ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 17, 1996
    KATHE'S AUTO SERVICE CENTER,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 96-102
    (UST - Reimbursement)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Yi):
    On November 9, 1995, Kathe’s Auto Service Center (petitioner) filed a petition
    appealing the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s (Agency) final reimbursement
    decision concerning petitioner’s leaking underground storage tanks pursuant to Sections 57.8(i)
    and 40(a) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act). The Board on August 1, 1996 issued an
    opinion and order affirming the Agency’s final reimbursement decision.
    On September 3, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration in order to exhaust
    its administrative remedies in order to pursue its appeal of this matter with the Illinois Court of
    Appeals. (Mot. at 1.)
    1
    On September 23, 1996 the Agency filed a response to the motion for
    reconsideration requesting the Board to deny such request. (Resp. at 1.)
    2
    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 have 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.)
    Petitioner in the motion for reconsideration reiterates the same arguments in its cross-
    motion for summary judgment. (Mot. at 2-3.) Petitioner concludes that the Board is creating
    “a situation in which reimbursement of the most basic required remediation activities will not
    be allowed simply because of the sequence in which they are performed” (Mot. at 2) and
    requests the Board to reconsider the arguments contained in both the motion for
    reconsideration and its cross-motion for summary judgment (Mot. at 3).
    1
    The motion for reconsideration will be referenced to as “Mot. at ”.
    2
    The Agency’s response will be referred to as “Resp. at ”.
    2
    The Agency in its response restates the Board’s findings and states that both the Act
    and the Board have answered the questions posed by petitioner. (Resp. at 2-4.) Therefore the
    Agency requests the Board to deny petitioner’s motion.
    The Board finds that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration does 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. Therefore, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED
    Board Member K. Hennessey abstained.
    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