ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
28, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 72—405
PAR STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Respondent.
Dennis Fields, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
Robert Briskman, Attorney for Par Steel Products Company
OPINION AND ORDER OF
THI3 BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
Respondent Par Steel Products Company is
a Chicago manufacturer
of steel shelving.
The Environmental Protection Agency alleges that
the Company emitted excessive particulate matter and gaseous hydro-
carbon solvents between November 29, 1971 and October
13,
1972 in
violation of Section 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the
Control of Air Pollution and Section
9(a) of the Environmental
?rotection Act.
It is also claimed that Par Steel installed and operal
equipment without an Agency permit in violation of Section
9(b)
of
the
Act.
Par Steel Products began the fabrication and painting of steel
shelves at its present location in 1966.
Equipment at the plant
Lncludes steel
forming apparatus,
two spray paint booths and a paint
baking oven.
About 25 persons are employed at the plant.
Vivid descriptions
in the record provided by the ten witnesses
leave no doubt in our mind as to the effect of air pollution caused
by Respondent.
These witnesses testified that they had burning
throats, eyes, nostrils and lips
(Jan.
10,
R.
65,
76,
113,
163),
headaches,
(Jan.
10,
R.
15,
76,
142),
and nausea
(Jan.
10,
R.
15,
61
64,
70,
134,
154)
from almost daily fumes and odors
(Jan.
10,
R.
17,
72,
78,
124,
135,
153,
171),
from a source positively identified
as
Respondent’s plant
(Jan.
10,
R.
17,
79,
108,
114,
135,
154,
169).
This odor was variously described as a paint, naptha,
DDT,
toxic, or
nauseous odor and as
a rancid, stale or burning oil odor.
There were
several indications that the oil odors were different from the other
odors
(Jan.
10,
R.
18,
134) and occurred at different time periods
from
the other odors.
—2—
The witnesses agreed that the odor problems started only after
Respondent began operations at the site
(Jan.
10,
R.
20,
61,
104).
Donna Marciniec testified that her daughter would complain of
headaches after playing outside near the Par plant
(Jan.
10,
R.
28).
Jeanette Mason testified that her grandchildren could not play
outside because of the odors and that her expectant daughter had
become very sick after being outside in the fumes
(Jan.
10,
R.
82).
Others testified that outdoor activities were severely restricted
because of the odors
(Jan.
10,
R.
64,
119,
141,
156) and that they
were forced to keep their doors and windows closed in an effort to
keep the odors out
(Jan.
10,
R.
64,
70).
The witnesses were unanimous
in describing
the odors as more intense during the summer period
(Jan.
10,
R.
35,
77,
107,
113,
133) and in the observation that they could
notice no improvement in the quantity or duration of odors over the
last several months
(Jan.
10,
R.
86,
105,
117,
147,
163).
Many of the witnesses had observed that the finish.was pitted
or there were paint specks on their automobiles
(Jan.
10,
R.
25,
65,
70,
96,
113,
139).
Testimony indicates that Respondent voluntarily
paid for the cleaning, waxing and buffing of several automobiles
(Jan.
10,
R.
25,
65,
70,
98, 115).
One witness testified that Phillip
Rosenband,
a Par Steel Vice President, had offeted to air condition
his home
(Jan.
10,
R.
118).
Perhaps the most vivid description of the odor problem and its
effects was found in the testimony of Frances Gronek:
“I live right across the street from the place.
I lived
there 47 years, ever since Coach
& Car was there.
Then
when they moved in there about a year after
I could not
have
a window or a door open.
I almost died from the smell.
I
get
a
queasy
fuuiii
in my stomach.
My husband was
paralyzed
and
I could not even open the window for him
to get air.
He died two years ago.
He could not stand
the smell in there.
He said,
“Give me something.”
I
used to put a wet cloth on his nose so he could get
some air.
I could not have
a door or window open in
the summertime.
I could not go out or sit out.
I could
not enjoy my yard or my flowers.
My husband could not
sit out on the porch.
He was always
in the house and
when we went to bed at night my bedclothes
smelled
something terrible from that paint.”
(Jan.
10,
R.
64-65).
The hearing officer for this case has indicated that the credi-
bility of the prosecution witnesses may be lessened due to an overt
hostility toward Respondent.
Perhaps the testimony of Frances Gronek
provides some insight into the reasons for the hostility.
8
—
388
—3—
Roy
Campin,
an inspector for the Chicago Department of Environ-
mental Control, testified that he investicated Par Steel’s operation
in July of 1970 as a result of complaints
from neighbors residing
in the plant area
(Jan.
11,
B.
189).
Campin detected what he described
as slight odors in
the. area
which
he found noxious and which affected
his
nostrils
(Jan.
11,
B.
191) and burned his eyes
(Jan.
11,
B.
197).
He stated th~~thi~investigation revoaled that the odor problem
appeared to result
primarily
from odors escaping through open
shipping doors
(Jan.
11,
B.
196).
Campin noticed this condition on
numerous occasions
and each
time requested Par Steel officials to
close the doors
(Jan.
11,
R.
206).
The closing of the doors resulted
in
a noticeable reduction in odor intensity according to Campin
(Jan.
11,
P.
206).
Campin’s investications continued through 1970,
1971 and into 1972 due to continuing complaints about odors and
excessive noise
(Jan.
11,
B.
204).
During an August
7,
1972 investi-
gation
Canpin
again detected odors
coming
from
the open shipping doors
and he cited the company for violating conditions which had been
placed on Par Steel’s C~rtificationof Operation
(Jan.
11,
R.
221).
Campin
indicated
that the doors were found closed on several subse—
cxuent visits until August 16,
1972,
on which date he found the doors
onon
again and very heavy odors near the open doors
(Jan.
11,
B.
225).
He issued
another citation and the company then ordered the paint
spray operation shut down
(Jan.
11,
R.
226).
Camein testified that the Company Vice President
had
advised
him of a change to water base paints about November 1972,
after
which Campin’s investigation revealed a noticeable difference in
odor intensity
(Jan.
11,
R.
232).
Campin testified that he still
detected some odor but had felt no physical effects from it
(Jan.
11,
B.
233).
The citations and citizen complaints led to
a formal hearing on
October
5,
1972 befove the Chicago Department of Environment Control
the outcome of
which
was the closing and sealing of the Par Steel
plant by the City of Chicago
(Mar.
6,
B.
306).
The plant was later
allowed to reopen and has been operated since Jan,
1973
(Mar.
6,
P.
309).
In defense, Par Steel presented testimony of several witnesses
who reside near
the
plant.
William Beyer, a part time Par Steel
employee, testified that he could detect slight paint odors on muggy
days
at his residence
which
he
testified
was
about
“24 inches” from
the plant
(Mar.
6,
B.
111).
Beyer, his wife and his sister-in-law
all testified that the odors and fumes from Par Steel had
not affected
them in their daily routines and that their children had played
outside near the plant with no obvious ill effects or complaints
(Mar.
6,
P.
138,
161).
Burton Balsam, part owner and chief chemist for one of Par’s
paint suppliers, testified that his firm
has
been supplying paint for
8
—
389
—4—
the Par operation for about
5
years.
Until
late
1971,
the paint was
a
baking
enamel
which
contained
an
alkyd oil,
a melamine hardening
agent
and
formaldehyde
(Mar.
6,
R.
18—19).
Balsam
stated
that
certain
components
in
the
enamel
were
photochemica.lly
active
and
were
“actually
toxic
to
breathe
in
very
large
concentrations”
(Mar.
6,
B.
21).
He
also
stated
that
the
formaldehyde and solvents produced
strong
odors,
were
irritating
to
tne
eyes
and
lungs
and
were
damaging
to
health
for
long
term
exposure
(Mar.
6,
R.
23-24).
Around January
1972, Balsam began supplying Par with a paint
described
as
“low odor Peterson gray bake”.
This new paint was
designed to meet all OSHA and California Air Pollution Regulations
according to Balsam
(Mar.
6,
B.
26).
He added that the low odor
paint had only lOto
15
cyclic hydrocarbon solvents but still con-
tained the melarnine hardening agent and the formaldehyde.
Balsam
felt that although the low odor paint would still be somewhat irri-
tating to the eyes and nose and still detectable
as an odor,
it
should have had no effect on Par’s neighbors because it met the
requirements of air pollution regulations
(Mar.
6,
R.
28,
35).
However, when Par Steel officials still complained about the odors,
Balsam testified that his company began development work
on
ai~iother
type paInt
in order to solve the odor problem.
Balsam indicated that the newly developed paint had only recently
been delivered to Par
and was
therefore not yet tested
or
in
pro-
Juction use.
The
new paint according to Balsam is completely non-
toxic, contains no melamine agents or photochemically active solvents
and
is no more irritating
than the paint used by homeowners
to paint
their
homes
(r4ar.
6,
R.
40—42)
.
The
new paint is about 20
to
25
more exnens~vethan that previously supplied
to Par Steel.
flalsam testified that about 2/3 of his approximately 200
customers
use
water
wash
units
for particulate control while
the
other 1/3 use only exhaust fans
(Mar.
6,
B.
97-98)
.
He
stated
his
bel ief
that
a
water
wash
unit
would
effectively
extract
“anywhere
from
25
to
50”
of
the
solvents
in
the
air
passing
through
the
water
(Mar.
6,
B.
82)
.
This testimony conflicts with findings of
leading authorities in the field of air pollution control:
“Organic solvents used in coatings are not controllable
by
filters, baffles,
or water curtains”
(Air Pollution
Engineering Manual, U.S.
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare,
No.
999, AP—40,
1967,
p.
390)
and
“The
solvent
concentration
in the spray booth varies
from
100
to
200
ppm.
These
solvents
are
not
controllable
by
filters,
baffles,
or water curtains.
Adsorption by
use
of
activated
carbon
is the only feasible method
for
solvent
control
provided
the
particulates
are
removed
from
the
contaminated air stream prior
to
adsorption”.
(Industrial
Pollution
Control
Handbook,
Herbert
F,
Lund,
1971,
p.
12—1.3)
—
—5—
Agency investigator Krzymonski testified that he visited the
plant on November 22, 1971
to investigate a complaint.
Although
the plant was not in operation on that date,
Krzymonski and two
other Agency investigators toured the facility and obtained infor-
mation sufficient to calculate Par Steel’s particulate emissions.
Krzymonski calculated that emissions from the two spray booths
totalled 0.80 lbs. particulates per hour and that the allowable
rate was 0.58 lbs. particulates per hour
(Complainant’s Exhibit ~2).
Respondent did not submit any rebuttal testimony on these emission
figures.
Therefore,
although the figures represent a minor particulate
discharge from Respondent’s plant, we find the Agency evidence
sufficient to prove the violation charged.
This is not a major factor
in our assessment of penalty.
In EPA vs. American Generator,
PCB 71-329 and EPA vs. General
Classics, PCB 72-298 we held that permit violations
in the City
of Chicago prior to January
6,
1972 will not be penalized.
Testi-
mony here reveals that most of Respondent’s equipment was installed
prior to January
6,
1972.
Par Steel’s owner, Maurice Rosenband,
testified that no pollution control or abatement equipment had been
installed since January 1,
1972 other than filters on the water wash
units and extensions on plant exhaust stacks.
The filters were
installed without permit in September 1972 for the express purpose
of reducing emissions
(Jan.
11,
R.
273,
283).
The stacks were
extended in the summer of 1972 in order to provide better diffusion
of odors
(Jan.
11,
R.
278).
A small penalty will be imposed for
these two permit violations.
Respondent claims that the Agency failed to prove that there
was economically reasonable technology
in existence during the
period covered by the Complaint to control the odorous emissions.
However, Agency investigator Krzymonski did discuss
a variety of
methods for the control of Par Steel’s odorous emissions,
including
carbon adsorption units, after burners and water base paints
(Jan.11,
R.
334-335).
We believe that the Agency’s position on the avail-
ability of adequate control measures is sound.
The technology for
adsorption by activated carbon has been adequately developed and
is widely used for odor control throughout the country.
The evidence proves that Par Steel caused air po1l~itionwith
its odor emissions.
There was also a permit violation and a very
minor particulate violation.
The company’s attempts at pollution control have been minimal.
The conditions endured by Par Steel’s neighbors now call
for a
change of corporate attitude and a more effective effort for the
control of the odorous emissions.
If the new paint proves satisfactory
Par will have eliminated its most important pollution problem.
Our
Order will allow the company
a sufficient period of time
to test the
new paint for odor and time to investigate and install adequate
8—391
—6—
emission control equipment.
Respondent should observe the
requirement that EPA permits be obtained prior to installation
of the control equipment.
We are concerned about the ability of Par Steel to provide
adequate control equipment.
Phillip Rosenband testified that the
company had suffered a $31,000 loss on sales of $987,000 during
the early months of
1972.
He felt that Par Steel could not
financially afford an after burner costing an estimated $10,000
for installation and $1500 per month in operating expenses.
The
company did make money during the five years prior to 1972 and
it was expected that 1972 would finally show a profit.
The record
does not
show
the cost of an activated carbon adsorption unit and
it is obvious that further consideration must be given to the
company’s financial picture.
We have no alternative,
however, but to order the company to
proceed ahead with its control program.
The odor violation was serious and would ordinarily call for
a severe monetary penalty, but we believe Respondent’s money is
best spent in the control of the odor problem.
A penalty of $2,500
is appropriate.
ORDER
It is ordered that:
1.
Par Steel Products Company shall pay to the State
of Illinois by July 1,
1973 the sum of $2,500 as
a penalty for the violations found in this proceeding.
Penalty payment by certified check or money order
payable to the State of Illinois shall be made to:
Fiscal Services Division,
Illinois EPA,
2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
2.
Respondent shall within 60 days
of the date of this
Order submit to the Agency a compliance plan designed
to bring Respondent’s operation into compliance with
our Regulations governing air pollution and emissions.
The plan shall be designed to achieve compliance no
later than 120 days from the date of
this Order.
Respondent shall cease and desist from its violations
following the compliance
date.
3.
Respondent shall submit monthly progress reports to the
Agency commencing on August 1,
1973, detailing the
progress Respondent has made toward achieving compliance.
The monthly reports shall include all pertinent infor-
mation on the results of the low odor paint evaluation
program.
—7—
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order of the Board was
adopted this
~~4”
day
of
June,
1973
by
a
vote
of
~3
to ~
8
—
393