BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
    PEOPLE OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
    ex rel.
    )
    STATE’S ATTORNEY CHARLES GARNATI,
    )
    And THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY BOARD,
    )
    Petitioners,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB No. 08-93
    KIBLER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
    )
    (Permit Appeal - Land)
    MARION RIDGE LANDFILL, INC., and
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    NOTICE
    J
    ohn Therriault, Acting Clerk
    Carol Webb, Hearing Officer
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    James R. Thompson Center
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
    P.O. Box 19274
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Springfield, IL 62794-9274
    Stephen F. Hedinger
    Michael John Ruffley
    Hedinger Law Officer
    Assistant State’s Attorney
    2601 South Fifth Street
    200 Jefferson, Williamson County Courthouse
    Springfield, IL 62703
    Marion, IL 62959
    Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz
    Querrey & Harrow
    75 West Jackson Boulevard
    Suite 1600
    Chicago, IL 60604-2827
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the office of the Clerk of the Pollution Control
    Board a
    RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER
    , copies of which are herewith served
    upon you.
    Respectfully submitted,
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent
    ____________________________
    Melanie A. Jarvis
    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: August 25, 2008
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, the undersigned attorney at law, hereby certify that on August 25, 2008, I served true and correct copies
    of an
    RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER
    via the Board’s COOL System and 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:
    John Therriault, Acting Clerk
    Carol Webb, Hearing Officer
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    James R. Thompson Center
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
    P.O. Box 19274
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Springfield, IL 62794-9274
    Stephen F. Hedinger
    Michael John Ruffley
    Hedinger Law Officer
    Assistant State’s Attorney
    2601 South Fifth Street
    200 Jefferson, Williamson County Courthouse
    Springfield, IL 62703
    Marion, IL 62959
    Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz
    Querrey & Harrow
    75 West Jackson Boulevard
    Suite 1600
    Chicago, IL 60604-2827
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent
    ____________________________
    Melanie A. Jarvis
    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)
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
    BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
    PEOPLE OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
    ex rel.
    )
    STATE’S ATTORNEY CHARLES GARNATI,
    )
    And THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY BOARD,
    )
    Petitioners,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB No. 08-93
    KIBLER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
    )
    (Permit Appeal - Land)
    MARION RIDGE LANDFILL, INC., and
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    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,
    appearing specially, and, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500 and 101.520, hereby responds to the
    Motion for Reconsideration (“Petitioners’ motion” or “motion”) filed by the Petitioners. In response to
    the Petitioners’ 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 Ill. 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 Ill. App. 3d 622, 627, 572 N.E.2d 1154, 1158 (1
    st
    Dist. 1992).
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
    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
    meritorious argument that would warrant the Board’s reconsideration of its July 10, 2008 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 July 10, 2008. 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.
    There is no argument that suggests that the Board did not consider the cases listed in the
    Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners cited those cases in their original appeal and had
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
    full opportunity to argue the rulings in prior motions. The Petitioners argue merely that the Board was
    mistaken in their interpretation of those cases.
    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 other words, there are no reasons given as to why the Board’s decision should be reconsidered
    in the Petitioners’ favor, other than the Board’s interpretation did not agree with that of the Petitioners.
    The Board correctly determined that the Petitioners lacked standing to bring the appeal resulting in the
    Board lacking jurisdiction to hear the case. Specifically, the Board found that:
    “[T]he State’s Attorney has cited no persuasive authority to support his initiation
    of this petition for review of a non-hazardous waste landfill permit. For the Board to
    allow this action to proceed as a permit appeal would amount to an unlawful extension of
    appeal rights by the Board.
    This holding is consistent with both the Landfill, Inc. and Pioneer Processing
    precedents. The Supreme Court’s holding in Landfill, Inc. constrains the Board to hear
    appeals of the Agency’s grant of non-hazardous waste landfill permits consistent with
    expressed legislative intent; the Supreme Court’s holding in Pioneer Processing allowing
    appeal by the Attorney General of a Board ruling in a hazardous waste landfill appeal is
    consistent with the noted legislative intent favoring “greater public rights” to opponents
    of hazardous waste landfill permits.
    See
    Pioneer Processing
    , 464 N.E.2d at 248. The
    cases in which the Board has allowed State’s Attorneys to intervene in siting appeals and
    permit appeals do not serve as a legitimate basis for the right to initiate an appeal of a
    non-hazardous waste landfill permit. Finding that the State’s Attorney and the County
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
    each lacks standing to bring this appeal, the Board grants respondents’ motions to
    dismiss.
    Again, in summary, the Board dismisses this action on the grounds that the
    petitioners lack standing to pursue the action under Section 40 of the Act, resulting in the
    Board’s lack of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.” Board’s order p. 13.
    The Board was correct in their decision, and the Petitioners arguments do not merit
    reconsideration.
    V. FACTUAL ERRORS
    The Petitioners in their attempt to have the Board reconsider this issue state several
    factual inaccuracies. Normally the Illinois EPA would not address such inaccuracies as they are
    irrelevant to the issue of whether the motion for reconsideration should be granted. However,
    these inaccuracies are egregious and therefore must be factually corrected. The Petitioners know
    that the permit they are attempting to appeal does not allow for a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
    (“MSWLF”) to be developed, but allows for a non-putrescible landfill to be developed at the
    site. They also know that the siting was not issued by default, but was issued by the Williamson
    County Board and was upheld after an appeal to the Board. See, PCB 1996-60. Therefore, the
    decision they are attempting to challenge does not allow for the construction of a MSWLF
    within two miles of a public airport as stated by the Petitioners on page 3 of their motion. The
    Illinois EPA’s first duty is to protect the environment. The Petitioners’ assertion that the Illinois
    EPA would forgo their duty in settling a case is disingenuous at best and only stated to inflame
    the passions of the Board and their constituency. How the Illinois EPA did not protect the
    environment by restricting the permit from a MSWLF to a non-putrescible landfill, the
    Petitioners have not explained.
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
    7
    VI. 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 A. Jarvis
    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: August 25, 2008
    This filing submitted on recycled paper.
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008

    Back to top