ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 6, 1994
    NU-TECSYS CORP.,
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB 93—264
    )
    (UST Fund)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R. C. Fleinal):
    On December 30, 1993, the Board received this petition for
    review of an Agency Underground Storage Tank (UST) Fund
    determination. The Board notes, however, that the envelope in
    which the petition was received bears a December 1, 1993
    postmark. Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.102(d), the
    petitioner must also provide proof of mailing, such as an
    affidavit, as outlined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.143.
    The Board finds the petition deficient. Although petitioner
    has attached an invoice voucher, and an “Attachment A” to that
    voucher, the Board is accustomed to reviewing an Agency letter
    setting forth its decision, not simply a voucher. Petitioner is
    directed to provide any additional correspondence received from
    the Agency, setting forth the challenged decision. (If petitioner
    already has submitted all correspondence, the amended petition
    should so state.)
    Additionally, the Board questions whether this appeal is
    timely. The second page of the Agency’s “Attachment A” states
    that an appeal may be brought within “35 calendar days from the
    date the Comptroller mails the accompanying check to file a
    petition for a hearing with the Board”, and cites Section
    105.102 (a) (2) of the Board’s procedural rules. However, that
    section provides that an appeal shall be filed “within 35 days of
    the date of mailing of the Agency’s final decision”. (35 Ill.
    Adni. Code l05..l02(a)(2).) Petitioner shall address the issue of
    whether this appeal is timely pursuant to the Environmental
    Protection Act and the Board’s rules. The Agency is also
    directed to address that issue.
    More specifically, it is unclear from i~ematerials
    submitted to the Board as to what the exact date is of the Agency
    determination which Nu—Tecsys seeks to appeal. Petitioner has
    submitted an Agency invoice voucher which bears, on line 4, a
    typed voucher date of 10/14/93. On line 8 appears an invoice
    2
    date which is handwritten and not completely legible which could
    be 10/17/93 or 11/17/93. The dates contained in item 26 are also
    handwritten and not entirely legible. Attachment A to the
    Invoice, which refers to the 35 day appeal period provision
    contained in Section 22.l8(b)(g) of the Act,1 does not appear to
    be dated.
    Petitioner shall provide its response within 30 days of the
    date of this order. Failure to do so will subject this petition
    to dismissal. Petitioner’s response will be construed as an
    amended petition, and the decision deadline will be calculated
    from the date of filing of that amended petition. The Agency’s
    response to the issue of timeliness is due within 45 days of the
    date of this order.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Bo~, hereby cei7~i~ythatthe above order was adopted on the
    Z1L- day of
    1994, by a vote of
    7-ô.
    c~12~2~
    ~“
    Dorothy N. Gun Clerk
    Illinois Pol t on Control Board
    1
    The Board notes that P. A. 88—496 repealed Section 22.18b
    of the Act. The provision is now located at Section 57.8(i) of the
    Act

    Back to top