ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 4, 1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

)

Complainant,

)

v.

)

PCB 75—291

)

TIME CHEMICAL, INC.,        

)

Respondent.

Mr. Richard W. Cosby and Mr. 

James

L. Dobrovolny, Assistant

Attorneys General, appeared on behalf of Complainant.

Mr. Burton S. Gilberg appeared on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION 

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board) upon the July 25, 1975, complaint of the Environ—

mental Protection Agency (Agency). The complaint charges

Time Chemical, Inc. (Time Chemical) with operating a chem-

ical 

and

allied products industry operation without the

required operating permit from the Agency, in violation of

Rule 103(b) (2) of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations

(Chapter 2) and Section 9(b) of the Environmental Protection

Act (Act).

Respondent, Time Chemical, owns and operates a facility

for compounding 

dry

industrial and institutional detergents.

Time Chemical purchases the various raw materials that go

into the manufacture of cleaning compounds and blends them

to specific formulations. The facility consists, in part,

of five paddle-type mixers, a weigh hopper and seven raw

material storage hoppers. It is located at 3950 South

Karlov Street, Chicago, Illinois.

A hearing on this matter was held on October 14, 1975,

in Chicago, Illinois. The Agency presented evidence of six

(6) letters it sent to Time Chemical from August 13, 1974

through June 9, 1975, warning Time Chemical of its need to

obtain an Agency operating permit for its facility (Comp.

Ex. No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, & 8).

Evidence was presented that improper emission control

at Time Chemical’s facility resulted from the dust collect-

ing system utilized in the handling of bulk transfer of raw

materials (R.l3). An environmental protection engineer from

the Agency testified that he inspected the plant and ob-

served a scrubber system consisting of a type of washer wash

drum with some nozzles in it and water going through it. He

- 386

—2—

observed a white plume resembling particulate matter coming

from this control equipment. At times the plume reached 100

per cent opacity (R.4l).

A representative of Time Chemical testified that August

6, 1974 was the first time that Time Chemical became aware

of its violation of the Act (R. 3). Respondent was delayed

in fully complying with the requirements of the Act due to

the retirement of the plant engineer and other key personnel

(R.3, 12). Furthermore, an Agency letter indicated that

before Time Chemical could apply for an operating permit, it

first had to obtain a construction permit for the installa-

tion of the new emission control equipment purchased five

months prior to the hearing. The new equipment is to re-

place the watérscrubber system (R.25, 27). Time Chemical

hired Hardy Systems Co. (Hardy) to install the equipment and

requested that Hardy make the necessary applications for

construction permits. Hardy, however, submitted an appli-

cation to the City of Chicago, only, and not to the Agency

(R.24). Approximately one week to 10 days prior to the

hearing in this matter, Respondent submitted to the Agency

its application for a construction permit for installation

of its emission control equipment (R.27-28). Respondent has

hired an engineering firm to complete its application for an

operating permit, which will be submitted once its construc-

tion permit is obtained (R.25).

Section 33(c) of the Act requires the Board in making

its determinations to consider the degree of injury to the

public, the social and economic value of the pollution

source, the suitability of the pollution source to its

location, and the technical practicability and economic

reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions.

Information contained in the record which could help the

Board in its consideration of these factors was scarce.

However, the Board has repeatedly held that enforcement of

the permit provisions of the Act and the Regulations is

essential to the environmental control system in Illinois.

EPA v. George E. Hoffman and Sons, Inc., PCB 71-300. Injury

to the public is inherent in a failure to obtain required

permits. Furthermore, in this case evidence was presented

that Time Chemical’s facility was contributing to the air

pollution of the environment by particulate emissions which

at times reached 100 per cent opacity. Time Chemical’s

purchase of new emission control equ’ipment five months prior

to the hearing indicates that reducing the emissions was

both technically practicable and economically reasonable.

An effort to obtain an operating permit by January 1, 1973,

as required by the Act, and Regulations, would most likely

have resulted in abatement of this pollution at a date well

over two years prior to the filing of the complaint in this

matter.

- 387

—3—

Based upon the evidence admitted at the hearing on

October 14, 1975, the Board finds that from January 1, 1973

through July 25, 1975, Respondent, Time Chemical, operated a

chemical and allied products industry without an operating

permit from the Agency, in violation of Rule 103(b) (2) of

the Air Pollution Control Regulations (Chapter 2) and Sec-

tion 9(b) of the Act. Although Respondent has begun a good

faith effort to comply with the requirements of the Act, the

Board finds that consideration of the essential nature of

the permit requirements and Respondent’s lengthy delay in

compliance efforts warrant payment of a penalty of $2500.00.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1. Respondent, Time Chemical, Inc., shall apply to the

Agency for and obtain an operating permit for its facility,

as required by Rule 103(b) (2) of the Air Pollution Control

Regulations (Chapter 2) and Section 9(b) of the Act as re-

quired by law..

2. Respondent is found to have violated Rule 103(b) (2)

of the Air Regulations and Section 9(b) of the Act.

3. Respondent shall pay within 45 days a penalty of

$2500.00 for said violations. Payment shall be made by

certified check or money order to:

State of Illinois

Fiscal Services Division

Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the IllinOis Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinon and Order

were adopted on the 4/~’~  

day of 

_______________

1975 by a vote of 4~-O

Christan L. Moff  

Clerk

Illinois Pollutio oritrol Board

388