ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
17, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
)
POD 72—319
PEERLESS ENAMEL PRODUCTS COMPANY,
)
Respondent.
Thomas A.
Cengel, Assistant Attorney Genera? for the EPA
William D.
Stiehi, Attorney for Peerless Enamel Products Company
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
Peerless Enamel Products Company fabricates gas ranges at
a Belleville,Illinois
plant it has operated since 1928.
The
plant is adjoined on three sides by residential dwellings and on
one side by other industrial plants.
The closest residence is
30 feet from the plant.
In its manufacturing process Respondent
cleans steel parts in
a series of chemical baths, sprays them
with frit
(ground glass) enamel or dips the parts in
a vat of
enamel and finally bakes them in ovens.
On July 31, 1972 the Environmental Protection Agency filed
a Complaint alleging that the Company had allowed the discharge
of particulate matter so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution
in violation of Section 9(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
Respondent filed an Answer admitting that it operated the plant
but denying the alleged air pollution.
The EPA did not allege that Peerless had viOlated any
specific emission standard.
Respondent’s enamel spraying and dipping operation consists
of three production lines.
The lines are equipped with manual
spray booths, automatic spray booths and dip coating vats.
Each
paint line
is also equipped with water wash units for control of
particulates.
These were installed in 1941,
1947,
1948 and 1950.
Air from the paint areas,
after being drawn through
a baffled
water wash,
is ultimately exhausted through four separate stacks
located on the roof of the plant.
7
—
589
—2—
The oldest control equipment on the premises is a baghouse
which was installed in 1930 on Line No.
1.
Evidence introduced
at the public hearing indicated that
Respondent’s neighbors had no complaints prior to the Summer of
1971.
The control equipment was apparently adequate for plant
operations for many years.
People living near
the plant started to complain of emissions
in the Summer of 1971.
One witness testified that she had
observed a fine haze or mist of varying concentration which settled
on her property as
a white powder
CR.
62) and she pointed out two
separate stacks on the plant as the source of the emissions
CR. ?4).
One of these sources was the discharge stack from the baghouse.
The witness claimed that the gray white substance settled on her
storm doors, window sills, porches, screens and walks.
She said
the emissions at the time of the hearing had decreased significantly
from the heavy concentration observed during the Summer of 1971
but were continuing.
Corroberating testimony from other witnesses establish that
this substance had been deposited on playpens,
swings,
slides,
front porches,
automobiles and inside some of the residences.
Three persons observed a gold colored substance which had been
deposited on the exterior of their homes in October or November
1972.
Another witness stated that she had observed the white
misty emissions from two separate stacks at the plant just two
weeks prior to the hearing
(R.
90).
However, we do not in this
Opinion consider any alleged violations occurring after the
July 31, 1972 filing of the Complaint.
An Agency investigator visited the plant on September
7, 1971
and was told by the President of Peerless Enamel Products Company
that the water supply to the water wash control system had been
turned off for four months
CR.
42).
This was done because baffles
in the water wash booths had deteriorated.
The Company President later denied making this statement and
asserted at the public hearing that the uncontrolled period was
short——”possibly days”
CR.
129).
Following the EPA visit Respondent’s employees determined that
the baghouse was not working well.
The bags had not been replaced
for several years and some of the bags had tears and holes in them
(R.
26,
27).
The maintenance foreman testified that the September
1971 insepction revealed several bags with holes that had not been
observed during any of the other semi-annual inspections
CR. 178,
190).
The inspection also revealed that baffles in the control
equipment were in need of repair and some were found to have been
improperly installed.
The Company had failed to keep records which
adequately described the inspection or maintenance of control
7
—
590
—3—
equipment and the testimony regarding the Company m~aintenance
procedures leaves something to be desired.
In spite of the difficulties with the baghouse equipment
it was operated until April
5,
1972
(R.
24)
after which time
the processed air was rerouted through an existing water wash
system on Line
1.
This action was taken after Respondent had
engaged the services of an engineering firm to check the bag—
house equipment and submit recommendations.
Peerless shut
the old baghouse down without replacement because it did not
think a new baghou~would be as efficient
CR.
30) and the
“baghouse wasn’t used more than six hours
a day”
(R.
31).
It
also appears that installation of
a new baghouse would cost
more money.
For defense Peerless introduced evidence that it was not
in violation of emission standards.
(No such violation was charged).
A stack test conducted October
16,
1972 proved that Peerless
eit~.issions on that date were well within the Standards established
by our Rule 203(b).
We accept this as evidence that normal
operations
of the plant do not cause emissions
in violation of
our Standards.
While pertinent to the case,
these calculations
do not constitute
a total defense to the charge that Respondent’s
emissions were a nuisance in the community from the Summer of
1971 to July 31,
1972.
It
is significant that complaints occurred
during the time the baghouse was operating poorly and the water
wash units were inoperative.
We find that Respondent. did violate Section
9 (a)
of the
Environmental Protection Act during that period of time and that
the violations were the result of inadequate maintenance of
control equipment or failure to replace outmoded control equip-
ment.
Peerless has been keeping proper maintenance and inspection
reports recently.
We hope that the improvement of the Company
record keeping system will also result in control of nuisance
type emissions in the future.
The evidence proves that for a period of approximately one
year prior to the filing of the Complaint Peerless did release
particulate matter in sufficient quantities and of such character-
istics and duration as to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment
of life or property.
We will order that the Company cease and
desist from causing
a nuisance with its particulate emissions.
The
testimony also has shown, however,
that Peerless attempted to
control
its emissions long before the Statute or Regulations made
it mandatory for companies to take such action.
The violation in
this case appears to be the result of inadequate maintenance taken
by
the Company.
Those maintenance procedures are being improved.
Under all of the circumstances we think a monetary penalty in the
amount of $1,000
is appropriate.
7
—
591
—4—
It is ordered that:
1.
Peerless Enamel Products Company shall cease and
desist from its violation of EPA Section 9(a) by
taking those maintenance procedures or other
steps necessary to prevent its emissions from
causing a nuisance in the community.
2.
Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois by
May 17, 1973 the sum of $1,000 as a penalty for
the violations found in this proceeding.
Penalty
payment by certified check or money order payable
to the State of~I11inoisshall be made to:
Fiscal
Services Division, Illinois EPA,
2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
I, Christan L. Noffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted
this
(T4”
day of April
1973 by a vote of
~
to ~
7
—
592