Sterigenics EtO Complaint August 2019 1190000-1190990-Sterigenics

12-Person Jury
FILED
8/19/2019 5:59 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOROTHY BROWN
CIRCUIT CLERK
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
DENISE BAUM, )
2019L009206
) No.
Plaintiffs, )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v. )
)
STERIGENICS U.S., LLC; BOB NOVAK; )
ROGER CLARK; and GTCR, LLC; )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT AT LAW
Plaintiff, DENISE BAUM, by and through her counsel, The Collins Law Firm, P.C. and
Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., states for her complaint against Defendants STERIGENICS
U.S., LLC (“Sterigenics”), BOB NOVAK, ROGER CLARK, and GTCR, LLC (“GTCR”) as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
For decades, tens of thousands of people have lived in the quiet but densely populated
suburbs of Cook and DuPage Counties -- Willowbrook, Burr Ridge, Darien, and Hinsdale --
believing that their neighborhoods were safe and their air free from dangerous toxins. Not so.
Sterigenics was emitting massive and unnecessary amounts of ethylene oxide (“EtO”) -- an
invisible, odorless carcinogen -- into their air.
EtO’s carcinogenic effects have been widely known since the 1940s and known to
Sterigenics since at least 1984. Technologies to control EtO have been available -- and widely
used -- since the 1980s. Despite Sterigenics’ knowledge of the danger to its neighbors,
Sterigenics operated for years in Willowbrook without using the best practices and control
technologies available to reduce its emissions; and as a direct and proximate result, the
Willowbrook area has become one of the most toxic in the U.S. The people who have lived and
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
worked in the area have inhaled EtO on a routine and continuous basis for years, unknowingly.
Sterigenics never warned them about the emissions or the danger they posed.
In August 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (“ATSDR”) released to the public a report titled “Evaluation of
Potential Health Impacts for Ethylene Oxide Emissions.”1 That report, documenting the public
health impacts of Sterigenics’ emissions on the Willowbrook area, revealed the area’s staggering
and disproportionate risks of cancer.
In February 2019, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“ILEPA”) ordered the
Sterigenics Willowbrook facility (“the Facility”) to close. A court is considering whether to
allow the Facility to reopen under a proposed consent order with the Illinois Attorney General.
If it does, the consent decree would require the Facility to satisfy “the strictest capture and
control requirements in the nation.”
Plaintiff Denise Baum has lived less than a mile from the Facility since 1993, inhaling
Sterigenics’ EtO emissions day and night. In 2018, she was diagnosed with breast cancer -- a
type of cancer recognized as caused by chronic inhalation exposure to EtO.
PARTIES AND VENUE
1. This is an Illinois action. It is brought on behalf of an Illinois citizen, for injuries
that occurred in Illinois, as a result of negligence that took place in Illinois. Ms. Baum’s injuries
were a direct result of actions by Sterigenics, itself managed out of Illinois and now overseen by
another Illinois entity, GTCR.
1
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/sterigenic/Sterigenics_International_Inc-508.pdf
2
2. Plaintiff, Denise Baum, now 58 years old, has lived approximately 0.5 miles from
the Facility for 26 years (since 1993). During those years, she inhaled Sterigenics’ EtO day and
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
night.
3. In 2018, Ms. Baum was diagnosed with breast cancer -- one of the cancers
recognized as caused by chronic inhalation exposure to EtO. Ms. Baum’s treatment for her
breast cancer occurred in DuPage County and Cook County, Illinois.
4. Defendant Sterigenics, a subsidiary of Sotera Health, LLC (“Sotera”) (formerly
Sterigenics International, LLC), is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business at 2015 Spring Road, Suite 650,
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523.
5. At all relevant times, Sterigenics operated two facilities in Illinois: one in
Willowbrook and one in Schaumburg, Cook County. The facility in Willowbrook is located at
7775 S. Quincy Street (“Building One,” built in 1984) and 830 Midway Drive (“Building Two”,
built in 1999). The facility in Schaumburg is located at 711 Cooper Court. On information and
belief, Sterigenics operated at a third location in Willowbrook at 7827 Quincy Street for a brief
time.
6. Sterigenics is wholly owned and actively managed (on information and belief under
a management agreement) by the Cook County-based private equity trust managed by GTCR,
which purchased Sterigenics International, LLC (now Sotera) for $675 million.2 From 2011
until the present, GTCR, with its principal place of business at 300 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 5600,
Chicago, Illinois, owned, operated, managed, and/or maintained Sterigenics.
7. Sterigenics and GTCR do regular and substantial business in Cook County, Illinois.
2
https://www.gtcr.com/gtcr-announces-agreement-to-acquire-sterigenics-international-inc/
3
8. On information and belief, GTCR learned, as part of its pre-acquisition due
diligence investigation of Sterigenics’ operation and in the course of providing management

FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
services after the acquisition, about Sterigenics’ use of EtO in its sterilization process, its
permitting history, the levels of its emissions of EtO, and the cancer risks Sterigenics’ EtO
emissions posed to the neighboring community. Notwithstanding that knowledge, Sterigenics
continued under GTCR’s advice and management to emit EtO at dangerous levels.
9. GTCR’s approach of “creating partnerships with exceptional leaders” is so
fundamental to its business that GTCR has trademarked “The Leaders Strategy” to describe its
collaborative investment approach.3
10. GTCR described its involvement with Sterigenics as a partnership: “As part of the
Sterigenics transaction, GTCR partnered with Michael Mulhern, who joined as CEO shortly after
closing. Together, GTCR and Mr. Mulhern identified several initiatives to improve Sterigenics’
operational and growth initiatives, enhance its market leadership and drive incremental earnings
growth.”4
11. GTCR has featured its close relationship with Sterigenics in its own promotional
material5 and in the media.6
3
https://www.gtcr.com/the-leaders-strategy/
4
https://www.gtcr.com/leadership-stories/sterigenics-transformation-through-organic-growth-and-
strategic-acquisitions/
5
https://www.gtcr.com/gtcr-closes-the-acquisition-of-sterigenics-international-inc/
6
https://www.pehub.com/2011/03/gtcr-completes-sterigenics-buy/
4
12. At least four of GTCR’s ten managing directors currently serve, or have served, on
the board of directors of either Sterigenics or Sotera, acting on behalf of Sterigencs/Sotera, not
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
GTCR.7
13. Defendant Bob Novak has been the Operations Manager at the Facility since
August 2003. Mr. Novak has been responsible throughout this period for coordinating and
overseeing all facility operations, including overall plant safety. On information and belief, Mr.
Novak resides in Illinois.
14. Defendant Roger Clark was the Maintenance Supervisor at the Facility from the late
1980s until approximately 2015. Mr. Clark was responsible throughout this period for
calibrating the internal EtO monitors and overseeing the maintenance activities at the Facility.
Mr. Clark resides in Cook County, Illinois.
VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK & SURROUNDING AREAS
15. The Village of Willowbrook is a suburban community located roughly 20 miles
southwest of Chicago. Its population is approximately 8,500.
16. The Facility is located in a densely populated metropolitan area with 19,271 people
living within one mile. Dense residential areas are located within 0.3 miles to the immediate
west, 0.6 miles to the southeast, 0.9 miles to the southwest, 0.7 miles to the north, 0.8 miles to
the northeast, and 1.0 miles to the east.
17. Willowbrook Town Center, which has nearly 200,000 square feet of retail stores,
restaurants, and other businesses, is located 1.1 miles from the Facility.
7
https://www.gtcr.com/team-member/sean-l-cunningham/; https://www.gtcr.com/gtcr-promotes-aaron-d-
cohen-and-sean-l-cunningham-to-principal/; https://www.gtcr.com/team-member/benjamin-j-daverman/;
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=66077&privcapId=20801;
https://www.gtcr.com/team-member/david-a-donnini/; https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/
private/person.asp?personId=1155789&privcapId=20801; https://www.gtcr.com/team-member/
constantine-s-mihas/
5
18. The Village owns and operates over 54 acres of parks on 10 separate sites. The
Willowbrook Community Park is 0.6 miles from the Facility.

FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
19. Figure 2, below, depicts the area surrounding the Facility.
Figure 2
ETHYLENE OXIDE IS A KNOWN CARCINOGEN
20. The DNA-damaging properties of EtO have been studied since the 1940s. For more
than 40 years, EtO has been consistently recognized as dangerous, toxic, and carcinogenic.
21. In a 1977 report, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(“NIOSH”) concluded that occupational exposure to EtO may increase the frequency of genetic
mutations in human populations. The report recommended that EtO be considered as mutagenic
and potentially carcinogenic to humans and therefore that alternative sterilization processes be
used whenever available.
22. In 1981, NIOSH released a new bulletin focusing on new evidence of the
carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reproductive hazards associated with EtO, reiterated that EtO was a
6
potential occupational carcinogen, and reported that no safe levels of EtO exposure had been
demonstrated.
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
23. In 1985, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“U.S. HHS”) Fourth
Annual Report on Carcinogens classified EtO as “reasonably anticipated to be a human
carcinogen.”
24. In 1987, the state of California (itself home to at least two Sterigenics EtO
sterilizing facilities) officially designated EtO a carcinogen.
25. In the early 1990s, NIOSH published a high quality, long-term research study on
EtO’s carcinogenic impacts on humans. It tracked the mortality of 18,254 U.S. workers who had
been exposed to EtO, between the 1940s and the 1980s, at sterilizer facilities much like
Sterigenics in Willowbrook. (According to Sterigenics Senior Vice President of Global
Environmental, Health, and Safety Kathleen Hoffman, the studied facilities included more than
one operated by Sterigenics.8)
26. The study found causal links between exposure to EtO and increased mortality from
lymphatic, hematopoietic, and breast cancers. It has since been heavily cited and relied on by
major regulatory organizations including the World Health Organization (“WHO”) and the
United States Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”).
27. In 1994, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) found
that “Ethylene Oxide is carcinogenic to humans,” designating EtO as a Group 1 human
carcinogen (the agency’s highest risk classification for cancer).
28. In 2000, the U.S. HHS Ninth Annual Report on Carcinogens classified EtO as
“known to be a human carcinogen.”
8
https://yosemite.epa.gov/Sab/Sabproduct.nsf/B839FA45582C200185257D9500496B0E/$File/EPA-
+Sterigenics+Speaking+Points+for+IRIS+SAB+Review-Nov+2014.pdf
7
29. In 2002, a U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (“OSHA”) fact sheet on EtO stated that “[b]oth human and animal studies show
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
that EtO is a carcinogen” and requires employers to provide clear signs and labels notifying
workers of EtO’s “carcinogenic and reproductive hazards.”9
30. In 2016, the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (“IRIS”) reclassified EtO as
“carcinogenic to humans,” and increased its estimate of EtO’s cancer potency by 30 times. The
EPA concluded that EtO is carcinogenic to humans by the inhalation route of exposure with a
stated confidence level of “HIGH.”
31. Chronic inhalation exposure to EtO can cause cancers, including breast cancer; and
at all relevant times, Sterigenics has known this.
STERIGENICS’ OPERATION CONDUCT
32. Sterigenics has been releasing EtO into the air in the Willowbrook area since 1984.
The facility stores EtO and sprays it into gas chambers to sterilize medical equipment and
pharmaceuticals. Building One (built in 1984) holds fifteen gas chambers. Building Two holds
four (some built during the original construction in 1999, some later in 2012).
33. The Facility operated 24 hours per day, emitting toxic, cancerous gas on a steady
and continuous basis, causing Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near the Facility to
constantly inhale EtO.
34. The half-life of EtO in the atmosphere has been reported at up to 211 days.10
Neither rain nor absorption into aqueous aerosols is capable of removing EtO from the
atmosphere.
9
https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/ethylene-oxide-factsheet.pdf
10
https://publications.iarc.fr/115
8
35. Table 1 depicts the Facility’s self-reported EtO emissions from point sources from
1995 through 2016.

FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
Table 1
Year Pounds
1995 18,213 lbs.
1996 22,000 lbs.
1997 26,000 lbs.
1998 31,000 lbs.
1999 1,440 lbs.
2000 7,341 lbs.
2001 7,848 lbs.
2002 6,686 lbs.
2003 6,630 lbs.
2004 5,039 lbs.
2005 2,621 lbs.
2006 3,985 lbs.
2007 3,698 lbs.
2008 3,597 lbs.
2009 3,429 lbs.
2010 6,869 lbs.
2011 6,878 lbs.
2012 6,811 lbs.
2013 5,892 lbs.
2014 5,036 lbs.
2015 4,706 lbs.
2016 4,009 lbs.
36. No emissions data are publically available from before 1995. However, the
ATSDR report notes that the available data suggest that “substantially higher ambient releases
prior to 1995 were likely.” Indeed, a lone 1988 report on the Facility’s EtO emissions, accessed
through the U.S. EPA’s TRI Explorer Database, indicates that the Facility emitted 97,518 pounds
of EtO into the air. This is over three times more than the highest amount recorded in the
contiguous 1995-2016 data set (32,200 pounds in 1998) and over 20 times more than emissions
levels in 2016 (4,205 pounds). Without discovery from Sterigenics, it is impossible to know
precisely how many pounds of EtO the Facility released into the air from 1993 to 1994, but it is
9
reasonable to infer that the pre-1995 emissions of EtO were at best, similar to those from 1995 to
1998, and at worst, closer to the colossal emissions in 1988.

FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
37. In addition to the reported point source emissions (EtO emitted through stacks),
Sterigenics allowed significant volumes of fugitive (nonpoint source) emissions into air and
water.
38. Effective technologies to reduce EtO emissions to levels low enough to make the
emissions a “non-significant contributor” to cancer risk have been available, cost-effective, and
widely known since the 1980s; and on information and belief, Sterigenics has known it.
39. Despite the availability of these technologies, on information and belief, there have
been periods during which Sterigenics had no pollution controls in place, had inadequate controls
in place, and/or had pollution controls in place that failed to work due to the acts and omissions
of the defendants. On information and belief, there have been periods during which Sterigenics,
despite having some pollution controls in place, vented EtO directly into the air.
ETO’s HUMAN IMPACT
40. EtO is a highly potent human carcinogen relative even to other carcinogens. For
example, chronically inhaled EtO is 385 times more potent a carcinogen in comparison with
benzene (pound for pound), and 231 times more potent in comparison with formaldehyde.11 In
terms of excess cancer risk effect, 6,000 pounds per year of EtO air emissions are roughly as
harmful to humans as 2,300,000 pounds of benzene or 1,380,000 pounds of formaldehyde.
41. The Willowbrook area has extremely high cancer risk relative to other parts of the
country. U.S. EPA’s 2014 update to the National Air Toxics Assessment documented cancer
risks in 76,727 census tracts across the U.S. Of these, 106 had cancer risk scores above U.S.
11
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/table1.pdf
10
EPA’s acceptable limits. The area surrounding the Facility was among those tracts. Most of the
remaining 106 tracts were located in “Cancer Alley” (the notoriously polluted, highly industrial
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
area along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans).
42. Figure 1 lists the top 19 tracts, which also include the Willowbrook area tract --
Tract No. 17043845902.
Figure 1
Twelve of these top 19 are located in Cancer Alley. Another five, like the Willowbrook area
tract, had sterilization facilities that emitted massive amounts of EtO. The Assessment shows
that sterilization facilities were responsible for the extraordinarily high cancer risks reported for
three of the top 19: DuPage County, Illinois, Jefferson County, Colorado, and Lehigh County,
Pennsylvania.
43. For the Willowbrook area tract, the U.S. EPA assessment found a cancer risk of
281.8075 in 1 million -- nearly three times higher than U.S. EPA’s acceptable upper limit and the
11
highest in Illinois. The Willowbrook area tract is in the top 99.98% tracts in terms of cancer risk
in the country.
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
44. The U.S. EPA assessment attributed 88.98% of the elevated cancer risk to EtO
emissions. Thus, the Facility -- the sole emitter of EtO in the Willowbrook area tract -- was
almost entirely responsible for the Willowbrook area tract having the 19th highest cancer risk in
the country.
45. Later data revealed an even higher risk. The August 2018 ATSDR report, based on
air measurements collected from 29 discrete locations around the Facility, concluded that
Sterigenics’ emissions were exposing Willowbrook-area residents and workers to elevated
airborne EtO concentrations, and that these concentrations created a cancer risk of 6,400 in 1
million (or 64 in 10 thousand) -- 64 times the U.S. EPA acceptable limit of just 1 in 10
thousand.12 The report also concluded that these elevated risks created a public health hazard;
and it called for Sterigenics to reduce emissions immediately.
46. Neither the volume of Sterigenics’ EtO emissions nor their impact on Willowbrook-
area residents and workers was made known to the general public until the release of the ATSDR
report on August 21, 2018.
47. In February 2019, ILEPA issued a seal order against Sterigenics “to prevent the
commencement of any new sterilization cycles using EtO until measures are in place to prevent
emissions of EtO…which present a public health hazard to residents and off-site workers…in the
Willowbrook community.”
12
https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/nata-frequent-questions
12
48. A court is considering whether to allow the Facility to reopen under a proposed
consent order with the Illinois Attorney General. If it does, the consent decree would require the
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
Facility to satisfy “the strictest capture and control requirements in the nation.”13
49. For Ms. Baum, the new pollution controls come too late.
COUNT I
Negligence -- Sterigenics
50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations contained herein.
51. Sterigenics owned and operated the Facility during a material portion of time since
1984.
52. Sterigenics managed, controlled, and supervised sterilization operations at the
Facility during a material portion of time since 1984.
53. Sterigenics had a duty to exercise ordinary care for Ms. Baum’s health, safety, and
well-being and others living and working near the Facility.
54. At all relevant times, Sterigenics knew that the EtO gas emitting from the Facility
would have a toxic, poisonous, and highly deleterious effect upon the health, safety, and well-
being of persons inhaling it, including Ms. Baum.
55. Sterigenics breached its duty and failed to exercise ordinary care for Ms. Baum’s
health and well-being in one or more of the following ways:
a. By emitting massive and unnecessary amounts of EtO into the air from the
Facility;
b. By using EtO as part of its sterilization process when safer alternatives could
accomplish the same or similar business purpose without presenting the same
level of risk to human health and well-being;
c. By placing its own economic interests above the health and well-being of Ms.
Baum and others who lived or worked near the Facility;
13
https://jnswire.s3.amazonaws.com/jns-media/39/8b/1496652/Sterigenics_AG_consent_release.pdf
13
d. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were being exposed to EtO;
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
e. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were inhaling EtO;
f. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that it was emitting a known carcinogen into the air from the
Facility;
g. By failing to employ safe methods to adequately control, reduce, minimize,
and/or mitigate EtO emissions from the Facility;
h. By failing to adequately study and test the effect of its EtO emissions from the
Facility on the quality of air;
i. By failing to adequately study and test the effect of its EtO emissions from the
Facility on the health and well-being of people who lived or worked near the
Facility; and
j. By subjecting Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked near the Facility to
an elevated cancer risk.
56. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing acts or omissions,
Ms. Baum inhaled dangerous amounts of EtO.
57. As a direct and proximate result of Ms. Baum’s inhalation of EtO from the Facility,
she developed various medical conditions, including breast cancer, which have caused and will
continue to cause Ms. Baum to incur and endure medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering,
mental anguish, disability, disfigurement, reduced life expectancy, and loss of normal life.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and
against Sterigenics in an amount to be determined by a trier of fact.
14
COUNT II
Negligent Training -- Sterigenics
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
59. Sterigenics had a duty to properly train its employees to control and dispose of
hazardous substances including EtO and its byproducts, including but not limited to ethylene
glycol.
60. At all relevant times, Sterigenics knew that failing to properly train its employees to
control, monitor, and dispose of hazardous materials would have a toxic, poisonous, and highly
deleterious effect upon the health, safety, and well-being of persons inhaling it, including Ms.
Baum.
61. Sterigenics breached its duty to properly train its employees in one or more of the
following ways:
a. By failing to train its employees about the carcinogenic effects of EtO;
b. By failing to train its employees about the proper procedures to control and
store EtO and its byproducts, including by not limited to ethylene glycol, such
that it would prevent unintended leaks, spills or emissions;
c. By failing to train its employees about the proper procedures to monitor EtO
emissions;
d. By failing to train its employees about the proper procedures for recording
EtO emissions;
e. By failing to train its employees about the proper procedures to adequately

control, reduce, minimize, and/or mitigate EtO emissions from the Facility;
f. By failing to train its employees about the proper procedures for repairing
and/or replacing defective EtO emissions equipment;
g. By failing to train its employees about the proper procedures for reporting
uncontrolled emissions; and
h. By failing to properly train its employees about the proper procedures for
disposing of EtO or its products, including by not limited to ethylene glycol.
15
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
Sterigenics emitted massive and unnecessary amounts of EtO of which Ms. Baum inhaled
dangerous amounts.
Ms. Baum developed various medical conditions, including breast cancer, which have caused
and will continue to cause her to incur and endure medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering,
against Sterigenics in an amount be determined by a trier of fact.
COUNT III
Negligent Supervision -- Sterigenics
65. Sterigenics had a duty to properly supervise its employees to prevent a creation of
danger or harm to third persons including Ms. Baum.
66. At all relevant times, Sterigenics knew that failing to properly supervise its
employees in their control, monitoring and disposal hazardous materials including EtO and its by
products, including but not limited to ethylene glycol, would have a toxic, poisonous, and highly
deleterious effect upon the health, safety, and well-being of persons inhaling it, including Ms.
Baum.
67. Sterigenics breached its duty to supervise its employees in one or more of the
following ways:
a. By failing to recognize when the proper procedures to control and store EtO
and its byproducts, including by not limited to ethylene glycol, were violated
resulting in unintended leaks, spills or emissions;
16
b. By failing to reprimand and/or discipline employees when the proper
procedures to control and store EtO and its byproducts, including by not
limited to ethylene glycol, were violated resulting in unintended leaks, spills
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
or emissions;
c. By retaining employees who repeatedly violated the proper procedures to

control and store EtO and its byproducts, including by not limited to ethylene
glycol, resulting in unintended leaks, spills or emissions;
d. By failing to recognize when the proper procedures to adequately control,

reduce, minimize, and/or mitigate EtO emissions from the Facility were
violated resulting in unintended leaks, spills, or emissions;
e. By failing to reprimand and/or discipline employees when the proper

procedures to adequately control, reduce, minimize, and/or mitigate EtO
emissions from the Facility were violated resulting in unintended leaks, spills,
or emissions;
f. By retaining employees who repeatedly violated the proper procedures to

adequately control, reduce, minimize, and/or mitigate EtO emissions from the
Facility resulting in unintended leaks, spills, or emissions;
g. By failing to recognize when the proper procedures for repairing and/or

replacing defective EtO emissions equipment were violated;
h. By failing to reprimand and/or discipline employees when the proper

procedures for repairing and/or replacing defective EtO emissions equipment
were violated;
i. By retaining employees who repeatedly violated the proper procedures for

repairing and/or replacing defective EtO emissions equipment;
j. By failing to recognize when the proper procedures for reporting uncontrolled

emissions were violated;
k. By failing to reprimand and/or discipline employees when the proper

procedures for reporting uncontrolled emissions were violated;
l. By retaining employees who repeatedly violated the proper procedures for

reporting uncontrolled emissions;
m. By failing to recognize when the proper procedures for disposing of EtO or its
products, including by not limited to ethylene glycol were violated;
17
n. By failing to reprimand and/or discipline employees when the proper
procedures for disposing of EtO or its products, including by not limited to
ethylene glycol were violated;
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
o. By retaining employees who repeatedly violated the proper procedures for

disposing of EtO or its products, including by not limited to ethylene glycol;
p. By failing recognize when the proper procedures to monitor EtO emissions

were violated;
q. By failing to reprimand and/or discipline employees when the proper

procedures to monitor EtO emissions were violated;
r. By retaining employees who repeatedly violated the proper procedures to

monitor EtO emissions;
s. By failing to recognize when the proper procedures for recording EtO

emissions were violated;
t. By failing to reprimand and/or discipline employees when the proper

procedures for recording EtO emissions were violated; and
u. By retaining employees who repeatedly violated the proper procedures for

recording EtO emissions.
dangerous amounts.
18
COUNT IV
Willful and Wanton Conduct -- Sterigenics
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
71. Sterigenics had a duty to refrain from willful and wanton conduct and/or conduct
that exhibits an utter indifference and/or conscious disregard to the health, safety, and well-being
of Ms. Baum and others living and working in the area surrounding the Facility.
72. At all relevant times, Sterigenics knew that EtO gas emitting from the Facility
73. Sterigenics breached its duty and was guilty of willful and wanton conduct in one or
more of the following ways:
a. By emitting massive and unnecessary volumes EtO into the air from the
Facility notwithstanding its knowledge that EtO is toxic, poisonous, and
causes adverse medical issues including, but not limited to, cancer;
b. By placing its own economic interests above the health, safety, and well-being
of Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near the Facility;
c. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were being exposed to EtO notwithstanding its
knowledge that EtO is toxic, poisonous, and causes adverse medical issues
including, but not limited to, cancer;
d. By failing to a warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked in
the Willowbrook area, that they were inhaling EtO notwithstanding its
e. By emitting EtO, a known carcinogen, into the air from the Facility before
fully studying, researching, or understanding the deleterious impact that EtO
inhalation exposure has on the health, safety, and well-being of those in the
surrounding area;
f. Deliberately concealing its knowledge concerning the deleterious impact that

EtO inhalation exposure has on Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked
near the Facility; and
19
g. By subjecting Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked near the Facility to
an elevated cancer risk without warning them of the same.
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
dangerous amounts.
COUNT V
Ultrahazardous Activity/Strict Liability -- Sterigenics
77. Sterigenics’ use and emission of EtO from the Facility constitutes an ultra-
hazardous activity.
78. Sterigenics’ use and emission of EtO created a high degree of risk to Ms. Baum and
others who lived or worked near the Facility. Further, the likelihood of cancer caused by its use
and emission of EtO is as much as 64 times the level of acceptable risk.
79. Sterigenics’ use and emission of EtO is especially inappropriate given the area in
which it is located; namely, within a densely populated residential area.
80. While the activities conducted by Sterigenics are exceedingly dangerous, it offers
little to no value to the surrounding community.
20
81. Because the activities of Sterigenics are ultrahazardous, it is strictly liable for any
injuries proximately resulting therefrom.

FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
82. As a direct and proximate result of Sterigenics’ ultrahazardous activities, Ms. Baum
inhaled dangerous amounts of EtO.
COUNT VI
Civil Battery -- Sterigenics
85. At all relevant times, Sterigenics knew that the EtO gas emitting from the Facility
86. Notwithstanding this knowledge, Sterigenics caused and/or set in motion events that
caused EtO to come in contact with Ms. Baum.
87. Ms. Baum’s contact with EtO was offensive and harmful.
88. Sterigenics intended to emit EtO into the air despite its knowledge that it would
contact people who lived or worked near the Facility.
89. Ms. Baum did not consent to contact with EtO emitted from the Facility.
90. As a direct and proximate result of Sterigenics’ emission of EtO, Ms. Baum was
forced into contact with EtO without consent and inhaled dangerous amounts of EtO.
21
Ms. Baum developed various medical conditions, including breast cancer, which have caused and
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
will continue to cause her to incur and endure medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, mental
anguish, disability, disfigurement, reduced life expectancy, and loss of normal life.
COUNT VII
Negligence -- Bob Novak
93. Since August 2003, Mr. Novak has been the Operations Manager at the Facility.
94. In that capacity, Mr. Novak has been responsible for the operation of the Facility,
coordinating and overseeing all activities in facility operations, which would include testing and
analysis to determine the nature and extent of EtO emissions.
95. At all relevant times, Mr. Novak had and continues to have a duty to exercise
ordinary care for the health, safety, and well-being of Ms. Baum and others who lived and
worked in the area surrounding the Facility.
96. At all relevant times, Mr. Novak knew or should have known that the EtO gas
emitted from the Facility would have a toxic, poisonous, and highly deleterious effect upon the
health, safety, and well-being of persons inhaling it, including Ms. Baum.
97. Mr. Novak breached his duty and failed to exercise ordinary care of the health and
well-being of Ms. Baum in one or more of the following ways:
a. Permitting chamber doors to remain open during and/or after the sterilization
process and thereby allowing dangerous amounts of EtO to escape the
chamber area in the Facility;
22
b. Permitting products that have been sterilized and are still off-gassing to be
placed and stored in areas without pollution control and/or adequate
ventilation system in the Facility;
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
c. Allowing at least six chambers to run at the same time and thereby
overloading the vacuum system such that pollution control for one or more
chambers was inoperable and/or ineffective in the Facility;
d. Allowing exterior doors in the warehouse to remain open for unreasonable

lengths of time in the Facility;
e. Failing to timely order and/or replace filters for the dry system and thereby
allowing excess amounts of EtO emissions therefrom in the Facility;
f. Failing to properly monitor EtO emissions and/or document EtO emissions

resulting in an inaccurate report on pollution relating to the Facility;

h. By permitting emissions of excessive, unnecessary, and/or dangerous volumes

of EtO into air from the Facility;
i. By subjecting Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked near the Facility to
an elevated cancer risk;
j. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked in
the Willowbrook area, that they were being exposed to EtO notwithstanding
his knowledge that EtO is toxic, poisonous, and causes adverse medical issues
including, but not limited to, cancer; and
k. By failing to a warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked in
the Willowbrook area, that they were inhaling EtO notwithstanding his
including, but not limited to, cancer.
dangerous amounts.
23
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
against Mr. Novak in an amount be determined by a trier of fact.
COUNT VIII
Willful and Wanton Conduct -- Bob Novak
101. At all relevant times, Mr. Novak had and continues to have a duty to refrain from
willful and wanton conduct and/or conduct that exhibits an utter indifference and/or conscious
disregard to the health, safety, and well-being of Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked in
the area surrounding the Facility.
102. At all relevant times, Mr. Novak knew that EtO gas emitting from the Facility
103. Mr. Novak breached his duty and was guilty of willful and wanton conduct in one
or more of the following ways:
a. By approving test results and/or monitoring systems which provided

misleading and inaccurate report on pollution relating to the Facility;
b. By permitting emissions of massive and unnecessary amounts of EtO into the

air from the Facility notwithstanding his knowledge that EtO is toxic,
poisonous, and causes adverse medical issues including, but not limited to,
cancer;
c. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked in
the Willowbrook area, that they were being exposed to EtO notwithstanding
his knowledge that EtO is toxic, poisonous, and causes adverse medical issues
d. By failing to a warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked in
the Willowbrook area, that they were inhaling EtO notwithstanding his
24
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
e. Deliberately concealing his knowledge concerning the deleterious impact that

EtO inhalation exposure has on people who lived or worked near the Facility;
and
f. By subjecting Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked in near the Facility
to an elevated cancer risk without warning them of the same.
dangerous amounts.
against Mr. Novak in an amount be determined by a trier of fact.
COUNT IX
Negligence -- Roger Clark
107. Mr. Clark was the Maintenance Supervisor at the Facility from the late 1980s until
approximately 2015.
108. In that capacity, Mr. Clark was responsible for calibrating the internal EtO monitors
and overseeing the sterilization process at the Facility.
109. At all relevant times, Mr. Clark had a duty to exercise ordinary care for the health,
safety, and well-being of Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked in the area surrounding the
Facility.
25
110. At all relevant times, Mr. Clark knew or should have known that the EtO gas
emitting from the Facility would have a toxic, poisonous, and highly deleterious effect upon the
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
111. Mr. Clark breached his duty and failed to exercise ordinary care of Ms. Ms. Baum’s
health and well-being in one or more of the following ways:
a. Inaccurately calibrating internal EtO monitors to allow for erroneous

monitoring results;
b. Failing to properly monitor EtO emissions and/or document EtO emissions

resulting in an inaccurate report on pollution relating to the Facility;
c. Permitting chamber doors to remain open during and/or after the sterilization
process and thereby allowing dangerous amounts of EtO to escape the
chamber area in the Facility;
d. Permitting products that have been sterilized and are still off-gassing to be
placed and stored in areas without pollution control and/or adequate
ventilation system in the Facility;
e. Allowing at least six chambers to run at the same time and thereby
overloading the vacuum system such that pollution control for one or more
chambers was inoperable and/or ineffective in the Facility;
f. Allowing exterior doors in the warehouse to remain open for unreasonable

lengths of time in the Facility;
g. Failing to timely order and/or replace filters for the dry system and thereby
allowing excess amounts of EtO emissions therefrom in the Facility;
h. By failing to employ safe methods to adequately control, reduce, minimize,

i. By permitting emissions of excessive, unnecessary, and/or dangerous volumes

of EtO into air from the Facility;
j. By subjecting Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near the Facility to
an elevated cancer risk;
k. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were being exposed to EtO notwithstanding his
26
including, but not limited to, cancer; and
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
l. By failing to a warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were inhaling EtO notwithstanding his knowledge that
EtO is toxic, poisonous, and causes adverse medical issues including, but not
limited to, cancer.
dangerous amounts.
against Mr. Clark in an amount be determined by a trier of fact.
COUNT X
Willful and Wanton Conduct -- Roger Clark
115. At all relevant times, Mr. Clark had a duty to refrain from willful and wanton
conduct and/or conduct that exhibits an utter indifference and/or conscious disregard to the
health, safety, and well-being of people living and working near the Facility, including Ms.
Baum.
116. At all relevant times, Mr. Clark knew that EtO gas emitting from Sterigenics’
Willowbrook facility would have a toxic, poisonous, and highly deleterious effect upon the
27
117. Mr. Clark breached his duty and was guilty of willful and wanton conduct in one or

FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
a. By deliberately falsifying test results and/or inaccurately calibrating

monitoring systems to provide a misleading and inaccurate report on pollution
relating to the Facility;
b. By permitting emissions of EtO into the air from Sterigenics’ Willowbrook

facility notwithstanding his knowledge that EtO is toxic, poisonous, and
causes adverse medical issues including, but not limited to, cancer;
c. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were being exposed to EtO notwithstanding his
d. By failing to a warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were inhaling EtO notwithstanding his knowledge that
limited to, cancer;
e. Deliberately concealing his knowledge concerning the deleterious impact that

EtO inhalation exposure had on people who lived or worked near the Facility;
and
f. By subjecting Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near the Facility to
dangerous amounts.
against Mr. Clark in an amount be determined by a trier of fact.
28
COUNT XI
Negligence -- GTCR
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
121. GTCR had since 2011 and continues to have a duty to exercise ordinary care for the
health, safety, and well-being of Ms. Baum and those living and working in the area surrounding
the Facility.
122. At all relevant times, GTCR knew or should have known that the EtO gas emitting
from the Facility would have a toxic, poisonous, and highly deleterious effect upon the health,
safety, and well-being of persons inhaling it, including Ms. Baum.
123. GTCR breached its duty and failed to exercise ordinary care for Ms. Baum’s health
and well-being in one or more of the following ways:
a. By emitting massive and unnecessary amounts of EtO into air from the
Facility;
b. By using EtO as part of its sterilization process when safer alternatives could
accomplish the same or similar business purpose without presenting the same
level of risk to human health and well-being;
c. By placing its own economic interests above the health and well-being of Ms.
Baum and others who lived or worked near the Facility;
d. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were being exposed to EtO;
e. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were inhaling EtO;
f. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that it was emitting a known carcinogen into the air from the
Facility;

h. By failing to adequately study and test the effect of its EtO emissions from the
Facility on the quality of air;
29
i. By failing to adequately study and test the effect of its EtO emissions from the
Facility on the health and well-being of people who lived or worked near the
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
Facility; and
j. By subjecting Ms. Baum and others who lived and worked near the Facility to
an elevated cancer risk.
dangerous amounts.
against GTCR in an amount be determined by a trier of fact.
COUNT XII
Willful and Wanton Conduct -- GTCR
127. At all relevant times, GTCR had and continues to have a duty to refrain from willful
and wanton conduct and/or conduct that exhibits an utter indifference and/or conscious disregard
to the health, safety, and well-being of Ms. Baum and those living and working in the area
surrounding Sterigenics’ Willowbrook facility.
128. At all relevant times, GTCR knew that EtO gas emitting from Sterigenics’
Willowbrook facility would have a toxic, poisonous, and highly deleterious effect upon the
30
129. GTCR breached its duty and was guilty of willful and wanton conduct in one or

FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
a. By permitting emissions of massive and unnecessary amounts of EtO into the

air from Sterigenics’ Willowbrook facility notwithstanding its knowledge that
limited to, cancer;
b. By failing to warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were being exposed to EtO notwithstanding its
c. By failing to a warn or advise Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near
the Facility that they were inhaling EtO notwithstanding its knowledge that
limited to, cancer;
d. By permitting emissions of EtO, a known carcinogen, into the air from the
Facility before fully studying, researching, or understanding the deleterious
impact that EtO inhalation exposure has on the health, safety, and well-being
of those in the surrounding area;
e. Deliberately concealing its knowledge concerning the deleterious impact that

EtO inhalation exposure has on people who lived or worked near the Facility;
and
f. By subjecting Ms. Baum and others who lived or worked near the Facility to
dangerous amounts.
31

FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
COUNT XIII
Ultrahazardous Activity/Strict Liability -- GTCR
133. GTCR’s use and emission of EtO from the Facility constitutes an ultra-hazardous
activity.
134. GTCR’s use and emission of EtO created a high degree of risk to Ms. Baum and
others who lived or worked near the Facility. Further, the likelihood of cancer caused by its use
and emission of EtO is as much as 64 times the level of acceptable risk.
135. While the activities conducted by GTCR are exceedingly dangerous, it offers little
to no value to the surrounding community.
136. Because the activities of GTCR are ultrahazardous, it is strictly liable for any
injuries proximately resulting therefrom.
137. As a direct and proximate result of GTCR’s ultrahazardous activities, Ms. Baum
was exposed to and inhaled great amounts of EtO.
32
COUNT XIV
Civil Battery -- GTCR
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
140. At all relevant times, GTCR knew or should have known that the EtO gas emitting
from the Facility would have a toxic, poisonous, and highly deleterious effect upon the health,
safety, and well-being of persons inhaling it, including Ms. Baum.
141. Notwithstanding this knowledge, GTCR caused and/or set in motion events that
caused EtO to come in contact with Ms. Baum.
142. Ms. Baum’s contact with EtO was offensive and harmful.
143. GTCR intended to emit EtO into the air with knowledge that it would contact
people who lived or worked near the Facility.
144. Ms. Baum did not consent to contact with EtO emitted from the Facility.
145. As a direct and proximate result of GTCR’s emission of EtO, Ms. Baum was
contacted by EtO without her consent and was thereby inhaled dangerous amounts of EtO.
Dated: August 19, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Shawn M. Collins

Shawn M. Collins
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff
33
Shawn M. Collins
shawn@collinslaw.com
Edward J. Manzke
FILED DATE: 8/19/2019 5:59 PM 2019L009206
ejmanzke@collinslaw.com
Margaret E. Galka
mgalka@collinslaw.com
THE COLLINS LAW FIRM, P.C.
1770 Park St., Ste. 200
Naperville, IL 60563
(630) 537-1595
Norman B. Berger, Of Counsel

nberger@gcklegal.com
THE COLLINS LAW FIRM, P.C.
1770 Park St., Ste. 200
Naperville, IL 60563
(312) 263-7951 telephone
(312) 316-8988 mobile phone
Scott A. Entin
sentin@lawmbg.com
Deanna N. Pihos
dpihos@lawmbg.com
Matthew J. Owens
mowens@lawmbg.com
MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND, P.C.
325 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 350
Chicago, IL 60654
(312) 751-1170
34

Sterigenics EtO Complaint August 2019 1190000-1190990-Sterigenics

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sterigenics EtO Complaint August 2019 1190000-1190990-Sterigenics

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

12-Person Jury

invisible, odorless carcinogen -- into their air.

and disproportionate risks of cancer.

Sterigenics Willowbrook facility (“the Facility”) to close. A court is considering whether to

control requirements in the nation.”

type of cancer recognized as caused by chronic inhalation exposure to EtO.

PARTIES AND VENUE

1. This is an Illinois action. It is brought on behalf of an Illinois citizen, for injuries

another Illinois entity, GTCR.

breast cancer occurred in DuPage County and Cook County, Illinois.

4. Defendant Sterigenics, a subsidiary of Sotera Health, LLC (“Sotera”) (formerly

Oak Brook, Illinois 60523.

5. At all relevant times, Sterigenics operated two facilities in Illinois: one in

Chicago, Illinois, owned, operated, managed, and/or maintained Sterigenics.

diligence investigation of Sterigenics’ operation and in the course of providing management

emissions posed to the neighboring community. Notwithstanding that knowledge, Sterigenics

9. GTCR’s approach of “creating partnerships with exceptional leaders” is so

collaborative investment approach.3

material5 and in the media.6

Novak resides in Illinois.

Mr. Clark resides in Cook County, Illinois.

VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK & SURROUNDING AREAS

15. The Village of Willowbrook is a suburban community located roughly 20 miles

southwest of Chicago. Its population is approximately 8,500.

the northeast, and 1.0 miles to the east.

Willowbrook Community Park is 0.6 miles from the Facility.

19. Figure 2, below, depicts the area surrounding the Facility.

ETHYLENE OXIDE IS A KNOWN CARCINOGEN

used whenever available.

Annual Report on Carcinogens classified EtO as “reasonably anticipated to be a human

sterilizing facilities) officially designated EtO a carcinogen.

Sterigenics in Willowbrook. (According to Sterigenics Senior Vice President of Global

one operated by Sterigenics.8)

United States Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”).

that “Ethylene Oxide is carcinogenic to humans,” designating EtO as a Group 1 human

carcinogen (the agency’s highest risk classification for cancer).

“known to be a human carcinogen.”

workers of EtO’s “carcinogenic and reproductive hazards.”9

stated confidence level of “HIGH.”

at all relevant times, Sterigenics has known this.

STERIGENICS’ OPERATION CONDUCT

constantly inhale EtO.

1995 through 2016.

1998, and at worst, closer to the colossal emissions in 1988.

ETO’s HUMAN IMPACT

harmful to humans as 2,300,000 pounds of benzene or 1,380,000 pounds of formaldehyde.

Tract No. 17043845902.

Sterigenics’ emissions were exposing Willowbrook-area residents and workers to elevated

and it called for Sterigenics to reduce emissions immediately.

report on August 21, 2018.

50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations contained herein.

52. Sterigenics managed, controlled, and supervised sterilization operations at the

Facility during a material portion of time since 1984.

well-being and others living and working near the Facility.

being of persons inhaling it, including Ms. Baum.

health and well-being in one or more of the following ways:

Ms. Baum inhaled dangerous amounts of EtO.

against Sterigenics in an amount to be determined by a trier of fact.

58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations contained herein.

a. By failing to train its employees about the carcinogenic effects of EtO;

e. By failing to train its employees about the proper procedures to adequately

against Sterigenics in an amount be determined by a trier of fact.

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations contained herein.

danger or harm to third persons including Ms. Baum.