ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 10,
1991
SALVATION
ARMY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 91—131
)
(Underground Storage Tank
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
Reimbursement)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by M. Nardulli):
This matter is before the Board on the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency’s
(Agency)
motion
for
summary
judgment
filed
September 26, 1991.
By its motion, the Agency asks that the Board
grant
summary
judgment
in
favor
of
the
Agency
regarding
its
determination that the Salvation Army’s request for reimbursement
from the Underground
Storage Tank Fund
(Fund)
is
subject to
a
$100,000
deductible.
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111
1/2,
par.
1022. 18b(d) (3) (B)
(1).)
Section
22.18b(d) (3) (B) (I)
of
the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act) provides:
If prior
to July
28,
1989,
the
owner
or operator has
registered none of the underground storage tanks
tUST
in use on that date at the site,
the deductible amount
under
subparagraph
(A)
of
paragraph
(3)
of
this
subsection
(d)
shall be $100,000 rather than
$10,000
The Salvation Army alleges
in
its petition
for review that
its USTs
“were registered and approved by the State Fire Marshal
in November of 1975.”
In support of this assertion, the Salvation
Army attached its 1975 “Application for Service Station Approval”
filed with the Office of
State
Fire Marshall
(OSFM)
and
a
1975
letter from the OSFN stating that approval was granted.
(Pet.
E.
B,
C.)
The Agency contends that,
prior
to the enactment of the
hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(42 U.S.C.
Sec. 6991
et ~q.),
registration
for purposes
of the UST program was not
possible.
Therefore,
Agency contends that the activity taken by
the Salvation Army in 1975 does not constitute “registration” for
purposes
of
the
Fund and that
the record establishes
that the
Salvation Army did not “register”
its USTs within the meaning of
the Act until November
14,
1990.
The record establishes that the
Salvation Army’s “Notification for Underground Storage Tanks” was
126—485
2
received by the OSFN on November 9,
19901.
(Ag. Motion Ex.
A;
R.
41.)
There are no genuine issues of material fact presented here.
The sole question
is whether,
as
a matter
of law,
the Salvation
Army’s
“Application
for
Service
Station
Approval”
constitutes
“registration’t
for
purposes
of
the
Fund.
Section
22.l8b(d) (3) (B) (iii)
of the Act provides that “for
purposes of
this
subparagraph,
registration
of
tanks
means
registration
in
accordance
with Section
4
of
‘An Act
to regulate the
storage,
transportation,
sale and use of gasoline, volatile oils and other
regulated substances’
approved June 28,
1919.”
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111
1/2,
par.
l022.18b(d)(3)(B)(iii).)
The
Board’s
review of the statutory provisions governing registration of UST5
yields no provision establishing that an application for approval
of
a
service
station
constitutes
“registration”
of
a
UST
as
required by the Act.
(See,
Ill. Rev. Stat.
1987, ch.
127 1/2, par.
156;
P.A. 85—861; 1987 Ill.
Leg.
Service No.
9 at 1008;
Ill.
Rev.
Stat. 1985, ch. 127 1/2, par. 4(b); see also,
In the Matter of: UST
Update, USEPA Regulations
(September 23,
1988), R88—27
(April
27,
1989).)
The
Board
concludes
that,
as
a
matter
of
law,
the
Salvation Army did not “register”
its USTs until
after July
28,
1989.
Having concluded that the Salvation Army registered its USTs
pursuant to the Act until after July 28, 1989, the Board finds that
the Agency correctly applied the deductible of $100,000 pursuant
to Section 22.18b(d)(3)(B)(i).
The Agency’s motion for summary
judgment is hereby granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111
1/2,
par.
1041)
provides
for the appeal of
final orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rule of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certi~je.~—thatthe above Order was adopted on the
~
day of
~1991
by a~vote ~
~
~
L-&~ZZ~
~?7?.
~
~—~_~-~‘
~bo±~othyM. ,çJ’unn, Clerk
Pollution control Board
The
Salvation
Army’s
“Application
for
Reimbursement”
submitted
to the Agency states that
it registered its
USTs on November
14,
1990; however, the form submitted
to the OSFM
is
stamped received on November
9,
1990.
This
inconsistency
does
not
affect
the
Board’s
determination in this case because both dates are after
July 28,
1989.
126—486