Lisa Madigan

ATTORNEY GENERAL

The

Honorable

Dorothy Gunn

Illinois Pollution Control

Board

State

of

Illinois Center

100 West

Randolph

Chicago,

Illinois 60601

September 26, 2003

RECE.~VED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

SEP

3~2003

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control Board

Re:

People v.

Ml!, Inc.,

a Delaware corporation

PCBNo.o~-(~~

Dear Clerk Gunn:

Enclosed for filing please find the original and ten copies of a NOTICE OF FILING, MOTION

FOR

RELIEF

FROM

HEARING

REQUIREMENT

and

STIPULATION AND

PROPOSAL

FOR

SETTLEMENT in

regard to the above-captioned matter.

Please file the original and

return

a file-

stamped copy of the document to our office

in the enclosed self-addressed,

stamped envelope.

Thank you for your cooperation

and consideration.

DDH/pp

Enclosures

500 South Second Street,

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

•

(217)

782-1090

•

TTY: (217)

785-2771

•

Fax:

(217) 782-7046

100 West

Randolph

Street,

Chicago.

Illinois

60601

•

(312)

814-3000

•

TTY:

1312)

814-3374

•

Fax:

(312) 814-3806

1001

Eost \lain,

Carhondale,

Illinois

62901

•

(618) 529-6400

•

T’FY:

(61S~529-6403

•

Fax: (618)

529-6416

OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

D~ibertD.

Haschemeyer

Environmental Bureau

500 South

Second Street

Springfield,

Illinois 62706

(217) 782-9031

---

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARDLFRK’S

OFFICE

MORGAN COUNTY, ILLINOIS

SEP

3

0

2003

PEOPLE OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

)

PollutIon

Gontrol Board

Complainant,

)

vs.

)

PCB

No. 02-63

IMU,

INC., a

Delaware corporation,

)

Respondent.

NOTICE

OF

FILING

To:

Mr.

Fred Prillaman

Mohan, Alewelt,

Prillaman & Adami

1

North

Old State Capitol

Plaza,

Ste.

325

Springfield,

Illinois 62701

PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE that on this date

I

mailed for filing with the Clerk of the Pollution

Control Board of the State of Illinois, a

MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM HEARING REQUIREMENT

and STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT, a copy of which is 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

Litig~

BY:

500

South

Second Street

Springfield,

Illinois 62706

217/782-9031

Dated: September 26, 2003

DELBERT 0.

HASCHI

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

---

CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE

I

hereby certify that

I

did on

September 26, 2003,

send by First Class Mail,

with

postage thereon fully prepaid,

by depositing

in

a United

States Post Office

Box a true and

correct copy of the following instruments entitled

NOTICE

OF FILING, MOTION

FOR RELIEF

FROM

HEARING REQUIREMENT and

STIPULATION AND

PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT

To:

Mr.

Fred Prillaman

Mohan, Alewelt, Prillaman

& Adami

1

North

Old State Capitol

Plaza,

Ste.

325

Springfield,

Illinois

62701

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

Illinois Pollution Control

Board

600

South Second Street

Springfield,

IL 62704

•

__

Delbert 0.

Haschemeyer

Assistant Attorney General

This filing is submitted

on recycled paper.

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

C~1VE~

MORGAN

COUNTY,

ILLINOIS

~

OFFICE

SEP3~2003

PEOPLE OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control Board

Complainant,

)

vs.

)

PCB No.

02-63

)

IVIII,

INC.,

a

Delaware corporation,

)

Respondent.

MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM

HEARiNG

REQUIREMENT

NOW

COMES Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA

MAD IGAN, Attorney General

of the State of Illinois,

and pursuant to Section

31(c)(2) of the

Illinois

Environmental Protection Act (“Act”),

415

ILCS 5/31 (c)(2) (2000),

moves that the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board grant the

parties

in the above-captioned matter relief from the hearing

requirement imposed

by Section

31 (c)(1) of the Act, 415

ILCS

5/31 (c)(1)

(2000).

In support of

this

motion,

Complainant states as

follows:

1.

On this date, Complainant is filing a Stipulation

and

Proposal

for Settlement with

the Board, proposing

to

resolve the allegations

in the pending Complaint.

2.

The parties

have reached

agreement on

all outstanding

issues

in this matter.

3.

All

parties agree that a hearing

on the Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement is

not necessary,

and

respectfully request relief from such a

hearing as allowed by Section

31 (c)(2) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/31 (c)(2)

(2000).

1

---

WHEREFORE,

Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, hereby requests

that the Board

grant this motion for

relief from the hearing

requirement set forth

in

Section

31(c)(1)

of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2000).

Respectfully submitted,

PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

LISA MADIGAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL

MATTHEW J.

DUNN, Chief

Environmental

Enforcement/Asbestos

BY:_____

Environmental Bureau

Assistant Attorney General

500 South

Second Street

Springfield,

Illinois 62706

217/782-9031

Dated:

~

~/

63

2

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOAR~

•.~,,

MORGAN

COUNTY, ILLINOIS

-

CLERK’S

OFFICE

PEOPLE OFtHE STATE

OF

ILLINOIS,

)

•

SEP

2

02003

Complainant,

)

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

)

POJJ~t~Ca

Cont-cof Board

vs.

)

PCB

No. 02-63

NIl,

INC.,

a Delaware corporation,

)

)

STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL

FOR SETTLEMENT

Complainant,

PEOPLE

OF

THE

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS,

by

LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney

General of the

State of

Illinois, the Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency (“Illinois

EPA”),

and

Respondent,

MIl,

INC., a Delaware corporation,

have agreed to the making of this Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement and submit it to the Illinois Pollution Control

Board

“(Board’) for approval.

The

parties agree that the statement

of facts

contained

herein represents a fair summary

of the

evidence

and

testimony

which would

be

introduced

by

the

parties

if

a

hearing

were

held.

The

parties

further stipulate

that this

statement

of facts

is

made

and

agreed

upon

for

purposes

of

settlement only and that neitherthe fact that a party has entered into this Stipulation, nor any of the

facts

stipulated

herein, shall

be

introduced

into

evidence

in

any other proceeding

regarding

the

claims asserted in

the Complaint except as otherwise

provided

herein.

If the Board approves and

enters

this Stipulation,

Respondent agrees to be

bound

by the

Stipulation

and

not to

contest

its

validity in any subsequent proceeding

to implement or enforce its terms.

JURISDICTION

The Board

has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and of the parties consenting hereto

pursuant to

the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act

(“Act”), 415 ILCS

5/1

etseq.

(2002).

1

---

AUTHORIZATION

The undersigned

representatives for each party certify that they are fully authorized by the

party whom they represent to enter

into the terms and

conditions of this Stipulation

and to

legally

bind them to

it.

STATEMENTOF FACTS

A.

Parties

1.

On November 27, 2001, a Complaint was filed

on behalf of the People of the

State

of Illinois

by James

E.

Ryan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,

on his own motion and upon

the request of the Illinois EPA, pursuant to Sections 42(d) and (e) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/42(d) and

(e) (2002), against the Respondent.

2.

The Illinois EPA is an administrative agency of the State of Illinois, created pursuant

to

Section 4 of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/4 (2002).

3.

At

all

times

relevant

to

the

Complaint,

Respondent

was

and

is

a Delaware

corporation

that is authorized

to transact business in the State of Illinois.

B.

Site Description

1.

At all

times relevant to

the Complaint, Respondent

owned

and

operated a facility

which produces shelving for offices

and homes

located at 500 Capital Way, Jacksonville,

Morgan

County,

Illinois (“site”).

C.

Allegations

of Non-Compliance

Complainant contends that the Respondent has violated the following provisions of the Act

and

Board

Regulations:

Count

I:

Air Pollution

2

---

Complainant alleges that Respondent caused, threatened or allowed excess emissions of

volatile organic material (VOM)

a contaminant, into the environment from the shelving plant so as

to cause or tend to cause air pollution, or so as to violate regulations or standards adopted by the

Board

in

violation

of

Section

9(a)

of

the Act,

415

ILCS

5/9(a)

(2000),

and

35

III.

Adm.

Code

201.141.

Count

II:

VOM

Emission and

Permit Violation

Based

on

a

March

11,

1997,

inspection,

the

Complainant

alleges

Respondent was

not

keeping

records for the coating operation as

required by conditions

5(a)(b)

and

(c) of Operating

Permit No. 73030989 in violation of Section

9(b) of the Act, 415 ILCS

5/9(b)

(2000).

Based

on a July 29,

1998,

inspection and subsequent record

production, the Complainant

alleges that Respondent:

a.

used two non-compliant, semi-transparent stains

in spray booth #2

on

dates

known

to

Respondent up

to

and

during

August

1998,

in

violation of 35

III.

Adm.

Code

21 5.204(l) and

21 5.207;

b.

used

eight non-compliant opaque stains which were

used

in spray

booth

#2,

the CEFLA,

on

dates

known to

Respondent

up

to

and

during

the

month of

September

1998,

in

violation

of

35

III.

Adm.

Code 21 5.204(I);

c.

used six non-compliant top coats in spray booth #2 and the CEFLA

flow center on dates

known

to the Respondent up

to and

including

dates

in September

1998,

in

violation

of

condition

3(a)

of revised

Permit No. 73030989

issued

October 9,

1997.

Section

9(b) of

the

Act,

415

ILCS

5/9(b)

(2000),

35

III.

Adm.

Code

215.204(I)

and

215.207;

d.

added

lacquer

retarder

(7.12 lb/gal VOM) to

their lacquers

which,

after

mixing,

constituted

non-compliant

coatings,

used

two

non-

compliant lacquers in violation

of 35

III. Adm.

Code 21 5.204(l)(2);

e.

used

716

gallons

of

lacquer thinner

in

June

1998,

116

gallons

in

excess of permit limits in revised Permit No. 73030989, condition 4.f

issued October 9,

1997,

in violation of Section

9(b) of the Act,

415

ILCS 5/9(b)

(2000);

f.

used more than 45 gallons per month of clear lacquer in spray booth

#2 for the months of February through June, and August of 1998,

in

violation

of condition

4(d)

of

revised

Permit

No.

73030989

issued

3

---

October

9,

1997,

and

Section

9(b)

of

the

Act,

415

ILCS

5/9(b)

(2000);

g.

used

more than 45 gallons per month of pigmented lacquer in spray

booth

#3

for

the

months

of

February,

April,

and

June

through

September 1998,

in violation of condition 4(e)

in revised Operating

Permit

No. 73030989

issued October 9,

1997, and

Section

9(b) of

the Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(b)

(2000);

h.

used more than 384 gallons

per month of pigmented

lacquer

in the

CEFLA for

the

months

of

January,

February,

and

April

through

August of

1998,

in

violation

of condition

4(b)

of revised

Operating

Permit No. 73030989 issued October 9, 19997, and

Section 9(b) of

the Act, 41

ILCS 5/9(b) (2000);

failed

to

aggregate

VOM

emissions from

coating

lines #2

and

#3

with

the

glue

and

curtain

lines as

required

by

regulation

and

its

permit,

and

continued

to

use

noncompliant coatings

in violation

of

215.207;

j.

on

September 9,

1999,

Respondent had ceased

all aggregating

of

VOM emissions while

continuing

to

use

noncompliant coatings,

in

violation

of 215.207; and

k.

since

on

or before July 27,

1998

and

continuing,

added

solvent

to

coating

and

has

not

performed

testing

for

VOM

content

or

the

solvent in

accordance with

method

24 or any alternative method

in

violation of 215.208.

Based

on

a

September

9,

1999,

inspection

and

subsequent

information

provided

by

Respondent,

the Complainant alleges that:

a.

monthly

usage

of

clear

gloss

lacquer

exceeded

the

maximum

permitted monthly usagefor the months of May, June, July, August,

October,

November

and

December

1998,

and

the

maximum

permitted

usage in

spray booth #2 of the facility also

exceeded the

maximum permitted monthly emission limits from the application of

the clear gloss

lacquer

coating for the

months of May,

June,

July,

August, October, November, and

December 1998, and the permitted

yearly

emission

rate

in

violation

of

revised

Operating

Permit

No.

73030989 issued October9, 1997, condition 4(d), Sections 9(a) and

9(b)

of the Act,

415

ILCS

5/9(a)

and

(b)

(2000),

and

35

III.

Adm.

Code 215.204(l)(1);

b.

on

dates

known

to

the

Respondent,

the

Respondent

used

non-

compliant

coatings

#8040

NC

tint

green

(6.04

lbs.

VOM/gallon),

#8071

black

dye (7.0

lbs.

VOM/gallon),

#8073 dye

blue (7.04

lbs.

VOM/gallon), #8074 dye burnt umber 96.04 lbs. VOM/gallon), #8075

dye raw umber (6.04 lbs. VOM/gallon),

and #8092 tint yellow-green

4

---

(6.04

lbs.

VOM/gallon)

in

the

CEFLA,

in

violation

of

revised

Operating Permit No. 73030989 issued October 9,

1997,

condition

3(a), Sections 9(a)

and (b) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(a) and

(b),

and

35

III.

Adm. Code

21 5.204;

c.

on dates known to the Respondent, Respondent used non-compliant

coatings #8005

mahogany stain, #8006

walnut stain, #8013

aztec

paint,

and #8033 fruitwood stain in the glue booth,

spray booths #2

and

#3,

without

doing

any

aggregation

of

emission

sources

in

violation of revised Operating

Permit No. 73030989 issued October

9,

1997, conditions 3(b),

(c), and

5(a), and

Sections 9(a) and (b) of

the Act,

415

ILCS

5/9(a)

and

(b)

(2000),

and

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

21 5.207;

d.

on

dates

known to the Respondent,

Respondent added

high VOM

solvent (7.12 lbs. VOM/gallon) and

high VOM dyes to coating used

in

spray

booth

#2,

in

violation

of

revised

Operating

Permit

No.

73030989 issued October 9,

1997,

condition

5(b)(ii),

Sections 9(a)

and

(b) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(a) and

(b) (2000),

and 35

III. Adm.

Code 215.204(I)(1);

e.

on

dates

known to

Respondent,

Respondent added #8085 fisheye

eliminator (7.15 lbs. VOM/gallon) to the clear

coating in violation of

revised

Operating Permit

No. 73030987

issued

October

9,

1997,

•

conditions

4(a)

and

5(b)(ii), Sections

9(a)

and

(b)

of the Act, 415

ILCS

9(a) and

(b) (2000),

and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 215.204(l)(1);

and

f.

failed to

keep records of the total amount of any VOM

collected and

either recycled or shipped

offsite

in

violation

of revised

Operating

Permit No. 73030989 issued October 9, 1997, condition 5(b)(iii), and

Section

9(b) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(b)

(2000).

Plaintiff further alleges that on

or about May 27,

1999,

Respondent replaced

two

curtain

coaters with a Giardina finishing system and obtained a permit (#990202104) from the Illinois EPA

to construct and operate that system.

Based on an Illinois

EPA’s inspection of September 9, 1999,

and information subsequently submitted to the Illinois EPA by the Respondent,

the Complainant

alleges

that the Respondent:

a.

has

not kept monthly

records of the total amount of VOM collected

and

recycled

into

the

process

or

shipped

off-site

in

violation

of

Operating

Permit No.

99020104, condition 5(b)(iii)

and Section 9(b)

of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(b) (2000);

b.

on dates known to the Respondent,

added laquer retarder (7.12 lbs.

VOM/gallon) to

the clear coat lacquer finish

without recording

the

ratio

of

solvent to

clear

coat or measuring

to

determine

emission

5

---

limit for lacquer finish in violation of Permit No. 99020104, conditions

.2.1 .3(c)(i) and 2.1.5(b), Sections 9(a), (b) and 9.1(d) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(a),

(b) and 9.1(d)

(2000), 40 CFR 63.806(d)(1) and

35

III.

Adm.

Code 215.204(l)(1);

c.

has

not kept records

of material throughout of shelving

uprights

in

lbs/hr

and

lbs/mo

in

violation

of

Operating Permit

No.

99020104,

conditions 2.1.9(c)(vii)

and 2.1.10(c)(ii) and

Section 9(b) of the Act,

415

ILCS 5/9(b) (2000);

d.

has not kept records of the VOM emissions per month in violation of

Operating

Permit

No.

99020104,

conditions

2.1.9(c)(viii)

and

2.1 .1 0(c)(i),

and

Section 9(b) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(b)

(2000);

e.

failed

to

maintain

written

work

practice

implementation

plan

in

violation

of Operating

Permit No.

99020104, conditions

2.1.5(a)(i)

and 2.1 .9(a)(iii), Sections 9(b) and 9.1(d) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(b)

and 9.1(d)

(2000),

and 40 CFR 63.806(d)(1);

f.

failed

to

maintain

a

written

inspection

and

maintenance

plan

in

violation

of Operating

Permit

No. 99020104, condition

2.1.5(a)(iii),

Sections

9(b)

and

9.1(d)

of

the

Act,

415

ILCS

5/9(b)

and

9.1(d)

(2000),

and 40

CFR 63.803(c);

g.

failed

to

specify solvent

amount used

in

cleaning

and

wash-off at

each

coating

operation

in

violation

of

Operating

Permit

No.

99020104, condition 2.1 .5(c)(iv), Sections 9(b) and 9.1(d) of the Act,

415

ILCS 5/9(b) and

9.1(d)

(2000), and

40 CFR 63.803(d);

h.

failed

to

keep a formulation assessment plan

in

violation

of Permit

No. 99020104, condition 2.1 .5(a)(ii~,

Sections 9(b) and 9.1(d) of the

Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(b) and 9.1(d)

(2000),

and

40 CFR 63.803(1);

failedto report VOM content of solvent recovered orthe total amount

of cleanup

solvent

recovered

in

violation

of

Operating Permit

No.

99020104,

conditibns

2.1.9(c)(v) and

(vi),

and

Section

9(b)

of the

Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(b)

(2000);

j.

failed

to

notify

the

Illinois

EPA

Compliance

Section

of

non-

compliance of the

Giardina

Coating

Line

in

violation

of Operating

Permit

No.

99020104, condition

2.1.10(b) and

Section

9(b)

of the

Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(b)

(2000);

k.

failed to demonstrate initial complianceand failed to submit the initial

compliance

report

for

the

Giardina

Coating

Line

in

violation

of

Operating Permit No. 99020104, Condition 2.1.12(b),

Sections 9(b)

and

9.1(d) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(b),and

9.1(d)

(2000),

40

CFR

63.804(f)(1) and

40

CFR 63.807(b);

6

---

I.

has

not completed

performance tests

in

accordance with

40

CFR

63.805 to

demonstrate

initial

compliance

in

violation

of Operating

Permit No. 99020104, condition 2.1.7(a), Sections 9(b) and 9.1(d) of

the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(b) and

9.1(d) (2000),

and 40

CFR 63.805;

m.

has not demonstrated compliance with any of the stated methods

in

violation

of

Operating

Permit

No.

99020104,

condition

2.1.6,

Sections

9(b)

and

9.1(d)

of

the

Act,

415

ILCS

5/9(b)

and

9.1(d)

(2000),

and

40 CFR 63.802(a)(1);

n.

has

not

kept

the

records

required

by

Operating

Permit

No.

99020104, Conditions 2.1.9(a)(i)(B)

and

(C), cannot

report the as-

applied VHAP content and the as-applied VOM content of the clear-

coat because it adds solvent to the clear-coatwithout keeping track

of the ratio

amounts or how the VOM content

is altered

in

violation

of

Operating

Permit

No.

9990201040,

conditions

2.1.9(a)(i)(b),

2.1 .9(a)(i)(C),

2.1.12(a) and 2.1.6(a), Sections 9(b) and 9.1(d) of the

Act, 415

ILCS

5/9(b)

and

9.1(d)

(2000),

40

CFR 63.802(a)(1),

40

CFR 63.803(a), 40 CFR63.806(b)(2), and 40 CFR 63.806(b)(3); and

o.

has

failed

to

keep

records

required

by

Operating

Permit

No.

99020104, condition 2.1 .9(a)(ii) in violation of Operating

Permit No.

99020104, conditions 2.1 .9(a)(ii), Sections 9(b) and 9.1(d) of theAct,

415 ILCS 5/9(b) and

9.1(d)

(2000), and

40 CFR 63.806(c).

Count III:

Construction Without a

Permit Violation

Complainant alleges that during approximately November of 1996, Respondentconstructed

A Busellata CNC point-to-point machine with

a bag house and

subsequently operated the

same

without first obtaining a construction and operating permit, in violation of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 201.142

and 201.143,

and

Section 9(b) of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/9(b) (2000).

Count IV:

Failure

to Timely Submit

Clean Air Act

Permit Program

Permit Application

Complainant alleges

that Respondent’s facility constitutes

a major source

subject

to

the

Clean Air Act Program and, as

such, is subject to the requirement to obtain a Clean Air Act Permit

requirement, thus, required

to submit a complete Clean Air Act Permit Program permit application

no later than

March 7,

1996.

Complainant

alleges that Respondent untimely submitted

its Clean

Air Act Permit Program

permit application on or about March 23,

1998, two years late, in violation

of Section 39.5(6)(b) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/39.5(6)(b) (2000).

7

---

-

0.

Responsive Pleadings

Except as

provided

in Paragraph

E below, Respondent has denied

all material allegations

of the Complaint.

E.

Admission of Violations

This Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement

is entered into for the purpose of settling and

compromising disputed

claims without the expense

of contested

litigation.

By entering

into this

Stipulation

and

Proposal

for

Settlement

and

complying

with

its

terms,

MII,

Inc.,

does

not

affirmatively

admit

the

allegations

of

violation

within

the

Complaint,

and

this

Stipulation

and

Proposal

for

Settlement

shall

not

be

interpreted

as

including

such

admission,

except

for

the

allegations appearing

in Paragraphs 21(c), (d) and (o) of Count

II of the Complaint (failure to keep

records), which Respondent admits.

F.

Compliance Activities to

Date

1.

Beginning in

November, 2001,

pursuant to an agreed-upon

schedule, Respondent

agreed to prepare, and Complainant and the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (“Agency”)

reviewed,

recalculations

of

both

the VOM

and

hazardous air

pollutant

(“HAP”) contents

of raw

products used

and emissions from the subject facility for the following purposes:

(a) establishing

whether Respondent was subject to the NESHAP regulations or exempt under the Small Quantity

Exemption

to

the NESHAP

regulations;

(b)

establishing whether and

to

what extent any

of the

alleged violations in Counts

I and

II of the Complaint actuallyoccurred;

and (c) determining whether

Respondent was eligible for a Federally Enforceable State Operating

Permit (“FESOP”), pursuant

to

Section

39.5 of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act (“Act”).

2.

The

said

recalculations consisted of attempting

to

match the appropriate Material

Safety

Data

Sheets

(“MSDS”) with

the

products used

by Respondent during

all of the 12-month

rolling

time periods

beginning

December

1997,

then

calculating the emissions of

HAPs emitted

during each of those

12-month rolling

time periods,

based upon the submitted

MSDS.

8

---

3.

From time

to

time

in

2002,

Complainant

and

Respondent,

and

their

respective

attorneys

and engineers and technical staff,

met to

discuss the status of these

recalculations.

4.

At

at

least one

of these

meetings,

Respondent explained

that

it believed

that its

Jacksonville,

Illinois

plant

could

be

excluded

from

the

CAAPP,

and

that

it

believed

that

the

appropriate permit for this facility was a

FESOP, which imposed federally enforceable conditions

limiting

the “potential

to emit” of the source

to

a

level below the major

source

threshold for this

facility.

5.

The

last

of

the

recalculations

prepared

by

Respondent

and

submitted

to

Complainant for its review,

were

prepared and submitted

on July 30,

2002.

6.

In

the

July 30, 2002,

report, Respondent concluded that

its subject Jacksonville,

Illinois facility

qualified for an

extended

NESHAP compliance date and

further qualified for,

and

continues to qualify for, an exemption from the NESHAP rules applicable to wood furniture coating

subject

to

Agency confirmation.

7.

In January 2003,

Complainant determined that the recalculations presented by the

Respondent indicated

Respondent’s facility, which is the subject of this Complaint, would qualify

for an exemption from the NESHAP rules, since there were

never emitted more than a total of 12.5

tons per year of HAPs or more than

5 tons per year of any

individual

HAP,

during

any

12-month

rolling

period, from the

plant.

8.

On

March

26, 2003,

Complainant further concluded that

Respondent is currently

operating

in compliance with those provisions of the Act and applicable regulations alleged to have

been violated

in the Complaint by

the Respondent.

9.

On

or about

May 17,

2003,

Respondent filed with

the Agency an

application for a

FESOP for this facility.

9

---

IV.

APPLICABILITY

This Stipulation shall apply to

and

be binding upon the Complainant and the Respondent,

and

any

officer

or agent

of

the

Respondent,

as

well

as

any

successors

or assigns

of

the

Respondent.

The

Respondent shall

not raise

as

a defense

to

any

enforcement

action

taken

pursuant to this Stipulation the failure of any of its officers or agents to take such action

as shall

be required

to comply with the provisions

of ths Stipulation.

COMPLIANCE

WITH

OTHER LAWS AND

REGULATIONS

This Stipulation

in no way affects the responsibilities of the Respondentto comply with

any

other federal, state or local laws or regulations including, but not limited to, the Act and the

Board

Regulations,

35

III. Adm.

Code,

Subtitles A through

H, and

40 CFR 63 (subpart JJ).

VI.

IMPACT ON

THE

PUBLIC

RESULTING

FROM ALLEGED

NON-COMPLIANCE

Section

33(c) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/33(c) (2002),

provides as follows:

In

making

its

orders

and

determinations,

the

Board

shall

take

into

consideration

all

the

facts

and

circumstances

bearing

upon

the

reasonableness of the emissions, discharges, or deposits involved involving,

but not limited

to:

1.

the

character

and

degree

of

injury

to,

or

interference

with

the

protection of the health,

general welfare and physical property of the

people;

2.

The social and

economic value of the pollution source;

3.

the suitability

or unsuitability

of the pollution

source to

the area

in

which it is located, including the question of priority of location in the

area involved;

4.

the technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing

or eliminating the emissions, discharges or deposits resulting from

such

pollution source; and

10

---

5.

any subsequent compliance.

In

response

to these factors, the parties state the following:

1.

The

threat

to

or

interference

with

human

health,

the

environment

or

physical

property was

de minimis.

2.

There

is social

and

economic benefit to

the facility.

3.

Operation

of the facility was and

is suitable for the area in which

it occurred.

4.

The

maintenance

of

adequate

records

and

the

providing

of

correct

reports

as

required by Respondent’s permits, all of which was

redone as described

in Section

III,

paragraph

F,

pages 8-10

was both technically practicable

and economically

reasonable.

5.

Respondent has

subsequently complied with

the Act and

the Board

Regulations.

VII.

CONSIDERATION

OF

SECTION 42(h)

FACTORS

Section 42(h) of the Act, 415 ILCS

5/42(h) (2002),

provides as follows:

In

determining the

appropriate civil penalty to

be

imposed under

.

.

.

this

Section,

the

Board

is

authorized

to

consider

any

matters

of

record

in

mitigation or aggravation of penalty, including but not limited to the following

factors:

1.

the duration

and gravity of the violation;

2.

the presence

or absence of due diligence on the part of the violator

in attempting to comply with requirements of thisAct and regulations

thereunder or to

secure

relief therefrom

as

provided by

this Act;

3.

any economic benefits accrued by the violator because of delay in

compliance with

requirements;

4.

the

amount

of

monetary

penalty which

will

serve

to

deter further

violations by the violator and to otherwise aid

in enhancing voluntary

compliance with this Act by the violator and other persons similarly

subject

to the Act;

and

5.

the number,

proximity in time,

and gravity of previously adjudicated

violations of this Act by

the violator.

In

response to

these factors,

the parties state as follows:

11

---

1.

Based on the recalculation as described

in Section III,

paragraph

F., pages 8-10 and

Respondent’s responsive pleadings as described

in Section III, paragraphs D and E,

Respondent’s

failure

to

maintain

adequate

records

and

the resulting

failure

to

submit

reports

as

required

by

Respondent’s permits

occurred primarily between

1997 and

2000.

2.

The

alleged

violations

initially occurred

due

to

an

alleged

misunderstanding

by

Respondent. After the filing of the Compliant herein, Respondent has been diligent

in addressing

thealleged violations.

Respondent has corrected the situation leading to the alleged violations, and

is

now

in

a position

to

receive the appropriate permit for this facility.

3.

Some economic advantage may have

initially been

accrued by the Respondent in

that Respondentapparently did notapplythe resources necessaryto ensure+hat its record keeping

was adequate to comply with its initial permit. the parties agree that the penalty provided for herein

will offset any economic benefit realized

by Respondent.

4.

Except for the allegations appearing

in paragraphs 2 1(c),

(d) and

(0)

of Count

II of

the

Complaint

(failure

to

keep

records),

Respondent denies

that

it

has

violated

the

act

or the

regulations

promulgated

thereunder,

or the

permits

heretofore

issued

to

Respondent

by

the

Agency,

but for the purpose

of settlement,

has agreed

to pay

a penalty in the sum of $50,000 to

the

Environmental

Protection

Trust

Fund.

The

State

believes

that

such

a

penalty

will

deter

Respondent

from

future

violations

of

the

Act.

Further,

this

penalty

will

aid

Illinois

EPA’s

enforcement of the Act and the Board’s Rules and Regulations as against persons similarly subject

to the Act.

5.

There are no

known prior adjudicated violations of the Act by Respondent relative

to

the subject facility.

12

---

~

TERMS

OF SETTLEMENT

A.

.

Penalty Payment

.

-

.

.

.

-

-.

1.

The Respondentshall pay a penalty in the sum offifty thousand dollars ($50,00000)

within thirty (30) days

after the date the Board

adopts

and

accepts this Agreement.

The penalty

described in this Agreement shall be paid by certified check payable to the Illinois EPA, designated

to

the Illinois

Environmental Protection Trust

Fund and submitted to:

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

Fiscal

Services Section

-

1021

North

Grand

Avenue East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

IL 62794-9276

The

name

and

number of

the case

and

Respondent’s

Federal

Employer Identification

Number

(FEIN), 37-1107490, shall appear on the check.

A copy of the certified check or money order and

the transmittal letter shall be sent to:

Attorney General’s Office

Attn: Peggy Poitevint

500 South

Second Street

Springfield,

IL 62706

2.

Pursuant to Section 42(g) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/42(g) (2002), interest shall accrue

on

any payment not paid within the time period

prescribed

above at the maximum rate allowable

under Section

1003(a)

of the

Illinois

Income

Tax Act,

35

ILCS

5/1 003

(2002).

Interest

on

any

unpaid

payment shall begin to accrue until the date payment is received.

When partial payment(s)

are made,

such partial payment shall be first applied to any interest on unpaid

payment then due

and owing.

All interest on payment owed shall be paid by certified check or money order,

payable

to the Treasurer of the State of Illinois, designated to the Environmental Protection Trust Fund and

delivered

to the address and

in the manner described

above.

3.

For

purposes

of

payment

and

collection,

Respondent

may

be

reached

at

the

following address:

13

---

MIl,

Inc.

Attn: Alex Craig

2200 West

5th

Street

Lincoln,

Illinois

62656

4.

In

the

event

of

default,

the

Complainant

shall

be

entitled

to

all

available

relief

including, but not limited to,

reasonable costs of collection and

reasonable attorney’s fees.

B.

Future

Use

Notwithstanding any other language in this Stipulation to the contrary,

this Stipulation may

be

used

against

the

Respondent in

any subsequent

enforcement action

as evidence

of a

past

adjudication

of

violation

of

the Act

and

the

Board

Regulations

promulgated

thereunder,

for

purposes of Sections

39(i) and/or 42(h) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/39(i) and/or 5/42(h)

(2002).

C.

Correspondence,

Reports and

Other Documents

Any

and

all

correspondence,

reports

and

any

other

documents

required

under

this

Stipulation, except for payments

pursuant to

Section

IX. of this Stipulation, shall be submitted

as

follows:

As

to the Complainant:

Crystal

Myers-Wilkins

Assistant Counsel

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

1021 North

Grand Avenue East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

As

to the Respondent

MII,

Inc.

Attn: Alex

Craig

2200 West

5th

Street

Lincoln,

Illinois

62656

D.

Ric~htof

Entry

In addition

to

any other authority,

the Illinois EPA, its employees and

representatives, and

the Attorney General,

her agents and

representatives,

shall have the right of entry into and upon

the Respondent’s facility which is the subject of this Consent Order,

at all reasonable times for the

14

---

purposes

of

carrying

out

inspections.

In

conducting

such

inspections,

the

Illinois

EPA,

its

employees and representatives, and theAttorney General, her employees and rel

resentatives may

take photographs, samples, and collect information,

as they deem

necessary.

E.

Cease and

Desist

-

The Respondentshall cease and desist from future violations of the Act, Board Regulations,

and the NESHAP, including but not limited to those sections of the Act,

Board Regulations and the

NESHAP

that

were

the

subject

matter

of

the

Complaint

as

outlined

in

Section

IIl.C.

of

this

Stipulation.,

F.

Dispute Resolution

As

part of the resolution

of any dispute, the parties,

by agreement, or by order of Court,

may,

in

appropriate circumstances,

extend

or modify

any

provision

of the Order accepting

and

adopting theterms of this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement to account for any delaythat may

occur as

a result of dispute resolution.

G.

Release from

Liability

In consideration forthe payment by Respondentto Complainantof the sum of $50,000, and

its actions to date and its commitment to refrain from future violations of the Act, Board regulations,

and Agency permits, Complainant releases, waives, and discharges Respondentfrom and against

any and

all liability or penalties for violations alleged

in the Complaint, as well as any violations of

the Respondent’s current CAAPP permit, so long as said violations do not constitute violations of

any applicable emissions limitations or provisions of any subsequently issued permit through the

date of the Board’s Order approving and accepting this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement for

Respondent’s Jacksonvillefacility.

However,

nothing in this Stipulation and Proposal of Settlement

shall

be

construed

as

a

waiver

by

Complainant

of

the

right

to

redress

future

or

heretofore

undisclosed violations, or obtain penalties with respect thereto.

Complainant reserves,

and

this

15

---

.

-

-----.,

-_

Consent Order is without prejudice to, all rights of the

State of Illinois against the Respondent with.

respect to all other matters,

including

but not limited to, the foIIowing~

—

a.

criminal

liability;

.

--

-

b.

.

.

liability for .future violation of-state, federal, I~ca1,and

common laws

and/or

regulations;

c.

liability

for

natural

resources

damage

arising

out of

the

alleged

violations;

and

d.

liability or claims based on the Respondent’s failure

to satisfy the requirements of this Stipulation.

Nothing

in

this Stipulation

is intended as

a waiver,

discharge,

release, or covenant not to

sue for any claim or cause of action, administrative orjudicial, civil or criminal, past or future,

in law

or in equity, which the State of Illinois or the Illinois EPA may have

against any person; as

defined

by Section 3.315 of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/3.315, other than the Respondent.

H.

Enforcement of Consent Order

1.

Upon the entry of the Board’s Order approving and

accepting

this Stipulation

and

Proposal

for

Settlement,

that

Order is

a

binding

and

enforceable order

of the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

and

may be

enforced

as such

through any and all available

means.

2.

Respondentagrees that notice of any subsequent proceeding to enforce and Board

Order approving and accepting

this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement may be made

by mail

and

waive any requirement of service of process.

3.

The parties agree that, if the Board does not approve and accept this Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement, then

neither party is bound

by the terms

herein.

4.

It

is the

intent of

the

Complainant

and

Respondent

that

the

provisions

of

this

Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement and any Board Order accepting and

approving such shall

be

severable,

and

should

any

provision

be

declared

by

a court of

competent jurisdiction

to

be

inconsistent with

state or federal

law,

and

therefore

unenforceable,

the remaining

clauses shall

remain in full force and

effect.

16

---

-

WHEREFORE, Complainantand Respondent request that the Board adop~and

accept the

-

-

.

-

foregoing

Stipulation and

Proposal

for Settlement as written.

-

.

-

-

Respecifully submitted,

PEOPLE

OF THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS,

LISA MADIGAN,

Attorney General

State of Illinois,

-

MATTHEWJ. DUNN, Chief

Environmental

Enforcement/Asbestos

Litigation Division

Dated:_9/~—~i(o?

BY:________________

THOMAS

DAVIS,

Chief

Environmental

Bureau

Assistant Attorney General

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Dated:

‘~/~2’

BY:____________________

JOSE~HE.SVOBODA

~

Chief Legal

Counsel

Mll,

INC., a Delaware

rporation

Dated:____

~

17