Agreed Order. 4.1 Respondent consents to the entry of this Agreement and has waived any right to a hearing.
Agreed Order. This cause coming to be heard on the parties’ Agreed Motion to Stay, the Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Agreed Order. 1.1 Respondent consents to the entry of this Agreement and has waived any right to a hearing. Pursuant to RCW 18.04.295, the Board has the power to impose discipline. Based on the preceding Stipulated Facts and Conclusions of Law, the Board and Respondent agree to the following:
Agreed Order. (1) The Parties’ Agreed Motion to Stay is allowed/denied;
Agreed Order. 1.1 Within two business days of the Effective Date, the parties shall present to the Court an Agreed Order which attaches the Agreement and provides for the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement. A copy of the proposed Agreed Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The entry of the attached Agreed Order is a material condition of the Agreement, and without entry of such an Agreed Order the Agreement shall be null and void.
Agreed Order. 4.1. The Parties agree to the to the entry of this Agreement.
Agreed Order. The RCRA permit remains in place because a portion of the site (the tank farm) was formerly permitted to operate as an RCRA- regulated dangerous waste treatment and storage facility. Both the former RCRA facility and the surrounding piers and terminal are now being cleaned up under the MTCA program. The Port, as the property owner, is required to hold the RCRA permit until cleanup (“corrective action”) is completed. The permit imposes corrective action by incorporating a separate agreed order issued under MTCA. The Port of Seattle entered into the first MTCA agreed order for this site in 1998 (the “1998 Agreed Order”). Philips Services Corporation (PSC) and Pacific Northern Oil Corporation (PNO), as former operators of the tank farm, also signed the 1998 Agreed Order. Both PSC and PNO subsequently went out of business, leaving the Port as the sole responsible party on the 1998 Agreed Order. Under the 1998 Agreed Order, the Port was required to prepare a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS), and to develop a CAP. The 1998 Agreed Order was replaced by a new agreed order in 2010. The 2010 Agreed Order continued the requirement to complete the FS and develop the draft CAP. It also extended the geographic definition of the site beyond the tank farm to encompass the entire Terminal 91 property owned by the Port (including submerged lands). Ecology required this change to satisfy a RCRA permit requirement that corrective action must include all contiguous property under the permit-holder’s ownership. Environmental investigations at the T-91 site have been ongoing since the early 1980s and continue to the present time. The primary area of contamination at the site is the tank farm and associated operations. Chemicals of concern found in groundwater and soils near the tank farm site include total petroleum hydrocarbons (including floating product on the groundwater), volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, and metals. The cleanup activities are designed to address direct contact with site soil, indoor air quality due to vapor intrusion, and impact to aquatic receptors, i.e., fish or invertebrates. The Ecology-selected cleanup approach was identified in the December 15, 2010, final CAP. The CAP-required work consisted of measures designed to prevent migration of contaminants to Xxxxxxx Bay and to prevent direct contact with contaminants. These measures included installation of a containment barrier wa...
Agreed Order. This matter having come before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs motion, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. ------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Poznak Law Firm Ltd. 0000 Xxxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxx 000 Xxx Xxxxx, XX 00000-0000 Xxxx Co. Atty. No: 33635
Agreed Order. This matter having come before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs motion, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The court shall retain jurisdiction to reinstate this action and to enter a judgment pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement dated May 9, 2000. ------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Poznak Law Firm Ltd. 0000 Xxxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxx 000 Xxx Xxxxx, XX 00000-0000 Xxxx Co. Atty. No: 33635 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF XXXX COUNTY, STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION (GENERAL) XXXXXX XXXXXXX FAMILY LIMITED ) PARTNERSHIP, a Wisconsin limited ) partnership, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Xx. 00 XX 00000 ) XXXXX X. XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX X. ) XXXXXX, SONOMA HOLDING CORP., ) an Illinois corporation, and SHC CORP., an Illinois ) corporation. ) ) Defendants )
