RECEIVED
CLERKS
OFFICE
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OCT
112005
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
complainant,
Pollution
Control
Boarc’
v.
)
PCB 04-13
(Enforcement-Air)
INTERMATIC INCORPORATED,
a
Delaware corporation,
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Stephen
J. Bonebrake
Schiff Hardin LLP
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 11,
2005,
we tiled with
the
Illinois Pollution Control Board a Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement
and Motion for Relief from Hearing Requirement,
a true and
correct copy of which is attached and hereby served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General
State of
I1J4x~ois
BY:/
_-‘
t—Christoi
AssistanCAttorney G~
Environmental Bureau
188
W.
Randolph St.,
20th Fjoor
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
(312)
814-3532
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
CLERK’S OFFICE
oriii
Complainant,
)
I
STATE OF ILLINOIS
vi.
)
PCB
04-13
Pollution Control Board
(Enforcement-Air)
INTERMATIC INCORPORATED,
a
Delaware corporation,
Respondent.
MOTION TO REQUEST 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 requests
relief from the hearing requirement
in the above-captioned matter.
In
support thereof,
the Complainant states
as follows:
1.
On July
28,
2003;
a Complaint
was filed with the Pollution
Control Board
(‘Board”)
in this matter.
Simultaneously with
this
Motion,
the parties are tiling
a Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement with the Board.
2.
Section 3l(c)(2)
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act”)
,
415
ILCS
5/31 (c)
(2)
,
(2002)
allows
the parties
in certain
enforcement
cases
to request relief from the mandatory hearing
requirement where the parties have submitted to
the Board
a
stipulation and proposal
for settlement.
Section 31(c)
(2)
provides:
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
be
held,
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
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)
3.
No hearing is currently scheduled in the instant case.
4.
The Complainant requests the relief conferred by Section
31(c)
(2)
of the Act.
WHEREFORE,
the Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General of the State of Illinois,
requests
relief from the requirement
of
a hearing pursuant
to 415 ILCS
5/31(c) (2) (2002).
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
LISA
MAIDIGAN,
Attorney General of the
State
of
IlljJlois
By ~opherPe
Assistant~•~~tor ey Ge eral
Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph Street,
20th
Fl.
Chicago,
IL 60601
312/814-3532
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
~flOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
OCT
1
1
2005
Complainant,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PCB
04-13
Pollution Control Board
v.
)
(Air-Enforcement)
t~~ERMATIC, INCORPORATED,
a
0elaware Corporation
Respondent.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN,
attorney General of the State of Illinois,
at the request of the
illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(“Illinois EPA”),
and
gespondent,
INTERMATIC,
INCORPORATED
(‘Intermatic” or “Respondent”)
,
an
illinois
corporation,
do hereby agree
to this Stipulation and Proposal
~or
Settlement.
The parties agree that
the statement
of facts
contained herein represents
a fair summary of the evidence and
testimony which would be introduced by the parties
if
a
full hearing
were held.
The parties
further stipulate
that
this statement of facts
j~
made and agreed upon for purposes
of settlement only and that
neithe1
the fact
that
a party has entered into this Stipulation,
nor
anY of the facts stipulated herein,
shall be introduced into evidence
in this
or any other proceeding except
to enforce the terms
of this
agreement.
Notwithstanding
the previous sentence,
this Stipulation
and Proposal
for Settlement and any Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Eoard”)
order accepting same may be used in any future enforcement
action or permit proceeding as evidence of
a past adjudication
of
violation
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”)
for
purPoses of Section 39(a)
&
Ci)
and
42(h)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/39(a)
&
Ci),
5/42(h) (2004).
This agreement
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 Act,
415
ILCS
s/i,
et
seq.
(2004)
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 Proposal for
Settlement and to legally bind them to it.
III.
APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement
shall apply
to and
be binding upon the Complainant and Respondent,
and on any officer,
director,
agent,
employee
or servant of Respondent,
Intermatic,
as
well
as
Intermatic’s
successors
and
assigns.
Intermatic
waives
as
a
defense to any enforcement action taken pursuant to
this settlement
the
failure
of
its
officers,
directors,
agents,
servants
or
employees
to
take
such
action
as
shall
be
required
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of this settlement.
2
IV.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.
Parties
1.
The Attorney General of the State
of Illinois brings
this
action on her own motion,
as well
as at the request of the
Illinois
EPA,
pursuant
to the statutory authority vested in her under Section
31 of
the Act,
415
ILCS 5/31
(2004)
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)
,
which is charged,
inter alia,
with the duty of enforcing the
Act.
3.
Respondent,
Intermatic,
is
a corporation organized under the
laws of the State
of Delaware and authorized to do business
in
Illinois.
B.
Facility Description
1.
At all times relevant
to the Complaint filed
in this matter,
Respondent owned and operated an electrical products manufacturing
facility producing products including low voltage lighting,
professional
lighting,
photo controllers,
surge suppressor strips,
and
timers and located
at 7777 Winn Road,
Spring Grove,
McHenry County,
Illinois
(“site”)
2.
In its manufacturing process,
Intermatic uses,
among other
things,
a degreaser,
five sheet-fed offset printing presses,
three pad
printing presses,
seven silk screen printers,
a washer,
three paint
booths,
a natural gas curing
oven,
two natural gas boilers,
punch
presses,
screw making machines,
gas fired heaters,
tool room grinders,
3
soldering stations,
a wave solder line,
a thermal form mold machine,
a
powder
paint
hand
booth
for
parts
clean-up,
and
52
injection
molding
machines.
3.
Intermatic
has
a
Clean
Air
Act
Permit
Program
(‘CAAPP”)
permit,
no.
96030112,
(“CAAPP
permit”),
issued
by
the
Illinois
EPA
on
October
18,
2000,
as
amended.
In
addition,
Intermatic
submitted
to
Illinois
EPA
an
application
dated
November
4,
2003
to
further
modify
the
CAAPP
Permit,
regarding
the
fifth
printing
press
at
the
facility.
Illinois
EPA
has
not
issued
a
decision
on
this
application
as
of
the
date
of this document.
Prior to the amendment,
the initial CAAPP
permit,
among other
things,
limited Intermatic’s seasonal emissions to
15
tons
of
volatile
organic
material
between
May
1
and
September
30
of
each
year.
C.
Allegations
of
Noncompliance
Complainant contends that
the Respondent has violated the
following
provisions
of
the
Act,
Board
Air
Regulations,
and
the
CAAPP
Permit:
Count
I:
Failure
to
obtain
a
construction
permit,
in
violation
of
Section
9(b)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(b)
(2002),
and
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
201.142.
Count
II:
Failure to Modify
a Clean Air Act
Permit,
in
violation
of
Section
39.5(6)
(b),
415
ILCS
415
5/39.5(6)
(b)
(2002).
Count
III:
Failure to Comply with Emission Reduction
Marketing System Requirements,
in violation
of Section 39.5(6)
(a)
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/39.5(6) (a) (2002),
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
205.150(c)
and Section
6.2
of the
CAAPP
permit.
Count
IV:
The Complainant moved
for voluntary
dismissal of this Count and the Board
4
subsequently dismissed Count
IV.
Count
V:
Failure to comply with emission limitation,
in violation of
Section 39.5(6)
(a)
of the
Act,
415
ILCS 5/39.5(6) (a) (2002)
and
Condition 5.5.1 of the CAAPP permit.
Count VI:
Failure to comply with idling emission
limitation,
in violation of
Sections
9.1(d) (1)
and 39.5(6) (a)
of
the Act,
415
ILCS 5/9.1(d)
(1)
and 39.5(6) (a)
(2002),
40
CFR 63.463(b) (2) (ii)
and Condition
7.1.5(b)
of the CAAPP permit.
Count VII:
Failure to properly maintain and operate
carbon adsorber,
in violation
of Sections
9.1(d)
(1)
and 39.5(6) (a)
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/9.1(d)
(1)
and 39.5(6) (a) (2002),
40
CFR 63.463(e) (2)
(vii),
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
218.105(d) (2) (A) (iii)
and Condition
7.1.8(a) (ii) (C)
of
the CAAPP permit.
Count VIII:
Failure to submit idling emission
exceedance reports and compliance
certifications,
in violation of Sections
9.1(d)
(1)
and 39.5(6)
(b)
of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/9.1(d)
(1)
and 39.5(6)
(a) (2002),
40
CFR 63.463,
40 CFR 63.468;
and Condition
7.1.10 of the CAAPP permit.
Count
IX:
Failure to submit annual compliance
certifications,
in violation of Sections
39.5(6) (a)
of the Act and Condition 9.8 of
the CAAPP permit.
D.
Non-Admission of Alleged Violations
Respondent,
Intermatic,
represents
that
it has entered into this
Sitpulation and Proposal
for Settlement
for the purpose of settling
and compromising disputed claims without having to incur
the expense
of contested litigation.
By entering into
this Stipulation and
Proposal
for Settlement Respondent
does not admit
the allegations
of
violations within the Complaint,
and referenced within Section IV.C.
herein,
and this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement should not be
5
interpreted
as including such
an admission.
V.
FUTURE PLANS OF COMPLIANCE
Respondent certifies that
it has restored the facility to
compliance
as of
the entry of this Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement and has accepted a cease and desist order,
without
admitting the asserted violations.
Although Intermatic does not admit
the alleged violations,
it states that
it has taken significant steps
to address the alleged violations,
including
(1)
enrolling the
facility at issue
in the ERMS program and obtaining related revisions
to its CAAPP permit and emission allowances under that program;
(2)
submitting an application for
a further modification to its CAAPP
permit
to specifically include
a fifth printing press;
(3)
repairing
the carbon adsorber
(a pollution control device associated with the
TCE degreaser)
and improving its performance;
(4)
submitting various
new or revised reports to Illinois
EPA;
and,
(5)
paying ATU excursion
compensation in the amount of $28,849.89 for the years
2000,
2001 and
2002 under the Emission Reduction Marketing System
(“ERMS”)
requirements
as identified
in the ERMS bill issued by the Illinois EPA
on May
6,
2005,
a copy of which
is attached as Exhibit A and is hereby
incorporated
into this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement.
These
activities
were performed in conjunction with discussions with
the
Complainant and the Illinois
EPA.
The performance
of the Supplemental
Environmental
Project
as detailed further below will replace one
emission unit involved
in the alleged violations
in the Complaint.
6
VI.
IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC RESULTING FROM NONCOMPLIANCE
Section 33(c)
of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/33(c) (2004), 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:
1.
The alleged impact to the public from the alleged
noncompliance was
that Respondent constructed and operated emissions
sources and air pollution control equipment without compliance with
permitting
requirements.
Complainant states that
the permit process
program is the only method available for the State to identify
possible air pollution sources and their controls and to ensure
that
those sources will not contribute to or cause
the deterioration of air
quality in Illinois.
Complainant further contends
that
the Respondent
also failed to comply with Emissions Reduction Marketing System
Requirements which are intended to provide
a market-based system for
7
the reduction
of volatile organic material emissions.
Idling
emission
limitations and required controls are also intended to prevent
emissions from contributing
to the deterioration of air quality in
Illinois.
Complainant additionally contends
that
the reports and
certifications that
the Respondent failed to timely file
are crucial
to the Illinois
EPA’s ability to track compliance.
2.
The manufacturing operation at the Respondent’s facility has
social and economic value.
3.
The parties agree that
the facility is suitable to the area
in which
it
is located when it is operated in compliance with
the Act
and Board rules.
4.
The parties agree
that compliance with
the Act,
Board rules
and permit requirements
is both technically practical and reasonable.
5.
The parties agree
that
the Respondent
is
in compliance with
the permit conditions and regulatory and statutory provisions at
issue
in this matter as of
the date of filing of this Stipulation and
Proposal
for Settlement.
VII.
CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 42(h)
FACTORS
Section 42(h)
of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/42(h) (2004),
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
8
relief therefrom as provided by this Act;
3.
any economic benefits accrued by the respondent because
of delay in compliance with requirements;
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
state:
1.
Complainant contends
that the violations were substantial in
both gravity and duration.
Complainant contends that
the construction
and operation of emission units without
a permit as alleged in the
Complaint
is
of significant gravity since it represents
a complete
failure to abide
by permitting requirements.
Complainant contends
that
the Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain VOM emissions under
the limit
for ERMS participation and the subsequent failure to timely
participate
in the ERMS program are also of significant gravity.
Complainant
further contends
that the violations involving the alleged
failure to obtain a construction permit,
failure to modify CAAPP
permit,
EMRS violations,
degreaser operation violations and reporting
and certification violations were
of duration in excess
of two years.
9
2.
Complainant contends
that
the Respondent demonstrated
a lack
of diligence
in allowing numerous violations to reoccur and to
continue.
Respondent has shown diligence
in addressing the alleged
violations since the violation notice was issued to Intermatic
in this
matter.
3.
The Complainant contends
that the Respondent
realized
economic benefit
from the noncompliance
in the amount
of $405
for
avoided CAAPP fees and $3,552 for avoided compliance with idling
emission limitation demonstration requirements.
The penalty amount
agreed to reflects the alleged economic benefit.
4.
The parties agree
that the penalty amount agreed to as well
as an additional payment of purchase of ATUs from the Illinois EPA’s
Alternative
Compliance Market Account
(“ACMA”),
will deter the
Respondent
and other persons similarly situated from violations of the
Act and the Board rules.
5.
The parties agree
that there
are no known previous
violations of air pollution control requirements by the Respondent.
6.
The Respondent did not
self disclose the violations alleged
in the Complaint.
7.
The Respondent has agreed to undertake
a Supplemental
Environmental
Project
(‘SEP”)
in mitigation of the Complainants penalty
demands
in this matter.
The SEP
is
further detailed in Section
VIII.C.,
below.
The Complainant has agreed to mitigate
its penalty
demand,
exclusive of economic benefit of noncompliance,
by 70
in
recognition
of the Respondent’s performance of the
SEP.
The SEP
carries an initial capital cost
of approximately $230,660.
10
VIII.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
A.
Penalty
1.
Respondent,
Intermatic,
shall pay a penalty of
$30,957.00
into the Environmental Protection Trust Fund.
The penalty shall be
paid within 14 days of the issuance of
a Board order approving this
Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement.
On July
20,
2005 Respondent
sent to the Illinois EPA payment
of $28,849.89
for ATU excursion
compensation
for the years 2000,
2001 and 2002
as provided
in the ACMA
bill
issued by Illinois EPA and dated May
6,
2005.
(See Exhibit
A)
Payment
of the penalty,
in the amount
of $30,957.00,
shall be made by
certified check,
money order,
or electronic funds transfer payable to
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and designated for
deposit
into
the Environmental Protection Trust
Fund,
and shall be
sent by first class mail,
unless submitted by electronic funds
transfer,
and delivered
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
A copy of said certified check,
money order or record of electronic
funds transfer and any transmittal letter shall also
be sent
to:
Christopher
P.
Perzan
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental
Bureau
188
W.
Randolph Street,
2O~”Floor
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
Maureen Wozniak
11
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois 60294-9276
2.
If the Respondent
fails
to make any payment specified
within Section VIII.A.l.
of this Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement
on or before the date upon which the payment
is
due,
the
Respondent will be
in default and
the remaining unpaid balance of the
penalty,
plus any accrued interest,
shall be
due and owing
immediately.
3.
The name and number of the case and Respondent’s
Federal
Employer Identification Number
(“FEIN”)
shall appear on the certified
check or money order.
For purposes of payment and collection,
Respondent may be reached at the following address:
Intermatic,
Inc.
7777 Winn Road
Spring Grove,
Illinois 60081
B.
Supplemental Environmental
Project
1.
Respondent has agreed to perform a SEP as
set out
in this
Subsection.
Complainant has agreed to reduce its penalty demand of
$90,000.00,
exclusive of alleged economic benefit of noncompliance,
by
70
in recognition of the performance
of the SEP.
2.
The
SEP shall consist of the replacement of the halogenated
solvent trichloroethylene
(‘TCE”)
degreaser currently in use at the
facility.
The TCE degreaser is
a source of VOM emissions and is
currently
a permitted emission unit,
known
as the DETREX unit under
the CAAPP permit.
The SEP involves
the installation of
a non-
halogenated solvent Durr Universal Model
81C degreaser
(‘new
12
degreaser”)
in place
of the TCE degreaser.
The capital cost of the new
degreaser will be approximately
$230,660.
The Respondent will incur
additional
costs related to shipping,
handling,
installation,
and
training connected with the new degreaser of approximately $20,000.
Costs of operation for the new degreaser are anticipated to be
approximately $110,000 per year.
The performance of the
SEP will
significantly reduce the VOM and HAP emissions from the facility.
Respondent estimates
a reduction in VOM emission of
at least
9 tons
per year.
3.
On or before fourteen
(14)
days of issuance of the Board’s
order approving this Settlement the Respondent will begin the
replacement process
for the new degreaser by
the issuance of
a
purchase order
for the new degreaser.
The Respondent will begin
operation of the new degreaser under this
SEP within 36 weeks of the
date
of issuance of the Board’s approval of this Stipulation.
This
duration is re~uiredto acquire and obtain delivery of the new machine
(estimated
to require
26 weeks)
,
shutdown and remove the current
degreaser,
including related piping,
prepare the area and install
the
new machine,
and then de-bug and begin operation of the new machine.
In carrying out
this
SEP,
Intermatic shall timely apply for all
required construction,
operating,
CAAPP.and other applicable permits
as
required by law.
4.
Respondent hereby certifies by entering into this
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
that,
as of the date of
its
signature,
Respondent
is not required to perform or develop the
SEP by
any federal,
state
or local
law or regulation;
nor is Respondent
13
required to perform or develop the SEP by any other agreement,
grant
or as injunctive
relief
in this
or any other case.
Respondent further
certifies that
it has
not received,
and
is not presently negotiating
to receive,
credit in any other enforcement action for the SEP.
5.
Intermatic represents
by its signature on the Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement that
it has not received,
nor will
it seek
to use emissions reductions achieved as
a result of
the SEP as an
‘emissions
offset” as defined at
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 203.121
for any
purpose.
Intermatic further represents by its signature that
it will
not receive or seek to use or sell credit associated with emissions
reductions achieved as
a result of the SEP
for purposes
of the
Illinois Emissions Reduction. Marketing System,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code Part
205.
6.
Respondent
shall submit
a SEP Completion Report
to
Complainant within 60 days
of the date Respondent commences operation
of the new degreaser pursuant
to Section VIII.B.3,
above.
The SEP
Completion Report shall contain the following information:
(i)
A detailed description of the SEP as implemented;
(ii)
A description
of any operating problems encountered
and the solutions
thereto;
(iii) Itemized costs for purchase,
installation and removal;
(iv)
Certification that the
SEP has been fully implemented
pursuant
to the provisions of this Stipulation and
Proposal
for Settlement;
and
(v)
A
general
description
of
the
environmental
and
public
health benefits resulting from implementation of the
14
SEP
(with a quantification
of the benefits and
pollutant reductions,
if
feasible)
7.
Respondent
shall
continuously
use
or
operate
the
systems
installed as
the SEP to perform degreasing operations requiring
a
machine
for not
less than
5 years subsequent
to installation;
provided,
however,
that
this requirement shall not apply during
periods
of machine maintenance,
power outages or other events
that
make
the use of
the new machine impossible.
The Respondent
shall not
recommence the use
of any machine degreaser using TCE during that
five
year period.
8.
Any public statement,
oral
or written,
in print,
film,
or
other media,
made by Respondent making reference to the SEP shall
include the following language,
“This project was undertaken
in
connection with the settlement
of an enforcement action taken by the
State
of Illinois
for violations
of Illinois air pollution statutes
and regulations.”
C.
Interest
on Penalties
1.
Pursuant
to Section 42(g)
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/42(g),
interest shall accrue
on any penalty amount owed by the Respondent
not
paid within the time prescribed herein,
at the maximum rate allowable
under Section 1003(a)
of the Illinois Income Tax Act,
35 ILCS
5/1003 (a) (2004)
2.
Interest
on unpaid penalties shall begin to accrue from the
date the penalty is due and continue to accrue
to the date
full
payment
is received by the Illinois EPA.
3.
Where partial payment
is made on any penalty amount
that
is
15
due,
such partial payment shall be first applied to any interest
on
unpaid penalties then owing.
4.
All interest on penalties owed the Complainant
shall be paid
by certified check,
money order or electronic
funds transfer payable
to the Illinois EPA for deposit
in the EPTF and shall be submitted by
first class mail unless submitted by electronic funds transfer,
and
delivered to the above-indicated address.
The
name,
case number,
and
the Respondent’s FEIN shall appear on the face
of the certified check
or money order.
A copy of the certified check,
money order or record
of electronic funds transfer and any transmittal letter shall be
sent
to:
Christopher
P.
Perzan
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188
W.
Randolph
St.,
20th
Floor
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
D.
Correspondence, Reports and Other Documents
Any and all correspondence,
reports and any other documents
required or permitted under this Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement,
except
for payments pursuant to Sections VIII.B.,
C.
and
D.
of this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement shall be submitted
as follows:
As
to the Complainant
Christopher
P.
Perzan
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental
Bureau
188
W.
Randolph St.,
20th
Floor
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
Maureen Wozniak
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental ProtectiOn Agency
16
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
Manager
Compliance
and Enforcement Section
Bureau of Air
Illinois EPA
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois 62794-9276
As
to the Respondent
Ralph Tassone
Intermatic Incorporated
7777 Winn Road
Spring Grove,
Illinois 60081
Stephen
J.
Bonebrake
Schiff Hardin LLP
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
E.
Cease and Desist
Respondent shall cease and desist from any future violations of
those sections
or provisions of the Act and Board regulations and the
CAAPP permit
that were the subject matter of the complaint as outlined
in Section IV.C.
of this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement.
F.
Modification of Settlement Agreement
The parties may,
by mutual written consent,
extend any SEP
implementation dates
or modify the terms of this Stipulation and
Proposal
for Settlement without further order of the Board.
A request
for any modification shall be made
in writing and submitted to the
contact persons identified in Section VIII.D.
Any such request shall
be made
by separate document, and shall not be submitted within any
other report or submittal required by this Stipulation and Proposal
17
for Settlement.
Any such agreed modification shall be
in writing,
signed by authorized representatives
of each party,
filed with the
Board and incorporated into this Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement by reference.
G.
Force
Majeure
1.
For purposes of this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement,
force majeure
is an event arising solely beyond the control of the
Respondent,
which prevents the timely performance
of any of
the
requirements hereof.
For purposes of this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement
force majeure shall
include,
but
is not limited
to,
events such as floods,
fires,
tornadoes,
other natural disasters,
and
labor disputes beyond the reasonable control of Respondent.
2.
When,
in the opinion of the Respondent,
a
force inajeure
event
occurs which causes or may cause
a delay in the performance of any of
the requirements of this Stipulation
and Proposal
for Settlement,
the
Respondent
shall orally notify the Complainant within forty-eight
(48)
hours of
the occurrence.
Written notice shall be given to the
Complainant
as soon as practicable,
but
no later than ten
(10)
calendar days after the claimed occurrence.
3.
Failure by the Respondent
to comply with the notice requirements
of the preceding paragraph shall render
this Section VIII.G voidable
by
the Cothplainant as to the specific event
for which
the Respondent
has
failed
to comply with
the notice requirement.
If voided,
this
section shall be
of no effect as
to the particular event involved.
4.
Within ten
(10)
calendar
days of receipt of the
force majeure
notice required under Section VIII.G.2,
the Complainant
shall
respond
18
to the Respondent
in writing regarding the Respondent’s claim
of
a
delay or impediment
to performance.
If
the Complainant agrees
that
the delay or impediment to performance has been or will be caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the Respondent,
including any
entity controlled by the Respondent,
and that
the Respondent could not
have prevented the delay by the exercise of due diligence,
the parties
shall
stipulate to an extension of the required deadline(s)
for all
requirement(s)
affected by the delay,
by
a period equivalent
to the
delay actually caused by such circumstances.
Such stipulation may be
filed as
a modification to this Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement pursuant to
the modification procedures established in this
Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement.
The Respondent
shall not be
liable for stipulated penalties for
the period of any such stipulated
extension.
5.
If the Complainant does not accept the Respondents claim of
a
force inajeure
event,
the Respondent may submit the matter to this
Board within twenty
(20)
calendar days of receipt of Complainant’s
determination for resolution to avoid payment of stipulated penalties,
by filing
a petition for determination
of the
issue.
Once
the
Respondent
has submitted such
a petition to the Board,
the Complainant
shall have twenty
(20)
calendar days to file
its response to said
petition.
The burden of proof of establishing that
a
force inajeure
event prevented the timely performance shall
be upon the Respondent.
If
this Board determines
that
the delay or impediment
to performance
has been or will be caused by circumstances solely beyond the control
of the Respondent,
including any entity controlled by the Respondent,
19
and that
the Respondent could not have prevented the delay by the
exercise of due diligence,
the Respondent
shall be excused as to that
event
(including any imposition
of stipulated penalties)
,
for all
requirements affected by
the delay,
for
a period of time equivalent
to
the delay or such other period as may be determined by
the Board.
6.
An increase in costs associated with implementing any requirement
of this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement shall not,
by itself,
excuse the Respondent under the provisions of
this Section VIII.G of
this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement
from
a failure to comply
with such
a requirement.
H.
Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations
This Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement
in no way affects
the Respondent’s responsibility
to comply with any other federal,
state
or local regulations,
including but not
limited to the Act and Board
regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code,
Subtitles A through H.
I.
Release From Liability
In consideration
of Respondent’s payment of
a $30,957.00 penalty,
performance of
the SEP,
its commitment
to refrain from any future
violations of the Act,
regulations and permit provisions and upon
payment of all monies owed hereunder and performance of the SEP,
Complainant releases,
waives and discharges Respondent and
Respondent’s employees,
agents,
directors,
officers,
affiliates,
successors and assigns from any further liability or penalties
for
violations
of the Act,
regulations and permit provisions that were the
subject matter of the complaint herein,
including for violations
relating to the failure
to hold adequate ERMS allotment trading units
20
in the amounts and for the years identified in the ERMS bill issued by
the
Illinois EPA on May
6,
2005
(Exhibit
A)
.
However,
nothing
in this
Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement
shall be construed as
a waiver
by Complainant
of
the right to redress future violations or obtain
penalties with respect thereto.
However,
the release set forth above does not extend to any
matters other than those expressly specified in the Complaint and the
May
6,
2005 ERMS excursion compensation bill.
The Complainant
reserves,
and the Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement
is without
prejudice
to,
all rights of the State of
Illinois against the
Respondent with respect
to other matters,
including,
but not
limited
to,
the following:
a.
criminal liability;
b.
liability for future violations
of state,
federal,
local and
common laws and/or regulations;
c.
liability for natural resource damage arising out
of the
alleged violations;
and
d.
liability or claims based on the Respondent’s failure to
satisfy
the requirements of the Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement.
Nothing
in this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement
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
in Section 3.315,
415
ILCS 5/3.315
(2004),
other than
the Respondent and Respondent’s
21
employees,
agents,
directors,
officers,
affiliates,
successors and
assigns.
The
remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
22
WHEREFORE,
Complainant and Respondent request that
the Board
adopt
and accept
the foregoing Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement
as written.
AGREED:
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of the
State of
Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN,
Chief
Envi~trç~entalEnforci
Asb(stj.q1s Litigatiøn
By:
\
Assistant Attorney General
Dated:
‘~I7Ao
1o5
it
t
ILLINOIS
IRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
~
By:
Dated:
RO~ERT
~.
MESStN~
Chief Legal Counsel
~t
znos
I
1
FOR THE RESPONDENT;
INTERMATIC,
INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation
By:
Its
:___________
rn
&~ec,a~et
Dated:
loiS/oS
nt/
sion
LU,
Envifonmental Bureau
23
Exhibit A
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1021
NORTH
GRAND
AVENUE
E#.sr,
P.O.
Box 19276,
SPRIN&IELD,
ILLINOIS
62794-9276,
217-782-3397
JAMES R.
THOMPSON
CENTER,
100 WEST
RANDOLPH,
SunE
11-300,
CHIcAGo,
IL 60601,312-814-6026
Roo
R.
BLAGOJEVICH,
GOVERNOR
RENEE CIPRIANO,
DIREG0R
217/782-5811
TDD
2171782-9143
MAY
062005
CERTIFIEDMAIL#700231500000
1221
0444
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ralph
Tassone
Intermitic Inc.
7777 Wind Rd
Spring
Grove,
illinois 60081
RE:
ATU
Purchase from
ACMA
forExcursion Compensation,
Correction
Site:
Intermatic Inc.
I.D. IIIO8OAAC
ERMS Account Number:
1800
Dear Mr. Tassone:
This
corrected
statement
is
being
sent
to
Jntermatic
Inc.
(Intermatic)
as
confirmation
that
allotment
trading
units
(Allis)
must
be
purchased
from
the
Alternative
Compliance
Market
Account
(ACMA)
for
excursion
compensatibn
for
the
Emissions
Reduction
Market
System
(ERMS)
2000,
2001,
and
2002
seasonal
allotment
periods.
The
original
bill
noted
that
Intermatic’s
accoánt was
174 ATUs
short
in 2000,23 ATUs short in 2001,
and
42 ATUs short in
2002.
Since
then,
Intermatic has provided
the Illinois
EPA
with
corrected information,
which.is
reflected
below.
Because
you
did
not hold the necessary ATUs by December31 of
each
ofthose respective years,
these
values
are multiplied by
1.2
for the
year
2000
and
1.5
for
2001
and
2002 to anive at the
final number owed to come into compliance. You
can find
the number ofATUs owed
and
prices
listed
below:
2000:
169 ATUs x
1.2
=
203 ATIJs
®
$113.91
each, for a total of$23,l23.73
2001:
22 ATUs x
1.5
=
33 AllIs®
$79.44
each,
for a total of$2,621.52
2002: 42 ATUs x
1.5
=
63
ATUs
@
$49.28
each, for a total of
$3,104.64
The total
amount
owed is therefore $28,849.89
Ths ACMA
purchase
must be
transacted as
follows:
I.
File
a completed
ERMS
TRADE
REQUEST
FORM (116-ERMS)
and
send
the
original
to:
DAVID
“BUZZ”
ASSELMEIER
Illinois
EPA,
Bureau
of
Air,
Air
Quality
Planning Section, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276.
In addition, please
ROOCFORD
—4302 North Main Street, Rock~rd,
1161103— (815) 987-7760
•
D?s
PLAINES
—
9511
W.
Harrison
St.,
Des Plaines,
IL
60016— (847) 294-4000
ELCIN
—595
South State,
Elgin, II 60123—
(847)
608-3131
•
PE0RLA
—5415 N. University St.,
Peoria,
IL 61614— (309) 69~5463
BURE.*JJ
Cr
LAND
.
PEOmA
—7620
N.
University
St.,
Peoria,
1161.614 —(309) 693-5462
•
C,w.4PAIGN
—2125
South
First
Street,
Champaign,
1161820— (217) 278-5800
Spts
F4GFtD
—45005. Sixth
Street Rd.,
Springfield,
IL 62706 —(217) 786-6892
•
COLLINSYILLE
—
2009
MalI
Street,
ColHnsville,
IL 62234 —(618) 346-5120
MARION
—2309W.
Main
St.,
Suite
116,
Marion,
1162959—1618)
993~7200
-
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED
PAPER
Page
2
ATU Purchase from ACMA forExcursion
Compensation
Site:
Intermatic Inc
I.D. I11O8OAAC
ERMS Account Number: 1800
send
a
copy
of
the
form
to:
YASMINE
KEPPNER,
Illinois
EPA,
Bureau
of Air,
Compliance
Unit,
P.O.
Box
19276,
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276.
Note:
In
the
Seller’s Information section,
fill in the
“Name
ofSeller” block as “illinois EPA.”
2.
Send
a check
made
out
to “Illinois EPA” for the total
amount
due.
Include your Bureau
of Air
ID
Number
(111O8OAAC)
and
Fund #738
on
the
check,
as well
as
returning
a
copy of
this
invoice
with
the
check.
(Payments
will
be
deposited
into
the
Alternative
Compliance
Market
Account Fund.)
Send the check
and
invoice
to:
Illinois
EPA, Fiscal
Services, Mail
Code
#2,
AUn:
Mr.
Kevin
Bryant,
1021
North
Grand
Avenue East,
P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL 62794-9276.
All ofthe above should be
submitted
within seven days ofreceipt ofthis letter.
Once the Illinois
EPA
receives
and
processes
your ACMA purchase,
a
confirmation
statement of
the completed
ATLJ transaction
will be sent to you.
If
you have
questions
regarding
this
matter,
please contact
YASMINE
KEPPNER
at
217-782-
5811.
Sincerely,
jut4cgManager
C
liance
and
Enforcement Section
Bureau ofAir
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I,
CHRISTOPHER
P.
PERZAN,
an Assistant Attorney General,
certify
that on October
11,
2005
I caused to be served by US Mail
the
foregoing Complaint and Appearance
to:
Stephen
J.
Bonebrake
Schiff Hardin LLP
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
by depositing same in postage prepaid envelopes with the United States
Postal Service located at
100 West Randolph Street,
Chicago,
Illinois
60601.
