ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 20,
    1994
    BTL SPECIALTY RESINS
    )
    CORPORATION,
    )
    Petitioner,
    PCB 94—160
    v.
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by N. McFawn):
    On September 15,
    1994, BTL Specialty Resins Corporation
    (BTL)
    filed a motion requesting that the Board reconsider its
    August
    11,
    1994 decision dismissing BTL’s complaint against the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    in this matter.
    On September 20,
    1994,
    BTL filed a motion to supplement its
    motion to reconsider.
    The Agency filed a response to the motion
    to reconsider on October 7,
    1994.
    Summarizing its grounds for moving for reconsideration,
    BTL
    states:
    The Board confused the question of whether the Agency’s
    waste determination was “made pursuant to the Act or Board
    rule” with a different (and not relevant) question of
    whether the Agency was required to issue it.
    (Motion for Reconsideration at 4-5.)
    This argument is erroneous.
    Petitioner, not the Board,
    focuses on the wrong question.
    The Board merely noted that the
    Agency is free to issue advisory opinions as to its
    interpretations of Board regulations.
    Our opinion and order
    granting summary judgement did not rely on that fact. Dismissal
    was premised on the fact that the Agency does not have authority
    to issue legally binding hazardous waste determinations directly
    or indirectly,
    and therefore,
    the Agency’s letter does not have
    the force and effect of law.
    Thus, the letter which petitioner
    requests the Board to review cannot constitute a final Agency
    determination.
    Accordingly, we held in our August 11 opinion
    that our authority under Section 5(d)
    of the Act does not include
    the review sought by BTL.
    Neither this argument nor any other made by petitioner
    provides grounds for the Board to grant reconsideration.
    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.
    (35 111.
    Adm. Code
    2
    101.246(d).)
    In Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. County of
    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
    Ill.App.3d 622,
    572 N.E.2d 1154, 1158.)”
    We find that Petioner’s 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 August 11,
    1994 decision was
    in error.
    Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk
    of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby cert,i-~ythat the above order was adopted on the
    ~-~--_dayof
    (-~~~--~
    1994, by a vote of
    ‘5~I’
    /
    /
    ~
    ~
    i~
    ~.
    /~j,
    Dorothy N. Gdnn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top