tLLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 30,
    1992
    VILLAGE
    OF
    LINCOLNWOOD,
    )
    a Municipal Corporation,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    PCB 91—83
    v.
    )
    (Underground Storage Tank
    )
    Fund Reimbursement)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by M. Nardulli):
    This matter is before the Board
    on petitioner Village of
    Lincoinwood’s motion for reconsideration or clarification of the
    Board’s June 4,
    1992 opinion and order filed July 9,
    1992.
    Respondent did not filed a response.
    Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Board’s opinion and
    order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent as to its
    determination that costs of corrective action associated with
    four unregistered underground storage tanks
    (tJSTs)
    are not
    reimbursable because these tanks were not properly registered.
    The Board found that there was no genuine issue of material fact
    as to whether the tanks had been registered with the Office of
    Sate Fire Marshal
    (OSFM)
    and, therefore,
    as a matter of law,
    petitioner was not eligible for reimbursement.
    (See,
    Ill.
    Rev..
    Stat.
    1991,
    ch.
    111 1/2, par. 1022.18b(a) (4)
    .)
    In so concluding,
    the Board noted that “the issue of whether the four USTs could,
    should or might be registered is not material to the Board’s
    review of the Agency’s motion for summary judgment.”
    (PCB 91—83
    at 2—3.)
    Petitioner states that the OSFN has agreed to take under
    advisement the registration of two of the four unregistered
    tanks.’
    Petitioner contends that this raises a genuine issue of
    material fact.
    We disagree.
    The tanks for which reimbursement
    is sought were not registered~at the time respondent issued its
    determination denying eligibility and remain unregistered.
    Again,
    the mere possibility that the tanks may be registered witi
    OSFM is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
    It is the petitioner that controls when an application for
    reimbursement from the Fund is filed.
    Here, petitioner filed itE
    Petitioner does not include any affidavit in support
    01
    this agreement with OSFM.
    0135-0129
    2
    application with the Agency before it registered its USTs.
    As
    noted in the Board’s June 4,
    1992 opinion, OSFM, not the Board or
    the Agency,
    have authority over registration of USTs.
    Although
    petitioner argues that the result in this case is harsh,
    the
    Board cannot avoid ruling on a motion for summary judgment merely
    because petitioner may, sometime in the future,
    register the
    UST5.
    The Board has reconsidered its June 4,
    1992 opinion and
    order and declines grant the relief requested.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    J. Anderson dissents.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat. l99l~ch. 111 1/2, par.
    1041) provides for the appeal of
    final Board orders within 35 days.
    The Rules of the Supreme
    Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,, hereby cert
    that the above order was adopted on the
    fcz2~ day’ of
    ________________
    ,
    1992 by a vote of
    S-/
    Control Board
    0135-0130

    Back to top