Opinion ID: 1921947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cleanup Requirements

Text: ¶ 18 Because DownEast was the party seeking reimbursement from the Fund, it bore the burden of proving that it was entitled to reimbursement. [4] In particular, DownEast was required to demonstrate that the expenses it incurred were necessary to clean up discharges of oil to the satisfaction of the commissioner. 38 M.R.S.A. § 562-A(7-A)(A). The Board concluded that DownEast failed to prove that the soil removal at either site was necessary to clean up discharges of oil. Id. Thus, it found that DownEast failed to carry its burden. We review the record to determine whether the Board's findings are supported by the record. ¶ 19 At the hearing, the Department reiterated its position that the Commissioner required only the removal of saturated soil at both sites. The Board also heard evidence that the DownEast was aware that only saturated soil required removal. Nonetheless, DownEast argues that it was entitled to reimbursement for contaminated, rather than saturated, soil and that the Department should not be permitted to change its first response to DownEast's request for reimbursement. ¶ 20 The Board found that DownEast was only required to remove saturated soil in order to clean up the site to the satisfaction of the commissioner and that DownEast was aware of that requirement. The record supports that finding. Regarding the South Portland site, the Board noted that DownEast did not contest the Department's determination that no saturated soil was removed from the site. [5] Because only free petroleum and saturated soil were required to be removed in order to clean up the site to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, and, because nothing meeting that description existed at the South Portland site, the Board concluded that no soil removal was eligible for reimbursement pursuant to section 562-A(7-A)(A). [6] As to the Congress Street site, the Board had before it evidence that, prior to any tank removal, the Department's representative visited the site and assigned it a similar baseline cleanup status, thus requiring removal of only saturated soil, and that the site contained little, if any, saturated soil. On this evidence, Board was not compelled to conclude that any or all of the soils removed fell within the definition of those that were eligible for fund reimbursement.