ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 26, 2007
    VILLAGE OF WILMETTE,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 07-48
    (UST Appeal)
    CONCURRING OPINION (by T.E. Johnson):
    I respectfully concur with the Board’s decision, which rules on cross-motions for
    summary judgment in this Underground Storage Tank (UST) Fund appeal. The Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) rejected the reimbursement application of the
    Village of Wilmette (Village), stating that the cleanup cost billings submitted by the Village
    exceeded the approved budget amounts. The Village appealed and the Board correctly affirms
    the Agency on summary judgment.
    I write separately because I dissented two weeks ago in the companion appeal brought by
    the Village and docketed as PCB 07-27, in which the Board affirmed the Agency’s denial of a
    proposed budget amendment.
    See
    Village of Wilmette v. IEPA, PCB 07-27 (July 12, 2007). In
    that appeal, I felt that the Board should have reversed the Agency and remanded, directing the
    Agency to determine whether the Village’s proposed budget amendment was appropriate,
    regardless of the fact that the budget amendment was submitted after the No Further
    Remediation letter issued.
    In this case, PCB 07-48, the Village appealed the Agency’s denial of its request for
    reimbursement of those monies that were the subject of the rejected budget amendment. When
    both appeals were still pending, the Village itself conceded that the Board’s decision in PCB 07-
    27 would be “dispositive of the issue raised in this appeal [PCB 07-48].” Response at 2. Though
    I believe the Agency should have considered the merits of the Village’s budget amendment in
    PCB 07-27, I agree that there are no genuine issues of material fact in the present appeal and
    that, as a matter of law, a UST owner or operator cannot be reimbursed costs for which there is
    no approved budget.
    See
    ,
    e.g.
    , 35 Ill. Adm. Code 732.601(g);
    see also
    35 Ill. Adm. Code
    732.601(a) (stating general rule and exception). Here, it is undisputed that there is no approved
    budget for these billings. The Board therefore correctly grants the Agency’s motion for
    summary judgment and denies the Village’s motion for summary judgment.
    2
    For these reasons, I concur.
    __________________________________
    Thomas E. Johnson
    I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that
    the above concurring opinion was submitted on July 31, 2007.
    ___________________________________
    John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top