WASTE
HAULING
LANDFILL,
iNC.,
JERRY
(Cost
Recovery)
fltrol
Board
CAMFIELD,
A.E.
STALEY
MANUFACTURING
CO.,
ARCHER
DANIELS
MIDLAND,
INC.,
ARAMARK
UNIFORM
SERVICES
INC.
BELLSPORTS
fl
I
r’
I
1
,
,
‘)
INC.,
BORDEN
CHEMICAL
CO.,
“-‘
1
\
r-
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE,
INC.,
CLIMATE
CONTROL,
INC.,
CATERPILLAR)
INC.,
COMBE
LABORATORIES,
INC.,
GENERAL
ELECTRIC
RAILCAR
SERVICES
CORPORATION,
P&H
MANUFACTURING,
INC.,
TRINITY
RAIL
GROUP,
INC.,
TRIPLE
S
REFINING
CORPORATION
and
ZEXEL
ILLiNOIS,
INC.
)
Respondents.
NOTICE
OF
FILING
j
To:
James
L.
Morgan
AssistantAttorney
General
500
SouthSecond
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
John
E.
Collins
Husch
Blackwell
Sanders,
LLP
190
Carondelet
Plaza,
Suite
600
St.
Louis,
MO
63105
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that
on
the
1st
day
of
September,
2009,
we
filed
Tate
and
Lyle
IngredientsAmericas,
Inc.’s
ANSWER
AND
AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES,
before
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
a
copy
which
is
attached
and
served
upon
you.
CR1
11782680.1
Jeryl
L.
Olson
L.
Curtis
Elizabeth
Leifel
Ash
Shaw
LLP
131
S.
Dearborn
Street
Suite
2400
Chicago,
Illinois
60603
(312)
460-5000
2
CH1
11782680.1
-‘çiiuuon
Control
Board
WASTE
HAULING
LANDFILL,
INC.,
JERRY
(Cost
Recover
CAMFIELD,
A.E.
STALEY
MANUFACTURING
CO.,
ARCHER
DANIELS
MIDLAND,
INC.,
ARAMARK
UNIFORM
SERVICES,
INC.,
BELL
SPORTS,
INC.,
BORDEN
CHEMICAL
CO.,
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE,
INC.,
CLIMATE
CONTROL,
INC.,
CATERPILLAR)
INC.,
COMBE
LABORATORIES,
INC.,
GENERAL
ELECTRIC
RAILCAR
SERVICES
CORPORATION,
P&H
MANUFACTURING,
INC.,
TRINITY
RAIL
GROUP,
INC.,
TRIPLE
S
REFINING
CORPORATION
and
ZEXEL
ILLINOIS,
INC.
)
Respondents.
RESPONDENT
TATE
&
LYLE
INGREDIENTS
AMERICAS,
INC.’S
ANSWER
AND
AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
Respondent,
TATE
&
LYLE
INGREDIENTS
AMERICAS,
INC.
(improperly
named
as
A.E.
STALEY
MANUFACTURING
CO.)
(hereinafter
“Tate
&
Lyle”),
by
and
through
its
attorneys,
Seyfarth
Shaw,
hereby
answers
Complainants’
Complaint
as
follows:
COUNT
I:
COST
RECOVERY
COMPLAINT
¶
1:
This
Complaint
is
brought
by
the
Attorney
General
on
her
own
motion
and
at
the
request
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”),
pursuant
to
the
terms
and
provisions
of
Title
VIII
(Sections
30-34)
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act”),
415
ILCS
5/30-34
(2008).
CHI
11782680.1
The
Illinois
EPA
is
an
agency
of
the
State
of
Illinois
created
by
the
Illinois
General
Assembly
in
Section
4
ofthe
Act,
415
ILCS
5/4
(2008),
and
charged,
inter
alia,
with
the
duty
of
enforcing
the
Act
in
proceedings
before
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
(“Board”).
ANSWER:
On
information
and
belief
Tate
&
Lyle
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
2
of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
3:
This
Complaint
is
brought
pursuant
to
Section
22.2(f)-(k)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/22.2(f)-
ANSWER:
(k)(2008).
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
Paragraph
3
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
conclusion
of
law
to
which
no
response
is
required.
To
the
extent
any
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
admits
that
the
Complaint
purports
to
bring
an
action
under
Section
22.2(f)-(k)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/22.2(f)-(k)
(2008)
but
denies
that
it
is
liable
under
said
sections
of
the
Act.
COMPLAINT
¶
4:
Respondent,
Waste
Hauling
Landfill,
Inc.,
is
a
corporation
formerly
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.3
15
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.315
(2008).
Waste
Hauling
Landfill,
Inc.,
operated
the
Waste
Hauling
Landfill
(the
“Landfill”),
a
former
sanitary
landfill
located
in
the
Northwest
Quarter
of
the
Northwest
Quarter
of
Section
26,
Township
16
North,
Range
1
East
(Blue
Mound
Township),
Macon
County,
ANSWER:
Illinois.
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
4
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
2
CHI
11782680.1
Respondent,
Jerry
Camfield,
is
an
individual
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.315
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.315
(2008).
Jerry
Camfield
owned
Waste
Hauling
Landfill,
Inc.
and
personally
directed
its
operations.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
5
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
5
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
COMPLAINT
same.
¶
6:
Respondent,
A.E.
Staley
Manufacturing
Co.,
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.3
15
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.3
15
(2008).
A.E.
Staley
Manufacturing
Co.,
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes
contained
hazardous
substances.
ANSWER:
Respondent
Tate
&
Lyle
admits
that
it
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois.
Tate
&
Lyle
further
states
that
the
remaining
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
6
of
the
Complaint
contain
legal
conclusions
for
which
no
response
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
denies
the
remaining
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
6
of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
7:
Respondent,
Aramark
Uniform
Services,
Inc.,
is
a
corporation
no
longer
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.3
15
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
3
CHI
11782680.1
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
7
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
COMPLAINT
same.
¶
8:
Respondent,
Archer Daniels
Midland,
Inc.,
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.3
15
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.3
15
(2008).
Archer
Daniels
Midland,
Inc.,
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes
contained
hazardous
substances.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
9
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
8
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
COMPLAINT
same.
¶
9:
Respondent,
Bell
Sports,
Inc.,
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.3
15
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.3
15
(2008).
Bell
Sports,
Inc.,
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes
contained
hazardous
substances.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
9
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
4
CHI
11782680.1
Respondent,
Borden
Chemical
Co.,
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.315
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.3
15
(2008).
Borden
Chemical
Co.,
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes
contained
hazardous
substances.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
10
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
10
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
COMPLAINT
same.
¶
11:
Respondent,
Caterpillar
Inc.,
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.3
15
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.3
15
(2008).
Caterpillar
Inc.
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes
contained
hazardous
substances.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
11
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
11
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
same.
5
CHI
11782680.1
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
12
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
12
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
COMPLAINT
same.
¶
13:
Respondent,
Combe
Laboratories,
Inc.,
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.3
15
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.3
15
(2008).
Combe
Laboratories,
Inc.,
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes
contained
hazardous
substances.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
13
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
13
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
COMPLAINT
same.
¶
14:
Respondent,
Bridgestone/Firestone
Inc.,
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.3
15
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.3
15
(2008)
Bridgestone/Firestone
Inc.,
is a
successor
to
Firestone
Tire
&
Rubber
Company,
Firestone
Tire
&
Company,
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes contained
hazardous
substances.
6
CH1
11782680.1
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
14
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
same.
COMPLAINT
¶
15:
Respondent,
General
Electric
Railcar
Services
Corporation,
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.315
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.315
(2008).
General
Electric
Railcar
Services
Corporation
acquired
the
North
American
Car
Corporation.
The
North
American
Car
Corporation
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes
contained
hazardous
substances.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
15
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
15
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
COMPLAINT
same.
¶
16:
Respondent,
Triple
S
Refining
Corporation,
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.3
15
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.3
15
(2008).
Triple
S
Refining
Corporation
is
a
successor
to
Kerr-McGee
Refining
Corporation.
Kerr-McGee
Refining
Corporation
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes
contained
hazardous
substances.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
16
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
7
Cl-Il
11782680.1
P
&
H
Manufacturing,
Inc.,
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes
contained
hazardous
substances.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
17
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
17
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
COMPLAINT
same.
¶
18:
Respondent,
Trinity
Rail
Group,
Inc.,
is
a
corporation
authorized
to
do
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
is
a
person
as
defined
in
Section
3.3
15
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.3
15
(2008).
Trinity
Rail
Group,
Inc.,
acquired
Thrall
Car
Manufacturing
Co.,
which
had
previously
acquired
the
rail
car
division
of
Portec,
Inc.
Thrall
Car
Manufacturing
Co.
and
the
rail
car
division
of
Portec,
Inc.,
sent
wastes
to
the
Landfill
during
its
operating
life
and
those
wastes
contained
hazardous
substances.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
18
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
18
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
same.
8
CHI
11782680.1
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
18
of
the
Complaint
do
not
relate
to
Tate
&
Lyle
and
therefore
no
response
from
Tate
&
Lyle
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
18
of
the
Complaint
and
therefore
denies
COMPLAINT
same.
¶
20:
Section
22.2
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/22.2
(2008),
provides
that:
f.
Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
or
rule
of
law,
and
subject
only
to
the
defenses
set
forth
in
subsection
(j)
of
this
Section,
the
following
persons
shall
be
liable
for
all
costs
of
removal
or
remedial,
action
incurred
by
the
State
of
Illinois
or
any
unit
of
local
government
as
a
result
of
a
release
or
substantial
threat
of
a
release
of
a
hazardous
substance
or
pesticide.
1.
the
owner
and
operator
of
a
facility
or
vessel
from
which
there
is
a
release
or
substantial
threat
of
a
release
of
a
hazardous
substance
or
pesticide;
2.
any
person
who
at
the
time
of
disposal,
transport,
storage
or
treatment
of
a
hazardous
substance
or
pesticide
owned
or
operated
the
facility
or
vessel
used
for
such
disposal,
transport,
treatment
or
storage
from
which
there
was
a
release
or
substantial
threat
of
a
release
of
a
hazardous
substance
or
pesticide;
3.
any
person
who
by
contract,
agreement,
or
otherwise
arranged
for
disposal
or
treatment,
or
arranged
with
a
transporter
for
transport
for
disposal
or
treatment,
of
such
hazardous
substances
owned
or
possessed
by
such
person,
by
any
other
party
or
entity,
at
any
facility,
**
“,
owned
or
operated
by
another
party
or
entity
and
containing
such
hazardous
substances,
9
CHI
11782680.1
Environmental
any
allegation
in
Paragraph
20
of
the
Complaint
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
Act
as
cited
and
denies
that
it
has
violated
the
Act.
COMPLAINT
¶
21:
The
wastes
and
other
materials disposed
of
at
the
Landfill
include
hazardous
substances
as
defined
by
3.14
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.14
(2008).
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
Paragraph
21
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
conclusion
of
law
to
which
no
response
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
denies
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
21
of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
22:
The
State
has
incurred
and
will
continue
to
incur
removal
costs,
as
defined
by
the
Act,
associated
with
the
releases
and
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances
at
the
Facility.
ANSWER:
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
Paragraph
22
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
conclusion
of
law
to
which
no
response
is
required.
To
the
extent
a
response
is
required,
Tate
&
Lyle
states
that
it
is
without
sufficient
information
or
knowledge
either
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
22
of
the
Complaint,
except
that
Tate
&
Lyle
specifically
denies
that
it
was
the
cause
of
or
is
legally
responsible
for
any
“release,”
“threatened
release,”
or
“removal
costs”
incurred
by
the
State.
COMPLAINT
¶
23:
Respondents
are
each
a
responsible
party
as
described
in
Section
22.2(f)(1)-(2)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
4/22.2(f)(1)-(2).
Respondents
are
each
liable
for
past,
present,
and
future
removal
10
CHI
11782680.1
Tate
and
Lyle
and
therefore
denies
same.
Tate
&
Lyle
denies
the
remaining
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
23
of
the
Complaint
and
specifically
denies
that
it
is
a
responsible
party
as
described
in
Section
22.2(f)(1)-(2)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
4/22.2(f)(1)-(2),
and
denies
that
it
is
responsible
for
past,
present,
or
future
removal
costs
at
the
Landfill.
AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
Respondent
asserts
the
following
affirmative
defenses
without
waiving
Complainant’s
obligation
to
meet
its
burden
of
proof
and
without
assuming
any
burden
of
proof
not
otherwise
by
law.
Respondent reserves
the
right
to
raise
other
defenses
of
which
it
may
become
aware
of
during
discovery
or
at
the
time
of
hearing.
1.
The
State’s
Complaint
is
barred
by
the
doctrine
of
laches,
in
that
the
State
has
known
of
the
presence
of
alleged
hazardous
materials
at
the
Waste
Hauling
Landfill
and
initiated
remediation
activities
in
1998.
Nevertheless,
the
State
waited
over
10
years
before
filing
the
present
action.
2.
The
State’s
decision
not
to
pursue
this
action
until
more
than
a
decade
after
its
remediation
efforts
began
has
materially
compromised
Tate
&
Lyle’s
ability
to
defend
this
action.
Accordingly,
by
failing
to
pursue
this
matter
in
a
timely
fashion,
the
State
has
deprived
Tate
&
Lyle
of
its
due
process
rights.
3.
To
the
extent
it
is
determined
by
the
Board
that
Tate
&
Lyle
bears
responsibility
for
any
portion
of
the
State’s
response
costs,
which
Tate
&
Lyle
specifically
denies,
Tate
&
11
CHI
11782680.1
DATED:
September
1,
2009
Respectfully
submitted,
TATE
&
LYLE
INGREDIENTS
AMERICAS,
9
[)
One
of
Its
Attorneys
James
L.
Curtis
Jeryl
L.
Olson
Elizabeth
Leifel
Ash
SEYFARTH
SHAW
LLP
131
South
Dearborn
Street
Suite
2400
Chicago,
Illinois
60603
(312)
460-5000
12
CH1
11782680.1
James
L.
Morgan
Assistant
Attorney
General
500
SouthSecond
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
JohnE.
Collins
OP/pi
Husch
Blackwell
Sanders,
LLP
3/
/
\J/j
/
190
Carondelet
Plaza,
Suite
600
St.
Louis,
MO
63105
by
having
same
placed
in
a
properly
addressed,
postage
prepaid
envelope
and
deposited
inthe
U.S.
Mail
at
131
South
Dearborn
Street,
Chicago,
Illinois
this
1st
day
of
September,
2009.
Elizabet
ifel
Ash
CR1
11782680.1
