ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
June
13, 1974
ENYIRONPENTAL
PROTECTION A~NCY,
Complainant,
I
RIIEEM MANUFACTURING
COtI’ANY,
a
PCB
73-36
California corporation qualified
to do business in Illinois,
Respondent.
Mr. Michael A. Benedetto, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of
Complainant;
Mr. Clifton A. Lake, Attorney,
on behalf
of Respondent.
OPINION RID ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
This matter
comes
before the Board on the complaint of
the
Envlromental
Protection Agency initially filed
on
January 26, 1973,
and amended
several times thereafter. The
parties
have, in
order: to avoid the
further expense of a contested hearing, agreed on Stipulation of
Facts
which
they
feel will enable the Board to make such disposition of this
case as it deems proper. The Stipulation of Facts was
entered
into the
Record
of the
public hearing on this
matter held on Noveater 14, 1973.
teem
Manufacturing
Company
is the owner
of a
manufacturing
facility
located at
7600
South Kedzie,
Chicago, Cook County,
Illinois. Said facility
consists
of a
Container Division and a Home Products Division.
The
Container Division employs two (2) lithographic
ovens and three
(3) paint-baking
ovens which remove
solvents
from certain products
and
vent said solvents 4irectly
to
the
atmosphere without the
use of
any
pollution control device.
The
Home
Products Division employs three (3) baking ovens which remove
solvent
from
certain products and vent said solvents directly
to
the
atmosphere without the use of
any
pollution control device and six (6)
porcelain spray booths, the emissions
from
all of
which are
controlled by
baffles and additionally in the case of booths Nos. 2 and 3 by a cyclone
collector. In the porcelain spray booths a water suspension of porcelain
is sprayed on formed sheet metal household appliance bodies. Subsequent
to the spraying operation the porcelain is fused to the sheet metal in a
high-temperature oven.
12—fl
2—
The initial complaint filed by the Agency on January 26, 1973,
alleged that Respondent operated its lithographic and paint-baking ovens
in violation of the particulate emission limitations of Rule 3-3.111 of
the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution.
Specifically, the emissions were alleged to consist of solvent removed
from various coatings during the manufacturing process by the application
of heat in closed ovens. In response to the Agency’s complaint and in
preparation of its defense, Rheem employed Air Resources, Inc., a firm
of consulting engineers, to perform stack tests on the production
facilities alleged in the complaint to be ir~ violation of the particulate
regulations. Tests were in fact conducted in early March, 1973 by Air
Resources stack-testing engineers. The results of those tests demonstrated
conclusively that the lithographic and paint-baking oven emissions at Rheem
range from 300 to 800 below themaximum particulate emission levels
specified by Rule 3-3.111 (Stipulation Ex. I, p.9). As noted at page 3
of the Stipulation of Facts, the Agency has no quarrel with the test
methods employed by Air Resources.
The Environmental Protection Agency admits (Complainant’s Brief,
p.3) that
the
stack tests conducted by Respondent on March 5-8, 1973, and
as contained in Exhibit I, appear
to
resolve the issue of particulate
emissions from the paint-baking ovens, Th~is is particularly true in light
of the Board’s recent decision in Environmental Protection Agency v. R. P.
Donnelley, PCB 72-410,
-
472, which involved a similar drying operation.
The Board finds no violation of Rule 3-3.111 as regards Respondent’s
lithographic and paint-baking ovens.
After further investigation of Respondent’s facility, an Amended
Complaint was filed on May 2, 1973. It included the aforesaid paint—baking
oven violation and in addition thereto charged a violation of Rule 3-3.111
due to Rheem’s porcelain spray booths. A violation of Rule 3-2.110 of the
Rules and Section ~(b)of the ~Environmenta1Protection Act was also charged
due to commencement of operation of a paint spray booth which had been
significantly modified without a permit first having been obtained.
Finally, on June 5, 1973, a Second Amended
Complaint
was filed by
the Environmental Protection Agency charging all the
violations previously
alleged and,
in addition, charging Rheem with submitting applications for
permits for porcelain spray booths which contained certain unrepresentative
numbers in violation of Rule l03(b)(3) of the Pollution Control Board Air
Pollution Control Rules and Regulations.
Violations of Rule 3-2.110 of the Rules and Section 9(b) of the
Environmental ,Protection Act have been clearly shown as is evidenced by
Page 4 of the Stipulation of Facts. Rheem admits that a paint spray booth
located in the Container Division, and identified as existing from Stack
Number 129, was “significantly modified” on or about November, 1972 without
a permit as is required.
12 498
-3-
In mitigation, Rheem argues that it has demonstrated serious and
good faith efforts to comply with the Board’s permit regulations in
submitting voluminous operating permit applications on December 8, 1972
and that the mere fact that one spray booth out of a total of 280 emission
sources, not alleged here to be in violation of any emission regulation,
was modified without a construction permit, is inconsequential.
The Environmental Protection Agency contends that the Stipulation
of Facts demonstrates adequately that all of Rheem’s porcelain spray
booths (with the exception of Number 5) have been in violation of Rule
3-3.111 of the Rules. However, since Rheem has installed control facilities
on all of said booths, the Environmental Protection Agency, in order to
avoid a situation similar to that which arose in Johnson and Johnson v. EPA,
PCB 73-71, limits its argument, and requests the Board to
limit its decision
to a finding of a violation due to porcelain spray booths 2 and 3.
The porcelain spray booths are six in number
and
are used in the
spraying of a porcelain water slurry onto metal home water heater body
parts. Following the spraying operation th~wet porcelain adhering to the
metal is fused under high temperature to form an impervious coating. Par-
ticulate emissions from the porcelain spray booths were controlled at the
time the complaint was filed by baffling in the booths and, in the case
of booths Nos. 2 and 3, by a cyclone collector device as well.
The basic dispute between Rheem and the Agency in this case goes
to the application of the process weight regulations to ~
porcelain
spray booth operations. For purposes of this case, “process weight” is
defined in Rule 1-1 of the Illinois
Air Pollution Control Board Regulations
as:
The total weight of aU materials intro-
duced into any source operation. Solid
fuels charged will be considered as part
of the process weight but liquid and
gaseous fuels and combustion air will
not.
As recited above, theoperation
of the spray
booths consists
of the application
of a
porcelain slurry
to
formed sheet
metal appliance bodies by a spraying
operation. Rheem contends tha~tsince both the porcelain and the bare
sheet metal are unquestionably “materials introduced” into the spray booths,
their combined weight is the “total weight” contemplated by the definition
of process weight” set out above.
As Exhibit No. 5 indicates, even accepting Rheem~sdefinition of
process weight rate which includes the weight of the metal parts sprayed,
actual emissions from spray booths 2 and 3 are 7.10 lbs/hr. This figure
exceeds the maximum allowable rate of 6.806 lbs/hr. and hence a violation
is shown.
12 ~499
-4-
Although it is not necessary to th~edetermination of a violation
in the instant cause, we note that the weight of the formed sheet metal
appliances which are coated in Respondent~s porcelain operation cannot
be included in process weight emission calculations in the absence of
a showing that said formed metal contributes to the total emissions. This
position is in conformity with the general theory and philosophy stated
in E. I. DuPont v. EPA, PCB 73-411 wherein the process weight issue was
exhaustively treated.
Since Complainant has expressed concern as regards the impact of
Johnson and Johnson v. EPA, PCB 73—71. upon the instant cause, we emphasize
that our decision in PCB 73-71 was explicitly confined
to the special
facts of that case, (See Opinion dated July 19, 1973).
In mitigation, Respondent argues that the extent
that
the combined
emission from booths Nos. 2 and 3 exceeds the allowable emission is
de minimus, especially when one considers how far below the maximum
allowable emission the remaining booths are
operating.
The remaining permit count is quite unique and goes to an alleged
violation of Rule 103(-b)(3), charged to arise from Rheem~ssubmission
of erroneous data in an operating permit application for its porcelain
spray booths. The subject permit application was denied by the Agency.
Respondent~s objection tOthe inclusion of this charge in the Second
Amended Complaint was taken with the case. As a matter of law, Rheem
contends that Rule 103 by its terms cannot be the basis for any violation
other than construction or operation without a required permit. We
agree. The charge is dismissed.
Although Rule 103 does not provide a remedy in this situation, we
note that the Act does provide for criminal sanction in a court of law
if false information was submitted ~knowing1y.~Sé.ction 44 of the En-
vironmental Protection Act specifies that it is a Class A misdemeanor to
knowingly submit false information under the Act or regulation. That action
is not for us to decide.
in summary, we find that Respondent has violated Rules 3-2,110 and
3•~3.ili and Section 9(b) of the Act for which a penalty will be assessed.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that, for the violations
found herein, Fespondent shall pay to the State of Illinois the sum of
$1,000 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.
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~—O
________