BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
)
CLERK’S OFFICE
Complainant,
SEP
30
2004
)
PCB
NO. 97-2
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
)
(Enforcement)
POllUtiOn Control Boarc~
JERSEY
SANITATION
CORPORATION,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF
FILING
To:
Stephen
F.
Hedinger
Attorney
at Law
2601
South Fifth
Steet
Springfield,
IL 62703
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this
date
I
mailed for filing with
the Clerk of the Pollution
Control
Board
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
OBJECTION
TO
RESPONDENT’S
MOTION
FOR
EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS, a copy of which is
attached
hereto and
herewith served
upon you.
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:
T~L—~
t~-~c~~ç
~
JANE
E.
McBRIDE
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental
Bureau
500
South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
September 27, 2004
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I
hereby certify
that
I
did
on
September 27, 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
instruments
entitled NOTICE
OF
FILING
and
OBJECTION
TO
RESPONDENT’S
MOTION
FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO
FILE RESPONSE
TO MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS:
To:
Mr.
Stephen Hedinger
Hedinger Law Office
2601
South
Fifth
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62703
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
1021
N.
Grand Avenue East
Springfield,
Illinois
62794
,~-d~ii~
~E.
McBride
Assistant Attorney General
This filing is submitted
on
recycled paper.
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
(sr-
vs.
)
PCB No. 97-2
STATE OF~
~~~IUt1Ofl
3Orrü.~
JERSEY
SANITATION
CORPORATION,
)
-
an Illinois
corporation,
)
Respondent.
OBJECTION TO
RESPONDENT’S
MOTION
FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME
TO
FILE
RESPONSE TO
MOTION
FOR
SANCTIONS
NOW COMES
Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
and
hereby
objects to Respondent’s
Motion for Extension
of Time to
File Response
to
Motion for Sanctions
on the following grounds:
1.
Respondent’s motion
for an extension
of time exists
as yet
another tactic
of
delay
and stalling
in
the instant matter.
Respondent’s
motion for extension
of time is
six
paragraphs long.
If Respondent was sincere in
its
interest in
responding to
the
motion for
sanctions,
it would
have
spent the time drafting
an
actual response
instead of a request for an
extension of time.
2.
Respondent has done nothing but delay this proceeding.
Respondent stands to
benefit from this delay.
Groundwater contamination is at issue
in this matter.
Respondent has
already
avoided, for many years, any costs
associated with
compliance measures
the
Board
may order.
Additional
delay allows
Respondent to continue
to
avoid costs
of compliance
despite
undisputed
evidence that the groundwater exceeds standards
at the
site.
3.
Complainant is
prejudiced
by
the continuing
delay.
The Complainant is forced
to
continue to
invest resources
in this proceeding due to the delay
and
never-ending
continuances
associated with
this proceeding.
The delay
and the passage of time is not beneficial to
an
efficient
proceeding.
Complainant’s
counsel and witnesses
have been forced
to repeatedly
reacquaint themselves with the evidence and
arguments that make up the voluminous record
in
this proceeding due
to the delays that have
been
caused by
the Respondent.
4.
In
paragraph
2 of its motion
for extension
of time,
Respondent seeks
to deflect
attention from
its own
delay tactics with
ridiculous accusations.
It accuses Complainant of
mischaracterizations.
There
is no truth in
Respondent’s
statements.
Respondent is the one
guilty of mischaracterizations.
Paragraph 2 of
its
motion
represents a very sad,
desperate
attempt to confuse
and
mislead
so
as to
remove the Board’s focus from the fact Respondent
has
repeatedly failed to adhere to
the Hearing Officer’s
order and
has
caused a significant,
unnecessary delay in this proceeding.
5.
Respondent claims that Complainant is trying
to “inflict
punishment” upon the
Respondent.
Complainant is appalled
by this statement and suggests that the
Board
recognize
such statements for what they are,
rash
mockeries of the process that should
not
be tolerated.
Respondent should
not
be
allowed to
avoid
abiding
by a
Hearing
Officer’s order on the grounds
of rash,
ridiculous statements.
6.
Complainant is trying
to
proceed with an
enforcement action
and
bring
itto
conclusion.
Respondent is now
15 weeks,
nearly four months,
beyond its deadline for filing
a
response brief.
The hearing
in
this matter was
initiated
over a year ago.
The majority of the
hearing
was concluded on
September 23 and 24 of 2003.
The hearing was
completed on
January
13,
2004.
7.
Among
its rash
statements
is the Respondent’s notion that the instant
enforcement case
is an
attempt to
“circumvent”
a permit ruling.
This is Respondent’s
characterization and
it is
indeed
a hideous
mischaracterization.
Complainant
has
presented
evidence of the exceedence of groundwater standards
and
has presented evidence from
experts,
both
the Complainant’s and
Respondent’s experts, as to
recommended remedial
2
limit and set forth the grounds
upon which
it requested
the waiver.
Respondent filed
no
objection
at the time,
and thus has waived
its
ability to object.
If it truly had
an objection,
it
should
have filed a timely objection
so the matter could
have been
reviewed
in a timely and
appropriate manner within the proceeding.
It has waived
its objection
and
the page length
should
no longer be
at issue.
The allegations of this case are
numerous, they existed
and
arose over a significant period
of time,
and the groundwater issues
have been complicated
by a
number of factors.
Complainant.asserted
that it needed the page-length waiver to adequately
address the voluminous record and
the
many arguments
set forth
by
both
parties.
11.
Respondent’s counsel
has
requested an
extension of time due to
the fact
he
has
other litigation obligations.
All
attorneys face work that competes for their time.
However,
the
-
briefing schedule
for this matter was
originally set on January
13, 2004.
Counsel cannot claim
he was
unaware of the record and the arguments in
this case as of that date.
He
received
Complainant’s
brief on
approximately April
20, 2004.
Respondent has
had over four months
within which to
plan and
secure time to
get a response brief filed
in this matter.
12.
In Paragraph
2 of
its
motion,
Respondent states that, with the filing of
Complainant’s request for sanctions,
Complainant
is “seeking”
a “death
penalty sanction”
against Respondent.
Respondent thoroughly indulges
in
hyperbole with this statement and
again
infers
an intention on
the part of the Complainant that
is
pure
supposition.
Respondent
repeatedly failed
to
adhere
to orders
issued
by the Hearing Officer
and
in
the course
of time
exceeding
13 weeks,
Respondent fell
completely silent.
Another two weeks has
passed.
Respondent still
has
not filed
a response
brief, and
instead files for an extension
of time to
respond to the motion for sanctions.
Respondent is staying
true to
its
pattern and
practice
of
delay, which,
pursuant
to Section
101 .800(c) of the Board’s
Procedural
Rules,
constitutes
grounds for sanctions.
4
WHEREFORE,
on
the foregoing grounds,
Complainant respectfully requests that the
Board deny Respondent’s
motion for extension of time,
acknowledge
Respondent’s failure to
adhere to the briefing
schedule set
in this matter by
Hearing
Officer order,
and
order the
record
in
this matter closed.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
ex
reL
LISA MAD IGAN, Attorney General
of the State of Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental
Enforcement
Division
BY:
-
-
,.~
JANE
E.
1\ItBRIDE
Assistant Attorney General
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
(217) 782-9031
S