BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
SEP
02
2008
STATEOILJ,O
V.
)
PCB No. 07-42
11Ut!On
Control
8Od
)
(Enforcement)
ENVIRONMENTAL
RECLAMATION
)
COMPANY,
an Illinois
corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE
OF
FILING
To:
Brian
Konzen
Lueders,
Robertson
& Konzen LLC
1939
Delmar
Avenue
P.O.
Box 735
Granite City, IL 62040-0735
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that
on this date I mailed
for filing with the Clerk
of the Pollution
Control
Board of the State of
Illinois, a MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM HEARING
REQUIREMENT
and
STIPULATION
AND PROPOSAL
FOR
SETTLEMENT,
copies of which
are attached
hereto
and
herewith served upon
you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney General of
the
State of
Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental
Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:___
ANDREW
J
ICHOLAS
Assistant
Attorney General
Environmental
Bureau
500 South Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
August 28, 2008
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I hereby certify that I did on August 28, 2008, send by First Class Mail, with postage
thereon fully
prepaid, by depositing in a United
States
Post
Office Box a
true and correct
copy
of the following instruments
entitled
NOTICE OF FILING, MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
HEARING REQUIREMENT
and STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT:
To:
Brian Konzen
Lueders, Robertson
&
Konzen LLC
1939 Delmar
Avenue
P.O. Box 735
Granite City, IL 62040-0735
and the original and ten copies by First Class Mail with postage thereon fully
prepaid
of the
same
foregoing instrument(s):
To:
John T.
Therrault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
Suite
11-500
100
West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
A copy
was also sent by First
Class
Mail with
postage thereon fully prepaid to:
Carol Webb
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, IL 62794
ANDREW
J.
NIq4OLAS
Assistant Attorney
General
This filing is submitted on recycled
paper.
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
fiK’S
Complainant,
)
SEp
v.
)
PCB No. 0742
POI1UtOnf
S
)
(Enforcement)
ENVIRONMENTAL
RECLAMATION
)
COMPANY,
an
Illinois
corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM
HEARING
REQUIREMENT
NOW COMES
Complainant, PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
by LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney General of
the
State of
Illinois, and
pursuant
to Section
31(c)(2)
of the
Illinois
Environmental Protection
Act
(“AcV’), 415
ILCS 5/31(c)(2)
(2006),
moves
that
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board grant
the
parties
in the
above-captioned
matter relief from
the
hearing
requirement
imposed by Section
31(c)(1) of the
Act, 415 ILCS
5131(c)(1)
(2006). In
support
of
this
motion, Complainant
states
as
follows:
1.
The parties have reached
agreement
on all outstanding
issues
in
this matter.
2.
This agreement
is presented
to the
Board
in
a Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement, filed
contemporaneously
with this
motion.
3.
All parties
agree that
a hearing
on
the
Stipulation and
Proposal
for Settlement
is
not
necessary,
and respectfully
request relief
from such
a hearing as allowed
by
Section
31(c)(2) of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/31(c)(2)
(2006).
1
WHEREFORE,
Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
hereby
requests
thatthe
Board
grant
this motion
for
relief from
the
hearing
requirement
set forth
in Section
31(c)(1)ôf
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/31(c)(1)
(2006).
Respectfully
submitted
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
LISA
MADIGAN
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:________
ANDREWJ.
NICHOLAS
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
500
South
Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
August
28,
2008
2
ED
SEP
022008
ENVIRONMENTAL
RECLAMATION
)
PolIutjo
STATE
OFILL1N
Control
S
Oard
COMPANY,
an Illinois
corporation,
)
Respondent.
STIPULATION
AND PROPOSAL
FOR
SETTLEMENT
Complainant, PEOPLE
OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney
General of the State
of
Illinois,
the
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(“Illinois
EPA”), and ENVIRONMENTAL
RECLAMATION COMPANY,
an
Illinois corporation,
(“Respondent”),
have agreed
to the making
of this Stipulation
and Proposal for
Settlement
(“Stipulation”) and submit
it
to the Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
(“Board”)
for
approval.
The
stipulation
of
facts is
made
and agreed upon
for purposes
of settlement only
and as a
factual
basis for the Board’s
approval of this
Stipulation and
issuance
of
relief.
None of the
facts
stipulated herein shall
be introduced into
evidence
in any
other proceeding
regarding
the
violations
of
the
Illinois
EnvironmentalProtection
Act (“Act”), 415 ILCS
5/1
et seq.
(2006), and
the Board’s
Regulations,
alleged in the Complaint
except as
otherwise provided
herein. It is
the
intent of the parties
to this Stipulation
that it
be
a final
adjudication of
this matter.
I. STATEMENT
OF FACTS
A.
Parties to the Stipulation
1.
On
November
20,
2006, a Complaint
was filed on behalf
of the
People
of
the
State
of Illinois by Lisa
Madigan,
Attorney General
of the State
of Illinois,
on her own motion
and upon the request
of the Illinois EPA,
pursuant
to Section
31
of
the Act, 415 ILCS
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
Corn
plai nant,
vs.
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
)
PCB
No. 07-42
)
(Enforcement)
1
5/31(2006), against the Respondent.
2.
The Illinois EPA is
an
administrative
agency of the State of Illinois, created
pursuant
to
Section
4 of the
Act, 415 ILCS 5/4 (2006).
3.
At all times relevant to the Complaint,
Respondent was
and is an Illinois
corporation that is authorized to transact
business in the
State of Illinois. At all times
relevant
to
the
Complaint, Respondent owned
and
operated
a “sanitary landfill”
as such term is defined
at
Section
3.445 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.445 (2006),
pursuant to Landfill Permit
Number 1994-
524-LFM (‘the
permit”)
at West Route 316, Charleston, Coles
County, Illinois (“site”).
4.
Provisions of the permit include prohibitions
against litter and storm water runoff
causing
off-site
impacts.
5.
Respondent’s facility is adjacent
to
Riley Creek.
6.
On
March 23, 2004, the Illinois EPA
inspected
the landfill and investigated
the
site
conditions,
including storm water runoff and erosion controls. The Complainant alleges
that
the west
side of the
landfill, the ditch between the county road and another ditch closer
to the
landfill (respectively,
the “road ditch” and the “landfill ditch”) was full of silt and sediment
washed
down from
the slope of the
landfill. The vegetation
on the
lower slope was
inadequate
to
capture the sedimentation
from the bare earth portions of the upper slope on the western
face
of
the landfill. The
road ditch drains into Riley Creek.
7.
On
June 15, 2004, the Illinois EPA inspected the landfill and investigated
the
runoff and
other problems
documented during
the previous inspection. Complainant
alleges
that
the
Respondent failed to
adequately provide
for heavy storm water runoff resulting in
sedimentation
in the road
ditch again.
Complainant
also
alleges that a
six-inch
erosion
gully
was
present
on the west
side
of the
landfill.
8.
On August 3,
2004, the Illinois
EPA inspected the landfill and investigated
the
2
runoff
and
other
problems
documented during
the
previous
inspections.
Litter was
not
observed. The Respondent
had
installed a sedimentation
fence and planned
to place
check
bales
and other
devices
in the road
ditch to prevent sediment
from flowing into
the creek.
9.
On October
19, 2004,
the
Illinois EPA inspected
the landfill and
investigated
alleged runoff
and other alleged
problems
documented
during the
previous inspections.
The
Complainant
alleges there
was
heavy
sedimentation in the
road
ditch,
turbid water flowing
toward
and discharging into
Riley Creek
and some of the sedimentation
fence had
washed
away and
check
bales
recently
placed in the road ditch
were no
longer
in the ditch. Litter
was
not present, but
Complainant
alleges
that exposed waste
was sticking out from
the cover
material
and that there was
uncovered refuse
in the active area
from the previous
operating
day.
10.
On
December
2, 2004, the Illinois
EPA inspected
the landfill
and investigated
the
runoff
and other
problems
documented during the
previous inspections.
While the
road
ditch
was
still full of sediment,
the
check bales
had been replaced
and secured,
thereby
allowing
relatively
clear
water
to
discharge into the creek.
11.
On March 8, 2005, the
Illinois EPA inspected
the
landfill
and determined
that it
was
in
compliance with its
permit and other requirements.
B.
Allegations
of Non-Compliance
Complainant
and the Illinois EPA
contend that
the Respondent has
violated
the
following
provisions
of the Act and Board
Regulations:
Count I:
By failing to properly
cover landfill
waste by placing
a
uniform layer
of
at
least six
inches of clean
soil material
on
top of
the
landfill
waste
by the end of each
day of
operation,
the
Respondent has violated
its permit
and
Section
811.106(a)
of the Board’s
Waste
Disposal
Regulations,
35111. Adm.
Code Section
811.106(a), and
thereby
violated Sections
21(d) and 21(o)
of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/21(d) and
(o)
(2006).
3
Count II:
Respondent
has
caused, threatened
or allowed
the
discharge of
silt,
sediment
and other contaminants
into
Riley Creek
so as to
cause or tend
to
cause
water
pollution, and thereby
violated
Secfion
12(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/12(a)
(2006).
Respondent
is not permitted
by
the Agency
in accordance
with
35
III.
Adm. Code
309 for
its discharges of
runoff from disturbed
areas
to waters of
the State
and has otherwise
failed to comply
with
Section
811.103(a)
of the Board’s
Waste Disposal
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.103(a).
Respondent
has
caused,
threatened
or allowed the
discharge
of
silt,
sediment
and
other contaminants
into
Riley Creek
without
an
NPDES
permit for point
source
discharges
issued
by
the Agency,
and thereby violated
Section
12(f)
of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/12(f) (2006).
By failing
to properly
control
storm water
runoff from the
site,
the Respondent
has violated its permit
and thereby
violated
Section 21(d)
of the Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(d)
(2006).
C.
Non-Admission
of Violations
The Respondent
represents
that
it
has
entered into this
Stipulation for
the purpose
of
settling
and compromising
disputed
claims without
having to
incur
the
expense
of contested
litigation. By entering
into this
Stipulation and
complying with
its terms,
the
Respondent does
not
affirmatively
admit
the allegations of
violation
within
the Complaint
and referenced within
Section
l.B herein,
and
this
Stipulation
shall
not be interpreted as
including
such
admission.
D.
Compliance
Activities
to
Date
Following
the March
and June 2004
inspections and
noted violations,
the Respondent
excavated
the accumulated
sediment
from
the drainage
ditch and
installed storm
water fences
and
check bales
to
resolve the
drainage issues.
Additionally,
Respondent
performed
a
number
of improvements to
address its closure
and
erosion
issues,
including
re-grading and soil
replacement.
Following
the October
2004 inspection
and
noted violations, the
Respondent
installed
drainage basins
to collect runoff
and sedimentation.
4
II.
APPLICABILITY
This
Stipulation
shall
apply
to
and be
binding
upon
the
Complainant,
the
Illinois EPA
and
the
Respondent,
and
any officer,
director,
agent,
or
employee
of
the Respondent,
as
well
as
any successors
or assigns
of
the Respondent.
The Respondent
shall
not
raise
as
a
defense
to
any
enforcement
action
taken
pursuant
to
this Stipulation
the
failure
of any
of its
officers,
directors,
agents,
employees
or
successors
or
assigns
to
take
such
action
as shall
be
required
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of this
Stipulation.
This
Stipulation
may
be used
against
the
Respondent
in any
subsequent
enforcement
action
or
permit
proceeding
as proof
of
a past
adjudication
of violation
of
the
Act
and
the
Board
Regulations
for all
violations
alleged
in the
Complaint
in
this
matter,
for
purposes
of
Sections
39
and
42 of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/39
and
42
(2006).
III.
IMPACT
ON
THE
PUBLIC
RESULTING
FROM
ALLEGED
NON-COMPLIANCE
Section
33(c)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5133(c)(2006),
provides
as follows:
In making
its orders
and
determinations,
the Board
shall
take
into
consideration
all
the
facts
and
circumstances
bearing
upon
the
reasonableness
of the
emissions,
discharges,
or
deposits
involved
including,
but
not limited
to:
1.
the
character
and
degree
of injury
to,
or
interference
with
the
protection
of
the
health,
general
welfare
and
physical
property
of
the
people;
2.
the
social
and economic
value
of
the
pollution
source;
3.
the suitability
or unsuitability
of the
pollution
source
to the
area
in
which
it is located,
including
the
question
of
priority
of location
in
the
area involved;
4.
the
technical
practicability
and economic
reasonableness
of
reducing
or
eliminating
the
emissions,
discharges
or
deposits
resulting
from
such
pollution
source;
and
5.
any
subsequent
compliance.
In response
to
these
factors,
the
parties
state the
following:
5
1.
Complainant
contends
that the
injury
to, or
interference
with,
the
protection
of
the
health,
general
welfare,
and physical
property
of
the People,
would
be characterized
as
water
and
land
pollution
and
the degree
of
injury was
minimized
due
to the corrective
action;
2.
The parties
agree
that
Respondent’s
site
is of social
and
economic
benefit;
3.
Respondent’s
site is
suitably
located
along
West Route
316
in Coles
County;
4.
The
parties
agree
that complying
with the
Act,
regulations
and
the landfill
permit
is technically
practicable
and
economically
reasonable;
and
5.
Respondent
implemented
measures
before
and
subsequent
to the
alleged
violations
that
are
the
subject
of the
Complaint
in this
matter
in
order
to operate
in
compliance
with
the Act
and
Regulations.
IV.
CONSIDERATION
OF SECTION
42(h)
FACTORS
Section
42(h)
of the
Act,
415 ILCS
5/42(h)(2006),
provides
as
follows:
In
determining
the appropriate
civil penalty
to
be imposed
under.
.
. this
Section,
the
Board
is authorized
to
consider
any
matters
of record
in
mitigation
or
aggravation
of
penalty,
including
but not
limited
to the
following
factors:
1.
the
duration
and
gravity
of the
violation;
2.
the presence
or absence
of
due diligence
on
the
part of
the
respondent
in
attempting
to
comply
with
requirements
of this
Act
and
regulations
thereunder
or to
secure
relief
therefrom
as
provided
by
this
Act;
3.
any
economic
benefits
accrued
by
the respondent
because
of
delay
in compliance with requirements,
in
which
case
the
economic
benefits
shall
be
determined
by the
lowest
cost
alternative
for
achieving
compliance;
4.
the
amount
of monetary
penalty
which
will serve
to deter
further
violations
by the
respondent
and
to otherwise
aid in
enhancing
voluntary
compliance
with this
Act
by
the respondent
and
other
persons
similarly
subject
to
the Act;
5.
the
number,
proximity
in
time, and
gravity
of previously
6
adjudicated
violations
of
this
Act by the respondent;
6.
whether
the respondent
voluntarily
self-disclosed,
in accordance
with
subsection
I of this
Section,
the
non-compliance
to the
Agency;
and
7.
whether
the
respondent
has
agreed
to
undertake
a
“supplemental
environmental
project,”
which
means
an environmentally
beneficial
project
that a
respondent
agrees
to undertake in
settlement
of
an enforcement
action
brought
under this
Act, but
which
the
respondent
is not
otherwise
legally
required
to
perform.
In response
to these
factors,
the
parties
state
as follows:
1.
The Respondent
failed
to
comply with
the provisions
of its landfill
permit. The
violations began
in or around
May 2004
and continued
intermittently
until October
2004.
The Respondent
resolved
the
individual
violations
at
various
times
after
notification
of
noncompliance.
2.
The
parties agree
Respondent
was successful
in remedying violations
after
notification. It remains
disputed
whether
the Respondent
lacked diligence in
maintaining
its
compliance
up to
the
date of the
next inspection.
3.
The
Respondent
did not accrue
any economic benefit
from non-compliance.
4.
Complainant and
the Illinois EPA
have determined,
based
upon the specific
facts
of this
matter,
that a penalty
of
eight thousand
five
hundred
dollars
($8,500.00) will
serve
to deter further violations
and aid
in future
voluntary
compliance
with the Act
and Board
regulations.
5.
The
Illinois EPA
pursued similar
allegations
through
Administrative
Citation in
the
2004 calendar year
and sought
a one thousand
dollar
($1,000.00) penalty from
the
Respondent.
6.
Self-disclosure
is not
at issue in this matter.
7.
The settlement of
this
matter
does not include
a supplemental
environmental
7
project.
V. TERMS
OF SETTLEMENT
A.
Penalty
Payment
1.
The Respondent
shall
pay
a civil penalty
in the
sum of
Eight Thousand
Five
Hundred
Dollars
($8,500.00)
within
thirty
(30)
days from
the
date the Board
adopts
and
accepts
this Stipulation.
B.
Stipulated
Penalties,
Interest
and
Default
1.
If the
Respondent
fails
to make
any
payment
required
by
this
Stipulation
on
or
before the
date upon
which
the
payment is
due,
the
Respondent
shall
be
in default
and
the
remaining
unpaid
balance
of
the penalty,
plus
any
accrued
interest,
shall
be due and
owing
immediately.
In the event
of default,
the
Complainant
shall
be entitled
to reasonable
costs of
collection,
including
reasonable
attorney’s
fees.
2.
Pursuant
to
Section
42(g)
of the
Act, interest
shall
accrue on
any penalty
amount
owed
by the Respondent
not
paid within
the time
prescribed
herein,
Interest
on unpaid
penalties
shall
begin
to
accrue
from the
date such
are
due
and continue
to accrue
to
the date
full payment
is
received.
Where
partial
payment
is
made
on
any
penalty
amount
that is due,
such
partial
payment
shall be first
applied
to any
interest
on
unpaid penalties
then owing.
C.
Payment
Procedures
All payments
required
by this Stipulation
shall be
made
by
certified check
or
money
order
payable
to the
Illinois
EPA for
deposit into
the
Environmental
Protection
Trust
Fund
(‘EPTF”).
Payments
shall be
sent by first
class
mail
and delivered
to:
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Fiscal
Services
1021
North
Grand
Avenue East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
8
The
name,
case number
and the Respondent’s federal
tax
identification
number
shall appear
on the check or money order. A copy
of the certified check
or money order
and any
transmittal
letter shall be sent to:
Environmental
Bureau
Illinois Attorney General’s Office
500 South Second Street
Springfield, IL
62706
D.
Future Compliance
1.
The
Respondent shall inspect all
storm water devices
weekly and following
any
precipitation event over
%
inch in
a
24hour period. Inspections
shall
beciocumented
in written
form and available to the Illinois EPA upon request.
2.
The
Respondent shall
make temporary repairs to storm
water devices within
24
hours of detection, and permanent
repairs are
to be completed within thirty
(30) calendar
days
of detection.
3.
In
addition
to any other
authorities, the Illinois
EPA, its employees
and
representatives, and the
Attorney General, her employees
and representative, shall
have the
right of entry into and upon the Respondent’s
facility which
is the subject of this
Stipulation,
at
all
reasonable times
for
the purposes of conducting inspections and evaluating
compliance
status. In
conducting such inspections, the
Illinois
EPA, its employees
and representatives,
and
the Attorney
General, her employees and representatives,
may take photographs,
samples,
and
collect
information, as
they
deem necessary.
4.
This Stipulation in no way
affects the responsibilities of the
Respondent to
comply with any other
federal,
state or local laws or regulations, including
but not limited
to the
Act and the
Board
Regulations.
E.
Release
from Liability
9
In consideration of the Respondent’s
payment of the
$8,500.00
penalty, completion
of
all activities required hereunder,
and upon the Board’s approval of this Stipulation, the
Complainant releases, waives
and
discharges the
Respondent from any
further liability
or
penalties for the violations of the Act and Board Regulations
that
were the subject matter
of
the
Complaint herein. The release set forth above does not
extend
to any matters other than those
expressly specified in Complainant’s
Complaint
filed
on November 20,
2006. The
Complainant
reserves, and this Stipulation is without prejudice to, all rights
of
the State of
Illinois
against the
Respondent with respect to all other matters, including but
not limited
to,
the following:
a.
criminal liability;
b.
liability
for
future
violation
of
state, federal,
local, and common laws and/or
regulations;
c.
liability for natural resources damage arising out of the
alleged violations; and
d.
liability
or
claims
based on
the Respondent’s failure to satisfy the
requirements
of
this Stipulation.
Nothing in this Stipulation
is
intended
as
a
waiver, discharge,
release,
or
covenant
not to
sue for
any claim or cause of action,
administrative or judicial, civil or criminal, past or
future,
in
law or in
equity, which the State of
Illinois
or
the Illinois EPA may
have
against any person, as
defined by
Section 3.315 of the
Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.315
(2006), or entity other than the
Respondent.
F.
Correspondence, Reports and Other Documents
Any and
all correspondence, reports and any other documents
required
under this
Stipulation,
except for
penalty
payments,
shall
be
submitted as follows:
As to the
Complainant
Andrew
J.
Nicholas
Assistant Attorney
General
10
Environmental
Bureau
500
South Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
As to the
Illinois
EPA
Kyle
Davis
Assistant
Counsel
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1021
North
Grand Avenue
East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Dustin Berger
Inspector
Illinois
EPA
1021 North
Grand
Avenue
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
As to
the
Respondent
CT
Corporation
System
Registered
Agent
208
S.
LaSalle
St., Suite 814
Chicago,
IL
60604
Brian Konzen
Lueders,
Robertson
& Konzen,
LLC
1939
Delmar
Ave.
P.O.
Box
735
Granite
City, IL 62040
G.
Enforcement
and
Modification
of
Stipulation
1.
Upon
the entry
of the Board’s
Order
approving
and
accepting
this
Stipulation,
that
Order is
a
binding
and
enforceable
order of
the Board
and may
be enforced
as such
through
any and all
available
means.
H.
Execution
of
Stipulation
The undersigned
representatives
for each
party
to this Stipulation
certify
that
they are
fully
authorized
by the
party
whom
they represent
to
enter
into
the
terms
and conditions
of
this
11
Stipulation and to legally
bind them
to it.
WHEREFORE, the parties to this Stipulation request
that the
Board
adopt and accept
the
foregoing Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement as written.
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney
General
FOR THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
State of Illinois
PROTECTION
AGENCY
DOUGLAS P. SCOTT, Director
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN, Chief
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Enforcement!
Asbestos
Litigation Division
BY:
THOMAS DAVIS,
Chief
/2
.
Environmental Bureau
Ass
istant Attorney
General
BY:
/
/7
/ v
ROBER
A. MESSINA
DATE:
/
0
Chief
Legal Counsel
DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL
RECLAMATION
COMPANY
BY:_____________________
Name:
Title:
12
/7
fully
authorized
by
the
party
whom
they represent
to
enter
into
the terms
and
conditions
of
this
Stipulation
and
to legally
bind
them
to it.
WHEREFORE,
the
parties
to this
Stipulation
request
that
the
Board
adopt
and
accept
the
foregoing
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement
as
written.
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney
General
State
of Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement!
Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:
FOR
THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
THOMAS
DAVIS,
Chief
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
DOUGLAS
P.
SCOTT,
Director
DATE:
/‘2
7/ô
y
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
ENVIRONMENTAL RECLAMATION
COMPANY
BY:
BY.
ROBERTA.
MESSINA
a
/,)
Chief
Legal
Counsel
Name:
Title:
DATE:
“7’
12