ILLINOIS POLLUTIO~CO~TROLaBOARD
November
6,
1986
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
~GE~CY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 86—102
EKCO PRODUCTS,
INC.,
an
Illinois corooration,
Respondent.
MS. NkNCY
J.
RICH,
~3SISTNT
~TTOR~EY
~ENER~L,
kPPE~RED
O~BE~LF
OF THE COMPLAINhNT.
MR.
DANIEL
~
~P?E~RED
FOR
T~-3E VILLkGE
OF WHEEL~J.
OPINION ~ND ORDER OF THE BO~.RD(by
R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter
comes before the Boar3 uoon
a Complaint fil~ by
the Illinois Environmental Protection P~gency(“P~gency~)on July
11, 1936.
Hearing
was held
in this docket
on Seotember
2S,
1936,
in Wheeling,
Illinois.
~t that time,
counsel
for the ~tgency
indicated
that
the
~gency
and
Ekco
Products,
Inc.
(“EPI”)
ha~
entered
into
a
settlement
agreement.
That
document,
entitle~,
“Stipulation
of
Facts
and
Proposed
Settlement”,
was
entered
into
the record
at hearing
as Exhibit 1*.
1~signed copy
of the
settlement agreement was filed
on November
3,
1936.
EPI
is an
Illinois corporation engaged
in the business
o~
manufacturing aluminum foil containers and plastic containers.
The EPI plant
is
located on Wheeling Road
in Wheeling,
Illinois,
which
is within Cook County.
The plant produc2s
aooroxirnatelv
695 million foil
containers per year.
Ooerations performed
at the EPI plant
included the coating
or painting of aluminum coils with solid colors
or patterns.
The
machine which oerformed this
ooeration
is called
a Drinter—coater
unit
(“P&C”).
EPI operated
a P&C at
its plant until January
1,
1986
(Ex.
1,
oar.
4).
*Thjs
will
be
identified
as
“Ex.
1”; references nad~to
this
document will
refer
to
its paragraphs
(abbreviated
“par.”)
by
number.
74.33
—2—
After
a color
or print
is applied
to an aluminum coil,
the
coil
is
oassed
through
a
gas
fired
oven
for
drying
an~3curing.
During drying operations, EPI’s P&C emitted non—chlorinated
organic
solvents
as
wastes.
These
wastes
constituted
volatile
organic
material
(“VOM”),
as
that
term
is
defined
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
211.122
(Id.,
par.
6).
EPI’s
P&C
did
not
utilize
an
air
pollution
control
device
(Id.,
par.
4).
EPI
operated
its
P&C
under
an
Agency
operating
permit
issued
on November
15,
1979, until that permit expired on October
25,
1934.
On June
25,
1984,
the Agency notified
EPI
that VOM
emissions from the P&C would not comply with 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
215.204(d).
EPI continued
to operate
the P&C,
without
an Agency
operating permit,
until January
1,
1986
(Id.,
par.
8).
The Agency,
in
its July
11,
1986,
Complaint,
alleges
that
EPI violated two sections of the Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”)
through
its operation of
the
P&C.
Count
I alleges
that
EPI violated Section 9(a)
of
the Act from June 15,
1984,
to
January
1,
1996,
by
“causing
or
threatening
or allowing the
discharge
or
emissions
of contaminants...into
the environment
so
as
to
cause
or
tend
to
cause
air
oollution”.
Count
II
alleges
that
EPI
violated
Section
9(b)
of
the Act from October
24, 1984,
until
the
date the Comolaint was filed
by “operating
their
P&C,
which
is
capable
of
causing
or contributing
to air pollution,
without
a
permit
granted
by
the
(Agency)”.
The proposed settlement agreement contains
an admission by
EPI that
it violated Section 9(b)
of the Act from October
25,
1984,
to January
1,
1986,
the date on which
it discontinued
use
of
the
P&C
(Id.,
1,
oars.
13,
12).
As part
of
the
orooosed
settlement,
the
Agency
has withdrawn
the alleged Section 9(a)
violation contained
in Count
1
of
the Comolaint
(Id.,
oar.
10).
The
parties
further
stipulate
that
EPI
will
cease
and
desist
from further ooeration
of
the P&C until
the aoorooriate methods
of
compliance
are
in
place and the appropriate permits
have been
obtained
(Id.,
par.
A);
that
the
Agency
may
inspect
the
EPI
premises
to,
within
its
authority,
encourage
compliance
with
the
Act
and
the
regulations
promulgated
thereunder
(Id.,
oar.
B);
and
that
EPI
shall
pay,
within
30
days
of
the
Board
Order
accepting
the settlement agreement,
a penalty
of $3,000.00
to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Trust fund
(Id.,
par.
C).
The parties
agree
that such
a penalty
is necessary
to promote enforcement
of
the Act
(Id.).
In evaluating
this enforcement action and proposed
settlement
agreement,
the Board has taken
into consideration all
the
facts
and
circumstances
in
light
of
the
soecific
criteria
delineated
in
Section
33(c)
of
the
Act.
The
Board
moreover
finds
the
settlament
agreement
acceptable
under
35
Ill.
Ad-ri.
Code
103.180.
Accordingly,
the settlement agreement
is accepted
in
toto by the Board,
and the Board will
integrate
the elements of
the settlement agreement
into the following Order.
74-34
—3—
This
Opinion constitutes
the Board’s
findings of
fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
As
of January
1,
1986,
EPI will cease and desist from
further violation
of
the
Act by ceasing operation of the
P&C.
EPI will not reactivate
its P&C until
it has the
aPpropriate
methods of compliance
in place
and has
obtained the appropriate permits.
2.
The
Agency
may
inspect
the
EPI
premises,
at
any
reasonable
time,
and
do
whatever
is
necessary
within
its
statutory
and
regulatory
authority
to
encourage
compliance
with
the
Act
and
the
rules
and
regulations
promulgated
thereunder.
3.
EPI
shall
cay
a
civil
penalty
of
$3,000.00.
The
penalty
shall
be
paid
within
thirty
(30)
days
of
this
Order
of
the
Board.
Payment
shall
be
made
by
certified
check
or
money
order
payable
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Trust
Fund
and
delivered
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill
Road
Springfield,
IL
62706
ATTN:
Mary Jo Heise
4.
EPI shall comely with
all
the terms
and conditions
of
the “Stipulation
of
Facts
and Proposed Settlement”
filed
on November
3,
1986, which
is attached and incoroorated
by reference
as
if fully
set forth herein.
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
Board Member
3.
Theodore
Meyer dissented.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gurin,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify
that the
above Order was adopted
on
the
_____________________
day
~
,
1986,
by
a vote
of
..6-/
?~.
~
-
Dorothy
M.
Gu’nn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
74-35
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONNENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
NOvo3
~86
vs.
)
PCB 86—102
EKCO PRODUCTS,
INC.,
an
)
-
Illinois Corporation,
Respondent.
STIPULATION OF FACTS AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
Complainant,
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
by Neil
F.
Hartigan, Attorney General
of Illinois,
and Respon-
dent,
Ekco Products,
Inc.,
by their attorney John Olsen, submit
the
following Stipulation of Facts
and. Proposed Settlement to the
Pollution Control Board
(Board),
pursuant to Procedural Rule
103.
180.
I.
BACKGROUND
1.
Complainant Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
is an agency of the State of Illinois,
created pursuant
to the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
ch.
111—1/2, pars.
.1001 et seq.
(Act), charged
with
the duties
of
enforcing the Act.
2.
Respondent Ekco Products,
Inc.,
(EPI)
is an Illinois
corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing
al’~minun
foil
containers,
and plastic containers.
The
EPI
manufacturing
operation
(plant)
is located at 777 Wheeling Road,
Cook Count,
Wheeling,
Illinois.
74-36
3.
EPI
is the leading producer of aluminum foil containers
with approximately 40 per cent of the U.S. market.
The plant
produces approximately 695 million foil
containers.
Aluminum
containers are made from aluminum coils
4.
The coating or printing of aluminum coils with solid
colors or patterns was performed at the plant by
a machine iden-
tified
as a printer-coater unit
(P &
C
)
until January
1,
1986
when the P
& C operation was discontinued. The P
& C did not have
an air pollution control device.
5.
After a color or a print
is applied to an aluminum
coil, the aluminum coil is passed though
a gas fired oven for
drying and curing.
6.
The non—chlorinated organic solvents are emitted
by
EPI’s P
&
C as waste during the drying phase of the operation
that is explained in paragraphs
4
and
5,
are volatile organic
material
(VOM)
as the term is defined in
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
Sec-
tion 211.122.
6.1
On June
15,
1984 the Agency notified EPI that VO~emis-
sions from the P
&
C would not comply with
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code Sec-
tion 215.204(d)
7.
On July
29,
1985, EPI filed a petition for variance to
allow the emission stated in paragraph
6 to continue until Decem-
ber 31,
1985.
This was to give EPI time to install
a catalytic
incinerator.
74-37
II.
FACTS RELATING TO THIS LITIGATION
8.
EPI
was
issued
an
operating
permit
covering
the
P
&
C
operation
on November
15,
1979.
This
permit expired on October
25,
1984.
EPI was operating their P
&
C without an Agency
operating
permit
from
October
25,
1984
to
January
1,
1986.
9.
The
operation
of
EPI’s
P
&
C
as
described
in
paragraphs
4,
5, and
6 continued from October 25,
1984
to January
1,
1986.
10.
The Agency alleges that from October 25,
1984 to
January
1,
1986 EPI violated Section 9(a)
of the Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
ch.
lll-1/2,par.
1009(a)
by causing or threatening or al-
lowing the discharge
or emissions of contaminant as stated
in
paragraph
6,
into the environment
so as to cause or tend to cause
air pollution.
As part of this settlement,
the Agency has with-
drawn the alleged Section 9(a)
violation.
11.
From October
25,
1984 to January
1,
1986
EPI
was
in
violation
of
Section
9(b)
of
the
Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
ch.
121-2,
2,
par.
1009(b),
by operating their P
&
C
which
is
capable
of
causing or contributing to air pollution without a permit granted
by the Agency.
12.
On January
1,
1986,
EPI
discontinued
use of their
P
&
C.
Since that time the P
&
C has no longer been operating, stop-
ping the cause of the discharge of contaminants into the
atmosphere.
12.1
On April
18,
1986,
the Agency’s Complaint against
?I
was filed with the Board.
74-38
III.
IMPACT OF VIOLATION AND COMPLIANCE
13.
The Agency and EPI agree that the violation set forth
in
paragraph
11
above has occurred.
14.
Prior to October
25,
1984 and thereafter,
EPI under-
stood from statements by Agency Staff that the Agency would deny
its operating permit renewal application without a compliance
plan for satisfying 35
Ill. Adm. Code 215.204(d).
In an effort
to
establish
a
compliance
plan,
EPI
studied
during
the
nine
months prior to April
19,
1985,
various
ways
to
comply,
including
coating
reformulation,
rescheduling
P
&
C
operation,
ducting
P
&
C emissions to the air pollution control device on another
coater,
and installing
an incinerator on the P
&
C.
EPI esti-
mates that the total cost of consultants and employees time
in
connection
with
these
studies
was
$22,000.
The
studies
showed
incineration to be the only feasible means
of compliance,
and
EPI
notified the Agency on April
19,
1985,
of its intention to apply
for
a
variance
to
allow
time
for
installation
of
the
equipment.
EPI management subsequently determined, based on the proposed
$150,000 incinerator cost,
to shut down the P
& C on December
31,
1985.
Since October 25,
1984,
the P &
C has been operated at
substantially
reduced
rates:
714
total
running
hours
from
Novem—
ber
1,
1984
through
October
31,
1985,
compared
with
1,401
hours
during the same period
a year earlier.
15.
The
Agency
and
EPI
agree
that
EPI’s
facility
has
social
economic value
in that
is employs approximately 600 people and
provides needed manufactured goods.
The Agency and EPI further
74-39
agree
in order to be of greatest economic and social value,
EPI
must cease operation of the P
&
C,
after Jan.ary
1,
2986.
NOW THEREFORE,
the parties to this proceeding hereby st:ou-
late and agree to the following compliance program.
A.
EPI has violated Section 9(b)
of the Act,
Ill. Rev.
STat.,
ch.
11-1/2, par.
1009(b),
in the manner and at the times
described earlier.
As of January
1,
1986,
E?I will cease
and.
desist from further violation of the Act by ceasing operation of
the
P
&
C.
EPI will not reactivate its P
&
C until they have the
appropriate methods
of compliance in place
and have obtained the
appropriate permits.
3.
The Agency is authorized to inspect EPI premises,
at
any reasonable time,
and. to do whatever is necessary within the
statutory
and. regulatory authority to encourage compliance with
the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated.
C.
EPI shall pay
a civil penalty
of $3,000.00.
The
parties agree that
a penalty in this case
is necessary to promote
enforcement of the Act.
The penalty shall be paid within thirty
(30)
days of the
order
of the Board accepting this stipulation.
Payment shall be
made by certified check or money order payable to the Environmen-
tal Protection Trust Fund and delivered to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal
Services
Division
2200
Churchill
Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
ATTN:
Mary
Jo
Heise
D.
This Agreement,
when accepted by the Pollution Control
Board shall
be binding
on all signatories and their successors
74-40
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PR0T~TI0N A-
By:
I.!,
E~PRODUCTS,
INC.
By:
and assigns, and shall constitute
a
final disposition of all mat-
ters set forth
in the Agency’s Complaint against EPI.
E.
This proposal
is submitted. to the Board for approval
under
Section
103.180
as
one
integral
package,
and
the
parties
respectfully request the Board to enter its final order approving
the entire settlement.
All admissions and statements made herein
are void before any Judicial or Administrative body
if the fore-
going settlement agreed to by the parties is not approved by the
Board.
If the Board should reject any portion thereof,
the en-
tire Settlement and Stipulation shall be terminated and be with-
out legal effect, and the parties shall be restored to their
prior position in this litigation as
if no Settlement and
Stipulation had been executed., without prejudice to any parties’
position as to any issue or defense.
Date:
(
Date:
_________
74-41