ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 17, 2005
     
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
     
    Complainant,
     
    v.
     
    INTERMATIC INCORPORATED, a
    Delaware corporation,
     
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 04-13
    (Enforcement - Air)
     
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.J. Melas):
     
    On July 28, 2003, the Office of the Attorney General, on behalf of the People of the State
    of Illinois (People), filed a nine-count complaint against Intermatic Incorporated (Intermatic).
    See
    415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2004); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204. The People allege that Intermatic
    violated several provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) and Board rules (415 ILCS
    5/9(a) and (b), 9.1(d)(1), 39.5(6)(a) and (b) (2004); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.142, 203.201,
    203.203(a) and (b), 205.150(c), 205.205(a), 205.720, 218.105(d)(2)(A)(iii)) by way of operating
    five sheet-fed offset printing presses.
     
    The People further allege that Intermatic violated these provisions by: (1) failing to
    obtain a construction permit for any of the five presses; (2) failing to modify a Clean Air Act
    permit before operating the fifth press; (3) failing to comply with Emission Reduction Marketing
    fication to a source (the fifth press) without
    complying with New Source Review requirements; (5) failing to comply with volatile organic
    material emissions limitations; (6) failing to comply with idling emission limitations; (7) failing
    to properly maintain and operate a carbon adsorber; (8) failing to submit idling emission limit
    exceedance reports and compliance certifications; and (9) failing to submit annual compliance
    certifications. The complaint concerns Intermatic’s facility located at 7777 Winn Road, Spring
    Grove, McHenry County, where it manufactures electrical items such as low voltage lighting,
    professional lighting, photo controllers, surge suppressor strips, and timers.
     
    On October 11, 2005, the People and Intermatic filed a stipulation and proposed
    settlement, accompanied by a request for relief from the hearing requirement of Section 31(c)(1)
    of the Act (415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2004)). This filing is authorized by Section 31(c)(2) of the Act
    (415 ILCS 5/31(c)(2) (2004)).
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.300(a). The Board provided notice of
    the stipulation, proposed settlement, and request for relief. The newspaper notice was published
    in the Northwest Herald on October 14, 2005. The Board did not receive any requests for
    hearing. The Board grants the parties’ request for relief from the hearing requirement.
    See
    415
    ILCS 5/31(c)(2) (2004); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.300(b).
     
    Section 103.302 of the Board’s procedural rules sets forth the required contents of
    stipulations and proposed settlements. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.302. These requirements include
    stipulating to facts on the nature, extent, and causes of the alleged violations and the nature of
    Intermatic’s operations. Section 103.302 also requires that the parties stipulate to facts called for
    by Section 33(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/33(c) (2004)). The People and Intermatic have satisfied
    Section 103.302. Intermatic neither admits nor denies the alleged violations but agrees to pay a
    civil penalty of $30,957. In addition to the civil penalty, Intermatic agrees to undertake a
    supplemental environmental project (SEP). Intermatic has agreed to reduce its penalty demand
    of $90,000, or 70%, exclusive of alleged economic benefit of noncompliance, in recognition of
    the performance of the SEP.
     
    Pursuant to the stipulation and proposed settlement, Intermatic must replace the
    halogenated solvent trichloroethylene degreaser it currently uses with the non-halogenated
    solvent, Durr Universal Model 81C. According to the stipulation and proposed settlement, the
    SEP will significantly reduce the volatile organic material (VOM) and hazardous air pollutant
    emissions from the facility. Intermatic estimates the reduction in VOM emissions of at least nine
    tons per year. The Board accepts the stipulation and proposed settlement.
     
    This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
     
    ORDER
     
    1. The Board accepts and incorporates by reference the stipulation and proposed
    settlement.
     
    2. Intermatic Incorporated (Intermatic) must pay a civil penalty of $30,957 no later
    than December 2, 2005, which is the 14th day after the date of this order.
    Intermatic must pay the civil penalty by certified check, money order, or
    electronic funds payable to Environmental Protection Trust Fund. The case
    number, case name, and Intermatic’s social security number or federal employer
    identification number must be included on the certified check or money order.
     
    3. Intermatic must send the certified check or money order to:
     
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    P.O. Box 19276
    Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
     
    Intermatic must send a copy of the certified check, money order, or record of
    electronic funds transfer and any transmittal letter to:
     
    Christopher P. Perzan
    Assistant Attorney General
    Envrionmental Bureau
    188
    W.
    Randolph
    Street, 20th Floor
    Chicago,
    Illinois
    60601
     
    Maureen
    Wozniak
    Assistant
    Counsel
     
      
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
     
      
    1021 North Grand Avenue East
    P.O.
    Box
    19276
    Springfield,
    Illinois
    60294-9276
     
    4.
    Intermatic must begin implementation of the supplemental environmental project,
    in accordance with the stipulation and proposed settlement, on or before
    December 2, 2005, which is the 14th day after the date of this order.
     
    5.
    Penalties unpaid within the time prescribed will accrue interest under Section
    42(g) of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/42(g) (2004)) at the rate
    set forth in Section 1003(a) of the Illinois Income Tax Act (35 ILCS 5/1003(a)
    (2004)).
     
    6.
    Intermatic must cease and desist from the alleged violations.
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
    Section 41(a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board orders may
    be appealed directly to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days after the Board serves the
    order. 415 ILCS 5/41(a) (2004);
    see also
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906, 102.706.
    Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois
    Appellate Court, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 Ill. 2d R. 335. The
    Board’s procedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final
    orders may be filed with the Board within 35 days after the order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    101.520;
    see also
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, 102.700, 102.702.
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above opinion and order on November 17, 2005, by a vote of 4-0.
     
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top