Lisa Madigan
ATTORNEY GENERAL
RE CE
~V ~ D
CLERK’S OFFICE
JUL
012005
•
STATE OF ILLINOIS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Pollution Control Board
STATE OF ILLINOIS
June
30, 2005
The Honorable Dorothy Gunn
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
James
R. Thompson Center,
Ste.
11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
Re:
People v. All States Painting, Inc.
PCB
No.
04-205
Dear Clerk Gunn:
Enclosedforfiling please find theoriginal 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 originals and return
file-
stamped copies of the documents to our office in the enclosed
self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Thank you
for your cooperation
and consideration.
JB/pp
Enclosures
500
South Second Street,
Sprin~fielc1.Illinois
62706
•
(217)
782-1090
•
TTV
(217) 785-2771
•
Fax:
(217)
782-7046
100
West Randolph Strec~Chicago,
Illinois
60601
•
(312)
814-3000
•
TTY: (312) 814-3374
s
Fax:
(312) 814-3806
1001
East \lain, Carbondale. Illinois
62901
(618)
529-640~
•
TT~(h1$~529-6403
•
Fax: (618)529-6416
inifer Bqhkowski
:nvironmenta!
Bureau
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
(217) 782-9031
RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARDJUL
012005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Pollution Control Board
Complainant,
v.
•
)
PCB
NO.
04-205
(Enforcement)
ALL STATES
PAINTING, INC.,
)
Respondent.
NOTICE
OF FILING
To:
Jeryl Olson, Esq.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
55 East Monroe Street,
Suite 4200
Chicago,
IL 60603-5803
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 MAD IGAN,
Attorney General
of the
State
of Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental
EnforcementlAsbestos
Litigati~nDivision
BY:
~
~
~
(/
JENNfl~
BONKOWSKI
(\)
Assistanj Attorney General
-
Environmental Bureau
500
South Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
June 30, 2005
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
JUL
012005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
I
hereby
certify
that
I
did
on June
30, 2005,
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:
Jeryl
Olson,
Esq.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
55
East Monroe Street,
Suite
4200
Chicago,
IL 60603-5803
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
James
R. Thompson 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 Webb
Hearing
Officer
Illinois Pollution
Control
Board
1021
North
Grand Avenue East
Springfield,
IL 62794
)~
/!JENNlFE,~BONKOWSKI
Assistant Attorney Generai
This filing is submitted
on recycled paper.
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BQARD
JUL
012005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
POII~tj~~
Control Board
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB
NO.
04-205
)
(Enforcement)
ALL STATES
PAINTING, INC.,
)
Respondent
)
MOTION
FOR
RELIEF
FROM HEARING
REQUIREMENT
NOW
COMES
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA
MADIGAN, 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) (2002),
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)
(2002).
In support of
this motion,
Complainant
states as follows:
1.
On
May 21, 2004,
Complainant filed
a Complaint with the Board,
alleging
violations
by
the Respondent of the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Act and
Board
Regulations.
2.
The parties
have reached agreement on all
outstanding
issues
in this
matter.
3.
This agreement is presented to the
Board
in a
Stipulation
and Proposal for
Settlement, filed contemporaneously with this
motion.
4.
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)
(2002).
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)
(2002).
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
itigation
Division
•
BY:____________
,-J
JENNIF~BONKOWSKI
(1
Environm’ental
Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
500
South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
June 30,2005
2
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BQARD
RECENVED
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
CLERK’S OFFICE
Complainant,
)
JUL
012005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
PCB
No. 04-205
Pollution Control Board
)
(Enforcement)
ALL STATES
PAINTING, INC.,
)
)
•
Respondent.
)
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
ALL
STATES PAINTING, INC.
(“Respondent” or “All
States”),
have
agreed to
the making of this
Stipulation
and Proposal
for Settlement
(“Stipulation”) 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 neither the fact that a party has
entered
into this Stipulation, nor any of the facts stipulated
herein, shall be
introduced
ihto
evidence in any other proceeding regarding the claims asserted
in the Complaint except as
otherwise provided herein.
Ifthe Board
approves and enters this Stipulation,
Respondent
agrees to be bound
by the Stipulation
and
Board Order and not to
contest their validity in any
subsequent
proceeding to
implement or enforce
their terms.
1
I. 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
et seq.
(2002).
II. 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.
III.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.
Parties
1.
On May 21, 2004, a
Complaint was filed
on
behalf of the People of the
State of
Illinois by Lisa
Madigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,
on
her own
motion and
upon
the request of the Illinois
EPA, pursuant to
Section
31
of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/31(2002), against
the Respondent.
2.
The Illinoiè
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 an
Illinois
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
corporation
located
in Alexander,
Morgan County,
Illinois.
Respondent has
been
a contractor
hired
by the Illinois
Department of Transportation
(“IDOT”) for bridge
painting.
2.
From the interviews of IDOT personnel
and All States,
the Illinois
EPA learned
2
that a
bridge painting project of All States
began in the summer of 2002 ~t the Route
104 Bridge
over the Illinois River.
The project began with the
initial wet blasting of approximately 430,000
square feet of steel and the subsequent applications of a gray zinc-based
rust proof primer, a
white epoxy intermediate
primer, and a blue
oil-based, polyurethane finish
coat.
Airless spray
guns
and
pump
delivery system were used
to apply the coatings.
3.
On
June
19, 2003, the Illinois EPA received a complaint of paint over-spray from
the Route
104
Bridge over the Illinois
River,
near Meredosia,
Illinois.
The complainant stated
that
on
June
18, 2003,
he observed
a
blue film
in the water after placing his boat
into the Illinois
River at the Meredosia
boat ramp,
and that the
blue paint left
marks on
his
boat.
4.
Later that day on June
19,
2003,
Illinois
EPA inspectors visited
the site,
and
observed
blue paint
in the water and
paint residue along the river bank.
The inspectors
observed four painters
using airless spray guns
to spray blue
paint on the east half of the
bridge.
The inspectors further noted
that there were no tarps near the areas being sprayed, and
estimated that
half of the paint
being
sprayed was emitted to the air
rather than
adhering to the
surface of the bridge.
5.
While on site
on
June
19, 2003, the
Illinois
EPA inspectors spoke with
a
representative of All
States, who stated that the company had received
complaints regarding
the over-spray on vehicles.
6.
On
June 20, 2003, a representative of IDOT informed the Illinois
EPA that a
ruptured paint line caused the spill of blue paint into the
river.
7.
On
June 23, 2003, the Illinois
EPA received another complaint regarding over-
spray from the Route
104
Bridge.
The complainant stated that on June
20, 2003,
he observed
over-spray falling
into the river,
and that the paint
in the river teft marks on
his boat.
The
complainant also noted that All
States was not using tarps to
control the over-spray.
8.
On
June 24, 2003,
Illinois
EPA inspectors again
visited the
site, observing
over-
3
spray from the bridge
falling
into the Illinois
River.
Illinois
EPA inspectors noted
containment
with drift screening
in
place on the underside of the bridge decking on the eastern
span, and
tarp rigging on the side of the bridge adjacent to
the Village of Meredosia.
However,
no tarping
or containment was in
place near the center span where the workers
were painting.
Over-spray
was visible to the Illinois
EPA inspectors.
The inspectors
again
noted the presence of blue paint
in the river and
blue foam at the public boat ramp south of Route
104.
9.
On
June 24, 2003,
a representative
of All States
admitted that a fitting on a
pressurized airline broke,
causing the spill of approximately one gallon
of blue
paint.
While on
• site,
the Illinois EPA inspector noted the contents of the paint buckets at the site.
Subsequent
to the site visit, the Illinois
EPA inspector attained the data
sheets and
MSDS for the Sherwin
Williams paint that was used
to
paint the bridge.
A white
epoxy was first sprayed onto the
bridge, followed
by a blue oil-based polyurethane finish
coat.
Part A of the white epoxy
contained
2.09 lbs/gal of VOC, and
Part
B of the white
epoxy contained
1.67 lbs/gal of VOC.
The
blue paint was
composed of ACROLON
218 HS Acrylic Polyurethane
Gloss,
with a VOC
content of 2.82
lbs/gal.
10.
On June 25, 2003,
the Illinois EPA inspectors met with
representatives of All
States and
IDOT to discuss future actions
to
prevent the over-spray from the bridge.
11.
The Illinois
River is
a “water” of the State as that term is defined in
Section
3.550
of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.550 (2002).
12.
The Respondent caused or allowed
a blue foam or residue to remain
on the river
bank for a period
of several days.
13.
The above-referenced
discharges of paint from the Respondent’s
bridge
painting
caused the waters to
be of a blue cast, color or turbidity of other than
natural origin.
4
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, in violation of Section 9(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/9(a)
(2002),
and
Section 201.141
of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Admin.
Code 201.141.
Count
II:
Water pollution,
in violation of Section
12(a) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/12(a)
(2002).
Count Ill:
Water pollution hazard, in violation of Section
12(d) of the Act, 415
ILCS
5/12(d)
(2002).
Count IV:
Offensive conditions,
in violation of Section
302.203 of the Board’s
Water Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill. Admin.
Code 302.203, and
Section
12(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/12(a) (2002).
D.
Admission
of
Violations
The Respondent represents that
it has entered into
this Stipulation for the purpose of
settling
and compromising disputed claims without having
to incur the expense of contested
litigation.
By entering
into this Stipulation and complying
with
its terms, the Respondent does
not affirmatively admit the allegations
of violation
within the Complaint and
referenced within
Section
III.C
herein,
and this Stipulation shall not be
interpreted as
including
such admission.
IV. APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation
shall apply to and
be binding upon the Complainant and
the
Respondent, and
any officer, director, agent,
or employee 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,
directors,
agents, employees
or successors or assigns
to take such action
as shall
be required to
comply
with
the provisions of this Stipulation.
5
V. COMPLIANCE WITH
OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This Stipulation
in
no way affects the responsibilities
of the Respondent to
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.
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
including, 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; ahd
5.
any subsequent compliance.
In
response
to these factors,
the parties
state the following:
1.
Complainant contends that the
injury to, or interference with, the protection of the
health, general
welfare, and
physical
property of the People would
be
characterized
as air
pollution, water pollution, water pollution hazard,
and
offensive conditions; and the degree
of
injury would
be dependent upon the amount of pollution or threat of pollution
and the degree of
exposure to that pollution;
2.
The parties
agree that Respondent’s corporation
is of social and economic
benefit;
6
3.
Respondent’s corporation
is suitably located
in Alexander, Morgan County,
Illinois.
4.
The parties agree that complying with the Act and
regulations is technically
practicable and economically reasonable;
and
5.
Respondent implemented measures
subsequent to
the alleged
violations that are
the subject of the Complaint in this matter
in order
to operate in compliance with the Act and the
associated 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 respondent
in
attempting
to comply with
requirements of this Act and regulations
thereunder or to secure relief therefrom as provided by this Act;
3.
any economic benefits accrued by the respondent because of delay in
compliance with
requirements,
in which case the economic benefits shall
be
determined by the lowest cost alternative for achieving compliance;
4.
the amount
of monetary penalty which will serve to deter further violations
by the respondent and to otherwise aid
in enhancing voluntary
compliance with
this Act by the respondent
and other persons similarly
subject to
the Act;
5.
the number,
proximity in time,
and gravity of previously adjudicated
violations
of this Act by the respondent;
6.
whether the respondent voluntarily self-disclosed,
in accordance with
subsection
i of this Section, the non-compliance to the Agency; and
7.
whether the respondent has agreed to
undertake a “supplemental
environmental project,” which means
an
environmentally beneficial
project that a respondent agrees
to undertake in settlement
of an
7
*
-~-
enforcement action brought under this Act,
but which the respondent is
not otherwise
legally required to perform.
In response
to these factors,
the parties state
as follows:
1.
The Respondent discharged or emitted
enough
paint into the environment to
cause a blue foam or residue to
remain on the river bank for a
period of several days.
2.
After completion of the Meredosia bridge
painting project, the Respondent
inspected the river banks and
river to ensure that no paint residue remained,
and
has
proposed
to
make similar inspections
during and after the completion of other projects.
The Respondent
has stated that it has
used
the hand application
of paint
on
other projects
due to
Illinois
EPA
concerns regarding overspray.
In
addition, the Respondent has
prepared a written
protocol for
overspray control, which is to include the use of tarpaulins and
drop cloths.
3.
It is difficult to determine
the economic benefits accrued by the Respondent,
but
the
hand application of paint on other projects
has allegedly increased
the Respondent’s costs.
4.
Complainant
has determined
that a penalty of nineteen thousand dollars
($19,000.00) will serve to deter further violations and
aid
in future voluntary enforcement of the
Act
and applicable
regulations.
5.
To
Complainant’s knowledge, Respondent has no
previously
adjudicated violations of the Act.
6.
The Respondent did
not voluntarily self-disclose the non-compliance to the
Agency: and
7.
The settlement of this matter does not include
a supplemental environmental
project.
8
VIII. TERMS
OF SETTLEMENT
A.
Penalty
Payment
1.
The Respondent shall pay a
civil penalty in the sum of nineteen
thousand dollars
($19,000.00) within thirty (30)
days from the date the Board
adopts
and accepts
this Stipulation.
The Respondent stipulates that payment has been tendered to
Respondent’s attorney of record
in this matter
in a form acceptable
to that attorney.
Further,
Respondent stipulates that said
attorney has been
directed
to make the penalty payment on
behalf of Respondent, within thirty
(30) days from the date the Board adopts and
accepts this Stipulation, in
a manner prescribed
below.
The penalty described
in this Stipulation shall be paid by
certified check,
money order or
electronic funds transfer 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),
.3
7
0 ~
,
shall appear on
the check.
A copy of the certified
check, money
order or
record of electronic funds transfer and any transmittal
letter shall be sent to:
Jennifer Bonkowski
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500
South
Second Street
Springfield,
IL
62702
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 5/1003 (2002).
Interest
on any
unpaid
payment shall begin to
accrue from the date the payment is due and continue to
accrue until the date
payment is received.
When
partial payment(s) are
made, such
partial
9
payment shall be first applied
to any interest on
unpaid
payment then du~
and owing.
All
interest on
payment owed shall be paid by certified check,
money order or electronic funds
transfer, payable
to the Illinois EPA,
designated to the Illinois
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:
Ronald
Desyllas
All
States
Painting, Inc.
P.O.
Box 110
Alexander,
Illinois
62601
4.
In the event of default of this Section VIllA, 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
-
Notwithstandingany other language in this Stipulation
to the contrary, and
in
consideration of the mutual promises and conditions
contained
in this Stipulation,
including the
Release from
Liability contained
in
Section VIll.D,
below, the Respondent hereby agrees that
this Stipulation may be
used against the Respondent in any subsequent
enforcement action
or
permit proceeding
as proof of a past adjudication of violation of the Act and the
Board
Regulations
promulgated thereunder for all violations alleged in the Complaint in this
matter, for
purposes of Section
39(a) and
(i) and/or 42(h) of the
Act, 415 ILCS
5/39(a) and(i) and/or
5/42(h)(2002).
Further,
Respondent agrees to
waive any rights to
contest,
in any subsequent
enforcement action or permit proceeding,
any allegations that these
alleged violations were
adjudicated.
10
C.
Cease
and
Desist
The Respondent shall cease and desist from future violations of the Act and
Board
Regulations that were the subject matter of the Complaint as outlined
in
Section
III.C
(“Allegations of Non-Compliance”) of this Stipulation.
D.
Release from Liability
In consideration
of the Respondent’s
payment of the $19,000.00 penalty and any
specified costs and
accrued
interest, completion of all activities required
hereunder, to
Cease
and
Desist as contained
in
Section Vlll.C and
upon the Pollution Control Board’s acceptance
and approval
of the terms of this Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement, the Complainant
releases, waives
and discharges the Respondent frOm any further liability or penalties for
violations
of the Act and
Board
Regulations that were
the subject matter of the Complaint
herein. The release
set forth
above does not extend
to any matters other than those expressly
specified in
Complainant’s Complaint filed
on
May 21,
2004.
The Complainant reserves,
and
this Stipulation
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 following:
a.
criminal liability;
b.
liability for future violation
of state, federal,
local, 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, or entity-other than the Respondent.
11
E.
Right of 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 Stipulation,
at all reasonable times for
the purposes of carrying out inspections.
In conducting
such
inspections, the Illinois EPA,
its
employees and representatives,
and the Attorney General,
her employees
and representatives
may take photographs,
samples,
and collect information,
as they deem
necessary.
F.
Correspondence, Reports and
Other Documents
Any and all correspondence,
reports and
any other documents
required
under this
Stipulation,
except for payments
pursuant to Section Vlll.A (“Penalty Payment”) of this
Stipulation
shall
be submitted as follows:
As to the Complainant
Jennifer Bonkowski
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500
South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
Joey Logan-Wilkey
Assistant Counsel
1021
North
Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
As to the Respondent
Ronald
Desyllas
All States
Painting, Inc.
P.O.
Box
110
Alexander,
Illinois
62601
Jeryl Olson,
Esq.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
55 East Monroe Street,
Suite 4200
Chicago, Illinois 60603-5803
12
G.
Modification of Stipulation
The parties may,
by mutual written consent, agree to extend any compliance dates or
modify the terms of this Stipulation.
A request for any modification
shall be made
in writing and
submitted
to the contact persons identified
in Section Vlll.F.
Any such
request shall be
made
by
separate document,
and shall not be submitted
within any other report or submittal
required
by
this Stipulation.
Any such
agreed
modification shall
be
in writing,
signed
by
authorized
representatives of each
party, and then
accompany a joint motion
to the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board seeking
a modification
of the prior order approving
and accepting
the Stipulation
to
approve and
accept the Stipulation
as amended.
H.
Enforcement of Board 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.
Respondent agrees that notice of any subsequent proceeding to enforce
the
Board Order approving and
accepting
this Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement may be made
by mail and waives 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.
~
13
WHEREFORE, Complainant and
Respondent request that the Board adopt and accept
the foregoing
Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement as written.
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General
State of Illinois,
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental
Enforcement!
Asbestos
Litigation
Division
Dated:________
BY:____________________
THOMAS
DAVIS,
Chief
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION~.1,AGENç7~
i
Dated:
~
/
/
WILLIAM
D.
INGERSO
L
Acting
Chief Legal
Counsel
-
Division of Legal
Counsel
ALL STATES
PAINTING, INC.
Dated:
~
/7~ç—
____________
14
