RECEIVEL~
CLERK’S
OFFrCE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
MAY
2
92003
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB96-143
)
(Environment-Water)
MICHEL GRAIN
COMPANY, INC.,
a/k/a
MICHEL FERTILIZER,
an
Illinois
corporation, CARYLE
MICHEL,
and
RONNIE TODD,
)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE
OF FILING
To:
Doug Antonik
F. William Bonan
Antonik Law Offices
Bonan and Bonan
and
Rowland
1921
Broadway
P.O. Box309
P.O.
Box 594
McLeansboro,
IL 62859
Mt. Vernon,
IL 62864
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that on this date,
I
mailed for filing with the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board of the State of Illinois COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT CARYLE
MICHEL’S MOTION TO STRIKE REQUEST PURSUANTTO THE INA FACILITYand AFFIDAVIT,
copies of which are attached
hereto and
herewith served
upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of the
State of
Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigafon
Division
BY~~~~flL/L
A
GELA EATON HAMILTON
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated: May 23, 2003
4
CLERKS OFFICE
M.4Y
292003
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
I hereby certify that
I did on May23, 2003, send by First Class Mail, with postage thereon fully
prepaid,
by depositing
in
a United
States
Post Office Box true
and correct copies of the following
instruments
entitled
COMPLAINANT’S
RESPONSE
TO
RESPONDENT
CARYLE
MICHEL’S
MOTION TO STRIKE REQUEST PURSUANT TO THE
INA FACILITY and
AFFIDAVIT
To:
Doug Antonik
F. William
Bonan
Antonik
Law Offices
Bonan and
Bonan and
Rowland
1921
Broadway
P.O.
Box 309
P.O.
Box 594
McLeansboro,
IL 62859
Mt. Vernon,
IL 62864
and the original and ten copies by First Class Mail with
postage thereon fully prepaid of the same
foregoing instrument(s):
To:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
State of Illinois
Center
Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
A copy was also sent by First
Class
Mail with postage thereon fully
prepaid
To:
Carol Sudman
Hearing
Officer
Pollution Control Board
600
South Second Street,
Ste. 402
Springfield,
Illinois 62704
Ange~Eaton
Hamilton
Assistant Attorney General
This filing is submitted on
recycled paper.
4
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CL~RK~S
OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
MAY
2
92003
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution Control Board
vs.
)
PCB No.
96-143
)
(Enforcement-Water)
)
MICHEL GRAIN
COMPANY, INC.,
a/k/a
)
MICHEL FERTILIZER,
an
Illinois
)
corporation, CARYLE
MICHEL, and
)
RONNIE TODD,
)
)
Respondents,
)
COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT CARYLE MICHEL’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
DISCOVERY REQUEST PURSUANT TO THE
INA FACILITY
Now comes the Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General of the State of Illinois,
and
states the following
in support of this Response.
1.
On April 29, 2003,
Complainant mailed to
Douglas A.
Antonik, attorney for Caryle
Michel,
d/b/a Michel Fertilizer, a Second Request for Production of Documents and a third set of
Interrogatories.
2.
In
the year 2000,
the Complainant
and
Respondent
Michel
agreed
to
postpone
litigation to
allow Respondent Michel
the opportunity to pursue sampling events at the facilities to
determine if compliance still needed
to be done.
3.
Moreover,
Complainant agreed to the sampling event at Ina prior to any compliance
work or tests being
done at Broughton.
Complainant made this agreement in
good faith with
the
knowledge that the parties
were trying
to resolve this matter without further litigation.
The issue
of penalty or the bifurcation
of the penalty was never discussed between the parties.
4.
In
the summer of
2001,
Respondent decided
not to
proceed
with any compliance
activity at the Broughton facility and only just informed Complainant that the Broughton facility had
been sold
in
1997 to
Ronnie Todd.
I
4
5.
Any agreement between the parties was a verbal discussion to settle this case and
nothing was committed to writing.
~
attached
affidavit.
Anyagreement to terminate the action
in relation to the Inafacility would have resulted in an amendment of the Complaint to remove those
Counts.
6.
Although the Respondent’s testing
of the
Ina facility revealed
no contamination
in
2001,
the
testing
does
not
resolve
the
past violations,
nor
does
it
address
future
concerns
regarding
a
penalty
and
address
the
question
of
preventive
measures
to
prevent
future
contamination.
7.
Since the factors to determine penalty must still
be
proven up at the hearing,
the
discovery requested
by the Complainant
regarding the
lna facility is timely and
essential
to this
matter.
WHEREFORE, the Complainant requests the
Board deny Respondent Michel’s
Motion to
Strike Discovery Request Pursuant to the Ina Facility.
Respecifully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General
State of Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement Division
BY:O4~~~/~J
AN
ELA EATON
HAMILTON
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
Of counsel:
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
May 23, 2003
2
4
Michel
)
)
ss
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
RECEIVED
CLERR~5
OFF~rP
MAY
2
92003
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
AFFIDAVIT
I, THOMAS DAVIS,
being first duly sworn upon oath,
depose and
state as follows:
1.
I am employed
by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, as an Assistant Attorney
General.
Since
September 1,
1991,
I
have served as the Bureau
Chief of the Environmental
Bureau/Springfield.
2.
The Attorney General’s Office
has a
litigation policy that requires actions
to
be
taken by Assistant Attorneys General
affecting
pending litigation to
be subject
to prior review
and
authorization by their supervisors.
In
particular,
any agreement to
resolve or relinquish a
pending claim must be made
in
writing.
3.
As
the Bureau Chief of the Environmental Bureau/Springfield,
I
am the
supervisor of the Assistant Attorneys General
and am responsible for the litigation
matters
brought by or assigned to
the Environmental Bureau/Springfield.
Any written agreement to
resolve or relinquish a pending claim brought by or assigned to the Environmental
Bureau/Springfield must be reviewed and
executed
by the Bureau
Chief.
One of the matters
brought by the Environmental Bureau/Springfield is
People
v.
a!.,
PCB
96-143; the assigned Assistant Attorney General
is Angela Eaton
Hamilton.
I
have reviewed the Motion to
Strike Discovery Request recently filed
by the
This pleading
alludes
to
a purported
“agreement” by the Attorney General’s Office
to relinquish
pending
claims regarding the Ina facility.
I
have personal
knowledge that no
such
agreement was reviewed,
authorized and
executed by
me in
People v. Miche! eta!.,
PCB 96-
143.
4.
et
5.
Respondent.
6.
Moreover, Assistant Attorney General Angela
Eaton
Hamilton
has
kept me fully
informed of any
settlement negotiations
in
People v. Michel eta!.,
PCB 96-143.
Any proposal
to
I
relinquish pending claims regarding the Ina facility would
necessarily be contingent upon a
comprehensive agreement to
resolve the other pending claims in
People v. Michel eta!.,
PCB
96-143.
It is my understanding that any settlement negotiations have not even progressed to
the stage of a draft written
agreement.
7.
My attestations of fact herein
do not reveal the substance of any attorney-client
privileged communications that
I
have
made or received and
I
do not waive any claim of such
privilege.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH
NOT.
THOMAS
DAVIS
Subscribed and Sworn to before me
this.~!4d--day of May,
2003.
~
w
NOTARY PUBLIC
rIA~1~1
~
PEGGY
J.
POITEVINT
~
~ NOTARY PUBLIC,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
~MMISSION
EXPIRES 4~1
6•2006
I