ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 27,
1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 73—192
I.S. BERLIN PRESS,
INC.,
Respondent.
Mr. Fredric J.
Entin, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on
behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency;
Mr. Lester D.
Foreman, Rudnick, Wolfe, Snyderman
& Foreman,
appeared on behalf of I.S. Berlin Press,
Inc.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Duxnelle):
This action involves a Complaint filed against I.S.
Berlin Press,
Inc.
(Respondent), by the Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
on May 4,
1973.
Respondent operates a
printing facility located in Chicago, Illinois.
The Complaint
alleges that from July 1,
1970 to the date of the filing of
the Complaint Respondent operated its facility in such a
manner as to cause air pollution in violation of Section
9(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
The Complaint
also alleges that Respondent failed to obtain permits for a
press and an incinerator installed in the facility after
July
1,
1970,
in violation of Section 9(b) of the Act and
Section 3-2.110 of the Rules and Regulations Governing The
Control Of Air Pollution
(Air Rules).
On the date scheduled for public hearing, July 26,
1973,
the parties submitted a Stipulation of Facts.
Respondent
admitted that it owned and operated the printing facility
consisting of four lithographic web presses; that hydrocarbon
emissions occurring during the drying process are ducteci
through afterburners on each of the presses; that such
afterburners are theoretically efficient incinerators of
hydrocarbons when operated in the temperature range of 1200
to 15000F;
and that at infrequent times since July
1,
1970,
such afterburners either did not function or operated below
1200°F.
It was further stipulated that the stacks on the roof
of Respondent’s facility are located on a level with third
floor windows of adjacent apartment buildings;
that any
odors from stack emissions would disperse on
a line level
with said windows;
that between July 1,
1970 and May 4,
1973,
the Environmental Protection Agency had received
numerous complaints from persons living near the facility;
15—
555
—2—
that odors described as ~‘sickening”, ~‘noxious”and “irritating”
were identified as originating from Berlin; and that the
odor problem was not continuous, but related to variable
factors within the control of Berlin.
The Stipulation further provided that one press was
installed in April,
1972, without having first applied for a
construction permit as required by Rule 3-2.110 of the Air
Rules and as such constituted a violation of Section 9(b)
of
the Act.
In addition,
an afterburner was installed and
c~.
~ted
to this press in April,
1972,
also in violation of
Rule
3—2.110 and Section 9(b).
Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, Berlin
voluntarily installed interlocking devices on the presses to
insure they would not operate without the afterburners also
operating at
a temperature of at least 1200°F. Berlin also
agreed to raise its stack height thirty feet and to perform
a stack test by January, 1974,
and that if such test indicated
non-compliance with the applicable Pollution Control Board
Regulation, Rule 205(f),
to conform the operating temperature
of its afterburners
to the temperature at which compliance
would be achieved.
Subsequent to the filing of the initial Stipulation,
Respondents moved on January
14, 1974
to reopen the hearing
on the grounds that compliance would work a severe hardship
and be unnecessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act.
The Board granted this motion on January 24,
1974.
Additional
hearings were held on September
27 and October
30,
1974.
Testimony was received to the effect that Berlin had modified
its equipment on three incinerators according to recommendations
made by a consultant
firm, Particle Data Laboratories,
and
that such firm had conducted a performance test on the least
efficient incinerator, under supervision of the Agency.
A
representative of the Agency testified that such test indicated
compliance with Rule 205(f) of the Air Pollution Regulations
and that two other incinerators would also comply under
similar operating parameters
(R.
60). The fourth press had
been sold and its incinerator was not in use.
He further
testified that an interview of citizens living in the vicinity
of Respondent!s plant indicated a considerable improvement
in odor emission levels and no further cause for complaint
after the modifications and stack test had been performed
(R.
61).
The Agency thus concluded that the increased stack
height,
as provided for in the original Stipulation, was no
longer necessary.
As a result,
a revised Stipulation was entered into on
November 12,
1974 which differed materially from the original
one in only a few aspects; the stack height requirement was
dropped,
a minimum afterburner temperature of 1400°Fwas
required, maintenance procedures recommended by Particle
—3—
Data Laboratories were required,
and a reporting procedure
in case of malfunction was outlined.
The Board adopts these
stipulations in
full.
In accepting the Agency’s recommendation
that the stack height increase is not necessary,
we rely on
the evidence that citizen complaints had ceased.
This
finding should not be construed as approval of the present
stack height should such complaints reoccur in the future.
The Board also finds, after considering all factors set
out in Section 33 of the Act, that the Stipulation is adequate
to establish
a violation of Section
9(a)
of the Act.
Respondent
did not deny that it emitted odors so as to cause or tend to
cause air pollution.
We have previously indicated that air
pollution is proved if the evidence shows a significant
interference with the enjoyment of life and property that
can be corrected by the employment of technology that is
available at reasonable
cost.
Moody
v.
Flintkote,
PCB 70-
36.
Respondent admitted that citizen complaints identified
Berlin as the source of an odor problem.
Considering the
close proximity of residential dwelling units, where in fact
stack emissions were adjacent to third floor windows,
Respondent should have been less remiss in maintaining its
incinerators at an efficient level.
Moreover,
the relative
ease with which Respondent effectuated repairs to insure
compliance with the Act and alleviate citizen complaints
indicates the technical practicability and economic reasonableness
~f reducing the emissions involved,
Certainly the social
nd economic value of the printing facility is not such as
to outweigh these offsetting criteria.
We recognize that Respondent cooperated with the Agency
in reaching a solution to this problem.
Our finding today
is affected by this mitigating factor.
However, we must
also note that Berlin required the impetus of the Complaint
to effectuate the necessary repairs.
Although an interlock
system was installed soon after the Complaint,
the overhaul
of the afterburners and stack test were delayed for a considerable
period of time as a result of motions to reopen the hearing
and for continuance.
During this entire period we must
assume Berlin remained in violation of the Act, benefitting
from pollution at the expense of citizens living in apartments
abutting the plant.
Although the principal reason for
authorizing the imposition of civil penalties is to aid the
enforcement of the Act, the record here shows that an effective
means of eliminating the problem was readily available,
at
reasonable expense, much before Respondent actually acted.
Accordingly, we impose a fine of
$500 for the violation of
Section
9(a)
found herein.
The permit violations which have been alleged by the
Agency were admitted by Berlin and we find the Respondent
guilty on these charges.
Since the record does not indicate
15
—
557
—4—
if the press and incinerator which are the subjects of these
violations are still operating,
or if these are the ones
that have shut down,
we have no way of knowing if these
violations are continuing.
Furthermore,
the record does not
indicate if operating permits have been obtained for any of
the emission sources as required under Section 103(b)
(2)
of
the present Air Pollution Regulation
(Illinois Pollution
Control Board Rules and Regulations,
Chapter 2).
We hereby
order Respondent
to cease and desist from any continuing
violations of all permit requirements under the Act and
Regulations.
In EPA v. American Generator and Armature Company, PCB
71-329,
the Board announced
a policy of not assessing a
penalty for permit violations prior to the date of that
decision, January
6,
1972
(Mr. Dumelle dissenting).
Since
the violations
in this instant occurred subsequent to this
date, when Respondent should have been on notice as to
permit requirements, we feel a monetary penalty in the
amount of $500 is justified.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that
I.S. Berlin Press,
Inc.,
carry out the following terms
of the Stipulation:
1.
Respondent,
I.S. Berlin Press,
Inc., will maintain
its afterburner-press interlocks in such
a manner that its
presses cannot operate without the associated afterburners
also operating at a minimum temperature of 1400°F. The
interlock shall include a lock on the temperature controls
such that access to such controls are strictly limited.
2.
Respondent,
I.S. Berlin Press,
Inc., will implement
the maintenance procedures for the incinerators recommended
by Particle Data Laboratories, Ltd. and testified to by
Patrick J. Morrissey, Manager of Plant Engineering,
I.S.
Berlin Press,
Inc.,
at the hearing of September 27,
1974.
These procedures will include testing every six months,
an
in—house check of the incinerators every month and duct
checks every three months.
In the event it becomes necessary
to conduct the various maintenance procedures at shorter
intervals of time,
said maintenance schedule will be reduced
accordingly by Berlin.
15—558
—5—
3.
Respondent,
I.S. Berlin Press,
Inc.,
shall in the
event of a condition in which the presses in question actually
run when the afterburner was functioning at
a temperature of
less than 1400°F,
so
notify the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency by telephoning the Manager of Region 11
Surveillance, Department of Air Pollution Control,
at 793-
4966 and send a confirming letter to said Manager at:
Naval Armory
Randolph Street at Lake Shore Drive
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
4.
The Board further orders I.S. Berlin Press,
Inc.,
to cease and desist from any continuing violations of all
permit requirements under the Act and Regulations, within 45
days from the date of this Order, and to pay a penalty in
the sum of $1000 within 35 days of the date of this Order,
for violations of Sections 9(a),
9(b)
of the Act and 3-2.110
of the Rules found in this proceeding.
Penalty payment by
certified check or money order shall be made payable
to:
Environmental Protection Agency, Fiscal Services,
2200
Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~yt’3
day of February,
1975 by
a vote
of
.4—o
~lL~
~:
Christan L. Moffe~Clerk
Illinois Po1lutio~~ontrolBoard
15 —559