ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 26,
1986
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 84—118
RICHARD C.
McCORMICK,
Respondent.
MS. NANCY
J.
RICH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND MS. VIRGINIA
YANG,
ESQ.,
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FOR THE AGENCY, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE COMPLAINANT.
HAROLD M.
JENNINGS
& ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(MR. ALAN
JEFFREY NOVICK,
OF COUNSEL),
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by W.J.
Nega):
This matter comes before the Board on
a
thirteen—count
Complaint filed
on August
3,
1984 by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency) pertaining
to the Respondent’s
operation of
a 17.6 acre solid waste management
site located
on
the north
side
of
the City of Minonk
in Woodford County,
Illinois
(Minonk site).
Count
I of
the Complaint alleged
that,
from October
17, 1979
until August
3,
1984,
the Respondent failed to apply adequate
daily cover
on all exposed refuse
at
the end of each working day
in violation of
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 807.301 and 807.305(a)
and
Sections 21(a)
and 21(d)(2)
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (Act).
Count
II alleged
that,
from June
18, 1980
until August
3,
1984,
the Respondent failed
to apply
the appropriate intermediate
cover
on all surfaces of the landfill where no additional
refuse
was deposited within 60 days
in violation of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
807.301 and 807.305(b)
and Sections 21(a)
and 2l(d)(2) of the
Act.
Count
III alleged
that,
from November
26,
1980 until
August
3,
1984, the Respondent
failed
to apply the requisite
final
cover
at
the Minonk site
in violation of 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
807.301 and 807.305(c)
and Sections 21(a)
and 2l(d)(2)
of
the
Act.
—2—
Count
IV alleged
that, from April
16, 1980
until August
3,
1984, the Respondent failed
to properly spread
and compact refuse
in violation of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 807.301 and 807.303(b)
and
Sections 21(a)
and 21(d)(2)
of the Act.
Count V alleged that, from February
6,
1980 until August
3,
1984
(including, but not limited to, April 16,
1980,
September
12,
1980, April
9,
1981,
July 15,
1982, and
September
23,
1982), the Respondent
failed
to have sufficient
equipment, personnel,
and supervision
at the site
in violation of
35
Ill. Mm.
Code 807.301 and 807.304 and Sections 21(a)
and
2l(d)(2)
of the Act.
Count VI alleged
that, from November
26,
1980 until
August
3, 1984,
the Respondent failed to collect and remove
litter daily from the site
in violation of
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
807.301 and 807.306 and Sections
21(a)
and 21(d)(2)
of the Act.
Count VII alleged
that, from October
17,
1979 until August
3,
1984,
the Respondent failed
to conduct salvaging operations
at
a remote portion of the Minonk site in
a sanitary manner
in
violation of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.307 and Sections
21(a)
and
21(d)(2) of
the Act.
Count VIII alleged
that,
from October
27, 1981 until August
3,
1984 (including, but not limited
to, August
25,
1982,
September 23,
1982, October
12, 1982,
and November
10,
1982),
the
Respondent accepted hazardous wastes or liquid wastes and sludges
without being properly authorized
to do so by Agency permit in
violation of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 807.301
arid 807.310(b)
and
Sections
21(a)
and 21(d)(2)
of the Act.
Count IX alleged
that,
from November 16, 1979
until
August
3,
1984,
the Respondent periodically allowed the open
burning
of agricultural, domicile and landscape wastes generated
off—site
in violation of
35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.311
and Sections 21(a)
and 21(d)(2)
of the Act.
Count X alleged that,
from December
31,
1979
until August
3,
1984,
the Respondent failed
to take adequate measures
to monitor
and control leachate
at the site, thereby allowing liquid wastes
and contaminants
to seep out of the landfill
in violation of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.314(e)
and Sections 21(a)
and
21(d)(2)
of the Act.
Count XI alleged
that, from April
16,
1980
until August
3,
1984
(including, but not limited
to, January 19,
1982, May
24,
1982, June
22,
1982, July 15,
1982, September
23,
1982,
September 21,
1983 and October
21, 1983),
the Respondent allowed
the storage and disposal
of waste on portions on the Minonk site
that have not been authorized by Agency permits for such use
in
violation of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.302 and Sections
21(a), 2l(d)(l),
and 21(d)(2)
of the Act.
—3—
Count XII alleged
that, from October
17,
1979 until
August
3,
1984 (including, but not limited
to, November
16,
1979,
February 26,
1982,
March 10, 1982, April
14,
1982,
and
September
21,
1983), the Respondent allowed the use of mining
waste from a gob pile for daily cover
in violation of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.302 and Sections 21(a),
21(d)(l), and
21(d)(2)
of the Act.
Count XIII alleged
that, from January 15,
1980 until
August
3, 1984,
the Respondent
failed
to submit the necessary
quarterly groundwater monitoring
reports to the Agency
in
violation of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.301 and
807.302 and Sections
21(a),
21(d)(l)
and 2l(d)(2)
of the Act.
A hearing was held on February
4, 1986 at which counsel
for
both parties and some members of the public were
in attendance.
No witnesses were called
to testify by either party, although
a
number
of the people
in attendance
at the hearing from the public
were sworn and presented comments and questions.
(R. 14—19).
The parties filed
a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
on
February
19, 1986.
At the February
4,
1986 hearing
(R.
7;
R.
20),
and within
the proposed settlement agreement itself
(Stip.
13),
the parties
requested that the Board expedite
its consideration of this
case.
On page 13 of the Stipulation, the parties indicate
that:
“The parties respectfully request the Board
to
expedite its review of
this agreement because
it contains an agreed permit revocation or
if
specific conditions are met,
a permit
transfer, one of which will occur within 120
days after
the date of signature by the
parties..
.“
The Board hereby grants the parties’
joint motion for
expedited consideration in the instant action.
BACKGROUND
The present case involves the Respondent’s operations at the
17.6
acre landfill site located
on the north side of the City of
Minonk in Woodford County,
Illinois.
The property in question
has,
at all
times pertinent
to the violations alleged
in the
Complaint, been owned
and controlled by Respondent Richard
C.
McCormick.
Pursuant to the Agency’s Division of Land Pollution Control
(DLPC) Development Permit No.
l975—76—DE,
the Respondent began
development of the Minonk site
in 1975.
(See:
Exhibit
1
of
the
Stip.).
Subsequently, on November
15,
1979,
the Agency granted
the Respondent DLPC Operating Permit No. 1975—76—OP/Trenches 8,
—4—
9,
and 10 only (DLPC
—
8,
9,
10) which authorized
the Respondent
to operate
a solid waste management
site in trenches
8,
9, and 10
only at the Minonk property,
by storing or disposing of refuse
or
waste generated by activities other
than those of the
Respondent.
(See: Exhibit
2 of the Stip.).
On April
2,
1981,
the Agency granted the Respondent DLPC Operating Permit No.
1975—76—OP/Trench
11 only
(DLPC—ll) which authorized disposal
and
storage operations
in Trench 11 only at the Minonk site.
(See:
Exhibit
3 of the Stip.).
On January
21, 1982,
the Agency granted
the Respondent DLPC Operating Permit No. 1975—76—OP/Trench
12
only
(DLPC—12) which authorized storage and disposal operations
only
in Trench
12 at the Minonk
site.
(See:
Exhibit
4
of the
Stip..)
In each of the Operating Permits
for
specific trenches at
the Minonk
site,
the Agency inserted special conditions
in the
DLPC permits to delineate the authorized scope of the
Respondent’s operations.
For example, Special Condition
1 of
DLPC—8,
9,
10 specifically states that
“this permit
is for
operation of trenches
8,
9,
and 10 only”.
Similarly,
Special
Condition
1 of DLPC—ll
reads that
“this permit
is for the
operation
of trench 11 only”.
Concomitantly, Special Condition
1
of DLPC—12 indicates that “this permit
is
for
the operation of
trench 12 only”.
(Stip.
3).
In
a letter dated November
27, 1979 which was sent
to the
Respondent by the Agency’s Division of Land/Noise Pollution
Control Hydrogeology Unit pursuant
to Special Condition
5 of DLPC
8,
9,
10,
the water monitoring requirements of that permit were
clarified as follows:
“You are reminded that quarterly water
monitoring reports are due
in this office by
the 15th of January, April,
July,
and
October.
Therefore,
your first quarterly
reports are due by January
15,
1980.”
(See:
Exhibit
5 of
the Stip.).
The Respondent, Richard
C.
McCormick, previously operated
a
general refuse disposal site
in Evans Township, southeast of
Magnolia
in Marshall County,
Illinois
(Magnolia site).
On
January 13,
1972,
the Agency filed
a Complaint against the
Respondent
for open dumping of garbage and refuse,
open burning
of refuse, and
failure
to provide daily cover
at the Magnolia
site.
On January 16, 1973,
the Board
ordered McCormick to cease
and desist from all violations of the Act and of the rules and
regulations
for refuse disposal
sites and facilities
and ordered
McCormick
to pay
a $250.00 penalty.
(See:
Opinion and Order
of
January 16,
1973
in PCB 72—16,
IEPA v.
Richard McCormick).
—5—
It
is stipulated that McCormick’s subsequent failure
to pay
the $250.00 penalty ordered
in PCB 72—16 “resulted in
a Board
Order
follow—up, which ordered McCormick
to pay the penalty.”
(Stip.
4).
McCormick was also subject
to a second Board action
for
failure
to properly close
and cover
the Magnolia site
in
PCB 75—406.
On May 20,
1976,
the Board ordered McCormick
to
properly close
the Magnolia
site and
to pay
a penalty of
$5,000.00.
(See:
Opinion and Order
of the Board of May 20,
1976
in PCB 75—406,
IEPA v.
Richard C.
McCormick,
21 PCB 423).
However,
the parties have stipulated that “McCormick failed
to
comply with the Board order
in PCB 75—406 necessitating actions
for Board
order follow—ups
in the Circuit Court
for
the 10th
Judicial Circuit in February 1976,
No. 76—E—291 and
in December
1978,
No.
78—E—59”.
(Stip.
5).
Moreover,
it
is stipulated that
“2,600
is still unpaid of the penalty required of McCormick by
PCB order
75—406 and Circuit Court order 76—E—29l”.
(Stip.
5).
Additionally, McCormick was also subject
to
a prior Board
action involving the Minonk site for operating without the
requisite Agency permits.
(See: Opinion and Order
of the Board
of February 11,
1976
in PCB 75—258,
IEPA v. Richard
C.
McCormick,
20 PCB 17).
On February 11,
1976,
the Board ordered McCormick in
PCB 75—258
to cease
and desist operations
at the Minonk site
until
all appropriate permits were obtained from the Agency and
ordered McCormick
to pay
a penalty of $2,500.00.
Nonetheless,
it
is stipulated that “McCormick continued
operating
the Minonk Site
in violation of the Board order
in
PCB 75—258,
necessitating
a Board
order follow—up from the
Circuit Court
for the 11th Judicial Circuit
in March,
1977,
No.
77—CH—l”.
(Stip.
5).
The parties have indicated that “on
October
15,
1979 the Circuit Court
for
the
11th Judicial Circuit
ordered McCormick
to cease and desist from any operations
at the
Minonk Site until
the appropriate Agency permits were obtained,
No. 77—CH—l”.
(Stip.
5).
After
the Agency issued
the required
permits, McCormick resumed operations
at the Minonk site in
November of 1979.
(Stip.
5—6).
The parties have stipulated
that McCormick’s outstanding and
unpaid penalties due and owing
to the State of Illinois as a
result of prior enforcement actions against him come to
a total
of $8,016.74 which has been derived
as follows:
PCB 75—406
and 76—E—29l
$2,600.00
78—E—59
$5,000.00
77—CH—l
$
416.74
$8,016.74
(total due)
(Stip.
6).
—6—
STIPULATION OF VIOLATIONS
In the proposed settlement agreement,
the Respondent has
admitted virtually all of the violations alleged
in the
thirteen—count Complaint filed by the Agency on August
3,
1984.
The Respondent
has admitted the following specific violations:
(1)
on at least eight occasions between October
17,
1979
and
October
21, 1983,
he failed
to apply adequate daily cover on all
exposed
refuse at
the Minonk site
in violation of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 807.301 and 807.305(a)
and Sections
21(a)
and 21(d) (2)
of
the Act;
(2)
on at least eight occasions between June
18,
1980
and October
21, 1983,
he failed
to apply the appropriate
intermediate cover
at the Minonk site
in violation
of
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.305(b)
and Sections 21(a)
and 21(d)(2)
of the Act;
(3)
on at least eight occasions between November
26,
1980 and October 21,
1983,
he failed
to apply the requisite
final
cover
at
the Minonk site
in violation of 35
Ill. Adm. Code
807.301 and 807.305(c)
and Sections
21(a)
and 21(d)(2)
of the
Act;
(4)
on at least six occasions between April
16,
1980 and
October
21, 1983,
he failed
to properly spread
and compact refuse
at the Minonk site
in violation of
35 Ill. Mm.
Code 807.301 and
807.303(b)
and Sections
21(a)
and 2l(d)(2) of the Act;
(5)
on at
least
three occasions between February
6,
1980 and September 23,
1982,
he
failed to provide sufficient equipment,
personnel,
and
supervision at
the Minonk site in violation of
35 Iii. Mm. Code
807.301 and 807.304 and Sections 21(a)
and 2l(d)(2)
of the Act;
(6)
on
at least four occasions between November
26,
1980 and
January 11, 1983,
he failed
to collect and remove litter daily
from the Minorik site in violation of
35 Ill. Mm. Code 807.301
and 807.306 and Sections
21(a)
and 2l(d)(2)
of the Act;
(7)
on
at
least
four occasions between October
17,
1979
and October
21,
1983,
he failed
to conduct salvaging operations at
a remote
portion of the Minonk site
in
a sanitary manner
in violation of
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.307 and Sections 21(a)
and
21(d)(2)
of the Act;
(8)
on
at least
four occasions between
October
27,
1981 and November 10, 1982,
he accepted
industrial or
hazardous waste without being
authorized
to do so by Agency
permit in violation of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.310(b)
and Sections 21(a)
and 21(d)(2)
of the Act;
(9)
on at least seven
occasions between November
16, 1979 and June 15,
1984,
he allowed
the open burning of waste generated off the landfill site in
violation of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.311 and Sections
21(a)
and 21(d)(2)
of the Act;
(10)
on at least
three occasions
between December
31, 1979
and April
15,
1983,
he
failed to take
adequate measures to monitor and control leachate
at the Minonk
site
in violation of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.314(e)
and
Sections
21(a)
and 2l(d)(2)
of the Act;
(11)
on at least four
occasions between April 16,
1980 and October 21,
1983, he allowed
the
storage and disposal of waste on portions of the Minonk site
that have not been authorized by Agency permits
for such use
in
violation of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.302 and Sections
21(a), 2l(d)(l)
and 2l(d)(2) of
the Act;
(12)
on at least
six
—7—
occasions between October
17, 1979
and September
21,
1983, he
allowed the use of mining waste
from
a gob pile as daily cover
in
violation of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.301 and 807.302 and Sections
21(a),
21(d)(l), and 2l(d)(2)
of the Act;
and
(13) on fifteen
separate occasions between January 15,
1980 and August
3,
1984,
he failed
to submit the requisite quarterly groundwater
monitoring
reports to the Agency in violation of 35
Ill.
Adin.
Code 807.301 and 807.302 and Sections 21(a),
21(d)(l)
and
2l(d)(2)
of the Act.
(Stip.
8—12).
CAUSES AND IMPACT OF NONCOMPLIANCE
In reference
to the causes of the Respondent’s noncompliance
with applicable standards,
the parties have stipulated
that
“McCormick’s consistent inability to comply with the Act, the
Waste Disposal Regulations and his permit requirements
is caused
by improper site management
and waste disposal practices,
including but not limited
to insufficient employees and failure
to introduce any procedures
to either remedy past violations or
achieve compliance”.
(Stip.
12).
At the hearing, the
Respondent’s attorney characterized the causes of the
Respondent’s noncompliance
as follows:
“...Mr.
McCormick,
over many years, was, due
to economic reasons and due
to personnel
reasons, was trying
to run a landfill
site...with
one person when
he needed
two or
three.
That’s
the reason
for the
violations...I don’t think anybody around here
believes that Dick McCormick
is
a
bad guy.
He
just got
in over his head and was not able
to
follow each and every one of the P.C.B. regs
that exist...”
(R.
11—12).
The parties have stipulated that “McCormick’s ability
to
operate
the
site in
a safe and legal manner
has markedly
deteriorated during the time period
in which violations alleged
in the Agency’s complaint have occurred.”
(Stip.
12).
As
an
example of the deterioration
in the Respondent’s ability to
properly operate the Minonk site,
the Agency noted that its first
eight
inspections of the site in late 1979
and 1980 revealed 19
alleged violations,
while
its last ten inspections prior
to
the
filing
of the Complaint disclosed 60 alleged violations.
(Stip.
12).
Additionally,
it
is stipulated
that:
(1) McCormick’s
inability to properly operate the Minonk landfill requires that
the site be shut down
(either permanently or until
the requisite
site cleanup
is begun);
(2) McCormick’s landfill operational
practices have deprived the Woodford/Marshall
county area of its
only suitable permitted local solid waste landfill;
(3) McCormick
has derived economic benefit from his failure
to comply with
—8—
applicable permit conditions,
Board regulations, and
the Act,
and
(4)
McCormick lacks the necessary financial and other
resources
to manage
or operate the Minonk site at any time
in the
future.
(Stip. 12—13).
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
In
reference to the rationale for major portions of the
proposed settlement agreement, the Respondent’s attorney
indicated at the hearing
that:
“...we believe that we have
a gentleman by the
name of Mr.
Elmer Strong who runs Central
Illinois Disposal Company who would be
a
competent,
not only competent, operator of the
landfill
but also somebody with the economic
wherewithal
to run this landfill
in a manner
that will comply with P.C.B.
regs...we signed
this agreement based on our hope that
——
based
on our belief that Mr. Strong does have the
dollars and the expertise to run a landfill.
And
as we sign off
arid say we will pay $8,000
in 120 days and $500
a month thereafter,
that’s because we have
an agreement with Mr.
Strong.
He will apply
for
a transfer
of the
permit to his corporation and
he understands
the problems that are involved.
We’ve gone
over
in our own mind
a timetable of the things
that need
to be done
in order
to bring the
landfill
up
to P.C.B.
standards,
and we
believe
that he can do
it...”
(R.
11—12).
The proposed settlement agreement provided that the
Respondent admitted the previously specified stipulated
violations
and agreed
to:
(1)
cease
all operations at the site
(including,
but not limited
to,
the acceptance of waste)
and
forever
refrain from any and all management activities at the
site;
(2) attempt to transfer
his permits
to
a qualified site
operator
or operators;
(3)
remain responsible
for
any and all
cleanup and remedial work that the Agency deems necessary at
the
Minonk
site;
(4) pay all unpaid penalties resulting
from prior
legal
actions for past violations which total $8,016.74;
and
(5) pay a stipulated penalty of $16,000.00
for violations that
occurred
at the Minonk site between October
17,
1979 and
August
3, 1984 in monthly installments of $500.00 each until
the
entire
total stipulated penalty
is paid
in
full.
(Stip. 13—18).
Additionally, the parties have stipulated that the Agency
will revoke all
of McCormick’s permits
to develop and operate
the
Minonk site (including
all supplemental letters and conditions)
—9—
120 days after
the
signing of the stipulated agreement by all
parties.
(Stip.
14).
It
is also stipulated that the $16,000.00 agreed—upon
penalty for violations
in PCB 84—118 was derived
in the following
manner:
“The Agency has estimated and McCormick
agrees that McCormick realized estimated
economic savings of approximately $8,000.00 as
a result of his failure
to conduct quarterly
groundwater monitoring at the site and submit
the results
to the Agency
for the
15 quarters
between January 15,
1980 and August
3,
1984.
The $8,000.00 figure
is
an average contract
fee
for groundwater monitoring services by
three Minonk—area laboratories:
Daily
Analytical Laboratories, Arro Laboratories,
Inc.,
and TEKLAB.
The contract fees including
sampling all wells on site, performing
required analytical
tests
for all wells
on
site,
and performing required analytical
tests
for all parameters
required by McCormick’s
Agency permit and supplemental letter.
Mailing of the analytical data
to the Agency
on
a quarterly basis
is also included
in the
contract price.
The propriety of an additional $8,000.00
penalty,
for
a total of $16,000.00
is
justified on several grounds.
First, the
$8,000.00 represents
an assessment
in excess
of $100.00 per violation against McCormick for
each such charge of
the Agency’s complaint
that McCormick has admitted herein.
Second,
the $8,000.00 figure
is equal
to and more
importantly,
no less than the amount of
penalty assessed for the severe violations of
failing
to monitor
and hence protect the
groundwater
at the
site.
Finally,
the
$8,000.00 amount can also be viewed
as
a
number approximately equal
to McCormick’s past
unpaid penalties,
or
as an
inflated estimate
of statutory interest due on the unpaid
penalties,
such inflation included
as
a
measure of the aggravating factor of
McCormick’s prior
failure
to pay the
penalties.”
(Stip.
16—17).
—10—
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed
settlement agreement,
the Board has taken
into consideration all
the facts
and circumstances in light of the specific criteria
delineated
in Section 33(c)
of the Act and finds the settlement
agreement acceptable under
35
Ill. Adm. Code 103.180.
In light
of the Respondent’s admitted lack of the requisite financial
resources to manage or operate
the Minonk site, the Board
believes that the agreed—upon restriction on the Respondent’s
future operation of that specific site is
a reasonable limitation
upon the scope of his activities.
(See: Opinion and Order
of
February 6,
1986 in PCB 84—120
and PCB 84—121
(consolidated),
IEPA v. Atlas Service Company,
Inc.
and Ralph Waller
& Thomas
Wailer)
As admitted
in the Stipulation, the Board
finds that the
Respondent, Richard
C.
McCormick, has violated 35 Ill. Adm.
Code
807.301,
807.302, 807.303(b), 807.304, 807.305(a),
807.305(b),
807.305(c),
807.306,
807.307, 807.310(b), 807.311 and 807.314(e)
and Sections 21(a), 21(d),
21(d)(1), and 21(d)(2)
of the Act.
The Respondent will be ordered
to follow the agreed—upon
compliance plan,
to pay the $8,016.74 outstanding penalties for
past violations,
and
to pay the stipulated penalty of $16,000.00
in monthly installments of $500.00 each until
the entire
stipulated penalty
is paid
in full.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s
findings of fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
It
is the Order
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
The parties’
joint motion for expedited
consideration of the instant case
is hereby
granted.
2.
As admitted
in the Stipulation, Respondent
Richard
C.
McCormick has violated
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
807.301, 807.302,
807.303(b), 807.304, 807.305(a),
807.305(b), 807.305(c),
807.306, 807.307,
807.310(b),
807.311,
and 807.314(e)
and Sections
21(a),
2l(d)(l)
and 21(d)(2)
of the Act.
3.
As of the date of the signing of the stipulated
agreement
in PCB 84—118 by McCormick, the Attorney
General and the Agency, McCormick agreed to,
and
shall cease,
all operations at the Minonk
landfill
site (including, but not limited
to, the acceptance
of waste)
and
shall henceforth
forever refrain from
any and all management activities at the Minonk
site.
—11—
4.
As per the stipulated agreement between the
parties, all of McCormick’s permits
to develop and
operate the Minonk site (including all supplemental
letters and
conditions) will
be revoked by the
Agency 120 days after
the signing of the stipulated
agreement by all
the parties.
5.
Because the value of preserving
the Woodford and
Marshall county—area
residents’
proximity to
a
permitted solid waste disposal site requires that
McCormick be given
a limited amount of time to
transfer his permits
to a qualified site operator
or operators, within 120 days of the date
of the
signing of the stipulated agreement
in PCB 84—118
(after which time the permits will
be automatically
revoked),
the Agency may approve the transfer of
McCormick’s permits
to qualified transferee(s) who
agree to perform any and all cleanup and remedial
work that the Agency deems necessary at the site.
McCormick’s permit transfer application must
provide
for
all appropriate
site cleanup, planning,
and management practices,
including but not limited
to:
a)
a remedial cleanup plan including but not
limited
to final cover
for inactive areas,
proposals
for erosion control,
including drainage
of water
to prevent erosion, grading, seeding,
and
recontouring
site elevations
to
a ratio
of no
greater
than two horizontal
to one vertical;
b)
a
closure plan
in accordance with Section 807,
Subpart
E of the Waste Disposal Regulations;
c)
a
post—closure plan
in accordance with Section 807,
Subpart
B of
the Waste Disposal Regulations;
d)
a
financial assurance plan
in accordance with Section
807, Subpart F of the Waste Disposal Regulations,
and
e)
a proposal
for groundwater monitoring
in
accordance with Section 807 of the Waste Disposal
Regulations.
6.
McCormick
is,
and continues
to be, responsible
for
any and all cleanup and remedial work that the
Agency deems necessary at the site.
In the event
that McCormick’s permits for the site are revoked
and not
transferred, McCormick shall
submit
appropriate plans
for remedial cleanup, closure,
post—closure and groundwater monitoring as
described
in item #5 above
to the Agency
no later
than thirty
(30) days after
the revocation of his
permits.
McCormick shall thereafter complete all
cleanup and other
remedial work required by the
—12—
Agency no later
than sixty
(60)
days after
the
revocation of his permits.
7.
McCormick shall pay his outstanding penalties from
past violations which
total $8,016.74.
McCormick
shall pay such penalty no later
than 120 days after
the signing of the stipulated agreement
in
PCB 84-118 by the Attorney General, the Agency and
McCormick.
Payment shall be made by certified
check or money order made payable
to the State
of
Illinois and mailed
to:
Office of
the
Illinois Attorney General
Environmental Control Division
State of Illinois Center
100 West Randolph Street
13th Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60601
8.
McCormick shall pay the $16,000.00 stipulated
penalty in the present action for violations
that
occurred
at the Minonk site between October
17,
1979 and August
3,
1984
in monthly installments of
five hundred dollars
($500.00)
each.
The monthly
installments shall begin on the 150th day following
the signing of the stipulated agreement
in
PCB 84—118 by the Attorney General, McCormick and
the Agency.
Subsequent monthly payments shall be
due on the 1st day of each month and shall
be made
until
the entire stipulated penalty of $16,000.00
is paid
in full.
Payments shall
be made by
certified check or money order made payable to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Trust
Fund and
mailed to:
Office of the Illinois Attorney General
Environmental Control Division
State of Illinois Center
100 West Randolph Street
13th Floor
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
9.
The installment payment provisions of
the
stipulated agreement
in PCB 84—118
shall become
null and void and the full amount of unpaid
penalties from the case
at bar and prior actions
will become immediately due
if any of the scheduled
payments are not submitted
in accordance with
paragraph
E on pages 15—17 of the Stipulation and
Proposal for
Settlement.
—13—
10.
The Respondent shall comply with all the
terms and
conditions of
the Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement filed on February 19,
1986, which is
incorporated by reference as
if fully
set
forth
herein.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member John G. Anderson concurred and Board Member
J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
I,
Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
~
day of
~
,
1986 by a vote
of
________.
/
Dorothy M.7Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
