RECE~VED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RECE~VED

CLERK’S OFFICE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA MADIGAN Attorney General

)

 JUL 2820

of the State

 of Illinois,

)

 STATEOFILUNOIS

pollution

Control

Board

Complainant,

vs.

)

 PCB No.

 04-67

(Enforcement

 Water)

ROYAL TRUCKING

COMPANY,

a

Mississippi Corporation

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

 Wayne Flippo

Royal Trucking

Co.

P.O. Box 387

West POint,

 Mississippi

39773

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July

28,

 2004,

 we filed with the

Illinois Pollution Control Board a STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR

SETTLEMENT and

 a MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM HEARING REQUIREMENT,

 true and

correct copies

 of which are attached and hereby served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

LISA MADIGAN

Attorney General

State of Illinois

BY:

_________

Chr±stoph~/

 Per an

Assistant A

 y General

Environmental Bureau

188

W.

 Randolph

 St.,

 20th Floor

Chicago,

 Illinois

60601

(312)

 814-3532

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

 JUL 28 2OO~

ex

rel.

LISA MADIGAN,

 Attorney

General

 of the State

 of Illinois,

)

STATEOFtLLI1~JOIS

Pollution Control Board

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 04-67

(Enforcement-Water)

ROYAL TRUCKING COMPANY,

a

Mississippi

 corporation,

)

Respondent.

STIPULATION AND

PROPOSAL

FOR

SETTLEMENT

Complainant,

 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA MADIGAN,

Attorney General of the State of Illinois, on her own motion, and at

the request of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

 (“Illinois

EPA”),

 and Respondent, ROYAL TRUCKING COMPANY

 (“Royal”),

 do hereby

submit this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.

 The parties

agree that the Complainant’s statement of facts contained herein is

agreed to only. for the purposes of settlement.

 The parties further

state that neither the fact that a party has entered into this

stipulation, nor any of the facts stipulated herein,

 shall be

admissible into evidence,

 or used for any purpose in this,

 or any

other proceeding, except to enforce the terms hereof, by the pa±ties

to this agreement.

 Notwithstanding the previous sentence, this

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement, and any Illinois Pollution

Control Board

 (“Board”) order accepting same, may be used as evidence

of a past adjudicated violation of the Act as alleged herein, pursuant

to Section 42(h)

 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

 (“Act”),

415 ILCS 5/42 (h) (2002),

 in determining appropriate civil penalties for

any future violations

 of the

Act.

 This Stipulation may also be used

in any permitting action for the purposes of Sections 39(a)

and

 (i) of

the Act,

 415 ILCS 5/39(a)

and

 (i) (2002)

 This Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement shall be null and void unless the Board approves and

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

conditions of the settlement set forth herein.

I.

JURISDICTION

The Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and of

the parties consenting hereto pursuant

 to the Act,

 415 ILCS 5/1

et

seq.

 (2002)

II.

AUTHORIZATION

The undersigned representatives for each party certify that they

are fully authorized by the party whom they represent

 to enter into

the terms and conditions of this Stipulation and Proposal

for

Settlement and

to legally bind them to it.

II I•.

APPLICABILITY

This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement

 shall apply to,

and

be binding upon,

 the Complainant and Royal,

 and any officer,

 agent,

employee or servant of Royal,

 as well as the Royal’s successors and

assigns.

 Royal shall not raise as a defense to

any enforcement action

taken pursuant to

 this settlement

 the failure of its officers,

2

directors,

 agents,

 servants or employees to take such action as shall

be required to comply with the provisions

 of this settlement.

Iv.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.

 The Illinois EPA is

 an administrative agency of

 the State of

Illinois,

 created pursuant

 to Section 4

 of the Act,

 415 ILCS

5/4

(2002),

 and is charged,

 inter alia,

with the duty of enforcing the

Act.

2.

 Respondent Royal,

 at all times relevant to the Complaint in

this matter,

 was and is a Mississippi corporation in good standing.

3.

 Respondent Royal,

 at all times relevant to the Complaint in

this matter,

 has owned and operated a trucking operation that does

business nationally, including in the State of Illinois.

4.

 On or about December 30,

 2002,

 Royal was hauling a load of

sodium bisulfite on an entrance ramp leading to Interstate 94 in

Chicago,

 Cook County,

 Illinois.

5.

 Royal’s truck Overturned

 on the ramp and sodium bisulfite

was released.

 The sodium bisulfite flowed into areas within the

Interstate 94 interchange and contaminated soils and pooled water.

6.

 PVS Chemical Solutions,

 the manufacturer from which the

sodium bisulfite originated, hired a response contractor that

performed removal, containerization and disposal

of the spilled sodium

bisulfite and contaminated soils,

 as well as aeration of impacted

waters.

 Response actions took place from December 30,

 2002 through

January

8,

 2003.

3

V.

VIOLATIONS

The Complaint alleges

 the following violations:

Count

I:

 WATER POLLUTION violation of Section 12(a)

 of the Act,

415

ILCS 5/12(a) (2002).

Count

II:

 CREATION OF

A WATER POLLUTION HAZARD violation of Section

12(d)

 of the Act,

415

 ILCS 5/12(d) (2002).

VI.

NATURE OF RESPONDENT’S OPERATIONS

Respondent owns and operates

 a trucking fleet that hauls

commodities and other materials nationwide.

VII.

FUTURE PLANS OF COMPLIANCE

Royal shall comply with all requirements of the Act,

 415 ILCS 5/1

et

 seq.

 (2002), and the

Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations,

35 Ill. Adm.

 Code Subtitles A through H.

 Roya.l will not,

 in the

future,

 haul hazardous materials within the State of Illinois.

VIII.

IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC RESULTING FROM ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE

Section 33 (c)

of

 the Act,

 415 ILCS 5/33 (c) (2002), provides as

follows:

4

In making

 its orders and determinations,

the

Board shall

 take into consideration all

the

facts

and

 circumstances

 bearing

 upon

the

reasonableness of the emissions,

 discharges,

or

 deposits

 involved

 including,

but

not

limited to:

1.

 the character and degree of injury

to,

or interference with the protection of

the

 health,

 general

 welfare

and

physical property of the people;

2.

the

 social

 and economic

 value

of

the

pollution source;

3.

 the suitability or unsuitability of the

pollution source

 to the area

 in which

it

 is located,

 including the questions

of

 priority

of

 location

in

the

 area

involved;

4.

the

 technical

 practicability

and

economic reasonableness of reducing or

eliminating the

 emissions,

 discharges

or

 deposits

 resulting

 from

 such

pollution source;

and

5.

 any subsequent compliance.

In response

 to these factors,

 the parties state as follows:

1.

 Plaintiff contends that the impact

 to the public resulting

from Royal’s noncompliance was

 the spill and presence

 of sodium

bisulfite in

 the environment and the resulting inconvenience

 to the

public arising from the closing of

 a major interstate highway.

2.

 Royal’s operations

 that are the subject

 of the Complaint

have social and economic value.

3.

 The activity that is the subject

 of the Complaint,

 i.e.,

the

hauling of chemicals,

 is suitable

to

 the, area in which it took place.

4.

 Compliance with the requirements of the Act and the Board

Regulations

 is both technically practicable and economically

reasonable.

5

5.

 Compliance was achieved by the removal of contaminated soils

and liquids and the

 in situ

treatment of impacted pooled waters

through aeration...

IX.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 42(h)

 FACTORS

Section 42(h)

 of the Act,

 415 ILCS 5/42(h) (2002), provides as

follows:

In determining the appropriate civil penalty

to be imposed under subdivisions

 (a),

 (b) (1),

(b) (3)

or

 (b) (5)

 of this Section,

 the Board

is

 authorized

to

 consider

any

 matters

of

record

in

 mitigation

or

 aggravation

of

penalty,

 including

but

not

 limited

to

the

following factors:

1.

the

 duration

and

 gravity

of

the

violation;

2.

the

 presenáe

 or..

 absence

of

due

diligence on the part of the respondent

in

 attempting

to

 comply

 with

the

requirements

of

 this

Act

and

regulations

 thereunder

or

to

 secure

relief therefrom

 as provided by

 this

Act;

3.

any

 economic

 benefits

 accrued

by

the

respondent

 because

of

 delay

in

compliance

 with requirements

 in which

case

the

 economic

 benefits

 shall

be

determined

by

the

 lowest

 cost

alternative for achieving compliance;

4.

the

 amount

of

 monetary penalty

 which

will

 serve to deter further violations

by the respondent and to otherwise

aid

in enhancing voluntary compliance with

this

Act

by

the

 respondent

and

 other

persons

 similarly

 subject

to

 the Act;

and.

5.

the

 number,

 proximity

in

 time,

and

gravity

of

 previously

 adjudicated.

6

violations

of

 this

Act

by

the

respondent.

6.

 whether

the

 respondent voluntarily

self-disclosed,

in

 accordance

 with

subsection

Ci)

of

 this

 Section,

the

non-compliance to the Agency;

7.

 whether

 the respondent

has

 agreed

to

undertake a ~supplemental environmental

project,u

 which

 means

an

environmentally beneficial project that

a

 respondent

 agrees

to

 undertake

in

settlement

of

an

 enforcement

 action

brought under

 this Act, but which the

respondent

is

not

 otherwise

 legally

required to perform.

In response to these factors,

 the parties state

 as follows:

1.

 Complainant contends that the violations that are the

subject

 of the Complaint occurred over approximately ten

 (10)

 days.

The gravity of the violation’s environmental impact was moderate.

However, the incident resulted in the closing of a major Interstate

for several hours and necessitated remediation over a period of

approximately ten

 (10)

 days.

2.

 Complainant contends that the Respondent did not exercise

diligence in that it failed to operate the truck in a manner which

would have prevented the spill.

3.

 Complainant and Respondent stipulate that the Respondent

accrued no material economic benefit from noncompliance.

4.

 The parties stipulate that a civil penalty of $5,000.00 will

deter further violations and will aid in enhancing voluntary

compliance by Royal and others similarly subject to the Act.

5.

 Complainant

 is not aware of any prior adjudicated violations

by the Respondent.

7

6.

 Respondent did not meet

 the requirements of Section 42(h)

(6)

of the Act,

 415 ILCS 5/42(h) (6) (2002).

7.

 Respondent is not performing a Supplemental Environmental

Project pursuant

 to Section 42(h)

(7)

 of the Act,

 415 ILCS

5/42(h) (7) (2002)

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

1.

 The Respondent represents that it has entered into this

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement for the purpose of settling

and compromising disputed claims without having to incur the expense

of contested litigation.

 By entering into this Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement and complying with its terms,

 the Respondent

does not affirmatively admit the allegations of violation within the

Complaint, and this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement shall not

be interpreted as including such admission.

2.

 Royal shall pay a civil penalty of $5,000.00 into the

Environmental Protection Trust Fund within twenty-one

 (21)

 days after

the date the Board adopts a final opinion and order approving this

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.

 Payments shall be made by

certified check or money order, payable to the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, designated to the Illinois Environmental Protection

Trust Fund,

 and shall be sent by first class mail to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Section

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O.

 Box 19276

Springfield,

 IL 62794

A copy of

 the check shall

 be sent

to:

8

Christopher

P.

 Perzan

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 West Randolph Street,

 20th Floor

Chicago,

 IL 60601

Royal shall write

 the case caption and number,

 and its Federal

Employer Identification Number

 (“FEIM”)

 7O2(26

upon the

certified check or money order.

3.

 For purposes of payment and collection,

 the Respondent may

be reached at the following address:

Royal Trucking Company

c/o Mr. Wayne Flippo

 P.O.

387

West Point, Mississippi

39773

4.

 Pursuant to Section 42(g)

of

 the Act,

 415 ILCS

4/42 (g) (2002),

 interest shall accrue on any amount not paid within the

time period prescribed herein,

at

 the maximum rate allowable under

Section 1003(a)

 of the Illinois Income Tax Act,

35

 ILCS 5/1003 (a)

(2002)

a.

 Interest on unpaid amounts shall begin to accrue from

the date the penalty is due and continue to accrue to the date payment

is received.

b.

 Where partial payment is made on any payment amount

that

 is due,

 such partial payment shall be first applied to any

interest on unpaid amounts then owing.

c.

 All interest

 on amounts owed the Complainant,

 shall be

paid by certified check payable to the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency for deposit

 in the Environmental Protection Trust

Fund and delivered in the same manner as described in Section XI.2.

herein.

9

5.

 If the Respondent

 is delinquent

 in any of the payments

in

paragraph

1,

 above,

 the entire unpaid amount shall accelerate and

become due and owing in full immediately.

6.

 Complainant has agreed to the payment schedule

 in paragraph

1,

 above,

 upon the Respondent’s providing information as to its

financial ability to pay and Respondent’s representation that payment

of

 the penalty amount

 in one payment would constitute a financial

hardship.

7.

 Royal shall cease and desist from future violations

 of the

Act and Board Regulations,

 including, but not limited to, those

sections of the Act and Board Regulations that were the subject matter

of

 the Complaint as outlined in Section V of this Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement.

XII.

COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in no way affects

the Respondent’s responsibility to comply with any federal,

 state or

local laws and regulations.

XIII.

RELEASE FROM LIABILITY

In consideration of

 the Respondent’s payment of

 a $5,000.00 civil

penalty and its commitment to refrain from further violations of

the

Act and the Board Regulations,

 upon receipt by Complainant of the

payment required by Section XI

 of this Stipulation,

 the Complainant

10

releases,

 waives and discharges Respondent and its officers,

directors,

 employees,

 agents,

 successors and assigns from any further

liability or penalties

 for violations which were the subject matter

of

the Complaint herein.

 However,

 nothing in this Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement shall be construed as

 a waiver by Complainant

of the right

 to redress future violations or obtain penalties with

respect thereto.

The

 remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.

11

WHEREFORE,

 Complainant and Respondent request that the Board

adopt and accept the foregoing Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement

as written.

AGREED:

FOR

THE

COMPLAINANT:

FOR

THE

RESPONDENT:

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

 ROYAL TRUCKING COMP

ex

rel.

LISA

MADIGAN

Attorney General

~

State of Illinois

Its:

MATTHEW

J.

 DUNN,

 Chief,

Environmental Enforcement

Asb,~

 Litigation 1~i~rision

By:____________

~MARI~

CAZEAU,

Env~~e~~ Bure

Assistant Attorne~~~~

Dated:___________________

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

By:___________________________

 ief Legal Counsel

V

 vision of Legal Counsel

Dated:

 7—

•.

RECE~VED

•

 BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARVLERK’S

OFFICE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

 JUL 282004

by LISA MADIGAN Attorney General

of the State

 of Illinois,

)

 STATEOFILLINOIS

Pollut,on Control Board

Complainant,

vs.

)

 PCE No.

 04-67

(Enforcement

 Water)

ROYAL TRUCKING COMPANY,

a

Mississippi Corporation

Respondent.

MOTION TO REQUEST RELIEF FROM HEARING REQUIREMENT

NOW COMES the Complainant,

 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS,

by

LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of

Illinois,

and

requests relief from the hearing requirement in this case pursuant

to Section 31(c) (2)

 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

(“Act”), 415 ILCS 5/31(c) (2)

 (2002), and Secti~n103.300 of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board

 (“Board”)

 Procedural Rules,

35

Ill. Adm. Code 103.300.

 In support thereof, the Complainant states

as follows:

1.

 Section 31(c) (2)

 of the Act

allows the parties in

certain enforcement cases to request relief from the mandatory

hearing requirement where the parties submit to the Board a

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.

 Section 31(c) (2)

 provides

as follows:

Notice;

complaint;

hearing.

(c) (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision

(1)

of this subsection

 (c), whenever a complaint has been

filed on behalf of the Agency or by the People of the

State of Illinois,

 the parties may file with the Board a

stipulation and proposal for settlement accompanied by a

request for relief from the requirement

 of a hearing

pursuant to subdivision

 (1). Unless the Board,

 in its

discretion,

 concludes that a hearing will be held,

the

Board shall cause notice of the stipulation,

 proposal

and request for relief to be published and sent in the

same manner as

is required for hearing pursuant to

subdivision

(1)

of

this subsection. The notice shall

include a statement that any person may file a

written

demand for hearing within 21 days after receiving the

notice.

 If any person files a timely written demand for

 hearing, the Board shall deny the request for relief

from a hearing and shall hold a hearing in accordance

with the provisions of subdivision

(1)

2.

 Board Procedural Rule 103.300 provides,

 in relevant

part,

 as follows

 (emphasis

 in original):

Request for Relief from Hearing Requirement

 in State

Enforcement Proceeding.

•

(a)

 Whenever a complaint has been filed on behalf of the

Agency or by the People of the State of Illinois,

the

parties may file with the Board a proposed stipulation

and settlement accompanied by a request for relief from

the requirement of a hearing

 pursuant

to Section

31(c)

(2)

 of the Act

415

 ILCS

 5/31(c) (2)

3.

 Simultaneously with this Motion,

 a Stipulation and

Proposal

 for Settlement

 is being filed with the Board.

4.

 No hearing is currently scheduled in this case.

5.

 Complainant

is,

 therefore,

 requesting relief from the

hearing

requirement.

WHEREFORE,

 the Complainant,

 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney General of the State of Illinois,

respectfully

 requests. relief from the requirement

of

 a hearing

pursuant to Section 31(c)

(2)

 of the Act.

Respectfully submitted,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General

of the State of Illino~

BY.

 C~~OPHER.Pç~

Assistant Attorney

 eneral

Environmental Bureau

188 West Randolph

 Street,

 Suite 2001

Chicago,

 Illinois 60601

(312)814-3532

•

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, CHRISTOPHER

P.

PERZAN,

 an Assistant Attorney General, certify

that

 on the

____

 day of

 July,

 2004,

 I caused

to be served by United

States Mail,

 the foregoing STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT and

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM HEARING REQUIREMENT to the parties named on the

attached service

 list,

 by depositing same in postage prepaid envelopes

with the United States Postal Service located at

 100 West Randolph

Street,

 Chicago,

 Illinois 60601.

\Forrns\Bdnotice

.wpd