BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE
OF
THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
0CT2
820
vs.
)
PCB
No. 10-9
)
(Cost Recovery)
p7TEOP
ILLINOIS
WASTE
HAULING
LANDFILL,
INC., et
al.,
)
Control
Board
Respondents.
)
NOTICE
OF
FILING
To:
ARAMARK
UNIFORM
SERVICES,
INC.
Jennifer Nijman
Nijman
Franzettl
LLP
10
South
LaSalle
St., Suite 3600
Chicago,
IL 60603
BELL
SPORTS,
INC.
do John
E.
Collins
Husch Blackwell
Sanders,
LLP
190
Carondelet
Plaza,
Suite
600
St. Louis,
MO
63105
A.
E. STALEY
MANUFACTURING
CO.
do Jeryl
Olson,
James
Curtis
and
Elizabeth
Leifel
Ash
Seyfarth Shaw
131 South
Dearborn
St.,
Suite
2400
Chicago,
IL 60603
BORDEN
CHEMICAL
CO.
do
Matthew
Larson
Shook
Hardy
&
Bacon
2555 Grand
Boulevard
Kansas
City, MO
64108
ARCHER
DANIELS
MIDLAND,
INC.
Lee
Cunningham
4666 Faries
Parkway
Decatur,
IL 62526
CATERPIILLAR,
INC.
do
Kevin
Deshamais
and Jennifer
Simon
Mayer Brown
LLP
71
South
Wacker
Drive
Chicago,
IL
60606-463
7
CLIMATE
CONTROL,
INC.
do Edward
Q.
Costa
1
Samuels,
Miller, Schroeder,
Jackson
&
Sly
P.O. BOX
1400
225 N. Water
Street,
Suite 301
Decatur IL 62525
1400
COMBE LABORATORIES,
INC.
c/o Theresa Duckett
Locke
Loid Bissell
&
Liddell
111
5.
Wacker
Drive
Chicago, IL
60606
P
&
H
MANUFACTURING,
INC.
do Edward
Dwyer
Hodge Dwyer &
Driver
3150
Roland Avenue
P.O.
Box
5776
Springfield,
IL
62705-5776
GENERAL
ELECTRiC
RAILCAR SERVICES
CORPORATION
Kirk
R.
McFarlane,
Counsel
640 Freedom
Business
Center
King of Prussia, PA 19406
TRINITY RAIL GROUP,
INC.
Kristen
Parker, Michael Dolan
Jones
Day
77 West Wacker
Drive, Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60601-1692
TRIPLE
S
REFINING
CORPORATION
David
DeCelles,
Jeffrey
Zeiger, Jeffrey
Freeman
Kirkland
& Ellis
200 East Randolph
Drive
Chicago,
IL 60601
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE that on this date
I mailed for filing with
the Clerk
of the Pollution
Control
Board of
the State of
Illinois,
a
COMPLAINANT’S
RESPONSE
TO
MOTION BY CATERPILLAR,
INC.
FOR
LEAVE TO
REPLY, a
copy
of
which is
attached
hereto
and herewith served upon
you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney
General
of the
State
of
Illinois
500
South Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
October 23, 2009
MATTHEW
J.
DLTNTh4,
Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:
JAMES L.
MORGAN
Sr.
Assistant Attorne
eneral
Environmental
Bureau
2
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify
that I did on the
23
rd
day of October, 2009, send
by
First Class Mail, with
postage
thereon
fully prepaid,
a true and correct
copy
of
the instruments entitled Notice
of
Filing,
Complainant’s
Response
to Motion Caterpillar,
Inc. For Leave to
Reply
TO:
ARAMARK
UISIIFORM
SERVICES, INC.
Jennifer
Nijman
Nijman Franzettl LLP
10 South LaSalle
St., Suite 3600
Chicago,
IL 60603
BELL
SPORTS, INC.
do John E. Collins
Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP
190
Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63105
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING CO.
c/o
Jeryl
Olson, James Curtis
and
Elizabeth Leifel Ash
Seyfarth
Shaw
131 South Dearborn St., Suite
2400
Chicago, IL 60603
BORDEN CHEMICAL CO.
c/o Matthew Larson
Shook Hardy
&
Bacon
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108
ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND, INC.
do
Lee
Cunningham, Corporate Environmental Counsel
4666 Faries
Parkway
Decatur, IL 62526
CATERPIILLAR, INC.
do Kevin
Desharnais
and
Jennifer Simon
Mayer Brown
LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago,
IL 60606-4637
CLIMATE CONTROL,
INC.
do Edward
Q.
Costa
Sarnuels, Miller,
Schroeder,
Jackson &
Sly
3
P.O. BOX
1400
225 N. Water Street,
Suite 301
Decatur,
IL 62525-1400
COMBE
LABORATORIES,
INC.
do Theresa
Duckett
Locke, Lord Bissell
& Liddell
111
5. Wacker Drive
Chicago,
IL 60606
P
&
H
MANUFACTURING,
INC.
do Edward
Dwyer
Hodge Dwyer
& Driver
3150 Roland Avenue
P.O. Box
5776
Springfield, IL
62705-5 776
TRIPLE
S REFINING
CORPORATION
David DeCelles,
Jeffrey Zeiger,
Jeffrey Freeman
Kirkland & Ellis
200 East
Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
GENERAL
ELECTRIC
RAILCAR
SERVICES
CORPORATION
Kirk
R. McFarlane,
Counsel
640 Freedom
Business Center
King
of
Prussia,
PA 19406
TRINITY RAIL
GROUP, INC.
Kristen
Parker, Michael
Dolan
Jones Day
77
West Wacker Drive,
Suite 3500
Chicago, IL
60601-1692
Carol Webb,
Esq.
Hearing Officer
IPCB
1021 North
Grand Avenue
East
P.O. Box
19274
Springfield,
IL 62794-9274
Service is
currently unavailable for:
WASTE
HAULING
LANDFILL, INC.,
JERRY CAMFIELD,
SR, BRIDGESTONE
FIRESTONE,
INC.
ZEXEL
ILLINOIS, INC
and
the
original
and ten
copies
were sent
to:
John T
Therriault
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
James
R.
Thompson Center
4
100
W.
Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Jarnes L.
Morgan
Assistant Attorney
G
Environmental Bureau/Springfield
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
IL 62706
5
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
)
OCT
28
2009
ST4
Complainant,
)
OI(LJtj
vs.
)
PCB No. 10-9
)
(Cost Recovery)
WASTE HAULING
LANDFILL, INC.,
et
al.,
)
Respondents.
)
COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE
TO
MOTION BY
CATERPILLAR, INC.,
FOR LEAVE TO REPLY
The Complainant,
People of the State of Illinois,
by
Lisa
Madigan, Attorney General of the
State
of
Illinois, submits this response
to the
motion
of Caterpillar, Inc., for leave
to
reply
to the
Complainant’s
Response to Motion to Dismiss Complaint. As established below,
that motion should
be
denied
since the
reply constitutes
a
thinly veiled attempt
to
rewrite the original
motion to dismiss.
A.
Section 58.9(a)(1) of the Act
does
not bar this action.
1.
After having the legs cut out
from
its assertion that Section 58.9(a)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/58.9(a)(1),
requires dismissal of the Complaint
by
the Board’s ruling in Cole Taylor Bank
v.
Rowe
Industries, eta!., PCB
01-173 slip
op. at 4
(June 2, 2002). 2002
WL 1298771,
Caterpillar’s
latest pleading
seeks to recast its motion to
dismiss
as
merely
a
challenge
to
the
sufficiency of the pleading in the complaint
and ignores the plain language of 35
Ill
.Adm .Code 741 .205 that the complaint need not allege
a
requirement
“a
specific alleged percentage of
liability”
to state a claim.
2.
The specific percentage of liability determination follows a determination
of
liability. The
Complaint
sufficiently pleads the “ultimate facts” necessary to
show liability:are
1)
Caterpillar is within
a
class of persons potentially
liable;
2)
There has
been a
release or releases of hazardous
substances or threatened release of
hazardous substances;
3)
Illinois EPA has incurred costs in response thereto;
and
4)
Caterpillar did not perform the work requested
by the
4(q)
notice
issued
by
Illinois EPA.
1
Thus
the complaint is
sufficient to seek recovery
of response
costs.
B..
The Complaint properly
pled
a claim for treble damages.
1
AstheFourthDistiictAppellateCourtheld
inQuzncyv
Carison 163
III App 3d
1049,
1053
treble damages
may
be avoided if
the
“responsible
party
can
establish that he
acted with ‘sufficient
cause”
when it refused
to
perform work
requested by a 4(q) notice.
2.
Thus,
the reasons why
a
responsible party
chose
not
to
perform the
work
requested
by
the
4(q)
notice must be pled as
an affirmative defense
and not as an
element
of the Complaint.
C.
Provisions
of
the Act and
Regulations
applicable
to
“violations”
do
not apply
to cost
recovery
proceedings.
1.
Caterpillar’s
latest pleading goes
to
great length
in reciting the
content of captions
but
ignores
the
substance
ofthe Complaint and
the
law. The
General Assembly
and the Pollution
Control
Board
have
recognized
that
cost
recovery actions
are markedly different
from
proceedings
to address
violations
of
the Act
and
regulations. Section
22.2(1) provides
that the “costs
and
damages provided
for in
this Section
may
be
imposed
by
the
Board
in an
action brought
before
the Board in
accordance
with Title VIII
of
this
Act,
except that
Section 33(c)
of this Act
shall not
apply.”
2.
Title
VIII includes Section
3
1
. 1
of the Act
provides
for
administrative
citations.
Based
upon
the
plain
language
of that
provision,
it does
not apply to
recovery of costs and
damages under
Section 22.2.
Similarly, Section
33(c)
requires “consideration
of all
the facts and
circumstances
bearing upon the
reasonableness
of the
emissions,
discharges, or
deposits involved
* *
“
Since
“emissions
and discharges”
are
each
activities
included
within the definition
of “release” that
provision could
have
been
construed to
apply to
recovery of
costs
and damages
under
Section
22.2 but was
specifically excluded
from applying
by
the General
Assembly.
3.
Section 31
specifically limits
its
applicability
to
“alleged
violations.”
Expanding
its
coverage to
matters not
dependent upon a
finding of violation
contravenes
the
plain
language
of that statute.
2
D.
Conclusion
WHEREFORE, Complainant prays that
the motion
of
the
Respondent, Caterpillar, Inc., for
leave to
file
a
response and its additional arguments
challenging
the
complaint
be
denied.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General of
the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DU1l, Chief
Environmental
Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigatio Division
JAMES
L.
MORGAN
Sr. Assistant Attorn
General
Environmental
Bureau
500
South Second
Street
Springfield, Illinois
62706
217/782-9031
Dated: October
23, 2009
3