ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    August
    9,
    1979
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    (;ENERAL1
    MOTORS
    CORPORATION
    a Delaware Corporation,
    )
    Respondent,
    )
    PCB 74—475
    PCB 75—35
    GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
    )
    (CONSOLIDATED)
    a
    Delaware
    Corporation,
    )
    Petitioner,
    V.
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ANNE
    K.
    MARKEY,
    ASSISTANT
    ATTORNEY
    GENERAL,
    APPEARED
    ON
    BEHALF
    OF’ COMPLAINANT;
    RICHARD
    S.
    FINN
    AND
    NORTON
    L.
    PENNY,
    FINN,
    VAN
    MELL
    &
    PENNEY,
    AN!)
    RICHARD
    J.
    KISSEL, MARTIN, CRAIG CHESTER &
    SONNENSCHEIN,
    APPEARED
    ON
    BEHALF
    OF
    RESPONDENT
    GENERAL
    MOTORS.
    OPINION
    AN!)
    ORDER
    OF
    TIlE
    ROARD
    (by
    Mr.
    Goodman):
    The
    matter
    before
    the
    Board
    concerns
    an
    enforcement
    ac-
    tion against Electro—Motive Division of General Motors Corp.
    (Electra—Motive) filed on December 17, 1974
    (PCB
    74—475) and
    General Motors’
    subsequent proposed counterclaim filed January
    24,
    1975.
    The counterclaim was accepted by the Board as a per-
    mit denial appeal,
    docketed as PCB 75—35, and consolidated
    with PCB 74-475 for hearing by order of the hearing officer.
    The Board, on its own motion, hereby consolidates these cases
    for purposes of decision.
    The Complaint in PCB 74—475 alleges violation of Rule
    103(b)(2) and Section 9(b)
    of the Environmental Protection
    Act
    (Act).
    The Complaint also alleges that Electra—Motive
    violated Rule 104 and Section 9(a)
    of the Act by not following
    35—155
    —2—
    a compliance program while the facility operated
    in violation
    of Rule 203(g). The permit denial appeal action alleges that
    the
    action
    of
    the
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency
    (Agency)
    in denyinq
    Electro—Motive’s
    permit
    appilcation
    was
    arbitrary
    and
    capricious.
    Hearings
    have
    been
    held,
    including
    a
    public
    hearing
    on
    June
    27,
    1979.
    A Stipulation and Proposal
    for
    Settlement
    was
    filed
    with
    the
    Board
    on
    June
    27,
    1979.
    A
    more complete representation of the lengthy procedural
    history of this case
    is found in the Stipulation.
    One outstanding Motion for Modification of an Interim
    Order,
    filed on November 24, 1976 and stayed by Board Order
    on December
    2,
    1976,
    remains
    to be ruled upon.
    The Board
    hereby denies Electro—Motive’s motion for Modification and
    affirms the Interim Order of October 14,
    1976.
    The subject of these proceedings
    is Electro—Motive’s
    manufacturing plant located in McCook,
    Illinois.
    At issue
    in
    this case are three Babcock and Wilcox coal—fired spreader
    stoker boilers which are the principal supply of heat and
    the sole supply of process steam for the facility.
    These
    boilers are fully equipped with operating instrumentation
    which allow each boiler to perform at the maximum rate of
    efficiency and at the
    lowest possible emission rates.
    On
    February
    5,
    1974,
    the Agency denied an application for opera-
    ting permits based on its analysis of stack tests which formed
    part of the permit application.
    The grounds
    for refusal were
    that the application did not prove compliance with Rule 203
    (g)(1)(C).
    After submission of the application,
    Electro—Motive
    learned that clerical errors caused incorrect results.
    Sub-
    sequent tests demonstrated that Electro—Motive was marginally
    in technical violation of Rule 203(g)(1)(C).
    In November,
    1977 Electro—Motive conducted stack tests
    which indicated that the boilers were well within the emission
    standards of Rule 203(g)(~)(C).
    On the basis of these
    tests,
    the Agency issued operating permits on February 28,
    1978; Electro-Motive
    is now in compliance with the Act.
    The
    parties agree
    that their differences had reasonable bases
    and that Electro—Motive’s defense had been conducted in good
    faith
    (Stip.,
    pp.
    12—13).
    The Board finds that
    it is
    in the best interests of the
    People of Illinois that this
    litigation come to an end.
    Electro—Motive now has operating permits and
    is performing
    in accordance with the Act.
    Because the violation of 2O3(g)
    (1)(C) was of a technical nature and did not significantly
    interfere with the health,
    welfare, and property of the People
    of Illinois,
    the Board will not assess a penalty.
    The Board
    accepts the Stipulation which
    is hereby incorporated by refer-
    ence as if fully set forth herein, and finds Electro-Motive
    in violation of Rule 103(b)(2)
    and Section
    9(b) of the Act.
    35—156
    —3—
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclu-
    sions
    of law of the Board in this matter.
    ORDER
    It
    I
    ~
    t:h~
    Order
    of
    the
    Pot
    1 ut
    ion
    Control
    Board
    that:
    1)
    Electro—Motive
    Division
    of
    General
    Motors
    Corporation
    is
    found
    to
    have
    violated Regulation 103(b)(2) of Chapter
    2:
    Air
    Pollution
    Control Regulations and Section 9(b)
    of the Environmental Protection Act.
    2)
    The Interim Order herein of October 14,
    1976,
    is hereby
    affirmed.
    I,
    Christan L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control
    Board, here~ycertify t e abov
    Opinion and Order were
    adop~,don the
    ~
    day of
    _________
    ____,
    1979 by a vote
    ~~4ThY6L~
    Christan
    L. Moffet~
    erk
    Illinois Pollution
    o
    rol Board
    35—157

    Back to top