BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
LERK’S
OFFICE
KIBLER
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
and
)
SCP
25
2008
MARION
RIDGE
LANDFILL,
INC.,
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
P0!
luofl
Control
So
Petitioners,
)
)
v.
)
Case
No.
07-043
)
Permit
Appeal
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
PETITIONERS’
RESPONSE
TO
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION
NOW
COME
Petitioners,
KIBLER
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
and
MARION
RIDGE
LANDFILL,
INC.,
through
their
undersigned
attorney,
and
for
their
response
to
the
“Williamson
County
State’s
Attorney,
Charles
Garnati’s
Motion
For
Reconsideration,
“and
the
memorandum
accompanying
that
motion,
state
as
follows:
1.
Petitioners’
permit
appeal
in
this
case
was
filed
on
November20,
2006.
On
July
21,
2008,
Petitioners
filed
a
motion
for
voluntary
dismissal,
noting
that
the
permit
appeal
issues
had
been
resolved
between
them
and
Respondent
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“IEPA”),
and
therefore
no
basis
existed
for
the
continuance
or
further
prosecution
of
the
permit
appeal.
2.
On
that
same
day,
July
21,
2008,
a
motion
for
leave
to
intervene
was
filed
by
Williamson
County
and
the
Williamson
County
State’s
Attorney.
That
motion
consisted
of
a
two
page,
five
paragraph
document
arguing
that
the
State’s
Attorney
has
standing
to
intervene
in
matters
such
as
this,
and
that
the
intervention
sought
would
not
delay
or
prejudice
the
proceeding
or
interfere
with
its
progress.
The
motion,
however,
failed
to
identify
why
the
State’s
Attorney
felt
there
was
a
basis
for
the
intervention,
or
even
to
provide
such
basic
information
as
whose
side
the
intervention
was
sought
to
support.
3.
In
any
event,
this
Board
ruled
by
order
dated
August
7.
2008,
that
no
basis
existed
for
the
proposed
intervention,
since
by
the
time
it
was
filed
no
case
or
controversy
existed
to
support
the
intervention.
Accordingly,
this
Board
dismissed
the
permit
appeal
per
the
parties’
request,
and
denied
as
moot
the
motion
for
intervention.’
4.
The
proposed
intervenor’s
instant
pleading
now
raises
arguments
not
previously
set
forth
in
the
motion
to
intervene,
asserting
various
grounds
now
claimed
to
exist
for
the
proposed
intervention.
5.
As
the
motion
for
reconsideration
itself
acknowledges,
such
a
motion
is
supposed
to
identify
newly
discovered
evidence,
changes
in
the
law,
or
errors
of
application
of
existing
law;
oddly,
although
the
motion
for
reconsideration
claims
that
it
is
premised
uon
errors
by
this
Board
in
denying
the
original
motion
for
intervention,
the
motion
fails
to
identify
any
argument
or
legal
principle
or
factual
issue
raised
in
the
motion
for
intervention
which
this
Board
erroneously
applied.
6.
The
fact
is,
this
motion
for
reconsideration
attempts
to
raise
a
host
of
new
arguments
and
new
reasons
why
the
Board
should
allow
intervention.
It
is
not
a
motion
for
reconsideration
at
all,
but
instead
might
be
a
good
first
draft
of
an
original
petition
for
intervention.
However,
now
it
is
too
little
and
too
late.
7.
Petitioners
request
finality.
It
is
clear
that
this
proposed
intervenor
is
intent
upon
harassing
Petitioners
and
the
IEPA,
and
has
used
the
motion
for
reconsideration
as
a
vehicle
to
make
unfounded
accusations
and
ridiculous
slurs
and
slanders
against
Petitioners
and
the
State
‘This
Board’s
order
indicated
that
Petitioners
had
not
filed
a
response
to
the
motion
for
intervention,
but
the
Board’s
docket
records
show
that
Petitioners’
response
was
received
by
the
Board
on
the
very
day
of
the
Board’s
order
denying
the
intervention.
Petitioners
would
note
that
their
response
was
timely.
First,
it
is
questionable
as
to
whether
the
motion
for
intervention
was
ever
actually
filed
with
this
Board;
the
only
indication
of
filing
indicates
that
it
was
transmitted
electronically,
but
nothing
in
the
record
reveals
that
leave
had
ever
been
granted
to
the
proposed
intervenor
to
file
any
documents
electronically.
35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
10
1.302(d).
Moreover,
as
the
motion
for
intervention
itself
notes,
it
was
served
via
mail
on
Petitioners
and
Petitioners’
records
reveal
that
the
document
was
received
on
July
24.
Service
was
therefore
effectuated
on
the
date
of
its
delivery—See
35
Iii.
Admin.
Code
101.300(c).
Pursuant
to
Procedural
Rule
101.500(d),
Petitioners
were
entitled
to
file
a
response
within
14
days
following
service
(35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
101.500(d)),
and
Petitioners
filed
their
response
on
August
5,
2008,
less
than
14
days
after
receipt
of
the
motion.
(S.
35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
101.300(d)(2)
(the
“mail
box
rule”),
indicating
that
the
response
was
filed
the
date
it
was
placed
in
the
mail).
In
any
event,
in
light
of
this
Board’s
ruling
no
reason
existed
for
the
Board
to
consider
Petitioners’
arguments
opposed
to
the
motion
to
the
intervention.
2
agency
given
direct
authority
over
this
matter.
This
Board
should
deny
outright
this
proposed
reconsideration,
and
not
even
consider
any
of
the
arguments
raised.
8.
To
any
extent
this
Board
deems
the
matters
included
in
the
motion
for
reconsideration
worthy
of
consideration,
Petitioners
would
point
out
the
following:
A.
Contrary
to
the
proposed
intervenor’s
claim,
35
III.
Admin.
Code
105.214
and
35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
10
1.600
do
not
mandate
any
hearing
in
this
case.
The
former
procedural
rule
notes
that
hearings
only
need
to
be
held
upon
properly
filed
petitions
for
review
that
are
not
frivolous,
and
that
are
raised
by
a
Petitioner
with
standing;
obviously
where
the
Petitioners
have
withdrawn
the
request
for
a
petition,
there
no
longer
is
“an
appropriately
filed
petition
for
review,”
and
any
hearing
on
it
would
be
frivolous.
The
latter
procedural
rule
simply
addresses
the
conduct
of
the
hearing,
and
does
not
purport
to
identify
when
hearings
will
be
held
under
particular
Board
rules.
B.
The
proposed
intervenor
complains
of
a
need
for
some
reason
for
public
input
and
scrutiny,
even
though
the
parties
are
in
agreement
that
the
instant
permit
appeal
no
longer
serves
any
purpose.
It
is
clear
that
the
proposed
intervenor
wishes
to
turn
this
permit
appeal
proceeding
into
a
proceeding
concerned
with
numerous
other
matters,
none
of
which
are
relevant
to
the
issues
raised
by
the
permit
appeal.
C.
The
instant
case,
PCB
07-43,
concerned
the
specific
proposed
permit
language
which
was
addressed
in
and
attached
to
the
petition
for
review.
The
matters
raised
by
the
proposed
intervenor
concern
other
matters
not
raised
in
or
addressed
by
the
petition
for
review
in
PCB
07-43.
As
this
Board
states
in
almost
every
permit
appeal
it
considers,
the
permit
language
at
issue
(whether
denial,
or
challenged
conditions)
frames
the
issues
on
appeal.
S
Partylite
Worldwide,
Inc.
v.
Illinois
EPA,
PCB
08-32,
2008
Ill.
ENV.
LEXIS
70,
at
*9
(March
20,
2008).
Accordingly,
the
new
permit
which
a
proposed
intervenor
apparently
wishes
to
review
has
virtually
no
bearing
upon
the
permit
at
issue
in
PCB
07-43.
Moreover,
Petitioners
would
point
out
that
the
proposed
intervenor
cites
virtually
no
statutory
authority
for
the
review
which
it
requests
this
Board
to
conduct.
The
proposed
intervenor
apparently
wishes
for
this
Board
to
act
outside
its
statutory
authority,
which
of
course
this
Board
is
not
at
liberty
to
do.
D.
Finally,
the
proposed
intervenor
also
appears
to
desire
the
instant
proceeding
as
a
means
of
obtaining
yet
another
review
of
the
siting
proceedings
engaged
in
for
this
facility
more
than
a
decade
ago.
Obviously
there
is
neither
statutory
nor
regulatory
authority
for
the
review
sought.
9.
The
original
motion
for
intervention
failed
to
identify
any
basis
for
intervention,
and
was
not
filed
until
fir
all
issues
in
the
permit
appeal
were
resolved,
and
after
the
parties
had
agreed
that
no
purpose
would
be
served
by
this
Board’s
consideration
of
the
issues
raised
in
the
petition
for
review.
Now
the
motion
for
reconsideration
fails
to
identify
in
what
way
this
Board
misconstrued
the
earlier
pleadings
or
the
facts
or
law
pertaining
to
those
pleadings;
moreover,
on
the
face
of
the
motion
for
reconsideration,
it
is
clear
that
the
proposed
intervenor
is
attempting
to
obtain
review
over
matters
that
are
not
reviewable
in
this
situation
by
this
Board.
This
Board
should
deny
the
request
for
reconsideration,
and
even
if
reconsideration
is
granted,
this
Board
should
reach
the
same
conclusion
as
it
did
previously,
and
should
dismiss
the
appeal
and
deny
the
motion
for
intervention.
WHEREFORE
Petitioners,
KIBLER
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
and
MARION
RIDGE
LANDFILL,
INC.,
request
that
this
Board
deny
the
Motion
for
Reconsideration,
and
grant
to
Petitioners
all
such
other
and
further
relief
as
this
Board
deems
just
and
appropriate
and
available.
4
Respectfully
submitted,
Kibler
Development
Corporation
&
Marion
Ridge
Landfill,
Inc.,
Petitioners,
By
their
attorney,
HEDINGER
LAW
OFFICE
By____
Hedinger
Law
Office
2601
South
Fifth
Street
Springfield,
IL
62703
Telephone:
(217)
523-2753
Fax:
(217)
523-4366
hedinger@hedingerlaw.com
BEFORE
THE
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
CL.ERKIS
OFFICE
KIBLER
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
and
MARION
RIDGE
LANDFILL,
INC.,
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
)
Respondent.
NOTICE
OF
FILING
AND
PROOF
OF
SERVICE
The
undersigned
certifies
that
an
original
and
nine
copies
of
the
foregoing
Petitioners’
Response
to
Motion
for
Reconsideration
and
of
this
Notice
of
Filing
and
Proof
of
Service,
were
served
upon
the
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
and
one
copy
to
each
of
the
following
parties
of
record
and
hearing
officer
in
this
cause
by
enclosing
same
in
an
envelope
addressed
to:
Dorothy
Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James
R.
Thompson
Center
100W.
Randolph
St.,
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
IL
60601
Carol
Webb
Hearing
Officer
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
1021
North
Grand
Avenue
East,
P.O.
Box
19274
Springfield,
IL
62796-9274
Michael
Ruffley
Assistant
State’s
Attorney
200
Jefferson
Williamson
County
Courthouse
Marion,
IL
62959
Melanie
Jarvis
Division
of
Legal
Counsel
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1021
N.
Grand
Ave.
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Hedinger
Law
Office
2601
South
Fifth
Street
Springfield,
IL
62703
Telephone:
(217)
523-2753
Fax:
(217)
523-4366
hedinger@hedingerlaw.com
Petitioners,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SEP
2
52008
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
POI/utron.p
8
ro1
BOard
Case
No.
Permit
Appeal
with
postage
fully
prepaid,
and
by
depositino
said
nveIopes
in
a
U.S.
Post
Office
Mail
Box
in
Springfield,
Illinois
before
5:30
p.m.
on
the
r’I
d
of
September.
2008.
tphen
F.
Hedrfger
This
document
prepared
on
recycled
paper
6