ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 4,
    1995
    CLARENDON HILLS BRIDAL
    CENTER (LEARSI AND COMPANY,
    INC.),
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 93—55
    (UST Reimbursement)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by N.
    McFawn):
    This matter is before the Board on a motion for
    reconsideration filed by petitioner Clarendon Hills Bridal Center
    on March
    23,
    1995,
    seeking reconsideration of the Board’s
    February
    16,
    1995 opinion and order in this case.
    That order
    affirmed in part and reversed in part the Agency’s denial of
    reimbursement from the Illinois Leaking Underground Storage Tank
    Fund of certain costs in connection with petitioner’s removal of
    underground storage tanks.
    Petitioner filed a brief
    in support
    of its motion for reconsideration on April
    6,
    1995.
    The Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    filed a response to
    petitioner’s brief in support of its motion for reconsideration
    on April 24,
    1995.
    The Agency had also filed an April
    7,
    1995
    response to petitioner’s March 23,
    1995 “Motion to Extend Time in
    Which to File
    a Brief in Support of its Motion for
    Reconsideration,” which was mooted
    by the Board’s April
    7,
    1995
    order granting petitioner the requested extension.
    In support of its motion for reconsideration, petitioner
    alleges that certain legal and factual errors in the Board’s
    February 16,
    1995 opinion and order require reconsideration of
    that decision.
    Petitioner’s arguments include the following:
    (1)
    that the Board failed to consider evidence of
    a competitive bid
    process;
    (2) that the Board improperly failed to consider
    evidence not submitted prior to hearing;
    (3) that the Board
    improperly affirmed the Agency’s denial of costs associated with
    soil contamination investigation;
    (4) that the Board improperly
    affirmed the Agency’s denial of costs associated with pumping and
    treating water; and
    (5)
    that the Board improperly affirmed the
    Agency’s denial of costs for parking lot lighting.
    In ruling on a motion for reconsideration the Board is to
    consider, but is not limited to, error
    in the decision and facts
    in the record which may have been overlooked.
    (35 Ill. Adm.
    Code
    101.246(d).)
    In Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. County of
    Board of Whiteside (March 11,
    1993), PCB 93-156, we stated that
    2
    “the
    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.
    (Korogluvan
    V.
    Chicago Title
    & Trust Co.
    (1st Dist.
    1992),
    213
    Ill.App.3d 622,
    572 N.E.2d 1154,
    1158.)”
    We grant the motion for reconsideration for the limited
    purpose of correcting a factual error in the Board’s decision,
    as
    pointed out by petitioner.
    The Board incorrectly stated at page
    5 of its February 16,
    1995 opinion and order that the hearing
    officer denied the admission of Exhibit 6,
    a hand-written note
    offered as evidence of a competitive bid.
    While the hearing
    officer did initially deny admission of this exhibit on the
    grounds that it constituted hearsay
    (Tr.
    at 194-196),
    as
    petitioner properly points out, the exhibit was later admitted
    into evidence by the hearing officer after the Agency withdrew
    its objection to its admission
    (Tr. at 832).
    Concerning this evidence,
    however,
    at page
    5
    of its February
    16,
    1995 opinion, the Board stated:
    Furthermore, even
    if the evidence concerning the $90
    per cubic yard rate is considered,
    despite its
    inadmissibility as hearsay, that information
    is simply
    insufficient to demonstrate that it constituted a
    competitive bid.
    We therefore find that adequate consideration was given to
    Exhibit 6, and that correction of this error does not affect the
    Board’s determination that there was insufficient evidence of a
    competitive bidding process.
    We find that the other arguments raised by petitioner
    present the Board with no new evidence, a change in the law,
    or
    any other reason to conclude that the Board’s February 16,
    1995
    decision was in error.
    Petitioner’s additional arguments in its
    motion for reconsideration and supporting brief merely reassert
    arguments previously asserted by petitioner and considered by the
    Board
    in its February 16,
    1995 opinion and order.
    We therefore
    affirm our holding
    in that order, affirming in part and reversing
    in part the Agency’s denial of reimbursement from the Illinois
    Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund of certain costs in
    connection with petitioner’s removal of underground storage
    tanks.
    IT IS
    SO ORDERED.
    3
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    4Z~L
    day of
    ________________
    1995, by a vote of
    7~
    ~
    4.
    ~
    Dorothy M//Gunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois/’,~ol1utionControl Board

    Back to top