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

    Back to top