ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
March
22,
1973
ENVIRON~4ENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
~t72—52
V.
)
FORTY-~EIGHT INSULATIONS,
INC.,
a Delaware corporation
RICHARD
W.
COSBY,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
ENV
IRONNEN
TAL
PROTEC TI ON
AGENCY
WILSON
D.
BURNELL
OF
O’BRIEN,
BURNELL,
PUCKETT
&
BARNETT,
ON
BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(BY
SAMUEL
T.
LAWTON,
JR.):
Comrlaint
was
filed
against
Forty-Eight
Insulations,
Inc.,
the
owner
and onerator of a mineral wool manufacturing facility located
in
the
Village
of
North Aurora.
The facility includes
two s1~g
melting cupolas,
two
wool collection chambers,
two curing ovens and
two cooling sections.
The
complaint alleges
that since March
15,
1971,
Respondent,
in
the
operation of the foregoing facility,
emitted con-
taminants
into the air so
as
to cause air pollution,
in violation of
Section 9(a) of
the Environmental Protection Act and in violation of
Rules 2-2.11, 3-3.000
and
3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
tiie Control
of Air Pollution.
The
entry
of
a cease and desist order
and nenalties in
the
maximum statutory amount are sought.
An answer was filed by Respondent in which it denies the material
allegations of the complaint
with
respect to the causing of air pollutior
and violation of
the
Rules.
By way of affirmative defense, Respondent
specifies
the
installation of air pollution abatement equipment made
by
it during 1969 and subsequent thereto, which, according
to Respondent,
have reduced the emission of air contaminants
so
as
to bring its operatic
into
compliance
with
the
relevant
regulations.
Hearing
was held on the cc•i~iplaintand answer.
Briefs were filed
by both parties.
In its brief
(page
2)
,
the Agency concedes
that it
has
offered
no
evidence in support of a
9(a)
air
pollution violation,
nor
has
it
proved violation of
the Rules with respect to emissions
from
Rcsponclc?ntrs cuoolas or curing ovens.
The only area of contention re-
lates to particulate emissions from Respondent’s wool blowing chambers
Nos.
1 and
2.
We
find on the basis of the evidence that Pesoondent
has
violated
Rule
3-3.111
in respect to emissions from the No.
1 wool
blowing
chamber.
The
evidence does not establish
a violation with
resoect
to
the
No.
2
wool, blowing chamber.
7
—
351
~.
s’~ut
a
operation,
located
in
North
Aurora,
manufactures
:mL000:
,col
insulation
used
in
the
construction
industry.
The
Ros
~
~cnts.
~ra~ion
consists
of
two
separate
production lines,
each
0cm
05Cc
cf
a
cucola,
wool
collection
chamber
(being
the
~ool
blowes
cCoi
rccn~,
aurinci
oven,
cooler
and cutting and
eackaqinc
equlorne(,
in
aer:os.
Tee
rocess
vent
stacics
through
which
contaminants
arc
a
the
atmosehero
are
connected
to
the
specific
orocess.
cllcws:
do~ coth
oroduction
lines
No.
1
and
No,
2,
each
cupola
nausts
:irreugn
a
multiclone
into
a
common stack.
The wool
blowor
a
cure
oven
for
~roduction
line
No.
exhausts
through a common staci
a
roe
cooler
exeausts
through
a
third
and
separate
stack.
Nith
r’
to
oroducticn
line
No.
2
the
wool
blower
and
cooler
exhausts
to
sor
stacks
and
two
stacks
serve
:he
cure
oven.
Hearings
were
deia’a
j
an lgencv
stack
test
could
be
cerformed
and
the
~esults
evai
os
.~oe
issuc necomes sole±y that
01
eeterminL
ig
wflct:
or
~5siOrl3
~
wool
rooms
and
cure
ovens
for
each
production
1 inc.
rc~
cc th~rel
~vere in
Tlolation of Rules
2—2.11,
3—3.000
and
i—3.ifl
The
Acenc~7 test
of
the
~l
wool
room
~ius
oven
at
ica.
1-ri
P’
1)
was
performed usinq
a 1/4—inch diameter
sarrrb
I ira
r
rca.
.
:strwc
~k.
100
and
Compi.
Ex.
6)
show
that tufts
ci mineral
wool
~
~r.
L
out
the
wool
room
stack.
The tufts are tu~ larcTe
to
bo
;e
-
L
~c~
the
probe
used
so
that
tile
results
of
iii
S
est
wOu
ci
be
u
~crv
1
L
2\n
~nspection
of
the
test
data
indicates
tout
thu
aenarid
‘~
ii
L
~
63.7
lb,hr,
is
unreasonable.
The
first
rsut
rtairuci,
Li
ii.
or
iowever,
can be accepted
as
~he
Le Lal
amiss
io
~:ureP
~t
wool
blower
and
cure
oven.
BotI
results
1-mci
i
Ins
~
Lu
V
at:
(50.
will
be shown
later.
The
mesh
bag
Lest
oerfor:’uul
by
.Res’~oncir;a
Ru
.
;.
)
as
given
serious
weight.
The
method invoived ca~tar:
n
ar~
;i
I
~
sions
cmi
Lted
from
the
f1
wool
room
and
cure
I’Tcfl.
1:
:1 zr
‘~
openings
in
the
bag
(1/6 mc!.
x
1/il
inch)
iui
cci~
that
ni
tic
I
much
of
the
emissions
would
not
be
captured
s IIIOe
i.ho
m±roraci
wool
fibers
individually
are
nctcrosconic
(B.
328)
and
orl~ bncomc’
V’S
((51
after
the
apclication
of
binder
and
subsequent
ajctlomcrntton
as
Lao;
enter
tee blow
chamber.
The
efficiency
of
the
baq
in
COi
lctirtq cots
sions
increases
with
tioc
so
that
the
results
arc
hiqhl
do
o:kiest;
oh
the
duration
of
samoling.
The
result
obtained,
1.7
lb/br,
~hould
cc
discounted,
especially
since
information
to
determine
the
ci lowobi e
emissions
was
not
known.
Forty—Eight’
a
high
volume
sariraler
test
(Beau.
Lx.
16)
solves
the
cronlem
of
measuring
emissions
comnosod
cart
lv
of
larqe
clumos,
The
sare’J
e
nrobo
was
La
inch
in
diameter
and
large
volumes
of
the
f-i
wool
room plus oven
stack
gas
;‘ero sari~lod.
One would
ex~’ect
tiic
resul’s
of
this
test,
8.8
to 22-3
tb/hr
o
he
qreator
than
the
Aqeric
‘‘~
Lest
(Comal.
Lx.
5)
since
larqe
nartic
Les
were
captured.
‘ia11.5
was
the
case
for only one of
the
four
rosulta ootainod.
rpisere
;Jao
some
ou~Stioxi,
7
—
352
during the hearing,
of the quality and accuracy of the equipment
used and test procedures followed during this
test.
Examination of
the equipment and test material
(Compl.
Ex.
8, Joint Ex.
1)
does not
indicate any serious errors in performing the test.
The stack test performed by Forty-Eight Insulations,
Inc. on the
#1 oven
(Resp.
Ex.
13,
14)
contained errors admitted by
the Respondent
(P.
445)
.
The errors found from an examination of the exhibits include
not correcting volumes for pressure and not preparing
the collection
thimble properly for weighing.
The result obtained, however,
3
lb/hr,
is crobably accurate within 20
considering these errors.
Finally,
tests of the #2 wool room mentioned by Forty-Eight Insula-
tions,
Inc. hut not included as an exhibit,
had emission results of
4.94
lb/hr
for the #2 wool room and 0.28
lb/hr for the #2 cure oven
(R.
419)
The test data
is given in answer No. l2b to the Interrogatories of the
Complainant and, based on the process weight,
shows compliance for both
the
#2 wool
room and #2 cure oven.
The results also show that about
95
of the emissions,
if totalled, would originate in the wool room.
Much
testimony concerned the use of emission factors
in estimating
the
particulate emissions from the wool blowing chambers.
Table
8-16
of AP-42 sets emissions for wool rooms at 17 lb/ton of charge weight
and this value was used originally by the Agency
(Compl.
Ex.
3)
.
The
respondent produced evidence that showed that the emission
factor
was
based on test results from AP—40
“Air Pollution Engineering Manual”
and that the test results included one unrealistic test result which
would he dropped from future editions of
the Manual
(Resp.
Ex.
8,
8a)
The
Agency then calculated a new emission factor for wool blowers of 4.4
lb/ton
by
omitting the bad test result
(Compl.
Ex.
9)
and used it to
calculate revised estimates of emissions
for use in its case.
The
estimated emissions and the allowable emissions for
the
wool blowers
are the following:
Particulate Emissions
Revised
Allowable
Unit
Original Estimate
Estimate
Emissions
#1 wool room
70.6 lb/hr
18.3 lb/hr
8.6 lb/hr
#2 wool room
59.0 lb/hr
15.3 lb/hr
7.6 lb/hr
rI~he
significance of
these estimates
is lessened by the existence of
the
stack test data which we will use as the basis of our decision.
One area of controversy concerned the determination of emissions
allowed
by
Rule 3-3.111.
The Rule sets limits for processes based
on the process weight rate and applies directly to single sources.
—3—
7
—
353
At
Forty—Eight
Insulations,
Inc.
the
#1
wool
room
and
#1
cure
oven vent through a common stack.
The respondent argued that
the
allowable
emissions
are
calculated
separately
for
the
wool
room and the oven and then added to get the allowable emission for
the stack
(R.
416,
Resp.
Ex.
10)
.
It would then comoare the
actual stack emission with this value.
We
agree with
tile Agoricy
that each source must be treated individually
as to
both
actual
and allowable emissions, which for the #1 wool room and #1 cure
oven means that the allowable emissions are calculated separately
and compared individually
with
the actual emissions from each of
the two sources.
To do as Respondent suggests would encourage
manifolding dirty sources with clean sources
to achieve compliance
by
averaging,
that
is,
compliance
by
dilution.
In view of the foregoing,
it
is necessary to determine
the
relative contributions to the measured stack emissions from the #1
wool room and #1 cure oven.
From all indications, most of
the
emissions
originate in the wool room.
Testimony
(R.
416)
indicated that 90
of
the stack volume flow came from
the
wool room,
10
from the cure oven,
which,
if the particle concentrations were equally distributed, would
mean 90
of the particulate emissions are charged
to
the
wool room.
Respondent’s stack test of the #1 oven showed particulate emissions of
approximately
3 lb/hr which,
if compared to total
411 wool room plus
#1
cure oven
stack emissions
in the range of
9 to
22 lb/hr measured by other
tests
(Compl.
Ex.
5,
Resp.
Ex.
10)
,
would mean a
#1 wool room contribu-
tion of from 66
to 86.
In addition,
the test of
tho
#2
line referred
to previously showed 95
of the emissions from
tile
wool
blower and
cure oven came from
the
wool room.
The conclusion drawn
is,
that at
the very minimum, based on the record,
66
of
the particulate emissions
from the #1 wool room plus
#1 oven stack arc emitted by the #1 wool
room.
Using the above analysis,
the emissions measured by
the
stack tests
can be compared to the allowable emissions ;i.ccording
to- Rule 3-3.111
with the following results:
Party
Reference
Measured
#1 Wool Room Emissions
#1 cure oven emissions
Stack
Measurcd*
Allowed
Measured*
Allowed
Emissions
Agency
EPA Ex.5
17.1 lb/hr
11.3
lb/hr 7.8 lb/hr
5.8 lb/hr
7.8 lb/hr
65.7
“
43.4
“
7.8
“
22.3
“
7.8
“
Forty—
Resp.
Ex.
8.8
5.8
7.8
“
3.0
“
7.8
Eight
10
22
3
“
14
7
“
7
6
“
7
6
“
7
6
11.2
“
7
4
“
7
4
“
3
8
“
7 4
12.2
“
8.1
“
6.2
“
4.1
“
6.2
“
*Based on 66
for wool room,
34
for cure oven.
—4—
7
—
35~1
The conclusion
is that the
411 wool room
is
in violation of
Rule 3-3.111 but that the #1 cure oven
is not.
Documentation of emissions from the #2 production line was not
as extensive.
The Agency’s case is based on the emission factors
and shows
(Compi.
Lx.
9)
estimated emissions of 15.3 lb/hr compared to
allowable emissions of 7.6 lb/hr for the #2 wool room.
The Agency also
concedes that based on
the
record, the #2 cure oven
is probably in
compliance.
In rebuttal, Forty-Eight Insulations,
Inc. referenced
(B. 418—419)
a
test which showed particulate emissions of 4.9 lb/hr
compared to allowable emissions of 5.9 lb/hr
from the #2 wool room.
This
test
was
performed
at
a
low
average
process
rate
but
the
data
was
not challenged by the Agency.
The Agency’s claim in their Brief
that
no evidence was
introduced
to support the test is not accurate
since the test data
is contained in answer l2b to their interrogatories.
We
therefore find
that
the
emission test for the
412 wool room shows
compliance.
It
is
our conclusion, therefore,
that the #1 wool room is
in
violation of Rule 3-3.111, but that the other
process equipment is
not.
The
#1 wool room emits up to twice the allowable emissions based
on valid stack test results.
Respondent had submitted
an Acerp to the Air Pollution Control
Board
on
April
15,
1968,
which
identified
twelve
sources
of
emission
on
the
two production
lines
(Resp.
Ex.
15)
.
A
revised
plan
called
for control of emission from six sources, namely,
cupolas
1 and 2,
wool
rooms
1
and
2,
cure
ovens
1
and
2
(B.
511)
.
The
specific
control
ec~uinmentincluded multiclones on the cupolas, fine mesh belts on the
wool rooms and double pass cure ovens
(B.
512)
.
All
equipment
had
been
installed
and
was
in
operation
by
July
of
1971
(Reso.
Ex.
15)
$291,000
had.
been
expended
for
purchase
of
equipment
and
its
installa-
tion
(Reso.
Lx.
16,
17).
We believe that
Respondent has made a reason-
ble effort
to abate its oollutional discharges.
However,
more must
be done
to bring
its #1
wool room into compliance.
This undoubtedly
will
call
for
the
development
of
a
program
to
abate
the
emissions
from
this
narticular
source.
We
will
give
Respondent
60
days
in
which
to
develop
such
a
program
and
an
additional
60
days
to
bring
its
operation
in
this resoect
into compliance.
A penalty
of
$500.00
is
imposed
for
violation
of
Rules
2—2.11,
3—3.000
and
3-3.111
of
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the
Control of Air Pollution.
This opinion
constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of
law
of
the Board.
IT
IS
THE ORDER
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
that:
1.
Respondent submit
a program for abatement of
the
pollutional
discharge
from
its
#1
wool
room
within
60 days from the date hereof and cease and desist
violation of the particulate regulations with respect
thereto
within
120
days
after
receipt
of
this
order.
—5—
7
—
355
2.
Penalty in the amount of $500
is assessed against
Respondent for violation of Rules
2-2.11,
3-3.000
and 3-’3.lll of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Control of Air Pollution,
as a result of particulate
emissions from its
#1 wool room.
Penalty shall be paid
by certified check or money order to the State of Illinois
addressed
to:
Fiscal Services Division,
Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
Payment shall be made
no later than
April
27,
1973.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Boa~çd
certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the
~
day of March,
1973, by
a vote of
44
to
r~
~
~
‘‘1
/2
—6—
7
—
356