ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

4,

1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

PCB 74—477

HANDSCHY CHEMICAL COMPANY,

)

Respondent.

Steven Weiss, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA

John Harris, Attorney for Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Henss):

Handschy Chemical Company

is charged by the Environmental

Protection Agency with operating an air pollution source without

Agency permit from January

1,

1973

to December 17, 1974,

the

date of Complaint.

Such operation

is alleged to be a violation

of Rule 103(b) (2)

of the Air Pollution Control Regulations and

Section

9(b)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act~.

At the public hearing in this matter the parties submitted

a Stipulation of Fact in lieu of oral testimony.

No member of

the public testified at the hearing.

Handschy owns and operates a paint and ink manufacturing

facility

at

its Farac Oil and Chemical Division, Riverdale,

Cook County,

Illinois.

Equipment

at

this

facility

includes

varnish

cooking

vessels,

bail

mills

and.

storage

tanks

These

emission

sources

were

placed

in

operation

prior

to

September

2,

1971.

This

plant

produces

975,000

lbs.

of

ink

and

4,200~003

lbs.

of

varnish per year~ Emissions from the varnish

cooking

vessels are contro:Lied by two Venturi-type ~jet scrubbers~

On

August

ii,

1972

Respondent

requested

permit

applications

from

the

Agency

for

its

operation.

Some

two

months

later

Respondent

submitted

its

permit

application

to

the Agency.

This application

was

rejected

November

3,

1972

because the Company had failed

to

file

a

process flow diagram or its equivalent, had failed to

file

a compliance plan and progress completion schedu1e~and had failed

to file more than 15 other required documents.

16

—309

---

—2—

Handschy resubmitted its application for permit on

February 15,

1973 and it was rejected by the Agency on March

14,

1973.

This time the Company had failed to submit corporate

authorization for the signature on the p~rmitapplication,

an

adequate flow diagram and six other required documents.

Thereafter,for

a period in excess of

18 months,Respondent

did not file any other application or reapplication for an

operating permit.

On September 23,

1974 an Agency engineer visited

Respondent’s facility to discuss requirements

to obtain

a permit.

In

a

letter

dated

October

3,

1974 the Agency’s Region II Manager

notified

Handschy

of

certain

informational

requirements

which

were

to he met in a new permit application.

Respondent was also advised

that

the

Agency

was

considering

legal

action

for

certain

alleged

violations.

Three

weeks

later

Respondent

was

sent

another

“warning

letter” by the Agency which advised that correspondence within 14

days was required or the Agency would immediately initiate prose-

cution proceedings.

Respondent submitted its re-application for permit on

November 19,

1974 for which an operating permit was granted on

December

2,

1974.

Handschy

states

that

it was at all times

financially able to obtain a permit or variance and that the

permit was obtained without modification or replacement of any

existing equipment or addition of new equipment.

In its closing argument at the public hearing, Respondent

points out that it was diligent in its pursuit of

the

permit

from August 1972 to February 1973 after which

a “dormant period”

was entered.

Respondent believes that both parties are partially

responsible for the dormant period——Respondent for its inaction

and the Agency

for not contacting Respondent.

Respondent also claims it

is

a mitigating fact that the

Agency did not file its Complaint until after the permit had

been issued.

The fact that Handschy was able to secure the permit

without the addition of any equipment,

is said to be conclusive

proof that Handschy was not contributing

to any air pollution during

the time period involved.

Respondent believes that no monetary

p~na1ty should be imposed because of Respondent’s

acts of good

faith and “reasonable amount of diligence”

(R.

8).

This record clearly shows

that Handschy had full knowledge

of its lawful requirement to obtain an operating permit.

Efforts

to secure this required permit started over 4

1/2 months before

it was required to have such permit.

The record further shows

that Respondent’s initial applications were incomplete and that

16—310

---

—3—.

Handschy abandoned its efforts after two rejections.

The 18

month delay does not indicate diligence or any great concern

for compliance with the

law.

We find that Hancisehy was

dilatory and for approximately

1 1/2 years was

in deliberate

violation of the permit requirement.

The fact that no additional control equipment was required

when Handschy finally did obtain the operating permit does

indicate that there was compliance with emission standards.

This

is

a mitigating factor.

The Illinois Supreme Court has recently held that this

Board does not have authority to impose a monetary penalty for

punitive purposes and the imposition of a monetary penalty will

not be sustained unless it will aid in the enforcement of

the Act.

Southern Illinois Asphalt Company vs. Pollution Control Board,

~

de

where it appeared that the failure to obtain permit was inadvertent,

the Respondent was not dilatory or recalcitrant and had come into

compliance prior to the time the EPA commenced its prosecution.

We

impose a monetary penalty in cases

such as

this

one

as

an

aid

to

the enforcement

of

the

Act.

The

permit

program

is

crucial

for pollution control in Illinois.

If

an

emission

source

could

avoid

penalty by obtaining a permit at

any

future date then there

is no incentive

tc comply with essential deadlines.

The emission

source could delay filing

a permit application until. its omission.

was discovered by the Agency.

For

a

deliberate

omission

the

penalty

must

be

imposed.

The

Supreme

Court

implies

that

a

penalty

can

be

imposed

where

necessary

to

aid

enforcement

of

the

Act

and

where the Respondent has been dilatory

or

recalcitrant

as

Handschy

was

in

this

instance,

I a~

ir~

ons

merE

t

e~

t

LrC

~c

~r

ii

L

T~

tL’~

tinting

or

the

Board

that

mandscny

Cnemicaa

vioratec

Rule

1a3 (h

(2

of the Regu±ationsand Section

9(b)

of the ~ct from

$anuary

1,

1973

until December

2,

1974.

A civil penaLty in the amount of $500 is

appropriate.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Handschy

Chemical Company shall pay to the State of Illinois by April

31,

1975 the

sum

of

$500 as a penalty for the violations

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.

16—311

---

—4—

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the

bove Opinion and Order was adopted

this

L.~1~’

day of

-

,

1975 by a vote of ~

to_____