ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 6, 1994
    CITY OF GENEVA,
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 94—58
    )
    (Landfill Siting Review)
    KANE
    COUNTY,
    KANE COUNTY
    )
    BOARD, and WASTE MANAGEMENT
    )
    OF ILLINOIS, INCORPORATED,
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (C.A. Manning):
    This matter is before the Board pursuant to a timely-filed
    motion for reconsideration or clarification of our opinion and
    order of July 21, 1994. In a motion filed on August 25, 1994,
    the City of Geneva asks that we reconsider our decision affirming
    Kane County’s local siting approval which granted Waste
    Management of Illinois (WMII) site location suitability approval
    for the expansion of the Settler’s Hill Recycling and Disposal
    Facility. The underlying Board decision, made pursuant to
    Section 40.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS
    5/40.1), additionally found that we had no authority at this
    stage of the proceedings to require WNII to seek site location
    suitability approval from Geneva, despite the City’s claim that
    it shares concurrent jurisdiction with Kane County. We found
    that pursuant to Section 39(c) of the Act, it was within the
    initial jurisdiction of the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency (Agency) rather than the Board’s, to determine whether
    WMII had obtained all the necessary local siting authority
    approval prior to submitting an operating permit application.
    On September 12, 1994, WHII and Kane County each filed a
    response to the motion arguing that the City of Geneva had raised
    no new issues of fact or law that it had not previously raised.
    We agree and for the following reasons, deny the motion for
    reconsideration or clarification.
    The City of Geneva’s motion for reconsideration does not
    meet the standards which guide our review. Foremost, our
    procedural rule on motions for reconsideration directs that we
    consider factors including but not limited to “error in the
    decision and facts in the record which are overlooked.” (35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 101.246(d).) Our own precedent also provides a
    standard upon which we decide motions for reconsideration. In
    Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. The County Board of
    Whiteside County we held, “t)he 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
    2
    application of the existing law.” (Citizens Against Regional
    Landfill v. The County Board of Whiteside County (March 11, 1993)
    PCB 93-156, citing Koroaluvan v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. (1st
    Dist. 1992), 213 Ill. App.3d 622, 572 N.E.2d 1154, 1158; ~
    also, Leonard Carmichael v. Browning—Ferris et al. (December 16,
    1993) PCB 93—114.)
    Each argument in the motion for reconsideration is rooted in
    an argument articulated in the City of Geneva’s petition and
    brief supporting a reversal of Kane County’s siting decision. We
    have carefully considered the City’s arguments in making our
    determination to uphold the Kane County’s local siting approval.
    Though the City does argue “errors of law” in our decision, none
    of the City’s arguments as to why they are “errors” are new; they
    are instead repetitive of the prior arguments which have been
    duly considered and rejected by this Board.
    The City of Geneva asks alternatively that if we do not
    reconsider our decision, that we at least clarify whether it will
    have the right to file a third-party appeal should the Agency
    grant WMII an operating permit regarding Settler’s Hill Landfill.
    The City is essentially asking for an advisory opinion, which
    would bind the Agency prior to its review, of whether the
    appropriate siting authorities have been obtained pursuant to
    Section 39(c). Again, the question is premature; the Board can
    only decide it when an if it is presented for our review in some
    other proceeding.
    Accordingly, the City of Geneva’s motion for reconsideration
    and clarification is hereby denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby cer~i~ythatthe above order was adopted oj~the
    b~-~
    day of
    _________________,
    1994,
    by a vote of
    & ~
    /~
    Dorothy M. Gi~r~ii,Clerk
    Illinois Pol~$tionControl Board

    Back to top