ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 6, 1998
    GORDON KRAUTSACK, an individual,
    Complainant,
    v.
    BHOGILAL PATEL, an individual,
    SUBHASH PATEL, an individual, and
    ELECTRONIC INTERCONNECT, INC.,
    an Illinois corporation, and ELECTRONIC
    INTERCONNECT CORPORATION, an
    Illinois corporation,
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 95-143
    (Enforcement - Land, Citizens)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C. Flemal):
    On July 16, 1998, respondent, Electronic Interconnect Corporation (EIC), filed a
    motion asking the Board to reconsider its July 8, 1998 order denying EIC’s motion for
    extension of time to comply with the Board’s August 21, 1997 remediation order. On July 21,
    1998, Gordon Krautsack (petitioner) filed a response opposing EIC’s motion.
    In its motion, EIC provides 21 exhibits itemizing the tasks EIC performed, after
    retaining additional counsel, in an effort to comply with the Board’s August 21, 1997 order.
    Among the exhibits provided is the work plan created by Versar, Inc., for the site investigation
    (Exhibit 3) which suggests EIC is making some progress towards remediation.
    In ruling upon a motion for reconsideration, the Board is to consider factors including,
    but not limited to, error in the previous decision and facts in the record which are overlooked.
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246(d). In
     
    Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. County Board of
    Whiteside County (March 11, 1993), PCB 93-156, the Board stated that “[t]he 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 the hearing, changes in the law, or errors in
    the court’s previous application of the existing law.” Korogluyan v. Chicago Title & Trust
    Co., 213 Ill. App. 3d 622, 572 N.E.2d 1154 (1st Dist. 1992).
    The motion for reconsideration is denied. The Board finds nothing in the motion for
    reconsideration that persuades the Board that its decision of July 8, 1998, was in error, or that
    facts were overlooked. But for three items of correspondence between the parties (Exhibits
    18-20), all of the exhibits were available to EIC before the Board issued its July 8, 1998
    order.The Board will not use the exhibits as a reason for granting EIC’s motion for
    reconsideration when EIC has failed to provide the Board with any legal reason why the Board
    should grant the motion..
    2
    CONCLUSION
    EIC’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The matter shall be sent to hearing to
    address the remaining issue of penalties.
    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 6th day of August 1998 by a vote of 7-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top