ERK’S
OFFICE
JUL
2
0
2
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
OFFICE
OF
THE
AfORNEY
GENERAL
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Lisa
Madigan
ATTORNEY GENERAL
July
16,
2009
John
T.
Therriault,
Assistant
Clerk
Assistant Clerk
of the
Board
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James
R.
Thompson Center,
Ste.
11-500
100
West
Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
Re:
People
v.
Richard
King,
et
a!.
PCB
No.
O9-2
Dear
Clerk:
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
originals
and
return
file-stamped
copies
to
me
in
the
enclosed envelope.
Thank
you
for
your
cooperation
and
consideration.
Very
truly
yours,
Christine
ktQ
Zeivel
&O
Environmental
Bureau
500
South
Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
(217)
782-9031
CZ/pjk
Enclosures
500
South
Second
Street,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
• (217)
782-1090
• TFY:
(877)
844-5461
• Fax:
(217)
782-7046
100 West
Randolph
Street,
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
•
(312)
814-3000
• TTY:
(800)
964-3013
• Fax:
(312)
814-3806
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
)
vs.
)
PCB
No.
09-27
)
(Enforcement)
RICHARD
KING,
KAY
KING
and
)
ISAAC
KING,
)
)
Respondents.
NOTICE
OF
FILING
CLERK’S
OFFICE
To:
Hodge
Dwyer
&
Driver
JUL
2
1
2009
3150
Roland
Avenue
P.O.
Box
5776
STATE
9aSrd
Springfield, IL 62705-5776
PollUt10’
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,
copies
of which
are
attached hereto
and
herewith
served
upon
you.
Respectfully
submitted,
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney
General
of
the
State
of
Illinois
MATTHEWJ.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigati
ivision
BY:_______
‘CHRISTINE
ZEWEL
Assistant Attorney
General
Environmental
Bureau
500
South
Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
July
16,
2009
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I hereby certify that
I did
on July
16, 2009,
send
by First Class Mail,
with postage
thereon
fully
prepaid,
by depositing ma
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:
Hodge
Dwyer & Driver
3150 Roland Avenue
P.O. Box
5776
Springfield,
IL 62705-5776
and the original and ten
copies
by
First Class
Mail with
postage thereon fully
prepaid of the
same
foregoing instrument(s):
To:
John
T. Therrault,
Assistant 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
CHRISTINE
ZEIVEL
Assistant
Attorney
General
This
filing is submitted on
recycled
paper.
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB No. 09-27
)
(Enforcement)
RICHARD
KING,
KAY KING
and
)
ECEVED
ISAAC KING,
)
CLERK’S
OFFICE
Respondents.
JUL
2 02009
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
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 5131(c)(2)
(2006),
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)
(2006). In
suppàrt
of
this
motion,
Complainant
states as
follows:
1.
The
parties
have reached
agreement on
all
outstanding
issues in this matter.
2.
This
agreement
is presented to
the Board in a
Stipulation
and
Proposal for
Settlement,
filed
contemporaneously
with
this motion.
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 5131(c)(2)
(2006).
I
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) (2006).
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
MATTHEWJ.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement/Asbestos
,4i,Jigatio
Division
BY:__________
CHRISTINE
ZEIVEL
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
500 South Second
Street
Springfield, Illinois
62706
21 7/782-9031
Dated:
July 16, 2009
2
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB
NO.
09-27
ECEVD
)
(Enforcement
-
AiFcLERS
OFFICE
RICHARD KING,
KAY
KING
&
)
JUL
202009
ISAAC
KING
)
ri-r
OF
ILLINOIS
Respondents.
)
pllutior1
Control
Board
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
Richard
King,
Kay
King
and
Isaac
King
(“Respondents”)
(“Parties to
the
Stipulation”),
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.
This
stipulation
of
facts
is
made
and agreed
upon
for
purposes
of settlement
only
and
as a
factual
basis
for
the
Board’s
approval of
this
Stipulation
and
issuance
of
relief
None
of
the facts
stipulated
herein
shall
be introduced
into
evidence
in
any
other
proceeding
regarding
the
violations
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act”),
415
ILCS
5/1 et
seq.
(2006),
and
the
Board’s
Regulations,
alleged
in
the
Complaint
except
as otherwise
provided
herein.
It
is
the intent
of
the
Parties
to the
Stipulation
that
it
be a
final
adjudication
of
this
matter.
I.
STATEMENT
OF FACTS
A.
Parties
1.
On
October
22,
2008,
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 3.1 of the
Act, 415 ILCS 5/31
(2006),
against the Respondents.
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 (2006).
3.
At all times relevant to the Complaint, Richard
and Kay King were the
owners
of
a vacant three
story building,
formerly known
as
the Buck’s Building, located
at 527 East
Washington
Street, Springfield, Sangamon
County,
Illinois
(“Buck’s Building”).
4.
At all times
relevant
to the Complaint, Isaac King supervised and participated
in
renovation and
restoration activities at the Buck’s Building.
5.
On
January
3,
2007, Richard King
applied
for
a
building
permit
with the City
of
Springfield
for demolition
of the interior
at the Buck’s
Building.
6.
On January 4,
2007,
the City of
Springfield
issued
Building Permit Number
BP-2007-0030 to
Richard and Kay King for
demolition
at
the Buck’s Building.
7.
On a date better known to
the Respondents, the Respondents commenced the
removal of wall,
ceiling and
flooring material, including regulated asbestos-containing material
within
the Buck’s
Building,
without first notifying
the Illinois EPA
8.
On January 12,
2007, the
Illinois EPA inspected the interior
and
entrance
to
the
Buck’s
Building.
The building
contained
debris, including carpet, drywall
joint
compound,
wallpaper
and dimensional
lumber in an
open
dumpster,
located
at
the corner of Washington
and
Streets. In
addition,
there
was
broken
suspect drywall and
plaster at various locations
on the
ground
adjacent
to the
dumpster and
leading
to
the doorway
entrance
of
the building and
significant
quantities
of dry
white
dust
coating the floor.
2
9.
On
January
12, 2007,
the Illinois
EPA
collected
a sample
of friable
suspect
drywall
from
the
ground
adjacent
to
an open dumpster
located
outside of
the building.
It was
capable
of being
crumbled,
pulverized
or
reduced
to
powder
by
hand pressure.
10.
The
sample
drywall
was tested
and determined
to
contain
a concentration
of
chrysotile
asbestos
ranging
from
1%
to
5%.
Additional
testing
revealed
an asbestos
concentration
in
the amount
of
2.9%
within the
sample.
11.
On
January
29 and
30, 2007,
material samples
were
collected
from within
the
facility
during
an
asbestos
survey
performed
by
a contractor
retained
by the Respondents
to
identify
the
presence
of asbestos-containing
materials
or asbestos
contaminated
debris.
Data
resulting
from
analytical
testing of
the
samples,
by an
analytical
testing
laboratory
utilized
by
the
contractor,
revealed
the presence
of
asbestos
concentrations
within
wall paper,
paneling
mastic,
joint
compound,
floor
tile,
debris powder,
wall
plaster
finish coat,
and
baseboard
material
greater
than
1%.
In
addition,
the
asbestos
survey
revealed
the
presence
of asbestos
within
materials
located
on each
floor
and
the
basement
of the building.
B.
Allegations
of
Non-Compliance
Complainant
contends that
the
Respondents
have
violated
the following
provisions
of
the
Act,
Board
regulations
and
the
NESHAP
for asbestos.
Count
I:
Air Pollution
By failing
to
adequately
wet
all
RACM
removed
during
renovation
activities
and
to
deposit
all RACM
at a
site
permitted
to
accept such
waste
as
soon as
practicable,
thereby
causing
or
tending
to
cause
air
pollution
in Illinois,
the Respondents
violated
Section
9(a) of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(a)
(2006)
and
Section 20
1.141 of the
Board’s
Air
Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
201.141 (2005).
3
Count II:
Failure
to Inspect for Asbestos and Provide
Notification
of
Demolition and Renovation
By
failing
to thoroughly
inspect the Buck’s Building for the
presence
and
location
of asbestos-containing material
(“ACM”) prior to commencing
asbestos
removal
and
disposal
activities at the
facility,
the Respondents
violated
40 C.F.R. 61.145(a),
and therefore Section 9.1(d) of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/9.1(d) (2006).
By failing
to notify the Illinois EPA of scheduled asbestos
removal activities
at
the
Buck’s
Building,
at least
10
working
days
prior
to commencing such
activities,
the
Respondents violated
40 C.F.R. 61.145(b), and therefore
Section 9.1(d) of the
Act, 415 ILCS 5/9.1(d) (2006).
Count III:
Failure
to
Remove
and Contain RACM in
Compliance
with
NESHAP Requirements
By failing to properly remove all regulated asbestos-
containing material (“RACM”), from the Buck’s Building
before
commencing planned renovation activities, which
broke
up, dislodged and similarly disturbed the
RACM, the
Respondents violated 40 C.F.R. 61.145(c)(1), and
therefore
Section
9.1(d) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9.1(d) (2006).
By failing to adequately wet all
RACM.
and
prevent damage
or disturbance
to
the RACM
during
cutting
or
disjoining
operations
at
the Buck’s
Building,
the Respondents violated
40 C.F.R. 61.145(c)(2), and
therefore Section
9.1(d) of the
Act, 415 ILCS 5/9.1(d) (2006).
By failing to adequately wet
and maintain wet all RACM
and regulated
asbestos-containing waste material at the
Buck’s Building
until collected and contained in preparation
for disposal at a
site
permitted to
accept such waste, the
• Respondents
violated
40
C.F.R. 61.145(c)(6), and therefore
Section 9.1(d) of
the
Act,
415 ILCS 5/9.1(d)
(2006).
By
failing to have at least one
representative
at
the Buck’s
Building trained
in
the provisions of
the NESHAP for
4
asbestos and
the
means of
complying
with
them, the
Respondents
violated
40 C.F.R.
61A45(c)(8),
and
therefore
Section
9.1(d)
of
the Act, 415
ILCS
5/9.1(d)
(2006).
Count
IV:
Improper
Disposal
of
Regulated
Asbestos-Containing
Materials
By
failing
to adequately
wet
and keep
wet, containerize,
and
label
all
asbestos-containing
material
at the
Buck’s Building,
thereby
causing
or allowing
the discharge
of visible
emissions
to the outside
air,
the
Respondents
violated
40
C.F.R.
61.150(a)(1)(iii),
(iv) and
(v), and
therefore
Section
9.1(d)
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/9.1(d)
(2006).
By
failing
to transport
to
a waste
disposal site,
or Illinois
EPA-approved
site that
converts
RACM
and asbestos-
containing
waste material
into non-asbestos
material,
and
deposit
as
soon as practical
all
asbestos-containing
waste
material
generated
during
asbestos removal
activities
at the
Buck’s
Building,
the
Respondents
violated
40 C.F.R.
61.150(b),
and
therefore
Section
9.1(d)
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/9.1(d)
(2006).
C.
Non-Admission
of
Violations
The Respondents
represent
that
they have
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
Respondents
do
not
affirmatively
admit
the
allegations
of
violation within
the Complaint
and
referenced
within
Section
I.B herein,
and
this Stipulation
shall not be
interpreted
as including
such admission.
D.
Compliance
Activities
to Date
On
March
8,
2007, the
Respondents
paid
the
required
fees
for
asbestos demolition
or
renovation
to the
Illinois
EPA.
On
March
12,
2007,
the
Respondents
submitted
an asbestos
survey
report to
the
Illinois
EPA.
5
•
On
March
27,
2007,
the
Respondents
submitted
an asbestos remediation
design
plan
to
the
Illinois EPA. The
design plan
was accepted by
the Illinois EPA
on
April 24,
2007.
•
On
June 18,
2007, the Respondents
began
asbestos remediation
activities at
the
Buck’s
Building.
•
On July
24, 2007,
remediation of RACM
and asbestos
contamination
at the
Buck’s
Building that
is the
subject of the complaint
was completed.
•
On July 31,
2007, the Respondents
submitted
final test data to
the Illinois EPA
documenting
remediation
of
all
asbestos contamination
consistent with the
design
plan
requirements,
which
was accepted by the
Illinois EPA.
II. APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation shall
apply
to
and
be
binding
upon the Parties
to the Stipulation, and
any
agent or employee
of the Respondents,
as
well
as any
successors
or
assigns
of the
Respondents.
The
Respondents shall
not raise as a defense
to any
enforcement
action
taken
pursuant to this
Stipulation
the
failure of any of
its agents, employees
or successors or
assigns
to
take
such
action
as
shall
be
required
to
comply with the
provisions of
this
Stipulation.
This
Stipulation
may
be
used
against
the
Respondents
in any
subsequent
enforcement action or
permit
proceeding as
proof of a past
adjudication
of
violation
of the Act
and
the Board Regulations
for all violations
alleged in the
Complaint in this
matter, for
purposes
of Sections
39
and 42 of
the Act, 415 ILCS
5/39
and
42
(2006).
III.
IMPACT
ON
THE PUBLIC
RESULTING
FROM ALLEGED
NON-COMPLIANCE
Section 33(c)
of the
Act, 415
ILCS
5/33(c)(2006),
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
6
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
to the
Stipulation
state the
following:
1.
Human health
and the environment were
threatened
and the
Illinois
EPAs’
information
gathering responsibilities
hindered
by the
Respondents’
violations.
2.
There is
social
and economic benefit
to the
facility.
3.
Operation
of the
facility was suitable
for the area
in
which it occurred.
4.
Obtaining
a permit
prior
to
construction
at the
site and
compliance
with its terms
is both
technically
practicable and
economically
reasonable.
5.
Respondents
have completed
the
remediation of all
regulated
asbestos-containing
waste
material
and asbestos
contamination
resulting
from
the
improper
asbestos
removal
activities that are
the subject
of the
complaint.
IV.
CONSIDERATION
OF
SECTION
42(h)
FACTORS
Section 42(h)
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/42(h)(2006),
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;
7
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
enforcement
action brought under this Act, but which the respondent is not
otherwise
legally required to perform.
In response to these factors, the
Parties
to the Stipulation state as
follows:
1.
From a date better known by the Respondents, through at least
January
12, 2007,
the Respondents
failed to conduct asbestos removal activities in
compliance with asbestos
NESHAP notification,
emission control and disposal
requirements.
The
violations began on or
around January 4,
2007, and were resolved at
various times during that same year.
2.
Once the
Respondents were notified by the
Illinois
EPA of
their non-compliance
with
the Act,
Board regulations and applicable
federal regulations, they demonstrated due
diligence in attempting
to comply with the Act,
Board regulations, and the NESHAP for
asbestos.
3.
The
Complainant alleges
the Respondents realized an economic benefit of non
compliance
by
delaying and/or
avoiding
costs necessary to
properly conduct asbestos
removal
8
and
disposal
activities in compliance
with
the
Act,
Board
regulations,
and
the
NESHAP for
asbestos.
4.
Complainant
has
determined,
based
upon
the
specific
facts
of
this
matter,
that
a
penalty
of
Seventy
Thousand
Dollars
($70,000.00)
will
serve
to
deter
further
violations by
the
Respondents
and
aid
in
enhancing
voluntary
compliance
by
the
Respondents
and
other
persons
similarly subject
to
the
Act,
Board
regulations,
and
the NESHAP
for
asbestos.
5.
To
Complainant’s
knowledge,
Respondent
has
no
previously adjudicated
violations
of
the
Act,
Board
regulations,
or the
NESHAP
for
asbestos.
6.
Self-disclosure
is
not at
issue
in
this
matter.
7.
The
settlement of
this
matter does
not
include
a supplemental
environmental
project.
V.
TERMS
OF
SETTLEMENT
A.
Penalty
Payment
I.
The
Respondents
shall
pay
a
civil
penalty
in the
sum
of
Seventy
Thousand
Dollars
($70,000.00).
The
Respondents
shall
make
three
payments
according to
the
following payment
schedule:
Payment
Number
1:
$30,000.00
within
thirty
(30)
days
of
Board
approval.
Payment
Number
2:
$20,000.00
within
ninety
(90)
days
of
Board
approval.
Payment
Number
3:
$20,000.00
within
one
hundred
and
twenty
(120)
days
of
Board
approval.
B.
Interest
and
Default
1.
If
the
Respondents
fail
to make
any
payment
required
by
this
Stipulation
on or
9
before the date upon which
the payment
is
due, the Respondents shall be in default and the
remaining unpaid balance
of the penalty, plus any accrued interest, shall be due and owing
immediately. In the event of default, the Complainant shall be entitled
to
reasonable
costs
of
collection, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
2.
Pursuant to Section 42(g) of the Act,
interest
shall accrue on any penalty amount
owed by
the Respondents not paid within the time prescribed herein. Interest on unpaid
penalties
shall begin to accrue
from
the date such
are
due and
continue
to accrue to the date full payment is
received. Where
partial payment is made on any penalty amount that is due, such partial
payment shall be first
applied
to
any interest
on
unpaid penalties then owing.
C.
Payment Procedures
All
payments required
by
this Stipulation shall be made by
certified check or money order
payable to the
Illinois EPA
for deposit into the Environmental
Protection
Trust Fund (“EPTF”).
Payments
shall be
sent
by
first class
mail
and delivered to:
Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency
Fiscal
Services
1021 North Grand
Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794-9276
The name,
case number
and the
Respondents’ federal tax identification number
shall
appear on the face
of the certified
check or
money order. A copy of the certified check or
money
order
and
any
transmittal
letter shall
be
sent to:
Environmental Bureau
Illinois Attorney
General’s Office
500 South Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
10
ft
Future Compliance
1.
The
Respondents shall
ensure that
the facility is at all
times compliant with
the
NESHAP
regulations.
2.
This Stipulation in
no way affects the responsibilities
of the Respondents
to
comply
with any
other federal,
state
or
local laws
or
regulations,
including
but
not
limited
to the
Act,
Board
regulations and the
NESHAP for asbestos.
3.
The
Respondents
shall
cease
and
desist
from future violations
of the Act, Board
regulations,
and the NESHAP
for asbestos that
were the subject
matter of the Complaint.
E.
Release
from
Liability
In
consideration
of the Respondents’
payment of
the
$70,000.00
penalty, their
commitment
to cease
and desist
as
contained
in Section V.D.
above,
completion
of all activities
required
hereunder, and upon
the Board’s approval
of this Stipulation,
the Complainant
releases,
waives and discharges
the
Respondents from any
further
liability
or penalties for
the violations of
the
Act,
Board
regulations, and
the
NESHAP for asbestos
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 October
22, 2008. The Complainant
reserves,
and this
Stipulation
is without
prejudice
to, all
rights of the
State
of
Illinois against
the
Respondents
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
11
d.
liability or
claims based on the
Respondents’ 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 may have
against
any person, as
defined
by
Section
3.315 of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/3.3 15,
or entity other than the Respondents.
F.
Enforcement and Modification of
Stipulation
Upon the
entry of the
Board’s
Order approving
and accepting this Stipulation, that Order
is
a
binding and
enforceable order of the Board and may
be enforced as
such through any and all
available means.
C.
Execution
of Stipulation
The
undersigned
representatives
for
the Parties to the
Stipulation 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.
12
WHEREFORE, the Parties
to the
Stipulation
request
that
the
Board
adopt
and accept
the
foregoing
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for Settlement
as
written.
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
THE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney
General
State of
Illinois
DOUGLAS
P.
SCOTT,
Director
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
MATTHEW J.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement!
Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:
BY:
THOMAS
DAVIS,
Chief
J€FfN
J.
IIM
Environmental
Bureau
Chief
Legal
Counsel
Assistant
Attorney
General
DATE:___________
DATE:
BY:
DATE:
BY:_____
KAY
sJG
(3
DATE:
II1O
BY:
ISAAC
KINd
DATE:
13