ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 14, 1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 75—285

SAMUEL BINGHAM COMPANY,

a Delaware corporation,

Respondent.

Mr.

 Larry

B.

 Blackwood, Assistant Attorney General, appeared

£or Complainant

Mr.

 Harvey M.

 Sheldon,

 (Plunkett, Nisen, Elliott

 & Meyer)

appeared for Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

Mr.

 Young):

This matter comes before the Board on the Amended Complaint

filed

 October

 10, 1975 by the Environmental Protection Agency

charging that Respondent Samuel Bingham Company operated from

June

1,

 1973 until the date of the filing of the Amended Complaint

its Blanket and Roll Preparation Departments

without

operating

permits in violation of Rule 103(b) (2)

 of Chapter

2:

 Air Pollution

Control Regulations and in further violation of Section

 9(b)

of

the Environmental Protection Act.

Hear~~gs were

held

this

matter on November 26,

 1975 and

March30,

 1976.

 At the close

of

Complainant’s case in chief Respondent

 filed a Motion to Dismiss

 which Motion the Board ruled on February

11,

 1976 would be taken

with the case.

 That Motion is hereby denied.

rphe

Sdmue

B~nqham

Company

IH~rIUt~ic~

nr e~-~

r~iIIer

c~overod

rollers, polyurethane covered ro.lers,

qelatine

Covered

rollers

and

i Lhoqraph~c

blankets.

These

prodiic

Used

inn r i l~y

in the printing industry, but are also used in steel mills,

tex-

tile mills, and general industrial uses wherever

 a rubber coated

roller might be useful such as conveyor belts.

In the Roller Preparation Department steel cores are prepared

by either salvaging the steel case from a used roller or starting

with

 a new shaft and shot blasting either to clean and provide a

proper surface for adhesions.

 If a used roller

 is used, the old

rubber is removed by a process described by Respondent

 as burning

24

—

7

off and/or stripping mechanically.

 (Comp.

 Exh.

#1,

p.

7.)

Re-

spondent then continues

 in its description of the operation by

 stating that smoke from the induction burn—off station is captured

by

 a wet scrubber.

 It is this induction heating machine and the

emissions produced thereby with which Count II of the Complaint

is concerned.

On July

 12, 1973,

 Respondent filed an application with the

Agency for an operating permit for

its

Roll Preparation Depart-

ment.

 The Agency notified Respondent that the Agency considered

the application inadequate because it

did

not contain a flow

diagram,

 an Episode Action Plan,

the

process

weight rate for the

induction burn—off furnace

 (induction heating machine)

 or actual

test data or calculation supporting emissions from the scrubber.

(Comp. Exh.

 #2,)

On January 28,

 1974 the Respondent again resubmitted its

application for the Roll Preparation Department with the informa-

tion which Respondent believed had been requested by the Agency.

The Agency notified Respondent in a letter dated February 25,

 1974,

that this application was likewise considered inadequate because

the Agency still desired actual test

data

or calculation showing

that the scrubber efficiency

is

 93 percent

at

 .1 micron particle

size.

 Just~ificationfor the alleged inlet grain loading to the

scrubber was also requested.

 Respondent~sVice President in charge

of the permit application and the officer

to

whose attention

the

letter was sent testified that he was unaware of the existence of

this letter prior

 to the filing of the Complaint

 in this matter

(R.

 160).

 It was never established

at the

hearing whose signature

appeared on the postal receipt.

 (Comp.

 Exh,

 #3.)

No further correspondence regard

 this permit occurred

between the parties until February

27,

 ~975 when the Agency in-

formed Respondent

 in an Official Legal Notice that no operating

permit was in existence.

 Respondent was informed that unless

satisfactory action was taken in response to the Notice,

the

Agency would immediately institute enforcement proceedings.

(Resp.

 Exh.

 #14.)

After receipt of the Official Leqni

Notice

oC

 F’ebruary 27,

1975,

 Respondent’s Plant Engineer,

 contacted Complainant’s

Chicago Regional Manager and was advised that certain information

requested by the Agency necessary to the processing of the permit

application had not been received and that the Official Legal

Notice had been issued as a result thereof.

 In reply

 to the

Notice, which requested response within 14 days, Respondent’s

Plant Engineer on March

 5, 1975 by letter

 (Resp.

 Exh.

 #5) advised

the Agency that two of the three items

 of information allegedly

missing had been in fact submitted to the Agency by certified mail

on January

28,

 1974, over a year before the Notice and that the

third item would be submitted after Respondent had received a

visit from an Agency field engineer who was to determine the cx—

24

—

8

—3—

tent of certain test data the Agency required.

 An internal

memorandum of the Agency dated 4/11/75

 (Resp.

 Exh.

#3)

 acknowledges

that the material had been furnished as requested and that Respon-

dent should be asked to request the reopening of his prior permit

applications.

 No such request was made of the Respondent;

the

record indicates no further correspondence by the Agency or any

notification

 to Respondent that Respondent was required to request

that the permit application be reopened before the Agency would

take action to consider the permit application

 information sub-

mitted to them over a year previously.

Without notifying Respondent that any of its actions were

considered to he unsatisfactory, the Agency filed this enforcement

action on July

24,

 1975.

 After the filing of this action Respondent

continued its attempts

 to supply the Agency the requested informa-

 tion and provide the Agency with an understanding of the Roll

Preparation operation.

 It should be noted that no additional pollu-

tion control equipment was required and that the operation is carried

on today under an Agency permit in the same manner as when the

application was

 first submitted.

On the basis of these facts the Board finds

 that Respondent

operated its Roll Preparation Department without the required

operating permit

 in violation of Rule 103(b) (2)

 and Section 9(b)

of the Act.

 The Board rejects Respondent’s argument that the

permit was issued by operation of law on the theory that the

Agency had all necessary information before

 it in February 1974

and therefore the application should not have been found to be

inadequate at that time.

 The Board believes that the Agency

letter of February 25,

 1974 did ask for information and supporting

data different from and in addition to t~hatalready supplied to

the Agency in January of 1974.

 While~~~~

 Ls certainly true that

the application

 (Comp. Exh.

#1,

p.

 30a)

 does provide

 a calculation

purporting to provide the emission rate,

 this calculation is

based on the premise that the scrubber is 92—93

 efficient.

The

Board believes the Agency was correct

 in requesting Respondent

to support this alleged efficiency by test data and the February

25,

 1 ()74

 letter war; intended

 to ncconp

1

 I s1~

~) I

qna

I

rfl1e

 a violaLion

doeS

 no L

rv

u

re the

 pCfldI Ly

be assessed in every case,

 however, and the I3oard believes that

to be the case with this particular permit violation.

 With the sole

exception of the February 25, 1974 Agency letter,

 the Board finds

that Respondent consistently responded

 to all Agency inquiries and

letters.

 Respondent’s failure to reply to the February 25,

1974

letter is inconsistent with its otherwise prompt responses

 to all

other Agency correspondence, and for this reason the Board accepts

Respondent’s contention that the letter was never seen by responsi-

ble officers in the employ of Respondent.

 It has not gone unnoticed

24

—

—4—

that the original permit application was misleading in its descrip-

tion of the induction heating process and the Board believes that

any lack of understanding that existed at the Agency was primarily

the result of the description of the process

 as furnished by the

Respondent.

 Thus, while Respondent certainly was not without fault

in regards

 to the entire permitting process, Respondent nonetheless

exhibited a willingness

 to cooperate with the Agency and did so

consistently throughout this period.

 Respondent continued to co-

operate with the Agency after the Official Legal Notice of February

27,

 1975, and there is no evidence in the record supporting an

opposite finding.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Board does not be-

lieve that any environmental goal would be furthered by the assess-

ment of a penalty on Count

 I of this case.

Count II of the Complaint is concerned with the Blanket De-

partment wherein a layer of cloth has a rubber coating applied

with subsequent vulcanizing in a steam autoclave.

 Toluene was

used during the time frame of the Complaint

 to pretreat the rubber

stocks and was the reason for the permit difficulty in this depart-

ment.

The application for an operating

permit

for this department

was not obtained in July of 1973 because Respondent was unable to

show compliance with Rule 205(f)

 of the Air Rules.

 On December

20,

 1973, Respondent filed a Petition br Variance with the Board

seeking relief from the application of Rule 205(f),

 (PCB 75—556).

In their Recommendation in this matter, the Agency recommended the

grant of the variance and stated that

“all

of Petitioner’s appli-

 cable permits appear to be in order,”

 (Ai.

 Rec,

 PCB 75-556,)

 This

variance was granted by the Board and

 ovember of

 1974,

 Respondent

sought an extension thereof.

 On Febru~t

 l4~,1975,

 the Board

granted Respondent the requested variance extension conditioned on

the fact that Respondent was to obtain all necessary construction

and operating permits.

 (PCB 74—426,

 15 PCB 507.)

 Respondent’s

officers testified that this condition was construed by them to

mean

 the t

 pe rm

 I t;s would

 r(UU

 I red

I

 a hyd

roce

rbori

 recovery system

was installed

(R.

 172,

 182,

 183)

 and that they were unaware that

this

cond~

t

ion

was intended

Lo

appi y

Lo

 L 110

need

for

dtl

 operating

permit for the Blanket Department.

 Simply stated, Respondent be-

lieved it did not need an operating permit for the Blanket Depart-~

ment while operating the department under the terms

of

 a variance

granted by the Board.

While Respondent’s belief

is

 in error, the Board does not be-

 lieve any purpose would be served by assessing

 a penalty

 for this

permit violation which the Board finds herein.

 With the exception

of the general admonition in the Board Order

 in the variance ex-

tension, there

 is no evidence

 in the record that Respondent was

—

10

—5—

informed of the need for the operating permit after the variance

was granted.

 While the Board finds a violation existed, the

Board does not find a penalty appropriate.

 The Board does not

perceive any reason why Respondent would file two successive

variance petitions and yet not apply for an operating permit ex-

cept to conclude, and the record supports this conclusion,

 that

Respondent believed the variance grant eliminated

 the need for

the permit.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and con-

clusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Respondent,

Samue.

Bingham

Company,

 found to have operated

its Roll Preparation and Blanket Departments

 in violation of Opera-

ting Permit Requirements of Rule 103(b) (2)

 of the Air Rules and

hence

 in further violation of Section 9(b)

 of the Act.

 Respondent

now has operating permits

 for these departments and shall operate

 these departments

 in accordance with all permit conditions.

IT

 IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan

 L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Con-

trol Board

 hereby certify t e above Opinion and Order were adopted

on the

/‘~“

 day of

‘~

 1976 by a vote of

_____

Christan

 L. Moffett~~erk

Illinois Pollution ~tro1

 Board

24

—

11