ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 4, 1975
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS and the
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)
Complainants,
)
v.
)
PCB 75—20
)
N. RUBEN METAL COMPANY,
INC.,
)
an Illinois Corporation,
Respondent.
Mr. Fredric J. Entin, Assistant Attorney General,
appeared
on behalf of Complainants;
Mr. Norman
S.
Rosen appeared on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
upon the February 12,
1975, Amended Complaint of the
State and Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
The
four count amended complaint charges N. Ruben Metal Company,
Inc.
(Ruben) with violating Rules 103(b) (2)
(operating
permit),
202(b)
(opacity), 203(a),
203(c)
and 203(e)
(par-
ticulate)
of the Air Regulations; Rules
2-2.11, 3—3.11,
and
3-3.232(b)
of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Con-
trol of Air Pollution;
and Sections
9(a) and 9(b) of the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
A hearing was held October 16,
1975, at which time the
parties submitted a “Stipulation and Proposal For Settle-
ment” to the Board.
Ruben operates a wire reclamation facility in Chicago,
Cook County,
Illinois.
When insulated wire is too large to
be treated in Respondent’s cryogenic scrap recovery system,
it is processed through a single chambered burning device
with an afterburner.
The device “contains no primary bur-
ners and once the charge is ignited with papers and cartons,
the burning process is self-sustaining.”
(Stip.
2)
Respondent contends that the device described above is
a reverbatory furnace rather than an incinerator and that
Counts
I,
II and IV are inapplicable.
A reverbatory furnace
is usually charged along its sidewalls and is fired with
burners at one end, the combustion air being preheated.
See
Considine, Chemical and Process Technology Encyclopedia,
321
(1974).
It does not depend upon the combustion of the
19
-
362
—2—
processed materials to operate.
Here, Ruben’s device does
depend upon the combustion of the cartons and insulation to
operate.
Therefore, it is not a reverbatory furnace.
As
Ruben uses its incineration process to reclaim wire,
the
Board considers the facility to be subject to the Particulate
Emission Standards for process emission sources rather than
incinerator standards.
Therefore Count IV of the complaint
shall be dismissed.
The parties stipulate that the facility was inspected
by an Agency representative on November 20,
1973, March 26,
1974, March 28,
1974, and September 23,
1974.
The parties
also stipulate that,
as
a result of these inspections,
Respondent was informed by mail several times that its
operation of the single chambered incinerator was in vio-
lation of the Air Regulations, both as to emissions and the
need for an operating permit.
Ruben twice applied for an
operating permit in 1974, however both applications were
rejected, the first for additional information, the second
for failure to comply with Rule 203(e) (3)
of the Air Reg-
ulations.
On the September 23,
1974,
inspection,
Mr.
Villalobas observed emissions of smoke having opacity of 70
to 80
in violation of Rule 202(b) of the Air Regulations.
Respondent admits that it does not have an operating
permit
(Stip.
7);
that the particulate emissions from its
single celled incinerator calculate to be 3.57 lb/hr and
that 1.99 lb/hr is the allowable emissions; and the emission
rate exceeds .20 gr/scf.
As the parties have neither stipulated to nor presented
any information pertaining to whether this particular incin-
erator was in operation prior to April 14,
1972,
the Board
must dismiss those portions of the complaint relating to
violations of Rules 2—2.11,
3—3.111 and 3—3.232(b)
of the
Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution.
The Board finds that Respondent has violated Rule 202(b)
of the Air Regulations
in that it allowed emissions on
September 23, 1974, of opacity exceeding 30.
The Board
finds that Respondent, beginning on January 1,
1974, allowed
emissions of particulate in excess of those permitted in
Rule 203(c)
and Rule 203(a) and Section 9(a)
of the Act.
As Respondent admits to not having an operating permit, the
Board finds it to have violated 103(b) of the Air Regula-
tions and Section 9(b) of the Act.
The Board has considered the information before it in
light of Section 33(c)
of the Act and considers the stipu-
lated penalty of $3500.00 to be appropriate.
Therefore the
Board accepts the stipulation and its penalty and compliance
program.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.
19
-
363
—3—
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board
that:
A.
Respondent M. Ruben Metal Company, Inc.,
is found
to have violated Rule 103(b), 202(b),
203(a),
and 2O3(c) of
the Air Regulations and Sections
9(a) and 9(b) of the Act.
B.
For said violations,
the stipulated penalty of
$3500.00 is assessed, payment to be made within
30 days of
the date of this Order,
by certified check or money order
to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
C.
Respondent
M. Ruben Metal Company, Inc.,
an Illinois
corporation shall apply to the Environmental Protection
Agency for all necessary operation permits for its metal
reclamation facilities located at 2300 West Bloomingdale,
Chicago, Cook County,
Illinois.
D.
Respondent shall modify and convert its single
chambered wire reclamation incinerator to a double chambered
incinerator with a suitably sized afterburner located in the
second chamber, said modifications and conversions
to be
completed within 90 days from the issuance of the construc-
tion permit applied for by Respondent in August,
1975,
said
modification to begin upon said permit’s issuance.
E.
Respondent shall make or cause
to have made a stack
test of the incinerator upon completion of the modifications
or conversion described in paragraph D above.
Said stack
test shall be conducted pursuant to procedures agreed upon
by the Environmental Protection Agency;
F.
Respondent shall execute within
30 days of this
Order a performance bond in the amount of $10,000 to guar-
antee the performance of the measures set forth in paragraph
D above.
G.
The alleged violations of Rules
2-2.11,
3—3.11 and
3-3.232(b) of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution are herewith dismissed.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opin4~nand Order
were adopted on the
~/“
day of
~
1975 by a vote of
q..~
Christan
L. Moffet ~~erk
19-364
Illinois Pollution ?~?trol Board