ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
February
6,
1975
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
an Illinois Not-for—Profit Corp.,
)
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 74—245
WOODRUFF AND EDWARDS COMPANY,
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
Mr. Sherwood L.
Levin, attorney for Complainant.
Mr. Edward J. Griffin, attorney for Respondent.
OPINION
AND ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
On June 28,
1974, Citizens For A Better Environment
(CBE)
filed with the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
a Complaint
against the Woodruff and Edwards Company.
The Complaint alleged
that Respondent:
1.
Operated its foundry cupola without a permit from
December
1,
1972,
until June 28,
1974,
in violation of Rule 103
(b) (2)
of the Air Pollution Regulations
(Chapter Two).
2.
Caused or allowed the emission of metal particulates,
carbon monoxide, and odor—bearing materials into the atmosphere
causing air pollution from December 1,
1972,
until June 28,
1974,
in violation of Section
9(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
3.
Operated its cupola allowing metal fugitive particulate
matter larger than 40 microns
(mean diameter)
to escape beyond its
property line from December 1,
1972,
until June 28, 1974,
in
violation of Rule 203(f) (2)
of Chapter Two.
4.
Failed to file any Project Completion Schedule with
the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) since December
1,
1972,
in violation of Rule 104(a)
of Chapter Two.
During the hearing
(R.287), the Complaint was amended to
include the allegation that:
5.
Respondent violated the opacity limits of
60% for a
period aggregating
8 minutes on April
26,
1974, contrary to Rule
202(b)
of Chapter Two.
15— 361
Respondent filed a Mcticn To Dismiss on July 18,
1974.
On July 25,
the Board denied this motion.
Complainant’s Motion
For Inspection of Premises,
filed on October
31,
1974,
was
denied by the Board on November 7,
1974.
A Motion to Quash was
filed by the Agency against Complainant on October 17,
1974.
Procedures
at hearing made moot a Board ruling on this Motion.
Hearings were held on October 17,
1974,
in Elgin,
Illinois,
and on October
25 in Chicago, Illinois,
The Woodruff and Edwards facility is located near down—
town Elgin, Illinois,
on the west bank of the Fox River across
from
the Elgin Public Library
(R.l85).
It
is a manufacturing
area
(R.29l).
One half mile north of Woodruff and Edwards,
on
the same side of the Fox River is Chicago Rawhide, which makes
metal seals
(R.339).
A food processing plant is
south of Woodruff
and Edwards, and further south
is Elgin Metal and Casting Company,
a stamping company which does painting and finishing.
West of
Respondent there is a foundry which makes aluminum
castings
(R.338).
Railroad tracks run parallel to Woodruff and Edwards,
approximately one block west of the facility; another block west
is a grade school.
On the east bank of the Fox River is
a lumber
company,
an iron and steel salvaging company, and W.R, Meadows
which produces asphalt and asphalt products (R.334).
These three
facilities are all located north of Kimball Street which runs
east and west north of the Elgin Public Library.
The Woodruff and Edwards foundry
is engaged in producing
gray and ductile castings.
The facility operates from 7:00 a.m.
to 3:30 p.m.
five days a week
(R.292)
and employs
325 people.
A single cupola operates at the foundry and is the subject of
this enforcement action.
The cupola pictured
on the left in
Compl.
Ex.
3(f)
is tubular in shape;
it is approximately
60
feet high and has
an inner diameter of
54 inches
(R.250).
The cupola is charged through an open “charge door”
near its top, by means of a bucket with a drop bottom.
The
charge consists of coke,
limestone,
some alloy,
iron and steel
scrap, and pig iron
(R.305).
Coke provides the primary source
of heat,
but auxiliary heat is supplied by “tuyeres”
at the
bottom of the cupola
(R.306),
The “melt”
is at the bottom of
the cupola, where both the molten slag and molten metal are
drawn off (R,306).
To control emissions, pollution control
equipment is used in connection with the cupola.
An employee
of Respondent testified that:
“The pollution control system is comprised of the cross-
over from
t,he cupola itself, which has a cap that seals
it off
at the top..
The cross-over, which
is
a 48-inch pipe,
takes the
exhaust
froni the cupola across above the charging door
(opening)
over into thecooling tower where
it is quenched,
and the tem-
perature is brought down to a degree that it can enter the bag
house which must be below 600 degrees
F.
to be safe.
It goes
through the bag house, and the bags
--
there are six hag houses
with
96 bags in each bag house.
There is one continually being
—3—
cleaned.
There is one at all times.
In other words, there
are five
in operation.
There
is one being cleaned continually
by an air impulse on the bags which knocks the dust and
particulate off the bags, down into
a conveyor which is brought
off and discharged down below.
We pack it up in plastic bags
and carry it away.
The exhaust comes off the top of the bags
and into a duct that pulls it down into
a fan,
a 30,000-cubic-
foot—per—minute fan and then exhausts that into the air.
The way to describe it
(the particulates from the bags)
is it
is
almost like a talc.
It
is the product of combustion.
It is an
ash”
(R.296,
297)
“This is a water—cooled cupola.
There
is a continual
flow of water down the side of the cupola.
On the inside,
the
temperature is around twenty—six, twenty—seven hundred degrees
Fahrenheit.
We run a continuous supply of water around the side.
We get a lot of steam,
We get a lot of steam around the cupola
area because we put
——
as we are drawing iron off, we also draw
slag off which
is the impurities and the lime and so forth that
are in the process.
That goes into
a quenching tank which pro-
duces steam”
(R,274),
The operation of the cupola has remained basically the
same over the years except that in the 1950’s the Respondent
stopped its daily alternation use of two cupolas.
The Respondent
installed the present water-cooled cupola which
is lined and
also has a continual water flow over the outside.
(R.294)
The bag house was installed in the summer of 1970 at
a cost of $200,000
(R,297).
Yearly operating expenses for 1973
and 1974 have each been in excess of $70,000
(R,299,
300).
It
is 99
efficient, which
is the standard in the industry (R.254),
The top of the cupola stack was covered
Ln 1970
(R.306), al-
though it was not completely sealed until July,
1974
(R.252). A
fan is located at the end of the bag house and operates like a
suction to pull the air through the entire system
(R.307),
Work
was done on this system in 1973 to seal air leaks which were
adversely affecting the air flow
(R,301),
Emissions from the
charge door are prevented from escaping out of the cupola by
air flow created by the bag house fan (R,253),
Based on the evidence at the hearing, we find that
Respondent has violated Rule 103(b) (2)
of Chapter Two from
December
1,
1972, until June 28,
1974, by operating its facility
without a permit.
The alleged violations
of Rule 104(a),
202(b),
and 203 (f) (2)
of Chapter Two have not been established,
The
alleged violation of Section
9(a)
of the Act was not proven.
We find that Rule 103(b) (2)
of Chapter Two has been
violated.
Respondent admitted that no permit had yet been
received from the Agency (R.329),
The permit application was
initially made prior to December,
1972, but the Agency has re-
quested additional information five or six times, which has de-
layed the issuance of the permit
(R,329).
This undisputed testi-
mony of efforts to obtain a permit mitigates the penalty for this
violation.
15 —363
—4—
The evidence fails to establish
a violation of Section
9(a) of the Act.
First, the citizen testimony does not show
any unreasonable interference from carbon monoxide.
CO is a
tasteless, odorless gas which does not cause the kinds of effects,
i.e. burning eyes and coughing discussed in the record,
Second,
there was no evidence in the record of citizens suffering un-
reasonable interference from particulate matter.
Third, the
testimony on odor
is in conflict, but we believe that Complainant
has not established his case.
The odor was described by Res—
‘~-~&~nt’s
expert witness as a “foundry smell”, which he described
as follows:
“You heat a piece of metal, You heat a spoon or heat
a knife.
Smell it.
It has a very definite smell to
it.
There
is nothing coming off of it, but it is an
odor.
That is the general odor that you get around
any iron melting place”
(R.373).
The witness stated that the foundry odor doesn’t get out of the
plant very much (R374).
A witness for the Complainant stated
that he noticed a “foundry odor”
at the plant when he visited
the facility on several occasions
(R.83).
Within the foundry
the odors were very noticeable; outside the foundry, they were
not very noticeable
(R.89).
One citizen complained of
a “sul-
furic odor”
(R.l45)
that made her eyes
smart.
She noticed the
odor at night at a distance of
3 miles from the facility.
The
fact that Respondent’s plant did not operate at night
(R,292)
weakens the testimony of this witness.
Another citizen witness
characterized the odor as similar to hydrogen sulfide
(R.l57).
He smelled it at various areas in the city, primarily on Kimball
Street north of Woodruff and Edwards
(R.l56).
He has smelled it
for many years while a child and as an adult on his way to work
(R.l55,
156).
He testified that Woodruff and Edwards was the
cause of the smell
(R.173).
This evidence was contradicted by
Respondent’s witness.
Because of the nature of the Respondent’s
plant and the inconclusive nature of the testimony given by
Complainant’s witnesses, we find that Complainant has not shown
that a strong, pungent H2S smell originates from Respondent’s
foundry.
Other citizens complained of the “terrible smell”
(R.180).
However, strong “asphalt odors” were found in the area
by Respondent’s witness
(R.371) which were not traceable to the
foundry of Woodruff and Edwards.
The strong odor which smelled
like “something was burning”
(R.188) may be traceable to the
asphalt operation.
This citizen also noticed the odor in the
evening
(R.192,
193) when the evidence established that Woodruff
and Edwards
is not operating
(R.292),
The odor seemed to he the
worst during the afternoon and evening
(R.193).
Another witness,
who complained of the odor and noticed the haze around Woodruff
and Edwards, described the discomfort to herself and her child
(R,202—206),
She also noticed the smell in the evening
(R.208).
15
—
364
—5—
In conclusion, while we realize that some residents
are suffering
“an unreasonable interference” from one or more
sources, we are not able on the record to trace it to Woodruff
and Edwards.
We base this conclusion on
(1)
the lack of
con-
sistent
descriptions
of the nature of the odor,
(2)
the fact
that most witnesses noticed the same odor in the evening when
Woodruff and Edwards was not operating,
(3)
the imprecise methods
by which witnesses traced the alleged source, and
(4)
the
testimony of Respondent’s expert witness who,
after visiting the
facility numerous times since June, 1973
(R.372),
stated that
Woodruff and Edwards ~as not the source of the odor.
The evidence fails to establish that Rule 203(f) (2) was
violated.
The strongest evidence put forth by the Complainant’s
witness is that he observed particulates, approximately 50
microns in diameter
(R.
236),
flying by him in a 15 miles-an—
hour wind.
No evidence of particle analysis was introduced.
The witness did not indicate that he had captured particulates
in his hand or that he had felt them strike his face.
Other
evidence of particulates on another date did not indicate that they
left Respondent’s property
(R.36),
The evidence is insufficient
to establish
a violation,
The evidence does not establish
a violation of Rule 104(a)
of Chapter Two.
No evidence was offered by Complainant on
whether Respondent has submitted a Project Completion Schedule
to the Agency.
Evidence was entered indicating that opacity readings of
greater than 60% were observed at the foundry,
in violation of
Rule 202(b) of Chapter Two.
Emissions were observed leaving the
cupola cap
(safety valve)inFebruary,
1974
(R.3l,
38) before it
was sealed.
Photographs taken in June,
1974
(Compl..
Ex.
3)
show
emissions of some kind.
Readings were made on March 26, 1974,
indicating violations
of the 60% opacity standard in Rule 202(b)
(R.
105).
Some evidence of violations on June
25, 1974, was also
testified to
(R.
228),
The Rule 202(c), however, provides
several defenses to the 60% opacity limit in Rule 202(b).
Rule
202(c) states:
(c)
Exceptions
to Rules 202(a)
and 202(b).
(1)
Startup
Rules 202(a)
and 202(b)
shall apply during
times of startup except as provided in the
Operating Permit in Rules 103 and 105.
(2)
~ssions
of Water and Wat~LVa or
Rules 202(a) and 202(b)
shall not apply to
emissions of water or water vapor from an
emission
source.
(3)
Compliance with Rule 203 a Defense
Rules
202(a) and 202(b)
shall not apply if
it
is
shown
that
the
emission
source was,
15
—
365
—6—
at the time of such emission, in com-
pliance with the applicable mass emission
limitations of Rule 203.
First, evidence was offered by Respondent that the
emissions were water vapor.
The testimony was undisputed that
a white plume can be water vapor
(R.366) and that particulates
from a foundry cupola are almost any other color except white;
they are usually brownish (R.366).
It has already been noted
that the water-cooled cupola gives off large amounts of steam
(R.367).
Also,
the slag coming off of the cupola
(at 2,600°F)
drops into water and produces steam
(R.367).
However, this
evidence
is
not
enough
to
establish
a
defense
to
Rule
202(b)
in
that
Respondent
has
the
burden
of
proof
to
show
that
the
opacity
is
due
to
the
steam.
This
evidence
was
not
introduced
by
Respondent.
Second,
the
evidence
does establish that Respondent has
complied
with
Rule
202(c)
(3)
of
Chapter Two in that it is
in
compliance with the allowable emission rates under Rule 203(b),
Table
2.2.
Respondent’s
facility
is
a
fairly
typical
foundry
(R.349)
but is using the best feasible method to control parti—
culates
(R.350).
Table
7—10
(rated
B)
in
AP-42
(Resp.
Ex.3)
indicates
that
0.2
lb/ton
of
particulates
for
each ton of metal
charged
would
be
emitted into the environment from a foundry us-
ing Respondent’s control methods
(R.357).
An average of 8.565
tons of metal is charged perhour at the facility (Resp.
Ex.l;
R.3l4).
According to Table 7-10 in AP—42, this would produce
approximately 1.7 lbs/hour of particulates.
The standard for
allowable emissions under Rule 203(b)
is
20.6 lbs/hour based on
Respondent’s
21,600
lbs/hour
process
rate
weight
(R.356).
Some
evidence to substantiate these figures was introduced when
Respondent showed the large amount of particulates captured by
the bag house.
According to Table 7-10 in AP—42,
17 lbs/ton
would be emitted from the cupola from an uncontrolled emission
source.
Since
Respondent’s
cupola
produced
an
average
of
8.565
tons
of
iron
per
hour,
the
average
total
particulate
emission
measures 145.61 lbs/hour.
Respondent’s bag house captured an
average 113.02 lbs/hour of particulates
(R.363).
The remaining
particulate emissions,
32.59
lbs/hour, are sufficient amounts to
constitute
a violation of the emission rates in Rule 203(b)
of
Chapter Two;
however,
Respondent
offered
evidence to show that
these amounts were not escaping from the facility.
First, Table
7-10 in AP-42 indicates that an average gray iron facility would
capture over 50
of the emissions with a wet cap.
Woodruff and
Edwards uses a water quench
(R.296) which is equivalent to
a wet
cap (R.364).
Second, Respondent devised a method to capture the
particulates in the quench system and carried out a test on
October 16, 1974
(R.364), which resulted in the removal of
26
pounds of particulates
in
15 minutes.
Although this sample clear-
ly cannot be considered representative,
it shows that the quench
system does remove some particulates from the system in addition
to amounts trapped by the bag house.
15
—
366
—7—
We find that the testimony concerning AP-42, in con-
junction with the other evidence, brings the Respondent within
the Rule 202(c) (3)
defense to Rule 202(b)
of Chapter Two.
This constitutes the finding of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of
the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent
shall
supply the Agency with all data
necessary to complete its permit application within 45 days of
the adoption of this Opinion and Order.
2.
Respondent pay a penalty of $300.00 for operating
its facility without a permit.
Payment shall be by certified
check or money order payable to the State of Illinois, Fiscal
Services Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2200
Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
Payment
shall
be
made within 35 days of the adoption of this Order.
3.
All other allegations against the Respondent are
dismissed.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, hereby certify that
he
bove Opinion and Order was
~~~tedon
the
~
day of
~r4jL.?L~3~
,
1975, by a vote of
Christan
L.
Mof~~
15
—367