ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
14,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
#72-53
v.
HARCO ALUMINUM,
INC.,
a corporation
MELVIN
RIEFF, ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NORMAN
HANFLING
ON
BEHALF
OF
HARCO
ALUMINUM,
INC.,
a
corporation
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(BY
SAMUEL
T.
LAWTON,
JR.):
Complaint was
filed
against
Harco
Aluminum,
Inc.,
an
aluminum
alloy smelting and reclamation operation located in Chicago,
alleging
that
Respondent
s
emissions
from
its four reverberatory
furnaces
and
a
sweating
furnace
emitted
particulates
in
violation of Rule 2—2.11
arid
3-3.111
of
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the
Control
of
Air
Pollution
and
Section
9(a)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act.
The
entry
of
a
~
~
md
desist order and penalties
in the maximum
statutory
amount
are
sought.
Respondent
filed
an
answer
denying
the
violations
as
alleged.
Hearing
was
held
on
September
26,
1972,
at
which
time
various
stipula-
tions were entered
into with respect
to documents and other matters.
Agreement was
arrived at by which deposition
of certain expert wit-
nesses
would
be
taken
independent
of
the
hearing,
but
the
depositions
would
be
incorporated in the record.
It was further provided that a
stack test of Respondent’s
facility would be taken, the results of
which would be submitted to the Board for consideration.
Respondent
would have the right
to make its own stack test and submit the results
to
the
Board.
Respondent would also have the right to comment on the
stack tests made by the Agency.
The hearing officer directed that
Respondent be given until November 28,
1972 to file its response.
The results
of the stack tests are
in evidence,
Analysis of
the stack tests indicated that Respondent presently
is
in compliance
with
Rule 3-3.111.
The average particulate emissions based on the
results of the two tests are 5.9 pounds per hour, well within the
allowable emissions of 8.5 pounds per hour as provided by Rule appli-
cable to conditions under which the tests were made.
While the two
tests differed significantly in results
(3.29pounds per hour and 7.28
pounds per hour),
the testing procedures and calculations
do not
appear to contain error arid even the highest emission rate is still
well within the maximum permissible emission rate under the Rules.
7
—
69
We must conclude,
therefore,
that since the results were obtained
with a metallic filter system installed in November of 1971, compliance
has been effected subsequent to that time.
We must likewise conclude
that
prior
to
November,
1971,
Respondent
was
not
in
compliance.
Respondent’s operation consists of melting down scrap aluminum
to produce various metallurgical products.
The source of pollution
is presumably from the impurities
in the scrap.
An abatement program
was filed in 1968 in response to letters from the City of Chicago re-
sulting in an afterburner being installed in November of 1969 which
operated only sporadically until November of 1971
(R,
27), because
it was improperly sized and caused smoke pollution within the plant
itself (Lipski deposition).
During the years 1969 through 1971,
effluent control systems were considered
(Harco Exs.
B,
C, D and
F)
but were rejected either because of excessive cost,
the creation of other
pollutional problems or the absence of necessary fuel.
In January,
1971,
Harco
proposed
to
the
City
of
Chicago
that
it
install
a
pollution abatement system consisting of
a dry filter, a wet filter,
and an electrostatic precipitator in series.
At the present time,
the system consists
of only the dry filter and an exhaust fan which
has been in use since November,
1971.
Four reverberatory furnaces
and the single sweat furnace have their exhausts manifolded into the
filter system.
According
to the filter specifications
(Complainant’s Ex.
1),
under conditions maintained at Harco,
70
collection of particulates
should occur.
Harco’s own expert estimates a 50
collection effi-
ciency
(Deposition 47).
Thus,
prior
to the installation of the
filter in November,
1971,
the particulate emissions were at least
double, which would indicate particulate emissions ranging between
10 and 12 pounds per hour as opposed to an allowable limit of 8.5
pounds per hour during the period when the afterburner was not
operating,which was approximately one-half of the time.
Agency calculations were submitted based on standard emission
factors which we have previously held to be a valid method for
computing emissions.
See Environmental Protection Agency v. Lindgren
Foundry Company, #70-1
(September 25,
l970,)l PCB 11.
Even though
the plant is presently in compliance, Respondent is planning to take
further steps to improve its control equipment.
Since 1968,
Harco has been purchasing clean scrap at premium
prices in order to reduce emissions.
The added cost of the high grade
scrap has exceeded the cost of plant emission control equipment.
It
is
to Respondent’s advantage to improve the filter precipitator system
as planned in order to use the scrap and still remain in compliance.
—2—
—70
The totality of
the record in this case suggests nothing upon
which a penalty could be based.
There is no evidence as to the
effect of
the Respondent’s emissions on the contiguous property nor
any history of complaints
filed by neighbors.
While the undisputed fact
with respect to violation would normally call for the imposition of
a penalty, we believe that the particular
facts of the present case
and the good faith demonstrated by Respondent serve as extenuating
circumstances and justify an exception in this proceeding.
It appears
that Respondent has been making a conscientious effort to abate its
pollutional discharges
since 1968 and has been in compliance since
November
of
1971.
The imposition of
a penalty does not appear
warranted and none will be assessed.
However,
in order to assure the
continued compliance with the relevant regulations, we will enter
a cease and desist order as
is customary in proceedings of this sort,
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,
Harco Aluminum,
Inc.,
a corporation,
cease and desist violation of
the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution and
the Environmental Protection Act.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the
________
day of February,
1973, by a vote of
3
to
~
QL~J~.
—3—
7—71
I
I