BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE )
    OF ILLINOIS, )
    )
    Complainant, )
    )
    v. ) No. PCB 96-237
    )
    ESG WATTS, INC., an Iowa )
    corporation, )
    )
    Respondent. )
    Illinois Pollution Control Board hearing taken by and on behalf of both
    sides on April 16, 1997.
    Reporter: Angela K.
    Sievers, RPR, CSR - #084-004102
    BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    v. No. PCB 96-237
    ESG WATTS, INC., an Iowa
    corporation,
    Respondent.
    APPEARANCES:
    Hearing Officer: Deborah L. Frank
    For People: Office of Attorney General
    by Thomas Davis, Esq.
    For Respondent: Larry A.
    Woodward, Esq.
    The Illinois Pollution Control Board hearing was taken by and on
    behalf of both sides on April 16, 1997, at the State Police Training
    Center, Third Floor, 600 South Second Street, Springfield, Illinois,
    before Angela K.
    Sievers, a Notary Public and Certified Shorthand
    Reporter.

    HEARING OFFICER: The hearing before us today is People versus ESG
    Watts, Inc., PCB 96-237. A hearing officer order has already been
    entered establishing a briefing schedule and the complainant's brief has
    actually already been mailed, I don't know if it's been filed yet with
    the Board, if they've received it yet. We're here for purposes of
    allowing any interested members of the public to participate. At this
    time, there are no members of the public although we will wait for 15 or
    20 minutes to see if any show up. If you guys want to go ahead and make
    your appearances on the record and I don't think you have anything to
    say but if you have anything for the record. Mr. Davis?
    MR. DAVIS: Thank you. My name is Thomas Davis, I'm with the
    Illinois Attorney General's office on behalf of the People.
    MR. WOODWARD: My name is Larry A
    Woodward, I'm corporate counsel
    for Watts Trucking Service, Inc. and I'm entering my appearance for ESG
    Watts, Inc. a subsidiary of Watts Trucking Service, Inc. I do have
    something to say for the record. We admit the allegations of the
    amended complaint provided there's people agree that it only applies to
    events that occurred on or after October 15, 1994, which the filing of
    the last amended complaint and PCB 94-127 was October 14th, 1994. In
    addition, there's an allegation that there was an amount submitted with
    a significant amount in excess of 1,500,000. In fact, it was 1,510,000
    and some dollars. However, there was an amount of $119,500 included in
    that that were not required to be included in it, in a closure/post-
    closure care plan estimate, and we're only admitting that we failed to
    comply with funding $1,391,090 for that time period.
    HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
    MR. DAVIS: We agree with what Mr.
    Woodward has said. As far as
    our pleading, it is obviously a continuation of some compliance problems
    which were the subject in 94-127. We're not trying to get from the
    Board additional penalties for violation that the Board had already
    adjudicated in that case, we just felt it necessary so that the Board
    would comprehend to put in our pleading some information that we would
    characterize more as background provided context. Because when the
    Board issued its final orders in 94-127, the Board made a statement to
    the effect that Watts is now in compliance. That statement has been
    taken out of context and attempted to be used in the pending court case
    to avoid Court sanctions and so forth. And we wanted to put the
    statement in more of an appropriate context and acknowledge as the Board
    was attempting to do in its order simply that at some point in time, and
    if my memory serves me well, this would have been September 1995 cost
    estimates had been submitted. We acknowledge that, however, as we put
    in your pleadings, those cost estimates such as Mr.
    Woodward has just
    represented were not approved and so there really was no time during
    1995 that Watts was in compliance with those cost estimate revision
    requirements. Now if any of this is confusing to those of us present, I
    can well appreciate that and that's why we tried to set it out in our
    pleading so that the Board would have a context. Thank you.
    HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Anything else, Mr.
    Woodward?
    MR. WOODWARD: I believe we submitted prior. If we haven't, I
    tender the affidavit of Arthur
    Evans.
    HEARING OFFICER: That's already been submitted to the Board and
    filed with them. Is there anything else?
    MR. WOODWARD: And I thought what you had indicated we were going
    to state for the record that Mr. Watts' testimony at the Viola hearing
    and also Mr. Taylor's testimony and Mr.
    Evans' testimony would be
    considered as part of this record also.

    HEARING OFFICER: Yes. And that is recorded in PCB 96-233 and that
    should be from the first day of hearing in that case which I believe was
    March 15th.
    MR. WOODWARD: 13th, one of the two.
    HEARING OFFICER: March 13th, yeah, you're right. So that the
    Board can find it easily and that was agreed to at that time. I believe
    the record in 96-233 reflects that but now this record does also.
    MR. WOODWARD: And then one final matter is we had agreed in PCB
    96-233 that the record would remain open up until a reply brief was due.
    I would request the same thing in this action because we have submitted
    the necessary documents to RTC for them to pursue filing financial
    assurance in the amounts required. But I take it they have not
    submitted those yet to the Agency from my conversation with Mr. Davis.
    MR. DAVIS: Well my only comment would be that it's the
    permittee's
    obligation not some third party. And if and when there is compliance,
    presumably I'll be told and I would have no problem with the
    respondent's submitting proof that I've upgraded the financial
    assurance. After all, that's why we've taken this litigation.
    HEARING OFFICER: Right. Okay. Then the record will remain open
    until the reply brief date. If information comes in after that time,
    you'll need to move the Board to allow the information. Is there
    anything further before we go off the record?
    MR. WOODWARD: I have nothing further.
    HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Let's go ahead and go off the record and
    we'll wait for probably ten more minutes and then close it.
    (An off-the-record discussion was held)
    HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record. It is 10:20, no
    members of the public have shown up for the hearing so we are going to
    go ahead and close the hearing record and everything else will be
    written briefs and any submittals that Watts needs to make.
    MR. WOODWARD: Except for the right to submit evidence of
    compliance.
    HEARING OFFICER: Right.
    MR. DAVIS: We don't object to that but as we talked about off the
    record, if for instance somebody on the company's behalf submits
    financial assurance in a form that's not yet been approved, that's going
    to have to be reviewed by the Agency and there's a chance it might be
    rejected. If on the other hand there's a deposit into the already
    approved trust fund, then that's automatically in compliance. So I
    suppose without re-
    nigging on any commitments, the only thing I would
    suggest is that if there is a subsequent denial by the Agency at that
    point pursuant to the proper pleading with an affidavit and so forth, I
    would probably submit something to the Board advising them of the action
    taken by the Agency. It's our hope, of course, that the
    permittee in
    this case can come up with the additional money that's due under the
    permits and that would satisfy our compliance concerns.
    HEARING OFFICER: Okay. I think the whole idea is for the Board to
    know the exact state of where things are at. So if the Agency then acts
    and for some reason denies, then that would be information that the
    Board would want. But, you know, at this point it's too early to tell
    whether or not they will accept the alternative method of compliance
    that Watts is trying to achieve. So let's go ahead and close the
    record. Thank you both for coming.
    STATE OF ILLINOIS )
    COUNTY OF MACOUPIN ) SS.
    I, ANGELA K. SIEVERS, a Notary Public in and for the County of
    Macoupin, State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to
    agreement between counsel there appeared before me on April 16, 1997 at
    the State Police Training Center, Third Floor, 600 South Second Street,

    Springfield, Illinois, witnesses, who was first duly sworn by me to
    testify the whole truth of their knowledge touching upon the matter in
    controversy aforesaid so far as they should be examined and their
    examination was taken by me in shorthand and afterwards transcribed upon
    the typewriter and said hearing is herewith returned.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
    Notarial Seal this 17th day of April, 1997.
    __________________________
    Notary Public--CSR
    #084-004102.
    My Commission expires September 6, 1999.

    Back to top