The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently issued an opinion in Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards v. Bos, Case Nos. 2-09-1283 & 2-10-0162, which concerned the construction of a livestock management facility in Nora Township, Jo Daviess County, Illinois. The "Tradition South" dairy would have 6,850 "animal units" in the form of dairy cows and calves and would use three livestock waste holding ponds, one with dimensions of 300 by 855 by 20 feet; the second 760 by 850 by 20 feet; and the third 400 by 400 by 20 feet. Bos sought the Department of Agriculture's approval of the dairy pursuant to the Livestock Management Facilities Act. The Department ruled that "it was more likely than not" that the Livestock Act's provisions had been met regarding the Tradition South facility, and it approved its construction.
Plaintiffs filed an action in State court, challenging the Department's ruling and seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions halting construction of the facility under theories of private nuisance, public nuisance, and trespass. Although the trial court issued a preliminary injunction that initially halted construction, the court ruled, after a trial on the merits, that a permanent injunction should not be issued. The court also ruled that Plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Department's ruling.
On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the ruling that Plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Department's ruling. The Court found that the "right to review administrative decisions is limited to those who were both parties of record to the agency proceeding and aggrieved by the agency's decision." Because Plaintiffs were not parties of record (although they did participate in a public informational meeting), Plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the administrative decision of the Department. The Court held that the Livestock Act allowed Plaintiffs to pursue claims against the owner of the facility but not against the Department.
The Appellate Court held that the Trial Court "acted within its discretion" in refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction (and thus Bos was not entitled to damages as the result of an improperly entered preliminary injunction). However, the Appellate Court affirmed the ruling that a permanent injunction should not have issued, accepting the Trial Court's evaluation of the parties' experts:
"In the end, the trial court was faced with testimony from credentialed, experienced experts who arrived at opposite conclusions as to whether there was evidence of karstified carbonate bedrock on the proposed dairy site. As stated, it is the trier of fact's role to resolve conflicts in the evidence, assess witnesses' credibility, and determine the weight to be given to their testimony. The record supports the trial court's finding that Bos's expert witnesses, unlike plaintiffs' expert witnesses, conducted more site-specific analysis in arriving at their conclusions that there was no evidence of karstified carbonate bedrock below the containment ponds. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court's decision, that plaintiffs failed to show that there was a high probability of groundwater contamination and were not entitled to a permanent injunction on that basis, is against the manifest weight of the evidence."
At the end of the day, it appears that Plaintiffs, a citizens' group and individuals organized to oppose the facility's construction, could not muster (or pay for) sufficient expert testimony to defeat the owner's expert. They also had no recourse against the administrative agency, which had authority to give the green light to the owner to build the facility. This is a typical example of an environmental citizen lawsuit in action. Usually, environmental statutes allow the agency to make a decision with citizen input, and then presume that the agency decision is correct, with limited ability by the citizens to challenge the decision after the fact.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Showing posts with label Water Pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Water Pollution. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Court Rules That Landfill Cannot Prevent Water Authority From Commenting on Permit
The Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, recently issued an opinion affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction in Clinton Landfill, Inc. v. Mahomet Valley Water Authority, Case No. 4-10-0704, which concerned the plaintiff's attempt to get permits for a chemical-waste landfill. Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the defendant seeking sought to enjoin defendant from contesting or being involved in plaintiff's permitting process on the basis that defendant lacked the authority to do so.
The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed: "The trial court did not err by denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff failed to raise a fair question (1) of the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) of a clearly ascertained right in need of protection, (3) of irreparable harm, or (4) that the balance of hardships favored plaintiff." Specifically, the Court found that the defendant regulates and maintains the water supply, and, therefore, it has the power to express an opinion about activities that may affect the area's water supply. The defendant's expert report noted that "domestic and municipal water supply wells that produce water from both the glacial sediments and Mahomet Aquifer establish that human[s] are potential receptors of contaminants released from the Clinton Landfill." Therefore, the defendant has the ability to publicly comment on the plaintiff's proposed permit.
This is an interesting opinion because the plaintiff's theory is novel. Should a potentially permittee be allowed to stifle public comment on the proposed permit through a lawsuit? The Court, in a strongly worded opinion, said no.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed: "The trial court did not err by denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff failed to raise a fair question (1) of the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) of a clearly ascertained right in need of protection, (3) of irreparable harm, or (4) that the balance of hardships favored plaintiff." Specifically, the Court found that the defendant regulates and maintains the water supply, and, therefore, it has the power to express an opinion about activities that may affect the area's water supply. The defendant's expert report noted that "domestic and municipal water supply wells that produce water from both the glacial sediments and Mahomet Aquifer establish that human[s] are potential receptors of contaminants released from the Clinton Landfill." Therefore, the defendant has the ability to publicly comment on the plaintiff's proposed permit.
This is an interesting opinion because the plaintiff's theory is novel. Should a potentially permittee be allowed to stifle public comment on the proposed permit through a lawsuit? The Court, in a strongly worded opinion, said no.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
City Settles State Enforcement Action Alleging Water Pollution Violations Due to Sewer Overflows
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the parties' stipulation and proposed settlement in People v. City of Colchester, Case No. PCB 11-20, which concerned Colchester’s sewage treatment plant and overflows that occurred at Colchester’s Bishop Street, Cole Street, and North Street lift stations in association with a 2.5-inch rainfall. The city is located approximately seven miles west of Macomb in McDonough County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the city violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by (1) causing, threatening, or allowing the discharge of contaminants into the environment so as to cause or tend to cause water pollution; (2) depositing contaminants upon the land so as to create a water pollution hazard; (3) causing or allowing the Cole Street Lift Station to overflow; (4) causing, threatening, or allowing the discharge of contaminants into waters of the State in violation of the NPDES permit; (5) failing to construct and operate the treatment works so as to minimize violations of applicable standards during contingencies; and (6) failing to take reasonable measures to prevent the spillage of contaminants from causing water pollution.
Under the terms of the settlement, the city admits the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $5,346 and complete specified improvements.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the city violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by (1) causing, threatening, or allowing the discharge of contaminants into the environment so as to cause or tend to cause water pollution; (2) depositing contaminants upon the land so as to create a water pollution hazard; (3) causing or allowing the Cole Street Lift Station to overflow; (4) causing, threatening, or allowing the discharge of contaminants into waters of the State in violation of the NPDES permit; (5) failing to construct and operate the treatment works so as to minimize violations of applicable standards during contingencies; and (6) failing to take reasonable measures to prevent the spillage of contaminants from causing water pollution.
Under the terms of the settlement, the city admits the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $5,346 and complete specified improvements.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Settlement of State Enforcement Action Alleging Fish Kill Resulting From Demolition of Swine Production Facility
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the parties' stipulation and proposed settlement in People v. Gerald N. Knoblauch, LLC, Case No. PCB 11-19, which concerns a fishkill resulting from improper demolition of a former swine production facility located along Brick Town Road in the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, T28N in Cazenovia Township, Woodford County, Illinois.
The State alleged that Knoblauch owns the former swine production facility and hired Bender Land Improvement, Inc. to demolish the facility’s buildings and convert the facility’s old livestock lagoon into a pond. The State also alleged that the defendants violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by (1) causing, threatening, or allowing livestock manure to discharge into an unnamed tributary of Richland Creek; (2) causing bottom deposits, odor, color, and turbidity of other than natural origin in the receiving waters of the facility; (3) placing excavated manure solids in piles on the outer edge of the old livestock lagoon without installing structures to contain any runoff from the piles; and (4) creating a water pollution hazard by allowing contaminated stormwater to discharge from the manure stockpiles and enter both an unnamed tributary to Richland Creek and Richland Creek itself without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants admit the alleged violations, agree to pay a civil penalty of $5,000, and also agree to pay $20,699.68 to the State of Illinois Wildlife and Fish Fund for recovery of fish killed and investigation expenses.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that Knoblauch owns the former swine production facility and hired Bender Land Improvement, Inc. to demolish the facility’s buildings and convert the facility’s old livestock lagoon into a pond. The State also alleged that the defendants violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by (1) causing, threatening, or allowing livestock manure to discharge into an unnamed tributary of Richland Creek; (2) causing bottom deposits, odor, color, and turbidity of other than natural origin in the receiving waters of the facility; (3) placing excavated manure solids in piles on the outer edge of the old livestock lagoon without installing structures to contain any runoff from the piles; and (4) creating a water pollution hazard by allowing contaminated stormwater to discharge from the manure stockpiles and enter both an unnamed tributary to Richland Creek and Richland Creek itself without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants admit the alleged violations, agree to pay a civil penalty of $5,000, and also agree to pay $20,699.68 to the State of Illinois Wildlife and Fish Fund for recovery of fish killed and investigation expenses.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Welding and Machine Shop Settles State Enforcement Action Alleging Water Pollution and Waste Disposal Violations
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the parties' stipulation and proposed settlement in People v. Durre Bros. Welding & Machine Shop, Inc., Case No. PCB 07-81, which concerned the defendant's welding and machine shop located at 405 South Chestnut Street in Minonk, Woodford County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by causing, allowing, or threatening to cause water pollution (count I); by causing, threatening, or allowing the discharge of any contaminant into waters of the State without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (count II); by causing or allowing contaminants to be deposited upon the land so as to create a water pollution hazard (count III); by causing or allowing the open dumping of waste (count IV); by disposing of waste at a site that is neither permitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency as a sanitary landfill nor compliant with the requirements of the Act and regulations (count IV); and by storing containers filled with used oil without clearly labeling them as to their contents (count V).
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant admits the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $5,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by causing, allowing, or threatening to cause water pollution (count I); by causing, threatening, or allowing the discharge of any contaminant into waters of the State without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (count II); by causing or allowing contaminants to be deposited upon the land so as to create a water pollution hazard (count III); by causing or allowing the open dumping of waste (count IV); by disposing of waste at a site that is neither permitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency as a sanitary landfill nor compliant with the requirements of the Act and regulations (count IV); and by storing containers filled with used oil without clearly labeling them as to their contents (count V).
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant admits the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $5,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Monday, January 3, 2011
US EPA's Updated Toxic Release Inventory Shows Decrease in Toxic Releases in Midwestern States
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently published an updated Toxics Release Inventory, which quantifies the amount of pollutants released across the country. In the most recent update, EPA reported that in 2009, "more than 511 million pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the environment in the six states located in Region 5[, which are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin]. Compared to 2008 data, regional releases to the air were down 20 percent, on-site releases to surface water were down 24 percent and on-site releases to land were down 33 percent. More than 5,000 facilities in Region 5 report their chemical releases by July 1 of each year."
EPA also released an Illinois-specific fact sheet as well as specific data for Chicago. Regarding Chicago, EPA reported:
"Total on-site disposal or other releases for the Chicago metropolitan area decreased by 25% from 2001 to 2009 with a 12% decrease from 2008 to 2009. Air releases decreased 29% from 2001 to 2009 and 14% from 2008 to 2009. Surface water discharges decreased by 50% from 2001 to 2009 and 17% from 2008 to 2009. The primary metals total disposal or other releases decreased by 20% from 2001 to 2009, including a 49% decrease in surface water discharges and a 31% decrease in air releases."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
EPA also released an Illinois-specific fact sheet as well as specific data for Chicago. Regarding Chicago, EPA reported:
"Total on-site disposal or other releases for the Chicago metropolitan area decreased by 25% from 2001 to 2009 with a 12% decrease from 2008 to 2009. Air releases decreased 29% from 2001 to 2009 and 14% from 2008 to 2009. Surface water discharges decreased by 50% from 2001 to 2009 and 17% from 2008 to 2009. The primary metals total disposal or other releases decreased by 20% from 2001 to 2009, including a 49% decrease in surface water discharges and a 31% decrease in air releases."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
State Enforcement Action Alleging Water Pollution Violations At Industrial Park Partially Settled
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted a stipulation and proposed settlement in People v. Freeport Area Economic Development Foundation, Case No. PCB 10-89, which concerned
a site known as "Mill Race Industrial Park," a 145-acre property located east of Springfield Road, north of Hiveley Road, and south of Business 20, in Freeport, Stephenson County, Illinois. This settlement only concerned one of the defendants, the Freeport Area Economic Development Foundation ("FAEDF").
The State alleged that the defendants violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by (1) failing to maintain storm water controls at the site, thus causing or allowing contaminants to discharge into a water of the State, causing water pollution (count I), (2) allowing discharges containing color and turbidity of other than natural origin and causing bottom deposits in Silver Creek (count II), and (3) depositing sediment onto the land in such a place and manner so as to create a water pollution hazard (count III). The State also alleges that FAEDF alone failed to implement provisions of its storm water pollution prevention plan and allowing contaminants to discharge into Silver Creek (count IV).
Under the terms of the settlement, FAEDF admits the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $546.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
a site known as "Mill Race Industrial Park," a 145-acre property located east of Springfield Road, north of Hiveley Road, and south of Business 20, in Freeport, Stephenson County, Illinois. This settlement only concerned one of the defendants, the Freeport Area Economic Development Foundation ("FAEDF").
The State alleged that the defendants violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by (1) failing to maintain storm water controls at the site, thus causing or allowing contaminants to discharge into a water of the State, causing water pollution (count I), (2) allowing discharges containing color and turbidity of other than natural origin and causing bottom deposits in Silver Creek (count II), and (3) depositing sediment onto the land in such a place and manner so as to create a water pollution hazard (count III). The State also alleges that FAEDF alone failed to implement provisions of its storm water pollution prevention plan and allowing contaminants to discharge into Silver Creek (count IV).
Under the terms of the settlement, FAEDF admits the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $546.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Agrichemical Company Pleads Guilty to Criminal Violations of Clean Water Act
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency recently announced that Effingham-Clay Service Company, Inc., an Effingham-based agrichemical company, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Clay County to two counts of “Negligent Unpermitted Point Source Discharge,” which are violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act:
"The charges stem from a December 9, 2008, incident involving Jerry D. Troyer, an employee of Effingham-Clay Service Company, Inc., allegedly transporting a 1,000 gallon tank containing pesticide contaminated wastewater from Effingham-Clay Service’s Louisville, Illinois, facility to two different remote rural Clay County locations and opening a release valve, discharging contaminated wastewater into roadside ditches. A citizen complaint led to an investigation by Illinois EPA’s Emergency Response Unit and the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
"Following an Illinois State Police investigation, a Clay County Grand Jury returned a six count Indictment against Troyer, charging him with two counts of knowingly discharging a contaminant to waters of the State without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Class 4 felonies), two counts of water pollution, and two counts of criminal disposal of waste (Class A misdemeanors). The charges to which the company pled guilty are Class A misdemeanors and were based on their having negligently supervised Troyer, thus enabling him to commit the alleged violations. Troyer’s charges remain pending and his jury trial is scheduled to begin on March 14, 2011. An Indictment is a way in which a criminal charge is filed; all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
"As a result of its guilty plea, the Company was sentenced to 12 months conditional discharge and ordered to pay of fine of $20,000 ($10,000 per count), plus court costs. In addition, the company is required to provide enhanced safety and environmental training for all company employees who manage or handle agrichemicals. It must also designate an individual at each facility responsible for ensuring compliance with all environmental and agricultural laws, regulations and permit conditions and to report and address any violations.
"The Company must also amend its agrichemical containment and disposal policy to include proper management of any liquid waste generated during cleaning and washing of agrichemical processing and application equipment, and create and maintain a daily written log at each facility of the volume and nature of all agrichemical liquid waste generated, contained, stored on site, and removed off site. This log must be available upon request and subject to inspection by the Illinois EPA and Illinois Department of Agriculture.
"In a companion matter, the State brought a separate proceeding seeking forfeiture from the company of an amount of money equal to the value of all economic benefit incurred as a direct or indirect result of the violations, as well as the value of any vehicle or conveyance used in perpetration thereof. Without admitting liability the forfeiture claim was settled by the company for $180,000.00, which amount was divided between the Illinois State Police, the Clay County State’s Attorney and the Illinois EPA Hazardous Waste Fund. Illinois EPA attorney Dan Merriman acted as Court-appointed Special Prosecutor in the case."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
"The charges stem from a December 9, 2008, incident involving Jerry D. Troyer, an employee of Effingham-Clay Service Company, Inc., allegedly transporting a 1,000 gallon tank containing pesticide contaminated wastewater from Effingham-Clay Service’s Louisville, Illinois, facility to two different remote rural Clay County locations and opening a release valve, discharging contaminated wastewater into roadside ditches. A citizen complaint led to an investigation by Illinois EPA’s Emergency Response Unit and the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
"Following an Illinois State Police investigation, a Clay County Grand Jury returned a six count Indictment against Troyer, charging him with two counts of knowingly discharging a contaminant to waters of the State without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Class 4 felonies), two counts of water pollution, and two counts of criminal disposal of waste (Class A misdemeanors). The charges to which the company pled guilty are Class A misdemeanors and were based on their having negligently supervised Troyer, thus enabling him to commit the alleged violations. Troyer’s charges remain pending and his jury trial is scheduled to begin on March 14, 2011. An Indictment is a way in which a criminal charge is filed; all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
"As a result of its guilty plea, the Company was sentenced to 12 months conditional discharge and ordered to pay of fine of $20,000 ($10,000 per count), plus court costs. In addition, the company is required to provide enhanced safety and environmental training for all company employees who manage or handle agrichemicals. It must also designate an individual at each facility responsible for ensuring compliance with all environmental and agricultural laws, regulations and permit conditions and to report and address any violations.
"The Company must also amend its agrichemical containment and disposal policy to include proper management of any liquid waste generated during cleaning and washing of agrichemical processing and application equipment, and create and maintain a daily written log at each facility of the volume and nature of all agrichemical liquid waste generated, contained, stored on site, and removed off site. This log must be available upon request and subject to inspection by the Illinois EPA and Illinois Department of Agriculture.
"In a companion matter, the State brought a separate proceeding seeking forfeiture from the company of an amount of money equal to the value of all economic benefit incurred as a direct or indirect result of the violations, as well as the value of any vehicle or conveyance used in perpetration thereof. Without admitting liability the forfeiture claim was settled by the company for $180,000.00, which amount was divided between the Illinois State Police, the Clay County State’s Attorney and the Illinois EPA Hazardous Waste Fund. Illinois EPA attorney Dan Merriman acted as Court-appointed Special Prosecutor in the case."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Illinois Pollution Control Board Reminds Practitioners of Time Limits for Motions to Dismiss
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently ordered stricken a motion to dismiss in United City of Yorkville v. Hamman Farms, Case No. PCB 08-96, which is a citizen's enforcement action concerning the defendant's farmland in Kendall County, Illinois. The plaintiff's complaint alleged open dumping violations, landscape waste violations, air pollution violations, and water pollution violations.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss certain counts of the amended complaint, and the plaintiff moved to strike the motion to dismiss on the basis that the motion to dismiss was untimely. The Board agreed that the motion should be stricken because the motion to dismiss failed to comply with the 30-day deadline of the Board's procedural rules for filing motions to dismiss. Under the Board's procedural rules, a motion to dismiss must be filed within 30 days after service unless material prejudice would result; in contrast, any answer to a complaint is not due until 60 days after service.
This opinion should be a reminder to all practitioners to check the procedural rules of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, as they are different from the typical rules of state and federal courts.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss certain counts of the amended complaint, and the plaintiff moved to strike the motion to dismiss on the basis that the motion to dismiss was untimely. The Board agreed that the motion should be stricken because the motion to dismiss failed to comply with the 30-day deadline of the Board's procedural rules for filing motions to dismiss. Under the Board's procedural rules, a motion to dismiss must be filed within 30 days after service unless material prejudice would result; in contrast, any answer to a complaint is not due until 60 days after service.
This opinion should be a reminder to all practitioners to check the procedural rules of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, as they are different from the typical rules of state and federal courts.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Illinois Pollution Control Board Orders Residential Developer to Pay $45,000 Penalty for Clean Water Act Violations
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently granted the State's uncontested motion for summary judgment in People v. Moline Place Development, LLC, Case No. PCB 07-53, which concerned a
residential housing area called One Moline Place, located at 6th Street and 11th Avenue in Moline, Rock Island County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the defendant, which was developing a residential community, terminated coverage of a Clean Water Act permit for its stormwater discharges associated with construction site activities. However, the defendant terminated coverage too early--before all disturbed soils had been finally stabilized, and before all stormwater discharges had been eliminated.
The State alleged that the defendant caused, allowed or threatened to cause water pollution by failing to provide adequate storm water pollution controls; failed to obtain coverage under the general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") storm water permit prior to commencing construction site activities; failed to prepare and implement an adequate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP"); and submitted a Notice of Termination of permit coverage prior to final stabilization being achieved at the site.
After granting summary judgment, the Pollution Control Board held that the defendant must pay a $45,000 civil penalty. The Board also ordered that the defendant "must properly implement the SWPPP in its NPDES permit, and comply with all other requirements of that permit. When final site stabilization has been accomplished and all storm water discharges from construction activities have been eliminated, [defendant] must promptly submit a Notice of Termination to IEPA." The Board also ordered that the defendant "must cease and desist from further violations of the [Illinois Environmental Protection] Act and the Board’s regulations."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
residential housing area called One Moline Place, located at 6th Street and 11th Avenue in Moline, Rock Island County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the defendant, which was developing a residential community, terminated coverage of a Clean Water Act permit for its stormwater discharges associated with construction site activities. However, the defendant terminated coverage too early--before all disturbed soils had been finally stabilized, and before all stormwater discharges had been eliminated.
The State alleged that the defendant caused, allowed or threatened to cause water pollution by failing to provide adequate storm water pollution controls; failed to obtain coverage under the general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") storm water permit prior to commencing construction site activities; failed to prepare and implement an adequate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP"); and submitted a Notice of Termination of permit coverage prior to final stabilization being achieved at the site.
After granting summary judgment, the Pollution Control Board held that the defendant must pay a $45,000 civil penalty. The Board also ordered that the defendant "must properly implement the SWPPP in its NPDES permit, and comply with all other requirements of that permit. When final site stabilization has been accomplished and all storm water discharges from construction activities have been eliminated, [defendant] must promptly submit a Notice of Termination to IEPA." The Board also ordered that the defendant "must cease and desist from further violations of the [Illinois Environmental Protection] Act and the Board’s regulations."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Illinois Federal District Court Rules That Plaintiff Does Not Have Standing To Challenge Clean Water Act Permit For Landfill
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois recently issued an opinion granting summary judgment for the defendants in American Bottom Conservancy v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Case No. 09-603-GPM, which concerns a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Waste Management of Illinois pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Since 1984, Waste Management has operated a landfill called the Milam Recycling and Disposal Facility ("Milam RDF") in Madison, Illinois. Milam RDF is estimated to reach capacity in 2012. During its remaining landfill life, Milam RDF will require approximately 2,000,000 cubic yards of soil for daily, intermediate, and final cover. Waste Management proposes to develop and operate a 180-acre expansion of the existing Milam RDF, to be referred to as North Milam, to provide 17 years of disposal capacity for general non-hazardous municipal solid waste; demolition, construction, and debris waste; asbestos waste; non-hazardous permitted special waste; and non-hazardous permitted liquid waste for solidification. Waste Management’s ultimate plan has two phases: immediate excavation of cover soil to be used at the existing Milam RDF and later construction of a landfill at the North Milam site. Neither phase is dependent on the other; excavation for soil cover is necessary to support the existing Milam RDF regardless of whether the North Milam site is used as a landfill.
Waste Management received a certification under the Clean Water Act from Illinois EPA to allow for "the excavation of wetlands in conjunction with providing soil for daily cover for a landfill." Waste Management also received a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to allow for “placement of fill material into waters of the United States in conjunction with the construction of the North Milam Recycling and Disposal Facility (RDF) to be located just north of the existing Milam RDF in wetlands adjacent to Cahokia Canal near Madison, Madison County, Illinois.”
Plaintiff, a nonprofit group, challenged the Corps' issuance of the permit. Plaintiff alleged that the Corps violated the Clean Water Act by issuing a permit authorizing placement of fill material into navigable waters for the construction of a landfill without the required certification from Illinois EPA. After reviewing affidavits of three members of Plaintiff, the District Court found that Plaintiff did not have standing to bring the action against the Corps:
"Reviewing each of the affidavits, the Court finds that none of the three members has standing. Members Andria and Feldworth can be considered together. Both affidavits address construction of a landfill and the effects that a landfill would have on them, including the risk that the proposed landfill will be subject to a 100-year flood. As a matter of law, the Corps’ § 404 permit does not authorize the construction of a landfill. That authority is granted exclusively to the IEPA under Title X of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. . . . Because Andria’s and Feldworth’s affidavits establish neither injury in fact nor a causal connection between any purported injury and the issuance of the § 404 permit, these members do not create standing for [Plaintiff].
. . . .
"Member Homeyer’s affidavit requires additional analysis, although she also complains primarily about the effects of constructing a landfill. She also mentions '[d]estruction of wetlands' and '[h]abitat destruction' – albeit she mentions these in the context of a landfill – and states that there 'are birds and butterflies using the 200 acres in question right now.' The Court considers whether these concerns constitute actual and imminent injury to Homeyer as a result of the borrow activity permitted to take place at the North Milam site. It is important to keep in mind that the Corps’ § 404 permit relates to 26.8 acres of wetlands – only 18.4 acres of which will be impacted. Approximately 8.4 acres of wetlands will be avoided and preserved without impacts. The wetland mitigation plan includes creating an additional 36.55 acres on adjacent property. . . . Reading her affidavit liberally, Homeyer alleges that the destruction of wetlands will reduce the number and variety of birds, butterflies, other insects, snakes, and amphibians that she frequently observes around Horseshoe Lake. But this injury is merely speculative. Her anticipated injury disregards the fact that 31% of the subject wetlands will be avoided and preserved and that nearly twice the amount of affected wetlands will be created in mitigation. . . . Homeyer has not shown a concrete injury. . . . Homeyer has not stated that she will stop visiting Horseshoe Lake if the wetlands are destroyed as proposed, and her concern for the effects on the habitat is too generalized to give rise to standing."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Since 1984, Waste Management has operated a landfill called the Milam Recycling and Disposal Facility ("Milam RDF") in Madison, Illinois. Milam RDF is estimated to reach capacity in 2012. During its remaining landfill life, Milam RDF will require approximately 2,000,000 cubic yards of soil for daily, intermediate, and final cover. Waste Management proposes to develop and operate a 180-acre expansion of the existing Milam RDF, to be referred to as North Milam, to provide 17 years of disposal capacity for general non-hazardous municipal solid waste; demolition, construction, and debris waste; asbestos waste; non-hazardous permitted special waste; and non-hazardous permitted liquid waste for solidification. Waste Management’s ultimate plan has two phases: immediate excavation of cover soil to be used at the existing Milam RDF and later construction of a landfill at the North Milam site. Neither phase is dependent on the other; excavation for soil cover is necessary to support the existing Milam RDF regardless of whether the North Milam site is used as a landfill.
Waste Management received a certification under the Clean Water Act from Illinois EPA to allow for "the excavation of wetlands in conjunction with providing soil for daily cover for a landfill." Waste Management also received a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to allow for “placement of fill material into waters of the United States in conjunction with the construction of the North Milam Recycling and Disposal Facility (RDF) to be located just north of the existing Milam RDF in wetlands adjacent to Cahokia Canal near Madison, Madison County, Illinois.”
Plaintiff, a nonprofit group, challenged the Corps' issuance of the permit. Plaintiff alleged that the Corps violated the Clean Water Act by issuing a permit authorizing placement of fill material into navigable waters for the construction of a landfill without the required certification from Illinois EPA. After reviewing affidavits of three members of Plaintiff, the District Court found that Plaintiff did not have standing to bring the action against the Corps:
"Reviewing each of the affidavits, the Court finds that none of the three members has standing. Members Andria and Feldworth can be considered together. Both affidavits address construction of a landfill and the effects that a landfill would have on them, including the risk that the proposed landfill will be subject to a 100-year flood. As a matter of law, the Corps’ § 404 permit does not authorize the construction of a landfill. That authority is granted exclusively to the IEPA under Title X of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. . . . Because Andria’s and Feldworth’s affidavits establish neither injury in fact nor a causal connection between any purported injury and the issuance of the § 404 permit, these members do not create standing for [Plaintiff].
. . . .
"Member Homeyer’s affidavit requires additional analysis, although she also complains primarily about the effects of constructing a landfill. She also mentions '[d]estruction of wetlands' and '[h]abitat destruction' – albeit she mentions these in the context of a landfill – and states that there 'are birds and butterflies using the 200 acres in question right now.' The Court considers whether these concerns constitute actual and imminent injury to Homeyer as a result of the borrow activity permitted to take place at the North Milam site. It is important to keep in mind that the Corps’ § 404 permit relates to 26.8 acres of wetlands – only 18.4 acres of which will be impacted. Approximately 8.4 acres of wetlands will be avoided and preserved without impacts. The wetland mitigation plan includes creating an additional 36.55 acres on adjacent property. . . . Reading her affidavit liberally, Homeyer alleges that the destruction of wetlands will reduce the number and variety of birds, butterflies, other insects, snakes, and amphibians that she frequently observes around Horseshoe Lake. But this injury is merely speculative. Her anticipated injury disregards the fact that 31% of the subject wetlands will be avoided and preserved and that nearly twice the amount of affected wetlands will be created in mitigation. . . . Homeyer has not shown a concrete injury. . . . Homeyer has not stated that she will stop visiting Horseshoe Lake if the wetlands are destroyed as proposed, and her concern for the effects on the habitat is too generalized to give rise to standing."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Individual Settles State Water Enforcement Action for $12,000
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the parties' settlement of People v. Rawson, Case No. PCB 09-91, which concerned a sanitary sewer and potable water lines to service future residential subdivisions in the City of Crystal Lake, McHenry County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the Rawson violated state environmental laws by "by causing, threatening, or allowing the discharge of a contaminant into the environment so as to cause or tend to cause water pollution; by depositing contaminants onto the land so as to create a water pollution hazard; and by allowing storm water discharges in violation the general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit for construction site activities."
Under the settlement terms, Rawson did not affirmatively admit the alleged violations but agreed to pay a civil penalty of $12,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the Rawson violated state environmental laws by "by causing, threatening, or allowing the discharge of a contaminant into the environment so as to cause or tend to cause water pollution; by depositing contaminants onto the land so as to create a water pollution hazard; and by allowing storm water discharges in violation the general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit for construction site activities."
Under the settlement terms, Rawson did not affirmatively admit the alleged violations but agreed to pay a civil penalty of $12,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
$15,000 Settlement of State Enforcement Action by Operator of Liquid Agricultural-Chemical Facility
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the parties' stipulation and proposed settlement in People v. Thermogas Co., Case No. PCB 10-10, which concerned a liquid agricultural-chemical facility located approximately two miles south of McLeansboro, Hamilton County.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by failing to control the agrichemicals handled at the facility and thereby causing or threatening water pollution and causing or allowing groundwater quality exceedences. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant denies the alleged violations but agrees to pay a civil penalty of $15,000. The settlement further provides that the facility is the property of Ferrellgas, L.P., a signatory to the settlement, and that Ferrellgas must “obtain a deed restriction on the former facility property prohibiting withdrawal of the groundwater for potable use within the area where concentrations of agrichemicals exceed the Class I Groundwater Standards.”
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by failing to control the agrichemicals handled at the facility and thereby causing or threatening water pollution and causing or allowing groundwater quality exceedences. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant denies the alleged violations but agrees to pay a civil penalty of $15,000. The settlement further provides that the facility is the property of Ferrellgas, L.P., a signatory to the settlement, and that Ferrellgas must “obtain a deed restriction on the former facility property prohibiting withdrawal of the groundwater for potable use within the area where concentrations of agrichemicals exceed the Class I Groundwater Standards.”
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Residential Property Owners Settle Alleged Water Pollution Violations for $5,500
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the settlement in People v. Fairfield, Case No. PCB 10-105, which concerned the defendants' residential property located at 1990 Lake Jacksonville Road in Jacksonville, Morgan County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the defendants violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by by causing, allowing, or threatening to cause water pollution and by violating a water quality standard. Specifically, the State alleges that the defendants deposited a contaminant upon the land in such a place and manner as to create a water pollution hazard, and violated a water quality standard by causing, allowing, or threatening to allow offensive conditions in an unnamed tributary of Sandy Creek. The State further alleged that the defendants caused, threatened, or allowed the discharge of a contaminant into a water of the State without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants admit the alleged violations and agree to pay a civil penalty of $5,500.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the defendants violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by by causing, allowing, or threatening to cause water pollution and by violating a water quality standard. Specifically, the State alleges that the defendants deposited a contaminant upon the land in such a place and manner as to create a water pollution hazard, and violated a water quality standard by causing, allowing, or threatening to allow offensive conditions in an unnamed tributary of Sandy Creek. The State further alleged that the defendants caused, threatened, or allowed the discharge of a contaminant into a water of the State without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants admit the alleged violations and agree to pay a civil penalty of $5,500.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Settles Alleged Environmental Violations
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the parties' settlement in the case of People v. Penrith, No. PCB 10-94, which concerned the defendant's wastewater treatment plant located on the southeast corner of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and W. Wadsworth Road, Wadsworth, Lake County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by by failing to comply with the monitoring and recording requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and by failing to have a person certified by the Illinois EPA supervising the operation of the wastewater treatment plant.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant neither admits nor denies the alleged violations but agrees to pay a civil penalty of $5,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by by failing to comply with the monitoring and recording requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and by failing to have a person certified by the Illinois EPA supervising the operation of the wastewater treatment plant.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant neither admits nor denies the alleged violations but agrees to pay a civil penalty of $5,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
EPA Orders Livestock Operation To Pay $40,000 Penalty For Alleged Water Pollution Violations
I received a comment on the LinkedIn boards today about my last post--why did the dairy farm only get a $2,000 in the settlement of a State enforcement action approved by the Illinois Pollution Control Board? My response was that everything depends on the facts of the case--what was the extent of the environmental harm, previous violations by the defendant, etc. This theory was demonstrated in a recent press release from U.S. EPA regarding a federal enforcement action against a livestock operation that featured a penalty with a much higher amount:
"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 has ordered Greenville Livestock Inc., 25815 Hugo Road, Centralia, Ill., to pay a $40,000 fine for failing to comply with the Clean Water Act. EPA previously ordered the facility to stop all unauthorized discharges and apply to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for a permit to discharge wastewater.
"Greenville is a large concentrated animal feeding operation in the Kaskaskia River watershed in central Illinois with more than 1,000 cattle.
"An EPA inspection found that Greenville was not using best management practices to prevent the discharge of manure and other animal production waste. EPA also discovered that the facility did not have a Clean Water Act permit to discharge."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 has ordered Greenville Livestock Inc., 25815 Hugo Road, Centralia, Ill., to pay a $40,000 fine for failing to comply with the Clean Water Act. EPA previously ordered the facility to stop all unauthorized discharges and apply to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for a permit to discharge wastewater.
"Greenville is a large concentrated animal feeding operation in the Kaskaskia River watershed in central Illinois with more than 1,000 cattle.
"An EPA inspection found that Greenville was not using best management practices to prevent the discharge of manure and other animal production waste. EPA also discovered that the facility did not have a Clean Water Act permit to discharge."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Monday, July 12, 2010
State Settles Enforcement Action Against Dairy Farm For Alleged Water Pollution Violations
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the parties' settlement of a State enforcement action in People v. Miller, Case No. PCB 10-43, which concerned a 1,300-acre dairy farm, consisting of two separate parcels: 765 East Rock Grove Road, Orangeville, Stephenson County, Illinois; and 1984 Hickory Grove Road, Dakota, Stephenson County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by: (1) causing and threatening the discharge of manure and manure-containing runoff into a small tributary, so as to cause water pollution; (2) causing and allowing offensive conditions; (3) failing to provide adequate runoff structures at the farm; (4) failing to construct a temporary manure stack at the farm; (5) placing livestock wastes on soils; and (6) depositing contaminants on land so as to cause water pollution.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant neither admits nor denies the violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $2,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by: (1) causing and threatening the discharge of manure and manure-containing runoff into a small tributary, so as to cause water pollution; (2) causing and allowing offensive conditions; (3) failing to provide adequate runoff structures at the farm; (4) failing to construct a temporary manure stack at the farm; (5) placing livestock wastes on soils; and (6) depositing contaminants on land so as to cause water pollution.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant neither admits nor denies the violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $2,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Developer to Pay $8,000 to Settle Alleged Water Pollution Violations
On April 15th, the Illinois Pollution Control Board accepted the settlement in People v. Andalusia Ventures, LLC, No. PCB 09-75, which concerned the defendant's residential housing development, known as Fancy Creek Crossing, located at 101st Street West and Andalusia Road (Route 92) in Andalusia, Rock County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, beginning in 2006 through at least July 2009, by discharging sediment of other than natural origin into a receiving stream, thereby causing or threatening to cause water pollution, and by failing to submit accurate incidents of noncompliance letters and reports, and failing to have on site storm water pollution prevention plan and rainfall reports.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant admits the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $8,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, beginning in 2006 through at least July 2009, by discharging sediment of other than natural origin into a receiving stream, thereby causing or threatening to cause water pollution, and by failing to submit accurate incidents of noncompliance letters and reports, and failing to have on site storm water pollution prevention plan and rainfall reports.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant admits the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $8,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
IDOT to Pay $100,000 to Settle Federal Enforcement Action
On March 18th, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the settlement of an enforcement action against the Illinois Department of Transportation concerning the Route 22/12 project in Lake Zurich, Illinois.
U.S. EPA alleged that IDOT violated water quality standards and failed to maintain proper erosion controls, conduct inspections, and maintain proper records. Under the terms of the settlement, IDOT corrected the problems at the site and paid a penalty of $100,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
U.S. EPA alleged that IDOT violated water quality standards and failed to maintain proper erosion controls, conduct inspections, and maintain proper records. Under the terms of the settlement, IDOT corrected the problems at the site and paid a penalty of $100,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
U.S. Adds Two Illinois Sites to National Priorities List
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that two sites in Illinois--the Chemetco site in Hartford and the Lake Calumet Cluster site in Chicago--to the Superfund National Priorities List ("NPL"). The National Priorities List is a list of the most serious sites identified for possible long-term cleanup.
Here's how U.S. EPA described the two sites:
"The Chemetco site is on Illinois Route 3 in Madison County, about two miles south of Hartford. It was a secondary copper smelter from 1969 to 2001 before filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy. More than 500,000 cubic yards of processing slag, sludge and other hazardous materials were left on portions of the 41-acre site. Elevated levels of the heavy metals copper, cadmium, lead and zinc have been found in adjacent wetlands and in the sediment of nearby Long Lake. Chemetco was proposed for addition to the NPL in September 2009. Now that the site is on the list, Chemetco is eligible for further analysis and development of cleanup options by EPA in partnership with Illinois EPA.
"The 87-acre Lake Calumet Cluster site, on Chicago’s southeast side, is composed of four separate parcels. The Cluster site is bounded by the Land and Lakes Landfill to the west, 122nd Street to the south, the Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way and Indian Ridge Marsh to the east, and the Paxton I & II Landfills to the north. The site was originally a wetland that was used for disposal of steel mill slag and industrial, chemical and municipal waste from the 1940s to 1970s. Environmental concerns include contaminated soil and contaminated surface water runoff from the site into the adjacent wetland areas. These wetlands are used by at least 14 federal or state endangered or threatened species. From 1983 to 1985, and in 1990, EPA performed limited-scope cleanups including drum removals. The Cluster site was proposed for addition to the NPL in September 2005. In 2007 – 2008, Illinois EPA began construction of a landfill cap. Now that the Cluster site is on the NPL, Illinois EPA can use federal money to complete the cap and investigate the full extent of contaminated groundwater at the site."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Here's how U.S. EPA described the two sites:
"The Chemetco site is on Illinois Route 3 in Madison County, about two miles south of Hartford. It was a secondary copper smelter from 1969 to 2001 before filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy. More than 500,000 cubic yards of processing slag, sludge and other hazardous materials were left on portions of the 41-acre site. Elevated levels of the heavy metals copper, cadmium, lead and zinc have been found in adjacent wetlands and in the sediment of nearby Long Lake. Chemetco was proposed for addition to the NPL in September 2009. Now that the site is on the list, Chemetco is eligible for further analysis and development of cleanup options by EPA in partnership with Illinois EPA.
"The 87-acre Lake Calumet Cluster site, on Chicago’s southeast side, is composed of four separate parcels. The Cluster site is bounded by the Land and Lakes Landfill to the west, 122nd Street to the south, the Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way and Indian Ridge Marsh to the east, and the Paxton I & II Landfills to the north. The site was originally a wetland that was used for disposal of steel mill slag and industrial, chemical and municipal waste from the 1940s to 1970s. Environmental concerns include contaminated soil and contaminated surface water runoff from the site into the adjacent wetland areas. These wetlands are used by at least 14 federal or state endangered or threatened species. From 1983 to 1985, and in 1990, EPA performed limited-scope cleanups including drum removals. The Cluster site was proposed for addition to the NPL in September 2005. In 2007 – 2008, Illinois EPA began construction of a landfill cap. Now that the Cluster site is on the NPL, Illinois EPA can use federal money to complete the cap and investigate the full extent of contaminated groundwater at the site."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
