
To:
Carol
Sudman
Hearing
Officer
Pollution Control
Board
600
South
Second Street
Springfield,
IL 62706
/k~
,/
~J.
L.
HOMAN
(/Assistant Attorney General
This filing is submitted
on
recycled paper.
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
CLEpK’~
OFF1b~
JUN
21
2004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
STATE OF ILLIN
~X
t~&.
LISA MADIGAN,
)
Pollution
Control Boid
Attorney General
)
r
of the State of Illinois,
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB
No.
02-1 77
)
(Enforcement)
JOHN
PRIOR and JAMES
MEZO,
)
Respondents.
COMPLAINANT’S
RESPONSE TO MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney
General of the State of Illinois, hereby responds to
the Motions for Reconsideration of the
Board’s
May 6, 2004,
Order filed
by
Respondents,
JOHN PRIOR and
JAMES
MEZO, and
states as follows:
1.
Motions
for reconsideration are governed
by Section
101.902 of the Board’s
Procedural
Rules,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
101.902.
These provisions
allow a party to seek
reconsideration of a final Board
order
upon the traditional grounds of newly discovered
evidence
or a change
in the
law
(or misapplication
of existing law).
2.
John Prior has
filed
a letter on June
4,
2004,
requesting
that the
Board
“reconsider the penalties assessed,” and
asserting,
in pertinent part:
“There had
been
considerable
sabotage to
my equipment but due to
my lack of representation,
due to
a lack of
funds,
I was unable to get the information
I
had admitted for consideration.
It is a
matter of
public record,
that during
better times for me,
I
personally donated the land for the Wamac City
Park.
I
did
not and would
not intentionally damage the environment
in
and around Wamac.”
1
3.
James
Mezo has
filed
a letter on
June
7, 2004,
requesting that the
Board
reduce
the penalty against him
and asserting,
in
pertinent part:
“The Opinion
refers to
my posing as
the operator of the Oestreich tank battery.
At the time
I
made the Assignment
and
0G26 form
to
John Prior, we
believed The Permit transfer would
be made timely.
This of course
did
not
happen
Until
the
D.N.R.
did an
administrative transfer.
I
am convinced the Oestreich
lease was
never operated
after the Assignment Was made.
There was
a tool
lost in the hole and after
I
decided to
plug
and
Abandon the well
Mr.
Prior wanted to
purchase the lease
and try to
salvage
The well, thus the assignment.
I
was lax in
that
I did
not follow up as closely as
I
should have
to
get the Permit transferred, partly because
I
knew the well was
not
being
operated.”
4.
In
Citizens Against Regional Landfill
v.
County Board of Whiteside
(March
11,
1993),
PCB
93-1 56, the Board
stated 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 of the existing law,”
citing
Korogluyan v.
Chicago
Title &
Trust
Co.,
213
III. App.
3d
622,
572
N.E.2d
1154,
1158
(1st
Dist.
1992).
The availability of factual
information at the time of the hearing
must be determined
in the context of the case.
5.
Complainant
believes that the information quoted above is
not convincing
that
reconsideration
is justified by newly discovered
evidence or
errors
in the Board’s previous
application of existing
law.
However, since each
Respondent appeared
pro
Se,
the
Board
could
appropriately accept the letters as post-hearing exhibits and
include such
in the record of
decision.
Complainant would then
suggest that none of the information
warrants reduction
of
the penalties
imposed
in the
May
6, 2004,
Order.
WHEREFORE,
Complainant,
People of the State of Illinois, respectfully requests that,
if
2
reconsideration
is granted and the information provided by Respondents is made
part of the
record, the
Board
affirm its
May 6, 2004,
Order.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General
of the State of
Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental
Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:___________
(~J’LJ.
HOMAN
C_,Environmental
Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
500
South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
June
16, 2004
3
