ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 7,
1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
PCB 73—323
LAFLIN SALVAGE CO., INC.,
Respondent.
Mr. Frederic
j,
m~tin,
Assistant
Attorney General, on
behalf of complainant;
Mr. John nickley, Jr., Attorney, on behalf of
Respondent.
oPTNIO~ AND ORDER
OF
THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
A
Complaint was filed by the Environmental
Protection
Agency
(hereinafter Agency) against the Laflin Salvage
Cpam~~
(hereinafter
Respondent)
on August
6,
1973. The
Reepordent
owns and operates a scrap
metal
salvage
operation
locctec? in
the City of
Chicago.
CPa Complaint alleges:
1. That
from on or about
August
24,
1971
and con-
tinuing every day
of
operation
tb
the filing of the Complaint
herein, and
particularly including, but
not
limited to on
or about August 25, 1971 and December
29,
1971,
Respondent
has conducted
said
scrap metal salvage operation by open
burning
in
violation of Section 9(c) of the Act, Chap.
iiird/2,
111,
Rev. Stat.,
§1009(c)
(1971).
2, That
on September 21, 1972, Respondent conducted
said scrap metal
salvage operation in a manner that has
caused,
suffered
and
allowed the emission, into the open
air,
of smoke, the
appearance, density
or
shade
of
which was
No.
2
or
darker
of
the Ringelmann Chart, in violation of Rule 3rd,122
of
the
Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of
Air
Pollution,
continued effective by Section 49(c) of the Act,
(Chap,
l1l~l/2, Ill, Rev. Stat.,
§1049(c)
(1971).
3.
That
on
April 19, 1973,
and June
18, 1973, Respondent
conducted said
scrap metal salvage operation in a manner that
has
caused
or
allowed the emission of smoke
or
other particulate
matter into
the
atmosphere of an opacity
of
greater
than 30
percent
in
violation of Rule 202(b) of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
Rules and Requlatibns, Chapter
2, Part 11,
11—457
—2—
(hereinafter “PCB Rules”), adopted pursuant to Section 10
of the
Act, Chap. 111—1/2, Ill. Rev. Stat., §1010 (1971,
and thereby in violation of
Section
9(b)~f
the
Act,
Chap.
111—1/2, 111. Rev, Stat,,
§1009(b) (1971).
4.
That during August, 1972, Respondent has caused or
allowed the conGtruction of
an exhaust
hood in front of a
Brule incinerator without first ~obtaining a Construction
Permit from the Agency, in violation of Rule 103(a) of the
PCB Rules, Chapter 2, Part
I,
adopted pursuant to Section
10
of the Act, Chap. 111—1/2, Iii.
Rev. Stat., ~1010, (1971),
and thereby in violation of
Sectioi Tof the Act Chap.
111—1/2, Ill. Rev. Stat., §1009(b) (1971),
The Respondent entered into a Stipulation And Proposal
For
Settlement
with
the Agency, at a public hearing, me
Respondent admitted, that it violated the Statute and Ru1c~
and Regulations
as
charged, with the exceptio,n of the a11eg~_
tions regarding open burning which both parties agree should be
dismissed for lack of proof. The Respondent is engaged in
acquiring, by collection or delivery, electrical conduit
cable and uses its various incinerators for the purpose of
burning off the rubber insulation from the copper metal contained
therein, The Stipulation avers that upon notice of the Complaint,
the Respondent embarked on a program of full compliance and
expended $35,000.00 to implement action in that direction Stip.
p,41.
The Stipulation further avers that on September 11, 1973
again on September 26, 1973 and for a third time on October
2nd, 1973, engineers attached to theairveillance Section of the
Division of Air Pollution Control of the EPA inspected Respondent
and as a result of these inspections, made a determination that
Respondent was not then, nor is it now, violating the Particulate
Regulations as set forth by thelllinois Pollution Control Board
and that it has brought its manufacturing devices within proper
control so as not to be a pollution hazard to the State of
Illinois. EStip. p.51
By paragraphs Al-4 of the Stipulation, Respondent agrees
that it violated Rules 202(b) and 103(a) of the Air Pollution
Regulations; Rule 3-3.122 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Control of Air Pollution; and Section 9(b) of the En-
vironmental Protection Act. ~Wé so fin~1. By paragraph A5
of the Stipulation, the Complainant~agre~sthat no proof exists
of violation of Section 9 Cc), of the Environmental Protection
Act. Charges alleging violation of Section 9(c) are dismissed.
The Agency and the Respondent agreed to a penalty of $3,000.00
Stip. p.8.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-
clusions of law of the Board.
IT IS THE
ORDER of the
Pollution
Control
Board that
Respondent, Laflin Salvage
Co.,
Inc.,
shall:
1. Operate
the
United incinerator in
accordance with
the -suggested operating
procedures provided
by the
manufacturer
with reference to time, temperature,
types
of loads,
sizes
of loads and any other
applicable parameters;
2. Cease and desist use
of
a
I3ruie
incinerator
unless
properly controlled.
3. Refrain from conducting
salvage
operations by
open burning;
4. Notify the Agency
during perio5 of
malfunctions or
breakdowns, in compliance with Rule
105 of
the Pollution
Control Board Rules and Regulations, Chapter 2, Part I;
5. Pay to the State oflllinois the
sum
of $3,000.00
within 35 days from the date of this Order. Penalty pay-
ment by certified check or money order payable to the State
of Illinois shall be made to: Fiscal Services Division,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
6. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Respondent
from installing a second G—466 model incinerator manu-
factured by United Corporation of Topeka, Kansas if Respondent
shall deem the same necessary to properly run its operations,
conditioned upon receiving the applicable Agency permits.
7. Allegations regarding violation of Section 9(c) of
the Environmental Protection Act are dismissed.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, certfy that the above Opini n and Order was
adopted on this
‘7
“.
day of
,
1974 by
avoteof~-O