ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

4,

1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

COMPLAINANT

)

V.

)

PCB

72-52

FORTY-EIGHT INSULATIONS,

INC.

RESPONDENT

)

MICHAEL A,

BENEDETTO,

JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

on behalf

of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

WILSON

BURNELL

OF

O’BRIEN,

BURNELL,

PUCKETT

&

BARNETT on behalf of

FORTY-EIGHT INSULATIONS,

INC.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Marder)

This action involves a rehearing of an original complaint

filed by the Environmental Protection Agency against Forty-Eight

Insulations,

Inc., the owner and operator of a mineral wool manu-

facturing facility located in the village of North Aurora.

The fac-

ility includes two slag melting cupolas, two wool collection chain-

bers, two curing ovens, and two cooling sections.

As a result of proceedings and documents tendered, the Board

entered an opinion on March

22,

1973.

This opinion held that the

Board found violations only in the #1 wool room of the Respondent.

The #2 wool room,

#1 and #2 cooling rooms, and #1 and #2 cupolas

were found to be within compliance.

On April 12, 1973, the Environ-

mental Protection Agency filed apetition for rehearing.

The pet-

ition took issue with only one area of the Board’s opinion. This

area related to the Respondent’s

#2 wool

room.

The heart of the matter is whether the Board rendered its

opinion in violation of the Pollution Control Board rules

329 and

331.

The Agency contends that Respondent’s answers to interroga-

tories were used in the formation of the Board’s opinion;

and that

said answers were not legally introduced as evidence;

and as a result

the Agency was precluded from cross-examination on this document.

The evidence pertained to Respondent’s stack test on

#2 wool room.

On May 10,

1973,

the Board held and ordered that the Agency’s

9— 363

---

objections were valid and the case would be referred to the orig-

inal

hearing

officer

for

further

hearings.

The

Board

must

address

itself

to

only

one major question:

What

is

the

validity

of

the

results

of

Respondent’s

#2

wool

room

stack

test?

A rehearing was scheduled for August 24,

1973,

at which time

the data from Respondent’s

#2 wool room stack test was entered into

the record

(Record page 29)

as Respondent’s Exhibit

#1.

This test

was conducted by an employee of Forty-Eight Insulations,

Inc. The

entire proceedings of the rehearing was a discussion of the validity

of

this

test.

Much testimony was elicited and both parties agreed (Record

pages 28,

32)

that the stack test was not run at isokinetic con-

ditions.

It is again the Board’s opinion

(as it was in the orig-

inal order)

on this case that the possible errors introduced into

the test procedure are not significant enough to make the test in-

valid.

The only testimony which can rebut the stack test is the

Agency’s “calculated emission factors.”

The Board feels that due to the evidence generated in the orig-

inal hearing

(Complainant’s Exhibit

3)

(Respondent’s Exhibit

8,

8a),

the calculated emission factors are very much in question.

We

therefore have two tests, both of which are open to question.

The

data is summarized

as follows:

*Emjssions

from Wool Room #2~

A)

By Respondent’s Stack Test

4.94 lbs/hr.

B)

By Agency Calculations

11.70 lbs/hr.

C)

By Allowable Emissions

5.86 lbs/hr.

The Board has held in previous cases

(PCB 71-69) that an

opposing party is entitled to dispute emission data by means of its

own stack test.

The Board further holds that when both the emission

calculations and the stack tests are open to “equal question of

reliability,” we will give preference to the actual stack test.

On the basis of the above the Board will affirm the order of

Marbh

22,

1973.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and the conclu-

sions of law of the Board.

*

The

Agency calculation was adjusted by a direct ratio to keep all

values on the same process weight basis.

Although not exactly accur-

ate,

it is sufficient for clarification.

9— 364

---

—3—

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Re-

spondent’s wool room #2 has been found to be in compliance, and

that the March

22, 1973

(PCB 72-52)

opinion is affirmed and will

stand as written.

IT

IS SO

ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, certify that the above 0

i

ion

and

Order

were

adopted on the

4/4~\

day of

_______________,

1973,

by

a

voteof

4

to

_______

9—365

---

.

.