CLER~’S ~

JUN

2

6

2003

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

STATE OF

1LU~Q~b

Pollution Control Bourc~

CADY OIL CO.,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

vs.

)

)

PCB No. 03-177

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

(UST Appeal

—

Petition for Review and

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Hearing/Appeal)

)

Respondent.

)

PETITION FOR

REVIEW AND HEARING/APPEAL

NOW COMES

Cady Oil

Co.,

by its attorneys, Elias, Meginnes, Riffle &

Seghetti,

P.C.,

and

as

and

for

its

Petition

for

Review

and

Hearing/Appeal

of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency’s

final

decision with

respect to

the

modification

of the budget for a

High

Priority Site Investigation Corrective Action Plan for a certain leaking underground storage tank

(LUST) site, states as follows:

BACKGROUND

1.

Cady

Oil

Co.

retained

Midwest

Environmental

Consulting

&

Remediation

Services,

Inc.

(Midwest) to

remediate the property located at

2520 North Sterling

Ave., Peoria,

Illinois, LPC

#1430655526,

LUST Incident No. 990212 (the Property).

2.

The

Property

was

classified

as

a

High

Priority

Site.

A

High

Priority

Site

Investigation Corrective Action Plan

was prepared and

executed and dated December

18,

2002,

and stamped received by the IEPA on January

13,

2003.

3.

The

Total

Proposed

Budget for the

High

Priority

Site Investigation

Correction

Action Plan was $40,036.16 (the Budget).

4.

By letter dates February 21, 2003 the JEPA modified the plan and Budget, and

---

approved a budget of $27,595.96, for a reduction of $12,440.20.

That letter was designated

as a

final and appealable order (the Final Decision).

5.

The

parties timely

requested

a

ninety

(90)

day

extension of the

appeal

period.

Thatrequest was granted, and the deadline was extended to June 26, 2003.

In the February 21, 2003 letter, the JEPA rejected the Budget, in part, on several grounds,

and

substantially modified the Budget.

Cady Oil Co.

(and its contractor, Midwest) disagree with

these determinations, and affirmatively state that the Budget entries were reasonable, customary,

and necessary, and in full compliance with applicable statues and regulations.

Specifically, all of

the work described in the Budget was necessary,

and the budgeted amounts were reasonable and

proper.

CONCLUSION

For all

of the

foregoing

reasons,

Cady

Oil

Co.

respectfully

requests

a

hearing

in

this

matter, which will provide it the opportunity to establish the propriety ofthe Budget Submitted,

and

that the

Final Decision be

reversed or modified

by

increasing

and

accepting the

budget as

initially proposed, thereby allowing additional reimbursement in the amount of$12,440.20.

Respectfully submitted,

Cady Oil Co., Petitioner

By:______

Robert M. Riffle

Its Attorney

ROBERT M. RIFFLE

Elias, Meginnes, Riffle & Seghetti, P.C.

416

Main Street, Suite

1400

Peoria, IL 61602

(309) 637-6000

603-720

2

---

The undersigned certifies that

on

June 25,2003,

a

copy of the foregoing document was

served upon each party to this case by

X

Enclosing

a true copy of same in an

envelope

addressed to the attorney ofrecord of each party as listed

below, with first class postage fuiiy prepaid, and depositing

each of said envelopes in the United States

Mail

at 5:00

p.m. on said date.

Personal delivery to the attorney of record of each party at the address(es) listed below

Facsimile transmission with confirmation by United States Mail

Via Federal Express

-

Express Package Service

-

Priority

Overnight

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

John J. Kim

Assistant Counsel

Special Assistant Attorney General

Division ofLegal Counsel

1021 N. Grand Ave., East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Robert M. Riffle

Elias, Meginnes,

Riffle &

Seghetti, P.C.

416 Main Street, Suite

1400

Peoria, IL 61602

(309) 637-6000

603-720

3