ILLINOIS
POLL~JTID~CO:~TR3L
BO~D
October
15, 1987
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION k~ENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 86—50
CHICAGO STEEL CONTAINER
)
CORPDRATI3~,
Respondent.
MS. MARCIA BELL3~SAPPEARED ON BEHLF
OF COMPLAINANT.
MR. BRETT VALIQUET APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
R.
C.
Flernal):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a settlement
stioulation
(“stioul3tion”)
between
the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
and Chicago Steel Container
Cor po~ation.
Hearings were held
on September
4 and September
18,
1986.
At the latter
hearing
the parties
incorporated an unsigned copy
of the stipulation
into the
record.
By Order
of
April
30,
1987,
the Board
noted that
it had
still not received
a signed copy of
this document, and further
noted
that
if the signed copy was not
received by June
1,
1987,
the Board would assume
that this matter
is
not settled and would
order
an additional
hearing
set.
By
Order
of July 16,
1987,
the Board again noted
that
it had not
received
a signed cooy of the stipulation
and,
assuming that
this
matter was not settled, directed the Clerk
to schedule
an
additional hearing
in this docket.
The additional
hearings were
held
on September
15,
1987 and September
25,
1987.
A signed
stinulation was submitted
to the hearing officer
at the Seotember
25 hearing.
The signed copy of the stipulation was submitted
to
the 3oard
by the Hearing •Officer
on Seotember
28,
1997.
This proceeding was initiated by
the filing
of
a three—count
comolaint
by the Agency on April
14,
1986.
In Count
I
it
is
alleged
that Respondent caused
or allowed
the construction and/or
operation of painting booths, lining booths, main
Paint and
lining baking oven and drying ovens
at
its Kilbourn Avenue
facility without the Agency having granted operating permits.
It
is further alleged
that as
a result of failure
to obtain the
required permits, Respondent has violated Sections
9(a)
and 9(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”),
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
ch.
lll_l/2, para.
1001 et.seg.
(l9B5),
and Section
201.142
and 201.143
of the Air Pollution Regulations of the Pollution Control Board.
82—251
_.,
—
In Count
II
it
is alleged
that since December
31,
1983,
Respondent has
failed
to comoly with
the volatile organic
materials limitations
for miscellaneous metal parts
and products
coating,
in violation of Section 9(a)
of
the Act and Section
215.204(j)
of the Air Pollution Regulations.
In Count
III
it
is alleged
that Respondent
has failed
to
submit an emissions limitation compliance plan pursuant
to 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 215.212
and 215.213,
and therefore that Respondent
has violated Section 9(a)
of
the Act and Sections 215.121
and
215.213
of the Air Pollution Regulations.
In the stipulation
it
is noted
that Respondent has attempted
five times
to obtain the necessary permits to
ooerate
its
plant.
It
is further noted
that each time Respondent attempted
to obtain
an aporopriate operating permit,
it was denied
a permit
by the Agency,
because
the information given by Respondent
to
the
Agency relating
to volatile organic material
“VOM”
emissions was
deemed inadequate by the Agency
for
it to determine whether
there
was compliance.
The stipulation indicates that Respondent
believes
it has now given
the Agency information
in order
to
obtain
a permit, and that
the information
shows that Respondent
falls within
the
25 T/year
of VOM limitation exemption as
provided
by
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
Section
215.206,
and
also
falls
below calculated allowable emissions.
In
the
stipulation
Respondent
admits
that
it
has
violated
Section 9(b)
of
the Act
and will cease and desist from further
violations
of
the Act by obtaining
the appropriate permits from
the Agency.
Respondent neither admits
nor denies violating
Section
9(a)
of
the Act,
and
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 215.204(j)
and
215.212(a).
In the stipulation Complainant states that
it will
issue
an operating permit
to Respondent upon receipt
of proof
by
Respondent that
its operations will not cause
or contribute
to
a
violation of either the Act or
the Illinois Pollution Control
Boar~Air Pollution Regulations, pursuant
to Section
39(a)
of
the
Act.
Respondent further
states that
it will execute further
reporting establishing compliance with VOM regulations and rules
for
1985
and each succeeding
year
at
a time specified
in
the
permit,
and that Respondent
shall pay
a civil penalty of
$5,000.00
to
the Environmental Protection Trust
Fund.
In evaluating
this enforcement action and proposed
settlement 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.
Adm.
Code 103.180.
Moreover,
1
A copy of
the permit issued
by the Agency was introduced
by the
parties
at the September
25 Hearing
(Joint Exhibit
2).
82—252
—3*
the Board
finds
the stipulated
penalty
to be necessary
to aid
in
the enforcement
of
the Act.
Accordingly,
the Board will order
Respondent
to comply with
all
of the
terms
and conditions of the
stipulation,
as agreed—upon by the parties.
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.
Resoondent has violated Section
9(5)
the Environmental
Protection Act and 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 201.142
and
201. 143.
2.
The Board hereby accepts
the Proposal executed
by
Chicago Steel Container Corporation and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency filed with the Board
on
September
28,
1987.
The
terms and conditions
of the
Settlement
Agreement, which
is attached hereto, are
incorporated into this Order.
3.
Respondent
shall,
by certified check
or money
order
payable
to the State
of Illinois and designatted for
deposit
into the Environmental Trust
Fund, pay the sum
of $5,000.00
(Five Thousand Dollars).
The sum shall
be
paid within
30 days
of the date
of
this Order.
The
payment
shall be mailed
to:
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
IL
62706
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member
J.
Theodore Meyer
dissents.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify
that
the ab;ve Opinion
and Order
was
adopted on
the
/~
day
of
~
,
1987,
by
a vote
of
5/
~Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
82—253
BEFORE THE IL:IN0Is POLLUTION CONTROL BO~~
SEP
2 8 ~
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
L
~
Complainant,
—vs—
)
PCB 86—50
CHICAGO STEEL CONTAINER CORPORATION,
an
Illinois Corporation,
Respondent.
STIPULATION OF TACTS AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
Complainant,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
by its attorney,
Neil
F. Hartigan, Attorney General of the State
of Illinois,
and Respondent,
Chicago Steel Container Corporation,
an Illinois corporation,
submit the following Stipulation of
Facts and Proposed Settlement.
The parties agree that the state-
ment of facts contained herein represents
a fair summary
of the
evidence and testimony which would be introduced by the parties
if
a full hearing were hsld.
The parties further stipulate that
this statement
of facts
is made and agreed upon for purposes of
settlement only and that neither the fact that a party has en-
tered into this Stipulation,
nor any of the facts stipulated
herein,
shall
be introduced
into evidence in this or any other
proceeding except to enforce the terms by the parties to this
agreement.
This agreement shall be null and void unless the Il—
linois Pollution Control Board (hereinafter “Board”) approves and
disposes of this matter on each and every one of the terms and
conditions of the settlement
set forth.
—1—
Q
•)
~‘)
c
I.
STIPULATION OF FACTS
1.
Complainant Illinois Environmental Protection Agen-
cy (hereinafter “Agency”
or “IEPA”),
is an administrative agency
of the State of Illinois, established in the executive branch of
the State government by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act,
(hereinafter “the Act”)
(Ill.Rev.Stat.,
ch.
111 1/2,
pars.
1001 et ~
(1983),
charged,
inter alia,
with the duty of enforc-
ing the Act pursuant to Title VIII.
2.
Respondent, Chicago Steel Container
(hereinafter
“Chicago
Steel”)
is
an
Illinois
corporation
incorporated
on
or
about
March
16,
1978
and
has
at
all
times
pertinent
herein
trans-
acted
business
in
the
State
of
Illinois.
Respondent’s
corporate
name
was
changed
to
Chicago
Steel
Container
Corporation
from
Chicago
Steel
Drum
Corporation
on
or
about
April
30,
1981.
At
all
times
pertinent
to these proceedings,
Chicago Steel’s
activities have been conducted at 1846 South Xilbourn Avenue,
Chicago, Cook County,
Illinois.
3.
Respondent manufactures,
coats and paints drum
parts and complete finished drums
at its Kilbourn Avenue
facility.
Respondent
assenthles the drums out of pre-cut sheets
of steel that are curved and welded to form a drum.
4.
Respondent
Operates
four
spray
booths.
The
first
booth
is
used
to
apply an exterior coating to drum tops and bot-
toms.
The
second
booth is used to apply an exterior coating to
the
drums
and
lids
with
a
variety
of
colors according to customer
—2—
82—255
specification.
The third spray booth
is to apply liners to the
inside of the drums.
The fourth spray booth applies
to a liner
to the inside of the tops and bottoms.
Respondent air dries the
coated drums or cures them in bake ovens.
II.
FACTS RELATING TO THIS LITIGATION
5.
Respondent’s Xilbourn Avenue facility is
a source
of volatile organic material
(“VOM”)
as that term is defined
in
Section 211.122 of the Air Pollution Regulations of the Pollution
Control
Board,
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code,
Subtitle B,
Chapter
1,
Section
211.122
(1984).
VOM emissions at the site are produced by
Respondent’s equipment,
materials,
and processes as described in
Paragraphs
3 and
4 above.
6.
VON emissions contribute to the formation of ozone
in the environment.
Cook County
is designated by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency a non-attainment area for
ozone levels.
7. The Agency has never granted Respondent any permits
to construct or operate the painting booths,
lining booths, main
paint and lining baking oven and drying ovens at the Kilbourn
Avenue facility,
which are the subject
of the complaint filed
in
this action.
Permits have been issued by the Agency for other
sources, including paint and lining booths and baking ovens.
Although permit applications have been on file with the Agency
since December 29,
1983 for the aforementioned booths and ovens,
permits were not issued by the Agency because Respondent failed
—3—
82—256
to dencnstrate to the Agency’s satisfaction that VOM emissions
were within regulatory limits.
III.
IMPACT OF VIOLATION AND COMPLIANCE
8.
The Agency and Chicago Steel agree that Chicago
Steel was late in filing its application for the appropriate
permits is
a violation of the Act.
By failing to timely file,
there
was
an
impact
upon
the
public
resulting
from
Respcndent’s
non-compliance of the Act.
9.
Respondent
has
been
in
coeration
since
1980.
Since
that
time
Respondent
has
attempted
5
times
to
obtain
the
neces-
sary
permits
to
operate
its
plant.
Respondent
has
never
obtained
or
sought
a
construction
permit
from
the
Agency
for
the
equipment
identified
in
paragraph
7.
Each
time
Respondent
attempted
to
obtain an appropriate operating permit,
it was denied a permit by
the
Agency,
because
the
information
given
by
Respondent
to
the
Agency
relating
to
VON
emissions
was
deemed
inadequate
by
the
Agency
for
it
to
determine
whether
there
was
compliance.
Respon-
dent
believes it has now given the Agency information in order to
obtain a permit.
The information shows that Respondent falls
within
the
25
T/year
of
VOC~1imitation
as
provided
by
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code,
Section
215.206,
and
also
falls
below
calculated
al—
lowable
emissions.
10.
The
Agency
and
Chicago
Steel
agree
that
Chicago
Steel’s
facility
has
social
and
economic
values
in
that
it
em-
ploys approximately
25
people
and
provides
needed
manufactured
goods.
—4—
82—257
11.
The IEPA will
issue an operating permit to Chicago
Steel Container upon receipt of proof from Chicago Steel Con-
tainer that its operations will not cause or contribute
to a
violation of either the Illinois Environmental Protection Act or
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
Air
Pollution
Control
Reg-
ulations,
pursuant
to
Section
39(a)
of
the
Act,
Ill.Rev.Stat.
ch.
111
1/2,
par.
1039(a).
12.
Further
reporting
establishing
compliance
with
VOC
regulations
and
rules
will
be
submitted
by
Chicago
Steel Con-
tainer for
1985
and
each
succeeding
year
at
a
time
specified
by
Respondents
operating
permit.
NOW THEREFORE,
the parties to this proceeding hereby
stipulate and agree to the following compliance program.
A.
Respondent has violated Section 9(b)
of the Act,
Il1.Rev.Stat.,
ch.
111 1/2,
par.
1009(b),
in the manner and at
the times described earlier.
Respondent will cease and desist
from further violation of the Act by obtaining the appropriate
permits from the Agency.
B.
Respondent neither admits nor denies violating Sec-
tion 9(a)
of the Act,
35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 215.204(j)
and
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 215.212(a).
C.
The IEPA will
issue an operating permit to Chicago
Steel Container upon receipt
of proof by Chicago Steel Container
that its operations will not cause
or contribute to a violation
—~—
82—258
of either the Illinois Environmental Protection Act or the II—
linois Pollution Control Board Air Pollution Control Regulations,
pursuant
to
Sectior.
39(a)
of
the
Act,
I1l.Rev.Stat.
ch.
111
1/2,
par.
1039(a).
D.
Further reporting establishing compliance with VOC
regulations and rules will be submitted by Chicago Steel Con-
tainer for 1985 and each succeeding year at a time specified by
Respondent ‘s permit.
E.
The Agency is authorized to inspect Respondent’s
premises,
at any reasonable time,
and to do whatever is necessary
within the statuto~zand regulatory authority to encourage com-
pliance with the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated.
F.
Respondent’s shall pay a civil penalty of
$5,000.00.
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 Environ-
mental Protection Trust Fund and delivered to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
IL 62706
ATTN:
Nary Jo Heise
—6—
82—259
F.
This Agreement, when accepted by the Pollution Con-
trol Board shall be
binding on all signatories and their succes-
sors and assigns,
and shall constitute
a final
disposition of all
matter set forth in the Agency’s Complaint against Respondent.
G.
This proposal is submitted to the Board for approv-
al 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
f
ore-
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:
~-~--k.
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
/
AGENCY
By:
~
,c~~
Date:___________________
CHICAGO STEEL CONTAINER,
INC.
mbst lb