ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
October
16,
19fl
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
J
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB
75—160
)
CENTRAL
CAN
COMPANY,
)
an Iowa Corporation,
)
Respondent.
I
Ms
•
Joan C. Wing, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for the
Complainant.
Mr. Joseph A
•
Tecson, Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF TEE BOARD
(by Mr. Zeitlin):
The Complaint in this matter was filed by the
Environmental Protection Agency,
(Agency), on April 15, 1975,
alleging that Respondent Central Can Company,
(Central),
had violated Section 9(b) of the Environmental Protection
Act,
(Act), and Rule 103(b) (2) of Chapter 2:
Air Pollution,
of the Pollution Control Board,
(Board), Rules and Regulations.
A hearing was held in this matter on August 26, 1975, at
which the parties entered into the record a Stipulation and
Proposed Settlement which forms the basis of our Opinion
and Order here.
Central operates a manufacturing facility at
3200 South Kilbourn Avenue in Chicago, at which it manufactures
steel pails and tinplate friction top cans for paint, waxes,
agricultural chemicals, oil products,
and other products.
Central also decorates and furnishes lithography for other
businesses which manufacture metal closures, such as screw
caps and bottle caps.
Central’s Chicago facility employs
approximately 291 employees.
As a part of its operations, Central conducts a
painting operation, which consists of spray paint booths,
filter air gun booths, baking ovens, and a roller coat
line.
The painting operation utilizes approximately
122,425 gallons of paint and coatings annually.
19—86
—2—
Under Rule 103(b) (2) (a) of Chapte.L
2;
Air
Pollution,
all painting operations using in excess of 5,000 gallons
of paint per
year,
(including thinner),
must obtain an
operating
permit from the Agency.
Central first submitted application for operating
permits
to the Agency on Narch
30,
1973.
The Agency
rejected that application for lack of succifient information.
Central did not submit the information requested by the
Agency,
and it did not resubmit a new permit application.
The Agency notified Central that it would need a permit on
several dates
in
1973 and 1974.
Central claims that its failure to submit a new permit
application
was the result of inadvertence.
During the
1973—74
time period,
Central was engaged
in
a movement of its
production equipment to
the facility at 3200 South Kilbourn,
and
was
in
the process of changing its management.
Central
was
also,
at that time,
in
the process of
installing
various
polLution
control equipment at its facilities, at the request
of the City of
Chicago.
Central~spresident testified that
he mistakenly believed
that
compliance with City of
Chicago
requirements was
all
that was
necessary
for the Central
facility
(R, 14—15).
Central has
now applied for a permit
(P.
15).
The
parties have proposed the following settlement:
HA.
Respondent,
Central Can, admits to
violating Rule 103(b) (2)
of Chapter
2,
Part
I
of
the
Air Rules and hence admits violating
Section 9(b)
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act since March
1,
1973.
B.
Respondent agrees that, except
in
its
operations which are
fume incincerated or
otherwise cleaned,
it will
obtain,
test and
utilize in
its paint and coating operations
organic
materials which are not photochemically
reactive as defined by Rule 205(f).
C,
Respondent agrees that it will,
except in
its operations which are
fume
incincerated
or
otherwise cleaned, utilize only the aforementioned
non-photochemically reactive organic materials in
its painting
and
coating operations by December 31,
1975.
—86
—3—
B.
Respondent agrees to
apply
for all
necessary operating
permits
for
its
manufacturing
facility
and
furnish
all
necessary
information
for obtaining said permits by December
31, 1975.
E,
It
is further agreed by and between
the
parties that
an agreed penalty for the
violation
listed above should be assessed against
the Respondent,
and
it is
further stated that
Central Can agrees to pay the State
of Illinois
Three Thousand
($3,000.00)
Dollars.
Payment of
that sum shall be upon the immediate receipt by
Respondent of the Board Order adopting this
Stipulation
and Settlement.
Respondent shall pay
the penalty of $3,000.00 to the State of Illinois
Control Program Coordinator
Division of
Air
Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706”
We feel that this
settlement
will
adequately resolve
the
issues
raised in the Agency~scomplaint.
Central
has apoarently made a good faith effort to comply with the
13oard~s
substantive
emission standards, and has spent in
excess
of
$750,000 on emission control equipment.
The
penalty of
$3,000 which Central has stipulated to will,
we
feel,
be
adequate.
This
Opinion constitutes
the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Respondent, Central Can Company,
is found to have violated Section 9(b)
of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
and
Rule
103(b) (2) (a)
of Chapter
2: Air
Pollution of
the
Pollution Control Board~s
Rules and Regulations
in the operation of
its Chicago painting facility without the
necessary operating permits,
since flarch
1,
1973,
19—87
—4—
2.
For the violation found above,
Respondent shall pay a penalty of $3,000.00,
payment to be made by certified check or
money order to:
Control Program Coordinator
Division of Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
3.
Respondent shall comply in all respects
with the proposed settlement set forth in the
accompanying Opinion.
I,, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby certify the above fOpinion and Order
were
adopted
on the
~
day
of
~
1975,
by
a
vote
of
_________
Mr.
Young
abstained.
F
Christan L. Mdff
Clerk
Illinois Polluti
Control Board
—88