EPA v. HANCOCK MANUFACTURING, INC.

Case summary

SOURCE IS SUBJECT TO DEGREASER MACT AT 40 CFR PART 63 SUB- PART T NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HALOGENATED SOLVENT CLEANING MACHINES. HANCOCK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., TORONTO, OHIO, (HANCOCK) MANUFACTURERS CANS FOR AUTOMOBILE OIL FILTERS AND CASINGS FOR CAR AIR CONDITIONING UNITS. HANCOCK HAS SEVEN IN-LINE VAPOR HALOGENATED SOLVENT CLEANING MACHINES (VAPOR DEGREASERS). SIX OF THE VAPOR DEGREASERS ARE EXISTING AS DEFINED BY 40 C.F.R. PART 63, SUBPART T, (DEGREASER MACT) AND ONE IS A NEW VAPOR DEGREASERS AS DEFINED IN THE SAME SUBPART. THE SIX EXISTING VAPOR DEGREASERS USE TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) AS A SOLVENT AND THE NEW VAPOR DEGREASER USES METHYLENE CHLORIDE. ON JANUARY 4, 2000, THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT- ION AGENCY, REGION 5, (U.S. EPA), ISSUED HANCOCK A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 114 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT (INFORMATION REQUEST). IN THE RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION REQUEST, DATED JANUARY 24, 2000, HANCOCK SUBMITTED COPIES OF INITIAL NOTIFICATIONS, REQUIRED BY THE DEGREASERS MACT, FOR THE SIX EXISTING DEGREASERS, DATED AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DATE, IN VIOLATION OF 63.468 (A). ALSO, IN THE NOTIFICATIONS, HANCOCK CHOSE THE ALTERNATIVE STANDARD AS AN ANTICIPATED COMPLIANCE APPROACH. TO COMPLY WITH THE ALTERNATIVE STANDARD 40 C.F.R. 63.464, HANCOCK WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN A MONTHLY LOG OF SOLVENT ADDITIONS AND SUB- TRACTIONS, ENSURE THAT EMISSION LIMITS, WERE EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE APPLICABLE EMISSION LIMITS, AND MAINTAIN A 3-MONTH ROLLING AVERAGE MONTHLY EMISSION LIMIT. HANCOCK DID NOT PRODUCE SUCH DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE INFORMAT- ION REQUEST, THEREFORE IT IS ASSUMED THESE RECORDS WERE NOT MAINTAINED IN VIOLATION OF 40 D.F.R. 63.464. INSTEAD, HANCOCK PROVIDED DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED UNDER 40 C.R.R. 63.463 - BASIC EQUIPMENT STANDARD. AFTER REVIEW- ING THIS MATERIAL, U.S. EPA FOUND THAT HANCOCK (HAD IT CHOSE TO COMPLY WITH THIS STANDARD) HAD NOT MAINTAINED A PROPER REFRIGERATED CONTROL DEVICE TEMPERATURE AND THE REDUCTION OF ROOM DRAFT AND MAINTENANCE OF IDLING MODE COVERS WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEGREASER MACT. THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (OEPA) INSPECTED THE FACILITY ON JUNE 21, 1999, AND FOUND THAT THE RE- FRIGERATED CONTROL DEVICES WERE NOTICEABLY WARM AND THE DOWN-TIME COVERS WERE NOT PROPERLY IN PLACE ON THE DE- GREASERS, IN VIOLATION OF 40 C.F.R. 63.463. NO MALFUNCT- ION REPORTS WERE SUBMITTED TO OEPA AS REQUIRED BY OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 3745-15-06 FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED MALFUNCTIONS OF THE REFRIGERATED CONTROL DEVICES, VIOLATING THAT REGULATION. IN A LETTER DATED JULY 1, 1999, OEPA ADDRESSED THE AFORE MENTIONED VIOLATIONS. SINCE OEPA IS NOT DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE DEGREASER MACT, THE LETTER WAS THE ONLY ACTION OEPA HAD TAKEN PRIOR TO REFERRING THE CASE TO U.S. EPA.

Defendants (1)

• HANCOCK MANUFACTURING, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• HANCOCK MANUFACTURING COMPANY INCORPORATED

  CLEVELAND & 5TH STS., TORONTO, OH, 43964

  Registry ID: 110000591627

Statutes cited

• CAA 112 — Hazardous Air Pollutants

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• HANCOCK MANUFACTURINGentered 2001-11-30

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $125,294

Timeline (4 milestones)

• 2001-06-29Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2001-07-17Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 2001-11-30Final Order Issued
• 2006-07-05Enforcement Action Closed