RECE~VED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
OCT
28
2004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
PolIut~onControl Board
Complainant,
vs.
)
No.
PCB 03-222
(Enforcement)
MECALUX ILLINOIS,
INC.
a Delaware
corporation,
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today, October 28,
2004,
filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board an original and nine copies of our First Amended
Complaint,
a copy of which is attached herewith and served upon
.you.
Failure to file an answer to this complaint within
60 days
may have severe consequences.
Failure to answer will mean that
all allegations in the complaint will be taken as
if admitted for
purposes of this proceeding.
If you have any questions about
this procedure,
you should contact the hearing officer assigned
to this proceeding,
the Clerk’s Office or an attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA
IGAN
/?
o
ey Gen~ralof the
ta e of Ill~nois
BY:
____________
CH ISTOPHER GR1~NT
As istant Attorney General
nvironmental Bureau
188
W. Randolph St.,
20th
Flr.
Chicago,
IL 60601
(312)
814-5388
RECE~VED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’SOFFICE
OCT 28 2004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution Control Board
vs.
)
No. PCB 03-222
(Enforcement)
MECALUX ILLINOIS,
INC.
a Delaware
corporation,
Respondent.
FIRST
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,
complains
of
Respondent, MECALUX ILLINOIS,
INC.,
as follows:
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF VOM STANDARDS
1.
This Amended Complaint is brought 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 at the request of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”)
pursuant to the terms and provisions of Section 31 of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (~Act”), 415 ILCS 5/31
(2002)
2.
IllinoisEPA
is an administrative agency of the State
of Illinois,
established by Section 4
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/4
(2002), and is charged,
inter alia,
with the duty of enforcing
the Act,
and regulations promulgated by the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
(“Board”)
3.
At all times relevant to this Amended Complaint,
Respondent MECALUX ILLINOIS,
INC.
(“Mecalux”)
was, and is,
a
1
Delaware
corporation,
duly authorized to transact business in
the State of Illinois.
4.
Mecalux owns and operates a manufacturing facility
located at 1600 North 25th Avenue, Melrose Park,
Cook County,
Illinois
(“facility” or “site”)
.
At its facility, Mecalux
manufactures and coats metal storage system components.
5.
Mecalux’
coating lines consist,
inter alia,
of a hydro-
soluble process,
consisting of degreasing and demineralization
equipment and paint spray booth
(“Hydro-Soluble process”
),
and a
catophoresi.s coating process,
consisting of a catophoresis
painting dip tank and an open top degreaser (“Catophoresis
process”).
Both the Hydro-Soluble process and the Catophoresis
process emit volatile organic compounds
(“VOC’s or VOM”)
to the
atmosphere inside and outside of the facility.
6.
On or about November 21,
2000, Mecalux began
construction of the Hydro-Soluble coating line.
On or about
December
4,
2000, Mecalux began construction of the Catophoresis
coating process.
Mecalux did not apply for and obtain
construction or operation permits prior to commencing
construction of the two coating lines.
7.
On August
14,
2001,
the Illinois EPA issued a Joint
Construction and Lifetime Operating permit
(“LOP Permit”)
for the
two coating lines at Mecalux’
facility.
8.
From approximately May 25,
2001 until a date better
known to the Respondent,
but no later than August
14,
2001,
Mecalux used and applied coatings containing a VOC content in
excess
of
2.8 pounds per gallon
(“noncomplying coatings”)
in the
.2
Hydro-SolUble coating process at the facility.
The noncomplying
coatings were used to coat the metal storage system components
produced at the facility.
9.
During the period from May 25,
2001 until August
14,
2001,
Respondent applied approximately 537 gallons of
noncomplying coatings to various metal parts at its facility.
10.
Section
9 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9
(2002)
provides,
in
pertinent part,
as follows:
No person shall:
a.)
cause or threaten or allow the discharge or
emission of any contaminant into the environment
in any State so as to cause or tend to cause air
pollution in Illinois, either alone or in
combination with contaminants from other sources,
or so as to violate regulations or standards
adopted by the Board under this Act.
11.
Section 3.315 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.315
(2002),
provides,
as follows:
“PERSON”, is any individual,
partnership,
co-partnership,
firm,
company,
limited
liability
company,
corporation,
association,
joint stock company,
trust,
estate,
political
subdivision,
state
agency,
or
any other
legal
entity,
or
their
legal
representative,
agent
or
assigns.
1.2.,..
The..
Respondent
~
corpo
~
—
as that term is defined in Section 3.26 of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.315
(2002)
13.
Pursuant to authority granted under the Act, the Board
has promulgated regulations governing the discharge of
contaminants into the air,
codified at
35
Ill. Adm. Code Subtitle
B
(“Board Air Pollution regulations”).
3
14.
Section 201.141 of the Board Air Pollution regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.141, provides,
as follows:
No person shall
cause or threaten or allow the
discharge or emission of any contaminant into the
environment in any state so as, either alone or in
combination with contaminants from other sources,
to
cause or tend to cause air pollution n Illinois,
or so
as to violate the provisions of this Chapter,
or so as
to prevent the attainment or maintenance of any
applicable ambient air quality standard.
15.
Part 218 of Subtitle C of the Board Air Pollution
regulations, titled “Organic Material Emission Standards and
Limitation for the Chicago Area”
regulates the VOM content of
Coatings used at the Respondent’s facility.
Respondent’s coating
operations are regulated under the category of “Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products”
16.
Section 218.204 of the Board Air Pollution regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 218.204, provides,
in pertinent part,
as
follows:
Except as provided in Sections 218.205,
218.207,
218.208 and 218.216 of this Subpart, no owner or
operator of a coating line shall apply at any time any
coating in which the VOM content exceeds the following
emission limitations for the specified coating.
Except
as provided in Section 218.204(1),
compliance with the
emission imitations marked with an asterisk in this
Section is required and after March 15,
1996 and
...compli.ance ~..it.h
.~mi~sion
.1~imi ~
~
~
~n
asterisk is required until March 15,
1996... the
emission limitations are as follows:
*
*
*
j)
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating
*
*
4)
All other coatings
kg/l
lbs/gal
4
Baked
0.34*
2.8
17.
Between May 25,
2001 and August
14,
2001,
the
Respondent applied at least 537 gallons of a coating which
exceeded the applicable VOM limitation.
Respondent thereby
violated Sections 218.204 and 201.141 of the Board Air Pollution
regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code Sections 218.204 and 201.141, and
thereby also violated Section 9(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a)
(20.02)
WHEREFORE,
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in favor of
Complainant and against the Respondent, MECALUX ILLINOIS,
INC.,
on Count
I:
1.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter,
at which time the
Respondent will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2.
Finding that the Respondent has violated Section 9(a)
of the Act, and 35
Ill. Adm. Code Sections 218.204 and 201.141;
3.
Ordering the Respondent to cease and desist from any
further violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act,
and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code Sections 218.204 and 201.141;
4.
Assessing against the Respondent a civil penalty of
Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)
for each violation of the Act
and pertinent regulations,
and an additional
civil penalty of Ten
Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
for each day of violation;
5.
Ordering the Respondent to pay all costs,
including
attorney, expert witness and consultant fees expended by the
State in its pursuit of this action;
and
6.
Granting such other relief as the Board deems
5
appropriate and just.
COUNT II
CONSTRUCTION
WITHOUT A PERMIT
1-10.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs
1 through
7 and paragraphs 11 through 13 of
Count
I,
as paragraphs
1 through 10 of this Count II.
11.
Section 9 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9
(2002)
,
provides,
in
pertinent part,
as follows:
No person shall:
*
.*
*
(b)
Construct,
install,
or operate any
equipment,
facility,
vehicle,
vessel,
or
aircraft
capable
of
causing
or
contributing
to
air
pollution or designed to prevent air
pollution of any type designated by
Board regulations, without
a permit
granted by the Agency, or in
violation of any conditions imposed
by such permit.
12.
Section 201.142 of the Board Air Pollution regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.142,
provides,
as follows:
No person shall
cause or allow the construction of any
new emission source or any new air pollution control
equipment,
without first obtaining a construction
permit from the Agency, except as provided in Section
201.146.
13.
Section 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165
(2002),
provides,
as follows:
“CONTAMINANT”
is
any
solid,
liquid,
gaseous matter, any odor,
or any form of
energy,
from whatever source.
14.
The VOM emitted from the two coating lines at
Respondent’s facility,
is a “contaminant”,
as that term is
defined in Section 3.165 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.165
(2002)
6
15.
Section 201.102 of the Board Air Pollution regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.102, provides,
in pertinent part,
as
follows:
“Emission
Source”:
any
equipment
or
facility’ of
a type
capable of
emitting
specified
air
contaminants
to
the
atmosphere.
“New
Emission
Source”:
any
emission
source,
the construction or modification
of which is commenced on or after April
14,
1972.
16.
Respondent’s coating lines are “emission sources”
and
“new emission sources”
as those terms are defined in 35
Ill.
Adm. 201.102.
17.
Section 3.115 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.115
(2002),
contains the following definition:
“AIR POLLUTION”
is
the presence
in
the
atmosphere of one or more contaminants in
•
sufficient
quantities
and
of
such
characteristics
and
duration
as
to
be
injurious
to
human,
plant,
or
animal
life,
to health,
or
to property,
or
to
unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment
of life or property.
18.
Respondent’s two coating lines emit or are capable of
emitting VOM,
a contaminant injurious to human health,
to the
atmosphere,
and therefore are capable of causing or contributing
to air pollution.
19.
On or about November 21,
2000 and December 4,
2000,
the
Respondent commenced construction of, respectively,
the Hydro-
Souble
line and the Catophoresis coating line, without first
having applied for or obtained construction permits from Illinois
EPA.
7
20.
By commencing construction of the two coating lines,
Respondent caused or allowed the construction of two new emission
sources without first having applied for or obtained a permit
from Illinois EPA.
Respondent therefore violated Section 9(b)
of
the~Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(b)
(2002),
and Section 201.142 of the Board
Air Pollution regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.142.
WHEREFORE,
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in
favor of Complainant and against the Respondent, MECALUX
ILLINOIS,
INC.,
on Count II:
1.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter,
at which time the
Respondent will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2.
Finding that the Respondent has violated Section 9(b)
of the Act and 35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.142;
3.
Ordering the Respondent to cease and desist from any
further violation of Section 9(b)
of the Act and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 201.142;
4.
Assessing against the Respondent a civil penalty of
Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)
for each violation of the Act
and pertinent regulations, and an additional civil penalty of Ten
Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
for each day of violation;
5.
Ordering the Respondent to pay all costs,
including
attorney,
expert witness and consultant fees expended by the
State in its pursuit of this action; and
6.
Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate and just.
8
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF LIFETIME OPERATING PERMIT CONDITION
1-11.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs
1 through 7 and paragraphs
11 through 13 of
Count
I,
and paragraph 11 of Count II,
as paragraphs
1 through 11
of this Count
III.
12.
The Respondent’s LOP Permit,
issued on August
14,
2001,
was effective from August
14,
2001 through March 31,
2003. On
April
1,
2004,
the Illinois EPA issued a Federally Enforceable
State Operating Permit
(“FESOP Permit”)
to the Respondent.
The
FESOP Permit superceded and replaced Respondent’s LOP Permit, and
continues in force to the date of filing this Amended Complaint.
•
13.
On November 26,
2003,
the Respondent notified Illinois
EPA that coatings applied in its Cataphoresis Dip Tank from at
least January
1,
2002 until November 26,
2003 contained a VON
content of 1.4 percent, by weight.
14.
Special Condition
5 of Respondent’s LOP Permit
provides,
in pertinent part,
as follows:
5.
Emissions of volatile organic material
(VOM)
and
operation of the listed equipment shall not exceed
the following limits:
Equipii~ent
Coating
VOM Content
Usage
(wt.)
•
*
*
*
Cataphoresis
1.11
•
Painting
Dip Tank
15.
From a date better known to the Respondent, but no
later than January
1,
2002,
through March 31,
2003,
the
9
Respondent applied coatings in its Cataphoresis Painting Dip Tank
operation with a VOM content
(
weight)
of at least
1.4.
The
Respondent thereby violated Special Condition
5 of its LOP
Permit, and thereby also violated Section 9(b)
of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/9(b)
(2002)
•
WHEREFORE,
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in favor of
Complainant and against the Respondent, MECALUX ILLINOIS,
INC.,
on Count III:
1.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter,
at which time the
Respondent will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2.
Finding that Respondent has violated Special Condition
5 of its LOP Permit,
and Section 9(b)
of the Act;
3.
Ordering the Respondent
to cease and desist from any
further violation of Section 9(b)
of the Act;
4.
Assessing against the Respondent a civil penalty of
Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)
for each violation of the Act
and pertinent regulations, and an additional civil penalty of Ten
Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
for each day of violation;
5.
Ordering the Respondent to pay all costs,
including
attorney, expert witness and consultant fees expended by the
State in its pursuit of this action; and
6.
Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate and just.
10
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF FESOP PERMIT CONDITIONS
1-12.
Complainant realleges
and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs. l.through
12 of Count
III,
as paragraphs
1
through 12 of this Count IV.
13.
Respondent’s FESOP Permit allows the Respondent to
operate certain emission units,
including its Cataphoresis
coating process, pursuant to both standard and enumerated special
conditions.
14.
Special Condition 2 of Respondent’s FESOP Permit
provides.,
in pertinent part, as follows:
EQUIPMENT
MATERIAL
COATING USAGE
(ton/Mo) (Ton/yr)
VOM
CONTENT
(Wt.)
VOM EMISSIONS
(ton/mo) (ton/yr)
cataphor-
esis
painting
dip tanks
coating
1.6
15.9
1.2
0.02
0.2
15.
On November 26,
2003, the Respondent notified Illinois
EPA that it was not meeting the emission requirements of its
FESOP Permit.
In addition, the Respondent reported that it was
exceeding the coating usage limitations contained in Special
Cond.ition 2 of ti ~FE
~Perm±.
s~mmary—o~f—Rsporxde-nt’
S
reported FESOP Permit exceedences for the Cataphoresis coating
process follows:
USAGE
VOM CONTENT
(ton/yr.)
Wt.
VOM EMISSIONS
(ton/mo)
(ton/yr.)
21.49
1.4
0.03
0.30
11
16.
Respondent’s reported coating usage exceeds monthly
FESOP Permit limits by 0.2 tons, and annual FESOP Permit limits
by 5.59 tons.
17.
Respondent’s reported coating VOM content exceeds FESOP
Per~’nitlimits by 0.2 per cent
(by weight).
18.
Respondent’s reported Cataphoresis process VON
emissions exceeds FESOP Permit limits by 0.01 tons per month and
0.1 tons per year.
19.
By using coating volumes, and emitting VOM,
in excess
of the limitations contained in Special Condition 2 of its FESOP
Permit,
the Respondent violated its FESOP Permit,
and thereby
also violated Section 9(b)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(b)
(2002).
WHEREFORE,
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in favor of
Complainant and against the Respondent, MECALUX ILLINOIS,
INC.,
on Count
IV:
1.
Authorizing. a hearing in this matter,
at which time the
Respondent will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2.
Finding that Respondent has violated Special ‘Condition
•
2 of its FESOP, and Section 9(b)
of the Act;
• 3.
Ordering the Respondent to cease and desist from any
further violation of its FESOP Permit and Section 9(b)
of the
Act;
4.
Assessing against the Respondent a civil penalty of
Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)
for each violation of the Act
and pertinent regulations, and an additional civil penalty of Ten
Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
for each day of violation;
12
5.
Ordering the Respondent to pay all costs,
including
attorney,, expert witness and consultant
fees expended by the
State
in its pursuit of this action; and
6.
Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate and just
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
ex
rel.
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney General
State of Illinois
BY:
MATTHEW J.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation Divisio’~i
/•
OF COUNSEL:
CHRISTOPHER
J.
GRANT
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188
W.
Randolph
St.,
2O~”~
Fir
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
(312)
814-5388
Environmeni
Assistant
Attorney
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, CHRISTOPHER
GRANT,
an attorney, do certify that I caused
to be served this 28th day of October,
2004,
the foregoing First
Amended Complaint,
and Notice of Filing,
upon the person listed
below, by first class mail, by placing same in an envelope
bearing
sufficient
postage
with
the
United
States
Postal
Service
located
at
100
W.
Randolph,
Chicago
Illinois
and
a
dressed
to:
CHRISTOPHER GRANT
Service List:
Mr.
Richard
Saines
Baker
&
McKenzie
‘130 E. Randolph
Suite 3500
Chicago,.
IL
60601
