September 2, 2010DICKERSON PETROLEUM, INC.,Petitioner,v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,Respondent.
After Dickerson requested reimbursement from the UST
Fund for costs associated with the same incident at the Site, the Agency determined that theincident was not subject to the UST provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) or theBoard’s regulations.
DICKERSON’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Dickerson argues that “the Board has erred in the application of existing law byconcluding that Petitioner is not a prevailing party within the meaning of Section 57.8(l) of theAct.” Mot.
v.
IEPA, PCB 09-87, 10-5 (cons.), slip op. a...
Allowed
Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) - application/pdf
... 
