ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 26,
    1992
    THE PUMPER,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 91—262
    )
    (Underground Storage
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    Tank Reimbursement)
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by N.
    Nardulli):
    This matter is before the Board on the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency’s (Agency) March
    4,
    1992 motion
    to dismiss and March 9,
    1992 motion to file the record instanter.
    The Agency asks that the Board dismiss petitioner’s petition
    for review of the Agency’s decision disallowing reimbursement
    from the Underground Storage Tank Fund
    (Fund)
    for certain costs
    of cleaning up contamination from a leaking underground storage
    tank
    (UST).
    Citing Ideal Heating Co.
    v. IEPA (January 23,
    1992),
    PCB 91-253, the Agency argues that the instant appeal
    is not ripe
    and should be dismisseth
    The Agency has attached the affidavit
    of Kendra Schmidt, project manager of the northern sub—unit of
    the LUST Section, stating that the Agency often makes
    reimbursement payments on a periodic basis during the course of
    corrective action.
    (Agency Brief Ex.
    A.)
    “This practice was
    adopted for the
    benefit of applicants and their creditors since
    the process of corrective action can frequently extend over
    a
    period of several months.”
    (Agency Brief Ex.
    A.)
    In Ideal Heating, the Board ruled that Agency UST decisions
    are ripe for Board review when the Agency has:
    (1) denied
    eligibility; or
    (2) granted eligibility and completed its
    deductible and reimbursement determinations.
    Consequently,
    Agency determinations on the deductible amount alone are no
    longer appealable.
    The Board reached this ruling based upon in
    part upon the desire to avoid piecemeal appeals.
    (,3~at 2.)
    The Board declines to extend its holding in Ideal Heating to
    cases where the Agency has reached
    a determination on an
    applicant’s claim for reimbursement of corrective action costs,
    but other claims for the same site are still pending before the
    Agency or will be submitted in the future.’
    While the Board has
    expressed a desire to avoid piecemeal appeals, the Board finds
    Because the Board denies the motion to dismiss,
    it need
    not wait for petitioner’s response.
    (35 Ill. Adm. Code
    101.241(b).)
    131—523
    2
    this goal has been achieved by the ruling in Ideal Heating.
    Because costs of corrective action can be great,
    it is important
    that claims for reimbursement be resolved as quickly as possible,
    even though other claims may be pending before the Agency.
    The
    Board will not promote administrative economy at the expense of
    environmental clean—up.
    Therefore,
    the Agency’s motion to
    dismiss is denied.
    The Agency’s motion to file the record
    instanter is granted.
    IT
    ‘IS
    SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ~7)-~~
    ,
    1992 by a vote of
    7
    ~c
    Control Board
    131—524

    Back to top