CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AUG -2 2004
BROADUS OIL,
)
)
PollutionSTATE
OFControlILLINOISBoard
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCBO4-31
)
(UST appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CLARIFY PETITION FOR REVIEW
NOW COMES Petitioner, BROADUS OIL, through its undersigned attorney, and
pursuant to hearing officer order of March 18, 2004, hereby submits this motion for leave
to clarify the requests set forth in the Petition for Review filed by Petitioner in this case.
For its clarification, Petitioner states as follows:
1.
By order ofMarch 18, 2004, the hearing officer made a suggestion that the
“parties file motion for clarification of December 18, 2003, Board order
where it appears petitioner may be appealing August 6, 2003 high priority
corrective action plan budget rejection and September 8, 2003 partial
rejection ofapplication for paymeñurrom underground stOrage tank fund.”
2.
To clarify: Petitioner is indeed seeking review both of the August 6, 2003
rejection of Petitioner’s High Priority Corrective Action Plan Budget
amendment, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s (“IEPA”)
September 8, 2003 final decision on Petitioner’s LUST reimbursement
package for work performed between May 1, 1997 and July 31, 2003.
3.
By document dated August 6, 2003, which was received by Petitioner on
August 8, 2003, the IEPA denied Petitioner’s High Priority Corrective
Action Plan Budget amendment. This document is attached as Exhibit A
to the Request for Ninety Day Extension ofAppeal Period filed by the
IEPA on or about September 11, 2003.
4.
On September 8, 2003, the IEPA issued to Petitioner its final decision on
Petitioner’s LUST reimbursement package for work performed between
May 1, 1997 and July 31, 2003. Among other things, that LUST decision
deducted a total of $24,289.70 as costs associated with high priority site
activities which exceeded the approved budget amounts (in other words,
the September 8 LUST decision was made in part as a result of the IEPA’s
August 6 budget decision).
5.
On September 10, 2003, Petitioner requested the IEPA
‘
s agreement for a
ninety day extension as to j~ffithe August 6, 2003 decision and the
September 8, 2003 decision. ~ Exhibit B to the Request for Ninety Day
Extension ofAppeal Period.
6.
By pleading filed with this Board ~ii~September
15,
2003, the IEPA asked
this Board to grant the extension as referenced in Petitioner’s
correspondence of September 10, 2003; the IEPA’s request included a
copy of Petitioner’s September 10, 2003 letter. The ninety days requested
was calculated from the first ofthe decisions (August 8, 2003), and was
calculated by order of this Board to expire on December 11, 2003.
2
7.
Petitioner filed the instant petition on December 10, 2003, seeking relief
from both the August 6, 2003 and the September 8, 2003 IEPA final
decisions.
8.
Accordingly, the appeal deadline for both decisions was extended by the
IEPA’s September
15,
2003 pleading. The appeals were the subject of a
single extension, and they are intimately related—the LUST Fund appeal
turns upon the propriety of the IEPA’s budget denial.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, BROADUS OIL, requests that this Board accept this
clarification, and instruct the parties to proceed with this matter to hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
BROADUS OIL,
Petitioner,
By its attorney,
-
HEDINGER
W OF ICE
By
Stephe
.
Hedinger
Hedinger Law Office
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
(217) 523-2753 phone
(217) 523-4366 fax
3
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFF,C~
BROADUS OIL,
)
)
STATE
AUG
OF
22004
ILL1NOlc~
Petitioner,
)
~OII~t~ofl
ControlBo~cj
)
v.
)
PCB04-31
)
(UST appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
To:
Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
John Kim
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
The undersigned certifies that an original and nine copies of Petitioner’s Motion
for Leave to Clarify Petition for Review were served upon the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, and one copy was served upon the hearing officer and the above party of record
in this case by enclosing same in envelopes with postage fully prepaid, a9d by depositing said
envelopes in a U.S. Post Office Mail Box in Springfi~1d,Illinois on the2~~ayof July, 2004.
Hedinger Law Office
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
(217) 523-2753 phone
(217) 523-4366 fax
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
