ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 18, 1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 75—144

HARRIS HUB COMPANY, INC.

an Illinois Corporation,

Respondent.

Ms. Joan C. Wing and Mr. Dennis Fields, Assistant Attorneys

General, appeared for Complainant.

Mr. Roger B. Harris and Mr. Jonathan Rosenbloom, Aitheirner

and Gray, appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board) upon the Environmental Protection Agency’s (Agency)

April 2, 1975, complaint charging Harris Hub Company, Inc.,

(Harris) with violating Rule 103(b) (2) of the Air Regulations

and Section 9(b) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act).

Two stipulations of fact were filed with the Board on June

23, 1975. A hearing was held on June 20, 1975.

Harris, an Illinois Corporation, has owned and operated

its manufacturing facility in Harvey, County of Cook, Illinois,

for the past twenty years. Its products include steel bed

frames, steel bed rails and other bedding products. Harris

uses in excess of 5,000 gallons of paint per year in its

manufacturing process and has never received an operating

permit from the Agency (Stip. 2) 

Harris has 250 employees.

Pursuant to Rule 103 (b) (2), existing painting operations

using in excess of 5,000 gallons of paint per year, were

required to have obtained an operating permit on or before

May 1, 1973. Section 9(b) of the Act is violated where a

facility “capable of causing or contributing to air pollution

or designed to prevent air pollution, of any type designated

by Board regulations,” is operated without a permit granted

by the Agency.

18

—

533

—2—

As Harris stipulates to its failure to obtain an operating

permit and as such permit is required by the Air Regulations

in Rule 103(b), the Board finds that Harris has operated its

facility in violation of Rule 103(b) of the Air Regulations

and Section 9(b) of the Act since May 1, 1973.

On November 12, 1974, the Agency informed Harris, by

letter, that Harris’ lack of an operating permit could

constitute a violation of the Air Regulations (Stip. 2).

Harris applied for an operating permit on February 4, 1975

(Stip. 2). This application was rejected on or about March

3, 1975, for lack of information (Stip. 3). On or about

April 4, 1975, Harris hired an engineering firm to properly

prepare the permit application at a cost of $902.84 (Stip.

3). Harris submitted this application to the Agency on

April 18, 1975 (Stip. 3) 

This application was rejected May

13, 1975, for failure to comply with Rule 103(b) (4) of the

Air Regulations. Harris re-applied, supplying the corrected

authorization required by Rule 103(b) (4) (R.158). Respondent’s

excuse for not obtaining a permit was that, as it was not

contributing to air pollution, it felt a permit was not

necessary (R. 164—69).

Mr. Mel Villalobos, an Agency engineer, testified that

he wrote to Harris informing it of the need to apply for a

permit in November of 1974 (R.3l). In December of 1974, and

January of 1975, Mr. Villalobos telephoned Harris. However,

these telephone calls were nol1 returned (R.33-4)

Mr. George Harris, the t:~a~ manager, testified that

Harris changed from oil to g:tS heat in 1972 so as not to

pollute (R.185—6). He also stated that Harris had installed

an afterburner 

c’i its inc ~erator to re’uce particulate and

when this failed to ~reve~1L pàzticulatf emissions, Harris

stopped burning trash (R.l87-8).

The Agency stipulates that it has no evidence, information

or belief that any of Harris’ emissions violate any of the

Air Regulations or the Act (Stip. 4).

A viable permit program is an essential element in the

State of Illinois’ efforts to provide the people with a

healthy environment as guaranteed by our State Constitution.

Here, Harris’ failure to obtain a permit was due solely to factors

within its control. Therefore, we assess Harris a penalty

in the amount of $500.00 for its violation of Rule 103(b) (2)

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

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law in this matter.

—

534

—3—

ORDER

It is the Order of the Board that:

1) Respondent, Harris Hub Company, Inc., shall pay a

penalty in the amount of $500.00 for the violations of

Section 9(b) of the Environmental Protection Act and Rule

103(b) (2) of the Air Regulations. Said penalty shall be

paid by certified check or money order payable to the State

of Illinois within 35 days of this Order and shall be mailed

to:

Fiscal Services Division

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

and,

2) Respondent, Harris Hub Company, Inc., shall apply,

within 30 days, and obtain, within 120 days, an operating

permit for its facility in Harvey, Illinois.

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

Control Board, hereby certify the above Op’nion and Order

were adopted on the 

_________

day of 

________

1975 by a

vote of 

_________

—

535