Deadlines required for Amoco cleanup agreement in Illinois.

Attorneys in several states are watching closely as Illinois environmental regulators and Amoco Oil Co. edge closer to an agreement on cleanup of nearly 400 sites where leaks from underground gas station storage tanks have contaminated soil and water. Judge Michael Getty of the Cook County Chancery Division called an April 1 meeting of the parties to check on their progress toward a settlement.

The state believed it had a settlement in January, when it simultaneously filed a lawsuit and a proposed consent decree. (People v. Amoco Oil Co., No. 98 CH 185 (Ill., Cook County Cir. Ct. Jan. 13, 1998).) The lawsuit charged that 394 leaking tanks owned by Amoco had caused contamination from 1987 to 1993.

Under terms of the consent decree, Amoco would have paid a $2 million fine and agreed to clean up the contamination according to management plans approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). But Judge Getty rejected the proposal, complaining that it gave Amoco "pretty much of a free ride" because it failed to specify a deadline for completing the cleanup. (John Flynn Rooney, Judge wants deadlines included in Amoco cleanup proposal, Chi. Daily L. Bull., Jan. 13, 1998, at 1.)

Eric Portz, manager of the IEPA's Leaking Underground Storage Tank Section, testified that Amoco had voluntarily cleaned up 10 sites on the list during the past year, but Getty (apparently doing the math and realizing that it would take 40 years to finish the job at that rate) ordered the parties to develop a revised settlement plan including time limits for cleanups.

Since then, according to Assistant State Attorney General Rebecca Burlingham in Chicago, some landowners who leased sites to Amoco have moved to intervene as parties in the lawsuit, and Judge Getty has granted the motion. Where Amoco does not own a contaminated site, the landowner's cooperation is needed to gain IEPA approval for certain proposed methods of remediation.

"For example," Burlingham explained, "if Amoco proposes to clean up a site in a way that will leave contaminated groundwater in place, in order to get a sign-off from the IEPA, the landowner will have to agree to a deed restriction that says that nobody can ever drink the groundwater. These are potential conflicts between Amoco and landowners that could delay getting a site cleaned up."

If a landowner does not accept a deed restriction, Amoco "would have to do active remediation," said Burlingham. In other words, the oil company would be forced to clean up the contaminated site to a higher standard where the groundwater is actually drinkable.

According to Burlingham, environmental plaintiff attorneys in other states are watching developments in the Illinois case to see how they may apply to local cleanup needs.