ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTRCL BOARD
January 22, 1987
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainants,
V.
)
PCB 80—21
INTERSTATE POLLUTION CONTROL, INC.,
)
a Delaware corporation licensed to
do business in Illinois, LAVERNE E.
ANDERSON, LUCILLE D. ANDERSON and
MARGARET
J.
JOHNSON,
)
Respondents.
MR. GERALD T. KARP, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS.
IMMEL, ZELLE, OCREN, McCLAIN & GERMERAAD (MR. THOMAS
J.
IMMEL, CF
COUNSEL) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF INTERSTATE POLLUTION CONTROL, INC.
LAVERNE E. ANDERSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED PRO SE AND ON
BEHALF OF LUCILLE D.
ANDERSON AND MARGARET J.
JOHNSON.
STEVEN
P. STRAUSS, ATTORNEY
AT LAW, ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS,
DIVISION OF LAND POLLUTION CONTROL, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY WAS ALSO PRESENT AT THE HEARING.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board on the January 25, 1980
Complaint, as amended on April 29, 1980 and August 26, 1980,
brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
against Interstate Pollution Control, Inc. (IPC), Laverne
Anderson, Lucille Anderson and Margaret Johnson.
Complainants alleged in Count I of the Second Amended
Complaint that from July 29, 1974, until August 26, 1980
(including, but not limited to, July 29, 1974; August 8, 1974;
October 3, 1974; May 5, 1975; July 21, 1976; December 6, 1978;
January 8, 1979; April 20, 1979; May 18, 1979; June 28, 1979;
July 17, 1979 and August 1, 1979) respondents caused or allowed
the operation of an existing solid waste management site without
the requisite Operating Permit from the Agency in violation of
Rule 202(b) (1) of Chapter 7: Solid Waste Regulations (now 35 Ill.
Adin. Code 807.202(b)(1)) and Sections 21(d) and 21(e) of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act)
Complainants allege in Count II that from July 29, 1974,
until August 26, 1980 (including, but not limited to, July 29,
75.4
—2—
1974; August 8, 1974; December 6, 1978 and June 28, 1979)
respondents caused or allowed the open dumping of refuse without
providing sufficient cover in violation of Rule 305(a) of Chapter
7: Solid Waste Regulations (now 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.305(a)) and
Sections 21(a) and 21(e) of the Act.
Complainants allege in Count III that from May 20, 1974,
until August 26, 1980 (including, but not limited to, May 20,
1974; July 29, 1974; August 8, 1974; October 3, 1974; May 5,
1975; December 6, 1978; January 9, 1979; April 20, 1979; May 18,
1979; June 20, 1979; July 17, 1979 and August 1, 1979) respondent
IPC deposited contaminants upon the land in such place and manner
so as to create a water pollution hazard in violation of Section
12(d) of the Act.
Complainants allege in Count IV that from May 20, 1974,
until August 26, 1980 (including, but not limited to, May 20,
1974; June 20, 1974; July 29, 1974; August 8, 1974; October 3,
1974; May 5, 1975; June 28, 1979 and August 1, 1979) respondents
deposited or allowed contaminants to be deposited upon the land
in such a way as to cause, threaten or allow the discharge of
contaminants into the environment so as to cause or tend to cause
water pollution in Illinois, either alone or in combination with
other sources, in violation of Section 12(a) of the Act.
After an extensive discovery process, hearing was held on
August 22, 1986. The parties filed a Proposal for Settlement on
September 2, 1986. On October 23, 1986, the Board requested that
the parties address several issues relating to the applicability
of Illinois’ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations to the site in question. On December 29, 1986, the
Board received a response from the Complainants and Respondent
IPC.
The impetus for the Board’s October 23, 1986 Order was the
concern expressed by several Board Members that the remedy set
forth in the proposed settlement agreement may require the
issuance of either a RCRA permit or the equivalent of a federal
RCRA “delayed compliance order” in order to be effectuated. Even
if the alleged violations do not reference the RCRA regulations,
the applicability of such regulations must be considered in
fashioning an appropriate remedy.
Based on the response received, the Board concludes that
neither a RCRA permit or the equivalent of a federal “delayed
compliance order”
is necessary in order to effectuate the remedy
proposed.
However, the Board notes that Illinois’ RCRA
regulations apply not only to owners and operators of
hazardous
waste treatment, storage
or disposal facilities that have fully
complied with the interim status requirements under Section
3005(e) of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code,
Part 703, but also to owners and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities in existence on
November 19, 1980 who have failed to provide timely notification
75-5
—3—
of such activities pursuant to Section 3010(a) of RCRA and/or who
have failed to file a “Part
~“
permit application as required by
40 CFR 270.10(e) or (g) or 35 Ill. Adiri. Code 703.150 and
703.152. The Board concludes that the facility in question was
not an existing facility as defined under RCRA, as of November
19, 1980, and, therefore, Illinois’ RCRA regulations do not
apply.
The following facts have been stipulated to by the parties:
Respondent Interstate Pollution Control, Inc. (IPC) is
alleged to have been the operator of the facility in question
under a lease from Respondents Anderson and Johnson, who owned
the property in fee. The site is located in an industrial area
of Rockford, Illinois approximately one—half mile east of the
Rock River. IPC’s activities at the site included the temporary
storage of industrial waste, consisting for the most part of
oils, oily waste waters, chemical wastes, cyanide sludges and
acids. IPC used the facility to store and transfer liquids in
bulk and to recover lubricating and crankcase oils for subsequent
transfer to reclaimers and recyclers. Drums of materials
received from small—quality generators were consolidated for
trans—shipment off—site or drums of materials were decanted and
transferred to bulk storage or bulk shipment off—site. IPC
ceased operations at the facility in late 1979.
A pond existed at the site into which IPC placed industrial
waste waters. Use of this pond was terminated at the request of
the Agency, and a certain amount of contaminated soil was
stripped therefrom and disposed of pursuant to supplemental
permits issued by the Agency in 1979 and 1980. Clay material and
concrete debris were brought from off—site and used to fill the
former pond and restore the grade at the site. During 1979, a
USEPA inventory at the facility identified between 600 and 800
drums of unidentified material in storage, 21 above—ground
storage tanks and four underground storage tanks. All drummed
materials were removed from the site and above—ground storage
tanks were emptied. All visibly contained soils have been
removed from the site. IPC continues to lease the facility from
Respondents Anderson and Johnson for use as a storage building in
an unrelated business activity of IPC’s.
The parties have indicated that the site in question is
immediately adjacent to a closed landfill in Rockford, Illinois
which is known as the Peoples Avenue Landfill. The general area
within which the Respondents’ site is located is currently
undergoing extensive study by the USEPA for possible remedial
action activity and both the IPC site and the Peoples Avenue
Landfill are presently being studied as possible candidates for
inclusion on the Federal Superfund National Priorities List.
(Stip. 3—4). During the pendency of the instant enforcement
action in PCB 80—21, USEPA took formal action to initiate a study
of the Peoples Avenue Landfill and began an extensive groundwater
monitoring program which included the placement of monitoring
wells on, and around, the IPC site. (Stip. 5).
75.6
—4—
To assist Respondent IPC in evaluating what necessary
actions, if any, still need to be taken at the site, independent
consultants were hired to study the property and its potential
impact on the surrounding area. (See: Hearing Exhibit No. 1, the
study by M. Rapps and Associates). Both the Agency and the
Office of the Illinois Attorney General have had possession of
the Rapp Study for a limited period of time and have no opinion
about it. The Attorney General’s Office has used its technical
support staff and technical personnel of the Agency and has made
independent judgements as to the actions, if any, which should be
taken at the site. Accordingly, the proposed settlement
agreement was fashioned to include the remedial activities
already undertaken by Respondent IPC at the site and also the
following programs resulting from technical studies and
evaluations. (Stip. 54.
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the
Respondents: (1) admit the jurisdictional allegations of the
Second Amended Complaint, but deny each and every material
allegation of the Second Amended Complaint; (2) agree to cease
and desist from any violations of the Act and regulations
thereunder; (3) shall not engage in any activities at the site
which would have the effect of impairing the integrity of any
existing monitoring wells (however, by so agreeing, the
Respondents are not obligated to maintain any existing wells or
install new ones); (4) agree to provide the Agency with access to
the site, during reasonable business hours, for the purpose of
gathering samples from monitoring wells and for determining
whether the Respondents have complied with the terms of the
settlement agreement in PCB 80—21; (5) agree to execute any and
all documents which are required to effectuate the terms of the
settlement agreement in PCB 80—21; (6) agree to provide the
Agency or its designated agents with access to the site, during
reasonable business hours for the purpose of drilling one or more
monitoring wells* at locations to be determined by the Agency and
for the purpose of entering the site on an ongoing basis in order
to monitor the wells installed pursuant to paragraph 12 of the
Stipulation as well as the wells presently existing on the
property, and (7) shall file with the County Recorder of Deeds a
notification in form and substance satisfactory to the Agency
that the property has been used as a landfill and may contain
hazardous substances. (Stip. 5—11).
*The purposes of the monitoring wells include, but are not
limited to: (1) determining the effectiveness of the clay cap to
be placed upon the waste water storage pond by the Respondents;
(2) ascertaining ground water directional flows, and (3)
determining the extend of contamination (upgradient of the site,
downgradient of the site, and within the site). The Agency has
agreed to “endeavor, in good faith, and consistent with the
purposes set forth above, to place the wells at locations which
will not impede the normal operations” of IPC’s business,
however, it is noted that “the Agency’s determination of the
placement of the wells shall be final”. (Stip. 9—10).
75.7
—5—
Additionally, the proposed settlement agreement provides
that “Respondent agrees that any lease or transfer of ownership
of the real estate shall provide continued access to the Agency
for the purpose of monitoring all wells on site” and states that
Respondent IPC: (1) agrees to pay the sum of $5,500.00 into the
Illinois Environmental Protection Trust Fund within 60 days of
the
date of the Board’s Order in the instant case; (2) shall
terminate all on—site storage of oil, drain any and all oil
remaining in underground tanks and fill these tanks with sand,
drain all the oil contained in the above—ground 100,000 gallon
storage tank located at the facility and remove
it from the site
and obtain a certificate from a registered professional engineer
that these agreed—upon measures have been completed (and
thereafter supply
that certificate to the Agency); (3)
shall
install a cap over that portion of the facility formerly occupied
by the industrial wastewater storage pond according to agreed—
upon
criteria acceptable to the Agency (this cap shall measure
27~5feet by 85 feet and consist of two feet of fine grain soil
material on the order of silty clay glacial till, which shall be
compacted to 95 of Standard Proctor and be of a permeability not
greater than 1 x 10—7, etc.) and thereafter obtain, and supply to
the Agency, a certificate from a registered professional engineer
verifying compliance with the terms of item #4 on pages 6 and 7
0
the Stipulation; (4) agrees that, in the event that IPC elects
to
build a structure on any portion of the aforementioned capped
area, the physical characteristics of the foundation and flooring
0.
the structure will be of such physical properties to at least
be equivalent to the cap itself in terms of porosity and ability
to withstand weathering and shall be accompanied by an
appropriate certificate
from .a registered professional engineer
and properly submitted
to the Agency, and (5) agrees that the cap
described in item
#4 on pages 6 and
7 of the Stipulation shall be
overlain with a coating
of asphalt not less than l1/2inches thick
and pitched in such a fashion
as to avoid the accumulation of
standing water and shall notify the Agency when the cap, includin
asphalt overlay, has been completed.** (Stip. 5—11)
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.
Accordingly, the Respondents will be ordered to cease and desist
from any violations of the Act and regulations thereunder and
Respondent IPC will be ordered to pay the sum of $5,500.00 into
the Environmental Protection Trust Fund.
**The Respondents have agreed to provide continuing periodic
maintenance to the cap in order to provide for the cap’s
continuing integrity. (Stip. 8). Moreover, it has been agreed
that “the asphalt shall be maintained,
strengthened
and upgraded
as needed to support the traffic to which it is subjected” if
“any traffic or vehicles are permitted to pass over the
asphalt”. (Stip. 8).
75-8
—6—
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 Respondents shall cease and desist from any
violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act and regulations thereunder.
2. Within 60 days of the date of the Order, Respondent
Interstate
Pollution Control, Inc. shall, by
certified check or money order payable to the State
of Illinois and designated for deposit into the
Environmental Protection Trust Fund, pay the sum of
$5,500.00 which is to be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
3. The Respondents shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the Proposal for Settlement which was
filed on September 2, 1986, and is attached hereto.
IT IS SC ORDERED.
Board Member 3. Theodore Meyer dissents.
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ,~boveOpinion and Order was
adopted on the
7~?’~’day of
_________________,
1987 by a vote
of
!~—/
.
I
‘Dorothy N. /Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
75.9
BEFORE THE POLLUTION
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY AND PEOPLE
)
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainants,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 80-21
)
INTERSTATE POLLUTION CONTROL, INC.,
)
a Delaware corporation licensed
)
to do business In Illinois, LAVERNE
)
E. ANDERSON, LUCILLE D. ANDERSON and
—
MARGARET J. JOHNSON,
)
)
Respondents.
PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
I.
Introduction
The Complainants in this proceeding, ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, appear by Neil F. HartIgan, Attorney General.
Respondent, INTERSTATE POLLUTION CONTROL, INC., a Delaware
corporation authorized to do business In the State of
Illinois, is represented by Attorney Thomas J. Immel.
Respondents, LAVERNE E. ANDERSON, LUCILLE D. ANDERSON and
MARGARET 3. JOHNSON, appear by Laverne E. Anderson, their
attorney. The original Complaint in this proceeding was
filed on or about January 25, 1980. Thereafter, on or
about Apr11 29, 1980, said Complaint was amended, and
thereafter amended for a second time on or about August 26,
1980. The Second Amended Complaint, consisting of four
counts, accused the Respondents of violations of the
75.10
—2—
Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) and the Rules and
Regulations of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
specifically those provisions which relate to the
permitting and operation of solid waste management sites.
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the Respondents
operated the facility which Is the subject matter of the
Complaint without proper operating permits In violation of
Solid Waste Rule 807.202(b)(1) (old
Ru-le
202) and Section
21(d) and (e) of the Act, and in such a manner as to create
a water pollution hazard in violation of Section 12(d) of
the Act. The Complaint also asserts that the Respondents
engaged in open dumping at the site, failed to apply cover
pursuant to the Solid Waste Rules 807.305(a) (old Rule 505)
and Section 21(a) and Cc) of the Act, and threatened or
allowed the discharge of contaminants in such a manner as
to cause water pollution in violation of Section 12(a) of
the Act. Interstate Pollution Control.. Inc. (“IPC”), is
alleged to have been the operator of the facility In
question under a lease from the Respondents Anderson and
Johnson, who owned the property in fee. The site Is
located in an industrial area of Rockford, Illinois,
approximately one-half mile east of the Rock River. The
IPC facility is situated on a narrow strip of’ land
encompassing approximately two acres. IPC ceased
operations
at the facility in late 1979. During 1979, a
USEPA inventory at the facility identified between 600 and
75.11
-3-
800 drums of unidentified material in storage, 21
above-ground storage tanks, and four underground storage
tanks. IPC’s activities at the site had Included the
temporary storage of industrial waste, consisting for the
most part of oils, oily waste waters, chemical wastes,
cyanide sludges and acids. IPC used the facility to store
and transfer liquids in bulk and to recover lubricating and
crankcase oils for subsequent transfer to reclaimers and
recyclers. Drums of materials received from small quantity
generators were consolidated for transshipment off—site, or
drums of materials were decanted and transferred to bulk
storage or bulk shipment off-site. A pond existed at the
site Into which IPC placed industrial waste waters. At the
request of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
use of the pond was terminated, and a certain amount of
contaminated soil was stripped therefrom and disposed of
pursuant to supplemental permits issued by the Agency in
1979 and 1980. Clay material and concrete debris was then
brought from off-site and used to fill the former pond and
restore the grade at the site. All drummed materials were
likewise removed from the site and above-ground storage
tanks were emptied. All visibly contaminated soils have
been removed from the site. All of the foregoing activity
at the site has terminated. Instead, IPC continues to
lease the facility from the Andersoris and Johnson and to
use the storage building on site for storage of portable
75.12
—4-
toilets (owners of IPC have an unrelated business activity
involving the leasing of portable sanitation facilities to
construction sites, public events, etc.). The IPC site
which Is the subject matter of this proceeding Is
immediately adjacent to a facility In Rockford, Illinois
known as the Peoples Avenue Landfill, which Is now closed.
The general area within which the site is located is
presently undergoing extensive study by the USEPA for
possible remedial action activity. The Peoples Avenue
Landfill and the IPC site are being studied as possible
candidates for inclusion on the Federal Superfund National
Priorities List. IPC retained the services of consultants
M. Rapps & Associates to assist them in evaluating what
actions, if any, should be undertaken at the IPC site to
address the concerns of the Complainants in this case as
set forth in their Second Amended Complaint. M. Rapps &
Associates made a study of the site and its potential
impact on the surrounding area. Their report has been
provided to IPC and will be submitted by IPC as an exhibit
at the hearing in this cause. The Office of the Attorney
General and the Agency have had possession of the Rapps’
study for a limited period of time, have not had an
opportunity to study It, and have no opinion about it. The
Office of the Illinois Attorney General has looked to its
own technical support staff, as well as the technical
personnel of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
75-13
—5—
md made Independent judgments as to the actions, if any,
A”hich should be taken to address the concerns expressed on
the face of the Second Amended Complaint in this
proceeding. Extensive discussions between the parties have
been on-going, but periodically Interrupted while the
parties awaited the results of technical evaluations or
studies. Also, during the pendency of these proceedings,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency took
formal action to initiate a study of the Peoples Avenue
Landfill and commenced an areal groundwater monitoring
program, which Included the placement of monitoring wells
on and around the IPC site. As a result of discussions and
negotiations between the parties, a decision was reached
that the above-referenced matter should be settled, which
settlement would take into account the remedial activities
already undertaken by IPC at the site. The parties have,
therefore, agreed to the following:
II.
Settlement Agreement
Complainants and Respondents agree as follows:
1. Respondents admit all the jurisdictional
allegations of the Second Amended Complaint.
2. No statement, representation or undertaking
contained within this Settlement Agreement shall be binding
upon any party unless the Settlement Agreement is approved
75.14
—6—
in all respects by the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
The Settlement Agreement is entered Into for purposes of
settling this litigation and avoiding unnecessary expense.
It can in no way be considered an admission for the
purposes of any other proceeding before any other tribunal
in any state or federal jurisdiction. The Settlement
Agreement is proposed and submitted to the Illinois
Pollution Control P~oard pursuant to th~e provisions of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 103.180. Except for admitting the juris-
dictional allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, the
Respondents have and continue to deny each and every
material allegation of the Second Amended Complaint.
Notwithstanding said aenial, Respondents agree that they
will undertake the actions described In the succeeding
paragraphs of this Settlement Agreement.
3. IPC has agreed to terminate all on-site
storage of oil for the present as well as in the future.
It will drain any and all oil remaining in underground
tanks and cause said tanks to be filled with sand.
Further, IPC will drain all oil contained In the above-
ground 100,000 gallon storage tank located at the facility
and remove It from the site. IPC will obtain a certificate
from a Registered Professional Engineer that the terms of
this paragraph have been met and supply said certificate to
the Environmental Protection Agency.
4. IPC agrees to install a cap over that
75.15
—7-
portion of the facility formerly occupied by the industrial
waste water storage pond. Said cap shall measure 275 feet
by 85 feet and consist of 2 feet of fine grain soil
material on the order of silty clay glacial till, which
shall be compacted to 95 of Standard Proctor and be of a
permeability not greater than 1 x iO~’.
IEPA shall be advised by IPC of the source of the
fine-grairred soll -material prior to It-s placement. In the
event IEPA objects to any specific source of material, it
shall so notify IPC within 30 days of being notified of the
source, in which event that source will not be used. In
the event that IPC elects to build a structure on any
portion of the capped area, the physical characteristics of
the foundation and flooring of the structure will be of
such physical properties to at least be equivalent to the
cap itself in terms of porosity and ability to withstand
weathering. The IEPA neither approves nor disapproves the
construction of any structure provided that the structure
will be equivalent to the cap as described hereinabove.
IPC shall obtain the certificate of a Registered
Professional Engineer that they have complied with the
terms of this paragraph and provide said certificate to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
5. The cap described in the preceding paragraph
shall be overlain with a coating of asphalt not less than
1-1/2 inches thick and pitched in such a fashion as to
75.16
-8-
avoid the accumulation of standing water. Respondents
shall provide continuing periodic maintenance to the cap so
as to provide for its continuing integrity. To the extent
that any traffic or vehicles are permitted to pass over the
asphalt, the asphalt shall be maintained, strengthened and
upgraded as needed to support the traffic to which it is
subjected. IPC shall notify the Agency when the cap,
including the asphalt overlay, has been completed.
6. Respondents will not engage in any
activities at the site which would have the effect of
impairing the integrity of any existing monitoring wells;
however, by so agreeing, Respondants are not obligated to
maintain any existing wells or install new ones.
7. Respondents agree to provide the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency with access to the site,
during reasonable business hours, for the purpose of
gathering samples from monitoring wells and to determine
that Respondents have complied with the terms of this
Settlement Agreement.
8. All of the Respondents agree to execute any
and all documents which are required to effectuate the
terms of this Settlement Agreement.
9. Complainants and Respondents agree that
Implementation of this Settlement Agreement will constitute
full and final settlement of the claims made by
Complainants in their Second Amended Complaint now pending
75.17
—9—
before this Board, which Second Amended Complaint is
incorporated by reference herein.
10. Complainants and Respondents agree that the
implementation of this Settlement Agreement is conditioned
upon and effective only upon its approval in all respects
by the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
11. Respondents agree to cease and desist from
any violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, Ch. 111—1/2, Par. 1001, et seq.,
and regulations thereunder, all as alleged in the Second
Amended Complaint.
12. Respondents agree to provide the IEPA or
its designated agents with access to the site, during
reasonable business hours, both for the purpose of drilling
one or more monitoring wells at locations to be determined
by the IEPA, and for the purpose of entering the site on an
ongoing basis in order to monitor the wells installed
pursuant to this paragraph as well as the wells presently
existing on the property. The purposes
of
the monitoring
wells include but are not limited to determining the
effectiveness of the clay cap to be placed upon the waste
water storage pond by the Respondents, determining ground
water directional flows, and determining the extent of
contamination upgradient of the site, downgradient of the
site and within the site. The IEPA will endeavor, in good
faith, and consistent with the purposes set forth above, to
75-18
-10—
place the wells at locations which will
not impede the
normal operations of Respondent’s business. However, the
Agency’s determination of the placement of the wells shall
be final.
13. Respondent agrees that any lease or
transfer of ownership of the real estate shall provide
continued access to the IEPA for the purpose of monitoring
all wells on site.
14. Respondents shall file with County Recorder
of Deeds a notification in form and substance satisfactory
to the IEPA that the property has been used as a landfill
and may contain hazardous substances.
15. Complainants and Respondents agree that the
settlement of this suit and entry of an agreed order shall
in no way constitute either a waiver of any party’s rights
or a release or waiver of any party’s potential liability
arising under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder or to Sections 4, 22.2
and 22.7 of the Environmental Protection Act and any
amendments thereto and all rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder.
16. Respondent IPC agrees that within 60 days
of approval of this Settlement Agreement by the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, IPC shall make a contribution in
the amount of S5,500.00 to the Environmental Protection
75-19
—11—
Trust Fund, which fund exists pursuant to the provisions of
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act.
III
Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the
above—named Complainants and Respondents jointly request
that the Illinois Pollution Control Board adopt and accept
the Settlement Agreement as written.
ILLINO IS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, Complainants
By Neil F. Hartigan,
Attorney General, State
of Illinois, Attorney for
Complainants
By
~
~&~‘
Gerald T. Karr
Respectfully submitted,
INTERSTATE POLLUTION CONTROL,
I~eso~
o
J. Iminel
Attorney for Respondent IPC
LAVERNE E. ANDERSON, LUCILLE
D. ANDERSON and MARGARET J.
J
APPROVED:
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PRO CTIO ENCY
By
J seph Sv’o~oda
ana?ger, Enforcement Programs
INTERSTATE POLLUTION CONTROL,
::C
Charles Kullberg
President
By
Their Attorney
75.20
