ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 3
    ,
    1976
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY?
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—385
    MIDWEST METALS, INC.,
    )
    Respondent,
    Mr. Fred Benson, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf
    of complainant.
    Mr. C. Dana Eastman, Jr. appeared on behalf of respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Satchell):
    This case has come before the Board upon a complaint filed
    on October 8, 1975 by the Environmental Protection Agency alleging
    a violation of Rule 103(a) of the Air Regulations and Section 9(b)
    of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) by Midwest Metals, Inc.
    (Midwest) by constructing its emission source without an appro-
    priate Construction Permit having been issued by the Agency and
    a violation of Rule 103(b) (1) of the Air Regulations by operating
    its emission source without appropriate Operating Permit having
    been
    issued
    by the Agency, on each day of operation, including
    but not limited to January 24, 1975, February 4, 1975, Feb-
    ruary 11, 1975 and May 16, 1975.
    At a hearing held at East Alton, Illinois on January 27,
    1976 a Stipulation of Fact and a Settlement Proposal was presented.
    On March 1, 1976 a motion
    was
    made by Respondent to set aside
    the stipulated agreement because of a misunderstanding con-
    cerning the issuance of an operating permit. This motion was
    granted by the Board on March 11, 1976.
    On April 2, 1976 a second hearing was held. At this time
    a new Stipulation of Facts and Settlement Proposal was presented
    for the Board’s consideration. in addition Albert B. Baker,
    President and principal shareholder of Midwest Metals, Inc.,
    testified that at 8:00 a.m. on March 16, 1976 a fire completely
    destroyed the plant (R.5). At the time of the hearing the
    company had ceased operations. Mr. Baker stated that he was
    aware that if he rebuilt the facility that construction permits
    would have to be obtained (R.6,7).
    22—21

    —2—
    The Stipulated Facts and Proposal are as follows.
    Respondent was organized on November 15, 1974 for the
    general purpose of reclaiming copper from insulated copper
    wire. The facility is located in East Alton, Illinois. The
    area is of mixed usage. There are residential, commercial
    and industrial establishments in the area, Respondent
    estimates that within a one-quarter mile radius from its
    facility, there are approximately 25 to 50 residences, with
    the closest being eight hundred feet away. Respondent also
    estimates that most, if not all, of said residences were so
    located prior to the construction of Respondent’s facility.
    Respondent’s facility is capable of processing 300
    pounds of insulated copper wire per hour. Since its inception
    Respondent has processed 300,000 pounds of copper wire. This
    reclaimed copper is sold to Olin Corporation and similar
    industries. The facility also produces four by-products.
    Three of those by-products which include pure asphalt, primary
    oil and secondary oil, are saleable but are not presently
    being sold because the quantities produced are not sufficient.
    The fourth by-product, carbon, is not saleable and is being
    disposed of at a landfill licensed by the Agency.
    Respondent employs ten persons at a weekly payroll
    of approximately $1,300. As of December 15, 1975 Respondent
    had gross revenues of $18,000 and gross expenses of $45,000.
    As of the same dates, Respondent had no retained earnings,
    total assets of $100,000 and total liabilities of $75,000.
    Respondent admits all the allegations contained in
    the Complaint with the exception of Paragraph 7, which lists
    six contaminants that the facility is allegedly capable of
    emitting. Respondent does admit its facility emits sulfur
    dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrocarbons
    and water vapor. From November 15, 1974 through February
    1975, Respondent designed, constructed and tested its
    equipment. On January 24, 1975, approximately ten complaints
    were received by the East Alton police and fire departments
    pertaining to fumes emitted from Respondent’s operation. Com-
    plaints were again received on February 4, 1975. Respondent
    asserts that since reconditioning and restructuring its process
    it has received only one complaint in early summer pertaining
    to odor. That complaint was voluntarily withdrawn. Complainant
    is not aware of any complaints after those made in January and
    February of 1975.
    22—22

    —3—
    Respondent was not aware until he was informed by
    Complainant that he needed a construction permit in Illinois
    and therefore had not sought one. Respondent was first in-
    formed of the possible violation on February 4, 1975.
    Respondent also received permit application forms in a
    letter dated February 5, 1975. After an inspection on May ii,
    1975 Respondent was again informed of the violations. Respon-
    dent’s President stated he had sent the forms in February.
    The Agency had no record of them. On May 20, 1975 Mr. Baker
    told the investigator he would have the emissions tested and
    apply for a permit. Respondent filed a variance petition on
    June 4, 1975 which was denied October 30, 1975. A permit appli-
    cation was filed by Respondent on October 15, 1975. After
    updated information was furnished on December 15, 1975 a permit
    was issued by the Agency for Respondent’s facility on Feb-
    ruary 4, 1976. Respondent admits it continued to operate its
    facility while it was seeking to acquire a permit.
    Respondent acknowledges that it was technologically prac-
    ticable and economically reasonable to procure a permit. For
    the said violations Respondent agrees to pay a penalty of
    $1,500.
    The Board finds the Stipulation of Facts and Settlement
    Proposal acceptable under Procedural Rule 333. The Board
    finds that Respondent was in violation of Rules 103(a) and
    103(b) (1) of the Air Regulations and of Section 9(b) of the
    Act. A penalty of $1,500 is assessed as stipulated.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law.
    ORDER
    It is the order of the Pollution Control Board that:
    1. Midwest Metals, Inc. was in inolation of Air
    Regulations 103(a) and 103(b) (1) and of Section
    9(b) of the Act.
    2. Midwest Metals, Inc. shall pay a penalty of $1,500
    within 90 days of this order. Payment shall be by
    certified check or money order payable to:
    State of Illinois
    Fiscal Services Division
    Environmental Protection Agency
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    22—23

    —4—
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby ceri~ifythe above 0 inion and Order
    were adopted on the
    3~
    day of
    _____________,
    1976
    by a vote of ..k.-c~
    ~
    Illinois Pollution Co 1 Board
    22—24

    Back to top