ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 15, 1997
    W.R. MEADOWS, INC.,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 97-58
    (Variance - Air)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by M. McFawn):
    On March 14, 1997, Petitioner moved for the Board to reconsider its opinion and order of
    February 6, 1997. On March 26, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its
    response objecting to the motion. On March 31, 1997, the Agency denied an air operating permit
    to petitioner. On April 3, 1997, petitioner moved to supplement this record with that information
    and argument concerning the same. On April 10,1997, the Agency objected to petitioner’s
    motion to supplement.
    1
    Both motions filed by petitioner are denied for the following reasons.
    We will address first the factors considered when ruling upon a motion for reconsideration, then
    the motion to supplement, and lastly the motion for reconsideration.
    In ruling upon a motion for reconsideration, the Board is to consider factors including,
    but not limited to, error in the previous decision and facts in the record which are overlooked.
    (35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246(d).) In Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. County Board of
    Whiteside County, (March 11, 1993, PCB 93-156, the Board stated that “[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 hearing, changes in the law, or errors in the court’s
    previous application of the existing law.”, citing Korogluyan v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 213
    Ill. App.3d 622, 572 N.E. 2d 1154 (1
    st
    Dist. 1992).
    In its motion to supplement, petitioner informs the Board that the Agency denied a joint
    construction and operating air permit application on March 31, 1997. While this is new
    information obviously was not available at the time of the Board’s decision on the variance
    petition, it is not relevant. Petitioner offers it as support of the argument petitioner made in the
    variance proceeding,
    i.e
    ., that the Agency would misinterpret the air regulations as applied to its
    facility. The Board rejected that argument when it denied the variance petition,
    noting
    that such
    an argument is properly made in a permit appeal. (We note that such a permit appeal was filed
    on May 5, 1997 as W.R. Meadows v. IEPA, PCB 97-95 concerning the March 31, 1997 permit
    1
    On April 3, 1997, Petitioner also filed a motion to strike the Agency’s response of March 26,
    1997, but that same day petitioner withdrew the same by a facsimile filing.
    2
    denial.) The variance petition was denied because petitioner sought relief from permit
    conditions, not Board regulations. The Board may not grant that type of relief in a variance
    proceeding. (See page 5 of the February 6, 1997 opinion and order.) The motion to supplement
    is denied because the subsequent permit denial is not relevant to the Board’s decision in this
    variance proceeding.
    In its motion for reconsideration, Petitioner makes no new arguments, and offers no
    newly discovered evidence, or change in the law or error in the Board’s previous application of
    the existing law. Petitioner simply repeats the arguments made during the variance proceeding.
    The motion is denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the 15
    th
    day of May, 1997, by a vote of 6-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top