C. Allegations of Noncompliance
FUTURE PLANS OF COMPLIANCE
2. If the Respondent fails to make any payment specified
C. Interest on Penalties
2. Interest on unpaid penalties shall begin to accrue from
3. Where partial payment is made on any penalty amount
Cease and Desist
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS’
RIGHT OF ENTRY,
RELEASE FROM LIABILITY
MOTION TO REQUEST RELIEF FROM HEARING REQUIREMENT
as follows:
2. Board Procedural Rule 103.300 provides, in relevant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

PCB 01-28

~ECEfl/E~

CLERK’S OFFICE

DEC

 2a04

STATE OF ILLINOIS

PoIlut~onControl

Board

V.

PLASTIC DECORATORS,

 INC.,

an

Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

(Air-Enforcement)

TO:

 Francis

X.

 Lyons

NOTICE OF FILING

Gardner,

 Carton

 & Douglas

191 N.

 Wacker Drive,

 Suite 3700

Chicago,

 Illinois

60606

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December

/7,

2004,

 we filed with the

Illinois Pollution Control Board a STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR

SETTLEMENT and

 a 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 ~&‘~Illinois

Environmental Bureau

188

W.

 Randolph

 St.,,

 20th Floor

Chicago,

 Illinois

60601

(312)

 814-3532

Christo~~ P.

Assistant Attorné~L~~~ra1

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

 r~rr~

(

2~14

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

STATE OF ILLiNOIS

PoIiut~onControl Board

Complainant,

PCB 01-28

v.

)

 (Air-Enforcement)

PLASTIC DECORATORS,

 INC.,

an

Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

STIPULATION M~DPROPOSAL 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,

 and Respondent, PLASTIC

DECORATORS,

 INC.,

 an Illinois corporation,

 do hereby agree to 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 further stipulate

that this statement of facts is made and agreed upon for purposes

of settlement only and that neither 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

(“Board”) order accepting same may be used in any future

enforcement action as evidence of

 a past adjudication of violation

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

 (“Act”)

 for purposes

of Section 39(i) and 42(h)

 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/39(i),

5/42(h) (2002)

 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.

 (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 on any

officer,

 director,

 agent, employee or servant of Respondent,

PLASTIC DECORATOR’S,

 INC.

 (“PDI”),

 as well as PDI’s successors and

assigns.

 PDI 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

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 Environmental Protection Agency

 (TiAgencyti),

 pursuant to

the statutory authority vested in her under Section 31 of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/31

 (2002)

2.

 The Agency is an 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,

 PDI,

is

 a corporation organized under the

laws of the State of Illinois.

B.

 Facility

 Description

Since at least 1980,

 Respondent has operated a plastic parts

manufacturing operation,

 located at 1330 Holmes Road,

 Elgin, Kane

County,

 Illinois.

 At this facility,

 PDI operates approximately 32

injection molding machines in which it makes plastic parts for the

automotive industry.

 PDI coats,

 labels and etches the parts at

this facility.

 PDI also operates a number of spray booths, infra-

red material dryers,

 pad print machines and laser machines.

C.

 Allegations of Noncompliance

3

1.

 Complainant contends that the Defendant has violated the

following provisions of the Act and Board Air Regulations:

Count

I:

 Construction of a Major Modification in

Violation of New Source Review’s Emission Control and

Offset Requirements

 Section 9.1(d)

 of the Act, 415 ILCS

5/9.1(d) (2002),

35

 Ill. Adm. Code 201.141 and 203.201;

Count

 II: Construction of Emission Sources Without a

Permit

 Section 9(b)

 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(b) (2002),

35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.142;

Count

 III: Operation of Emissions Sources Without

a

Permit

 Section 9(b)

 of the Act,

415

 ILCS. 5/9(b) (.2002),

35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.143.

Count

 IV: Construction of a Major Source in Violation of

New Source Review’s Pre-Construction Review

Requirements

Sections 9(b)

 and 9.1(d)

 of the Act, 415 ILCS

 5/9(b) and

9.1(d) (2002),

 35 Ill. Adm.

 Code 203.203(a) and

 (b);

Count V: Failure to Submit Annual Emission Reports

Section

 9(a)

 of the Act,

 415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002),

 35 Ill.

.Adm.

 Code 201.302, 254.201 and 254.202.

4

2.

 Additional Reported Noncompliance

During the pendency of this matter, orally and by letter of

April

 25, 2003 Respondent disclosed that it emitted volatile

organic materials

 (“VON”)

 in excess of the limits for its Group III

paint spray booths.

 Respondent emitted 48.05 tons of VON in 2002,

which is 15.7 tpy in excess of the VON limitation established by

Respondent’s emission limit in its Clean Air Act Permit Program

(“CAAPP”)

 permit.

 Plaintiff contends that the facts as disclosed

by Respondent constituted a violation of Section 9(a)

 of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002),

35

 Ill. Adm. Code 201.141,

 35 Ill. Adm.

 Code

203.201,

 203.301, and 203.302.

 In addition, the Respondent

violated Special Condition 1.1.6(a)

 of CAAPP Permit 02090019 and

Section

 9(b)

 of the Act,

 415 ILCS 5/9(b) (2002)

VI.

FUTURE PLANS OF COMPLIANCE

The Illinois EPA issued a joint construction and operation

permit to the Respondent

 on January

4,

 1999, with

 a revised Joint

Construction and Operating Permit issued on April

28,

 1999.

The

Respondent obtained CAAPP permit 02090019 on April 30,

 1999.

See

Attachment A.

 The permit contains emissions limitations that

prevent the Respondent’s facility from constituting a new major

source or major modification to

 a stationary source for Volatile

Organic Materials for specified groups of emissions units.

5

VII.

IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC RESULTING FROM NONCOMPLIANCE

Section 33(c)

 of the Act,

 415 ILCS 5/33 (c) (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

 charact.er

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.

 Complainant contends that the 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 and new source review

requirements.

 The permit process and New. Source Review

 (“NSR”)

program is the only method available for the State to identify

6

possible air pollution sources and their control and to ensure that

those sources will not contribute to or cause the deterioration of air

quality in Illinois.

 The public was also deprived of relevant

information due to the failure to timely file required reports.

In

addition,

 the Respondent allowed greater pollutant emissions from

one operating group than allowed by permit.

 The Respondent

contends that overall aggregate pollutant emissions from the

facility as a whole were less than the aggregate emissions

limitations for the facility.

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 the reduction of the emissions in

compliance with the Act, Board rules and permit requirements

is

both technically practical and reasonable.

5.

 From late 1995 through 1999 the Respondent took steps to

come into compliance.

 In. 1999 the Respondent received the air

permits necessary to achieve compliance with permit requirements.

Respon~.entreported additional noncompliance with VON emission

limits in 2002,

 but reported the noncompliance and took steps to

reduce the emissions to comply with the applicable permit limits.

7

VIII.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION

 42 (h) FACTORS

Section 42 (h)

 of the Act,

 415 ILCS

 5/42 (h) (2002), 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

 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

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:

1.

 Complainant contends that the Respondent was out of

compliance.with the construction and operating permit requirements

from 1984 until 1999.

 Complainant contends that Respondent was out

of compliance in that Respondent constructed a new major stationary

source and made major modifications to a stationary source without

first complying with the New Source Review requirements of 35 Ill.

8

Adm.

 Code,

 Part 203.

 Complainant contends that Respondent became a

major stationary source at

 least in 1992.

 Complainant contends

that Respondent was out of compliance with reporting requirements.

Respondent reported further noncompliance with VON emission limits

in 2002.

2.

 Respondent began

 its attempts to achieve compliance with

permit requirements

 in 1995 and achieved compliance with those

requirements

 in 1999.

 Parties agree that the Respondent made good

faith efforts to achieve compliance during that time period.

Complainant contends that the Respondent did not show diligence in

failing to prevent the additional reported noncompliance in 2002.

However,

 the Respondent did voluntarily report those violations

to

the Complainant.

3.

 Complainant contends that the Respondent may have

realized a small or modest economic benefit in the form of delayed

or

 avoided compliance costs

 from the period 1984 through at least

1995.

 Complainant contends that delayed or avoided costs include

the costs of demonstrating compliance for units required to have

permits and undertaking necessary measures to limit emissions below

applicable New Source Review thresholds.

 Respondent contends that

the economic benefit from delayed costs arising from the Additional

Reported Noncompliance

 (IV.C.)

 was negligible,

 in that it achieved

compliance by shifting production from Group III paint booths to

Group I paint booths in order to meet emissions limits for the

respective Groups rather than by installing additional controls or

9

reducing overall plant-wide emissions.

 The parties stipulate that

the penalty amount agreed to is greater than the total economic

benefit arising from delayed and avoided costs.

4.

 The parties, agree that the penalty amount agreed to 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 by the Respondent, other than those addressed ‘in this

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.

Ix.

TERMS

 OF• SETTLEMENT

A.

 Non-admission

The Respondent represen~sthat it has entered into this

Stipulation for the purpose of settling and compromising disputed

claims without having to incur the expense of contested litigation.

By entering into this Stipulation and complying with its terms, the

Respondent does not affirmatively admit the allegations of

violation within the Complaint,

 and this Stipulation shall not be

interpreted as including such admission.

B.

 Penalty

1.

 Respondent, PLASTIC DECORATORS,

 INC.,

 shall pay a

penalty of $75,000.00

 into the Environmental Protection Trust Fund.

The penalty shall be paid in the following manner:

a.

 First

payment

 $20,000.00 due within 30 days of

10

the .Board’s order accepting this settlement:

b.

 Second payment of $13,750.00 due 90 days from the

penalty payment due date in subparagraph a.;

c.

 Third payment of $13,750.00 due 90 days the penalty

payment due date in subparagraph b.;

d.

 Fourth payment of $13,750.00 due 90 days from the

penalty payment due date in subparagraph

c.;

e.

 Fifth

payment

 $13,750.00 due 90 days from the

penalty payment due date in subparagraph d.:

Payment shall be made by certified check or money order, 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 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 or money order shall also be sent

to:

Christopher

 P. Perzan

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 W.

 Randolph Street,

20th

Floor

Chicago,

 Illinois 60601

2.

 If the Respondent fails to make any payment specified

within.Section IX.B.l.

 of this Consent Order 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.

11

3.

 Respondent’s Federal Employees Identification Number

(“FEIN”)

is

 The FEIN number must be on the

certified check or money order.

 For issues relating to the payment

of the penalty, Respondent may be reached at the following address:

Q~977~

 6ec7~/’2~.~c~

/~o

/h~i~r

~

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 Defendant

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) (2002)

2.

 Interest on unpaid penalties shall begin to accrue from

the date the penalty is due and continue to accrue to the date

payment

 is received by the Illinois EPA.

3.

 Where partial payment

 is made on any penalty amount

that

 is due,

 such partial payment

 shall be first applied to any

interest on unpaid penalties then owing.

4.

 All interest on penalties owed the Plaintiff

 shall be

paid by certified check or money order payable

 to the Illinois

EPA for deposit

 in the EPTF at the above-indicated address.

The

name,

 case number,

 and the Defendant’s FEIN shall appear on the

face of the certified check

money

order.

copy

the

certified check or money order and the transmittal letter shall

12

be sent to:

Christopher

 P. Perzan

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 W. Randolph St.,

~

 Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

D.

 Cease and Desist

Respondent shall cease and desist from future violations

of

the Act and Board regulations and any permit applicable to the

Respondent,

 including but not limited to, those Sections of the Act

and Board regulations that were the subject matter of the complaint

and additional reported noncompliance as outlined in Section IV.C.1

and 2.

 of this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.

x.

COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS’

This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in no way affects

the Respondent’s responsibility to comply with any federal,

 state

or local regulations,

 including but not limited to the Act and

Board regulations.

XI.

RIGHT OF ENTRY,

In addition to any other authority,

 the Agency, its employees

and representatives, and the Illinois Attorney General, his agents

and representatives,

 shall have right of entry to PDI’s facility at

all reasonable times,

 for the purposes of conducting inspections.

13

In conducting any inspection of PDI’s facility,

 the Agency, ,its

employees and representatives, and the Attorney General, his agents

and representatives, may take any photographs or samples as they

deem necessary in order to conduct their inspection.

XII.

RELEASE FROM LIABILITY

In consideration of Respondent’s payment of a $75,000.00

penalty and its commitment to refrain from future violations

 of the

Act and Board regulations,

 Complainant releases, waives and

discharges Respondent from any further liability or penalties for

violations

 of the Act and regulations which were the subject matter

of the complaint herein and the violations disclosed by the

Respondent as stipulated to in Section IV.C.2, upon the payment of

all monies owed.

 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.

The

 remainder of this page

 is intentionally left blank.

14

WHEREFORE,

 Complainant and Respondent request that the Board

adopt and accept the foregoing Stipulation and Proposal for

Settlement

 as written.

AGREED:

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

ex rel.

 LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney General

 of the

State of Illinois

MATTHEW

J.

 DUNN,

 Chief

Environmental Enforcement

/

Asbestos Litigation Division

By:

~

Assistant Attorney General

Dated:

(i_h

~.f

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

PLASTIC

DECORATORS,

INC.

an Illinois corporation

By

:

/~/

~

Its

FEIN 3~~~7r/Y

Dated:

I:\PlasticDec\stipulatiori2.wpd

By

 B. SVOBODA

.ef Legal Counsel

Dated:

///lT,/O~Z

15

C~(’ ~ ED

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

~z

S OFFICE

172

PEOPLE

THE

STATE

ILLINOIS,

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Complainant,

)

PoIIut~on.Control Board

PCB

01-28

)

(Air-Enforcement)

PLASTIC

DECORATORS,

INC.,

Illinois

corporation,

Respondent.

MOTION TO REQUEST RELIEF FROM HEARING REQUIREMENT

NOW

COMES

the

Complainant,

PEOPLE

THE

 STATE OF ILLINOIS, by

LISA

 MADIGAN,

Attorney General of the State of Illinois,

and

requests relief from the hearing requirement in this case pursuant

to Section 31(c) (2)

 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

(“Act”),

415

ILCS

5/31(c).(2)

(2002),

and

Section

103.300

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

(“Board”)

Procedural

Rules,

Ill.

Adm.

Code

103.300.

support

thereof,

the.

Complainant

states

as

 follows:

Section

31(c)

(2)

the

Act

allows

the

parties

certain enforcement cases to request relief from the mandatory

hearing

requirement

where

the

parties

submit

the

Board

Stipulation

and

Proposal

for

Settlement.

Section

31(c)

(2)

provides

as

 follows:

Notice;

 complaint;

 hearing.

(c) (2)

 Notwithstanding

the

provisions

subdivision

(.1)

this

subsection

(c),

whenever

complaint

has

been

filed

behalf

the

Agency

the

People

the

State

Illinois,

the

parties

may

file

with

the

Board

stipulation and proposal for settlement accompanied by a

request

for

relief

from

the

requirement

hearing

pursuant to subdivision

 (1). Unless the Board,

 in its

discretion,

concludes

that

hearing

will

held,

the

Board

shall

cause

notice

of.

the

stipulation,

proposal

and

request

for

relief

publis,hed

and

sent

the

same

manner

required

for

hearing

pursuant

subdivision

(1)

 of this subsection. The notice shall

include a statement that any person may file a written

demand

for

hearing

within

days

after

receiving

‘the

notice.

 any person files a timely written demand for

hearing,

the

Board

shall

deny

 the request for relief

from

hearing

and

shall

hold

hearing

accordance

with the provisions

 of subdivision

 (1).

2.

 Board Procedural Rule 103.300 provides,

 in relevant

part,

follows

(emphasis

original)

Request

for

Relief

from

Hearing

Requirement

in.

State

Enforcement

Proceeding.

(a)

 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 proposed stipulation

and settlement accompanied by a request for relief from

the requirement of a hearing

 pursuant to Section

31(c)

(2)

the

Act

415

ILCS

5/31(c)

(2)

the

same

date

this

Request,

the

Complainant

filing a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement with Respondents

with

the

Board.

hearing

currently

scheduled

this

case.

WHEREFORE,

the.Complainant,

PEOPLE

THE

STATE

ILLINOIS,

LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney

General

the

State

Illinois,

respectfully

requests

relief

from

the

requirement

hearing

pursuant to Section 31(c) (2)

 of the Act.

Respectfully

submitted,

PEOPLE

THE

STATE

ILLINOIS,

LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney

General

the

State

Illinois’

BY:

CHRISTOPHER

PERZAN

Assistant

Attorney

General

Environmental

Bureau

188

West

Randolph

Street,

Suite

2001

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

(312) 814-3532

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CHRISTOPHER

PERZAN,

Assistant

Attorney

General,

certify

that

the

 ‘7

day

December,

2004,

caused

served

United

States

Mail,

the

foregoing

STIPULATION

AND

PROPOSAL

FOR

SETTLEMENT

and

MOTION

FOR

RELIEF

FROM

HEARING

REQUIREMENT

the

party

named

the

attached

Notice

Filing,

depositing

same

postage

prepaid

envelopes

with

the

United

States

Postal

Service

located

100

West

Randolph

Street,

Chicago,

Illinois

60601.

I~\Forms\Bdnotice.wpd