ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 5,
1994
PEOPLE OF THE
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
V.
)
PCB 93—59
(Enforcement)
FREEDOM OIL
COMPANY,
)
)
Respondent.
JENNIFER M. CRAIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF COMPLAINANT;
JON K.
ELLIS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by M. McFawn):
This matter comes before the Board upon a two—count
complaint filed March 19,
1993 by the Attorney General of the
State of Illinois, on behalf of the People of the State of
Illinois, against Freedom Oil Company
(Freedom).
It alleges that
Freedom failed to comply with the investigation and reporting
requirements applicable to releases from underground storage
tanks
(liSTs) set forth at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 731.162 and 731.163.
A hearing was held in this matter at 1:20 p.m.
on June
1,
1993,
in Springfield,
Illinois.
No members of the public were
present.
The violations alleged in this action occurred in connection
with two separate releases:
(1)
a November 21,
1989 release at
Respondent’s facility in Savoy, Champaign County
(the Savoy
site),
and
(2)
an April
4,
1991 release at a facility in Oblong,
Crawford County
(the Oblong site).
The complaint alleges that
Freedom failed to comply with the investigation and reporting
requirements under
35 Ill.
Adin.
Code Sections 731.162 and
731. 163.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Pursuant to Section 731.162(b), when a release from a
liST is
confirmed, the owner or operator must submit a report to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) within 20 days
summarizing the initial abatement steps taken in response to the
release, and detailing any information or data collected.
Section 731.162(a)
details the required abatement measures,
which,
in pertinent part,
include a requirement that the owner or
operator conduct sampling to measure for the presence of
a
release.
In particular,
731.162(a) provides:
2
a)
Owners and Operators shall perform the following
abatement measures:
1)
Remove as much of the reaulated substance from the
liST system as is necessary to prevent further
release to the environment;
2)
Visually inspect any above ground releases or
exposed below ground releases and prevent further
migration of the released substance into
surroundina soils and groundwater
3)
Continue to monitor and mitigate any additional
fire and safety hazards posed bY vapors or free
product that have migrated from the liST excavation
zone and entered into substance structures
(such
as sewers or basements);
4)
Remedy hazards posed by contaminated soils that
are excavated or exposed as a result of release
confirmation, site investigation, abatement or
corrective action activities.
If these remedies
include treatment or disposal of soils, the owner
and operator shall comply with 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
722,
724,
725,
807 and 809.
5)
Measure for the presence of a release where
contamination is most likely to be present at the
UST site, unless the presence and the source of
the release have been confirmed in accordance with
the site check required by Section 731.152(b)
or
the closure site assessment of Section 731.172(a).
In selecting sample types, sample locations and
measurement methods, the owner and operator shall
consider the nature of the stored substance,
the
type of backfill, depth to groundwater and other
factors as appropriate for identifying the
presence and source of the release; and
6)
Investigate to determine the possible presence of
free product, and begin free product removal as
soon as practicable and in accordance with Section
731. 164.
(Emphasis added.)
Section 731.163(b) requires the owner or operator of a
liST
to submit a report within 45 days of the confirmation of a
release,
summarizing the information collected in accordance with
the initial site characterization detailed at Section 731.163(a).
Section 731.163(a)
provides:
3
a)
Owners and operators shall assemble information about
the site and the nature of the release, including
information gained while confirming the release,
including information gained while confirming the
release or completing the initial abatement measures in
Section 731.160 and Section 731.161.
This information
must include, but is not necessarily limited to the
following:
1)
Data on the nature and estimated quantity of the
release;
2)
Data from available sources or site investigations
concerning the following factors: surrounding
populations, water quality, use and approximate
locations of wells potentially affected by the
release, subsurface soil conditions,
locations of
subsurface sewers, climatological conditions and
land use;
3)
Results of the site check required under Section
731.162(a) (5)
and
4)
Results of the free product investigations
required under Section 731.162(a) (6), to be used
by owners and operators to determine whether free
product must be recovered under Section 731.164.
(Emphasis added.)
FACTS
The Savov Site
On November 21,
1989,
Inspector Douglas Kirk of the Office
of the State Fire Marshal
(OSFM)
investigated the Savoy site in
response to a complaint of petroleum vapors received by the Savoy
Fire Department.
(Tr. at 86.)
Upon investigation,
Inspector
Kirk found fresh product under the south unleaded pump.
(Tr. at
89.)
At Inspector Kirk’s direction,
Freedom reported a release
of petroleum at the Savoy site to the Illinois Emergency Services
and Disaster Agency (IESDA) on November 22,
1989.
(Complainant’s
Exh.
1.)
On December
1,
1989, the Agency sent a Notice of
Release Letter
(NORL)
to Freedom which detailed the required
response activities.
(Complainant’s Exh. 2.)
On December 13,
1989,
Freedom responded to the NORL in a letter by
A. Michael
Owens, Vice President of Freedom, which stated that tank test
results would be forwarded to the Agency shortly and that soil
samples would be taken.
(Complainant’s Exh.
3.)
No tank test
results or sampling data was ever submitted to the Agency.
On February 14,
1990, Freedom had all the liSTs at the Savoy
4
site tested for tightness by Qualified Testing Company, and all
the tanks tested “tight.”
(Respondent’s Exh.
3.)
The test
report indicates that the results were forwarded to the OSFM,
although no date is given and there is no confirmation of its
receipt.
(Respondent’s Exh.
3.)
On November 21,
1991,
the Agency sent Freedom a Compliance
Inquiry Letter
(CIL),
informing Freedom that the required 20 and
45 day reports had not been submitted and that no site assessment
had been performed.
(Complainant’s Exh. 4.)
This was followed
by a Pre—Enforcement Conference Letter, sent on April 7,
1992.
(Complainant’s Exh. 5.)
Freedom did not respond to either
letter.
On December 21,
1992,
Freedom submitted the 20 and 45 day
reports.
(Complainant’s Exh.
6.)
The 20 day report did not
include sampling data,
summarize abatement measures taken,~or
summarize any information or data obtained as a result of those
measures.
(Complainant’s Exh.
6.)
The 45 day report denied that
a release had taken place and did not include a determination of
the nature and quantity of the release.
(Complainant’s Exh.
6.)
The Oblona Site
On April
4,
1991,
Freedom reported a release at the Oblong
site to the IESDA.
(Complainant’s Exh. 7.)
Ronald Dye of
RAPPS
Engineering testified that soil borings were conducted on April
5,
1991
(Tr. at 137), although the record does not contain the
results of that sampling.
On April
8,
1991, the Agency sent
Freedom notification that it must submit a report within 20 days,
accompained by a packet discribing what requirements must be
followed.
(Complainant’s Exh.
11.)
On May 8,
1991,
Freedom had
the liSTs at the Oblong site tested for tightness by Qualified
Testing Company, and all the tanks tested “tight.”
(Respondent’s
Exh.
4.)
As with the Savoy site, the test report indicates that
the results were forwarded to OSFM,
although no date is indicated
and there is no confirmation of its receipt.
(Respondent’s Exh.
4.)
On December 16,
1991,
the Agency sent Freedom a CIL for
failure to submit the 20 and 45 day reports.
(Complainant’s Exh.
8.)
On December 31, 1991, RAPP’s Engineering sent the Agency a
letter on behalf of Freedom, which states that it is intended to
meet the requirements of the 20 and 45 day reports, despite the
fact that it did not include a site assessment or sampling data.
(Complainant’s Exh.
9.)
On June 10,
1992 the Agency responded to
Freedom’s submittal by letter, requesting further definition of
the extent of soil and groundwater contamination in accordance
with 35
Iii. Adm. Code 731.165.
(Complainant’s Exh. 10)
Freedom never responded to this request.
5
DISCUSSION
Freedom does not deny there were confirmed releases at both
sites,
or that it failed to submit the information and reports
required pursuant to Sections 731.162 and 731.163.
Freedom does,
however, offer several defenses for its failure to comply.
The Savov Site
In reference to the Savoy site, Freedom contends that the
Agency should be estopped from enforcing the statute against
Freedom because the Agency failed to properly inform Freedom of
the reporting requirements.
Freedom points out, and the Agency
admits, that the
NORL sent December
1,
1989 (Complainant’s Exh.
2) indicated that Freedom was required to submit a 15 day report,
rather than the 20 and 45 day reports actually required by the
applicable Board regulations, which had been effective only since
June 12, 1989
(Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief at
2
-
3).
Six elements must be shown in order for the doctrine of
equitable estoppel to apply:
(1) Words or conduct by the party
against whom the estoppel is alleged constituting either a
misrepresentation or concealment of material facts;
(2) knowledge
on the part of the party against whom the estoppel is alleged
that representations made were untrue;
(3) the party claiming the
benefit of an estoppel must not have known the representations to
be false either at the time they were made or at the time they
were acted upon;
(4) the party estopped must either intend or
expect that his conduct or representations will be acted upon by
the party asserting the estoppel;
(5) the party seeking the
estoppel must have relied or acted upon the representations;
and
(6)the party claiming the benefit of the estoppel must be in a
position of prejudice if the party against whom the estoppel is
alleged is permitted to deny the truth of the representations
made.
City of Nendota v. Pollution Control Board,
(October
1,
1987)
112 Ill.
Dec. 752,
756.)
The Board has rarely applied the doctrine of estoppel.
(City of Herrin v.
Illinois Environmental Protection Aaencv,
(March 17,
1994)
PCB 93-195 at 8.)
In those cases where we have
applied it, The Agency was found to have affirmatively mislead a
party and then sought enforcement against that party for acting
on the Agency’s recommendation.
See In the Matter of: Pielet
Brothers’ Trading,
Inc.,
(July 13,
1989) AC 88—51,
101 PCB 131,
and IEPA v. Jack Wright,
(August 30,
1990)
AC 89-227).
In this case,
it is not clear that Freedom was affirmatively
mislead by the Agency,
since, as the Agency points out, the NORL
did reference the proper Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)
Sections, contained in 40 CFR Part 280, which require the 20 and
45 day reports.
(Complainant’s Post-hearing Brief at 2.)
Even
if the reference to the 15—day reporting requirement caused
6
Freedom some initial confusion, the Agency corrected any possible
misunderstanding and clearly defined the reporting requirements
in its CIL, sent November 21,
1991,
one year and
4 months prior
to bringing this enforcement action.
This was followed by the
Pre—enforcement Conference Letter on April 7,
1992, which
reaffirmed that 20 and 45 day reports were required.
Besides
these notices,
as early as April
8,
1991, the Agency notified
Freedom of the proper response requirements in connection with
the release at the Oblong site.
(Complainant’s Exh.
11.)
Furthermore, Freedom has not demonstrated that it relied on
the Agency’s misstatement, since it failed to comply with the
requirements set forth in the
NORL.
The NORL
gave Freedom
notice that soil sampling was required (Complainant’s Exh. 2),
and Freedom’s response to that letter indicated that soil
sampling would be performed (Complainant’s Exh.
3).
However,
despite these representations,
Freedom never submitted any
sampling data to the Agency.
Since the Agency corrected its misstatement prior to
bringing this enforcement action, and since Freedom has not shown
that it relied on the Agency’s misstatement, we find that the
doctrine of estoppel does not apply.
In fact, every Agency
communication notified Freedom it was required to do soil
sampling.
The Oblong Site
In reference to the Oblong site, Freedom offers in defense
that on April 12,
1991 it was orally granted a 30 day extension
of time in which to file the 20 and 45 day reports.
(R.
at 142.)
The Agency contends that a Board order,
i.e.
a variance, would be
required for Freedom to be given such an extension.
(R.
at 16.)
Even if Freedom believed it was given
a 30 day extension,
it has
not offered any justification for its continuing failure to
comply with the sampling and reporting requirements.
The release
at the Oblong site was reported on April
4,
1991,
almost
2 years
before this action was filed.
At most, Freedom
may have
believed that it was given until the summer of 1991 to comply.
Additionally, Freedom has never submitted soil sampling data to
the Agency despite its contention that sampling was performed at
the Oblong site.
Yet, the brief discussion on the record of that
data indicates evidence of petroleum contamination.
(R. at 138.)
Freedom also seeks to rely on the fact that tank tightness
tests were performed at both sites,
and the results were
forwarded to OSFM.
Even if true, that action clearly does not
fulfill Freedom’s obligations under the applicable Board
regulations.
Freedom cannot assume OSFN forwards such
information to the Agency.
The OSFM’s interest
is in responding
to emergency fire hazards, while the Agency’s interest is in
remedying environmental contamination.
The reporting
7
requirements under Sections 731.162 and 731.163 constitute
separate obligations which Freedom was under a duty to fulfill.
Since the Agency did not receive the results of the tank
tightness tests or any sampling information,
it has no way of
knowing the extent of environmental contamination which resulted
from the release at either site.
Freedom has consistently
refused to provide the Agency with this information, despite the
Agency’s repeated attempts to obtain it.
DECISION
Based on the record,
the Board finds that Freedom failed to
comply with the investigation and reporting requirements set
forth at Sections 731.162 and 731.163 for the releases at both
sites.
These requirements are applicable to releases unless it
is demonstrated that there is no “confirmed” release.
Such
demonstration is governed by the requirements set forth at
Section 731.152.
In addition to the systems test defined in
731.152(a),
this demonstration requires a site check,
including
sampling, as defined in 731.152(b).
The record contains no
evidence of such a demonstration, and Freedom does not dispute
that there was a confirmed release at either site.
Furthermore,
Freedom has not demonstrated through its defenses that compliance
with the Board’s regulations would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship under Section 31(c) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found Freedom to be in violation of paragraphs
(a)
and
(b)
of Sections 731.162 and 731.163 at both sites,
the Board
must issue an appropriate order under the circumstances.
This
determination
is governed by Section 33(b)
and Section 42 of the
Environmental Protection Act 415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.
(Act).
Under
Section 33(b)
the Board has authority to issue final orders,
including orders directing a party to cease and desist from
violations, and orders imposing civil penalties in accordance
with Section 42.
Under Section 33(c), when issuing its orders
and determinations, the Board is to consider:
all the facts and circumstances bearing upon
the reasonableness of the emissions,
discharges,
or deposits involved,
including
but not limited to the following:
1.
the character and degree of injury to, ~
interference with the protection of the health,
aeneral welfare and physical property of the
people;
*
*
*
8
4.
the technical practicability and economic
reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the
emissions,
discharaes or deposits resulting from
such pollution source and
5.
any subsequent compliance.
45 ILCS 5/33(c)
(Emphasis added.)
Only the last of the three criteria recited above seems
directly applicable to the facts of this case.
However, the
first two criteria, concerning protection of health and the
environment and the practicability of compliance,
also aid the
Board in framing an order and determining a penalty.
There has been no subsequent compliance by Freedom.
Despite
repeated attempts by the Agency to get Freedom to comply with the
rudimentary investigation required by Sections 731.162 and
731.163, Freedom refused to do so.
The record before us contains
none of the data required pursuant to paragraphs
(a)
of Sections
731.162 and 731.163.
As for the reporting requirements contained
in paragraphs
(b)
of Sections 731.162 and 731.163, Freedom
appears to pay lip service by merely filing some pieces of paper.
The 20 day and 45 day reports submitted by Freedom for both sites
contain no information about site assessment or soil sampling.
In fact the report filed for the Savoy site simply denies that a
releases occurred, but offers no supporting data.
Furthermore,
these reports were submitted for both sites only after the Agency
sent repeated letters to Freedom informing it of its failure to
comply.
Freedom refers to these violations as the mere “failure to
timely file some pieces of paper.”
(Respondent’s Post—Hearing
Brief at 20.)
Freedom seriously misconstrues the nature of its
violations.
Without the data required by these Board
regulations, the Agency cannot determine the degree of injury to
the environment.
By failing to submit this information, Freedom
has demonstrated a continuing lack of good faith concerning the
protection of the public health and general welfare and the
environment.
Based on the record before us, which is devoid of
any sampling or site assessment data, we find that Freedom did
not undertake the investigation necessary to determine the extent
and nature of the releases and their impact on the surrounding
environment.
Such an investigation has become a routine matter
for owners and operators of USTs at gasoline stations.
Certainly,
the fact that undertaking this routine investigation
has become a standard practice for all owners and operators of
liSTs demonstrates its technical practicability and economic
reasonableness.
The Board finds Freedom’s failure to comply with
the investigation and sampling requirements incomprehensible in
light of all the facts and circumstances.
Freedom offers no
plausible explanation for its recalcitrance.
9
As for the reporting requirements, Freedom submitted reports
insufficient on their face.
Furthermore, the report filed for
the Savoy site came more than one year after the Agency sent
Freedom a CIL and more than six months after the Agency sent a
Pre—Enforcement Conference Letter.
As for the Oblong site,
Freedom submitted the report over six months after Freedom
alleges it received a verbal extension of time to file the
reports, and then only after the Agency had sent Freedom a CIL.
PENALTY
These same facts are the matters of record which the Board
considers in assessing a penalty.
Under Section 42(h), the
Board is authorized to consider any matters of record in
mitigation or aggravation of a penalty, including,
but not
limited to the following factors:
1.
the duration and gravity of the violation;
2.
the absence of due diligence on the part of Freedom to
comply with the requirements of the cited Board
regulations; and
3.
the amount of monetary penalty which will serve to
deter further violations by Freedom and to otherwise
aid in enhancing voluntary compliance with this Act by
Freedom and other persons similarly subject to the Act.
Examining the duration of the violations, again we consider
that the release at the Savoy site was recorded on November 22,
1989,
almost
3 and 1/2 years before the complaint was filed in
this action on March 19,
1993.
The release at the Oblong site
was reported on April
4,
1991,
almost
2 years before this action
was filed.
In the interim, the Agency sent Freedom three letters
concerning the Savoy site and two letters concerning the Oblong
site.
In each letter, the Agency notified Freedom of the
information it must collect at each site,
and that the same must
be submitted to the Agency.
Even with these letters, Freedom did
next to nothing to comply, and,
as of this date,
Freedom still
has not complied with the applicable investigation and reporting
requirements.
Freedom’s recalcitrance demonstrates a lack of due
diligence to comply with the Board’s regulations.
Addressing the gravity of the violation, again we must
correct Freedom.
These violations are not mere paper violations.
Without the required reports and sampling data,
the Agency has no
way of knowing the extent of contamination that may exist at
either site.
For at least
3 and 1/2 years and two years at the
Savoy and Oblong sites, respectively, the presence of ground
water, as well as soil, contamination remained undetermined.
The
reporting requirements are there to prompt the investigation
necessary to determine the extent of contamination and
10
rexaediation.
Left uninvestigated, the pollution can migrate and
cause more damage than it did initially.
Not only did Freedom
fail to submit the reports despite the Agency’s repeated requests
for them,
it also failed to undertake the investigations required
at each site to insure that the environment is protected.
Until the extent of contamination is known at each site,
the
economic benefit accrued by Freedom due to its recalcitrance
cannot be accurately determined.
While the cost of the
investigations could be estimated, the costs saved by deferring
any necessary remediation cannot be.
Without the investigation,
we only know that the remedial costs could range between zero and
multiple millions of dollars.
Freedom argues that it incurred “a
large loss of economic benefits” because of soil samplings,
site
investigation, related attorneys’ fees,
engineering fees, tank
tightness tests,
equipment repairs and service station down time.
(Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief at 19.)
First, all of those
costs are unsubstantiated on the record.
Second, the last three
items involve repairing the source of the release, not complying
with the Board’s regulations.
Finally, money spent on the
remaining items is not itemized, and based on the record before
us, th~emoney spent on engineering was for reports which are
inadequate and that spent on attorneys’ fees was for its defense
to this action.
Also,
the results of soil sampling were never
submitted,
so the cost for the same cannot be credited to
Freedom.
Freedom’s failure to comply, the fact that the extent of
contamination remains unknown because of that failure,
and
Freedom’s recalcitrance over the three year period lead the Board
to conclude it must assess a penalty sufficient to deter
continuing violations at these sites and future violations at
other UST sites owned by Freedom. The Act authorizes the Board to
assess a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per violation,
and an
additional civil penalty of not to exceed $10,000 for each day
during which a violation continues.
The Agency seeks a penalty of $30,000 and an award of costs
and fees pursuant to Section 42 of the Act.
In support of a
penalty in that amount, the Agency cites Freedom’s blatant
disregard for the applicable regulations.
For the most part,
Freedom ignored the Agency’s letters warning Freedom that it was
in possible violation of those regulations.
Freedom went so far
as to promise soil sampling in its response to the NORL for
Savoy, but then went on to ignore the subsequent CIL and Pre—
Enforcement Conference Meeting letter sent by the Agency.
Concerning the Oblong site,
Freedom did submit reports but only
after it received a CIL and, thereafter,
it ignored the Agency’s
request for more information concerning the extent of
contamination evidenced by those reports.
Finally, Freedom has
taken no action to correct the contamination at the Oblong site,
and simply submitted information insufficient for the Agency to
11
determine if remediation is necessary due to the release at the
Savoy site.
The Board finds that Freedom acted with knowledge of and
blatant disregard for the applicable Board regulations.
The
Board further finds no facts or circumstances which would
mitigate the penalty requested.
Therefore, the Board orders
Freedom to submit the required reports and sampling data,
to
otherwise cease and desist from violations of Sections 731.162
~nd~7~l.163
and related regulations, and to pay a penalty of
($15,00
into the Environmental Protection Trust Fund.
In setting
his
enalty amount, we have considered the costs Freedom saved
through its refusal to properly investigate either site, the
costs saved through its refusal to submit adequate 20 and 45 day
reports at either site,
and its recalcitrance in the face of
repeated attempts by the Agency to obtain this information.
We
have also considered the increased threat to the public health
and welfare posed by the delay in quantifying the releases, and
the costs associated with remediating such contamination.
Finally, we have considered what would deter Freedom from
engaging in such behavior in the future.
As for an award for costs and fees, the Board finds that
Freedom has committed wilful, knowing and repeated violations of
the Board regulations as discussed above.
Therefore, the Board
awards the State its attorneys’
fees and costs pursuant to
Section 42(f) of the Act.
Towards that end, the Board finds that
the information contained in the affidavit submitted by the
assistant attorney general in this case
supports an hourly rate
of $100 per hour.
The Board disagrees with Freedom’s argument
that the State is not entitled to that hourly rate because it
does not have the same overhead costs as a private attorney.
The
State has overhead costs similar to, as well as distinct from
those incurred by private enterprises.
The only difference
offered by Freedom is that private enterprises must pay federal
and state taxes.
An hourly rate of $100 per hour is sufficiently
low to take that difference into account.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1)
Freedom Oil Company is hereby found to have violated 35
Ii.?.
Admn. Code 731.162 and 731.163 by failing to comply with the
investigation and reporting requirements for a November 21,
1989 release at its facility in Savoy, Champaign County and
an April
4,
1991 release at its facility in Oblong, Crawford
County.
2)
Freedom Oil Company shall submit properly completed 20 and
45 day reports and sampling data for the releases at the
12
Savoy and Oblong sites,
as required by 35 Ill.
Admn.
Code
Sections 731.162 and 731.163,
and shall cease and desist
from
further violations of these Sections and related
regulatior~s.
~
3)
Freedo$~ilCompan~çshall pay the
sum
of fifteen thousand
dol1a~’s ($15,000) ~ithin 35 days of the date of this order.
Such payment shal,/be
made by certified check or money order
payab~to the T~éasurerof the State of Illinois,
designa ed for~epositto the Environmental Protection Trust
Fund,
an
1 be sent by First Class mail to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
IL 62794—9276
The certified check or money order shall clearly indicate on
its face the case name and number, Freedom Oil Company’s
federal employer identification number or social security
number, and that payment is directed to the Environmental
Protection Trust Fund.
Any such penalty not paid within the time prescribed shall
incur interest at the rate set forth in subsection
(a)
of
Section 1003 of the Illinois Income Tax Act,
(35 ILCS
5/1003),
as now or hereafter amended, from the date payment
is due until the date payment is received.
Interest shall
not accrue during the pendency of an appeal during which
payment of the penalty has been stayed.
5)
Freedom Oil Company shall pay the State’s attorneys’ fees of
one thousand five hundred dollars
($1,500), and the State’s
costs of three hundred eight dollars and ninety cents
($308.90),
as detailed in the Affidavit of Jennifer N.
Cram,
filed June 24,
1993,
for a total of one thousand
eight hundred eight dollars and ninety cents
($1,808.90).
Such payment shall be made within 35 days of the date of
this order by certified check or money order payable to the
Treasurer of the State of Illinois, designated for deposit
to the Hazardous Waste Fund,
and shall be sent by First
Class mail to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Service Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
The certified check or money order shall clearly indicate on
its face the case name and number, Freedom Oil Company’s
federal employer identification number or social security
number, and that payment
is directed to the General Revenue
13
Fund.
Any such penalty not paid within the time prescribed shall
incur interest at the rate set forth in subsection
(a)
of
Section 1003 of the Illinois Income Tax Act,
(35 ILCS
5/1003), as now or hereafter amended, from the date payment
is due until the date payment is received.
Interest shall
not accrue during the pendency of an appeal during which
payment of the penalty has been stayed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. Theodore Meyer concurred.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
5/41
(1992)) provides for appeal of final Board orders within 35
days of the date of service of this order.
The Rules of the
Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(See
also 35
Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.)
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
do hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
adopted on the
~
day of
_______________,
1994, by a vote
of
6-o
.
a
~
/~
Dorothy M. G~n, Clerk
Illinois PoZ~utionControl Board
