ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 6, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 04-134
(Enforcement - Air)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):
On January 29, 2004, the Office of the Attorney General, on behalf of the People of the
State of Illinois (People), filed a complaint against Interstate Brands Corporation (IBC). The
complaint concerns IBC’s bakery product production and packaging facility at 9555 W. Soreng,
Schiller Park, Cook County. The Board accepted the complaint for hearing on February 5, 2004.
In the complaint, the People allege that IBC violated Sections 9(a) and 9.1(d)(1) of the
Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/9(a) and 9.1(d)(1) (2004)) and 40 C.F.R.
61.145(b), (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(6), and (c)(8) and 61.150(a) by: (1) conducting removal of regulated
asbestos-containing material (RACM) while failing to provide written notice to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency); (2) failing to remove all RACM before engaging in
building demolition or renovation that would dislodge or disturb the material; (3) failing to
engage in emissions controls such as maintaining the RACM wet during removal; (4) failing to
have a person on hand who was trained for RACM removal; (5) failing to properly contain the
RACM removed in air-tight containers and disposing of the material in a dumpster as ordinary
trash; and (6) causing or allowing air pollution.
On February 27, 2006, the People and IBC filed a stipulation and proposed settlement,
accompanied by a request for relief from the hearing requirement of Section 31(c)(1) of the Act.
415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2004). These filings are authorized by Section 31(c)(2) of the Act. 415
ILCS 5/31(c)(2) (2004).
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.300(a). Under the proposed stipulation, IBC
neither admits nor denies the violations alleged in the complaint, but agrees that a money
judgment for $90,000 be entered against it. The parties agree that IBC filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy on September 22, 2004, and that the stipulation and proposal for settlement is subject
to the allowance of a claim in the amount of $90,000 in favor of the People by the Bankruptcy
Court.
The Board provided notice of the stipulation, proposed settlement, and request for relief
from hearing. The Board published newspaper notice in the
Franklin Park Herald/Pioneer Press
West Zone
on March 1, 2006. The Board did not receive any requests for hearing. The Board
2
grants the parties’ request for relief from the hearing requirement.
See
415 ILCS 5/31(c)(2)
(2004); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.300(b).
Section 103.302 of the Board’s procedural rules sets forth the required contents of
stipulations and proposed settlements. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.302. These requirements include
stipulating to facts on the nature, extent, and causes of the alleged violations and the nature of the
respondents’ operations. Section 103.302 also requires that the parties stipulate to facts called
for by Section 33(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/33(c) (2004)), which bears on the reasonableness of
the circumstances surrounding the alleged violations.
As previously stated, IBC neither admits nor denies the violations alleged in the
complaint, but agrees that a money judgment for $90,000 be entered against it. The stipulation
also addresses the factors of Section 42(h) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/42(h) (2004),
as amended by
P.A. 93-575, (eff. Jan. 1, 2004), which may mitigate or aggravate the civil penalty amount. The
People determined that a civil penalty of $90,000 was appropriate.
The People and IBC have satisfied Section 103.302. The Board accepts the stipulation
and proposed settlement.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ORDER
1.
The Board accepts and incorporates by reference the stipulation and proposed
settlement.
2.
A money judgment for a civil penalty of $90,000 is entered against Interstate
Brands Corporation (IBC ).
3.
IBC must file an amended proof of claim with the bankruptcy court reflecting that
the People’s previous disputed, contingent, and unliquidated claim (claim number
479) has now been liquidated and that a money judgment on the claim in the
amount of $90,000 has been entered against IBC by the Board. IBC will not
object to the amended proof of claim, and will permit the amended proof of claim
to relate back to the date that the original proof of claim was filed.
4.
IBC must include the People’s claim in its plan of reorganization and must
classify the claim as a general, unsecured, non-priority claim. IBC agrees that the
claim will be classified in its plan with other similarly situation claims and paid
the same percentage as other similarly situation claims.
5.
Any payments or distributions with respect to the claim must be made to the
recipient and address identified on proof-of-claim number 479, 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.
3
6.
IBC must cease and desist from the alleged violations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41(a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board orders may
be appealed directly to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days after the Board serves the
order. 415 ILCS 5/41(a) (2004);
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906, 102.706.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois
Appellate Court, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 Ill. 2d R. 335. The
Board’s procedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final
orders may be filed with the Board within 35 days after the order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
101.520;
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, 102.700, 102.702.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above opinion and order on April 6, 2006, by a vote of 4-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
