ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May
29,1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
)
vs.
)
PCB 73-405
STAINLESS PROCESSING COMPANY,
)
a Delaware corporation,
)
Respondent.
)
Mr.
Richard W.
Cosby, Assistant Attorney General,
on behalf of the
Environmental
Protection Agency;
Mr.
Richard
P.
Glovka, Attorney,
on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
On September 25,
1973,
the Environmental Protection Agency
filed Complaint against Stainless Processing Company, charging therein
violation of Rule lO3(b)(2) of Chapter 2, Part
I
of the Air Pollution
Regulations and violation of Section 9(b) of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act.
Public
hearings were held in this matter on December
28,
1973 and February 21,
1974.
Respondent
is the owner and operator of
a metal
processing facility
located at
119th Street and Cottage Grove Avenue
in Chicago, County
of Cook,
Illinois.
Said facility includes four crushers and a boring
dryer.
Respondent is engaged in the business of buying, sorting and
selling metal
scrap.
The Complainant alleges
as follows:
1.
The aforesaid metal
processing facility is
a primary metal
industry operation within the meaning of Code
33 of the ‘Standard
Industrial
Classification Manual” and is further an “emission source”
as defined by Rule 101
of Chapter 2,
Part
I of the Mr Regulations,
and, as
such,
is regulated by Rule l03(b)(2) of Chapter 2, Part
I
of the
Air Regulations.
2.
Rule l03(b)(2) of Chapter
2, Part
I of the Air Regulations
provides
in part that primary metal
industry operations obtain
an
operating permit
from Complainant by November
1,
1972.
Pursuant to
Rule 103(b)(2)(B) of Chapter 2, Part
I of the Air Regulations,
the
aforesaid date was advanced by Complainant
to December
1, 97~.
3.
That beginning on December
1,
1972
and continuing through the
filing of the Complaint herein, Respondent has
caused
its meta~processing
facility to operate without having first obtained operating permits
from the Complainant.
12—427
—2-
4.
That the aforesaid conduct described
in Paragraph 3
above constitutes
a violation of Rule 103(b)(2) of Chapter
2, Part
I of the Air Regulations
and a violation of Section
9(b) of the Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
ch.
Ill
1/2, par.
1009(b)
The cause comes before the Board with
a Stipulation
And Proposal
For Settlement entered
into between the parties.
According to that Stipulation,
there
is located on
Respondent’s premises,
a facility which constitutes
an “emission
source”
as defined by Rule
101
of Chapter 2, Part
I
of the
Air Regulations.
That facility
is owned and operated by
Cryogenics,
Inc.,
a corporation organized and existing under
the
laws of the State of Illinois.
The stock of Cryogenics,
Inc.
is
owned by Respondent.
Beginning in 1973, Cryogenics,
Inc. undertook the con-
struction of
a cryogenic fragmentation process, the purpose
of which
is
to
salvage and recycle valuaoie metals
from scrap.
The Cryogenics,
iflC,
orocessing facility
is
a primary metal
industry operation within
the meaning of Code
33 of the
‘Standard
tndustrial
Classification Manual” and thus Cryogenics,
Inc. should
hav~.obtained
a construction permit from Complainant
in order to
undertake the construction of the process.
Since April,
1973,
Cryogenics,
Inc.
has periodically operated its pro~ss. Such
operation should not have
taken olace without an operating permit
issued by
Complainant.
From 1971
to
the present, Resoondent has had
a certificate
of
operation from the City of Chicago, Department of Environmental
Control for its various processes.
According
to the Stipulation,
Respondent was unaware of any other permit requirement until
the
filing of this enforcement action.
On or about November 30,
1973,
Cryogenics,
Inc.
applied
to
the Agenc,y for construction permits for
its various emission sources
and air pollution control equipment.
On
or about December
19, 1973
Cryogenics,
Inc.
applied
to Complainant for an operating permit for
its process.
On December
20,
1973,
Complainant issued
a construction
permit.
On February
ii,
1974,
Complainant issued
an operating permit.
Finally, according to
the Stipulation, Respondent operated
its rotary drum boring dryer on August
8 and 9,
1973 without first
obtaining an operating permit from Complainant.
On those dates,
Respondent experimented with the effectiveness of the dryer on certain
scrap metal
containing steel
and brass.
The experiment convinced
Respondent that it could not use
the dryer on that material and,
consequently, no further use was made of the dryer
in processing either
-3-
that scrap mixture or any other materials.
The dryer has been
partially dismantled and is totally unuseable.
We find that Respondent has violated Rule l03(b)(2) and
Section 9(b) of the Act by the periodic operation of the
cryogenic fragmentation process and the operation,
on
the
two dates
specified, of its rotary drum boring dryer,
both
without the requisite operating permits.,
The parties have agreed
that
a penalty
in the amount of $1,750.00
is reasonable and
just.
We concur.
This Opinion constttutes
the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution
Control Board that:
1.
For the violations found herein, Respondent shall
pay
to the State of Illinois the sum of $1,750.00 within
35 days
from the date of this Order.
Penalty payment by certified check
or money order payable
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 not operate the subject rotary drum
boring dryer without first obtaining an operating permit from
the Environmental
Protection Agency.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on
this
__________
day of
,
1974 by a vote of
~
~n
i~
12—429