ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

8,

1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

#72—469

V.

PROLER STEEL CORPORATION

GEORGE

D.

KARCAZES,

SPECIAL ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

ON BEHALF OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

THOMAS

J.

REGAN OF POPE,

BALLARD,

SHEPARD

& FOWLE,

ON BEHALF

OF

RESPONDENT

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(BY SA?~1UELT.

LAWTON,

JR.):

Complaint was filed by the Environmental

Protection Aqeno\~

against Proler Steel Corporation,

alleging

that between November

17,

1971 and June

22,

1972,

the Company operated

its

facilities

in such

a manner so as

to cause air pollution either alone or

in comnin~ti-e:

with contaminants

from other sources,

in violation

of

Sccth.on ~)(a)

of the Act.

Violation

of Rule 203

of

the new Air PO1lUtIC.r~~u1~

adopted by the Board was alleged but withdrawn at the time of th~

hearing.

(R.

4).

Respondent~s plant

is located

in Chicago,

I~!.

The plant processes

incinerator residue and meta

scret~re:~iduc

from tin can manufacturing operations,

shredding

and cleaninc

it

so

that it can resold.

(R.

67).

A gas-fired rotary kiln

is utIlizcd

in the manufacturing

process, coupled with

a wet scrubber,

~

minimize

particulate emission but which does not provide complete abatement

and

particulate

emissions

were

observed,

together

with

the

vaeor

emitted.

Non-uniformity

of

raw

materials,

combined

with

neriod.s

of

low

water

pressure

are

attributed

as

reasons

for

the

occasional

in—-

effectiveness

of

the

abatement

equipment

(R,

74-75)

The

testimony

of

the

Agency

was

principally

that

of

an

Agency

inspector who testified to having made visual observations of haze

or particulate matter being emitted from the scrubber

stack,

serving

the rotary dryer.

Photographs were taken on various occasions

and

the foregoing observations were noted specifically

on November

16,

17

and

19,

1971

(R.

12-21).

Odors were also noted on these occasions.

The

Agency

witness

refers

to

conversations

held

with

residents

in

the neighborhood,

but the nature of these conversations

is not evi-

dent from

the record nor does

it appear that any resident testified

at the hearing.

There is

no question

that particulate emissions have

occurred on several occasions as a consequence of malfunctioning

of

the abatement

equinment,

although

the intensity and degree

is not a

matter

of record.

This fact alone does not establish the causing

of

7

—

217

---

air pollution as defined in the Act nor enable the

conclusion

that

Section 9(a)

has been violated.

Air pollution is defined in the Act as:

“The presence in the atmosphere of one or more contaminants

in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and

duration as to be injurious

to human, plant or animal life,

to health,

or

to property,

or to unreasonably interfere

with the enjoyment of life or property.”

The mere visual observation of haze or the detecting of odors

is not

sufficient

to

establish

the

characteristics

and

duration

of

emissions

to

the

extent

necessary

to

find

them

to

be

injurious

to

human,

plant

or

animal

life,

to

health

or

property,

or

to

unreasonably

interfere

with

the

enjoyment

of

life

or

property.

We

do

not

know

what

impact,

if

any,

the

emissions

from

Respondent’s

plant

has

made

on

the

neighboring businesses

or residences.

We do not know in what way,

if any,

the enjoyment of life by persons living in the area has been

interfered with as a consequence of Respondent’s operation.

On the

state of the record, we are constrained to hold that the Agency has

failed to establish its case and the complaint against Respondent

is accordingly dismissed.

Cf.

Environmental Protection Agency v.

James McHugh Construction Co.,

et al,

#71-291 4 PCB 511 (May17,

1972).

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

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

mental Protection Agency has failed to establish a violation of Sec-

tion

9 (a)

of the Environmental Protection Act by Respondent, Proler

Steel Corporation,

as asserted in its complaint.

The complaint is,

accordingly, dismissed against Respondent, Proler Steel Corporation,

and Respondent discharged.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Bo~rd,

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the

~‘

‘~\

day of March,

1973,

by a vote of

3

to

0

-~

~

—2—

7

—

218