ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 25, 1974

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Complainant,

)

PCB 73~345

CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a Michigan )

Corporation,

Respondent.

Mr. James K. Jenks, Jr., attorney for Complainant.

Mr.

Elmer C. Rudy, attorney for Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)

A C~p1aint was filed with the Illinois Pollution .Control

Board (Board) against the Chrysler Corporation on Augmbt .16,

1973. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed an

Amended Complaint on February 20, 1974. Respondent owns and

operates an automotive assembly plant located at Chrysler Drive,

Belvidere, Boone County, Illinois.

Equipment at the facility

includes four boilers, a solder grinditi~operation,:and..:p•aint

priming booths, The EPA alleged in its Amended Complaint that

Respondent:

1, Violated Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection

Act (Act) from July 1, 1.970, through February 20, 1974, by emitting

smoke, odors, hydrocarbons, and particulate ~màtter~i~to the

atmosphere from plant processes.

2. Violated Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules and Regulations

governing the Control of Air Pollution (Air Regulations) from

July 1, 1970, through February. 20, 1974, by emitting excessive

amounts of particulates into the atmosphere,

3. Violated Rule 3-3.122 of the Air Regulations on

December 6, 1972, from plant emissions exceeding No. 2 on the

Ringlemann Chart,

4, V.iolated Rule 103(b) (2) of the Air Pollution Control

Regulations (Chapter Two) from June 1, 1973, to February 20,

1974, by operati±igits emission sources and existing air pollution

control equipment without an operating permit from the EPA.

A hearing took place on March 13, 1974, in which a Stipulation

andY Proposal For Settlement was entered into ~the record, Failure

by the parties to sign the Stipu1ation~delayeduntil July 8, 1974,

its receipt by the Board, For the purposes of settlement,

Respondent admitted a violation of Rule 103(b) (2) of Chapter Two

and agreed to pay a penalty of $500.00. The parties also stipulated

that no facts exist to support any other allegations in the Amended

Complaint, The proposed Settlement was expressly conditional upon

approval in all respects by the Board. Finally, Chrysler agreed

—2—

to modify some of its plant operations, as listed in items “a”

through “e”, below.. The stipulated Terms of Settlement are:

“a. Chrysler Corporation agrees to convert one of its

existing coal fired boilers to a combination gas and coal fired

boiler by March 1, 1975. The gas to be so utilized is presently

available and in use elsewhere at the plant and will be diverted

for use with the converted boiler. The purpose of the conversion

is

to increase the combustion in the boiler during periods of re-

duced heating and operating demand (summers and weekends). Gas

will be used exclusively to fire the converted boiler when boiler

demand is 10,000 lbs. steam per hour or less, and a combination of

gas and coal will be used when demand is in the range 10,000 lbs.

steam per hour to 100,000 lbs. steam per hour.

“b. Respondent, Chrysler Corporation agrees to eliminate

fly ash reinjection from the economizers on all boilers.

“c. Respondent, Chrysler Corporation agrees to fabricate and

install an adjustable louvered control to maintain the volume of

air flow through the precipitator at an efficient level at varying

loads,

“d. Respondent, Chrysler Corporation agrees to increase 

the

velocity of gas going through the precipitator to increase its

efficiency, particularly in the removal of larger particles.

“e. Respondent, Chrysler Corporation agrees to discontinue

keeping a boiler on standby thereby reducing the chance of smoke

from the standby unit.

“f. 

Respondent, Chrysler Corporation agrees to a penalty

of $500.00 for the aforesaid violaiion admitted to and found to

have occurred.

~g. This settlement 

in

no way provides or exempts Chrysler

Corporation from any other obligations it may incur under the

laws 

of

Illinois and specifically any future violations of the

Environmental Protection Act.”

We accept the Stipulation and Proposal ~or Settlement

entered into between the parties. The fact that Respondent’s only

violation is lack of permits makes the penalty a reasonable one.

We conclude from paragraph “g” of the proposal 

(quoted above) that

Respondent intends to immediately apply for and obtain its operating

permits under Rule 103(b). (2) meeting the standards of Rule 203(b) of

Chapter Two. Also, we understand that items 

Th”

through “e” w~1 be

undertaken within 35 days and completed promptly.

This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law

of the Board.

13— 174

—3—

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

that:

1. Respondent pay a penalty of $500.00 for the violation

of Rule 103(b) (2) of Chapter Two established in this Opinion.

Payment shall be by certified check or money order made payable

to the State of Illinois, Fiscal Services Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

Payment should be made within 35 days of the adoption of this Order.

2. Respondent shall apply for necessary permits under Rule

l03(b)(2) within 35 days of the adoption of this Order.

3. Respondent shall begin implementation of its program set

out in the Terms of Settlement in the Stipulation filed with the

i?~oardon ~3uly8, 

1914, 

arid

as reproduced above in 

the

Opinion.

This program shall be undertaken within 35 days of the adoption of

this Order and be completed by March 1, 1975.

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

Control Board, hereby certify t t the above Opinion and Or~erwas

adopted on the 

day of 

_______,

1974, by a vote of ~ to

~stanL.ett

—

175