ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July

22,

1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB

75—473

ILLINOIS MOULDING COMPANY, an

)

Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

The Honorable William

J. Scott, Attorney General,

by James

Dobrovolny appeared on behalf of Complainant

Mr. Edward Stone of the

firm

Barnard

& Barnard appeared on

behalf of Respondent

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Goodman):

A Complaint was filed by the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

on December 15,

1975 against Illinois Moulding Company

(Illinois Moulding)

alleging that Illinois Moulding was

in viola-

tion of Rule 103(b) (2)

of Chapter 2, Part

I of the Air Pollution

Control Regulations and Section

9(b) of the Environmental Protec-

tion Act

(Act)

in that it did not obtain operating permits from the

Agency for various pieces of pollution control equipment at its

facility on South Western Avenue,

Chicago, Cook County,

Illinois.

Illinois Moulding owns and operates

a facility for the manu-

facture of wood picture frames and wall decorations.

The facility

includes twenty-eight pieces of wood-working machinery controlled

by three cyclones,

eight double spray booths controlled by dry

filters,

three flow coaters, one drying oven,

two oil fired boilers,

one sawdust fired boiler, and two 5,000 gallon oil storage tanks.

On December 29,

1975, the Agency filed a Request for Admissions of

Fact to which Illinois Moulding failed to respond.

Under Rule 314(a)

of the Board’s Procedural Rules,

Illinois Moulding is deemed to

have admitted the matters of fact as listed in the Agency’s Request

for Admissions of Fact.

These admissions are enough to find

Illinois Moulding in violation as alleged

in the Agency’s Complaint.

In addition, the alleged violations were generally admitted by

Illinois Moulding during the course of the hearing

(R.66-68)

23

—

119

---

—2—

During the hearing Illinois Moulding offered testimony concern-

ing its attempts to acquire the required permits,

including four

applications sent to the Agency in 1973,

all of which were denied.

Illinois Moulding’s president also testified that the company had

been hard hit by the recent economic slump and had lost some

$300—400,000.00 each year for the last few years.

In addition,

evidence was presented that indicated a lack of communications with-

in the corporation and suggested that the company did not have an

active registered agent from 1973 until approximately the time of

the hearing.

At the present time Illinois Moulding has reapplied for opera-

ting permits for all of the equipment in the facility except the

sawdust-fired boiler.

With respect to the sawdust-fired boiler,

Illinois Moulding proposes to shut the boiler down in early

summer,

clean it out and slightly modify the stack.

At this time Illinois

Moulding proposes to make a stack test of the boiler

(Respondent’s

Ex.

lA,

p.7).

In light of the admissions and the testimony of Illinois

Moulding at the hearing herein, the Board finds that the company

was

in violation of Rule 103(b) (2)

of Chapter

2, Part

I of the Air

Pollution Control Regulations and of Section 9(b)

of the Environ-

mental Protection Act

(Act)

from March

1,

1973 through the date

of

filing of the Complaint herein in that

it operated its double spray

booths without the necessary operating permits from the Agency.

In

addition, the company is found to be in violation of Rule 103(b) (2)

of the Regulations and Section

9(b)

of the Act from June

1, 1973

through ~he date of filing of the Complaint herein in that it

operated twenty—eight pieces of woodworking machinery controlled

by various types of air pollution control equipment without an

operating permit from the Agency.

Section

33(c)

of the Act requires the Board to consider the

following factors in making its orders and determinations:

1)

the

degree of injury to the public,

2)

the social and economic value

of the pollution source,

3)

the suitability of the pollution source

to its area of location,

and

4)

the technical practicability and

economic reasonableness of reducing the emissions.

Evidence

in the

record indicated that the injury to the public

in this case is that

injury inherent in a violation of the permit requirements rather

than any environmental harm.

The social and economic value of the

source as well

as the suitability of its location are evidenced by

the fact that it has been in existence at its present location for

85 years and presently employs 300 people who are for the most part

residents of the neighborhood in which the plant is located

(R.20).

23

—

120

---

—3—

As noted previously, however,

the company is currently undergoing

a financial loss due to the recent economic slump.

Illinois Moulding

indicated in Exhibit 1A that it has spent $30,000.00

in the past six

years to reduce its sawdust emissions and anticipates spending

another $40,000.00,

a considerable financial burden to the company

at this time.

Considering Illinois Moulding’s good faith attempts at acquir-

ing the permits and its unfortunate internal problems previously

noted,

the Board finds that a penalty of $300.00 will be sufficient

to uphold the integrity of the permit system in this case.

In

addition, Illinois Moulding will be ordered to follow through with

its proposed compliance plan with regard to the sawdust-fired boiler

as indicated in its Exhibit 1A which is hereby incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that

1.

Illinois Moulding Company was

in violation of Rule

103(b) (2)

of Chapter

2, Part I of the Air Pollution

Control Regulations and Section 9(b) of the Act from

March

1,

1973 through the filing of the Complaint herein

and that it operated its double spray booths without an

operating permit from the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency.

2.

Illinois Moulding was

in violation of Rule 103(b) (2)

of Chapter

2, Part

I of the Air Pollution Control Regu-

lations and Section 9(b)

of the Act from June

1,

1973

until the filing of the Complaint herein in that

it

operated its twenty—eight pieces of woodworking machinery

control equipment without an operating permit issued by the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

3.

For the violations noted in Part

I and Part II of this

Order, Illinois Moulding is hereby assessed

a penalty of

$300.00 to be paid by certified check or money order within

35 days of the date of this Order to:

State of Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Department

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

23

—

121

---

—4—

4.

Illinois Moulding shall complete a compliance

schedule as noted in their Exhibit lA on page

7 as

previously incorporated herein by reference.

5.

Illinois Moulding shall apply for and receive

operating permits for all of the equipment noted

herein within 180 days of the date of this Order.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, ~iereby certi

the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the

___________day of

,

1976 by a vote of_______________

Christan

L. Moffett,

erk

Illinois Pollution

rol Board