RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
APR 082004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
STATE OF ILLINOiS
I
)
PCB 04-
Pollution Control
Board
(Enforcement)
H.B.M. ELECTROCHEMICAL
COMPANY an Illinois corporation,
and NED MANDICH, individually
as president of H.E.M.
Electrochemical Company,
Respondents.
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: Mr. Ned Mandich
Mr. Ned Mandich
Registered Agent
President
H.B.M. Electrochemical
H.B.M. Electrochemical
Company
Company
2800 West Bernice Road
1650 Ridge Road
Lansing, Illinois 60438
Homewood, Illinois 60430
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed the Complaint
with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and
herewith served upon you. Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
103.204(f), I am required to advise you that 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. Pursuant to 415
ILCS 5/31(c) (1), I am required to advise you that financing may
be available through the Illinois Environmental Facilities
Financing Act to correct the violations.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the State of Illinois
BY:
________
BRIDGE’~’M. CARLSON
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph Street,
20th
fl.
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312)814-0608
Attorney No. 99000
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR~PR
082004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
)
PCB
04-1
/‘
v.
(Enforcement)
H.B.M. ELECTROCHEMICAL
COMPANY an Illinois corporation,
and NED MANDICH, individually
as president of H.E.M.
Electrochemical Company,
Respondents.
COMPLAINT
Complainant, 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, complains of Respondent, H.B.M.
ELECTROCHEMICAL COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation and NED MANDICH
individually, and as president of H.B.M. Electrochemical Company
as follows:
COUNT I
OPERATING AIR EMISSION SOURCES WITHOUT A PERMIT
1. This Complaint is brought by the Attorney General on
her own motion and at the request of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”) pursuant to the terms and
1
provisions of Section 31 of the Illii~ois Environmental Protection
Act (“Act”)
,
415 ILCS 5/31 (2002)
2. The Illinois EPA is an administrative agency of the
State of Illinois, created pursuant to Section 4 of the Act, 415
ILCS5/4 (2002), and is charged,
inter alia,
with the duty of
enforcing the Act.
3. On information and belief, at all times relevant to
this Complaint, Respondent Ned Mandich (“Mandich”) was and is a
resident of Homewood, Cook County, Illinois.
4. From at least 1996, or a date better known to Mandich,
and continuing through the date of filing of this Complaint,
Mandich has owned and/or operated a hard chrome electroplating
facility that plates hydraulic cylinders and rods. The parts are
finished by grinding and polishing.
5. The facility known as H.B.M. Electrochemical Company
(“H.B.M.”), is located at 2800 Bernice Road, Lansing, Cook
County, Illinois (“facility”)
6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Mandich has
been the president and the registered agent of H.B.M.
Electrochernical and has been and is in control of and responsible
for the day-to-day operations of the facility.
7. The facility utilizes three (3) hard chrome plating
tanks controlled by composite mesh pad (“CMP”) scrubbers.
8. Chromium is emitted from the facility’s hard chromium
2
electroplating tanks during electroplating operations.
9. Section 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165 (2002),
contains the following definition:
“CONTAMINANT” is any solid, liquid,
gaseous matter, any odor, or any form of
energy, from whatever source.
10. Chromium is a contaminant, as that term is defined in
Section 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165 (2002).
11. Section 201.102 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Board”) Air Pollution Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.102,
contains the following definitions:
“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.
“Specified Air Contaminant”: any air
contaminant as to which this Subtitle
contains emission standards or other
specific limitations and any contaminant
regulated in Illinois pursuant to Section
9.1 of the Act.
12. H.B.M.’s hard chromium electroplating operations
described herein emit, or are capable of emitting, chromium, a
specified air contaminant, to the atmosphere.
3
electroplating tanks during electroplating operations.
9. Section 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165 (2002),
contains the following definition:
“CONTAMINANT” is any solid, liquid,
gaseous matter, any odor, or any form of
energy, from whatever source.
10. Chromium is a contaminant, as that term is defined in
Section 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165 (2002)
11. Section 201.102 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Board”) Air Pollution Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.102,
contains the following definitions:
“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.
“Specified Air Contaminant”: any air
contaminant as to which this Subtitle
contains emission standards or other
specific limitations and any contaminant
regulated in Illinois pursuant to Section
9.1 of the Act.
12. H.B.M.’s hard chromium electroplating operations
described herein emit, or are capable of emitting, chromium, a
specified air contaminant, to the atmosphere.
3
13. On information and belief, the three (3) hard chromium
electroplating tanks at the facility were constructed on or after
April 14, 1972.
14. The hard chromium electroplating tanks •constitute “New
Emission Source(s)”, as that term is defined in Section 201.102
of the Board Air Pollution Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code
201.102.
15. Section 3.115 of the Act, 15 ILCS 5/3.115 (2002),
contains the following definition:
“AIR POLLtJTION1’ 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.
16. Because H.B.M.’s hard chromium electroplating operation
emits, or is capable of emitting, chromium to the atmosphere, it
is capable of causing or contributing to air pollution.
17. Section 3.315 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.315 (2002),
contains the following definition:
“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.
Li
18. Mandich and H.B.M. Electrochemical are “person(s)”, as
that term is defined in Section 3.315 of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.315 (2002).
19. Section 9(b) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(b) (2002),
provides as follows:
No person shall:
*
**
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.
20. Section 201.143 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.143, provides in pertinent part as follows:
No person shall cause or allow the
operation of any new emission source or
new air pollution control equipment of a
type for which a construction permit is
required by Section 201.142 without first
obtaining an operating permit from the
Agency, except for such testing
operations as may be authorized by the
construction permit.
21. On March 25, 1996, the Illinois EPA issued to H.B.M.
an Operating Permit for Hard Chrome Electroplating Operation,
NESHAP Source. The permit, number 84120020, authorized H.B.M. to
operate emission source(s) and/or air pollution control equipment
5
consisting of, among other things, three (3) hard chrome plating
tanks.
22. H.B.M.’s Operating Permit number 84120020 expired on
March 25, 2001 and was not renewed until September 10, 2003, on
which date it was reissued by the Illinois EPA. From March 25,
2001 through September 10, 2003, Mandich and H.B.M., operated
hard chromium electroplating tanks without the required Illinois
EPA operating permit.
23. By the actions as alleged herein, both Respondents
Mandich and H.B.M. violated Section 9(b) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/9(b) (2002), and Section 201.143 of the Board Air Pollution
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm.. Code 201.143.
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in favor of
Complainant and against Respondents, NED MANDICH individually and
H.B.M. ELECTROCHEMICAL COMPANY:
1. Authorizing a hearing •in this matter, at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that the Respondents have violated Section 9(b)
of the Act and Section 201.143 of 35 Ill. Adm. Code;
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any.
further violations of Section 9(b) of the Act and Section 201.143
of 35 Ill. Adm. Code;
6
4. Assessing against the Respondents a civil peiialty of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for each and every violation
of the Act and pertinent regulations, and an additional civil
penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of
continued violation;
5. Ordering the Respondents 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.
COUNT II
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLEAN AIR ACT: NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATERS
1-11. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs 1 through 8, paragraph 13, and paragraphs 17
and 18 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 11 of this Count II.
12. Section 9.1(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/9.1(d) (1) (2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
1. Violate any provisions of Sections
111, 112, 165 or 173 of the Clean
Air Act, as now or hereafter
amended, or federal regulations
adopted pursuant thereto.
7.
13. Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 USC
7312 (d), titled,
Emissions Standards,
provides in pertinent part
as follows:
1. The Administrator shall promulgate
regulations establishing emission
standards for each category or
subcategory of major sources and
area sources of hazardous air
pollutants listed for regulation.
14. Pursuant to Section 112(b) (1) of the CAA, 42 USC
7412(b) (1), the Administrator of the USEPA listed chromium
compounds as a hazardous air pollutant.
15. The USEPA’s regulations, titled,
National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories
(“NESHAP for Source Categories”), are found in Chapter 40, Part.
63 of the Code of Federal Regulation, 40 CFR Part 63.
16. On January 25, 1995, the Administrator published
national emission standards for chromium emissions from hard and
decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks,
60 Fed. Reg. 4963 (January 25, 1995)
17. These regulations, titled,
National Emission Standards
for Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks,
were codified at
Chapter 40, Part 63, Subpart N of the USEPA NESHAP for Source
Categories, 40 CFR 63.340
et seq.
.
18. Section 63.340(a) of the USEPA NESHAP for Chromium
Emissions From Har~dand Decorative Chromium Electroplating and
Chromium Anodizing Tanks (“Chrome NESHAP”), 40 CFR 63.340(a),
8
titled,
Applicability and designation of sources,
provides in
pertinent part as follows:
(a) The affected source to which the
provisions of this subpart apply is
each chromium electroplating or
chromium anodizing tank at
facilities performing hard chromium
electroplating, decorative chromium
electroplating, or chromium
anodizing.
19. Section 63.341(a) of the Chrome NESHAP, 40 CFR
63.341(a), titled,
Definitions,
contains the following
definition:
Hard chromium electroplating
or
industrial chrome electroplating means a
process by which a thick layer of
chromium (typically 1.3 to 760 microns)
is electrodeposited on a base material to
provide a surface with functional
properties such as wear resistance, a low
coefficient of friction, hardness, and
corrosion resistance. In this process,
the part serves as the cathode in the
electrolytic cell and the solution serves
as the electrolyte. Hard chromium
electroplating process is performed at
current densities typically ranging from
1,600 to 6,500 A/rn2. for total plating
times ranging from 20 minutes to 36 hours
depending upon the desired plate
thickness..
.
Small, hard chromium electroplating
facility
means a facility that performs
hard chromium electroplating and has, a
maximum
,
cumulative potential rectifier
capacity less than 60 million amp-hr/yr.
9
20. The tanks H.B.M. utilizes in its hard chromium
electroplating operations are hard chromium electroplating tanks,
as that term is defined in 40 CFR 63.341(a).
21. H.B.M.’s maximum cumulative potential’ rectifier
capacity is less than 60 million.amp-hr/yr. Therefore, H.B.M. is
a small, hard chromium electroplating facility, as that term is
defined in 40 CFR 63.34~(a).
22. The hard chrome electroplating tanks at the facility
are an affected source, as that term is defined in 40 CFR
63.340(a). Accordingly, from at least 1996, or a date better
known to Mandich, through the date of filing of this Complaint,
the provisions of Subpart N have applied and continue to apply to
Mandich and H.B.M.
23. Subpart A of the USEPA’s NESHAP for Source Categories
is titled
General Provisions.
Section 63.2 of Subpart A, 40 CFR
63.2, titled,
Definitions,’
contains the following definitions:
Existing source
means any affected
source that is not a new so,urce.
New source
means any affected source the
construction or reconstruction of which
is commenced after the Administrator
first proposes a relevant emission
standard under this part.
24. On information and belief, Mandich and H.B.M. commenced
construction of the hard chromium electroplating operation after
the Administrator first proposed emission standards for chromium
emissions from hard chromium electroplating. Therefore, HBM’s
10
plating operation is a new source, as that term is defined in 40
CFR 63.2.
25. Section 63.343(c) (1) of the Chrome NESHAP, 40 CFR
63.343(c) (1), titled,
Monitoring to demonstrate continuous
compliance: Composite.mesh-pad systems,
provides in pertinent
part as follows:
(ii) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test is required
to be completed under §63.7, except
for hard chromium electroplaters and
chromium anodizing operations in
California which have until January
25, 1998, the owner or operator of
an affected source, or group of
affected
,
sources under common
control, shall monitor and record
the pressure drop across the
composite mesh-pad system once each
day that any affected source is
operating. To be in compliance with
the standards, the composite mesh-
pad system shall be operated within
±1 inch of water column of the
pressure drop value established
during the initial performance test,
or shall be operated within the
range
.
of compliant values for
pressure drop established during
multiple performance tests.
26. On June17, 1997, H.B.M. conducted a performance test
to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP. At that time, a
compliant pressure drop value of 1 inch of water column was
established. To demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP on an
ongoing basis, H.B.M. was required to operate the CMP system
11
within ±1inch of water column of the value established during
the test.
27. On January 23, 2003, the Illinois EPA conducted an
inspection of the facility. Facility records reviewed by the
Illinois EPA inspector revealed that, from the fourth quarter of
1998 through the date of the inspection, the facility had
operated its CMP system at pressure drops 2 to 3 inches higher
than those allowed.
28. On May 29, 2003, H.B.M. conducted a new performance
test that established a pressure drop value of 2.4 inches of
water column.
29. From 1998 through May 29, 2003, Mandich and H.B.M.
failed to maintain the pressure dro~across the CMP within ±1
inch of water column as established in the June 17, 1997
performance test.
30. Mandich and H.B.M., by actions and omissions as
alleged herein, violated Section 63.343(c) (1) (ii) of the Chrome
NESHAP,’ 40 CFR 63.343(c) (1) (ii).
31. Section 63.342(c) (1) of the Chrome NESHAP, 40 CFR
63.342(c) (1), titled,
Standards for ‘hard chromium electroplating
tanks,
provides in pertinent part as follows:
During tank operation, each owner or
operator of an existing, new, or
reconstructed affected source shall
control chromium emissions discharged to
the atmosphere from that affected source
by not allowing the concentration of
12
total chromium in the exhaust gas stream
discharged to the atmosphere to exceed:
(i) 0.015 milligrams of total chromium
per dry standard cubic meter
(mg/dscm) of ventilation air (6.6 x
10-6 grains’ per day standard cubic
foot gr/dscf)
32. Mandich and H.B.M., as owners or operators of a new
affected source, are subject to the standards in paragraph (c) of
Section 63.342 and is required to control the facility’s chromium
emissions discharged to the atmosphere. As the facility’s tanks
constitute a new affected source,located at a small, hard
chromium electroplating facility, the facility must comply with
the emission limit of 0.015 mg/dscm set forth in 40 CFR
63.342(c) (1) (i)
33. By failing to, operate the CMP system within the
required pressure drop values within the range established in the
June 17, 1997 performance test, Mandich and H.B.M. emitted chrome
in excess of 0.015 mg/dscm from 1998 through May 29, 2003, or
dates better known to Mandich.
34. Mandich, ,and H.B.M. by actions and omissions as
alleged herein, violated Section 63.342(c) (1) (1) of ,the Chrome
NESHAP, 40 CFR 63.342(c) (1) (i)
35. Section 63.347(h) of the Chrome NESHAP, 40 CFR
63.347(h), titled,
Ongoing compliance status reports for area
sources,
provides in pertinent part a’s follows:
13
(1) The owner or operator of an
affected source that is located at
an area source site shall prepare a
summary report to document the
ongoing compliance status of the
affected source. The report shall
contain the information identified
in paragraph (g) (3) of this
section, shall be completed
annually and retained on site, and
made available to the Administrator
upon request. The report shall be
completed annually except as
provided in paragraph (h) (2) of
this section.
36.
Mandich and H.B.M. did not submit monitoring
reports to the Illinois EPA for calendar years 1997, 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001 or 2002 until May 14, 2003.
37.
Mandich and H.B.M., by failing to timely submit
H.B.M.’s monitoring reports, violated and continues to violate
Section 63.347(h) (1) of the Chrome NESHAP, 40 CFR 63.347(h) (1)
38. By violating provisions of the Chrome NESHAP, federal
regulations adopted pursuant to Section 112 of the CAA, Mandich
and H.B.M. violated Section 9.1(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/9.1(d) (1) (2002).
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfullyrequests that the Board enter an orderin favor of
Complainant and against Respondents, NED MANDICH and H.B.M.
ELECTROCHEMICAL COMPANY:
.
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter, at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
14
2. Finding that the Respondents have violated Section
9’.l(d)(l) of the Act and Sections 63.343(c) (1) (ii),
63.342(c) (1) (i) and 63.347(h) of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart N;
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section .9.1(d) (1) of the Act and Sections
63.343(c) (1) (ii), 63.342(c) (1) (i) and 63.347(h) of 40 CFR Part
63, Supbart N;
4. Assessing against the Respondents a civil penalty of’
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for each and every violation
of the Act and pertinent regulations, and an additional civil
penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of
continued violation;
5. Ordering the Respondents 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.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF OPERATING PERMIT CONDITIONS
1-45. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs 1 through 22 of Count I, and paragraphs 12
through 34 of Count II, ‘as paragraphs 1 through 45 of’this Count
III.
15
46. Condition 1(b) of H.B.M.’s Operating Permit No.
84120020 provides as follows:
Hard chrome electroplating tank(s) shall
not exceed the following limits’,’
pursuant to 40 CFR 63.342(c) (1):
Hard Chromium
Chromium Emissions
Plating Tanks
m~/dscm
Existing Larhe Tanks
, ‘
,
0.015
This limit is National Emissions
standard for Hard Chromium
Electroplating Tanks, 40 CFR Part 63
Subpart N and based on the maximum
annual cumulative rectifier capacity of
the hard chrome electroplating tanks
being greater than 60 million amp
-
hrs/year. An electroplating tank(s)
installed before December 16, 1993, is
considered as existing tank(s)
Compliance with the limit shall be
determined from initial performance
testing and ongoing compliance.
monitoring requirements, as required by
Conditions of this permit.
47. By failing to operate the CMP system within the
required pressure drop values as established by the June 17, 1997
performance test, Mandich and H.B.M. emitted chrome in excess of
0.015 mg/dscm from 1998 through at least March 25, 2001,. the date
H.B.M.’s operating permit expired, or dates better known to
Mandich.
48.
Mandich and H.B.M., by actions and omissions as
alleged herein, violated Condition 1(b) of H.B.M.’s Operating
Permit number 84120020.
16
49. Condition 11 of H.B.M.’s Operating Permit No..
84120020 provides as follows:
a. The Perrnittee shall submit ongoing
compliance status report documenting
the ongoing compliance status to the
Agency every six months.
.
If the
Permittee exceeds the emission
limits as indicated during
performance testing, ongoing
compliance status shall be submitted
on every quarter.
b. The ongoing compliance report shall
contain the following:
i. The company name and a,ddress of
the source performing hard
chrome plates.
ii. An identification of the
operating parameter(s) that are
monitored for compliance
determination,.
iii. The
‘
relevant
emission
limitation for the source, and
the operating parameter value,
or range of values, that
correspond to compliance with
this emission limitation as
specified in the notification
of compliance status.
iv. The beginning and ending dates
of the reporting period.
v. A description of the type of
process performed in the
source.
vi. The total operating time of the
source during the reporting
period.
17
vi. The capacity cumulative
rectifier actual expended
during the reporting period, on
a month-by-month basis, if the
Permittee limits the maximum
cumulative rectifier capacity
less than 60 million amp-hr/yr.
vii. A summary of operating
parameter values, including the
total duration of excess
emissions during the reporting
period as indicated by .those
values, the total duration of
excess emissions expressed as a
percent of the total, source
operating time during that
reporting period, and a
breakdown of the total duration
of excess emissions during the
reporting period into those
that are due to process upsets,
control equipment malfunctions,
other known causes, and unknown
causes.
viii. A certification by a
responsible officer that the
work practice standards
followed in accordance with the
operation and maintenance plan
for the source.
ix. If the operation and
maintenance plan was not
followed, an explanation of the
reasons for not following the
provisions, an assessment of
whether any excess emission
and/or parameter monitoring
exceedances are believed to
have occurred, and a copy of
the report(s) documenting that
the operation and maintenance
plan was not followed.
18
x. A description of any changes in
monitoring processes, or
controls since the last
reporting period.
xi. The name, title, and signature
of the responsible official who
is certifying the accuracy of
the report.
xii. The date of the report.
c. The Permittee shall report the’ results
for each monitoring device. However,
when one monitoring device is used as
a backup. ‘for the primary monitoring
device, the Permittee shall ,only
report the results from the monitoring
device used to meet the monitoring
requirements. If both devices are
used to meet these requirements, then
the owner o,r operator shall report the
results from ‘each monitoring device
for the relevant compliance period.
50. Mandich did not submit monitoring reports to the
Illinois EPA for calendar years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 or
2002 until May 14, 2003.
51. By failing to timely submit H.B.M.’s monitoring
reports, Mandich and H.B.M. violated Condition 11 of H.B.M.’s
Operating Permit number 84120020.
‘
52. As a person who, from March 25, 1996 through March 25,
2001, operated H.B.M.’s hard chromium electroplating equipment,
which is capable of causing or contributing to air pollution, in
violation of conditions imposed by the facility’s operating
permit, and from March 25, 2001 through September 10, 2003
19
operated the equipment without an Illinois EPA permit, Mandich
•and H.B.M. 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 Respondents, NED MANDICH and H.B.M~
ELECTROCHEMICAL COMPANY:
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter, at’which time the
Respondents will be required to answer’ the allegations herein;
2. Finding that the Respondents have violated Section 9(b) of
the Act and Conditions 1(b) and 11 of H.B.M.’s Operating Permit
number 84120020;
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section .9(b) of the Act and Conditions 1(b)
and 11 of H.B.M.’s Operating Permit number 84120020;
4. Assessing against the Respondents a civil penalty of Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for each and every violation of the
Act and. pertinent regulations,’ and an additional civil penalty of
Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of continued
violation;
5. Ordering the Respondents to pay all costs, including
attorney, expert witness and consultant fees expended by the
State in its ‘pursuit of this action; and,
20
6. Granting such other relief as the Board deems appropriate
and just.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the State of Illinois
MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/
Asbestos Litigation Division
Environmenta ureau
Assistant Attorney General
Of Counsel:
BRIDGET M. CARLSON
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau North
188 W. Randolph St., 20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-0608
21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the
Complaint was sent by certified mail with return receipt
requested to each of the persons listed on the Notice of Filing
on April 8, 2004.
BY:
~p~a~&tM~
BRIDGET M. CARLSON
It is hereby certified that the originals plus nine (9)
copies of the foregoing were hand-delivered to the following
person on April 8, 2004:
Pollution Control Board, Attn: Clerk
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
, .
BY:
___________
BRIDGEI~M. CARLSON
