United States v. Chemetco, Inc., Civil No. 00-670-DRH
| Court | United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Southern District of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | David R. Herndon |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHEMETCO, INC., Defendant. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel. LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff, v. CHEMETCO, INC., Defendant. |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 00-670-DRH,Civil No. 00-677-DRH |
| Decision Date | 13 September 2013 |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
CHEMETCO, INC., Defendant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel. LISA MADIGAN,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff,
v.
CHEMETCO, INC., Defendant.
Civil No. 00-670-DRH
Civil No. 00-677-DRH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
So Ordered: September 13, 2013
Page 2
I BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................1
II JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS.....................................................7
III PARTIES BOUND.......................................................................................................8
IV DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................................9
V GENERAL PROVISIONS.........................................................................................24
VI EFFECT OF NPL LISTING......................................................................................25
VII OBLIGATIONS OF TRUSTEE AND PARADIGM, ASSET MANAGEMENT, AND DUE CARE......................................................................................................27
VIII RESOLUTION OF POTENTIAL LIABLITY OF PARADIGM..............................33
IX RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED STATES' CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE.....................................................................................................................35
X RESOLUTION OF THE STATE'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE................36
XI PAYMENT FOR FUTURE OVERSIGHT COSTS..................................................37
XII COVENANTS NOT TO SUE BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE.....41
XIII RESERVATIONS OF RIGHTS BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE........................................................................................................................45
XIV TRUSTEE'S COVENANTS NOT TO SUE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS......................................................................................................................49
XV PARADIGM'S COVENANT NOT TO SUE AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS......................................................................................................................50
XVI PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK..........................................................................52
XVII PROJECT COORDINATORS & SUPERVISING CONTRACTOR........................60
XVIII FINANCIAL ASSURANCE......................................................................................62
XIX QUALITY ASSURANCE, SAMPLING, AND DATA ANALYSIS.......................67
XX ACCESS.....................................................................................................................70
Page 3
XXI RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIRMENTS....................................71
XXII EPA APPROVAL OF PLANS, REPORTS, AND OTHER DELIVERABLES.......74
XXIII CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION.....................................................................75
XXIV EMERGENCY RESPONSE......................................................................................80
XXV INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE..............................................................82
XXVI STIPULATED PENALTIES.....................................................................................83
XXVII FORCE MAJEURE....................................................................................................88
XXVIII DISPUTE RESOLUTION.........................................................................................90
XXIX ACCESS TO INFORMATION..................................................................................92
XXX RETENTION OF RECORDS....................................................................................94
XXXI EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION............................95
XXXII NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS..............................................................................96
XXXIII EFFECTIVE DATE...................................................................................................99
XXXIV CONTINUING JURISDICTION...............................................................................99
XXXV TERMINATION OF TRUSTEESHIP/ESTATE/CONSENT DECREE...................99
XXXVI APPENDICES..........................................................................................................101
XXXVII MODIFICATION.....................................................................................................102
XXXVIII LODGING AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT............................103
XXXIX SIGNATORIES.......,................................................................................................104
Appendix A: Asset Purchase and Processing Agreement & Related Documents
Appendix B: Map of the Chemetco Hartford Property
Appendix C: Interim Order, Sept. 16, 2008
Appendix D: Operation and Maintenance Plan
Appendix E Process Work Plan
Appendix F: Map of Paradigm Processing Facility and Source Areas within the Chemetco Site
Appendix G: Map of Long Lake
Appendix H: Map of Wetlands and Unpermitted Fill Area
Appendix I: Furnace Removal Work Plan
Appendix J: Unprocessed Metal Bearing Materials Work Plan
Page 4
Appendix K: Copper Furnace Clean Up Solids Work Plan
Appendix L: North Polishing Pond and Sump Work Plan
Appendix M: Circuit Board and Shredded Circuitry Board Material Work Plan
Appendix N: Scrap Metal Work Plan
Appendix O: 1986 Trust Agreement
Page 5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v.
CHEMETCO, INC., Defendant
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel. LISA MADIGAN,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,Plaintiff
v.
CHEMETCO, INC., Defendant
WHEREAS, Plaintiff United States of America ("United States"), on behalf of the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), filed a complaint in this Court against Chemetco, Inc. ("Chemetco"), seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties for alleged civil violations of the Clean Water Act ("CWA") 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992k, that occurred at
Page 6
Chemetco's secondary copper smelting Facility, and surrounding properties, in Hartford, Illinois ("Chemetco Hartford Property").
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, People of the State of Illinois, ex rel. Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois ("State of Illinois" or "State"), contemporaneous with the filing of the United States' complaint, filed a complaint in this Court against Chemetco, Inc. pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9607, seeking, among other things: (1) reimbursement of costs incurred and to be incurred by the State of Illinois in responding to the release and/or threatened release of Hazardous Substances at the Chemetco Facility and surrounding property belonging to Chemetco; and (2) a declaratory judgment, pursuant to CERCLA Section 113(g)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), on Chemetco's liability for future response costs associated with the Chemetco Facility and surrounding property. The State's Complaint also seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for alleged violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/1, et seq., (2002) ("State Act"), at the Chemetco Facility and surrounding property. On October 16, 2001, the United States' Complaint and the State's Complaint were consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial (the United States' and the State's complaints are referred to herein individually as the "Complaint" or collectively as the "Complaints").
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2001, Chemetco filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. See In re Chemetco, No. 01-34066 (Bankr. S.D. Ill.) (the "Bankruptcy Case"). Laura K. Grandy was appointed Trustee to take control of the bankruptcy estate ("Estate") and has proceeded with the liquidation of Chemetco, Inc. Effective March 9, 2010, Donald Samson replaced Laura K. Grandy as Trustee.
Page 7
WHEREAS, on or about May 1, 2002, the United States, on behalf of EPA, filed a Proof of Claim (Claim No. 690) in the Bankruptcy Case which asserted entitlement to a general unsecured claim for civil penalties for RCRA and CWA violations, and the injunctive requirements of an Administrative Order. The total amount of Chemetco's potential liability to the United States as alleged in the United States' Proof of Claim is One Hundred Forty Million Dollars ($140,000,000.00).
WHEREAS, neither the Trustee nor Paradigm admits any issue of fact or law or any liability to the Plaintiffs arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in the Complaints or this Consent Decree.
WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that mismanagement of the Facility by the previous owners and operators of the Chemetco Hartford Property resulted in conditions that may pose a threat or threats to the public health or welfare or the environment.
WHEREAS, the Trustee contends that the Estate has a limited ability to pay for the injunctive relief sought in the Complaints and wishes to rely in significant part on the proceeds from the sale of certain Facility Assets to pay for the Estate's contribution toward the cleanup of the Chemetco Site.
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court authorized the Trustee to employ the BarberMurphy Group as a Broker to market and sell property of the Estate including scrap, slag materials, Metal Bearing Materials, furnaces and furnace related parts, and casting wheels and rings for a commission of 2% of the purchase price. The Trustee subsequently entered into a Brokerage Agreement with the BarberMurphy Group that conformed to the terms of the arrangement approved...
To continue reading
Request your trial