ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant
)
vs.
)
PCB No . 04-134
INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, )
a Delaware corporation,
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To
:
See attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 27th day of February, 2006 the People of the State of
Illinois, filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, a MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM HEARING
REQUIREMENT and a STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT,
true and correct
copies of which are attached hereto and is hereby served upon you .
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex rel. LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the State of Illinois
By:
George Theophilos
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph Street, 20 th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-6986
DATE: February 27, 2006
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
SERVICE LIST
Mr . Bradley P
. Halloran, Esq .
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson .Center
100 W
. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Mr . Chris Pressnall
Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P .O . Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Ms . Jennifer T . Nijman, Esq
.
Winston & Strawn, L .L.P
.
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Mr. Daniel S
. Liberman
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, L .L.P
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM HEARING REQUIREMENT
NOW COMES the Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and hereby moves for relief from the hearing
requirement in this case pursuant to Section 31(c)(2) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
("Act"), 415 ILCS 5/31(c)(2) (2004), and Section 103 .300 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
("Board") Procedural Rules, 35 III. Adm . Code 103 .300. In support of this Motion, the Complainant
states as follows :
Section 31(c)(2) of the Act allows the parties in certain enforcement cases to request
relief from the mandatory hearing requirement where the parties submit to the Board a Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement
. Section 31(c)(2) provides as follows :
Notice ; complaint ; hearing.
(c)(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection
(c), whenever
a complaint has been filed on behalf of the Agency or by the People of the State of
Illinois, the parties may file with the Board a stipulation and proposal for settlement
accompanied by a request for relief from the requirement of a hearing pursuant to
subdivision (1) . Unless the Board, in its discretion, concludes that a hearing will beheld,
the Board shall cause notice of the stipulation, proposal and request for relief to be
published and sent in the same manner as is required for hearing pursuant to subdivision
(1) of this subsection . The notice shall include a statement that any person may file a
written demand for hearing within 21 days after receiving the notice
. If any person files
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
))
Complainant
)
vs.
)
PCB No. 04-134
INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION,
)
a Delaware corporation,
)
Respondent .
)
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
a timely written demand for hearing, the Board shall deny the request for relief from a
hearing and shall hold a hearing in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (1) .
2 .
Board Procedural Rule 103
.300 provides, in relevant part, as follows (emphasis in
original)
:
Request for Relief from Hearing Requirement in State Enforcement Proceeding .
(a) Whenever a complaint has been filed on he half of the Agency or by the People of the
State of Illinois, the parties may file with the Board a proposed stipulation and
settlement accompanied by a request for relief from the requirement of a hearing
pursuant to Section 31(c)(2) of the Act . . . .
On January 24, 2004, the Complaint in this matter was filed with the Board
.
4 .
Subsequently, the parties to this action reached agreement on a Stipulation and Proposal
For Settlement, which is being filed with the Board concurrently with this motion . No hearing is
currently scheduled in this case .
WHEREFORE, the Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, respectfully moves for relief from the requirement
of a hearing pursuant to Section 31(c)(2) of the Act and Board Procedural Rule 103 .300 .
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the ate of Illinois
BY :
//
GEORC D . THEOPH2
I
•,
OS
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau/North
188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2001
Chicago, Illinois' 60601
DATE : February 27, 2006
312-814-6986
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
General of the State of Illinois and Respondent, INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION
("IBC"),
do hereby submit this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement ("Stipulation") to the Illinois Pollution
Control Board ("Board") for approval . This Stipulation shall be null and void unless the Board
approves and disposes of this matter on each and every one of the terms and conditions of the
settlement set forth herein .
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
1
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant
)
vs.
)
PCB No . 04-134
INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, )
a Delaware corporation,
)
Respondent .
)
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
bind them to it
.
III
.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.
PARTIES
The subject Complaint was brought by the Attorney General pursuant to the terms and
provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/31 (2002) .
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 IBC was a Delaware corporation
in good standing .
4 .
At all times relevant to the Complaint, Respondent IBC was the owner and operator
of a plant located at 9555 W
. Soreng, Schiller Park, Cook County, Illinois ("Facility") . At its
Facility, IBC produces and packages for distribution numerous bakery products under the Hostess
brand name .
5
.
Interstate Bakeries Corporation and seven of its subsidiaries and affiliates filed
Chapter 11 cases, Case No . 04-45814 (the "Bankruptcy Cases") on September 22, 2004 in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri (the "Bankruptcy Court")
. Plaintiff has
filed a proof of claim in Case No . 04-45814 .
6 . This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement is subject to the allowance of a claim in
the amount of $90,000 .00 in favor of the Complainant by the Bankruptcy Court in the Bankruptcy
Cases, all as more fully described in Section IX, below .
2
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27,
M
B.
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
IBC had a hot water storage tank ("water tank") at its Facility
. The water tank, from
which TBC removed insulation material, was approximately 15 feet long and 4 feet in diameter with
round ends
. The surface area of the water tank was greater than 160 square feet
.
2
The water tank was located in the IBC plant's boiler room
. The boiler room is located
adjacent to the food production area of the plant
.
Complainant alleges that on January 11, 1998, IBC employees, acting pursuant to
instructions from IBC's operations manager, removed friable asbestos-containing insulation material
from the water tank .
4 .
Complainant alleges that on January 11, 1998, IBC employees wheeled the
uncontained asbestos-containing insulation material through the plant's production area in an open
cart, and in doing so caused the insulation materials to he as close as 10 to 20 feet from the plant's
food production lines .
5 .
Complainant alleges that IBC failed to maintain barriers between the boiler room and
the production area while removal of the insulation material took place
.
6 .
Inspectors from the Illinois Department of Public Health ("IDPH") and Cook County
Environmental Control Department ("CCECD") inspected the IBC Facility on January 23, 1998
.
7 .
Complainant alleges that the IDPH inspector observed gross debris, which included
chunks, dust and various sized pieces of suspect asbestos-containing building material on floors and
other horizontal surfaces in the boiler room
. Some of the pieces of the insulation material that the
IDPH inspector observed were the size of a baseball
. Complainant alleges that the IDPH inspector
also observed uncovered finished bakery products outside the boiler room within 20 feet of where
3
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
the removal of the insulation material had taken place
. Complainant alleges that the CCECD
inspector observed a pile of grey fibrous suspect asbestos material under the water tank in the boiler
room
. The pile of suspect debris was approximately 4 inches high, 6 feet long and 1 foot wide
.
Complainant alleges that the insulation material tested positive for the presence of asbestos
.
8 .
The IDPH inspector took three (3) samples of suspect material found lying on the
floor in the boiler room
. Complainant alleges that all three of the IDPH inspector's samples
tested
positive for asbestos .
The CCECD inspector took two (2) samples of the suspect
debris.
Complainant alleges that both of those samples tested positive for asbestos
.
9 .
As observed by both inspectors, Complainant alleges that IBC caused or allowed
friable asbestos material to be deposited, uncontained, on the floor in the boiler room
at the IBC
Facility.
10.
Complainant alleges that Respondent caused, threatened and allowed asbestos fibers
to be released into the environment
.
11
.
Respondent denies the allegations and claims that the suspect material found by IDPH
and CCDEC was placed in the boiler room by unknown parties two weeks after the January 11, 1998
incident
. Respondent further disputes the chain of custody for such samples
.
Respondent alleges
that subsequent testing revealed that none of its food product from the relevant time
period was
found to be contaminated with asbestos
.
C. VIOLATIONS
This Stipulation is intended to resolve the allegations in the Complaint,filed in this matter
.
The Complaint alleges violations of the Act and of the Board's Air Pollution Regulations outlined
as
follows:
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
COUNT I
Failure to follow the asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) renovation notification requirements in violation of
Section 9.1(d) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9
.1(d)(1) (2002), and Section 61
.145(b)
of the NESHAP, 40 CFR 61 .145(b);
COUNT 11
Failure to remove regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) before
renovation begins in violation of Section
9.1(d)(1)
of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/9.1(d)(1)
(2002), and Section 61
.145(c)( I) of the asbestos NESHAP, 40
CFR 61
.145(c)(1) ;
COUNT III Failure to adequately wet RACM in violation of Section
9.1(d)(1)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9 .1(d)(1) (2002), and Section 61
.145(c)(3) and (c)(6) of the
asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR 61
.145(c)(3) and (c)(6);
COUNT IV
Failure to have an adequately trained person present for RACM removal in
violation of Section 9 .l(d)(1)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9
.1(d)(1) (2002), and
Section 61 .145(c)(8) of the asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR 61
.145(c)(8) ;
COUNT V
Failure to follow waste disposal procedures in violation of Section
9.1(d)(1)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9.1(d)(l)
(2002), and Section 61
.150(a) of the
asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR 61
.150(a) ;
COUNT VI
Air pollution in violation of Section 9(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(a)(2002),
and Section 201
.141 of the Board Regulations, 35 Ill
. Adm
. Code 201 .141 ;
IV.
APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation shall apply to and be binding upon Complainant and Respondent, and any
agent, director, officer, employee or servant of Respondent, as well as Respondent's successors and
assigns
. Respondent shall not raise as a defense to any enforcement action taken pursuant to this
settlement the failure of their agents, directors, officers, servants or employees to take such action as
shall be required to comply with the provisions of this settlement
.
5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF VIOLATIONS
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in the Complaint or as stated herein
.
VI.
FUTURE PLANS OF COMPLIANCE
Respondent shall comply with all applicable regulatory standards and work procedures to
control asbestos emissions during asbestos removal if any
. Respondent shall also comply with the
Act, the Board's regulations, and the asbestos NESHAP
.
VII.
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
; and
5 .
any subsequent compliance
.
In response to these factors, the parties state as follows
:
6
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
Complainant alleges that the impact to the public as a result of the allegations against
Respondent in the Complaint was that Respondent allowed asbestos fibers to be released into the
environment .
2.
The parties agree that Respondent's operation is of social and economic value .
3 .
The parties agree that the Facility is suitable to the area where it is located .
4.
The parties agree that compliance with the requirements ofthe Act, Board regulations,
and the asbestos NESHAP is both technically practicable and economically reasonable .
5 .
The parties agree that Respondent subsequently complied with the Act, Board
regulations, and the asbestos NESHAP .
VIII,
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 subdivisions
(a), (b)(1),
(b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(5) of this Section, the Board is authorized to consider any matters or
record in mitigation or aggravation of penalty, including but not limited to the following
factors :
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 this Act 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
;
5 .
the number, proximity in time, and gravity of previously adjudicated violations of
7
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
this Act by the violator;
6.
whether the respondent voluntarily self-disclosed, in accordance with subsection (i)
of this Section, noncompliance 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 enforcement action brought under this Act, but which
respondent is not otherwise legally obligated to perform
.
In response to these factors the parties state as follows
:
1 .
Complainant asserts that the gravity of the alleged violations is significant in
that
Respondent failed to comply with the Act, the applicable Board Regulations,
and the asbestos
NESHAP which resulted in air pollution
. Complainant alleges that the duration is also significant, as
the
. alleged violations began sometime on or prior to January 11, 1998 and continued
throughout
January of 1998 .
2 .
Complainant alleges that Respondent did not initially exercise due diligence
in
complying with the Act, the Board's regulations, and the asbestos NESHAP
. However, Respondent
subsequently complied with the Act, Board regulations, and the asbestos NESHAP
.
3.
Complainant alleges that Respondent derived some economic benefits by not using
the proper and approved method for asbestos removal
.
4.
Complainant asserts that a ninety-thousand dollar ($90,000
.00) civil penalty is
adequate to deter Respondent from future violations and that said amount is at
least as great as
economic benefits accrued by Respondent as a result of the violation
.
5 .
Complainant is unaware of Respondent committing any previously adjudicated
violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act .
6.
Respondent never voluntarily self-disclosed any alleged noncompliance with the Act,
8
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
the regulations promulgated thereunder, and/or the asbestos NESHAP to the Agency
.
7.
No supplemental environmental project will be undertaken pursuant to this order
.
IX.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Respondent filed for Chapter I I bankruptcy on September 22, 2004 in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri .
2.
On October25, 2004, the Complainant filed proof ofclaim number479 for penalties
arising from violations on or before January 11, 1998 until at least January 23, 1998
. The claim was
contingent, disputed, and unliquidated
.
The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to Section 362(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code
("Code"), I I U .S .C
. § 362(b)(4), the Complainant has a right to seek and obtain a money judgment
against the Respondent under its police powers
. However, the Parties also acknowledge that any
recovery of monies due and owing on any imposed pre-petition penalty money judgment must be
authorized by the bankruptcy court and paid only from the bankruptcy estate
.
4 .
A moneyjudgment for a civil penalty in the amount of $90,000
.00 is entered against
Respondent (the "Money Judgment")
. The entry of a money judgment shall not be construed as an
admission of any fact or allegation but is entered for purposes of settlement only
.
5 .
Respondent and Complainant agree that Complainant will file an amended proof of
claim with the bankruptcy court reflecting that Complainant's previous disputed, contingent, and
unliquidated claim, claim number 479, has now been liquidated and a moneyjudgment on the claim
in the amount of $90,000
.00 (the "Claim") has been entered against the Respondent by the Illinois
Pollution Control Board
. Respondent shall not object to the amended proof of claim
. Respondent
9
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
shall permit the amended proof of claim to relate back to the date that the o 'ginal proof of claim was
filed as it arises out of the same occurrence
.
6
.
Respondent shall include Complainant's Claim in its plan of reorganization ("Plan")
and shall classify the Claim as a general, unsecured, non-priority claim
. Respondent agrees that
Complainant's Claim shall be classified in its Plan with other similarly situated claims and paid the
same percentage as other similarly situated claims
.
7 .
Respondent shall take all necessary action to have this settlement agreement approved
by the bankruptcy court on the basis that it is in the best interest of the estate .
8.
This Stipulation is expressly conditioned upon both (a) authorization of this
Stipulation pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's Order, Pursuant to 11 U .S.C. 105, 363 and 502 and
Rule 9019(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Authorizing the Debtors to Compromise
or Settle Certain Classes of De Minimis Controversy and Either Collect or Allow Claims Without
Further Court Approval (Docket No
. 516) (the "Settlement Order") and (b) the Board approving and
disposing of this matter on each and every one of the terms and conditions of the settlement set forth
herein ("Board Approval")
. If either condition is not satisfied, then this Stipulation shall be null and
void
. Following execution of this Stipulation by the signature parties, Respondent shall initiate the
Settlement Order procedures
. Upon completion of the Settlement Order procedures, Respondent
shall provide the Complainant with written notification of the outcome of the Settlement Order
procedures. In the event the Settlement Order procedures result in the authorization of this
Stipulation, Complainant will promptly submit this Stipulation to the Board for approval
.
Complainant shall provide written confirmation of the Board's decision to Respondent
. In the event
of Board Approval and authorization of this Stipulation pursuant to the Settlement Order, the Claim
10
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
shall be an allowed, general, unsecured, non-priority claim .
A duplicate of proof of claim number 479 also appears in the claims register of the
Respondent's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, proof of claim number 540
. Complainant will
withdraw, and not file in the future, proof of claim number 540 and any and all other proofs of claim
against Respondent and its affiliates
. Respondent agrees such withdrawal(s) will be without
prejudice to Complainant's claim pursuant to proof of claim number 479 .
10
. Any payments or distributions with respect to the Claim shall be made to the recipient
and address identified on proof of claim number 479 (as such may be amended by notice to
Respondent's claims agent, Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, 12910 Culver Blvd ., Suite 1, Los
Angeles, CA 90066) in accordance with an effective plan of reorganization or, if the Bankruptcy
Cases are subsequently converted to Chapter 7 cases, in accordance with applicable law
.
11 .
For the purposes of collection, inquiries can be addressed to Respondent IBC's
attorney at :
Jennifer Nijman
Winston & Strawn
35 W
. Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703
12.
Respondent shall in the future operate in compliance with the Act, Board Regulations,
and the asbestos NESHAP .
X.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in no way affects Respondent's responsibility to
comply with any federal, state or local laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Act, 415
ILCS 5/1 et seq.
(2002), and the Board Regulations, 35 111
. Adm . Code Subtitles A through H
.
11
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
XI.
FUTURE USE
Notwithstanding any other language in this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement to
the
contrary and in consideration of the mutual promises and conditions contained
in this Stipulation
including the Release from Liability contained in Section XIV
., below, Respondent hereby agrees
that this Stipulation may be used against Respondent in any subsequent enforcement action or permit
proceeding initiated within ten (10) years from the date of the Board order accepting this Stipulation
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 such subsequent enforcement
action or permit
proceeding, any allegations that these alleged violations were adjudicated
.
XII.
CEASE AND DESIST
Respondent shall cease and desist from future violations of the Act and Board Regulations,
including but not limited to those sections of the Act and Board Regulations that were the subject
matter of the Complaint as outlined in Section HI .C
. of this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement .
XIII.
RELEASE FROM LIABILITY
Upon the Bankruptcy Court's allowance of the Claim pursuant to the Settlement Order in
accordance with Section IX
. above, Complainant releases, waives and discharges Respondent from
12
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 2/, 2006
any further liability or penalties for violations of the Act, Board Regulations, and asbestos NESHAP
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 the Complaint filed on January 29, 2004
. In the
event the Bankruptcy Cases are dismissed, the release set forth above shall not bar Complainant from
either seeking to recover or recovering the Money Judgment
. Complainant reserves, and this
Stipulation is without prejudice to, all rights of the State of Illinois against 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 ;
liability for natural resources damage a sing out of the alleged violations
; and
d.
liability or claims based on 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 or judicial, 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 (2002), or entity other than Respondent .
WHEREFORE, Complainant and Respondent request that the Board adopt and accept the
foregoing Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement as written
.
13
AGREED:
FOR COMPLAINANT :
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General, State of Illinois
MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement\Asbestos
Litigation Division
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
ROS
En
viro
ntal Bu
Assistant Attorney General
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By: f///" •- t-
Date: 1 (p
R BER A . MESS A
Chief Legal Counsel
FOR RESPONDENT
:
By:
Title : Interstate
Brands Corporation
Date:
14
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
AGREED:
FOR COMPLAINANT :
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General, State of Illinois
MATTHEW J . DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement'Asbestos
Litigation Division
By:
Date:
ROSEMARIE CAZEAU, Chief
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By :
Date:
ROBERT A
. MESSINA
Chief Legal Counsel
FOR RESPONDENT :
INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION
By :
Date: Nrrt
ntj5Iat
4,-~.ovl
Title :P{1~slgar- COO
14
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 27, 2006
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, George D . Theophilos, an Assistant Attorney General, do certify that I caused to be mailed,
this 27`
h
day of February, 2006, the foregoing
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM HEARING
REQUIREMENT and STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT to the persons
listed onsaid Service List by first class mail in a postage pre-paid envelope and depositing same with
the United States Postal Service located at 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601 .
. l
Ii
am
L1
J
