ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
.15,
1972
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainant,
PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTUR ING
COMPANY,
INC.
Lee
A,
Campbell,
Assistant
Attorney
Thomas
MeMahon,
for
the
Respondent,
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
The Environmental Protection
Age.ncy filed a complaint against
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, alleging that the Company
had violated the Environmental Protection Act and the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution, by failing to
obtain a State permit prior to the Company’s construction of new
boilers at its Chicago manufacturing plant,
The Procter & Gamble
project, costing five and one~halfmillion dollars,
was. to convert
its
plant
from
the
use
of
coal~fired
boilers
to
the
use
of
gas~
fired
boilers
with
oil
stand~by,
Preliminary
work
began
in
August,
1969,
but
actual
construction
on
the
three
boilers
took
place
between
March
1,
1971
and
December
31,
1971,
The
conversion
from
the
use
of
coal
to
the
use
of
gas
and
oil
resulted
in
a
reduction
of
the
emission
of
ai..r
contamthan.ts
in.to
the
atmos.phere,
There
have
been
no
complaints
with
respect
to
emissions
from
Respondent’s
boilers
since
toe
cessation
ol
coal
burning
on
No~eeber 15,
l9~1
Respondent
f~leC
a
Motion
to
Dismiss
the
Complaint
on
the
grounds
that:
(I)
Two
of
the
boilers
(#10
and
#11)
which
were
converted
from
coal
to
gas
and
oil
did
not
call
for
the
construction
of
new
equip~
mont and therefore the statute was not applicable,
(2)
A permit for
construction
of the new boiler
(#12)
had been issued by the State on
April
18,
1972,
about one month before the EPA filed its Complaint,
and therefore the matter was moot as
to that boiler,
(3) Planning
for the project was commenced prior
to: the July
1,
1970 enactment of
the Environmental Protection Act,
at a time when Chicago industry
was exempt from State regulation,
(4) The Complaint alleging failure
to obtain a State permit was duplicitous and frivolous since a permit
had,
in fact,
been obtained from the Chicago Department of Environ~
mental Control,
—2—
Subsequently,
the
parties
filed
their
Stipulation
which
disposes
of factual issues.
The Stipulation
states
that
new
equipment
was
installed
in
the
converted
boilers
(#10
and
#11)
and
that
boiler
#12
was
entirely
new.
Clearly
the
construction
was
of
a
type
which
is
prohibited
in
the
absence
of
a
permit.
Applications
for
permits
were
not
filed
by
Respondent
until
after
construction
had been
com-
pleted
on
all
three
boilers,
and
the
Respondent
had
been
contacted
by
Agency
investigators.
Late
compliance
does
not
moot
the
issues
in
our
opinion.
To
hold
otherwise
would
reduce
voluntary
compliance
with
the
law,
and
interiere
with
the
State’s
proper
and
timely
review
of
projects
affecting
environmental
quality.
EPA
vs
•
American
Generator
&
Armature
Company,
PCB
71429,
dis-
poses
of
the
issues
raised
by
Respondent
regarding
State
authority.
Prior
to
the
enactment
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
on
July
1,
1970,
it
was
not
necessary
to obtain a State permit for
installation
of
new
equipment
within
the
City
of
Chicago,
since
that
area
had
been
exempted
from
State
requirements.
A
City
permit
was
sufficient
•
In
the
American
Generator
case,
we
held
that
State
permits
have
been
required
for
construction
of
new
facilities
in
Chicago
since
July
1,
1970.
The
Opinion,
announced
January
6,
1972,
indicates
that
penalties
will
be
imposed
for
future
violations
of
the
rule
•
No
penalty
was
imposed
in
that
case,
however,
upon
American
Generator
& Armature
Company.
Here,
Respondent
Procter
&
Gamble
claims
it
should
receive
similar
treatment
since
its
transgression
occurred
prior
to
our
announcement
of
the
rule
on
January
6,
1972.
The
EPA
recommends
a
$500.00
penalty.
Becauseof
the
precedent
established
in
American
Generator,
we
decline
to
impose
a
penalty
upon
Respondent
Procter
&
Gamble
Manufac-
turing
Company,
Inc.
The
violations
took
place
before
our
decision
of
January
6,
1972
gave
final
notice
of
the
need
for
State
permits
in
construction
of
Chicago
facilities.
We
also
give
due
weight
to
the
fact
that
Respondent
did
obtain
a City
permit
and
did
reduce
air
pollution
in
the
City
of
Chicago.
The
Board
finds
that
the
permit
provisions
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
were
violated
and
hereby
orders
that
this
proceeding
be
closed
with
no
remedial
or
penalty
provisions.
Mr.
Dumelle
dissents.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board1
Jiereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
on
the~~~day
of
August,
1972
by
a
vote
of
4/—/
c&~zt.
~--
istan
s.
monetj4Ls.ers
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
5—iN