1LLL~C1S POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 16, 1987

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

PCB 86—38

WILLIAMS PIPE LINE CO.,

Respondent.

MS. CHRISTINE ZEMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT;

MS. BARBARA A. MAGEL, MR. JOSEPH

~.

KARAGANIS, AND MR. A. BRUCE

WHITE, BELL, BOYD & LLOYD, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board upon a forty—count

Complaint filed on March 12, 1986, by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency) alleging certain violations of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) and Board

regulations, specifically 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.203 and

302.212(a), by Williams Pipe Line Company (williams). Hearing

was held on June 25, 1987, at which the parties entered into a

Stipulated Statement of Facts and Proposal for Settlement which

was filed with the Board on June 29, 1987. The parties state

that the stipulation of facts represents a fair summary of that

which the Agency and Williams would submit at hearing if a full

hearing were held.

Williams Pipe Line, at all times relevant, owned and

operated, within its right of way, a pipeline carrying solutions

of urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer (UAN) which consists of

ammoriium nitrate, urea, and water. This pipeline extends across

the State of Illinois through the counties of Clark, Clay,

Clinton, Crawford, Effingham, Fayette, Jasper, Marion, Monroe and

St. Clair. On June 19, 1986, Williams ceased transporting UAN in

this pipeline. The pipeline will no longer be used for UAN

shipments but, instead, will be used to house a fiber optic

telecommunications cable. Williams also owned and operated

another pipeline used to transport UAN from Heyworth, Illinois to

Patoka, Illinois On February 11, 1986, Williams ceased

transporting UAN in this pipeline.

79.7

---

—2—

Under certain conditions, UAN can be corrosive to certain

metals arid concrete, can have a harmful effect on eyes, can be

harmful to vegetation and can be toxic to aquatic life. UAN,

therefore, falls within the definition of “contaminant8 as set

forth in Section 3.06 of the Act. The Agency’s forty-count

Complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: the Agency

alleges Williams caused or allowed the discharge of varying

quantities of UAN from leaks or breaks in the pipeline described

above. Counts I, XI, XXII, XXV, and XXXIX of the Complaint

allege violations, on various dates and locations, of both

Section 12(a) and Section 12(d) of the Act. Section 12(a)

prohibits the discharge of “any contaminants into the environment

in any State so as to cause or tend to cause water

pollution...” Section 12(d) prohibits the deposit of “any

contaminants upon the land in such place and manner so as to

create water pollution hazard.” Counts II, X, XII through XXI,

XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI through XXXVIII allege violations, on

various dates and locations, of Section 12(d) only of the Act.

Count XL alleges a violation of Section 21(a) and (e) of the Act

and of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 809.501. Section 21(a) prohibits open

dumping of any waste, and Section 21(d) prohibits the disposal,

treatment, storage, or abandonment of any waste except at a site

or facility which meets the requirements of the Act and

regulations thereunder.

The proposed settlement agreement provides that Williams

agrees to pay a penalty of $102,500 to the Environmental

Protection Trust Fund within 90 days of the date of this Board

Order. However, Williams neither admits nor denies violation of

the Act or regulations in question. The Agency agrees that all

claims which were raised, or which could have been raised, as a

result of tJAN spills set forth in Counts I, XI, XXII, XXV and

XXXIX of the Complaint are fully settled and the Agency covenants

not to sue thereon. The Agency agrees that all claims for actual

or threatened contamination of surface water which were raised,

or which could have been raised, are fully settled; however, the

Agency is not precluded from later filing a new Complaint against

Williams which alleges that Williams has caused actual

contamination of groundwater provided that the Agency comply with

certain conditions as specified in the settlement agreement. In

addition to the penalty, Williams agrees to provide notice to

landowners on whose land UAN spills either alleged in the

Complaint or occurring after July 18, 1985, exceeded 10 net

barrels that plowing hay into the affected area aids in the

reduction of UAN soil concentration and to make funds available

to those landowners for the application of such hay. The Board

notes that testimony from the June 25, 1987, hearing indicates

that affected landowners may be dissatisfied with the remedial

program outlined in the settlement agreement. The agreement,

however, does not preclude dissatisfied landowners from pursuing

private remedies, therefore, the Board believes that their rights

are not jeopardized by approval of this settlement agreement.

79.8

---

—3-.

In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed

settlement agreement, the Board has taken into consideration all

the facts and circumstances in light of the criteria set forth in

Section 33(c) of the Act and finds the proposed settlement

agreement acceptable under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.180.

Accordingly the Board will order Williams to pay the stipulated

penalty of $102,500 into the Illinois Environmental Protection

Trust Fund as agreed upon, and will order Williams to follow the

settlement agreement as set forth in the following Order.

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. Witruin 90 days of the date of this Order, the

Respondent, Williams Pipe Line Company, shall, by

certified check or money order payable to the State of

Illinois and designated for deposit into the

Environmental Trust Fund, pay the stipulated penalty of

$102,500 which is to be sent to:

Office of the Attorney General

Environmental Control Division

500 South Second Street

Springfield, IL 62706

2. ~illiams Pipe Line Company shall comply with all the

terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement filed on June 29, 1987, which is

attached hereto and incorporated as if fully set forth

herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify t~iat the above OpJ~ionand Order was

adopted on the

/(~.

~

day of ~L~JL~I

,

1987 by a vote

of

____________.

~/

/

‘2

Dorothy M. unn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

79-9

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Complainant,

)

)

-vs-

)

)

WILLIAMS PIPE LINE COMPANY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

STIPULATED STATEMENT OF FACTS

AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT

COME

NOW Complainant,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY (‘Complainant”),

by and through its

attorney,

Neil F..

Hartigan, Attorney General,

and Respondent, WILLIAMS PIPE LINE

COMPANY (“WPL”), by

and

through its attorneys, Hall, Estill,

Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, and Karaganis & White, and

set forth the following stipulated statement of facts and

proposal for settlement pursuant to Section 103.180 of the

Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35: Environmental

Protection, Subtitle A: General Provisions.

I. STIPULATION RE STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. For purposes of settlement only, the parties agree

that the following statement of facts represents a fair summary

of that which Complainant and WPL would submit at hearing if a

full hearing were held.

B. The parties stipulate that the following statement of

facts is made and agreed upon for the purpose of the settlement

of this cause only, and is conditioned upon the Board approving

and disposing of this matter on each and every one of the terms

and conditions as set forth in the Proposal for Settlement.

PCB 86-38

79.10

---

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.

Complainant is an Agency

of the State of Illinois

created pursuant to Section 4 of the Illinois

~g.

enforcing the Act

in proceedings befoie the

Control Board pursuant to Title VIII

been a Delaware corporation

duly licensed by the Illinois

Secretary of State to transact business in Illinois.

3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, WPL has owned

and operated, within its right-of—way, a pipeline carrying-

solutions of urea ammonjum nitrate fertilizer (“UAN’) which

consists of amrnonium nitrate, urea, and water. This pipeline

originates in Oklahoma and extends across the State of Illinois

through the counties of Clark, Clay, Clinton, Crawford,

Effingham, Fayette, Jasper, Marion, Monroe and St. Clair. This

pipeline was manufactured by National Tube of 10.75” outside

diameter, .365” wall thickness, A.P.I. Grade “A” Pipe and was

laid in 1930. The original pipe laid in 1930 is bell weld

pipe. A reroute around Carlyle Lake of 11.6 miles is con-

structed of 10.75” outside diameter, .365” wall thickness,

AP.I. Grade “B” seamless pipe manufactured by Lone Star Steel

and laid in 1961. On June 19, 1986, WPL ceased transporting

UAN in this pipeline. The pipeline will no longer be used for

UAN shipments but, instead, will be used to house a fiber optic

telecommunications cable.

—2—

79.11

---

4. WPL has also owned and operated, within its right—of—

way, a pipeline

used

to transport UAN from Heyworth, Illinois

to Patoka,- Illinois.

On February 11, 1986,

WPL

ceased trans-

porting UAN in this pipeline. The pipeline will no longer be

rosive to certain metals and concrete and, in certain concen-

tration, harmful to vegetation.

UAIF

can have a harmful effect

on the eyes and, in certain concentrations be toxic to aquatic

life, and therefore is a contaminant as set forth in Section 3

of the Act.

6. Complainant asserts that on or before December 1980,

and continuing to July 1985, including but not limited to ttie

following approximate dates, WPL caused or allowed the dis-

charge of varying quantities of UAN from leaks or breaks in the

pipeline described in paragraph 3 above onto land or into water

near each of the locations as listed:

September 23, 1983

S.28, T8N, R1OE, Robinson,

Crawford County

August 3, 1983

S.l6, T1S, R7W, near Heberers

Branch of Silver Creek,

Freeburg, St. Clair County

June 16, 1983

S.9, T3N, R1E, Patoka, Marion

County

June 16, 1983

S.29, T4N, R2E, Vernon, Marion

County

June 8, 1983

S.22, T5N, R4E, LaCleede Township

Road, Fayette County

—3—

79-12

---

May 13, 1983

May 10, 1983

April 20, 1983

December 16, 1982

November 22, 1982

September 18, 1982

August 16, 1982

August 11, 1982

August 13, 1982

June 24, 1982

March 24, 1982

April 21, 1982

November 24, 1981

November 18, 1981

S.22, TiN, R9E, Newton, Jasper

County

S.22, T5N, R4E,

Farina, Fayette

County

S.18, TiN, RiDE, Newton, Jasper

County

5.31, T8N, RilE, Yale, Jasper

County

S.12, T8N, R13W, Annapolis,

Crawford County

S.10, T8N, R13W, Annapolis,

Crawford County

S.3l, T8N, RilE, Yale, Jasper

County

S.13, TiN, R5W, Albers, Clinton

County

S.27, T1S, R8W, Smithton Township,

St. Clair County

T1S, R6W, Mascoutah, St. County

S..20, T9N, R11W, Clark County

S.25, T3N, R4W, Breese, Clinton

County

S.19, T1S, R7W, St. Clair County

S.19, T1S, R7W, St. Clair County

S.27, T1S, R8W, Smithton Township,

St. Clair County

SW/4 SW/4 of S.35, T5N, R3E, onto

land and into a small creek or

unnamed tributary to the

Kaskaskia River in Fayette County

S.35, T5N, R3E, Fayette County

S.20, T4N, R2E, Patoka, Marion

County

S.34, T1S, R8W, Smithton, St. Clair

County

—4—

79.13

---

August 13, 1981

S.13, T5N, R9E, Newton, Jasper

County

September 9, 1981

S.12,

T4N, R2E, onto land and into

a small creek near

patoka,

Marion County

December 11, 1980

S.5, T8N, R12W, Robinson, Crawford

County

March 29, 1983

mately three to seven acres,

January 25, 1984

ditch, onto farmed land, and

into an unnamed tributary of the

Embarras

River between the aban-

doned Illinois Central Railroad

track and Highway 130 just south

of Falmouth in Jasper County

February 25, 1985

5.33, T2S, R8W, Smithton, St. Clair

County

January 22, 1985

S.20, T1S, R7W, 15

yards from

Jacks Run Creek in St. Clair

County

January 16, 1985

S.6, T2S, R8W, Smithton, St. Clair

County

January 16, 1985

S.16, T1S, R7W, near a farm pond

in Freeburg, St. Clair County

January 5, 1985

S.17, T8N, R13W, Annapolis,

Crawford County

November 25, 1984

S.6, T1S, R6W, 300 feet from Hog

River southwest of Mascoutah,

St. Clair County

November 10, 1984

5.7, T3S, R11W, 200 yards from the

Mississippi River near Valrneyer,

Monroe County

May 31, 1984

S.l0, T7N, RIOE, 1000 feet of a

branch of a creek in Jasper

County

April 25, 1984

S..17, T5N, R5E, near Dismal Creek

near Edgewood, Clay County

—5—

79.14

---

February 4, 1985

S.16, T5N, R5E, near an

intermittent

stream

near

March 7, 1985

County

March 14, 1985

S..33, T2S, R8W, near

a small creek

March 19, 1985

Albers, Clinton County

April 3,

1985

S.12, T8N, R13W, Crawford County

April 16, 1985

S.36, TSN,

May 22, 1985

June 14, 1985

Farina, Fayette County

June 20,

1985

Oblong, Jasper County

July 9, 1985

Smithton, St. Clair County

July 17, 1985

S.9, T3N, R1E, Marion County

July 17, 1985

5.20, T1S, R7W, St. Clair County

July 18, 1985

S.15, T5N, R5E, Clay County

7. Complainant asserts that at several sites inspected by

the Complainant after a discharge had been reported, water

samples were collected and analyzed in its labs. The graph

below summarizes the asserted findings:

1/27/84 from the unnamed tributary to the Embarras

River near Faimouth.

Just South of

Downstream of

Parameter

Road Bridge

Road Bridge

Observation

Light orange

Turbid

Ammonia (N)

135 mg/i

24 mg/i

Organic Nitrogen (N)

40 mg/i

48 mg/i

Nitrate & Nitrite (N)

150 mg/i

7.2 mg/i

—6—

79.15

---

2/9/84 from the unnamed tributary to the Embarras

Just South of

Parameter

Road Bridge

Road Bridge

Ammonia (N)

150 mg/i

15 mg/i

Organic Nitrogen (N)

35

mg/i

Less than 0.1 mg/i

Nitrate & Nitrite (N)

100 mg/i

9.5 mg/i

2/9/84 from a railroad ditch to a water of the State

near Faimouth.

Parameter

Near Spill

Site 150 Feet South

Observation

Pinkish color; Pinkish color;

musty odor

musty odor

Ammonia (N)

16,300 mg/i

960 mg/i

Organic Nitrogen (N)

30,700 mg/i

480 mg/i

Nitrate & Nitrite (N)

20,700 mg/i

980 mg/l

3/31/83 from a seven acre lake near Freeburg.

Contaminant

middle of darn

mid south bank

Ammonia (N)

16 mg/i

15 mg/i

Organic Nitrogen (N)

74 mg/i

61 mg/i

Nitrate & Nitrite (N)

17 mg/i

15 mg/i

4/28/83 from a seven acre lake near Freeburg.

Contaminant

middle of dam

mid south bank

Ammonia (N)

29 mg/i

29 mg/I

Organic Nitrogen (N)

31 mg/i

31 mg/i

Nitrate & Nitrite (N)

19 mg/i

19 mg/i

COD

42 mg/i

43 mg/i

8. Complainant agrees that with respect to all those

spills or leaks of IJAN listed in Paragraph 6 of the Statement

of Facts for which a release of UAN into a named surface water

is not specifically alleged, no known impact on a surface water

—7—

79.16

---

of the State of Illinois has occurred as of the effective date

asserted in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Facts in various

locations where

WPL’S pipeline

is situated throughout 1985 and

continuing to June 19, 1986.

nated by the leak.

11. Complainant asserts that, due in part to the number of

spills, Complainant was incapable of observing each discharge

soon after its occurrence.

12. Complainant asserts that in some instances, upon an

inspection conducted months after a spill, vegetation had not

returned, and the area of the spill remained stained by the

orange dye used to color the UAN for the purpose of detecting

spills from the air by WPL.

13. Complainant asserts that each spill as set forth in

paragraph 6 above constitutes a violation of Section 12(d) of

the Act given that some spills occurred near surface waters or

onto land and given that UAN in certain concentrations may be

toxic to aquatic life, as evidenced by fish kills at a seven

acre lake near Freeburg on or around March 29, 1983, at Short

Point Creek in MeClean County in November, 1984, and at Lake

Fork Creek in De Witt County on or about June 8, 1985.

—8—

79-17

---

14. Complainant asserts that, unless treated, UAN as

spilled by WPL

may present a continuing danger to vegetation

15. Complainant and WPL agree that the application of hay

to a

UAN

spill area followed by incorporation is a form of

treatment that aids in the reduction of

UAN soil concentrations

the Complaint, WPL excavated the area containing discharged

UAN, which spill cieanings were hauled in two or three dump

truck loads to property which was not a properly permitted

sanitary landfill.

17. Complainant asserts that as a carrier of UAN, WPL

performed a service and that WPL failed to complete a manifest

in hauling soil containing spilled UAN to its destination.

18. While Complainant has authority to relieve a hauler of

manifest requirements under certain circumstances in emergency

cleanups at 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 809.701, Complainant asserts none

of the spill cleanings referred to in paragraph 16 of the

Statement of Facts were within those circumstances.

19. Complainant asserts that the soil containing spilled

UAN is a espollution control waste” and an “industrial process

waste” and, therefore, a “special waste” as these terms are

defined and used in the Act. WPL denies these assertions.

20. Complainant and WPL

met

on several dates to discuss

WPLCS cleanup plans, its cathodic protection program and the

means to ensure the future integrity of its line, so as to

—9—

79-18

---

reduce and eliminate leaks and spills. On November 15, 1985,

Complainant was advised by WPL that

it planned to discontinue

use of its pipelines for the transport of UAN by September 1986

so as to carry instead non—polluting fiber optic telecommuni-

cation cables.

to Section 31(d) of the Act. Several meetings between

Complainant and WPL were held subsequent to

the Section 31(d)

notice

having been sent.

22. In 1975 WPL was a defendant in an action brought by

the United States in the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Illinois for violations of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act, as

amended, which allegedly

occurred as the result of discharges of UAN from that part of

its pipeline which crosses Southern Illinois and for discharges

from that part of its pipeline which continues into Indiana.

Settlement in that action, No. 75—3259, resulted in, inter

alia, an agreement filed November 5, 1976, for certain linealog

testing, a $30,365.00 penalty and $24,635.00 to the Illinois

Department of Conservation for the fish kill alleged in Count

IV of the Second Amended Complaint in that case.

23. Complainant asserts that in November, 1984, in De Witt

County, UAN was discharged into Short Point Creek from WPL’s

pipeline described in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Facts.

The Illinois Department of Conservation investigated and

asserted fish were killed at a loss of $2,054.35. On August 9,

—10—

79-19

---

1985, WPL submitted a check in that amount to the State of

Illinois, Wildlife Fund.

24. Complainant asserts that on or about June

9, 1985, in

McClean County, approximately 168 barrels of UAN was discharged

into Lake Fork Creek from WPL’s

4 of the Statement of Facts. The Illinois Department of

Conservation investigated and asserted fish were killed at a

loss of $1,402.33. On October 8, 1985, WPL submitted a check

in that amount to the State of Illinois, Wildlife and Fish Fund.

II.

PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT

A. As a result of settlement discussions between Com-

plainant and WPL, the parties believe that the public interest

will be best served by resolution of this enforcement action

under the terms and conditions provided herein, particularly

given that WPL permanently ceased using the pipelines described

hereinabove for UAN shipments on February Il and June 19, 1986,

respectively.

B. This Proposal for Settlement is expressly conditioned

upon and effective only with approval thereof in all respects

by the Board.

C. All statements contained herein are agreed to for the

purposes of settling this action only and shall be null, void,

and of no effect in any further proceeding or cause of action

except to enforce this agreement after Board approval.

D. Upon Board approval the Terms of Settlement shall

apply to and be binding upon WPL, its officers, agents,

servants, employees, successors and assigns.

—ii—

79-20

---

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

1.

WPL

neither admits nor denies

violating Section

claims which were raised, or which could have been raised, as a

result of UAN spills set forth in, Counts I, XI,

XXII,

XXV and

XXXIX of the Complaint which allege violations

of both Section

12(a) and Section 12(d) of the Act are fully settled and

compromised by this Proposal for

covenants not to sue thereon.

3. Complainant agrees that all claims and/or potential

claims for actual or threatened contamination of surface water

which were raised, or which could have been raised, as a result

of UAN spills set forth in, Counts II through X, XII through

XXI, XXIII, XXIV and XXVI through XXXVIII of the Complaint,

which allege violations of Section 12(d) of the Act, are fully

settled and compromised by this Proposal for Settlement and

Complainant covenants not to sue thereon, provided that this

Proposal for Settlement shall not preclude Complainant, upon

additional evidence, from later filing a new complaint against

WPL which alleges that WPL has caused actual contamination of

groundwater provided further that Complainant complies with

each of the following four conditions:

(A) Complainant will establish, in parts per million,

mean background concentration levels for any contaminant

—12—

79.21

---

associated with UAN by testing samples of water taken from

drinking water or stock watering wells located in the area

of a UAN spill site;

(B) Complainant will establish,

in parts per million,

mean concentration levels for any contaminant associated

with

UAN

by testing samples

of water taken from drinking

(C) The mean concentration levels established by

Complainant in paragraph

3(B) above must exceed the mean

background concentration levels established by Complainant

in paragraph 3(A) above; and

(D) Complainant will not seek any additional penalty

from WPL above that $102,500 sum WPL has paid pursuant to

this Proposal for Settlement, but rather will be limited to

seeking only that WPL rernediate, and/or take appropriate

responsive action to, any contamination proved to have been

caused by WPL.

4. Complainant agrees that all claims and/or potential

claims for violations of Section 12(a) and/or Section 12(d) of

the Act based upon actual and/or threatened contamination of

surface water at any UAN spill site which is located along

either WPL’s pipeline described in paragraph 3 or WPL’s

pipe-

line described in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Facts and

which are not specifically referred to in the Complaint are

fully settled and compromised by this Proposal for Settlement

and Complainant covenants not to sue thereon, provided that

this Proposal for Settlement shall not preclude Complainant

—13—

79.22

---

from later filing a new complaint against WPL which alleges WPL

caused actual contamination of groundwater at any UAN spill

site whioh is located along either of WPL’s two pipelines

paragraph 3 (A)—(D) of the Proposal For Settlement.

5. Complainant covenants not to sue

WPL

potential claims which were raised, or which could have been

raised, by WPL’s hauling UAN

contaminated soil after excavating

following a spill as charged in Count XL of the Complaint arid

on any date prior to January

1,

1987.

6. WPL agrees to pay a penalty of $102,500 to the

Environmental Protection Trust Fund within 90 days of a Board

Order entered herein and that WPL will send this payment to the

Office of the Attorney General, Environmental Control Division,

500 South Second Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706,

accom-

panied by a copy of the Board Order entered herein. Com-

plainant alleges such penalty is necessary to aid in the

enforcement of the Act.

7. Complainant and WPL agree that payment for the fish

kill alleged in Count XI of the Complaint will be remedied by

the private action currently pending in the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Case

No. 84-5497, between WPL and the owner of the seven acre pond

referred to in Count XI of the Complaint.

Complainant and WPL

agree that the Illinois Department of Conservation was unable

—14—

79-23

---

to make a fish kill count at this pond because it was called to

the site several days after the alleged fish kill took place.

8.

WPL

agrees that: 1) landowners

on whose land a UAN

spill alleged in the Complaint exceeded 10 net barrels, and 2)

landowners on whose land

a UAN spill exceeded 10 net barrels

from

the pipelines described hereinabove after

the

latest spill date set forth in the Complaint, July 18, 1985, to

the dates on which WPL

ceased transport of

UAN

lines will be provided with the following inførmation by WPL

within 30 days of the date the Board accepts this Stipulation

and Proposed Settlement:

-

A. WPL will advise these landowners, by letter, that

plowing hay into an area affected by a spill is a form of

treatment that aids in the reduction of UAN soil concentra-

tions; and

B. WPL will advise these landowners in the same

letter that it will make available to these landowners, on

a one-time basis, funds for payment for hay to be applied

to the affected spill area.

9. WPL agrees to make the funds referred to in paragraph

8(8) of the Terms of Settlement available within 30 days of the

date of the letters referred to in paragraph 8(A) of the Terms

of Settlement.

10. WPL agrees to provide Complainant with copies of all

of the notification letters referred to in paragraph 8 of the

Terms of Settlement simultaneous with its mailing to the land-

owners. Such copies shall be sent to the Attorney Generals

—15—

79.24

---

Environmental Control Division,

500 South Second Street,

Springfield, IL 62706.

11. Complainant

arid

Settlement shall not preclude private parties from filing

claims against

WPL.

WHEREFORE,

the parties pray that the Board accept this

Stipulation and proposed Settlement.

Complainant

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

NEIL

F. HARTIGAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL

~-2~~)-~’

______________

Robert V.

First Assistant Attorney General

BY

HALL, ESTILL, HAROWICK, GABLE,

GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C.

BY:

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECT ION AGENCY

DATE:

23~

/~‘1F7

WILLIAMS PIPE LINE COMPANY

DATE:

James J. Proszek

WILLIAMS PIPE LINE COMPANY

DATE:

7015

F/GOQ

KARAGANIS & WHITE

BY:

Joseph Karaganis

—16—

DATE:

Enforcement Section

79.25

---

Environmental Control Division,

500 South Second Street,

Springfield,

IL 62706.

11. Complainant and WPL agree that this Proposal for

Settlement shall not preclude private parties from filing

claims against WPL.

WHEREFORE, the parties pray that the Board accept this

Stipulation and proposed Settlement

Respectfully submitted,

Complainant

DATE:

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

NEIL F. HARTIGAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Robert V. Shuff,

First Assistant Attorney General

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

DATE:

WILLIAMS PIPE LINE COMPANY

DATE:

WILLI AMS

DATE:

__________

/

7015

F/COO

BY

HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE,

GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C.

BY:

L

(~.

~

joseph Karaganis

—16—

79-26

Enforcement Section

PIPE LINE COMPANY

AGANIS & WHITE

22- ~