BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERKS
OFFICE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
FEB 1 3 2007
BROADUS OIL,
)
Pollution ASTATE OF ILLINOIS
Board
Petitioner,
V,
)
PCB No . 04-31
05-43
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
(UST Fund)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent .
)
NOTICE
Dorothy M . Gunn, Clerk
Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R
. Thompson Center
James R . Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Chicago, IL 60601
Stephen F. Hedinger
Hedinger Law Officer
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the office of the Clerk of the Pollution Control
Board,
RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER,
copies of which are herewith
served upon you .
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
yMelanie
Y\
Qo-,~
A . Jarvis
4
.
Q-,
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P .O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
Dated : February 6, 2007
This filing submitted on recycled paper .
RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER
NOW COMES the Respondent, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA"),
by one of its attorneys, Melanie A
. Jarvis, Assistant Counsel and Special Assistant Attorney General,
and, pursuant to 35 111
. Adm
. Code 101 .500 and 101
.520, hereby responds to the Motion for
Reconsideration ("Petitioner's motion" or "motion") filed by the Petitioner, Broadus Oil ("Broadus")
. In
response to the Petitioner's motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows
:
I
. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In ruling on a motion for reconsideration, the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") will
consider factors including new evidence or a change in the law, to conclude the Board's decision was in
error . 35 111. Adm
. Code 101 .902 . In the case of
Citizens Against Regional Landfill v
. County Board of
Whiteside,
PCB 93-156 (March 11, 1993), the Board noted 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 the hearing, changes in the law or errors in the court's previous application of the existing
law."
Korogluyan v
. Chicago Title & Trust Co ., 213 III
. App. 3d 622, 627, 572 N
.E.2d
1154, 1158 (1 s'
Dist. 1992) .
Thus, in order to prevail on a motion to reconsider, the movant must demonstrate that one of the
three criteria has been met to justify reconsideration of an order
. Here, the movant fails to raise any
I
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
RECEIVED
FED 1 3 2007
BROADUS OIL,
)
Petitioner,
)
v .
)
PCB No . 04-31
05-43
Pollution Control Board
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent .
)
(UST Fund)
meritorious argument that would warrant the Board's reconsideration of its December 21, 2006 final
order ("Board's final order" or "final order") .
II. THE PETITIONER RAISES NO NEW FACTS OR EVIDENCE
Several of the arguments posited by the Petitioner relate to its belief that the Board failed to
properly consider information that was before the Board as of the date of the final order . The Board was
completely briefed on the relevant issues of the case and the Petitioner does not present sufficient
grounds for reconsidering the final order. The Petitioner is simply not happy with the conclusion that
the Board reached following consideration of those issues .
The Petitioner is merely attempting to re-argue issues that were already raised and briefed prior
to the Board reaching its decision on December 21, 2006 . The Petitioner has not detailed any newly
discovered evidence
.
III. THE PETITIONER RAISES NO CHANGES IN LAW
The Petitioner's motion is not premised on any changes in applicable law since the date of the
Board's decision
.
IV.
THE PETITIONER DOES NOT RAISE ANY SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THAT THE
BOARD MISAPPLIED THE RELEVANT LAW
The Petitioner attempts to makes arguments that the Board misapplied the relevant law . An
examination of each such argument, however, makes clear that there is no justification for granting the
Petitioner's motion
.
The Petitioner argues that the Board did not address its statutory argument concerning Section
57
.7 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (415 ILCS 5/57 .7). Petitioner's motion, p. 2 .
The Petitioner's argument is that Section 57
.7 of the Act allows for budget amendments to be submitted
at any time .
2
But that argument does not raise any sufficient grounds for reconsideration of the Board's
decision
. The Board's decision took into account the very arguments raised in the Petitioner's motion to
reconsider, since they were also raised in the Petitioners' pleadings prior to the issuance of the final
order
. In addition, the Board cites to Section 57 .7 in its order
. Board's order p . 3
. In other words, there
are no reasons given as to why the Board's decision should be reconsidered in the Petitioner's favor,
other than the Board's interpretation did not agree with that of the Petitioner
. The Board correctly
determined that plans and budget must be submitted prior to the issuance of a No Further Remediation
letter
. Board's order p . 10.
V. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner's arguments in its motion to reconsider are without merit and thus the motion
should be denied
. There are no arguments presented in the motion that meet the criteria that would
warrant the Board's reconsideration of its final order
.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the Illinois EPA hereby respectfully requests that
the Board deny the Petitioner's motion .
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
Melanie
rvis
Assistant Counsel
Special Assistant Attorney General
Division of Legal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
Dated
: February 7, 2007
This filing submitted on recycled paper
.
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, the undersigned attorney at law, hereby certify that on February 7, 2007,1 served true and
correct copies of
RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER,
by placing
true and correct copies thereof in properly sealed and addressed envelopes and by depositing said
sealed envelopes in a U .S
. Mail drop box located within Springfield, Illinois, with sufficient First
Class postage affixed thereto, upon the following named persons
:
Dorothy M
. Gunn, Clerk
Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R . Thompson Center
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Chicago, IL 60601
Stephen F
. Hedinger
Hedinger Law Officer
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
Melanie A . Jarvis
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O
. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
This filing submitted on recycled paper .
