ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

6,

1992

THE PUMPER,

INC.,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 91—262

)

(Underground Storage Tank Fund

•

)

Reimbursement Determination)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by J. Anderson):

This matter was initiated on the filing of a letter

petitioning review of a December 4,

1991 Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency) underground storage tank

(UST)

fund

reimbursement determination received by the Board on December 30,

1991.

In the letter,

Mr. Mockus requested that if his

correspondence was an insufficient petition, that he be given 30

days

in which to file additional material,

since he would be out

of town between December 28,

1991 and January 12,

1992 and since

“we have no control over your working days and holidays that are

involved”.

Given the fact that the letter was timely received, and

given the holiday period,

the matter was accepted for hearing by

the Board’s Order of January 9,

1992.

On January 23,

1992 Mr. Walter Mockus submitted a copy of

the Agency’s December 4,

1991 letter granting reimbursement of

some costs but denying reimbursement of others.

This letter was

accompanied by the $75.00 dollars filing fee required by Section

7.5 of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act).

On January 27,

1992,

Mr. Mockus submitted Attachment A to the Agency’s December

4,

1991 letter.

The Board first notes that,

as

is its usual practice, it

will construe its 120-day decision deadline pursuant to Section

40(a) of the Act as beginning to run on January 27, 1992,

the

date on which all materials were received from Mr. Mockus.

Secondly, review of Mr. Mockus’ correspondence indicates

some uncertainty as to how he should proceed in bringing this

appeal before the Board; hearing is presently scheduled for March

19,

1992.

Mr. Mockus should be prepared to explain at hearing

which Agency determinations he is challenging and why he is

130—8 1

---

challenging them,

and to provide any documents which he had given

to the Agency.

We note that a review of the correspondence filed to date in

this matter indicates there may be some confusion as to the

nature of a proceeding of this type before the Board.

In

proceedings before the Board, the burden is upon the petitioner

to establish at a formal hearing, by oral testimony under oath or

by properly submitted written documents, that the disputed costs

should be paid under the terms

of the Environmental Protection

Act, and applicable regulations.

So far, petitioner has not

identified the specific cost deductions which seeks to challenge,

nor has ~5etitionerasserted reasons why such costs should have

been paid.

Petitioner must present facts and arguments as to why

those costs should be paid in order to prevail.

The initial

burden at hearing to explain why the costs were not paid is not

upon the Agency.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy N.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Bo~rd,hereby certify

tb~.t

the above Order was adopted on the

~

day of _______________________,

1992 by a vote of

/~

‘~z

~

7//~

-

Dorothy M.

çtfl’tn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board