ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 25,
    1993
    SUBURBAN TRUST
    AND
    SAVINGS
    )
    BANK,
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 93-53
    (UST Fund)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (J.
    C. Marlin):
    On March 15,
    1993,
    Suburban Trust
    & Savings Bank filed this
    appeal of a January 14,
    1993 Agency decision concerning its
    application for reimbursement from the Underground Storage Tank
    (UST)
    Fund.
    This matter is dismissed as untimely filed for two
    reasons.
    First, the appeal seeks only to challenge the Agency’s
    determination of the deductible amount.
    The Board has routinely
    held that deductibility amount determinations are not ripe for
    review until after the Agency makes its determination concerning
    which corrective actions costs are reimbursable. Reichhold
    Chemical v. IEPA (July 9,
    1992), PCB 92-98; Village of
    Lincoinwood v. IEPA (June 4,
    1992), PCB 91—83,
    133 PCB 33; Ideal
    Heating Co.
    v. IEPA (January 23,
    1992), PCB 91-253.
    In other
    words, petitioner has filed this appeal too early.
    Once it has
    received a decision on its request for corrective actions costs,
    it may file an
    appeal of the deductibility amount as well as of
    any individual disputed cost items.
    Second, this appeal seeks to appeal a January 14 Agency
    decision.
    Section 22.18(b) requires that petitions must be filed
    within 35 days of the Agency’s decision.
    Since the courts have
    held that the Agency has no authority to reconsider UST decisions
    (Reichhold,
    561 N.E.2d 1343; Waste Management of Illinois v
    PCB
    (1st Dist.
    1992),
    231 Ill.
    App.
    3d 278,
    595 N.E.2d 1171,
    1185;
    see generally,
    Weinciart v
    Department of Labor (1988),
    122 Ill.
    2d 1,
    521 N.E2d 913; A.B. Dick Co.
    v. IEPA (July
    9,
    1992), PCB
    92—99; Clinton County Oil v. IEPA (March 26,
    1992), PCB 91-163.),
    the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the Agency does
    not lengthen the time in which an appeal must be filed.
    Even
    if
    the Agency’s January 14 decision was otherwise ripe for review
    then, the petition was filed approximately one month after the
    expiration of the 35 day appeal period.
    The Board cannot accept
    late-filed appeals.
    Suburban should keep this in mind when
    OIL~O-Q257
    2
    considering any future appeal.
    Again,
    for these reasons this matter is dismissed as
    untimely filed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (I1l.Rev.
    Stat.
    1991,
    ch.
    111 1/2,
    par.
    1041)
    provides for the appeal of
    final Board orders.
    The Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois
    establish filing requirements.
    (But see also 35 Ill.Adm.Code
    101.246 “Motions for Reconsideration” and Castenada v.
    Illinois
    Human Rights Commission
    (1989),
    132 Ill.2d 304,
    547 N.E.2d 437
    and Strube v. Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    No.
    3-92-0468,
    slip op. at 4—5
    (3d Dist. March 15, 1993.).)
    I, Dorothy N.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    ~~~day
    of
    _____________________,
    1993, by a vote of
    7/
    1~~Dorothy
    N. ~jinn,Clerk
    Illinois Poflution Control Board
    UI~~O-O258

    Back to top