ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February
    19,
    1976
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    PCB 75—323
    )
    CONSOLIDATED METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY,
    )
    an Illinois corporation,
    )
    Respondent.
    Ms. Mary C.
    Schlott, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney for
    Complainant
    Mr. Mark Lies,
    Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather
    & Geraidson, Attorney
    for Respondent
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Young):
    This case arises out of
    a Complaint filed on August
    22,
    1975, by the Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) alleging
    that Consolidated Metal Products Company
    (Respondent) owned
    and operated spray painting equipment without operating permits
    from March
    1,
    1973, until August 22,
    1975, in violation of
    Rule 103 (b) (2) of the Air Regulations and in further violation
    of Section
    9 (b)
    of the Environmental Protection Act (Act).
    A
    hearing was held on October 17, 1975,
    at which time the parties
    announced they had entered into a settlement agreement; said
    Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement was filed with the Board
    at an additional hearing held on January 30,
    1976.
    At the hearing
    held on October
    17, 1975,
    Robert Janicki,
    plant engineer of
    Respondent,
    testified concerning the painting operations which
    are the subject of this matter.
    No members of the public partici-
    pated at either of these hearings.
    Respondent operates
    a metal furniture parts manufacturing
    facility at 3125 West Carroll Street in Chicago, which employs
    approximately
    25 persons.
    As part of its manufacturing process,
    Respondent has operated two filter-controlled paint spray booths
    and a drying oven.
    Respondent has used more than 15,000 gallons
    of photochemically reactive paints and solvents during each of
    the years 1973 and 1974.
    Rule 103(b) (2) requires all painting operations using in
    excess of 5,000 gallons of paint annually to have an operating
    20—103
    —2—
    permit from the Agency no later than March
    1,
    1973.
    Agency
    personnel inspected the painting operations at Respondent’s
    manufacturing plant on October 16, 1973 and November 5,
    1973,
    and informed Respondent of the permit requirements.
    A warning
    letter was sent to Respondent by the Agency on November 12,
    1973.
    Respondent submitted an operating permit application on
    February
    4, 1974, which was rejected by the Agency on February
    11,
    1974, because it contained insufficient information.
    Re-
    spondent submitted some additional information
    to the Agency on
    December
    19, 1974, but the permit application was again rejected
    for insufficiency.
    On February 25,
    1975, Respondent submitted
    a Petition for Variance
    (PCB 75-81)
    to the Board for its painting
    operations.
    This Petition was dismissed by the Board on April
    24,
    1975, because it did not contain sufficient information.
    In April of 1975, Respondent began installing paint spray
    equipment designed for use with nonphotochemically reactive
    organic materials.
    By August
    8,
    1975, Respondent had altogether
    ceased its spray painting operations because of current market
    conditions.
    Respondent agrees
    to obtain operating permits from
    the Agency for its spray painting operations and drying ovens
    prior
    to reinstituting such activities,
    and,
    in addition, agrees
    to utilize paints and solvents which are nonphotochemically
    reactive.
    We find that Respondent did violate Rule 103(b) (2)
    and
    Section 9(b) of the Act by operating its spray painting facilities
    without operating permits from March
    1,
    1973, until August
    8,
    1975.
    The Stipulation provides for a penalty of $1,000.00 for
    the admitted violations.
    We further find that the stipulated
    penalty of $1,000.00 constitutes a reasonable penalty for these
    violations.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    1.
    Respondent, Consolidated Metal Products Company, has
    violated Rule 103(b) (2) of the Air Regulations and Section 9(b)
    of the Act by operating its spray painting facilities without
    the necessary permits from March
    1,
    1973 until August
    8, 1975,
    and that
    a penalty of $1,000.00 is assessed for these violations.
    Penalty payment by certified check or money order payable to the
    State of Illinois shall be made within 35 days of this Order to:
    Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency,
    2200 Churchill Road,
    Springfield, Illinois,
    62706.
    2.
    Respondent, Consolidated Metal Products Company, shall
    obtain operating permits from the Agency for its spray painting
    operations and drying ovens prior
    to reinstituting painting
    operations at its Carroll Street facility.
    20—104
    —3—
    3.
    Respondent, Consolidated Metal Products Company, shall
    utilize only organic materials which are not photochemically
    reactive as defined by Rule 205(f)
    and Rule 201 of Chapter
    2 of
    the Rules and Regulations in its painting operations at its
    Carroll Street facility.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were
    adopted on the
    /$“~‘
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1976
    by a vote of ~
    Christan L. Moff
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollutio
    ontrol Board
    20—
    105

    Back to top