ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 1, 1994
    J. I. CASE COMPANY,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v
    )
    PCB 94—223
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N. McFawn):
    On November 10, 1994, petitioner 3. I.
    Case
    Company
    (3.
    1.
    Case) filed a motion requesting that the Board reconsider its
    October 6, 1994 decision dismissing 3. 1. Case’s complaint
    against the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) in
    this matter. The Agency filed a response to the motion to
    reconsider on November 21, 1994.
    In its motion for reconsideration, 3.1. Case asserts that
    the Board should grant reconsideration on two grounds: first,
    that the Board improperly assumed that the cleanup objectives had
    been established under the Pre-Notice Program established
    pursuant to Section 22.2(m) of the Act; and second, that the
    Board assumed that
    3.
    I. Case had voluntarily entered into the
    Pre—Notice Program. For the reasons set forth below, the motion
    for reconsideration is denied.
    Concerning petitioner’s first argument, it is undisputed
    that 3.1. Case had entered the voluntary Pre-Notice Program by
    January 1994, and the cleanup objectives for which 3. I. Case
    sought review are the revised objectives issued by the Agency in
    January, 1994. In fact, 3. I. Case’s original petition for
    review concluded as follows:
    WHEREFORE, Case requests that the Board reverse the
    Agency’s imposition of new January 1994 cleanup
    objectives and the Agency’s denial of Cases’s request
    for application of the Agency’s 1989 cleanup
    objectives.
    (Pet. at 4.)
    Clearly, the January 1994 objectives, not the 1989
    objectives, are the objectives for which 3. I. Case sought review
    and which the Board considered when we determined that we have no
    jurisdiction over the Pre—Notice Program.
    Petitioner’s second argument in its motion for
    reconsideration restates an argument asserted in its September
    2
    12, 1994 response to the Agency’s motion to dismiss. In our
    final order we did not reach this issue, based upon our finding
    that the Agency decision in establishing revised voluntary
    cleanup objectives was not a final decision affecting
    petitioner’s legal rights and duties, and was therefore not
    subject to review.
    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
    Board of Whiteside (March 11, 1993), PCB 93-156, we stated that
    “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.
    (Korogluyan v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. (1st Dist. 1992), 213
    Il1.App.3d 622, 572 N.E.2d 1154, 1158.)”
    We find that the motion for reconsideration presents the
    Board with no new evidence, a change in the law, or any other
    reason to conclude that the Board’s October 6, 1994 decision was
    in error. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board member 3. Yi abstained.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify. that the above order was adopted on,the
    /bV
    day of
    ~~4_J
    1994, by a vote of ~
    ‘~borothyM. 9~nn,
    /k~
    Clerk
    Illinois Po~JIlutionControl Board

    Back to top