BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

vs.

PCB 97-69

(Enforcement

-

Air)

)

ECONOMY PLATING,

INC.,

an Illinois

corporation,

Respondent.

)

~E

C~

~V~D

CLERR’S OFFICE

DEC

5

2003

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

Pollutj0,~

Con troj Board

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

Mr. Victor J.

Koerner

President

Economy Plating,

Inc.

2350 North Elston

Chicago,

Illinois 60614

Bradley P. Hailoran

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

Suite 11-500

James

R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

I have today filed with the Illinois

Pollution Control Board the Complainant’s Brief in Support of a

Remedy, Notice of Filing,

and a Certificate of Service on behalf

of the People of the State of Illinois,

a copy of which is

attached and herewith served upon you.

DATE: December

5,

2003

LISA

MADIGAN

Attorney General

State of Illinois

BY:

Zemeheret Berelcet-Ab

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 W. Randolph St.,

20th Fir.

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312)

814-3816

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

CLERK’S

OFFICE

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

DEC

5

2003

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

PEOPLE

OF

THE

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS,

)

Pollution

ControlBoard

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB

97-69

(Enforcement

-

Air)

ECONOMY PLATING,

INC.,

an

Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA

MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, moves the

Pollution Control Board

(“Board”)

for the entry of an order

granting Complainant’s request for a remedy in the above-

referenced enforcement matter.

In support of its motion,

Complainant states as follows:

1.

On August 21,

2003,

the Board entered an order finding

.Economy Plating violated Sections

9(a),

(b), and 9.1(d) (1)

of

the Act and Sections 201.142, 201.143,

201.302, 201.144,

254.102(c), and 254.402

of the Board air pollution regulations as

alleged in the People’s five-count amended complaint.”

(See

p.

6

of the Board’s August

21,

2003,

Order).

2.

Further the Board ordered the parties to either go to

a hearing or present their remedy analysis in briefs using

Section 33(c)

and 42(h)

factors.

Complainant does not believe a

-1—

---

hearing on the issue of remedy is necessary,

and instead prefers

to present its remedy analysis in the form of this brief.

3.

Section 33(c)

of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/33 (a) (2002),

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 areas 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, Complainant states as follows:

1.

Complainant maintains that the impact on the public

resulting from Economy Plating’s failure to comply with the Act

and Board regulations was that the Agency and the public were not

privy to information that is important to the monitoring and

-2-

---

control of air pollution sources and their control equipment.

In

addition,

Cook County is a non-attainment area for ozone.

Furthermore,

hard chrome plating is a carcinogen and therefore

could be dangerous

to human health, general welfare and physical

property of the people.

2.

The facility had fewer than five employees and

therefore has limited social and economic value.

3.

The source is located in an industrial area and

therefore

is suited to the area.

4.

It

is technically practicable and economically

reasonable for the source to reduce or eliminate its emissions as

other sources similarly situated have accomplished same.

The

hexavalent chromium emissions from this facility are extremely

toxic and carcinogenic to human health.

5.

As there exists a threat to human health it

is

imperative that Economy Plating cease and desist operations until

such time as its hard chrome plating process can show compliance

with 40 CFR 63, Subpart

N.

CONSIDERATION OF

SECTION 42(h)

FACTORS

Section 42(h)

of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/42(h)

(2002)

provides:

In determining the appropriate civil penalty to be

imposed under subdivisions

(a),

(b) (1)

,

(b)

(2)

,

or

(b) (3)

or

(b)

(5)

of 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;

-3-

---

(2)

the presence or absence of due diligence on the

part of the violator in attempting to comply with

requirements of this Act and regulations

thereunder or to secure relief therefrom as

provided by this Act;

(3)

any economic benefits accrued by the violator

because of delay in compliance with requirements;

(4)

the amount of monetary penalty which will serve to

deter further violations by the violator and to

otherwise aid in enhancing voluntary compliance

with ths Act by the violator and other persons

similarly subject to the Act; and

(5)

the number,

proximity in time,

and gravity of

previously

adjudicated

violations

of

this

Act

by

the

violator.

In

response

to

these

factors

Complainant

states

as

follows:

1.

From March

7,

1983,

to November 30,

1995,

for more than

twelve years,

Economy Plating operated six

(6) hard chrome

electroplating tanks,

six

(6)

fume scrubbers and/or centrifugal

mist eliminators,

one

(1)

polishing lathe

and a gas-fired boiler

without the required permit from the Illinois EPA.

From sometime

in May 1973,

the exact date better known to Respondent,

until

November 30,

1995,

Economy Plating installed and commenced

operation of the seventh hard chrome electroplating tank with the

seventh

fume., s..crubbE.r.and....th.e..glass.bea~bla,s.ting operat.ion...with

baghouse without the required permit from the Illinois EPA.

Economy Plating has been out of compliance for more than 12 and

20 years respectively.

Further Economy Plating is still not in

compliance with 40 CFR 63,

Subpart

N.

-4-

---

2.

Economy Plating did not show due diligence in

complying with the permitting requirements of the Act and is

pi-esently out of compliance with the established procedures for’

stack testing.

3.

Economy Plating received an economic benefit by reason

of non-compliance in that it has saved the cost and expense of

obtaining an operating permit for substantial periods of time.

4.

A civil penalty of Five Thousand

($5,000.00)

dollars

will serve to deter further violations and will aid in future

voluntary compliance with the Act and Board regulations.

5.

Complainant’s records do not reflect previously

adjudicated violations of the Act or Board regulations by the

Respondent.

ANALYSIS ON PENALTY

It

is Complainant’s belief that a true penalty calculation

cannot be completed until Economy Plating achieves compliance

with 40 CFR

63, Subpart N as fully detailed in Complainant’s

Second Amended Complaint.

Further, Economy Plating claims that

it has been losing in excess of $26,000.00 each year for each

year of operation with the loss increasing.

(See Exhibit A)

.

By

letter

dated

June

2,

2003,

Respondent

has

asked

to

be

given

a

period of one year within which to close the plating operation in

accordance

with

applicable

regulation.

(See

Exhibit

B).

-5-

---

A penalty calculation made in accordance with Section 42 (h)

of the act could amount to a multimillion dollar penalty.

However, given Respondent’s dwindling business and its inability

to come into compliance with

40

CFR

63,

Subpart

N,

Complainant

seeks

only

a

nominal

penalty of $5,000.00

(Five Thousand Dollars)

arid

an

order

requiring

Economy

Plating,

Inc.

to

cease

and

desist

from conducting plating operations and close the facility by

June,

2004.

Respectfully submitted,

ZEMEHERET BEREKET-AB

Assistant Attorney General\

Environmental Bureau

188

W.

Randolph

St.,

20th

Flr.

Chicago,

Illinois 60601

(312)

814-3816

H: \cotnnion\Environmental\Z ~EREKET-AB\EconomyRemedy.wpd

-6-

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,

ZEMEHERET

BEREKET-AB,

an

Assistant

Attorney

General,

in

this case,

do certify that on this 5th day of December 2003,

I

caused to be mailed via certified mail the foregoing

Complainant’s Brief

in Support

of a Remedy,

Notice of Filing, and

a

Certificate

of

Service

upon

the

persons

listed

on

the

Notice

of

Filing by placing same in an envelope, postage prepaid,

and

depositing same with the United State Postal Service

at 100 West

Randolph

Street,

Chicago,

Illinois.

ZEMEHERET BEREKET-AB

H: \cotnmoii\Environmental\Z ~ER~KET-AB\EconomyP1atingNOF.wpd

---