ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
18,
1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
PCB 73-334
AURORA REFINING COMPANY,
)
)
Respondent.
Mr. John
E. Slattery, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of Complainant;
Mr. John
0.
Heimdal, Attorney, on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Seaman):
On August 9, 1973,
the Environmental
Protection Agency filed Complaint
against Aurora Refining Company, the owner and operator of certain
facilities for the recovery of aluminum from dross
including,
but not
limited to, two reverbatory furnaces,
one rotary furnace and one hearth
furnace located
in Aurora,
Illinois.
A public hearing was held in this
matter on October 29,
1973.
The Complaint consists of three
Counts.
.Count
II alleges
that Re-
spondent installed
a scrubber system without a permit granted
by the
Agency,
in violation of Section 9(b)
of the Act and Rule 3-2.110 of the
Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution.
Count III
alleges that Respondent has operated
its facility without obtaining
an operating permit from the Agency,
in violation of Section 9(b) af the
Act and Rule 103 of Chapter
2,
Part
I
of the Pollution Control
Board
Regulations adopted pursuant to Section 10 of the Act.
On October
10, 197
Respondent filed
its Answer, admitting therein all of the allegations
contained
in Counts
II and III.
Count
I alleges
that on or before July
1,
1970 and continuing for
each and every day of operation
until the date. of the Complaint, Respond?
has operated its facilities
as
to cause or allow the discharge of
metallic oxid2 and chloride particulates
in excess of the limits containec
in Rule 3-3.111
of the Rules and Requlatiohs Governing the Control of Air
Pollution
arid in violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
The Reco’d
in this cause
is replete with testimonial
evidence tendin~
to show serious and frequent 9(a)
violations.
The Agency offered the
testimony of five citizen witnesses who reside or are employed
in the
vicinity of Respondents facility.
12—71
Mrs. Josephine Oldani resides approximately 1-1/2 blocks
south of Respondent’s facility.
She has lived
there all
her
life
(R.
9).
Mrs.
Oldani
testified to “terrific smoke”
and
unbearable, sickening odors emanating from Respondent’s
facility
(R.
10).
Mrs. Oldani was positive that the smoke
and odors were coming from Respondent’s facility
(R.
11).
In
the summertime,
the witness stays
in her home because she can’t
stand all thatstuff”
(R.
12).
Mr. Oldani
testified that he installed an air conditioner
because of the smoke
(R.
22) which
he described ‘like
a
fog”
(R.
21).
Mr.
Oldani
stated that the smoke and odors bother him “about every
other night”
and that he could definitely distinguish
the odor
from Respondent’s facility, vis-a-vis odors emanating from other
plants
in the area
(R, 23).
Mrs.
Louis Bolden resides approximately four doors from
Respondent’s facility and testified to “a
lot of smoke
and odor
coming from the Aurora Refining plant”
(R.
30).
Mrs. Bolden stated
that the emissions cause
a
“kind of burning”
in her eyes
(R.
30)
and that she
is
bothered every day
(R.
33).
The witness also testified
that her son’s asthma condition
is severely aggravated by Respondent’s
emissions.
(R.
37).
Mrs. Ann Larsen resides approximately one block east of Re-
spondent’s facility
(R. 40).
Mrs.
Larson testified that the odor
was
“terrible”, “ungodly” and that she had to shut her doors
(R. 43).
She stated that the “smoke is
so bad that
I have
a burning sensation
in my throat”
(R. 44).
The problem occurs every day and Mrs.
Larson
is frequently nauseated by
it (R. 46).
The witness stated that the
offensive emissions are definitely coming from Respondent’s facility
(R.
49).
Mr. James Phillips, a science teacher, testified to “very obnoxious”
odors and “smog”
(R.
54) emitted from Respondent’s
facility on
an
almost daily
basis
(R.
58).
Mr.
Phillips stated that when he first
noticed
the
condition,
he
“thought
the
plant
was
on
fire”
and
stopped
his
car
to
investigate
(R.
56).
The citizen witnesses testified that the offensive emissions have
persisted for from one to two years and that they had complained
to
various pollution control
bodies.
Mr.
Dick Young, Kane County Environmental
Director, testified that
he has inspected Respondent’s
facility on numerous occasions over
a
period of approximately eighteen months
in response to citizen complaints
(R.
61).
Mr. Young stated Respondent’s facility was
“smoking and blowing
offensively”
(R.
61).
Mr.
Young testified that the smoke was coming not
only from the stack, but also through cracks
in
Respondent’s building
(R.
62).
Mr. John Philipchuck,
Zoning Administrator for the City of Aurora,
testified that Respondent’s facility is
in a “very dilapidated condition”
(R.
65) with holes
in the roof.
Mr.
Philipchuck stated that the “smoke
was like
a
haze” and that the odor stung
his nose
(R. 67).
12—72
-3—
Mr. James
Piney, Chief Fire Marshall
for the City of Aurora,
testified
that
he
had
visited
Respondent’s
facility
on
numerous
occasions
over
the
past
two
years
in
response
to
citizen
complaints
(R.
70).
Mr.
Piney
stated
that
in
September
of
1973
“it
was
so
bad”
that
he
ordered
Respondent
to
“fix
it
immediately
or
turn
the
unit
off”
(R.
75,
76).
Mr. William Bonkosky, an Agency Surveillance Engineer, testified
that Respondent’s building
is
in “very poor condition” with “holes
in the roof”
(R. 80).
Mr. Bonkosky stated that Respondent’s rotary
furnace appeared
to be the “barrel
from
a mobile cement mixer removed
and lined with refractory”
(R.
93).
This furnace is controlled
by
a packed tower wet scrubber (R.
94).
However,
Mr. Bonkosky testified
that “there is
no packing in the scrubber, which would raise some
serious doubts
as
to the efficiency
of the device’
(R.
94).
The witness
stated that the scrubber could not have an efficiency guster than 22
per cent (R.
124).
Mr. Bonkosky calculated that the emissions from the
rotary furnace would approximate
21
pounds
per hour and that the
allowable limit
is
2.84 pounds per hour
(R.
126).
Mr. Bonkosky stated that he observed considerable visible emissions
leaving the baghouse from Respondent’s reverbatory furnace
(R.
129).
He testified that the baghouse equipment was second-hand and that
bags must have broken
(R.
129).
Mr. Joseph
L.
Hoffman, an Agency Environmental
Protection Engineer,
testified regarding Respondent’s facility as follows:
“Basically that it was
a very unorthodox installation,
and if you will excuse the expression,
a Rube Goldberg
affair.
It was
a collection of various pieces of
equipment that had just been assimilated
and put
in
series, and
-—
one particular
point
I would like to
mention
is that the stack height,
if you will, was
about
a minus
four feet.
That is, there was
a pit
in
the ground,
and that
is where
the exhaust from this
apparatus went to the atmosphere.”
(R. 137).
Mr. Hoffman testified that on one of his inspection visits the
baghouse from the reverbatory furnace was not working
(R. 141)
and
that the emissions from the rotary furnace was virtually uncontrolled
(R.
149).
Mr.
Lars Molander was
Respondent’s only witness.
Mr.
Molander is
a professional
chemical
engineer working
in the field of pollution control
and process control
(R.
151).
In March of 1972,
Mr.
Molander was employed
by Respondent as
a consultant
(R.
153).
On January
17, 1973,
Mr. Molander
purchased seventy per cent of the stock of respondent corporation
(R.
159).
Mr. Molander
is
aware of the many, serious problems
in Respondent’s operation.
His testimony
was
frank and helpful.
-4-
Although
Mr. Molander disputed Agency caluclations regarding
emissions from Respondent’s facility, he admitted that, even by
his calculatiots, Respondent’s emissions are in excess of the
allowable standard
(R.
173).
We are satisfied from the uncontradicted evidence of Record
that Respondent
has been, for
a period of ät.least one year,
in
almost continual violation of Section 9(a) and Rule 3-3.111.
Further,
we are of the opinion that the violations found are so gross, and
the effects of Respondent’s emissions are so severe,
that an order
to cease and desist further violations
is necessary.
It is apparentfrom the Record that assessment of
a large
penalty and/or an order to cease and desist immediately would force
Respondent out of business.
We have never taken such action liqhtly.
Mr.
Molander, who is expert in the field of pollution control
and aware of the serious defects
in Respondent’s operation, testified
that he could bring Respondent’s operation into compliance with an
expenditure of approximately $20,000
(R.
165).
Mr. Molander indicated
that he felt such financing was available.
“There have been several people who have asked me
--
they want to invest in the operation,
and
I said
I can’t do
it until
I see what the Pollution Control
Board decides.”
(R.
167).
We have decided to allow Respondent 120 days within which
to bring
its operation into compliance.
At the end of that period,
Respondent
shall
cease and desist from further violations.
If Respondent intends
to operate one or more of the subject furnaces, effective control
devices
must be installed thereon or the existing equipment must be repaired to
achieve compliance.
During the 120 day period,
Respondent
shall
institute
such procedures as will
reduce emissions to
a minimum; consistent with
continued operation and apply for all Agency permits required.
This Opinion constitutes
the findings of fact and conclusions of law
of
the Board.
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control
Board that Respondent, Aurora
Refining Company, shall:
1.
Within 120 days fron the date of this Order,
cease and desist
from the violations found herein.
2.
During said 120 days,
institute such procedures
as will reduce
emissions to
a minimum, consistent with continued
operation.
3.
Within
30 days of the date of this Order, submit to the Agency
its
plan for achieving compliance and obtaining financing thereof.
4.
Apply for all Agency permits required.
12—74
5.
Pay $l,000~0Oto the State of Illinois within 35 days from
the date of this Order.
Penalty payment by certified check or money
order payable to the State of Illinois shall
be made
to:
Fiscal
Services
Division, Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, 2200
Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
I, Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify thatthe abov~eOpinion and Order was adopted
on this
_______
day
of________________
,
1974
by
a
vote
of
________________
12
—
75