P

GE~Y

off

‘~art

1A.M11 N

~ A! U PAN~

D~a~a

~o o

Ne~pon e

~arcs P

J~r

t~eC

S

lb

i

A

Safe

T

Pt

i~orr’e~

Pr te~ta~Affenap

LP~ aliaS

C~m~ain

gaJn~

HanronS

~

Cosost’

daimor~

19

~nsp

r~a

r

U

a fcr~g~~nr~r

~

C

~

ant eY~t

inSet

lane of the S~afe

of

re)aea~

an~

cj

aiifi~dto do b~r~

1

IiU~

or

Harnrrond oen.

a

‘~

oe a ~s a rLan

a”tu~1

p~an’

iUar4

I

a t~ productror o~woo~ aqa

ins a locat S

a

5

e~ Bloor

goane

Ch~cago Ulan

a

so

~er

~

~

u~

a

tcfrr~

U

I

ti

rap at

~ts A~

P

Ui

au~a~

ne

~

ar

I

an

‘n

as

ep

r

c

3

of

Chapte

a l~g~

a

beg n.

in

o~

t.

~irc

hr

U

~

I lr~c

01

t~e

l~~f

i~

air

Re

T ~dert

as cau’e

eqaa~~

to

pe ate ~ntnaut navr~

nt

o~

i

ret

opana~nj

perait

I at

a ~ r~ a

~

ani J~

t.

~iore~a~

‘

a nduct o

sta a~

a

o

a

of N

~e

ant a

±

c51

~

3

5

U

airerta~ Pr

~

PU

NCL

I

a

Ut

Uap

~

Pan

3

‘

---

—2—

On March

6,

1974, Hammond filed a Motion to Dismiss this

case on the grounds that

(a)

the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

lacks

the power to impose monetary penalties,

(b)

the imposition

of a penalty without jury trial violates the Illinois and United

States Constitutions, and

(C)

the activities of the Board in hear-

ing and deciding enforcement actions violate the separation of

powers doctrine of the Illinois Constitution. The Motion

to

Dismiss

was denied on March 28,

1974,

by the Board for stated reasons,

which have been strengthened by the recent decision of the Illinois

Supr~meCourt in City of Waukegan v.

Pollution Control Board,

57

Ill,

170

(March,

1974)

On March

14,

1974,

the Board received from Hammond

a

Response to Request for Admission of Fact in which it admits “that

it does not have an operating permit or permits” for certain listed

equipment at its Plant at 5008 West Bloomingdale, Chicago, Illinois.

The equipment listed included the same items that were specified

in the original EPA Complaint,

except that

(a)

three dry spray

booths were added and

(b)

the number of water—wash spray booths

was increased from nine to ten.

A hearing was held April

15,

1974,

in Chicago.

The

parties reported that they were working on

a stipulation of facts

which was not yet complete, but they anticipated that it “could be

completad. and agreed to within two weeks”

(R.2).

The parties

requested that,

since no members of the public were present, the

hearing be continued for two weeks for the presentation of the

agreed stipulation of facts which would

include minor corrections

and elaboration of the specific pieces of equipment involved in

this case at Respondent’s Plant.

The Hearing Officer granted the

parties’ request for a continuation of this hearing for the

purpose specified

(R.4).

On April

26,

1974,

the Board received three documents,

namely,

(a)

the joint Stipulation of Facts,

(b)

Amended Complaint

and a motion to file same from EPA, and

(C)

a Memorandum from the

Hearing Officer.

The joint Stipulation of Facts indicates that the Hammond

Plant began operation in 1932 and currently employs approximately

265 people.

They assemble between 125 and 200 organ cabinets per

day, which represent about 90 percent of the total number of

cabinets utilized by Hammond in the manufacture of organs.

Upon

completion of the assembly work at this Plant, the cabinets or

components are then shipped to other facilities of Hammond to

complete the manufacturing of the organs.

Hammond’s Plant is

located in an industrial district on the north side of Blooming-

dale.

The operation of the equipment involved in the subject

case is described in detail, and the Stipulation of Facts also

confirms

(a) the addition of three dry spray booths, and

(b) the

increase in number of water—wash spray booths from nine to ten.

Hammond transmitted to EPA on April

11,

1974

(amended April 18,

1974)

a permit application for the equipment listed in the

Stipulation of Facts.

Respondent stipulated that it will continue

to seek, at whatever price may be necessary,

the necessary supplies

13— 296

---

at

exctant materials

an

r~~

~

;c

aumply ~ca

it: Rule

105U)

at

thapter

~

an

ant: oat

on

Janinond

‘itatea

t~han: ‘part

ot

tIc

reason

boa

toe

delay

aa

ano~y1:ig Lana

parnu

a

rteru~ed from

Los

antimelL

death

if

ats

unip

c~v~e,Cr,

~~nthon~,

~r’rndUr

~-hn

had

S

ar

criniary

responsmni

Liav

lot

ate

tretaratita

arid

submissian

at parmar applacatacos,’

lbs amended

l-mripanirit. ~zasfiled lv PP

-

in

brat

~6,

9’74

to

aorrect

minor

dUcret-anca

~r

the

list:

a

:cruicmant

anc:L’iiea

an

the

oraginal

Cumplarn;

and

~‘an

:onaarm

ate

a~ead.anq to

abe

a aocf

adduced

and

ti-ia

equipment

lescribed

~r

1:b~ Itipulatron

of

Far :s aubmitted concurrentit no U a Scanner

Iffica:

:i:

t:’ as

aauae,

In

athar

respertar,

:hc

uragina

C uapaair’i

S

Uaented

TompUint

are

~iiul~r

The

‘lemoranaurn

ructi.

~zed

Stun

aria

Etear~nq

.1 Ificur

on

April

26,

1974

~nSioatcd

that

the

‘~

rerunS

ar’s comp~.etefor

this

:ase

and

it

:za~ read”

Ion

luara

rictaca

The

Board

grants

the

EPA

Motion

for

tea

re

ac

Fain

imerded

Complaint.

Violations

of

Rule

103 (h,

2)

~:t

thapter

I

and

Sectron

9 U)

of

the

Bnvancnmentai

Protection

itch

c.tC

estabiasheã

by

Hammond’ a

Cesponse

to

Request

for

Rdmassion

at

tact

in

rahich

Resconctent

admitted

that

it

515

not

have

operating

pern~its

for:

the

amended

list

of

equipment

specified

trierein.

~

penalty

i~ii

be

assessed

for

these

permit

violations

with

s

Light

mitigation

allowed for bela”

caused

by

the

death

of an employee

the had been

preparing the necessary permit appiicataons.

This Opinion con~~

stitutes

aba Undinqs of

fact ant conclusions

i.E

law of tne Board.

IRDER

IT

U

THE

ORDER

of

the

Illinois

PoUution

Control

Board

1,

Hammond

Organ

Company

shall

pay

co

the

State

of

Illinois

the

sum

at

S400,00

within

thirty

Live

(35~

Says

from

the

date

of

this

Order

for

permit

violations

estanlished

in

this

case.

Penalty

payran’u

by

car

alfred

check

or

money

orfer,

pay~

able

to

the State of

Illinois,

shall

be made

to

Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency,

2200

Churchill

Road,

Springfield,

Illinois

62706.

2.

Respondent

shall

actively

pursue

necessary

operat-

ing

permits

for

the

equipment

listed

herein.

Respondent

shall

submit

a

compliance

program

to

the

Agency

within

60

days.

The

program

shall

achieve complete compliance

with

Section

9(b)

of

the Act and Rule 103(b) (2)

of Chapter

2 within

120 days of the adoption of this Order.

I, Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby cert1ify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the ~

day of

,

1974,

by a vote of

0

13

—

297