ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 31, 1986
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 86—55
ACME BARREL COMPANY, an
Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
MR. JOSEPH J. ANNUNZIO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
ROOKS, PITTS & POUST (MS. JERYL DEZELICK, OF COUNSEL), APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. D. Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board on a two—count Complaint
filed on April 18, 1986 by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency).
Count I of the Complaint alleged that the Respondent failed
to maintain its drum incinerator temperature monitoring system in
working condition and failed to adhere to the minimum afterburner
operating temperature requirements of its Operating Permit in
violation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.281(a) and Sections 9(a)
and 9(b) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act).
Count II alleged that the Respondent caused or allowed emis-
sions from its drum incinerator stack to exceed 30 percent
opacity on July 17, 1985 in violation of 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 212.123(a) and Section 9(a) of the Act.
The parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
on June 12, 1986 and a hearing was held on June 13, 1986, at
which one member of the public was present. (R. 4—5).
The Respondent, the Acme Barrel Company (Acme), is an
Illinois corporation which is in the business of recycling steel
drums and barrels at its drum reconditioning plant which is
located at 2300 West 13th Street in Chicago, Cook County,
Illinois. (Stip. 2).
Pursuant to its plant’s Operating Permit, which was issued
by the Agency on September 7, 1984, the Respondent is authorized
to operate various pieces of equipment, including “two drum
71-405
—2—
incinerators (used one at a time) with the afterburner.”
(Stip. 2). Moreover, Special Condition 1 of its Operating Permit
provides that:
“1. The operating temperature setting on the
drum oxidizer and afterburner shall be
maintained at the following levels at all
times when drums are being incinerated:
Primary chamber
1200 degrees Fahrenheit
Secondary chamber 1200 degrees Fahrenheit
Afterburner
1600 degrees Fahrenheit”
(Stip. 2).
On July 17, 1985, an Agency inspection revealed that the
Respondent’s drum incinerator “temperature monitoring system was
inoperative and that the afterburner temperature was not being
maintained at 1600 degrees Fahrenheit” as required by Special
Condition 1 of Acme’s Operating Permit. (Stip. 2—3).
Additionally, during the Agency inspector’s July 17, 1985
visit to the Respondent’s facility, visible emissions from Acme’s
drum incinerator stack were observed to have an opacity of 100
during a specific time period of approximately 20 minutes in
which the inspector’s visible emission observations were
recorded. (Stip. 3).
Although the Respondent has admitted that the aforementioned
violations did, in fact, occur, the Acme Barrel Company has
indicated that mitigating circumstances existed in that:
On July 17, 1985, the drum incinerator
temperature monitoring system failed because
internal brickwork in the afterburner col-
lapsed and fell on the thermocouple used for
sensing afterburner temperatures. The incin-
erator is presently equipped with a ‘fail
safe’ mechanism which, in the event of thermo-
couple failure, forces the afterburner control
motors to low—fire condition. However,
because the then—existing equipment was
incapable of notifying operating personnel of
the thermocouple malfunction, Acme personnel
continued to feed drums into the incinerator
even though a low—fire condition existed.
Immediately upon discovering that the
thermocouple controlling and recording the
afterburner temperature had been damaged, the
operation was shut down and repairs
71-406
—3—
initiated. A replacement thermocouple was
installed by July 18, 1985, and refractory
repairs were performed on July 20—21, 1985.”
(Stip. 3—4).
Similarly, the Respondent has contended in mitigation that
the excessive emissions from its drum incinerator stack which
were observed by the Agency inspector on July 17, 1985 were the
result of a one—time, nonreccurring incident resulting from a
temporary breakdown in the drum incinerator temperature
monitoring system which was expeditiously repaired and
rectified. (Stip. 4). Although Acme has admitted that the
alleged violations did, in fact, occur, the company believes that
the aforementioned extenuating circumstances pertaining to the
temporary breakdown of its temperature monitoring equipment are
relevant to a proper understanding of the situation involved in
the instant case.
Furthermore, the Respondent expects that it will avoid any
similar problems with potential thermocouple failures in the
future because of its purchase of a “fail safe” alarm switch from
the Barber—Colinan Company. It is indicated that “upon failure of
the thermocouple, an alarm horn will sound and a relay will
extinguish a green light which presently notifies Acme employees
that it is permissible to feed drums into the incinerator.”
(Stip. 4).
The approximate compliance schedule that was followed by the
Respondent is as follows:
Date
Action Taken
July 18, 1985
—
Replaced broken thermocouple.
July 20—21, 1985
—
Repaired afterburner brickwork.
July 23, 1985
—
Contacted consulting engineer for review
of the conditions
and to discuss
pos-
sible solutions.
August 5, 1985
—
Consulting engineer visited the
Respondent’s plant to review physical
conditions
and to discuss alternative
methods
for making the
system more
reliable.
August 6, 1985
—
Consulting engineer contacted Barber—
Colman Ccxnpany
to discuss alternative
techniques that can be used in the
installation of a “fail safe” alarm
system.
71-407
—4—
August 12, 1985
—
Meeting at the Illinois EPA
office in
Maywood to review the alleged non-
coirpliance and
to discuss with the
Agency personnel the tentative
a~roaches for resolving the problem.
August 13, 1985
—
“Fail safe” signal switch ordered from
Barber—Colman.
August 25, 1985
—
The circuit diagram from Barber—Colman
was made available to the company
electricians for wiring in of the relay
circuit and the alarm circuit.
September 24, 1985
—
Shipping date from Barber—Colman for the
switch.
September 27, 1985
—
Receipt of the switch.
October 2, 1985
-
Installation
carried
out by Barber-
Colinan technician and proven out.
October 18, 1985
-
Report on operating conditions and check
out of the thermocouple “fail safe”
switch.
(Stip. 6).
The proposed settlement agreement provided that the
Respondent admitted the violations alleged in the Complaint and
agreed to: (1) cease and desist from further violations;
(2) abide by all the terms and conditions of the Operating Permit
issued by the Agency for its Chicago facility at 2300 West 13th
Street; (3) follow an agreed—upon compliance plan and schedule to
remedy the violations which led to the filing of the Complaint by
the Agency, and (4) pay a stipulated penalty of $700.00 into the
Environmental Protection Trust Fund within 30 days of the date of
the Board’s Order. (Stip. 5—7).
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settle-
ment agreement, the Board has taken into consideration all the
facts and circumstances in light of the specific criteria
delineated in Section 33(c) of the Act and finds the settlement
agreement’ acceptable under 35 Ill. Adxn. Code 103.180.
The Board finds that the Respondent, the Acme Barrel
Company, has violated 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.281(a) and 35 Ill.
Adni. Code 212.123(a) and Sections 9(a) and 9(b) of the Act as
admitted in the Stipulation. The Respondent will be ordered to
cease and desist from further violations and to pay a stipulated
penalty of $700.00 into the Environmental Protection Trust Fund.
71-408
—5—
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1. As admitted in the Stipulation, the
Respondent, the Acme Barrel Company, has
violated 35 Ill. Adni. Code 201.281(a) and
35 Ill. Adni. Code 212.123(a) and
Sections 9(a) and 9(b) of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
2. The Respondent shall cease and desist
from all further violations.
3. Within 30 days of the date of this Order,
the Respondent shall, by certified check
or money order payable to the State of
Illinois and designated for deposit into
the Environmental Protection Trust Fund,
pay the stipulated penalty of $700.00
which is to be sent to:
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
4. The Respondent shall comply with all the
terms and conditions of the Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement filed on
June 12, 1986, which is incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member J. Theodore Meyer dissented. Board Member
Dr. John C. Marlin concurred.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby cert&,fy that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~‘~‘~°-~
—
day of ______________________,
1986 by a
vote of
~/-,
/
~j
“~
borothy
M. Gtlnn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
71-409