ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 31, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

PCB 72—391

GENERAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER CORP.,

)

Respondent.

GENERAL

FIRE

EXTINGUISHER CORP.,

Petitioner,

vs.

PCB 73—199

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

Douglas T. Moring, Attorney for the EPA

Irving Friedman, Attorney for General Fire Extinguisher Corporation

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Heriss)

General Fire Extinguisher Corporation manufactures fire

extinguishers in Northbrook, Illinois.

The EPA filed an enforcement

action alleging that the company had discharged contaminants into

the air in violation of Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations

Governing the Control of Air Pollution and Section 9(a) Environ-

mental Protection Act.

The violations allegedly occurred between

July 15, 1971 and September 29,

1972.

The Agency also claimed that in June 1972

the Company installed

air pollution control equipment without first obtaining a permit

from

the

EPA.

General Fire Extinguisher filed

a petition in which they request

variance

from

Rule 3-3.111 until October 15,

1973r

the anticipated

completion date for installation of

a new emission control process.

The Agency has recommended that the variance be denied.

B

667

---

—2—

The enforcement and variance cases will be considered together

in this Opinion.

General Fire Extinguisher states that the manufacture of fire

extinguishers includes a charging of the casing with dry powder

and that during this process some powder ordinarily escapes to

the atmosphere.

The Company alleges that in 1968 it began experi-

menting with methods of preventing

this

loss of powder.

Control

at that time included a cyclone and some dust collectors.

The

Company determined that better results would be obtained by

enclosing this material completely within a pneumatic conveying

system rather than the use of a conventional dust collecting

system.

This approach, which the Company calls

~revolutionary”

required custom designing

(over 4000 hours of engineering time)

and involved a greater delay in bringing the system to completion.

Death of the Company Chairman in 1971 and changes in personnel

resulted in further delay.

New management apparently had problems

in funding the one-half million dollar cost of the project.

Part of the system for handling bulk quantities

of bicarbonate

of soda became operational in August 1972.

The system, when

completed,

will use six bag houses.

It is expected that the

entire system will be operational by October

15, 1973.

On June

6,

1972 the plant was inspected by an EPA surveillance

engineer.

Company officials informed the investigator that the

annual consumption of sodium bicarbonate was 2,500

tons and that

2

of its production was lost.

From this it was determined that

24.5 lbs.

per hour was lost during processing.

Of this amount

approximately

16 lbs. per hour was being collected by control

equipment or was settling to the ground.

The Agency calculated

that the plant was

then emitting 8.50 lbs.

per hour of sodium

bicarbonate to the atmosphere.

Under Rule 203(a) of Chapter

2,

Part II of the Regulation the allowable emission rate for Respondents

operation is 2.95 lbs. per hour.

The Company also presented

a process weight calculation of its

particulate emissions.

The Company calculated that it was emitting

1.5

lbs. per hour to the ambiant air and was not in violation of

the Regulation.

The defense witness who made these calculations

had used an emission factor applicable

to a plant manufacturing

sodium bicarbonate.

General Fire Extinguisher does not manufacture

sodium bicarbonate.

We believe that the Agency calculation based

upon information gained from officials of General Fire Extinguisher

i

more accurate.

We find that Respondent General Fire Extinguisher Corporation

did violate the provisions

of Rule 3-3.111 during its operation

8— 668

---

—3—

between July

15,

1971 and September

29,

1972.

No members of

the public appeared.

There ~s no testimony in the record

regarding the impact of these emissions upon the community.

For

past violations we will assess

a monetary penalty

in the amount

of

$1,000.

There was no proof of the alleged permit violation.

Therefore,

that portion of the Complaint which charged Respondent with in-

stalling equipment without

a permit shall be dismissed.

We see nothing to be gained by denying the variance petition.

The Agency has stated that the system which will be completed

by October

15, 1973 will effectively reduce Petitioner’s particulate

emissions to the Standard set forth in the Rule.

Under this method

control is achieved by using a vacuum system for the transport of

the powder.

From the tank cars the powder is taken by air pressure

through a pneumatic hose into

a silo.

The tankers are unloaded at

a rate of 20,000

lbs. per hour using 520 cubic feet per minute of

air.

The air is then discharged to the atmosphere through a bag

house,

This control equipment is said to have

a 99.6

efficiency.

The Agency agrees that this system will bring the Company into

compliance, however,

the Agency is also of the opinion that the

method is not revolutionary and that the Company took too much

time in putting

it into operation.

Also the Agency states that this control system does not yet

reduce emissions coming from the filling stations.

Emissions

still occur when the fire extinguishers are filled with powder

by gravity from hoppers.

These emissions are principally sodium

bicarbonate.

Some mono ammonium

phosphate and potassium bicarbonate

are

also emitted.

However,

these filling stations will be hooded

and closed with emissions going to a bag house.

When the system

Is

completed,

emissions will he about 0.24

lbs. per hour.

Total

cost will

be $400,000

to $500,000.

The Agency recommends denial of

the variance because of its

belief that the Company delayed unnecessarily in installing the

control equipment.

That is one of the factors which we consider

in imposing a $1,000 monetary penalty.

However, with both an

enforcement and variance ca~sebefore us, we see no reason to

leave open the possibility of further prosecution for emissions

of this type during this construction period.

The Agency has

had

its opportunity to present a full

case and the Company is

now

entitled to assurance that there will not be a second

prosecution

during

this

construction

period

for

emissions

which

are

ci

the

same

caliber.

Therefore,

the

variance

will

be

granted

until

October

15,

1973.

8

—

669

---

—4—

ORDER

It

is ordered that:

1.

Respondent General Fire Extinguisher Corporation

shall pay to the State of Illinois by September 15,

1973 the sum of $1,000 as a penalty for its past

violations of Rule 3-3.111 as found in this proceeding.

Penalty payment by certified check or money order

payable to the State of Illinois shall be made to:

Fiscal Services Division, Illinois EPA,

2200

Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706.

2.

General Fire Extinguisher Corporation is granted

a variance from the provisions of Rule 3-3.111 of

the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control

of Air Pollution until October 15, 1973.

3.

General Fire Extinguisher Corporation shall cease

and desist from its violations of Rule 3-3.111 of

the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of

Air Pollution on October 15, 1973.

4.

General Fire Extinguisher Corporation

is adjudged

not guilty on the charge that it installed equipment

without a permit in violation of Section

9(b)

of

the Environmental Protection Act.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this

J1~

day of July,

1973 by

a vote of

~/

to

C~

8

—