BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
1
1
v.
1
PCB No. 03-191
)
(Enforcement)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation, and the CITY OF MORRIS,
)
an Illinois municipal corporation,
1
1
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: Christopher Grant
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
188 West Randolph Street
20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 6060 1
Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson, LLP
1 00 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 6 1 105- 13 89
Bradley
Halloran
Eearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph
Suite 1 1-500
Chicago, Illinois 6060 1
Scott Belt
Scott Belt and Associates, PC
105 East Main Street
Suite 206
Morris, Illinois 60450
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that on
February
27, 2007, the undersigned caused to be
electronically filed with Ms. Dorothy
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 1 1-500, Chicago, Illinois 6060 1,
COMMUNITY LANDFILL
COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS' MOTION
TO SET HEARING DATE, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SEVERANCE OF CLAIMS,
a
copy of which is attached and hereby served
One of the Attorneys for Community
Gndfill Co.
Mark A.
LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
LAROSE
&
BOSCO, LTD.
Attorney No. 37346
200 North
LaSalle Street, Suite 28 10
Chicago, Illinois 60610
(3 1 2) 642-44 14
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER.
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
1
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB No. 03-191
)
(Enforcement)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation, and the CITY OF MORRIS,
)
an Illinois municipal corporation,
)
)
Respondents.
)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS' MOTION TO SET HEARING DATE OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR SEVERANCE OF CLAIMS
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC., ("CLC") by and through its attorneys,
LAROSE
&
BOSCO, LTD., hereby respond to the Complainant PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS' ("People" or "Complainant") Motion to Set Hearing Date or, Alternatively, for Severance
of Claims, and in support thereof, states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This response is timely filed pursuant to 35
111,Admin. Code 101.500(d) which allows a party
14 days after service of a motion to file a response. Complainant's Motion to Set Hearing Date or,
Alternatively, for Severance of Claims ("Motion") essentially seeks reconsideration or review of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board's October 19,2006 Order (See Exh. A) which affirmed the hearing
officer's October 3,2006 Order (See Exh. B) canceling the October 24-27,2006 hearing in the above
matter. For the reasons set forth below, Complainant's motion is inappropriate and premature, and
granting it would result in prejudice to the defendants. Complainant's motion should be denied.
FACTSJPROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter was scheduled for hearing on October 24-27, 2006. However, in late August,
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
2006, Edward Pruim, SecretaryITreausrer of Respondent Community Landfill Company, underwent
emergency quintuple bypass surgery which was complicated by the presence of an aortic aneurysm
and followed by a blood clot on his lung. He was hospitalized for most of the period of August 26
-
September 17,2006. (See Exh. C). On September 22,2006, CLC filed a Motion to Cancel Hearing.
Following oral argument,
CLC's motion was granted by the Hearing Officer on October 3,2006.
(See Exh. A). On October
5, 2006, the People moved the Board for interlocutory review of the
hearing officer's order and for expedited review. On October 19, 2006, the Board affirmed the
hearing officer's cancellation of the hearing and ruled as follows:
"The Board grants the People's. motion for interlocutory review and affirms the hearing
officer's cancellation of the hearing. Without any explanation or evidence of what constitutes
"deteriorating conditions" or "material harm," the Board will not overrule the hearing officer's
order. As noted by CLC, the People have not shown there is any existing or immediate threat of
harm to human health or the environment caused by the landfill. As the hearing officer correctly
noted, the issue left to be determined is remedy. CLC identified Mr. Pruim as a witness on
October 2, 2006, consistent with the deadline set by the hearing officer for the filing of CLC's
witness list. CLC has also properly moved the Board to cancel the hearing. Although the
motion contained no date certain to reschedule the hearing, the Board finds that an instance such
as
this one, where a named witness experiences serious and unexpected medical problems, is
extraordinary. In this case, a date certain for rescheduling the hearing cannot yet be
ascertained. The Board is confident that the hearing officer will diligently work with the parties to
identify a hearing date as soon as it becomes possible."
ARGUMENT
A.
The Procedure Set Forth by the Hearing Officer Should be Followed
In his October 3, 2006 Order, Hearing Officer Bradley
Halloran set the matter for status on
December 7, 2006.
(See Exh.
By p. 2). On that date, he ordered CLC to file a report from Mr.
Pruim's physician on or before January 3 1, 2007, providing an update on Mr. Pruim's physical
condition.
CLC timely complied with this order. (See Exh. C). On February
8, 2007, Hearing
Officer
Halloran ordered that CLC file a report from Mr. Pruim's physician on or before April 13,
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
2007. This schedule comports with the recommendation of Mr. Pruim's physician and with both the
Hearing Officer's and Board's orders. There is no reason to prematurely alter this schedule by
setting a hearing date. The Board has clearly recognized that in this case, the hearing can not yet be
scheduled. The parties continue to work diligently with the hearing officer as instructed to by the
Board. (Exh. A, p. 3)
Both the Hearing Officer and the Board have recognized that Edward
Pmim's participation in
the preparation for hearing and in the hearing itself is "imperative". (Exh. A, p. 3, Exh. B, p. 2). The
Complainant has set forth nothing new that should result in changing its order. While Complainant
argues that a hearing can proceed without the participation of Edward Pruim, that is really not the
Complainant's decision to make. The City has set forth its reasons in its Response. While the State
characterizes the present state of affairs as being "indefinite
delay[ed]", events are clearly proceeding
within the time frame already contemplated and established by the Board.
Complainant has still not even argued that Hearing Officer
Halloran abused his discretion in
granting
CLC's Motion to Cancel Hearing. The Board should not now grant Complainant relief it
has been unable to obtain through its previous attempts before both the Hearing Officer and the
Board. The Board should deny Complainant's Motion to Set Hearing Date.
B.
CLC will be Prejudiced if the Hearings are Severed
The City has indicated it may call both Robert Pruim (President of Community Landfill
Company) and Edward Pruim as witnesses. If the hearing is severed as to the defendants, both the
City, CLC and their witnesses would have to participate twice, resulting in a tremendous waste of
resources for all concerned, including those of the State and the Board. In the interest of judicial
economy, it is crucial to conduct this hearing so that all involved, including non-party witnesses, are
afforded a complete and full hearing on all issues at the same time.
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC.
respectfully requests that the Board DENY Complainant's Motion to Set Hearing Date or,
Alternatively, for Severance of Claims.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
one
9
of the Attorneys for
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY
Mark A.
LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
LAROSE
&
BOSCO, LTD
200 North
LaSalle Street
Suite
28 10
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(3 12) 642-441 4
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Clarissa C.
Grayson, an attorney hereby certify that I caused to be served a copy of the
foregoing
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE PEOPLE
OF
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS' MOTION TO SET HEARING DATE, OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SEVERANCE OF CLAIMS
by the specified delivery methods
listed below, this
27th day of
February
2007, addressed as follows:
Fax (312) 814-2347
Christopher Grant
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
1 88 West Randolph Street
20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 6060 1
Fax (815) 941-4677
Scott Belt
Scott Belt and Associates, PC
105 East Main Street
Suite 206
Morris, Illinois 60450
Fax (815) 490-4901
HAND DELIVERY ONLY
Charies
F. Helsten
Bradley Halioran
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson, LLP
Hearing Officer
100 Park Avenue
Illinois Pollution Control Board
P.O. Box 1389
100 West Randolph
Rockford, Illinois 6 1 105-1 3 89
Suite 1 1
:500
Chicago, Illinois 6060 1
One of the Attorneys for Community Landfill Co.
Mark A.
LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
LAROSE
&
BOSCO, LTD.
Firm No. 37346
200 North
LaSalle Street
Suite 28 10
Chicago, Illinois 6061 0
(3 12) 642-44 14
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
EXHIBIT A
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
. .
. .
October 19,2006
PEOPLE OF
.
THE
.
STATE OF ILLINo~,
' )
1
Complainant,
,
' . .
1
>.
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
,
j
INC., an Illinois corporation, and the CITY OF
)
MORRIS, an Illinois municipal corporation,
)
, '
Respondents.
1
)
ORDER OF THEBOARD (by N.J. Melas):
. .
. ,
.
.
PCB 03-191
(~nforcekent
-
Lai~d)
The parties
in
this enforcement action were sch~dul~d
to go .to hearing in 0itobei 24
through October 27,2006, on the issue of remedy. On' September
22,. 2006, responderif
Community Landfill Company (CLC), filed a motion to cancel the hearbig. CLC stated that Mr.
.
Edward P,~@i,the secretary
.....
?.
.and
......
treasurer
.;
of CLC, had recently undergone
.,.;>,.:,..'
heart
"' "..
surgery that
.
was
.
f~rtheicom~licated
... .- >...
,.:%..rjca
b;ji
...
aiaofic,
,,...,
...
L-
2
-
.peuris&
-. . .,>- : :., 3.;
.,and
;. .
jy&
, ..........
under
:<....
his
\.:
ddhtor
*...
....
s orders
. - .........
to avoid stressful
wiik-felated actieties for
fii;e
to. sij;
C~C
&.:pfiaZy
s"s'~tf~nc~;:.
........... :
participation, .'and-testim~n~sxere
essential for the defense of this proceeding.
,. .
On Septepber:27., 20.96, the Office of the Amey, General, 04 behalf of the People of
:
the state of Illinois (~eople),'res$&nded,'
objecting to CLC's motion to cancel the hearing. On
,
September 28,2006, respondent, City of Morris (Morris), filed responses in favor of canceling
the hearing:
Hearing officer ~rad
allo or an held a telephonic status conference on September 28,
2006, at which the' parties made oral
kguments in support of their positions. On 0ktober2,
2006, orris filed a witness list identifying Mr. Pruim as a witness. On 0ctober 3,2006, the
.hearing officer issued an order granting CLC's motion'and canceling the hearing.'
. .
'on October 5,2006, the People moved for an interlocutory appeal of the hearing officer's
ruling to cancel the
heariig'(Mot.). The People simultaneously mo'ved for interim relief (Mot.
for
Int. Rel.) &d expedited review of these motions.
,In
the appeal, the People request that the
Board reverse the hearing officer's
~'ctobei
3,2006 ruling and keep October 24 through 27,2006
as the
hearing dates. CLC responded to the motions for interlocutory appeal and for interim
relieipn.0&ober 18,2006,. The Board has granted the People's motion to expedite and
expedited
.............
its reviewof
.
...>
fhese
<..
...
motions
..'-'
....
.:
and.responsiv~plesidi'ngS~
. .
...
.
-
.
..
..........
:
. :
..
:
:
,
4..
..
.
.I::.:
-1.:.
.,:..
....
(,.
..
...
...........
*i
_..
-....
.
.
:
:.>
r
.L.--
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
.
.
MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL'
..............._
. .
.,.I
.........
.._
..........
_ . -
...
.1.
: . .
..........
...
. .
In~~s'upport.of.its~interlocufo~~appea1,
the people age.&at.CLC.'srmotion is legally.
:~.'i . -.,
I..::.::.
insufficient and that Mf' &$&i~.fioneces
party to this'adtihn: ;:F~st,:'&dd~~Opl~~~~~t~n~:,
.- :
....
that pursuant to ,Section i.O1:.510.~of the. Board?s .procedixal~rules;.CLC?s
mbtioh to. cancel .th&
i.
'. *. 1:: ' . .
hearing had to have proposed a.date to reschedule the hearing, but did not. Mot. at 2; citing 35
. '
Ill. Adm. Code 101.510(b). Second, the People note that Mi-. Pruim.is not arespondent in this
matter, but is a co-owner of
CLC and acts as secretv and treasurer of the corporation.
Id.
at 1.
The People contend that
Mr. Pruim was not previously named as a witness at the time of the
.
motion, made less than a month away kom hearing. The People argue that Mr. Pruim's
'
participation is not necessary for
a
full and complete hearing on the remaining issues in this case.
Id.
at 3. .The People add that using Mr. Pruim's absence to delay hearing essentially allows the
respondents to continue violating the
Environmental Protection Act (Act) for the near future.
Id.
.
..
.
-- .....
.....
. .
.....
.....
_......
.-
....
...
,
.
at4
' " .'
On October 12,2006, Morris opposed the People's motion for interlocutory appeal
(Resp.). Morris states that Mr. Pruim is now a named witness in this proceediqj and his
.
participation in this,proceeding is essential. Resp. at 2. According to Morris, Mr. Pruim is the
'
treasurer and
.
chief
-
financial officer of CLC and that matters involving clssure and post closure
financial assurance' will
necessarily involve financial questions. Morris states it fears that if only
one corporate representative
(Mr. Edward Pruim's brother,'Mr. Robert Pkim)
. .
is called, he will
"sirinply demurrer and defer to kn~wled~e,~ossessed
by Mr. Edward Pruim
...
thereby in essence
-
cwhip~awing';the.city2~:,~d.,
;',
,I,::'-,
::',: ;.,,: ...... :.::, . ',: ... --.: : .; ..;. (. i.
j
., .'....,
........
; :. .....
..............
...
.: ':-.- -. :. ..... 1''
.
,
. .
. ,
....
..
........
..
.......
" .. ,.. , ............_
..........
,,
I
'"'
.............
.
i
.:
........
.
........
: ,-..'
......
:
. ...........
..:. ..: ,...: .,.. <.,.;
......
.
':'
....
:, ...-.: :-'.
- .. ,. .
...... .+:. ...................
. .
Monis further. cohtends there iid urgency*to hold a hearing on remedy, Morris asserts
;, :.'.
that Mr. Devin Moose, Morris' .prima@ t~chnical'consultant, stated in his depositioil that no:
. ' . . '
imminent and substantial threat to human health or the en$.ronment is posed by thelandfill.
Resp. at 3 (referring to Exhibit B of ~o'nis'
October 5,2006,r~sponse
to CLCYs motion to canckl
hearirig and the People's response in opposition to the motion to cancel hearing). '~inall~,'states
.
Morris, at least one other material witness, Mr. Moose, has already made other plans and is now
also unavailable to zppear and testify cSiiring ,the originally scheduled hearing dates.
Id.
at
4:
d~eo~le
replied on.Oct~b
k-13,2006 (Reply). In repiy, the People state that the
' . .
"deteriorating conditions" at the Morris Coinmunity Landfill warrant immediate action by the
he
Board to avoid ':material harm." Reply at 1. The People further state that the situation has
"seriously degraded," and that closure costs have risen
t* $7.4 million. For these reasons,
contend the ~eo'~le,
the Board must require that the respondents immediately secure finincia1
assurance for closure and post-closure care of the landfill..
Id.
at 3.
. .
....
On October 18,2006, CLC responded to the People's motion. CLC
thatdueti the:<:
- :- -
nature
heaa.;;~~c;
of Mr. Pruim's
&ip:
a*
'gt-;z;j
medical
.
.-cb;cl
condition
&jjjtgdds
....
it
;~ht;fie.%&d&g:
was
...
impossible
dfficeyg
to propose
&at
a date
&Otl~~~
to reschedule
,E&
ze:qeFigd
the
absent an h-&bf
. -
;liscreiiotii
....
,':.GL~
. ?..
,agse*~ t&.the;p&pl&' did n6t.arg6
. .
:&$f,thi: ~ea~~:&ffi~~~
. ,,
.':: ;,. :
-
. .,
......
. .-
...
s.
abused ~s'd~s&~&tion~'~'gr~~tt~~~fhe
~otion
.to i$iicel.
.
Idi'
-For $h&ie rea~ofis;"&gu&s
(-'L-C; thk
: .:: - r. .:. '.
. .
Board should deny the motion for interlocutov appeal.
Id.
at 3.
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
.. ,:
. .
.....
.....
.......
-,, - .....-. ...
.
In granting CLC'S motion
tb
cancel hearin& the hkaring officer stated that due to the
issues to be
zi@rgsieit at hearing a6the2:?ssuepf remedy; it appe.qed
-.
. %
imperati~~:th.aEMri-.P:.qk;
: .
as a fin~ciaj1.r;oE~k~.:o;f:.CL;'C,.~b
&@resew heeng
ad.
&ail.able3oif
ees..t:3fy.:: 'I&
hehi
, : :::
;r:;.i:.:;
: . :::
. .
officer furthkr h@te&tha(6~~~!s
motion to~c~cel~was
nbt the.resu&o$lac$k ~:E,diligi:nc:e.
:;: .::.:.::,.;.,;-..:!:
-.:;
, .:
....
. .
.
-
.
......... _.,.
i!.
...
..:...:.....
. .
...
. ,.
- .. * ......... - ..
....
. .- .>. :I.\
.....
........
.
.., .. :' .
.<.
" .......
'. '-, ....
.
::.
.
- .: ;.:
....
:..
.
:. ::. .;. ...- :
........ .
.
....
...
.
;
.I
-
.,.;., ; '
.r
%.
:..
,,.
,..
.
.....
.
.
.
The Board grants the heeopleYs,motion
for interlocutory review and affirms the,hearing
....
officer's c&ellation of the hearing. Without any expl&+tion or evidence of what constitutes
"deteriorating conditions" or "material harm," the Board will not overrule the heasing officer's
order. As noted by CLC, the People have not
shoynthere isany existing or immediate threat of,
harm to
hum& health qr the environment caused by the landfill. As the hearing officer correctly
noted,
.the issue left to be ,determined is remedy. CLC identified Mr. Pruim as a witness on
October 2,2006, consistent with the deadline set
bythe hearing officer for the filing of CLC's
witness list. CLC has also properly moved the Board to cancel the hearing. ~ghough the motion
contained no date certain to reschedule the hearing, the Board finds that' an instanci such as this
one, where a
named witness experiences serious and &expected medical problems, is
.
extraordinary. In this c&e, a date certain for rescheduling the hearing cannot yet be ascertained.
The Board is confident that the hearing officer will diligently work with the parties to identify a
hearing date as soon as
it becomes possible.
....
.....
....
....
. .
...
.....
.MOTION FOR
INTERIM
RELIEF.
.'>
, , , . : : : : ,, :
.
.
........
.......
,..,.,.L..
...........
...
. ;:
...........
..
.< :
;,..;. ............
. ,,
. .
.,:.:.;.:: .......
......
: . ,,;:,::.::_.,;~:jr.,~.
.
.
.
.
. .
i,
.::.,
i.
.
..:.
.
:, ;: .::::...:.:.
..'.:i:
.a
' ; 1 . ,
, .
The People cite no authority in support oftheir mo'tion for interim relief, ye(;gtat,ethe
.:::- : -:
,;::,:,
;. .
Board should require the respondents to immediately &-range for closure and post~&losure
fmancial ass~~:ance
in the'~mount~afi$~1,448,3.66i
Moti:for:Int Rel: at 6..?The..P~opIe:state
that.;
.
the Illinois' ~nvironmental protection ~~enc~
(Agency)' has determined that resppndents are
... .; . .
required to provide $17,448,366 ,of closure and post-closure financial assurance.
.Id.
at 2, Exh.A.
According to the People,'hearings have been held in other Board proceedings on issues relating
to
CLC's lack of financialassurance.
Id.
at 3; kiting CLC and Morris v. IEPA, PCB 01-48, 49
(consolidated). The People believe, therefore, that a third hearing is not necessary to determine
the amount of
finailcia1 assurance.
. .
The Pebple state:that the.Board has broad. authorityto take actions reasonably.necessary.
to accomplish the purposes of the Act and that the requested relief is necessary to protect the
State. Mot. for
Int. Rel. at 4; citing Discovery South Group Ltd. v. ~~B,'.275
Ill. App. 3d 547
(I st Dist. 1995). The People contend that the Board has not hesitated to order compliance prior
to final resolution of
all'
penalty issues in the past.
Id.;
citing Kratusack v. Pate1
et
al.,
PCB 95?
143
(Aug. 21, 1997). Without a cow%-enforceable interim order to obtain compliant financi.al
assurance,
. .
state the People,
-
the respondents
-
.will be allowed to avoid compliance
.
.
as long
-
as
.
the
.
.
.
.
heag~~~-4elgy~d+~Jd~~Lat:~:j
;.:' !,,,.; ..-.... :,;: :: ..
:...
. . .:. .... :;; .::. :. ....
:-.:...-z.
:,.! ,:.-.,: ,;,, ::-:.,;
.?. . >:.:. ..
.......
., . .;\
;
7::
j';
.. .::.:..;.>.*..'
,,.
....:,...*:-L
2,
' ,;;-- .:,: .
;.:.-;.
; . ..*(. :,.::- ,, .-. ; ; ;: -, .:.:...;. ..,;-.-..% :. ;...
.
. ..... .
3.
r,.
::,
.
.,>:
.. ;.,.,. ;'-, . ;;;.:;:.;:~;~ ;:'<; ;;~;->!L -;:
:.., ;! ::'. ..:.
..
...........
.
~.~,~~.~&te~-4.~~fh~t
lth~,.~oarr:
@a,?
L~qke~t:inin.find&g.,@.at
it,y~s;.f.p~ee
.....,.
,+..
....
to.;mle
..........
on
..
the
..,i:.itr,:..
....
.'. ...
:a
..:
issue of
,ppgI:$y:.g~til
fag~a1;dete~inations;
have:beepm.ade
...
jn$be;:J?pbrgary
............
.I 6
Y...:
,2006
.. --
.integin
...
:. ..: -1;;
opinion and,order; According to
.
CLC,
.
this proceeding
.
,.
hag not. been"indefinitelydelaye$.y.
-. .
...
......
..
and..:
-. .... :. .. : .:
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
the People did not allege any imminent or irreparable harm that should prevent
. .
a postponement
due to an emergency medical situation.
...
. .
The Board denies the People's motion for interim relief. As the Board found in its
February 16,2006
interimopinion and order in this matter, it is premature to rule on the.issue
of penalty before consideration of the Section 33(c) and Section 42(h) factors. People v. CLC,
PCB 03-191, slip op. at 12 (Feb. 16,2006).
In Kratusack, the Board ordered the respondent to
cease and desist before sending the parties to hearing to determine any appropriate civil
penalty, but only after the
~oard
analyzed the relevant facts in light of the Section 33(c)
factors.'.' Kratusack v. Pate1 et
al.,
PCB 95-143 (Aug. 21
f
1997),
.
Under Section 33 of the Act; a Board order may include a direction to cease and desist
from violations of the Act or any.rule adopted under the Act, but only after detepining the
reasonableness of the emissions.
See 415 ILCS 5/33(a)-(c) (2004). As held in the past, the
Board considers the factors.
in Section 33(6) and Section 42(h) of the Act (41 5 ILCS 5/33(c),
420 '(2004)). in determining and assessing penalties and each of those factors require factual
detenninations. People
v. CLC, PCB 97-193, slip op, ai' 10 (Apr. 5,2001): The Board finds
the People's request for interim relief premature.
. .
CONCLUSION
.
Accordingly,' for the reasons set forth above, the Board grants the People's motion for
interlocutory appeal of the
heiring officer's October 3,2006 order, and affirms the hearing
officer
'.s order. The hearing originally scheduled to take place October 24 through 27,2006 is
canceled. The Board denies the People's
inotion for int'erim'relief as premature and anticipates
that the parties will be prepared. to address the issue' of remedy at hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, ~oioth~
M. Gum, Clerk of the Illinois ~ollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted
the above order on 0ctob.er 19,2006, by a vote of 4-0.
-ALL
D0rothy.M. Gunn, Clerk
...
Illinois Pollution Control Board
. .
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
EXHIBIT B
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OCT
a
3
2006
October 3,2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control
Board
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
1
1
1
V.
)
PCB 03-191
)
(Enforcement
-
Land)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
)
INC., and CITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois
1
municipal corporation,
)
Respondents.
1
1
HEARING OFFICER ORDER
On February 16,2006, the Ejoard granted complainant's motion for summary judgment
and directed that this matter proceed to hearing on the issue of remedy. One of the issues
involved the respondents' failure to comply with the financial assurance requirements; Both City
of Morris (Morris) and Community Landfill Company
Inc. (CLC) filed respective motions for
reconsideration. On June 1,2006, the Board
affirmed its order of February 16,2006, granting
complainant's motion for summary judgment and again directed that this matter proceed to
hearing on the;issue:,of remedy.
.......
. .
. ..: . . ........
.........
...............
.;:. , ;..
....
.......
"'
!..j
.........
......
; ; , ;;.;
i
. .
. : ....
i
:.,'.' . ,:'::; ..I......
...........
.-
...
.....................
. .
. : ..... :.: .
.....
.,.,,,
.
:: .:; .""'...
..
"
..."
...
: , . , . - - . - .
..'. :.;.. .
- .
On
.
September 22,2006, respondeit CLC filed a.motion.tq cadcel .the hearing.
..,.
...
.
preyiously
scheduled for October 24,25,26, 'and..27,2006.
'
On septe&ber 27,2'006, the c~m~lairiant'filed
a
response objecting to CLC's motion to cancel
the hearing. On September 28,2006, respondent
City of Moms (Morris) filed its response to both CLC's motion to cancel the hearing and
complainant's response in opposition. A telephonic status conference was held on September 28,
2006, where oral arguments were entertained. After considering the oral responses
and reading
the written motions and responses, the hearing officer orally notified the parties on September
.
28,2006,
.
that
CLC's motion to cancel the scheduled hearing was granted. Today's
. -
order grants
the motion-md cancels the hearing.'
CLC Motion To Cancel Hearing
CLC represents in its motion that Edward Pruirn, the secretary and treasurer of CLC,
'
underwent emergency quintuple bypass surgery that was complicated by the presence of an aortic
aneurism: Edward Pruim was hospitalized
from August 26,2006 to September 9,2006. Edward
Pruim was readmitted to the hospital on September: 11,2006,
with a blood clot on his lung.
.
Pruim was released on'september 17,2006. Finally, CLC represents that Edward Pruim is
reqovefing at his home and isreceiving continued treatment for the blood clot and heart
condition.
.......
:.'
--
"
. .
.
.......
......
.
.. .:.,.
, .
.
.
...
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
CLC's attachments to its motion include an affidavit fiom CLCYc attorney and letters
fiom Dr. Daniel Rowan, Edward Pruim's cardiologist and Dr. Timothy Wollner, Edward Pruim's
family physician.
B 0th physicians state that Edward Pruim should not undergo any stressful
work-related activities for at least five to six months. The prohibited
activities would include any
participation by way of testimony or preparation for the hearing. Finally, both physicians
recormend that Edward Pruim's physical condition be reviewed again in March 2007, to
'ascertain whether he can partake in a hearing.
.
Complainant's Response In Opposition
Complainant argues that CLC's motion to cancel the hearing should be denied because
Edward Pruim is not a party to this matter, and has no involvement in the prosecution of this
matter. Complainant represents that Edward Pruirn has yet to be disclosed as a witness and that
CLC's claim that Edward Pruim testimony is necessary is a revelation. Finally,
complai~ant
argues that Edward Pruim's brother, who is the president of CLC and has been disclosed as a
witness, would be able to provide all the necessary assistance to CLC. Complainant continues
and states that since the financial assurance documents for the landfill reveal that financial
assurance was arranged by R. Michael
McDermont, Mark A. LaRose and ~obert Pruim, Edward
Pruim's testimony is not necessary.
Morris' Response To CLC's Motion To Cancel And To Complainant's Response
Moriis argues that it would be prejudiced if the hearing is not canceled and continued
until such time as Edward
Pruim can be compelled to testify. Morris argues that since Edward
dm is the treasurer and chief financial officer of CLC, and since post-closure matters relate to
financial issues at issue here, it is essential that Morris be allowed to question Edward Pruim. On
October 2,2006, Morris filed a witness list pursuant to the August 17,2006 hearing officer order.
Edward Pruim is listed as one of the witnesses. Finally, Morris represents that preliminary
closure activities have been initiated at the site and represents, as reflected in the attached
deposition of expert witness Devin Moose, that based upon the current status
of activities at the
site, no eminent or substantial threat to the human health and environment is posed by the site in
question.
Discussion
After reviewing the motion to cancel, the respective responses and taking the oral
arguments into consideration,
I find good cause to grant CLC's motion to cancel the hearing
scheduled for October
24,25,26, and 27,2006. Due to the issues that need to be addressed at
hearing on the issue of remedy, it appears imperative that Edward Pruim, as a financial officer of
CLC, be present at the hearing and available to testify. Additionally,
I find that CLC's request to
cancel was not the
result of CLC's lack of diligence.
Telephonic Status Conference
. .
The. parties or their legal representatives are directed to participate in a telephonic
sfatus..conference with the hearing officer on December 7; 2006, at l.I,:OO.a.m; Please note the-
.
. . . ... .
. .
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
time change. The telephonic status conference must be initiated by the complainant, but each
party is nonetheless responsible for its
own appearance. At the status conference, the parties
must be prepared to discuss the
stahis of the above-captioned matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~radley P :Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution. Control Board
*
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100
W. Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312.814.8917
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that true copies of the foregoing order were. mailed, first
class, on
~ctober 3,2006, to each of the persons on the attached service list.
It is hereby certified that a true copy of the foregoing order was hand delivered to
the following on October 3,2006:'.
Dorothy
M. Gunn
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James
R. Thompson Center
100
W. Randolph.St., Ste. 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
.
Bradley P. Halloran
Hezing Officer
Illinois
~ollution Control Board
Jarnes.R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11 -500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312.814.8917
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
PCB 2003-191
PCB 2003-191
Charles
F. Helsten
Clarissa C. Grayson
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson
.
LaRose
&
Bosco, Ltd.
100 Park Avenue
200 North
LaSalle Street
P.O. Box 1389
Suite 28 10
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
Chicago,
IL 60601
PCB 2003-191
PCB 2003.191
Christopher J. Grant
Mark A.
LaRose
Office of the Attorney
LaRose
&
Bosco, Ltd.
General
200 North
~.aSalle
Street
Environmental Bureau
Suite 28 10
1 88 West Randolph, 20th
Chicago, IL 60601
Floor
Chicago,
IL 6060i
PCB 2003-191
Jennifer A.
Tomas
Office of the. Attorney Geiieral
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
PCB 2003-191
Scott M. Belt
Scott
M. Belt
&
Associates,
P.C.
1.05
E. Main Street
Suite 206
Moms,
IL
60450
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
EXHIBIT C
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007
JAN 3.1 2007 ,
JosW MuuRCZYK, M,D, RA.C,C,
mNIm
A,
ROWAN,
DO.,
RA.C,C, FP.,CE,
RSCAL
'
January 30,2007
'EVANS r! W.PP',
M,D,
RA.C.C,
. .
ChNs~l?HER
J,
SUIXVAN M.a,
F.A.C.C.
. '
Ms. Clarissa Cutl~r Grity8on
LaRose
&
Bosco, Ltd.
200
N.
LaSalle Street, Suite 28
10
Chic&go, IL 60602
. .
Re:
~dwa~d
Pruink
Pear
Ms,
aayson:
I am a cardiovascular physician andhave praotioed medicine for
20
years. I llave treated Edward
Prujm for approximately tha last five months
aad'm
very familiar with his medical history and
his current cqndi tioa,
. .
Mr. Pruirn recently unclenvent ~mergeacy quintuple bypass
surgefy,
whioh was complicated by
the presence of an
aortic
meurpm. Mr. Pmim was hospitalized horn August 26.- September 9,
2006 in both Pal06 Cotnmunity Hospital and Chist Hospital; I perfamed
an
angiogr~/~~d
examined him numerous times during this hospitalization. Mr, Pluim
wag
readmitted to c~st
Hospital on September 11,2006 with a blood clot
0s
his lung. After reciivir~~
treatment for thig
colldition, he was raleased oil September 17.2006.
.
.
I bave treated Mr.
Pnrim
regularly since his quintuple bypass surgery. I reoe~~tly
examined Mr.
:
~ruirn on January 4,2007. Based on
this
recent examination, is my professional opinion, Mr.
Pmim has still not
filly
recovered flom the quintuple bypass surgary and the blood cloi in his
lung
and
ia G~FP~~Y
ullable
to
Prepare for or participate in any legal matters. It
is
further
my
opinion that the 9sh.es.s that he would undergo at.this time in order to prepare for, testify in or
~tf5~d
prwsedings could
h~i.8
SS~G~J~
md
ai&eha
ef&ctg on
his
bedth
as
as
have
a
negaiiv.e iinpaot onhis future recovefy.
. .
In
summay, I advisa you that in iixy opinion Mr. Pmim continues to be phYhysi~allj
unable-ta
.
'
either prepare for or pdicipata in legal proceedings at
this
time. I recomme~ld that his ability to
do
60
again bs evaluated in several months.
'Jhnk
YOU.
If
you
have
im.y
further questions for me,please do not hesitate to contact me.
. .
Since Iy,
d++7-~b+
. '
Daniel
A.
Rowan, D.O., FACP, FACC
mICIANS PMlLiON
- 2850
West 95th &peer, Suiic
305
*
EVERGREEN PARK
LCM DIAGNQST1.IC CENTER
-
12411
Sou6
Harlem Avenu~
*
PALOS
HEIGHTS,
c
'Elcphone
(708)
425-7272
-
Pa
(708)
(2.2-6273
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 27, 2007