ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 26, 1992

CITY OF ROODHOUSE,

)

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 92—31

)

(Underground Storage

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

Tank Reimbursement)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by M. Nardulli):

This matter is before the Board on the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s (Agency). March 16, 1992 motion

to dismiss. On March 20, 1992, petitioner filed its response.

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 dismissed.

According to petitioner, it will be submitting additional

claims for reimbursement for corrective action costs. Petitioner

requests that if dismissal is granted, the $75 filing fee be

waived when it refiles its petition for review and that the

appeal be dismissed without prejudice.

In Ideal Heating, the Board ruled that Agency UST decisions

are ripe1 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.

~

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,

The Board notes that the Agency, states that, based on

Ideal Heating, the Board is without jurisdiction to

hear this matter and it must be dismissed. However, in

Ideal Heating, the Board ruled that the UST appeals

were not ripe for review until the Agency had completed

its reiinbursibility determination. The Board did not

rule tha.t it lacked jurisdiction over such appeals.

13 1—539

---

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

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the

~

day of ~7)i

~c-/-~’

,

1992 by a vote of

7 ~

Control Board

131—540