ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

6,

1977

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 76-24

ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY,

Respondent.

Mr. Robert N.

Reiland, Assistant Attorney General of the State of

Illinois,

appeared on behalf of the Complainant;

Mr. Karl

K,

Hoagland,

Jr.,

(Hoaglund,

Maucker, Bernard

& Almeter)

,

appeared on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

This matter comes before the Board upon a Complaint by the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed January

22,

1976 against the Alton Box Board Company

(Alton)

alleging

violation of certain parts of Chapter

2,

Illinois Pollution Control

Board Air Pollution Control Regulations

(Regulations)

at Alton’s

paper mill located in the City of Alton, Madison County,

Illinois.

Hearings were held in this matter on July 26 and 27,

1976.

Before considering the merits

in

this

case,

the

Board must dis-

pose of

certain

procedural

matters.

At

the

hearing

Alton

moved

to

incorporate the record of Environmental Protection Agency

v.

Alton,

PCB 73-61, into the case at hand.

The Agency conceded that the

final Board Order

in PCB

73-61 was relevant and material but

objected to the incorporation of the record in the case as im-

material and irrelevant to the instant matter.

PCB 73-61 was re-

solved by means of a stipulation and agreement between the Agency,

Alton Box Board, and LaClede Steel Company.

The Board finds that

a stipulated agreement

is not a proper source of background

material that would aid the Board

in the determination of this case.

The Board will,

therefore, overrule the decision of the Hearing

24

—

527

---

-2-

Jffic....r

-r

~er

.-

c

~..

.i

i~.op ration of the record in

PCB

73—61,

bu~

‘vii’

ake

cffLc’ci

tice of tie final Order of the Board and the

Board a Cp

-~

-

a

•

r

~~tcJ

7ul~18, 19’4

and

August 29, 1974

respc

-

-

it’

~..s~oct

to the Agency

s objections to acceptance

by t!~

?

Ie~ri~

g Of

-

ret

of

testimor

and

exhibits

allegedly

outside

t

e

5CC)...

f

t

e

.

‘a..t

coirplai1t

the

Board will

accept

the

evi-

dence

ard

ech

b’

-

rc4uce4

for

wnatever

value

they

may

have

in

miti—

iti.or

fl

he

LJej

.1

v.o..otiots

‘lton airs

4’

ooerat:s

a

paper

mil.l

and

associated

facilities

ip

‘n.

‘.‘y of

..

.~

G1FO)

County, Illinois on the Mississippi

~tvc

jin

ted

a

a...

c

q

~Utor Lock

and

Dam

No. 26.

At this facility

‘c

..a~

c.

C

s

..sec

£

pro ,..de

processed

steam

for

its

paper

VeX

ng ~

~Q

C

ilers nu bered 1—7 are considered existing

C

55

)1

a

fire

•PlelOlofChapter2oftheRegu-

otto

a

--

~

.~

an

9 coi 4dered new einssion sources as

they

vcrc. L.

..e

....o at- ~4 i

tate 1975.

The Agency alleges that,

urder

Ru

~

-

-

r

of te RegaJ.ations, Alton was required

to Fa

0

t

:c

-

r’

f r ‘,oUcrs 1—7 and the pollution control

eat.i

‘ret’- or

‘e.LJe..a

and 7 by Jane 1, 1973.

Operating permits

F.

v

r

-

~

r

-..

..

for

boilers

1—4

and

permits

issued

for

to

e

-

-

z

D’rLo

Iugus

30,

1975.

The

Agency

alleges

t

a’-

s~r c

a

.975

ltcr

has

cont..nuously

operated

bntc

s

“

C

.~

ar

n~ropriate operating

permit

in

violation

o,..

-

o

C

e

.n

an

era-al

Protection

Act

(Act)

and

Rule

.i3

)

2

o-

-z

flo

C

In ;ddition, the Agency alleges thfl

Bnicr

o

3

1

-

e~ts

rarm

stand—by,

has

been

operated

witi

t

apr)c

a

c

it

i-i

viol,~iorof

the

same

sections of the

d

c

.z

....

c

d

that

tie

poflution

control

equipment

on

xis...

~

o

-

-

n

~‘s3O

ocar

operated

without

a

valid

permit

in

vio—

atLo’

n

t

‘

a~or sa.1

~ctiois

of

the

Act

and

Regulations.

‘Ut! oagb

tic

plaint

indicates

that

this

case

is

concerned

orly

with

tl-e

at

gea

operation

of

equipment

without

the

proper

permat,

the

record

trein

delves

into

such

extraneous

matters

as

ropo~d ret

1

t

~

now

before

t

ii

Roarti

.i,id

al

leqc’d

promises

uadc

by

~

L.’i

‘r

to

procure

prior

operatinq

permits.

Although

some o

‘

f

‘..

on

is u,cful in miliqation,

the

Board will

consider orly t

-

contained ii

the. Pga..c; a Amended Complaint filed August 5, 1976.

Both partes agree that boilers 1 and 4 have never

been

con-

sidered in a

per.tit

appication.

Upon review of the Board Order in

PC.B 7t-61, date4 u ly 18, 1974,

it is clear that neither party con-

temp..ated the issiance of a permit for either boiler No. 1 or boiler

No.

4.

That

p4io. Board Order envisioned boilers 1 and 4 as

cwerger4cy eqa~pr

to be used only in the event that boilers 5,

6,

an~7 tere uraaa

operate at the required level and only until two

new boilers, Nos.

8 and 9 t~-ereput on line.

24—528

---

—3—

was presented concerning the actual number of hours of operation of

boilers

No.

1 and

4,

the question of whether or not Alton violated a

prior

Board

Order

is

not

before

the

Board

at

this

time.

The

Board

finds that Alton could reasonably rely upon the prior Board Order

which anticipated the operation of boilers

1 and 4 only on emergency

basis and without an operating permit.

The Board therefore dismisses

the Complaint with respect to boilers

I and 4.

It is clear from the record and Alton’s answers

to interroga—

tories that operating permits for boilers

5,

6, and

7 and pollution

control equipment on

6 and

7 expired on August

30,

1975

(R.28,29,

Alton’s

answer

to

Interrogatories,

dated

July

23, 1976).

Although

application for permits for these units has been pending since

the

expiration

of

the

original

permits,

no

permit

had

been

issued

by

the

Agency.

Alton

has

never

appealed

any

Agency

permit denial

(R.26),

nor

does

Alton

possess

any

variance

from

the

Board

concerning

the

subject

equipment.

The

Board,

therefore,

finds

that

Alton

was

in

violation of Section

9(b)

of

the

Act

and

Rule

103(b)

(2)

of Chapter 2

of

the

Regulations

from

September

1,

1975

to

March

4,

1976

in

that

it did not possess Agency-issued operating permits

for boilers 5~ 6

and

7

and

for

the

pollution

control

equipment

associated

with

boilers

6

and

7.

In

fashioning

a

remedy,

the

Board

must consider the factors

enumerated in Section

33(c)

of the Act.

With

a payroll between 11

and 15 million dollars per year and an employment level of 730 people,

Alton has considerable social and economic value to the surrounding

area

(R.33).

In addition,

there

is no reason to believe that the

location

of

the

source

within

the

area

is inappropriate.

On the other

hand,

there

is

also

no

question

but

that

it

is

both

technically

practical and economically reasonable for Alton to have come into

compliance with the Regulations such that an operating permit could

have been issued.

If Alton

felt,

as was indicated in its final brief,

that it was wrongfully denied an operating permit,

the appropriate

course of action wOuld have been

a permit appeal. before this Board.

If the company had any question concerning

its ability

to control

its emissions,

then

a petition for variance before

the Board would

have been appropriate.

The permit program

is the means by which the State of Illinois

monitors and controls the emission of pollutants into the environment.

The furtherance of this program is critical to the restoration, pro-

tection, and enhancement of the quality of the environment of the

State of Illinois and it

is,

therefore,

incumbent upon the Board to

promote the permit program by whatever means are available.

In this

case Alton,

after having filed a timely permit application, neither

24

—

529

---

ic

.~

n

a’

one•~

‘e

-

-

~

‘-~rog~.

ri..

.

Ln

e

‘rninds

hat

a

cr

v

-r’

‘-it

the

1~

....

rd

‘0 Cid~J S

Cd

-

0

1)

co

r

•.1

•4.

-

P

r

t

)u

1W

-

srt

-

C,

1

3

_~

•~c

fied

-

:c-

~

~I.

diets,

C

‘

r

-

a_k-o-.-ction

a

-

.1.Jli~.a 627C6.

-

r

.1)

-.

,

-eive

iT

,

roçra

for

-

c

-ro

~

oTent

8.

21

~

---

—5—

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopte~on

the

day of

,

1977 by a vote of

i4I~

~

Illinois Pollution

rol Board

24

—