)
PCB NO.
01 -1 55
)
(Enforcement)
)
)
)
)
CLERWS ~FF1CE
FEB
1.1
2003
STArE
OF
!LLLNOJS
Pollution
control Board
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Robert
M.
Olien
Sidley Austin
Brown
& Wood
Bank One
Plaza
10 South
Dearborn
Street
Chicago,
Illinois 60603
Linda
L.
Laugges
Thomas,
Mamer
&
Haughey
National City Bank Building
30
Main Street,
5th
Floor
P.O.
Box 560
Champaign,
Illinois 61824-0560
John McMahon
Wilkie
& McMahon
8 Main Street
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Kevin Ward
Cox
& Ward, P.C.
612
Spring Street
P.O.
Box 252
Galena,
Illinois 61036
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this date
I mailed for filing with the Clerk of the Pollution
Control
Board of the State of Illinois, a STIPULATION AND
PROPOSAL
FOR SETTLEMENT,
a
copy of which is attached
hereto and
herewith
served
upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:February 6, 2003
BY:
THOMAS
DAVIS
Assistant Attorney General~
Environmental Bureau
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
)
)
)
V.
ALLOY ENGINEERING AND CASTING
COMPANY,
a Nevada Corporation,
Respondent.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I
hereby certify that
I
did
on February
6,
2003,
send
by First Class
Mail, with
postage
thereon fully
prepaid,
by depositing
in the United States
Post Office
Box a true
and correct copy
of the following instruments entitled
NOTICE
OF FILING and
STIPULATION AND
PROPOSAL
FOR SETTLEMENT
To:
Robert
M.
Olien
John McMahon
Sidley Austin
Brown & Wood
Wilkie
& McMahon
Bank One Plaza
8
Main
Street
10 South
Dearborn
Street
Champaign,
Illinois 61820
Chicago,
Illinois 60603
David Krchak
Kevin Ward
Thomas,
Mamer
&
Haughey
Cox
& Ward,
P.C.
National City Bank Building
612 Spring Street
30
Main Street,
5th
Floor
P.O.
Box 252
P.O.
Box 560
Galena,
Illinois
61036
Champaign, Illinois 61824-0560
and
the original and
ten copies
by
First Class
Mail with
postage thereon fully prepaid
of the
same foregoing
instrument(s)
To:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Pollution Control
Board
100 West Randolph, Suite 402
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
A true and correct copy was also
sent to:
Carol Sudman
Hearing
Officer
Pollution Control
Board
600
South
Second Street,
Suite
11-500
Springfield,
Illinois 62704
THOMAS
DAVIS
Assistant Attorney General
This filing is submitted on recycled paper.
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB NO.
01-155
ALLOY ENGINEERING AND
)
(Enforcement)
CASTING COMPANY,
)
a Nevada corporation,
)
Respondent.
)
STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
NOW COMES the Complainant, PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
by JAMES
E.
RYAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, at the request of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, and
Respondent, ALLOY ENGINEERING AND CASTING COMPANY,
a
Nevada corporation,
and
hereby submit this Stipulation and
Proposal for 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 agree that this Settlement is a compromise of a disputed
claim.
The parties further
stipulate that this statement of facts is made and
agreed upon for the purposes
of settlement
only and that neither the fact that a party has
entered into the Stipulation,
nor any of the facts
stipulated
herein, shall be
introduced
into evidence
in this or any other proceeding
except to
enforce the terms
hereof by the parties to this agreement.
Notwithstanding
the previous
sentence,
this Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement and
any Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
(“Board”)
order accepting same
may be used
in any future enforcement action
as evidence of a
past adjudication of violation,
as provided
in
Section 42(h) of the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Act (“Act”), 415
ILCS 5/42(h)
(2002).
The 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.
JURISDICTION
The Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and
of the parties consenting
hereto pursuant to the Act, 415
ILCS 5/1
et seq.
(2002).
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 any officer, director,
agent,
employee or servant of
Respondent,
as well as the Respondent’s successors and assigns.
The Respondent shall not
raise 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.
IV.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois
EPA”) is an
administrative
agency established in the executive branch of the State government
by Section 4 of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/4 (2002),
and
is charged,
inter a/ia,
with
the duty of enforcing the Act.
2.
Respondent, Alloy Engineering
and Casting Company (“Alloy”),
is a
Nevada
corporation qualified
to do
business
in
Illinois.
2
3.
Respondent operates a manufacturing facility
located at
1700 West Washington
Street, Champaign, Champaign
County,
Illinois (the “facility”).
The major process
at the facility
is the production of alloy castings.
4.
On
December
11,
2001, the
State filed
its First Amended
Complaint alleging that
the Respondent violated Sections
9(a), 9(b),
12(a),
12(b),
12(f), 21(e),
21(f) and
21(i) of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a),
(b);
12(a),
(b),
(f) and 21(e),(f),
(i)
(2002);
and
Sections 201.141, 201.142,
201.143
and
21 2.301
of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
35
III. Adm. Code 201.141,
201.142, 201.143, 212.301(1999);
Sections 703.121(a), 703.150(a), 722.111, 722.134,
725.113, 725.115(a) and
(b),
725.274, 725.116, 725.133, 725.137, 725.151 (a),
725.153,
725.155, 725.173(a), 725.212(a),
725.242(a),
725.243(a) and 808.121
of the Board’s Land
Pollution
Regulations,
35111. Adm.
Code 703.121 (a),
703.150(a),
722.111, 722.134, 725.113,
725.115(a) and
(b), 725.274,
725.116, 725.133, 725.137, 725.151(a),
725.153,
725.155,
725.173(a),
725.212(a),
725.242(a), 725.243(a)
and 808.121(1997);
Section
309.102(a) of the
Board’s Water Pollution Regulations,
35
III. Adm.
Code 309.102(a)(1999); and
Respondent’s
Operating
Permit No. 73050389.
5.
Count
I
alleges air pollution based upon the following disputed facts:
On April 3,
2000, an
inspection was performed by the
Illinois
EPA in
response to a
citizen complaint.
Fugitive emissions were observed from the silo load
out at the facility and fugitive dust was
observed as trucks were
leaving the facility.
On April 25, 2000, the Illinois EPA responded to
citizen complaints of particulate fallout from the facility.
An Illinois
EPA inspector obtained
samples from the surface of a vehicle parked
on
North Fair Street
near the facility.
Subsequent
analysis of the samples indicated the particles contained
iron
oxide,
consistent with
the
processes conducted at, and emissions
from, Alloy’s facility.
On
May 25, 2000,
an
inspection
was performed by the Illinois
EPA, again
in response to
multiple citizen
complaints regarding
fallout material from the facility.
Surface samples of the particulates were taken.
Laboratory
3
analysis again revealed the particulates contained iron oxide, consistent with the processes at,
and emissions from, Alloy’s facility.
Complainant contends that,
by failing to
control fugitive
dust and permitting the emission
of particulate matter, thereby
causing or allowing the emission
of contaminants, Alloy has
caused air pollution.
6.
Count
II alleges air pollution control permit violations
based upon the following
disputed facts:
On
May 4,
2000,
the Illinois EPA conducted an
annual inspection and
record
review for the facility.
The maintenance records for the dust collectors were incomplete.
Dates
were entered
in
maintenance records without
corresponding information regarding preventative
or corrective maintenance activities taken.
Specifically,
the unit scrubber had
numerous dated
entries without the associated statement of malfunction or maintenance activity.
On
May 27,
2000, an
examination of the north/center CSI
baghouse was conducted
by Alloy’s maintenance
department.
Sand was discovered
on an
upper platform.
On
May 30, 2000, the north/center
CSI
baghouse was shut down for extensive testing and
on May 31, 2000,
a ruptured filter bag
and damaged wire cage were discovered
by Alloy employees.
The Illinois EPA conducted
a
record review of preventative maintenance activities for all Alloy’s control equipment on
March
17, 2001.
Neither the May 31, 2000 north/center CSI
baghouse rupture and
associated bag
replacement,
nor the damaged wire cage and
subsequent repairs were recorded
in a
maintenance
record kept on the premises at the facility.
On
May 25, 2000, a hole allowing
discharge
of uncontrolled
particulate matter was discovered by Alloy employees
in the auger
housing
of the east end dust collector associated with the north/center CSI
baghouse.
Upon
discovery, Alloy effected
temporary repairs.
Ultimately,
permanent repairs were effected.
The
Illinois EPA conducted
a record
review of preventative maintenance activities for all of Alloy’s
control
equipment on March
17, 2001.
Neither the May 25, 2000 hole in
the auger housing of
the dust collector nor the subsequent repairs were recorded in
a maintenance record
kept on
the premises at the facility.
4
7.
Count Ill alleges construction and operation of equipment without the required
permits based upon the following
disputed facts:
On or before
May 25, 2000,
Alloy constructed
one
green sand silo,
one pneumatic waste sand
silo with a truck loadout,
and
a baghouse
in the
counter-gravity division of the facility and constructed
a
sand muller, a spent sand
tunnel
fluidized
cooler with Pangborn
scrubber,
a bucket elevator for the spent sand
and sand
reclamation unit with
dust collector,
two green
sand silos,
one waste silo,
a rail receiving
pit, and
controls on the mold
cleaning operation
in the static division of the facility.
Alloy did
not apply
for permits from the Illinois
EPA for the construction and
operation of such
equipment.
The
process weight rate of one of the counter-gravity furnaces
is listed
at 4,000 pounds per
hour in
the application for a permit under which the unit now operates.
The application
permit under
which the static division
at the facility is now operating does
not contain the requisite data
regarding emissions from charging treatment, tapping,
pouring and
cooling
for the electric arc
furnaces operated
at the
site.
8.
Count IV alleges hazardous waste disposal
violations based upon the following
disputed facts:
On
September
15,
2000, the Illinois EPA collected samples of dust from each of
the seven
baghouses located at the
site.
These samples were subsequently analyzed.
Illinois
EPA performed a thorough inspection
of the site
on September 28, 2000,
and additional
samples were taken.
Samples taken from two of the baghouses exceeded the regulatory limit
for two hazardous waste constituents,
lead
and selenium.
Respondent had
not performed the
requisite analysis to
determine whether baghouse dust was a hazardous
waste, nor did
it
develop and follow a written waste analysis plan.
Respondent had previously
allowed
its
hazardous baghouse
waste to
be placed
in
common dumpsters,
disposed
as non-hazardous
waste,
and transported to
Brickyard
Disposal and Recycling,
Danville,
Illinois,
or Clinton
Landfill,
Clinton, Illinois.
This waste was all
manifested as foundry sand.
5
9.
Count V alleges noncompliance with the Part
725 requirements based upon the
following
disputed facts:
During
a September 15, 2000 inspection, the Illinois
EPA inspector
noted that Alloy had not obtained a permit from the Illinois
EPA to store baghouse waste and
that Alloy
did
not identify and
properly mark hazardous
baghouse waste containers stored
at
the facility.
Additionally, Alloy did
not provide the requisite
RCRA training
to its
personnel or
keep records of that
training and
had not submitted
a written RCRA closure plan and
a written
closure
cost estimate to the
Illinois EPA.
10.
Counts
VI, VII,
and VIII alleges
water pollution violations
based upon the
following disputed facts:
During a September 15, 2000 inspection, the Illinois
EPA inspector
noted that
process wastewater from the facility was discharged to
drains connected
to the
storm sewer system which ultimately enters a water
of the State.
Alloy operated
its facility and
discharged the process wastewater without
an
industrial
storm water NPDES permit.
11.
Respondent has resolved
the circumstances leading to the alleged emissions
and waste disposal violations and
has
several months ago applied for the appropriate process
water discharge
permit.
V.
FUTURE PLANS OF COMPLIANCE
Respondent shall diligently conform to the Act, 415
ILCS 5/1
et
seq.
(2002),
and the
Board’s Air,
Land
and Water Pollution
Regulations,
35
III. Adm.
Code Subtitles
B,
C and
G.
VI.
IMPACT ON THE
PUBLIC RESULTING
FROM
NON-COMPLIANCE
Section
33(c)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/33(c)
(2002),
provides;
c.
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:
6
the character and
degree of injury to, or interference with
the protection of the
health,
general welfare and
physical
property of the people;
ii.
the social and
economic value of the pollution source;
iii.
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;
iv.
the technical practicability
and economic reasonableness
of reducing or eliminating the emissions, discharges or
deposits resulting from such
pollution source;
and
v.
any subsequent compliance.
In
response to
these factors, the parties state as
follows:
1.
Complainant contends that the injury to, or interference with, the protection of the
health,
general welfare,
and physical
property of the People would
be characterized
as a
potential for air,
land
and water pollution and
the degree of
injury would be dependent upon the
extent of the pollution and the degree of exposure to that pollution. A tort action
alleging
nuisance and
trespass resulting from
particulate emissions is pending as
Heather Livengood et
al.
V. Alloy Engineering & Casting Company,
Champaign County Circuit Court
No. 01
L 53.
2.
The parties
agree that Respondent’s
facility is of social and
economic benefit;
3.
Respondent’s facility is located
at a site which has
been
used for the operation of
a
manufacturing facility nearly sixty years.
Respondent’s facility has
been found suitable for
such
use at
that location;
4.
The parties agree that complying with the Act and regulations
is technically
practicable and economically
reasonable; and
5.
Respondent has
implemented control
measures subsequent to the allegations of
violation that are the subject of the First Amended Complaint in this matter
in order
to satisfy
the concerns of the Illinois EPA regarding the Act and the Board’s
Air,
Land and
Water Pollution
Regulations.
7
VII.
CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 42(H)
FACTORS
Section 42(h) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/42(h) (2002),
provides:
h.
in determining the appropriate civil penalty to
be imposed under
subdivisions
(a),
(b)(1), (b)(2), (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;
(2)
the presence or absence of due diligence
on the
part of the violator in attempting
to comply with the
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 this 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, the parties state as follows:
1.
The alleged violations were distinct in
nature and occurred from
1999 through
the time of the filing of the First Amended
Complaint;
2.
In response to
notices of noncompliance issued
by the Illinois
EPA, the
Respondent worked
with the Illinois EPA to
resolve compliance issues to the satisfaction
of the
Illinois EPA;
3.
The economic benefit of Respondent’s alleged
noncompliance is the savings,
if
any, realized by
not timely
complying with the Act and the Board’s regulations promulgated
thereunder;
8
4.
Complainant has
determined, without the agreement of Respondent,
in this
instance, that a penalty of one hundred and fifty-two
thousand five hundred and one dollars
($152,501.00) would
serve to
deter further violations
and
aid
in future voluntary enforcement of
the Act and
applicable
regulations.
5.
There
are no previously
adjudicated violations of the Act by Respondent.
VIII.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
A.
Respondent does not admit the violations alleged
in the First Amended
Complaint;
B.
The Respondent shall pay a
penalty of seventy-five thousand
dollars
($75,000.00)
into the Illinois Environmental Protection Trust Fund
within ninety (90) days from
the date on which the Pollution Control
Board
adopts a final order approving
this Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement.
Payment
shall be
made by certified
check or money order,
payable to
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, designated to the Environmental Protection Trust
Fund, and
shall be sent by first class
mail to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal
Services Section
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
Respondent’s
Federal Employer Identification Number
(“FEIN”) shall
be written
upon the
certified
check or money order.
Respondent’s
FEIN
is:
c
A copy of the payment
transmittal and check shall
be simultaneously submitted
to:
Office
of the Attorney General
Donna Lutes,
Environmental Bureau
500
South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
C.
Respondent shall at
all times meet its obligations under the Act to comply with
Sections 9(a), 9(b), 12(a),
12(b),
12(f),
21(e), 21(f) and 21(i) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/9(a),(b);
12(a),(b),
(f) and
21(e),(f),
(i)
(2002);
the Board’s Air,
Land and Water Pollution Regulations,
35
9
III. Adm.
Code Subtitles
B,
C and
G;
and Respondent’s Operating
Permit No. 73050389.
This
agreement represents the full
and final settlement
of all claims against Respondent that are
referenced
in
the First Amended
Complaint filed
on December 11,
2001.
D.
Respondent shall undertake and complete three separate Supplemental
Environmental
Projects (“SEPs”) as approved
by the
Illinois
EPA.
These SEPs were negotiated
in order to
reduce the civil penalty that would
otherwise have been appropriate for the violations
alleged in the First Amended
Complaint.
The first SEP involves the implementation of
electronic Photohelic
controls to
improve the pulsing cleaning system of emission
control
devices.
The improved operating efficiency of the system will eliminate excessive
cake buildup
on filter media,
thus increasing particulate
collection capability; energy conservation would
be a
side benefit due to reduced
air consumption.
The first SEP must be
completed
by September
1, 2003.
The second
SEP involves the repair and
replacement of emission
control ducting
and
the third SEP
pertains to the implementation of broken
bag detectors
in the exhaust stacks of
the emission control devices.
The second
and third
SEPs must be completed within two years
of the date on
which the Pollution Control
Board
adopts a final order approving this Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement.
Respondent shall continue to operate the SEPs for at
least ten
years after completion.
The costs
to be
incurred
by the Respondent in the performance of these
SEPs are
expected to total approximately $85,000.
The
parties
have agreed to a penalty offset of
$77,501.
In the event that the Respondent does not perform the SEPs,
the Respondent shall
pay an additional
monetary penalty of $77,501
in the manner required above.
Respondent shall submit a
project completion
report,
including a summary of the actual
costs, to the Illinois
EPA within ninety days of completing each
SEP or within ninety days of the
deadline for each SEP..
10
Any public statement,
oral
or written,
made by the Respondent regarding this SEP shall
include the following
language: “This project was undertaken
in connection with the settlement
of an enforcement action
undertaken by the People of the State of Illinois.”
IX.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS
AND REGULATIONS
This Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement in no way affects the responsibility of
Respondent to
comply with any federal,
state,
or local regulations,
including
but not limited
to
the Act, 415 ILCS 5/1
et seq.
(2002), and
the Board’s Rules and
Regulations,
35
III. Adm.
Code,
Subtitles A through H.
WHEREFORE,
Complainant and Respondent request that the
Board adopt
and accept
the foregoing Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement as
written.
Respectfully
submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
JAMES
E.
RYAN,
Attorney General, State
of Illinois,
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
Dated:
2/O
~7o
3
BY:________________
THOMAS DAVIS,
Chief
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Dated:
~
11
ALLOY ENGINEERING AND
CASTING COMPANY
Dated:_______
BY:_________________
12
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Lisa Madigan
ATTORNEY GENERAL
February
6, 2003
The Honorable Dorothy Gunn
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
State of Illinois Center
100 West Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
Re:
People
v. Alloy Engineering and Casting Company
PCB
No. 01 -1 55
Dear Clerk Gunn:
Enclosed for filing
please find
the original
and
ten copies of
a
NOTICE
OF FILING
and
STIPULATION AND
PROPOSAL
FOR SETTLEMENT in
regard
to the above-captioned
matter.
Please file the original and return a file-stamped copy of the document to our office in the enclosed
self-addressed,
stamped
envelope.
Thank you for your cooperation
and consideration.
Very truly yours,
Thomas Davis,
Chief
Environmental
Bureau
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
(217)
782-9031
TD/pp
Enclosures
500 South Second Street,
Springfield, Illinois
62706
•
(217)
782-1090
•
TI’Y: (217) 785-2771
•
Fax: (217) 782-7046
100 West Randolph
Street, Chicago,
Illinois
60601
•
(312) 814-3000
•
TFY: (312)
814-3374
•
Fax:
(312)
814-3806
1001
East Main, Carbondale, Illinois
62901
•
(618) 529-6400
•
TTY:
(618) 529-6403
•
Fax: (618) 529-6416
