ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 27,
    1975
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 73—515
    AMERICAN CAN COMPANY,
    Respondent,
    Mr.
    Dennis R.
    Fields, Assistant Attorney General, appeared
    on behalf of the Complainant.
    Mr. Charles J. O’Connor and Mr. Phillip M. Heller appeared
    on behalf of the Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Zeitlin)
    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    originally filed its complaint in this enforcement action on
    December
    7,
    1973.
    In its complaint the Agency alleged
    Respondent, American Can Company
    (American), violated Section
    9(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
    in that
    it caused the discharge of contaminants into the atmosphere.
    The Complaint did not allege that American had violated any
    Rules or Regulations of this Board.
    Shortly thereafter,
    on March
    29,
    1974, American filed a
    complaint for injunctive and other relief in the Circuit
    Court of Cook County.
    In that complaint American alleged
    that various provisions of the Environmental Protection Act,
    the Board’s Procedural Rules, and the Agency~sPermit Review
    Procedures violated constitutional guarantees relating to
    due process and equal protection.
    That complaint requested
    that the Circuit Court grant as relief a temporary and
    permanent injunction to prevent the Agency or the Board from
    proceeding with any enforcement action against American.
    The Agency then requested postponement of the hearing in
    this matter,pending outcome of the court action filed by
    American.
    No further proceedings were had in the matter, outside
    of discovery,
    until a Stipulation and Proposal for Settle-
    ment was filed before the Board on December 23,
    1974.
    That
    Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement acts to conclude
    both the enforcement proceeding before the Board and the
    court proceeding initiated by American. A jointly pro-
    pounded amendment to that Stipulation and Proposal for
    15--561

    Settlement was submitted on motion of both parties on
    February 6,
    1975.
    The proposed amendment makes only minor
    changes in certain compliance dates, and does not affect the
    acceptability of the Settlement
    in this case.
    BACKGROUND
    The plant operated by American for the production of
    various sizes and shapes of containers
    is located at
    6017
    S. Western Ave.,
    in Chicago,
    and employs approximately
    2,200 persons.
    The production of such containers at the
    American plant involves either or both
    a coating opera-
    tion and a printing operation,
    Associated with the oper-
    ations is the use of various solvent-containing materials
    such as enamel,
    lacquer,
    and varnish. The use of these
    solvent containing materials results in the release of
    hydrocarbon emissions at various points, particularly solvent
    vapors evolved in the ovens for drying sheets of plate
    rollercoated with organic coatings or varnish.
    There are
    seventeen such ovens in the plant, and each is provided with
    an emission—control device employing an afterburner, installed
    during the period 1962-1966.
    On January 30, 1973 American filed a permit application
    with the Agency regarding its Western Ave. plant.
    That
    application consisted of 430 pages, and covered 268 process
    units,
    plus
    3 boilers and 61 stacks.
    The permit application
    stated that with the exception of sideseam stripe operations,
    can-body spray operations and can-body spray drying ovens in
    “Department 42” which discharged its emissions from
    a total
    of six stacks, all other emission sources at the American
    plant complied with relevant Board Regulations.
    Permit
    application also included a compliance program.
    For the
    operations in Department
    42,
    the parties have in their
    stipulation agreed that the compliance problem was attained
    on schedule by reformulating lacquers so that only non-
    photochemically reactive materials were used.
    The Agency
    denied American’s permit application on May 22,
    1973.
    The Agency’s inspections in 1972 disclosed 21 individuals
    living near the American facility who complained of odors
    and were prepared to so testify at
    a hearing.
    Those individuals
    described the odors as emitting from the American plant, and
    characterized these odors as
    “strong, terrible,
    heavy or
    obnoxious”.
    The physical effects of these odors were described
    as burning eyes, burning throat, difficulty
    in breathing and
    general discomfort. The odors were also described as periodic
    and depending on wind conditions.
    The Agency inspection also disclosed that American’s
    after—burners were operated at temperatures at 700eF,
    The
    Agency
    is of the opinion that those afterburners cannot
    operate efficiently at
    a temperature under 1400°F.
    15
    562

    American contends that the odor complaints result from
    other and unrelated complaints of those citizens against
    American. American feels that citizens neighboring its
    facility are unhappy, among other things, about parking
    problems caused by American’s employees; American points out
    that the City of Chicago, after an investigation, took no
    action based on similar complaints.
    American also points out that it has for several years
    experimented with and designed afterburners and catalyst
    combustion units to reduce emissions.
    SETTLEMENT
    After extensive discovery the parties submitted a
    Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on December 23,
    1974. which forms the basis for this Opinion.
    It is the
    intent of the parties that Board acceptance of
    this
    Set-
    tlement will terminate both the enforcement procedure pending
    before the Board and the court proceeding pending before the
    Circuit Court of Cook County.
    2~spart of the Settlement,
    as amended, American wil
    immediately undertake steps to complete such compliance
    program as previously approved by the City of Chicago.
    That
    compliance program covers the seventeen ovens used for
    drying organic films applied by roller coating to sheets of
    tinplate. The program includes conversion
    to water—base
    varnish and coating by May 30,
    1975.
    The ovens which have
    not been converted to water—base varnish by May 30,
    1975
    will he upgraded by replacing the current afterburners
    on
    those ovens with catalyst-afterburner units to be operational
    by March 14,
    1975.
    The schedule for ~completion of the
    various portions of this implementation plan are contained
    in the Stipulation of the parties and appear to be adequate.
    Additionally, American will make quarterly progress reports
    on matters pertinent to the conversion
    to water—base mater-
    ials and the installation of catalyst-afterburner units.
    American has already received all required construction
    permits from the Agency, and has agreed to make proper
    application for any other applicable permits.
    The parties
    have agreed that issuance of further permits is subject to
    fulfillment of the Agency’s duties and responsibilities
    under the Act and the Board’s Regulations.
    Although American has denied any violation of the Act
    or the Board’s Regulations,
    it has agreed to remit $5,000 to
    the State of Illinois immediately upon receipt of the Board
    Order adopting the Stipulation in this matter.
    American has
    also agreed to dismiss, without prejudice, the lawsuit filed
    in Circuit Court to enjoin the instant enforcement proceeding.
    15—563

    —4—
    Insofar as the Stipulation and Settlement,
    as amended,
    appears to provide sufficient provision for compliance, and
    the abatement of any polluting emissions which may currently
    exist,
    the Stipulation is acceptable
    to the Board.
    This Opinion constitutes
    the
    findings of fact and
    conclusions of Law of the Board.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
    3.
    The joint motion to amend Stipulation and Proposal for
    Settlement submitted by the parties to this matter is ac-
    cepted and the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in
    this matter is thereby amended.
    2.
    In conformance withe the Stipulation and Proposal for
    Settlement,
    as amended, Respondent, American Can Company
    shall:
    a.
    Immediately take all steps necessary to complete
    the proposed compliance plan as contained in
    the. Stipulation
    and Proposal for Settlement in this matter,
    as amended;
    b.
    Remit to the State of Illinois the sum of $5,000,
    such payment to be made immediately upon receipt of this
    Order,
    to:
    State of Illinois
    Fiscal Services Division
    Environmental Protection Agency
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois
    62706
    c.
    Take all steps or actions necessary for dismissal
    of the lawsuit concerning this matter currently pending in
    the Circuit Court of Cook County, entitled American Can Com-
    pany
    v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
    et al.,
    Case No.
    74—CIT 1858.
    3.
    The complaint in this matter is dismissed.
    I, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the abpve Opinion & Order were
    adopted1 on the
    I~1~1
    day of
    ~J,,
    1975 by
    a
    votes
    to
    ____
    Christan L. Moffe
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollutio
    ontrol Board

    Back to top