PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS v. TEXACO REFINING and MARKETING, INC.,
The Board granted complainant’s motion to strike in part and denied the motion in part. The Board granted the motion to strike nine of the thirteen alleged affirmative defenses raised by respondent, affirmative defenses 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13. The Board denied complainant’s motion to strike regarding four of the alleged affirmative defenses, affirmative defenses 4, 6, 8, and 12.
November 6, 2003PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,Complainant,v.
TEXACO REFINING and MARKETING,
INC., Respondent.
The People
assert that Texaco initially argued these particular alleged affirmative defenses vaguely, thenfurther clarified them in Texaco’s response brief.
Comp.
at 2.
Texaco alleges the five units closed in 1987 consisted of one disposal unit and four
treatment units. Id. Texaco alleges the Agencyindicated that the proposed agreements were rejected merely because the People wanted tocollect a penalty, as opposed to any technical deficiency. Exceedances of Groundwater Quality StandardsThe People state that Texaco’s 1998 fou...
Allowed
Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) - application/pdf
... 
