ILLINOIS
POLLUT~ON CONTROL BOARD
May 2, 1974
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
)
)
PCB 72—309
TRILLA
COOPERAGE,
INC.,
Respondent.
Dennis
R.
Fields, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of
tfte Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Francis
X. Riley, Attorney,
on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION MD ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
On July 26,
1972,
the Environmental
Protection Agency filed
Complaint
against Trilla Cooperage,
Inc.,
the owner and operator of a drum
reconditioning facility upon premises at 3201 South Millard,
Chicago,
County of Cook,
Illinois.
The Agency alleges that during the period beginning
on or before
October 28, 1971, and continuing at
least
to the date of Its Complaint,
Respondent operated its drum reconditioning ~facI1ittes
and equipment
in such a manner as
to violate Section 9(a)
of the Environmental
Protection
Act,
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
Ch.
ill
1/2, ~lO09(a),
1971), by causing,
threatening,
or allowing the discharge or emission of gaseous hydrocarbon solvents,
sodium hydroxide solution
and trisodium phosphate solution into the
environment in Illinois in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics
and duration as to be injurious
to human, plant, or animal
life,
to health,
or to property, and thereby causing or tending to cause air pollution
in Illinois, either alone or in combination with contaminants from other
sources.
More particularly the Agency alleges that drums are sprayed with
enamel
in
the
paint—spray
booths
and
are
dried
in
paint-baking
ovens,
that
this process results
in
the
emission
of
gaseous
hydrocarbon
solvents
into
the ambient air through stacks in the paint—spray booths and in the paint—
baking ovens
and that neither the paint-spray booths nor the paint—baking
ovens are controlled to prevent or reduce these aforementioned emissions.
12
—
181
-2-
The
Agency
further
alleges
that
closed-headed
drums
are
washed
in
a
chamber with
sodium
hydroxide
solution
and
trisodium
phosphate
solution,
that this
process results
in
the emission of sodium hydroxide solution
and
trisodium phosphate solution,
entrained
in
a steam plume,
into the
ambient air through stacks
in the
chamber,
and that the chamber
is not
controlled to prevent or reduce these aforementioned emissions.
Finally,
the Agency alleges that
the
emissions of hydrocarbon solvents,
sodium hydroxide solUtion,
and trisodium phosphate solution by Respondent
result
in,
without limitation, pungent and irritating odors, eye irritations,
damage
to mucus membranes,
atmospheric reactions with other elements
producing photochemical smog, or damage to property.
Public hearings were held
in
this matter on
May 31,
1973,
August 9, 1973
and August
10,
1973.
The
transcripts from the three days of proceedings
are
not numbered consecutively.
Therefore, citations to the transcript
of
~ay
31,
1973
will
be indicated
by the page number,
and citations to the
transcripts of August 9 and
10 will be indicated
by the page number
foil
owea by
a
(1).
Respondent has been:operatinq
the
subject facility since 1957LR.
5(i)j.
Trflia
operates from 7~30
a.m.
to
5:00 ~,n.,
five
days per week
R.
138
Residential
areas are
located
directly
to
the
north
and
west
of
Respondent
s
fsciiity.
A
few
light
industries and
businesses
are
located
to
the
south
~a
east
LR,
177
(1).
T~fty-f’ive
(55) gallon steel
drums
are
brought
to
the
plant
in
Respondents
trucks
and
trailers,
The
drums
are
both
open-headed
drums
c::vered with
a
lid
and
:;losed-neaded
drums
with
a
screw
cap
ER.
142.
The
drums
have
been
received
with
up
to
two
inches
of
residue
in
them
l~j.
The
open—headed
drums
had
crnta~nedsuch
materials
as
petroleum,
petro’eum
ny~~products
and
aerivatives
and
solvents
IR.
143;
6(l)J.
These
dr~imsma
be
stored
in
Triilats
,yard
for
up
to_nine
(9)
months
on
a
rotating
~:t:~ckinventory
before
they
are
reconditioned!
R.
l45~
At
Respondent~s
fsc~iity~ the
open—headed
and
c~osed-headeddrums
are
reconditioned
by
two
~:D~trate
orocesses
~R.19~
)j.
The
open-headed
drums
are
f~rst
~1aced
on
a
conveyor and sent to
s drum
incinerator
to
remove
the
outside
and
inside
coatings
from
the drum.
The
incinerator
has
a
chamoer
shout
6(1
feet
long
and
oroduces
a
gas—fired
me
i
F~e
oa~?~s
~o ~p
~i aci~
n~oan
a
terhurner
he
arterburner
been
used
by
Tnilla since ~7
~
19
160-161(1).
-3-
The open-headed drums then
go
to
a sandblaster and to a drum
straightener.
From the drum straightener,
the drums go to the
spray coating operation ER.
20(l)J.
Respondent uses five (5)
paint spray booths
to coat its open-headed drums R.
150.
The
booths
are 10 feet square.
The drum is placed between the man
spraying the drum and the back of the booth,
The man uses a spray
gun which
causes
a stream of enamel
to be shot towards the drums.
That portion of the material not adhering to
the drum is called
overspray.
These booths are equipped with filters located behind
the drums.
Behind the filter
is
a fan which pulls
the air through
the
booth
and
forces
it
out through
a stack through the roof to
the
atmosphere
R.
21,
161-162(11).
These types
of booths are standard
means of applying paint to
an object and are
in common usage
fR.
21-22(11).
The
booths
are
used
nine
(9)
hours
a
day
and
are
located
in
the
center
of
Responder~t’smain
bu~id~~g
R.
157-1583.
Respondent
sprays
in
excess
of
thirty
(30)
gallons
an
hour
of
enamel ER. 9(1)).
The enamel weighs
between 8 and 8.5 pounds
per
gallon
ER.
13(l)J.
The paint
is
an
aikyd enamel R.
l2(l)~,and
is
between 45
and 53
solvent, depending upon the color used ER.
12(l)J.
The drums
then go from the booths
to the paint bake ovens.
The
ovens are approximately 60 feet long.
They are gas fired.
The barrels
are moved continuously through the ovens ER.
l6l~. The ovens
have exhaust
stacks through the roof ER. 169(1),
The bake ovens evaporate the
solvent portion of the enamel
still
present
on the drums when they
enter the ovenLR.
30(1).
The closed-headed drums undergo
a different reconditioniny process.
The closed-headed
drums
are
first
sent
to
an
exterior
washer.
The
drums
pass
through
a
thirty-foot
long
chamber,
In
that
chamber,
the
drums
are
sprayed with
hot water and
a
heated
solution
to
remove
con-
taminantsR.
34-35,
170(1).
The solution
is
a
sodium
hydroxide
(caustic) detergent purchased from Koal Chemicals ER.
11,
34,
206(l)J.
Prior to August 1972, Trilla used
a sodium hydroxide solution which was
heated
to l90~,
It subsequentl,~purchased the Koal sodium hydroxide
solution which
is
heated
to l2O~. R.
179-1803.
The chamber has a stack
to the atmosphereR.
35(1)).
The closed-headed drums are then straightened and sent to
an interior
washer.
The
interior
washer
consists
of
ten
(10)
detergent
and
rinsing
tanks
where
contaminants
are
removed
from
the
inside
of
the
drums
LR,
170(1).
The drums
then go to
a
sandblaster,
to
a
paint
spray
booth
and to
a paint bake oven.
These booths and ovens
are very similar to
those used with the open-headed drums,
the only difference being that
the closed-headed paint spray booth has
a water wash as opposed to filters
ER.
44-46(1).
12
—
183
-4-
Between 108 and 135 pounds per hour of solvents are used in
Respondent’s painting operation.
This
is between 972 and 1215
pounds per dayR.
50-5l(l)J.
All of the solvents used
by
Respondent are emitted to the atmosphere f~’omRespondent’s plant,
primarily through stacks from the booths and the ovens R.
50,
24-26(1)3.
Respondent’s paint spray booths are controlled only by filters
or water washers R.
160; 45(1)
.
The purpose of the filter and the
water wash
is to
trap the solid portion of the enamel.
None of the
solvents is controlled by these devices
R.
21, 24-26, 45,
so(i)J.
There are no pollution
control devices
on the ovens ER.
170; 32(1)3.
The exterior washer used by Respondent emits detergent entrained
in the water vapor plume.
This water vapor with the entrained detergent
is emittedfrointhe exhaust stack of the washer
R.
36—37(1)
Seven citizens who reside in the vicinity of Respondent’s facility
testified at the hearings.
Their testimony was
to the effect that
obnoxious paint and/or detergent odors, allegedly emanating from
Respondent’s facility, were interfering with the enjoyment of their
lives and property.
A summary of their testimony fol1ows~
Mrs. Barbara J. Jones
(R.
7-41)
lives
in an apartment at 3200 South
Millard with her two children.
She is thirty-five years old, widowed
and has lived at that address for ten years.
Her home is located directly
across the street from Respondent.
She has been smelling paint odors
from Respondent’s facility since she has been
living there.
These paint
odors enter her home when
the wind blows
‘from Respondent’s direction.
Both she and her son frequently get headaches
from the paint odors.
The
paint odors last almost all
day.
She has noticed no change in the intensity
of the odors since has
lived
there.
Mrs. Tamara Harmon
(R.
41-55)
lives with her husband in their home
at 3153 South Millard.
They have lived there for twenty-three years.
Mrs. Harmon
is 63 years
old.
Mrs. Harmon has smelled paint and detergent
odors around her home.
Last summer, she smelled these odors every day.
The
o?tors frequently drove
her from her garden into her house.
She stated:
“It used to be so~badyou got to go in you can’t breathe” and “It’s
so
strong
I
have to go
in.
You choke and
it was
real strong.”
12
—
184
-5-
Mr.
George
L. Harmon
(R.
56-70)
is the husband of Tamara.
Respondent
is located directly south of their
home.
Mr. Harmon testified to
smelling obnoxious
detergent odors around his home.
He has smelled
this odor
in his home at times.
He smells
it when the wind
is from
the south.
This odor has driven him from his yard and garden and
forced him into his home.
While he testified that the detergent
odors have been less
intense, he still
characterized them as obnoxious.
Mrs.
Nada Panovich
(R.
70-88)
lives in an apartment building she
owns
at 3208 South Millard.
She lives
there with her husband and
two children,
ages 9 and
4.
They have lived there for 2-1/2 years.
Respondent
is
located to the east across the street.
Mrs. Panovich has
smelled a paint odor in and around her home since she moved in.
She testified that:
“Well, of course, you can
smell
it in your home.
You smell
it outside, you smell
it even
if you open up the windows.
If
my boys come from school you open the door and you smell
it
right away.
I can’t help that.”
(R.
75)
and
“It (the odor) makes you feel
like you don’t want to eat.
It
makes you feel
Like
you don’t have an açç~etite. You don’t fee.~
like you want
to do anything or nothing.
I don’t like
it.
You feel
like sometimes,
I can’t say yesterday,
but sometimes
it
is so bad that you feel
like you want
to’faint or something.
You feel
so weak, maybe it’s just me,
I don’t know.”
(R.
73-74)
Mr. Jerry Dukes
(R.
88-104)
lives
in
an apartment.at 3208 South
Millard with his wife and five children.
His
apartment
is
across the
street from Respondent.
He smells odors
from Trilla in his home every
day that
the
Respondent’s plant
is running.
His children have complained
to him about the odors.
When Mr.
Dukes
would work nights and sleep days,
the odors would disturb his sleep.
Mrs.
Valeri Strand
(R.
104—118)
lives with her husband in their
cottage at 3224 South Millard.
They have lived
there for~22years.
She
is 63 years
old.
She has smelled obnoxious odors whenever the wind
blew from Respondent’s direction for
the 16 years that Respondent has
been
there.
She
described
the
worst
odor
from
Respondent
as
a
kind
of
burnt
paint odor.
She testified that,
at times,
the odor
is so strong she could
not breathe.
The odors
give her headaches.
12
—
185
r
n
-
Mrs.
Helen
Smitka
(R.
118—136)
lives
alone
in
her house at
3220
South
Millard,
She
is
67
years
old
and
has
lived
in
that
house
for
49
years.
Mrs.
Smitka
retired
in
1967
and
does
housework
and
tends
her
garden.
She testified
that when
the wind blows from Respondent~sdirection
she gets
a paint odor~ The odor maKes her eyes tear, makes
it difficult
to breathe, and makes her sick~ Sometimes, the odor seeps into her home
and makes her sick.
The odor sometimes lasts
all
day.
The odors have
forced her to stop~workin her garden.
She testified that guests comment
on
the
odors,
Mr.
Steven Rosenthal,
an Agency engineer, testified that he
smelled
detergent odors downwind of the exterior washer and paint odors downwind
of the central
part of the plant during his
investigation
R~
36,
61(1)
Respondent~switness. George Zarem, who
SuppIles
paint
to
Respondent,
testified
to
the effect that the
“paint~
odor complained
of
could not be
attributed
to the paint
solvents
emitted from Respondent~sfacility because
the odor of paint solvent
is milder and different from the characteristic
odor of
paint
R~216-222(1)
.
We do
not
find this position convincing~
This Board
is satisfied that,
from the testimony presented and the
physical
facts
adduced, Respondent~soperation constitutes
an odor nuisance
and
a continuing violation of Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection
Act in that the gasses emitted from Respondent~sfacility are of such quantity
and characteristics
as to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life
and property of
those persons
in
the vicinity.
Estimates of the cost
of compliance
to Respondent range
to $263,500
R.
55-57(1)
.
Nevertheless,
our Order will require Respondent to submit
a
compliance schedule for quick abatement of the odor nuisance.
Respondent,
in its Brief, vigorously argues
that to speak
of
eliminating
the
odors
at such
a
cost
is
“offensively punitive~and tantamount to
confiscation.
(Respondent~sBrief,
p.
10).
Respondent~sattention
is
directed
to
Rule
205(f)
of
the
current
Air
Pollution
Regulations.
The
provisions
of
Rule
205(f)
are
now
applicable
to
Respondent~soperation and
to
all
similar
operations throughout Illinois;
compliance
is mandatory; exceptions arise
only by individual variance proceedings before this Board.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law
of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution
Control
Board that
Respondent, Trilla
Cooperage,
Inc., shall:
1.
Within 60 days of the date of this Order file with the Agency
a statement detaili’ng the abatement procedures it intends to implement in
order
to achieve compliance with the Act within one year.
Respondent shall
obtain
all necessary permits pursuant thereto.
12
—
186
—7—
2.
Pay to the State of Illinois $l5OO~OOwithin
35 days from
the date of this Order.
Penalty payment by certified check or money
order payable to the State of Illinois shal’~ be made to:
Fiscal
Services
Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchifl
Road, Springfield, Illinois
62706.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
certify that the above ODinion and Order was adopted on this
__________
day of________________
1974 by a vote of
~
12
—
187