ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 11, 1976
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—260
    SERVICE COATINGS, INC., an
    )
    Illinois corporation,
    Respondent.
    Mr. James L. Dobrovolny, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney
    for Complainant
    Mr. Robert C. Keck, Jr.., Jenner & Block, Attorney for Respondent
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Young):
    This case arises out of an Amended Complaint filed by the
    Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) on December 15, 1975,
    alleging that Service Coatings, Inc. (Respondent) has operated
    from January 1, 1973, through July 3, 1975, a paint manufacturing
    facility in violation of the operating permit requirements of
    Rule 103(b) of Chapter 2, Air Pollution Control Regulations (Regu-
    lations), and in further violation of Section 9(b) of the Environ-
    mental Protection Act (Act).
    A hearing was held on December 23, 1975, in Chicago at which
    time a Stipulation of Facts and Agreed Settlement (Stipulation)
    was entered into the record. No additional evidence was adduced
    at the hearing; no members of the public were present.
    Respondent’s paint manufacturing facility is located in an
    industrial area in Harvey, Illinois, and produces plastic and
    vinyl coatings and has eight blender-mixers as part of its equip-
    ment. The emissions from the blender—mixers are vented to
    two
    sets of duct work and then exhausted directly into the atmosphere
    by blowers. Solvents are charged into the blender—mixers through
    pipes and not by splashing; mixing of the charge is mild. An
    average of 11,600 gallons of coatings are produced per month.
    Organic solvent emissions are generated by the blender—mixers in
    this production process, and some of the solvents used in that
    production are photochemically reactive. Sixteen people are em-
    ployed at these facilities.
    20—21
    —2—
    In a letter dated December 30, 1974, the Agency notified
    Respondent of the applicable operating permit requirements.
    By letter dated April 7, 1975, the Agency again notified the
    Respondent of its operation permit delinquencies. On July 31,
    1975, this enforcement action was commenced by the filing of a
    two Count Complaint. Count II of that Complaint alleged that
    Respondent violated Rule 103(b) (2) by conducting painting opera-
    tions using in excess of ~,000 gallons of paint (including thinner)
    without having an operating permit. Count II was eliminated in
    the Amended Complaint because Respondent produced affidavits indi-
    cating that less than 5,000 gallons of paint (including thinner)
    per year were used by the spray painting facility, thus exempting
    Respondent from the operating permit requirements of Rule 103(b)
    (2) for its spray painting facility.
    The Amended Complaint was filed on December 15, 1975, and
    contained only the allegations concerning the permit violations
    for the paint manufacturing facilities of Respondent. Respondent
    admits that it operated its eight blender—mixers at its paint
    manufacturing facility since January 1, 1973, without the necessary
    operating permits from the Agency as required by Rule 103(b) (2)
    of the Air Regulations and in further violation of Section 9(b)
    of the Act. For these admitted violations, the parties agree that
    a penalty of $3,000.00 should be assessed. It is further agreed
    that Respondent shall obtain operating permits for its paint
    manufacturing facilities no later than 120 days after receipt of
    this Opinion and Order.
    On the basis of the foregoing and the Stipulation, which
    constitutes all of the facts in this matter, we find that Respondent
    did violate Rule 103(b) (2) of the Air Regulations and a further
    violation of Section 9(b) of the Act. A penalty of $3,000.00 is
    assessed for these violations.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board in this matter.
    ORDER
    1. Respondent, Service Coatings, Inc., is found to have
    operated its paint manufacturing facilities from January 1, 1973,
    until July 3, 1975, without the necessary operating permits
    in
    violation of Rule 103(b) (2) of the Air Regulations and in further
    violation of Section 9(b) of the Act, and a penalty of $3,000.00
    is assessed for these violations. Penalty payment by certified
    check or money order payable to the State of Illinois shall be
    made within 35 days of the date of this Order to: Fiscal Services
    Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill
    Road, Springfield, Illinois, 62706.
    20—22
    —3—
    2. Respondent, Service Coatings, Inc., shall obtain opera-
    ting permits from the Agency for its paint manufacturing facilities
    no later than 120 days after receipt of this Order.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify th above Opinion and Order were
    adopted on the
    f(~’
    day of _________________________, 1976
    by a vote of
    4-ca
    Christan L. Mof e
    ,
    lerk
    Illinois Pollution ntrol Board
    20—23

    Back to top