ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 3, 1996
    INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
    )
    AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND
    )
    AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS
    )
    OF AMERICA AND UAW LOCAL 974;
    )
    AND CITIZENS FOR A BETTER
    )
    ENVIRONMENT,
    )
    )
    Complainants,
    )
    )
     
    v.
    )
    )
    CATERPILLAR INC.,
    )
    PCB 94-240
    )
    (Enforcement- Land, Water
    Respondent,
    )
    Citizens)
    __________________________________________
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Party-in-Interest.
    )
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C.A. Manning):
    This matter is before the Board on complainants’ September 4, 1996 motion for
    reconsideration and amendment of the Board’s order dated August 1, 1996. On
    September 16, 1996 complainants filed a further motion to amend their motion for
    reconsideration which, over respondent’s objection, we accept. On September 18,
    1996 respondent filed its memorandum in opposition to complainants’ motion for
    reconsideration. On September 30, 1996 the party-in-interest, the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) as represented by the Illinois Attorney
    General on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, filed a response to
    complainants’ motion for reconsideration which, over complainants’ objection, we
    accept. Respondent filed a motion to strike the Agency’s response on October 2, 1996,
    which we deny.
    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. The 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
    the hearing, changes in the law, or errors in the court’s previous application of the
    2
    existing law.” (Korogluyan v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. (1st Dist. 1992), 213 Ill.
    App.3d 622, 572 N.E.2d 1154.)
    The Board finds that the arguments presented in complainants’ motion for
    reconsideration do not present the Board with any new evidence, a change in the law,
    or any other reason to conclude that the Board’s decision was in error. Therefore, we
    deny complainants’ motion for reconsideration and amendment of order. We do,
    however, make the following clarification.
    In an effort to clarify the Board’s August 1, 1996 order, we recognize the
    distinction between the Pre-Notice program and RCRA closure plans. In our order we
    state that respondent was fully in compliance with the RCRA requirements applicable to
    the East Peoria facility for almost one year prior to the filing of this citizens
    enforcement suit. (Order at 38.) Respondent had thus voluntarily committed to an
    appropriate RCRA closure plan
    separate and distinct
    from the Pre-Notice program.
    Although respondent was participating in the Pre-Notice program while concurrently
    remediating RCRA closure of the waste pile, RCRA closure was not being conducted
    pursuant to the Pre-Notice program. The Board never intended to equate the Pre-
    Notice program with RCRA closure plans.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member M. McFawn abstained.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/41 (1994))
    provides for the appeal of final Board orders within 35 days of the date of service to the
    Illinois Court of Appeals.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby
    certify that the above order was adopted on the ____ day of ____________, 1996, by a
    vote of ____________________.
    __________________________________
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top