CLERK’S
    OFFICE
    FEB 25
    2004
    ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    STATE OF ILLINOIS
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    PEOPLE
    OF THE
    STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCBO4-106
    )
    (Enforcement
    —
    Cost Recovery)
    THOMAS GRAY, STEVE WHYTE
    )
    GLADYS WHITE, LEONA CHILDRESS,
    )
    And WILLIAM MCCOY,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    NOTICE OF FILING
    To: Attached Service List
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February
    25,
    2004, I filed with the Clerk of the Illinois
    Pollution Control Board, Respondent WILLIAM MCCOY’S Appearance, Answer and
    Affirmative Defense, copies ofwhich are attached and served upon you.
    Respectfully submitted,
    RESPONDENT WILLIAM MCCOY
    BY:_
    Keith Harley, Attorney for WILLL~J
    MCCOY
    Keith Harley
    Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.
    205
    W. Monroe,
    4th
    Floor
    Chicago, IL
    60606
    (312) 726-2938
    (312) 726-5206 (fax)
    kharley~kentlaw.
    edu
    H
    SERVICE LIST
    Gerald T.
    Karr, Assistant Attorney General
    Office ofthe Attorney General
    Environmental Bureau
    188 W.
    Randolph Street, ~
    Floor
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Steve Whyte
    242
    W.
    150th
    Street
    Harvey, IL
    60426-205
    8
    Gladys Whyte
    242 W.
    150th
    Street
    Harvey, IL
    60426-205
    8
    Thomas Gray
    13163
    B.
    2500 South Road
    Momence, IL
    60954
    Carol Sudman, Hearing Officer
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    P.O. Box
    19274
    Springfield, IL 62794-9274
    February
    25,
    2004
    CLERK’S
    OFFICE
    FEB
    252004
    ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    STATE OF ILLINOIS
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    Pollution
    Control Board
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 04-106
    )
    (Enforcement
    —
    Cost Recovery)
    THOMAS GRAY, STEVE WHYTE
    )
    GLADYS WHITE, LEONA CHILDRESS,
    )
    And WILLIAM MCCOY,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    APPEARANCE
    I, KEITH HARLEY, an attorney, hereby enter the Appearance ofWILLIAM MCCOY,
    and m
    Appearance as Counsel for WILLIAM MCCOY, in the above matter.
    At!torney~sSignature
    a
    Date:
    February
    25,
    2004
    Keith Harley
    Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.
    205
    W. Monroe,
    4th
    Floor
    Chicago, IL 60606
    (312) 726-2938
    (312) 726-5206 (fax)
    kharley@kentlaw.edu
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, KEITH HARLEY, an attorney, hereby certif~,’
    that true copies ofthe foregoing
    Appearance were mailed by First Class Mail, by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail
    depositorylocated at220
    West Monroe, Chicago, Illinois in an envelope with sufficient
    postage prepaid, on February
    25,
    2004,
    to
    the following:
    Gerald T. Karr, Assistant Attorney General
    Office ofthe Attorney General
    Environmental Bureau
    188 W. Randolph Street,
    20th
    Floor
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Steve Whyte
    242 W.
    150th
    Street
    Harvey, IL 60426-2058
    Gladys Whyte
    242 W.
    150th
    Street
    Harvey, IL 60426-2058
    Thomas Gray
    13163 E. 2500 South Road
    Momence, IL
    60954
    Carol Sudman, Hearing Officer
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    P.O. Box 19274
    Springfield, IL 62794-9274
    Keith Harley, Attorney for W~
    McCoy
    Chicago Legal
    Clinic, Inc.
    205 W. Monroe,
    4th
    Floor
    Chicago IL 60606
    (312) 726-2938
    (312) 726-5206 (fax)
    kharley@kentlaw.edu
    CLERK’S OFFICE
    ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    I
    U_~J
    L
    ‘J
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    STATE OF ILLINOIS
    )
    Pollution
    Control Board
    Complainant,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 04-106
    )
    (Enforcement
    —
    Cost Recovery)
    THOMAS GRAY, STEVE WHYTE
    )
    GLADYS WHITE, LEONA CHILDRESS,
    )
    And WILLIAM MCCOY,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    )
    ANSWER and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    Now comes WILLIAM MCCOY by and through his attorney, KEITH HARLEY,
    and for
    his Answer and Affirmative Defense to the Complaint in the above-captioned case, states
    as follows:
    I. ANSWER
    1.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to
    form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    2.
    The Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.
    3.
    The Respondent denies knowledge
    and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    4.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proof thereof.
    5.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    6.
    The Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6.
    7.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    8.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    9.
    The Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
    1
    10.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to
    form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proof thereof.
    11.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    12.
    The Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 12.
    13.
    The Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 13.
    14.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient
    to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proof thereof.
    15.
    TheRespondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to
    form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    16.
    The Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 16.
    17.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to
    form a reasonable
    belief,
    but demands strict proofthereof.
    18.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief,
    but demands strict proofthereof.
    19.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    20.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    21.
    The Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 21.
    22.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proof thereof.
    23.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to
    form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proof thereof.
    24.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    25.
    The Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph
    25.
    26.
    The Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26.
    2
    27.
    The Respondent denies responsibility for reimbursing the State.
    As to the other
    allegations in Paragraph 27,
    the Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient
    to form a reasonable belief, but demands strict proof thereof.
    28.
    The Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 28.
    29.
    The Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 29.
    30.
    The Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 30.
    31.
    The Respondent denies knowledge and information sufficient to form a reasonable
    belief, but demands strict proofthereof.
    32.
    The Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32.
    II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    1.
    415 ILCS
    5/55.3(i)
    states in pertinent part:
    There shall be no liability under subsection (g) of this Section for a person
    otherwise liable who can establish by a preponderance ofthe evidence that the
    hazard created by the tires was caused solelyby.
    .
    .
    (3) an act or omission ofa third
    party other than an employee or agent, and other than a person whose act or
    omission occurs in connection with a contractual relationship with the person
    otherwise liable.
    2.
    The Respondent was given an ownership interest in parcel
    10-19-16-101-035
    (hereinafter “Respondent’s parcel”) in Momence, Kankakee County, illinois by his
    mother, Leona Childress.
    Respondent McCoy paid no consideration, but instead, was
    given this interest in the property as part ofLeona Childress’ estate planning.
    3.
    The Respondent never resided on this
    parcel, never used the parcel and never exerted
    any control over the parcel.
    4.
    At the time of transfer ofan ownership interest to Respondent McCoy, he was
    unaware that there were tires on the parcel.
    5.
    The Respondent’s parcel is adjacent to a parcel owned by Respondent Thomas Gray
    (hereinafter the “Gray parcel”).
    6.
    Thomas Gray was never an employee or agent ofRespondent McCoy.
    7.
    During all times relevant to
    this Complaint, Respondent McCoy had no contractual
    relationship with Thomas Gray.
    3
    8.
    At no time did Respondent McCoy authorize any personto
    have access or use of his
    parcel for any activities related to
    tire storage andlor disposal, nor did he employ or
    contract with any person for tire storage and/or disposal on his property.
    9.
    Respondent McCoy never engaged in any tire storage or disposal activities on his
    parcel or on any otherproperty.
    10. Respondent McCoy believed all tire storage and/or disposal activities were confined
    to
    the adjacent Gray parcel.
    11.
    At no time did Respondent McCoy, who rarelyvisited the parcel,
    observe any
    storage and/or disposal of tires on his parcel.
    12.
    Anytires that came
    to be stored and/or disposed ofon Respondent McCoy’s property
    were placed there without his knowledge and consent.
    13.
    That any hazard created by the tires on the Respondent’s parcel was caused solelyby
    an act or omission ofa third party other than an employee or agent ofRespondent
    McCoy, and other than a person whose act or omission occurred in connection with a
    contractual relationship with Respondent McCoy.
    14.
    Along with his mother, Respondent Leona Childress, respondent McCoy consistently
    communicated to the IL EPA that he had this defense, and that it created sufficient cause
    for him not to
    take preventive or corrective action.
    Respondent McCoy further
    communicated to
    IL EPA that requiringhim to remove tires was impractical because of
    his physical condition and very limited
    financial means.
    15. Respondents Childress
    and McCoy sold the parcel on or about December 9,
    2002 for
    a purchase price virtually identical to
    the price Childress paid for the property in 1979.
    16.
    Respondent McCoy has never derived any benefit from the disposal or removal of
    tires made necessaryby the activities of Thomas Gray.
    WHEREFORE, the Respondent WILLIAM MCCOY, respectfully requests the Board to
    enter an order that:
    1. he is not the owner and/or operator ofwaste and used tires;
    2. he is not liable to reimburse the State for costs it incurred in funding the cleanup of the
    site;
    3.
    in light ofhis
    defense, he had sufficient cause not to take corrective or preventive
    action;
    4. he is not liable forpunitive damages;
    4
    5.
    he is not liable for any costs relating to this proceeding;
    6.
    he is entitled to such otherrelief as the Board deems equitable and just.
    RESPONDE
    T WILLIAM MCCOY
    BY:___
    Keith Harley, Attorney for William
    Coy
    Keith Harley
    Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.
    205 W. Monroe,
    ~
    Floor
    Chicago, IL 60606
    (3 12) 726-2938
    (312) 726-5206 (fax)
    kharley(~ikentlaw.edu
    5
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, KEITH HARLEY, an attorney,
    hereby certify that true copies ofthe foregoingAnswer
    and Affirmative Defense were mailedby First Class Mail, by depositing the same in the
    U.S. Mail depositorylocated at 220 West Monroe, Chicago, Illinois in an envelope with
    sufficient postage prepaid, on February
    25,
    2004,
    to the following:
    Gerald T.
    Karr, Assistant Attorney General
    Office ofthe Attorney General
    Environmental Bureau
    188 W. Randolph Street,
    20th
    Floor
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Steve Whyte
    242 W.
    150th
    Street
    Harvey, IL 60426-205 8
    Gladys Whyte
    242 W.
    150th
    Street
    Harvey, IL 60426-2058
    Thomas Gray
    13163 E. 2500 South Road
    Momence, IL 60954
    Carol Sudman, Hearing Officer
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    1021
    North Grand Avenue East
    P.O. Box
    19274
    Springfield, IL 62794-9274
    Keith Harley, Attorney for Wi1F
    m McCoy
    Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.
    205 W. Monroe,
    4th
    Floor
    Chicago
    IL 60606
    (312)
    726-2938
    (312) 726-5206 (fax)
    kharley@kentlaw.edu
    6

    Back to top