ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 16, 1996
    ESG WATTS, INC., an Iowa Corporation,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 94-243
    94-306
    94-307
    94-308
    94-309
    95-133
    95-134
    (Consolidated)
    (Permit Appeals - Land)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C.A. Manning):
    This matter is before the Board on a motion for reconsideration filed by ESG
    Watts, Inc. (Watts) on April 29, 1996. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) filed a motion to reconsider and for partial modification of a final order on
    April 29, 1996. Watts filed a response to the Agency’s motion on May 14, 1996 and
    the Ageny filed its response to Watts’ motion for reconsideration on May 14, 1996.
    In ruling upon a motion for reconsideration the Board is to consider, but is not
    limited to, error in the previous decision and facts in the record which may have been
    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, we 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
    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 both Watts’ motion for reconsideration and the Agency’s
    motion to reconsider and for partial modification of a final order do not present the
    Board with new evidence, a change in the law, or any other reason to conclude that
    the Board’s decision was in error. The Board also finds that sanctions were properly
    imposed in this case. As stated by the Fourth District Appellate Court in Grigoleit
    Company v. Pollution Control Board, 613 N.E. 2d 344, 350 (Ill. App. 4th Dist.
    1993), the Board has broad discretion in determining whether to impose sanctions for
    refusal to comply with an order of the Board. Therefore, both motions are denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED
    2
    Board Members Emmett Dunham and G. Tanner Girard dissented.
    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 of this order. The Rules
    of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements. (See also 35 Ill.Adm.Code
    101.246 “Motions for Reconsideration.”)
    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