ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 13, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
)
COMPLAINANT
v.
)
PCB
72—404
ACNE
BARBEL
COMPANY
RESPONDENT
)
DENNIS.R~
FIELDS?
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
in
behalf
of
the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LEONARD L.
LEVIN, ATTORNEY,
in behalf of
ACME
BARREL
COMPANY
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Marder)
This action involves a complaint filed by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency against Acme Barrel Company, Inc.,
on October 13,
1972.
The Complaint alleges that during the period beginning on or
before January 26,
1972,
and continuing at least to the date of the
filing of the complaint, the Respondent operated its salamanders,
its barrel preheating process and the collection of waste materials
from the preheated barrels in such
a manner as to violate Section
9
(a)
of the Environmental Prot~tionAct (Illinois Revised Statutes,
Chap.
111 1/2, Sect.
1009
(a)
,
1971).
The Complaint further alleges
that
during
the same period Respondent has caused or allowed
the
burning
of
refuse
in
pits
located
in
front
of
Respondent!s
incinera-
tors in such
a manner as to cause open burning of refuse in viola-
tion of Section
9
(C)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
The
Corn—
plaint further alleges that on or subsequent to July
1,
1970, Respond-
ent installed pollution control equipment without first having
oh--
tamed a permit from the Agency in violation of Section 9
(b)
of the
Act.
Acme
Barrel
Company,
Inc.,
an Illinois corporation, has owned
and
operated
its
barrel
reconditioning
and
reclamation
plant
upon
the
premises
at 2300 West 13th Street, Chicago, Illinois, since 1936. The
operation includes the reconditioning and reclamation of both
closed-head--
ed
and
open-headed
barrels.
The
Respondent
has
reconditioned,
on
the
average,
4,000
barrels
a day
in
the
year
1972,
The
equipment
and
pro-
cesses employed by Respondent to recondition
and
reclaim
barrels
at
the
date
of
the
filing
of
the
Complaint
include
burners
to
preheat
barrels,
incineratorsr
cits
in
front
of
each
incinerator,
salamanders,
steel
shot-blasting
units,
barrel
washing
and
drying
facilities,
and
paint
spray
units
and
drying
ovens,
~O-~3O1
—2—
A hearing was held on March
17,
1973.
Members of the public
were present.
Numerous exhibits were introduced in evidence by the
Environmental Protection Agency indicating complaints by Agency en-
gineers of a noxious skunk-like odor emanating from the Respondent’s
plant.
The hearing was then
continued
to
a
later
date
with the un-
derstanding that the parties would attempt to agree on a stipulation
of
facts.
A second hearing was held on October 24,
1973.
No members of
the public were present.
A joint exhibit of both parties was intro-
duced into evidence.
The joint exhibit consisted of: a nine-para-
graph Statement of Facts, dated October 24,
1973, which was amended
to eleven paragraphs and said amendments were made a part of the rec-
ord in this case;
an Affidavit of Jordan Pearlman, Vice-President of
Respondent, dated October
31,
1973; and a letter dated October 11,
1973,
from Respondent to Mr. Laxmi Kesari,
an Environmental Protect-
ion Agency
engineer.
The Board finds the following stipulated facts.
The two outside incinerators used by Respondent for burning residues
from
the
open-headed
barrels
were
put
into
operation
in
1941
and
1942.
Respondent only uses one incinerator at
a time.
Droppings from these
barrels catch
fire and burn in the pits or vestibules
in front of the
incinerator, causing the discharge of contaminants into the air.
Re-
spondent has agreed to rehabilitate the vestibules of the incinerators
and reinstall cover plates on the pit and conveyer in an effort to
eliminate any open burning.
Further, the Respondent sends lids from the open—headed barrels
through its lid incinerators without moving the rubber gaskets con-
tained on these lids.
This results in the rubber burning and the
discharge of contaminants into the air.
Respondent states that since
April
23,
1973,
it has removed the rubber gaskets from the lids prior
to entering the incinerators and that it will continue to do
so.
Respondent first began using oil-fired salamanders for the purpose
of furnishing heat for employees in 1941.
Said salamanders discharge
black, sooty smoke into the atmosphere.
Immediately after the filing
of the complaint herein, Respondent converted to gas—fired heaters.
Ten gas—fired heaters were purchased at a cost of $1,023.63,
including
cost
of
installation.
On or about May 1 and September
5,
1972, Agency engineers, who were
working at a nearby office at 2121 West Taylor Street, detected odors
resembling skunk odors
(Mercaptan)
in the atmosphere and traced same
to Respondent’s plant.
These detections were the basis for the exhib-
its introduced in the first hearing mentioned above complaining of the
skunk-like odors.
Since these proceedings were first instituted, Re-
spondent has discontinued receiving any drums suspected of having traces
of Mercaptan therein from any of its customers, and as a result there
is little likelihood of Respondent allowing Mercaptan to escape into
the atmosphere if this practice is continued.
10 —302
—3—
Respondent also agrees to undertake the additional work and in-
stallation of equipment that is included in the letter of Respondent
to
Mr.
Laxmi
Kesari,
Agency
engineer,
dated
October
11,
1973,
a
copy
of which letter
is a part of this record
CR.
2-6).
The letter covered
the following general areas:
a program for eliminating the possibil-
ity of any smoke emanating from the area in front of the incinerators;
the possibility of at a later date disposing of the gathered material
from this process by means of an in—plant special incinerator; the in-
stallation of a new water spray booth for the external paint line;
and
a program of proper maintenance of both filters on the existing spray
booth and of the existing baghouse.
Schedules were submitted in de-
tail for the program for drum cleaning and disposal of drum drainage.
The abovementioned schedules were revised by the Respondent’s Affida-
vit dated October
31,
1973.
The
Board
finds
that
there
is
no
controversy
as
to
the
facts.
It
further finds that Respondent~sproposed affirmative actions to abate
the pollution at its plant contained in the joint exhibit mentioned
above will help bring Respondent into compliance with the Environmen-
tal Protection Act, and the Board’s Order will so show.
The Board further finds that Respondent has shown a willingness
to cooperate with the Environmental Protection Agency and
to bring
their plant into compliance once the action
was instituted.
The
mon-
ey penalty would be higher were it not for this cooperation since the
operation was in obvious violation prior to and after the institution
of this action.
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:
1.
Acme Barrel Company shall by May
1,
1974, have
operating its system for drum cleaning.
2.
Acme Barrel Company shall continue to vigorous-
ly pursue its investigations and implementation
of alternatives regarding disposal of drum drain-
ings.
3.
Acme Barrel Company is
to maintain a high degree
of maintenance on its paint booth filters and on
its shot-blast baghouse.
4.
Acme Barrel Company shall
apply for all necessary
permits from the Environmental Protection Agency.
5.
Respondent shall send monthly progress reports of
above
items
(1)
and
(2)
to the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency at the Naval Armory,
Randolph Street
at the Lake,
Chicago, Illinois, Attention Mr.
10
—
303
—4—
Charles Willard.
6.
Respondent 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 Div-
ision,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois,
62706.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that the above 0 inion and Order was adopted by the
Board on the
/J~’
day of
___________
1973, by a vote of
___
to
~.