ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 11, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 75-34
PETTIBONE CORPORATION,
a
Delaware corporation,
Respondent.
Ms. Mary.C.
Schlott, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney for
Complainant
Nr. Robert H. Joyce, Seyfarth,
Shaw, Fairweather
& Geraidson,
Attorney for Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Young):
This case comes before the Pollution Control Board on a
Complaint filed by the Environmental Protection Agency on
January
3,
1975, against Pettibone Corporation, owner and
operator of a heavy machinery manufacturing plant located at
4700 W. Division Street in Chicago.
The Complaint consisted
of seven Counts and alleged various violations by Pettibone
in the operation of its manufacturing plant of the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution (Rules),
Air Pollution Control Regulations
(Regulations), and the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
On October 15,
1975,
a hearing was held at which time a
Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement
(Stipulation) was
filed with the Board.
No additional evidence was adduced at
the hearing;
no members of the public participated.
Count
I of the Complaint alleged that the electric arc
furnaces emitted particulates from July 1,
1970 until December
31,
1973 in violation of Rule 3—3.2132 of the Rules, and from
December
31,
1973 until the date of the filing of the Complaint
in violation of Rule 203(a) of
the Regulations and in further
violation of Section 9(a) of the Act.
The Stipulation provided
that Pettibone’s one-ton electric arc furnace emits not less
than 9.2 pounds per hour of particulate matter, exceeding the
permitted rate of 2.6 pounds per hour.
The five—ton electric
arc furnace emits 29.9 pounds of particulate per hour and that
—2—
based on
a process weight of 3.25 tons per hour this emission
exceeds the limit of 4.8 pounds per hour set by Rule 3-3.2132
and Rule 203(a).
These stipulated facts support the finding
of violations by both furnaces of the Rules and Regulations
and based upon these violations a further violation of Section
9(a) of the Act.
Count
II of the Complaint alleged that Pettibone operated
its electric arc furnaces from July 1,
1970,
until April
14,
1972,
in violation of Rule 3-3.400 of the Rules and from April
14,
1972, until the date of the filing of.the Complaint in
violation of Rule 109 of the Regulations, and in further viola-
tion of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
Rule 109 deals with circumvention and provides in part “no
person shall cause or allow the construction or operation of any
device which
***
without resulting in a reduction in the total
amount of any air contaminant emitted, conceals, dilutes, or
permits air contaminant emissions which would otherwise violate
the regulations.”
The Stipulation provides that both the one-
ton and the five-ton electric arc furnaces are emitting particu-
late matter at a rate exceeding their rospective limitations set
by Rule 203(a).
Since the Stipulation provides
facts
to support
a finding that the electric arc furnaces are operating in viola-
tion of Rule 203(a),
the last element of Rule 109 is not met
which requires that the conduct “conceals, dilutes or permits air
contaminant emissions which would otherwise violate these regula-
tions.”
Emphasis
added.
The Stipulation provides facts to
find a violation of Rule 203(a), and that finding in this instance,
rules out the possibility of
a violation of Rule 109.
Count III of the Complaint alleged that Pettibone operated
its paint spray booths since July
1,
1970, in
a manner allowing
the emission of particulate matter exceeding the limits allowed
by Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and Rule 203(a)
of the Regulations
and in further violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
Count III
also alleged that since December
31,
1973, Pettibone has operated
these paint spray booths
in a manner so as to cause or allow the
discharge or emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons
in violation of Rule 205(f)
of the Regulations and therefore in
violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
No facts are contained in
the Stipulation which could support the finding of
a violation
of either Rule 203(a)
or 205(f), and Count III therefore is dis-
missed.
Count IV of the Complaint alleged Pettibone conducted its
arc welding operations in such a manner as to cause or allow the
emission of excessive particulates in violation of Rule 3-3.111
of the Rules from July 1,
1970 until December 31,
1973,
and from
December 31,
1973 until the date of the filing of the Complaint
in violation of Rule 203(a) of the Regulations and in further
violation of Section 9(a) of the Act.
Agency calculations show
20—212
—3—
that particulate emissions of not less than 0.70 pounds per
hour result from the welding operation based on a process
weight of 7.62 pounds oer hour.
Such an emission, being
approximately seven times the permitted rate,
supports the
finding of a violation of the Rules and Regulations and based
upon these violations,
a further violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
Count V of the Complaint alleged that Pettibone operated
its facilities in such a manner
as
to emit particulate and
odors
as
to constitute air pollution as that term is defined
in Section
3(b)
in that they “cause injury to the health of
persons
living in the vicinity or unreasonably interfere with
the enjoyment of life or property of such persons.”
The Stipulation specifically provided that the emission
of particulate and odors were not of such character and duration
as
to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or
property of persons living in the vicinity.
The Stipulation
was silent as
to whether the emissions were injurious
to the
health of persons living in the vicinity.
These stipulated
facts rule out the possibility of a finding of a Section 9(a)
air pollution violation as that term is defined in Section
3
(b);
therefore, Count V is dismissed.
Count VI of the Complaint alleged that Pettibone operated
its two electric arc furnaces from December 1,
1972 until the
date of the filing of the Complaint and its paint spraying
booths from June
1,
1973 until the date of the filing of the
Complaint without operating permits in violation of Rule 103
(b) (2)
of the Regulations and in further violation of Section
9(b) of the Act.
The Stipulation provided that prior to the
filing of the Complaint, Pettibone had not applied for nor
received Agency operating permits for its two electric arc
furnaces and its two paint spray booths.
It is further stipu-
lated that Pettibone has never applied for
a variance from the
Act or Regulations for the operation of this equipment.
These
stipulated facts support the finding of violation of Rule 103
(b) (2)
of the Regulations and based upon these violations a
further violation of Section 9(b) of the Act.
Count VII of the Complaint alleged that Pettibone,
since
June
1,
1973, operated its electric arc furnaces, two paint
spray booths, and arc welding shops in a manner not in compliance
with the limitations of Rules
203(a)
and 205(f)
of the Regula-
tions,
and by engaging in this conduct without a compliance
program and
a project completion schedule approved by the Agency.
Pettibone has violated Rule 104(a)
of the Regulations and Section
9(a) of the Act.
The Stipulation provides that Pettibone has
operated its electric arc furnaces and welding booths since
December
31, 1973 in violation of Rule 203(a),
and also provides
20—213
—4—
that Pettibone has never applied for Agency approval for a
compliance program
and
project completion schedule for this
equipment.
These stipulated facts support the finding of a
violation of Rule 104(a) of the Air Rules and section 9(a)
of the Act.
As no
facts
are contained in the Stipulation
which support the finding that Pettibone has operated its
paint spray booths in violation of either Rule 203(a) or
205(f), that portion of this Count alleging violation of
Rule 104(a) in regards to this specific equipment is dis-
missed.
The stipulation provided that all emission sources
and
all existing air pollution equipment at the plant had been
operating in the
same
manner for more
than
nineteen (19)
years
•
Letters
warning
that
Pettibone
may
be
violating
the
Act
and
related
Regulations
were
sent
to
Joseph
Wrann,
Petti-
bone’s Master Mechanic, on October 25, 1972, March 22, 1974,
and
April 25,
1974.
Responses to those letters were received
from Mr. Wrann on November 24, 1974, and April 30, 1974.
Agency
field personnel visited the plant on October 24, and 25, 1972,
February 25,
1974, July 31, 1974, and September 20, 1974.
The parties stipulated that the most
economical
and
techni-
cally
feasible method of reducing emissions from Pettibone’s
electric
arc
furnaces
is
through
construction
of
baghouses
and
that
such
construction will not impose
a
financial
hardship
upon
Pettibone at the present
time.
The
construction
of
the
baghouse
is
estimated
to
take eighteen
(18) months at a cost of approxi-
mately $400,000.00.
The
settlement
agreement
calls
for
the
construction
of
a
baghouse
and
connecting
ductwork.
Pettibone
agrees
to
obtain
the
proper
permits
from
the
Agency,
submit
bi-monthly
reports
to
the
Agency,
conduct
stack
tests
at
the
completion
of
the
baghouse
installation,
and
execute
a
performance
bond
in
the
amount
of
$400,000.00.
In
addition,
Pettibone
agrees
to
cease
operation of
its
welding
booth
and
pay
a
civil
penalty
in
the
sum of $8,000.00 for the violations found•to exist by the Board.
On the basis of the above and the Stipulation, which con-
stitutes the entire record in this case, we
find
that
Pettibone
did
violate
the Act,
and
Rules,
and
the
Regulations:
by operating
its two electric arc furnaces in violation of Rule 3—3.2132 of
the Rules, Rule 203(a) and Rule 104(a) of the Regulations, and
in further violation of Section 9(a) of the Act; by conducting
its
arc
welding operations in violation of Rule 3-3.111 of the
Rules, Rule 203(a)
and Rule 104(a) of the Regulations and in
further violation of Section
9(a)
of the Act; by operating its
two
electric arc furnaces
and
paint spraying booths in violation
of Rule 103(b) (2) of the Regulations and in further violation of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
A penalty of $8,000.00 is assessed for
these violations.
~—214
—5—
This Opinion constitutes the findings of
fact and con—
clusions of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that:
1.
Respondent,
Pettibone Corporation,
is found
to have
violated Rule 3-3.2132 and Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regu-
lations Governing the Control of Air Pollution,
Rule 203(a),
Rule 104(a)
and Rule 103(b) (2)
of the Air Pollution Control
Regulations, and Section 9(a)
and Section 9(h)
of the Environ-
mental Protection Act, and shall pay to the State of Illinois
within
35 days of the date of this Order $8,000.00
as
a
penalty for these violations.
Penalty payment by certified
check or money order payable to the State of Illinois shall be
made to:
Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois,
62706.
2.
Respondent,
Pettibone Corporation, shall apply for
construction permits for a baghouse and connecting ductwork
for its electric arc furnaces from the Environmental Protection
Agency within six months of contracting for engineering of the
baghouse.
3.
Respondent,
Pettibone Corporation,
shall complete con-
struction of its baghouse and connecting ductwork within eighteen
(18) months from the date of this Order,
unless,
for good cause
shown, an extension of time is sought by Pettibone and granted
by the Board.
4.
Respondent,
Pettibone Corporation,
shall make bi-monthly
reports
to the Environmental Protection Agency on progress of
construction of its baghouse.
5.
Respondent, Pettibone Corporation, shall conduct stack
tests
to be performed by a consulting engineer of its choice and
pursuant to procedures agreed upon by the Environmental Protection
Agency and Pettibone.
Stack
tests will be conducted within 14
days of the completion of all modifications and installation or
within such other time as mutually agreed upon.
The Agency shall
be notified of the test date in advance, given an opportunity to
observe the testing,
and given
a copy of the test results.
6.
Respondent, Pettibone Corporation,
shall execute within
35 days of the date of this Order a performance bond in the
amount of $400,000.00
to guarantee the performance of the afore-
said construction.
20—215
—6—
7.
Respondent, Pettibone Corporation, shall
cease opera-
tion of its welding booths by January
9,
1976.
IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
that Counts
II,
III and V are dismissed.
That portion of
Count VII dealing with the paint spray booths is also dismissed.
Mr. Goodman concurs.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
d Order were
Control Board, hereby certify the above
adopted on the //~~“
day of
,
1976
by a vote of
1’~
,.Werk
Christan
Illinois Pollution ~~tro1
Board
20—216