ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 20,
1995
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
)
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB
96—106
(Enforcement-Air)
BELOIT CORPOPATION,
)
a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD:
This matter comes before the Board upon a sixteen—count
complaint tiled I4ovember
15,
1995 by the Attorney General of the
State of Illinois, on behalf of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency and the People of the State of Illinois,
against Beloit Corporation (Beloit),
a Delaware corporation,
as
respondent, located at 429 Gardener Street, South Beloit,
Winnebago County,
Illinois.
The complaint alleges that Beloit
has violated Sections 9(a) and 9(b) of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
(Act), 415 ILCS
5/9(a),
5/9(b) and 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 201.142, 201.143 and 212.321 and violating certain
provisions of its operating permit #72090084 by constructing and
operating emission sources without the proper permits and by
causing or allowing various emission violations.
Pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/31(a) (2), the parties filed
a joint
motion requesting relief from the Act’s hearing requirement on
November 15,
1995.
The Board published a notice of the waiver on
November 17,
1995; no objection to the granting of the waiver was
received.
Waiver of hearing is hereby granted.
The parties filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement on
November 15,
1995.
The Stipulation sets forth facts relating to
the nature, operations and circumstances surrounding the claimed
violations.
Beloit denies the alleged violations and agrees to
pay a civil penalty of twenty-nine thousand dollars ($29,000.00).
The Board finds the settlement agreement acceptable under
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
103.12O.
This
settlement agreement in nn way
affects respondent’s responsibility to comply with any federal,
s?ate or local regulations, including but not limited to the Act
and the Board’s pollution control regulations.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
2
ORDER
1)
The Board hereby accepts the Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement executed by the People of the State of
Illinois and Beloit Corporation,
a Delaware
corporation,
as respondent, located at 429 Gardener
Street, South Beloit, Winnebago County,
Illinois.
The
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement are incorporated
by reference as though fully set forth herein.
2)
Beloit shall pay a civil penalty of twenty-nine
thousand dollars ($29,000.00) within
30 days of the
date of this Order.
Such payment shall be made by
certified check or money order payable to the Treasurer
of the State of Illinois, designated to the
Environmental Protection Trust Fund,
and shall be sent
by First Class mail to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794—9276
The certified check or money order shall clearly
indicate on its face Beloit Corporation’s Federal
Employer Identification Number 39-0159010 and that
payment is directed to the Environmental Protection
Trust Fund.
Any such penalty not paid within the time prescribed
shall incur interest at the rate set forth in
subsection
(a)
of Section 1003 of the Illinois Income
Tax Act,
(35 ILCS 5/1003),
as now or hereafter amended,
from the date payment is due until the date payment is
received.
Interest shall not accrue during the
pendency of an appeal during which payment of the
penalty has been stayed.
3)
Beloit Corporation shall cease and desist from the
alleged violations,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member
1. Theodore Meyer concurred.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS
5/41) provides for the appeal of final Board orders within 35
days of the date of service of this order.
(See also 35 Iii.
Adm. Code 101.246, Motion for Reconsideration.)
3
I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certi~y~thatthe aboAe opinion pnd order was
adopted on ~j~e c~?
~‘
~
day of
~
,
1995, by a
vote of
/~O
•
Dorothy !~//Gunn,Clerk
Illinoi8(Jbllution Control Board
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
PCB No.
BELOIT CORPORATION, a Delaware
)
corporation,
Respondent
-
STXPULATION A1~PROPOSAL FOR
SETTLEMENT
WITH P~LOTTCORPORATION
Complainant,
PEOPLE
OP
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by
JAMES
E.
RYAN,
Attorney General of the State of Illinois, on his
own
motion and at
the request
of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”), and Respondent, BELOIT CORPORATION, by
its
attorneys,
Seyfarth,
Shaw,
Fairweather & Geraidson do hereby submit this
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
The parties agree that
the
statement of facts contained herein is made and agreed upon for
purposes of settlement only and that neither the fact that
a party
has entered into this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement, nor
any of the facts stipulated herein,
shall be introduced into
evidence in this or
any
other proceeding except to enforce the terms
hereof by the parties to this agreement.
Notwithstanding the
foregoing,
this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement and any
order entered by the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Board”)
accepting same may be used in any future enforcement action as
1
evidence of past adjudication of violation of the Act for purposes
of Section 42(h) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”),
415 ILCS 5/42(h)
(1994)
(prior adjudication of violation of
the Act).
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement shall be
null and void unless the Board approves and disposes of this matter
on each and every one of the terms and conditions of the settlement
set forth herein.
I.
JURISDICTION
The
Board
has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and
of
the parties consenting hereto pursuant to the Act, 415 ILCS
5/.
et
seq.
II.
AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned representatives for each party certify that
they are fully authorized by the party whom they represent to enter
into the terms and conditions of this Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement and to bind them legally to it.
III.
APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement shall apply to and
be binding upon the Complainant including the Agency and Respondent
and any officer, agent, employee or servant of Respondent,
as well
2
as the successors and assigns of each and every officer, agent and
employee of Respondent.
The Respondent shall not raise as a defense
to any enforcement action taken pursuant to this Settlement the
failure of its officers,
directors,
agents,
servants or employees to
take such action as shall be required to comply with the provisions
of this Settlement.
Iv.
STATEMENT
OF
FACTS
1.
The Agency is an administrative agency established in the
executive branch of the State government by Section 4 of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/4, and charged,
inter alia,
with
the duty of enforcing
the Act.
2.
Respondent, Beloit Corporation,
(“Be.oit”)
is a Delaware
corporation doing business in the State of Illinois.
3.
At all times pertinent hereto,
Beloit has been and is now
the owner and operator of a ferrous and nonferrous foundry located
at 429 Gardner Street,
South Beloit, Winnebago County,
Illinois.
Beloit purchased the foundry from Beloit foundry on October
1,
1979.
4.
At all times relevant hereto the ferrous foundry is
operated pursuant to air pollution operating permit number 72090084,
i~ued
to
Eeloit on November 17,
1972, and reissued on April
17,
1975,
June 10,
1977, March 2,
1979,
June 19,
1984, April 29,
1985,
February 28,
1986, March
2,
1989 and on December 28,
1992.
3
5.
Operations at the ferrous foundry consist of, among other
things, a cupola with baghouse,
a magnesium inoculation operation
with baghouse,
a
sand storage bin and baghouse, three
(3) sand
systems with wet scrubbers,
a bond loading station and baghouse,
four
(4) shakeouts with three
(3) wet scrubbers,
a rotoblast
operation and baghouse, a swing grinder with baghouse,
chipper and
grinder operations with filter cabinets,
a sand bin with baghouse, a
bond load operation with baghouse, a shotbiast room with baghouse
and shotbiast table with baghouse.
The magnesium inoculation
operation at Beloit’s ferrous foundry includes the use of small
inoculation ladles
(L-1).
Until June 24,
1993, Beloit also used
large
(oversized) inoculation ladles
(L-2).
The small inoculation
ladIes operation f/k/a L-1 will hereinafter be referred to as MI-i
and the large
(oversized)
inocul.Rtiorl ladles f/k/a L-2 will
hereinafter be referred to as MI-2.
6.
Operations
at
the
non-ferrous
foundry
consist
of
a
shakeout, a sand system, four
(4) bronze crucible furnaces,
one
(I)
aluminum crucible furnace, three
(3)
ladle heaters and one
(1)
baghouse.
Complainant alleges that Beloit does not have an
operatilz9 permit
for the operation of its non-ferrous
foundry.
7.
Sections 9(a) and
(b) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(a)
and
(b)
(1994), provide as follows:
No person shall:
4
a.
Cause
or
threaten
or
allow
the
discharge or emission
of any contaminant into
the
environment
in
any
State
so
as
to cause or tend to cause air pollution in
Illinois,
either
alone
or
in
combination
with
contaminants
from
other
sources, or so as to violate
regulations
or
standards
adopted
by
the
Board
under
this
Act;
b.
Construct,
install,
or
operate
any
equipment,
facility, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft capable of
causing o~contributing to air pollution or designed
to prevent air pollution, or any
type
designated by
Board regulations without a permit granted by the
Agency,
or in violation of any conditions imposed by
such
permit,
8.
Section 201.141 of the Pollution Control Board
(“Board’s)
Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.141,
titled,
Prohihition~of
Air
Pollution, provides as follows:
No person shall cause or threaten or allow the discharge
or emission of any contaminant into the environment in
any State so as, either alone or in combination with
contaminants from other sources, to cause or tend to
cause air pollution in Illinois, or so as to violate the
provisions of this Chapter, or so as to prevent the
attainment or maintenance of any applicable ambient air
quality standard.
9.
Section 201.142 of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.142,
titled, Construction
Permit
Required,
provides as follows:
No person shall cause or allow the construction of any
new emission source or any new air pollution control
equipment,
or cause or allow the modification of any
existing emission source or air pollution control
equipment, without first obtaining a construction permit
from the Agency, except as provided in Section 201.146.
5
10.
Section 201.143 of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.143,
titled, Operating Permits for Mew
~irces,
provides in pertinent part as follows:
No person shall cause or allow the operation of any new
emission source or new air pollution control equipment of
a type for which a construction permit is required by
Section 201.142 without first obtaining an operating
permit from the Agency.
11.
Section 201.144 of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.144, titled, Operating Permits for Existing
Sources, provides as follows:
No person shall cause or allow the operation of any
existing emission source or any existing air pollution
control equipment without first obtaining an operating
permit from the Agency,
except as provided in Section
201.146.
Dates on which permits were required are shown
in Appendix C.
12.
Section 212.321 of the Pollution Control Board
(“Board’s”) Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.321,
titled, New Process Sourcas, provides in pertinent part as follows:
a)
Except as further provided in this Part,
no person
shall cause or allow the emission of particulate
matter into the atmosphere in any one hour period
from any new process emission source which, either
alone or in combination with particulate matter from
all other similar new process emission sources at a
plant or premises,
exceeds the allowable emission
rates specified in subsection
(c) and Illustration
B.
b)
Interpolated and extrapolated values of the data in
subsection
(c) shall be determined by
using
the
equation:
6
E=A(P)B
where:
P
=
process
weight
rate;
and
allowable emission
rate;
and,
1)
Up to process weight rates of 408 MG/hr
(450
T/hr):
Metric
English
P
Mg/hr
T/hr
E
kg/hr
lbs/hr
A
1.214
254
B
0.534
0.534
13.
Agency air pollution operating
permit number
72090084,
issued to Beloit on November 17,
1972, and reissued on April
17,
1975,
June
10,
1977,
March
2,
1979, June
19,
1984, April
29,
1985,
February 28,
1986,
March 2,
1989 and December 28,
1992 provides the
following special condition number 1:
1.
Emissions of particulate matter shall not exceed the
amounts specified in the Table below:
Emission Source
Annual Emission
(tons/year) TSP
Magnesium
0.46
Inoculation
Operation
fL-i)
14.
Air pollution operating permit number 72090084, issued to
Beloit
on
June
19,
1984,
provides the following special condition
number
5:
The permittee shall
maintain
records
of
excess
emissions
during malfunctions and breakdowns.
As a minimum, these
7
records shall include:
i)
a full and detailed explanation of why such excess
emissions
occurred;
ii)
the
length
of
time
during
which
operation
continued
under such conditions;
iii)
the measures used to reduce the quantity of such
operations
occurred;
and
iv)
the steps the Permittee will take to prevent similar
malfunctions and/or breakdowns.
15.
Agency air pollution operating permit number 72090084
issued to Beloit on November 17,
1972, and reissued on April 17,
1975, June 10,
1977,
March
2,
1979,
June 19,
1984, April 29,
1985,
February 28,
1986, March
2,
1989 and December 28,
1992, provides the
following standard condition number 3:
3.
There shall be no deviations from the approved plans
specifications unless a written request for
modification of the project, along with plans and
specification is as required, shall have been
submitted to the Agency and a supplemental written
permit issued.
16.
Complainant alleges
that on June
19,
1984, when air
pollution operating permit number 72090084 was issued,
it
permitted
only the use of small inoculation ladles
(MI-i)
in Beloit’s
magnesium inoculation operation.
Complainant further alleges that
the large (oversized) inoculation ladles
(MI-2) were never permitted
by the Agency.
Additionally,
air pollution operating permit number
72090084 contains special condition number 1 which limits
8
particulate
emissions
from
Beloit’s
magnesium
inoculation
operation
to
0.46
tons/year.
17.
On
March
5,
1991,
and
December
11,
1992,
inspections
of
Beloit’s ferrous foundry were conducted by an inspector from the
Agency.
During the inspection visits,
the inspector observed the
magnesium
treatment/inoculation
operation.
During
the
March
5,
1991, inspection visit, the inspector determined that Beloit had
modified its magnesium inoculation operation by installing and
operating large
(oversized) magnesium inoculation ladles
(MI-2)
18.
Complainant alleges that Beloit’s large magnesium
inoculation ladies
(MI-2) operation is uncontrolled,
resulting in
excess particulate emissions being discharged to the environment.
Further, Complainant alleges that Beloit operated such ladles (MI-2)
in violation of the process weight rule contained in 35 Ill. Add.
Code 212. Appendix B.
19.
Complainant alleges that since at least December 11,
1992, Beloit has operated its magnesium inoculation operation so as
to cause or allow particulate emissions from its small inoculation
ladles
(MI-l)
to exceed the 0.46 tons/year limitation contained in
its
permit.
Complainant
further
alleges that based on standard
emission
factor
calculations
and
apparent
operating
practices,
Beloit emitted 4.31 tons/year of particulate matter to the
environment from uncontrolled
(MI-i) magnesium treatments.
9
20.
Complainant further alleges that Beloit caused or allowed
the
modification
of
its
magnesium
inoculation
operation
to
allow
the
utilization of large
(oversized) magnesium inoculation ladles
(MI-2)
in such operation, without the use of any air pollution control
equipment, resulting in particulate emissions being discharged into
the environment.
21.
Complainant also alleges that Beloit’s large
(oversized)
magnesium inoculation ladles
(MI-2)
emit at least 72 pound/hour of
particulate matter to the environment at a process weight rate
equal
to
18 tons/hour.
Complainant further alleges that Beloit did not
have authorization from the Agency to modify its magnesium
inoculation operation and
did not have a permit for the operation of
its
large
(oversized)
inoculation
ladles
(MI-2).
22.
Beloit was required pursuant
to special condition number
5 of air pollution operating permit 72090084,
to maintain records of
cupola malfunctions and of any excess emissions emitted to the
environment
-
On February 19,
1991,
a cap-up malfunction of the
cupola occurred resulting in excess emissions to the environment.
Complainant alleges that at the time of the inspector’s visit on
February 19,
1991, Beloit did not have any records of this cap-up
malfunction and of any excess emissions that were emitted to the
environment.
10
23.
Complainant also alleges that on February 19,
1991, by
failing to maintain records of the cupola cap-up malfunction and of
any
excess
emissions,
Beloit
violated
special
permit
condition
number 5 and thereby, violated Section 9(b)
of the Act.
24.
Air pollution operating permit number 72090084 issued
to
Beloit on November
17,
1972, and reissued on April
17,
1975,
June
10,
1977, March
2,
1979, June 19,
1984,
April 29,
1985,
February 28,
1986,
March 2,
1989 and December 28,
1992, requires the use of an
afterburner to control the cupola which is capable of emitting
carbon monoxide.
Prior to March
5,
1991,
Beloit’s cupola was
equipped with an afterburner with an indicating temperature
controller.
25.
Complainant alleges that on the March
5,
199.
inspection
of Beloit’s facility,
the inspector found that Beloit had turned off
and/or taken out of service the afterburner, and operated the cupola
without the afterburner,
thus causing, threatening or allowing the
emission of uncontrolled carbon monoxide.
26.
Air pollution operating permit number 72090084 issued to
Beloit on November 17,
1972, and reissued on April
17,
1975, June
10,
1977,
March
2,
1979, June 19,
1984, April 29,
1985,
February 28,
3.996, March
2,
1999 and December 29,
1992,
included the operation of
air pollution control equipment wet collector #6 to control the
emissions
from the side floor sand shakeout.
‘I
27.
Complainant alleges that on the March
5,
1991 inspection
of Beloit’s facility, the inspector found that Beloit had ducted an
emission collection intake to wet collector #6,
in order to control
emissions from the tapping area and large
(oversized)
inoculation
ladles
(MI-2),
in addition to the emissions from the side floor sand
shakeout. Complainant also alleges that Beloit was required to
obtain a construction permit from the Agency before modifying wet
collector #6 by ducting an emission collection intake from the
tapping area and large
(oversized) inoculation ladles
(MI-2)
to this
wet collector #6.
Complainant alleges that Eeloit was also required
to obtain an operating permit before operating wet collector *6, air
pollution control equipment,
with the added
emission
collection
intake from the tapping area and large
(oversized) inoculation
ladle5
(MI-2).
28.
Complainant alleges that ducting additional emission
collection intakes to wet collector #6 results in an increased
amount
of
particulate matter being received l~ywet ccllecto.z.
U6.
Complainant further alleges that the added emission collection
intakes from the charge door area, tapping area and their large
(oversized)
inoculation ladles
(MI-2) resulted in an increase in the
amount of particulate emissions from wet collector #6.
Thus,
Complainant alleges
that
since at least March
5,
1991, Beloit
modified and operated wet collector #6 without obtaining permits
12
from the Agency.
29.
Complainant alleges that at the March
5,
1991 Agency
inspection of Beloit’s ferrous foundry,
the inspector also
determined that Beloit was utilizing three
(3) gas-fired ladle
preheat burners in its tapping area.
These burners emit nitrogen
oxide and carbon monoxide.
Complainant alleges that since the
construction of the three
(3) gas-fired ladle preheat burners at
Beloit’s ferrous foundry on or before March
5,
1991,
Beloit has
never obtained an air pollution operating permit from the Agency,
for the operation of these three
(3) gas-fired ladle preheat
burners.
30.
Complainant alleges that since at least approximately
December 1986,
Beloit constructed its non-ferrous foundry operations
at its facility.
Complainant further alleges that Beloit never
obtained a construction permit for the following pieces of equipment
utilized
at
its
non-ferrous
foundry:
a.
sand shake-out system;
b.
four
(4) bronze crucible furnaces;
c.
one
(1) aluminum crucible furnace;
d.
three
(3)
ladle heaters;
e.
one
(1) baghouse.
31.
Since the construction of the sand shake-out system,
four
(4) bronze crucible furnaces, one
(1) aluminum crucible furnace,
13
three
(3)
ladle heaters, and one
(1) baghouse at Beloit’s non-
ferrous foundry, Complainant alleges that Debit has never obtained
an air pollution operating permit from the Agency.
Complainant
further alleges that
at
no time was Beloit authorized to opeL-ate its
non-ferrous foundry including its sand shake-out system,
four
(4)
bronze crucible furnaces, one
(1) aluminum crucible furnace, three
(3)
ladle heaters, and one
(1)
baghouse,
without an air pollution
operating permit issued by the Agency.
32.
Complainant alleges that since at least approximately
December 1986,
Beloit has operated its non-ferrous foundry
consisting of a sand shake-out system,
four
(4) bronze crucible
furnaces, one
(1) aluminum crucible furnace, and three
(3)
ladle
heaters, each an emission source, and one
Cl) baghouse, air
pollution control equipment,
without an air pollution operating
permit issued by the Agency.
33.
On September 1,
1993,
Respondent retained the services of
John J. Yates, Ltd
and John J.
Yates,
a
registered professional
engineer with expertise in air pollution control technology in the
foundry
industry.
In 1994,
Respondentts plant engineer and
consultant completed a plant emission survey following the
guidelines
in
U.S. EPA PublicationNo. EPA 625/6-78-004 entitled
Industrial Guide For Air Pollution Control,
June 1978 at Chapter
3.
The results of this survey was incorporated
into
thc draft permit
14
application provided to the Agency on December 23,
1994.
V.
NATUIE OF RESPONDENT’S QPER&TION
Respondent is in the ferrous and non-ferrous metal casting
business and conducts such activities at a ferrous and non-ferrous
foundry.
The ferrous foundry produces grey iron and ductile
castings from scrap iron and pig iron by the process of melting,
alloying and molding.
The non-ferrous foundry melts pure copper
alloy, bronze and aluminum ingots into castings.
The various
processes at both foundries necessarily result in the emission of
particulate matter to the atmosphere.
VI.
EXPL~NATXONOF
PAST
FAILURES TO
COMPLY
WITH
THIS ACT
Conlplaind.nt
knows of
no
explanation
for Respondent’s past
failure to comply with the Act.
Respondent states, however,
that:
1.
The Agency improperly denied Respondent’s permit
application for the non-ferrous
foundry;
2.
The operating permit for the grey iron foundry covered
the use of large
(oversized) inoculation ladles
(L-2)
in the
magnesium inoculation operation;
3.
Respondent operated the large
(oversized)
inoculation
ladles approximately 70.4 minutes per year
and
ceased operating them
on June 24,
1993;
15
4.
Respondent operated its small inoculation ladles at all
times with the use of air pollution control equipment;
5.
Respondent maintained the proper records of the February
19,
1991,
cap-up malfunction of the cupola;
6
Respondent operated
its ~upo1a
with the
afterburner
to
control emissions of carbon monoxide;
7.
Respondent was not required to obtain permits for the
modification of wet collector *6 air pollution control equipment;
and
8.
The operating permit for the grey iron foundry covered
the use of gas-fired ladle pre-heat burners.
VI’.
FUTURE
PLANS
OF
COMPLLANCE
Respondent shall in the future adhere to all federal and state
air pollution statutes and regulations and state permitting
requirements.
VIII.
IMPACT ON ThE PUBLIC RESULTING FROM NON-COMPLThNCE
Section 33(c)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/33(c)
(1994), provides
as follows:
In making its orders
and
determination, the Board shall
take into consideration all the facts and circumstances
bearing upon the reasonableness of the emissions,
discharges, or deposits involved including, but not
16
limited to:
1.
the character and degree of injury
to., or
interference with the protection of the health,
general welfare and physical property of the
people;
2.
the social and economic value of the pollution
source;
3.
the suitability or unsuitability of the pollution
source to the area in which it is located,
including the question of priority of location in
the area involved;
4.
the technical practicability and economic
reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the
emissions, discharges or deposits resulting from
such pollution source; and
5.
any subsequent compliance.
In response to these factors the Complainant states as
follows:
1.
Impact to the public resulting from Respondent’s
excess emission of particulate matter was that such excess emission
posed a
threat
of
harm
to
the
environment.
Further,
its
failure to
obtain a permit for its non-ferrous foundry compromised the state’s
ability to identify possible air pollution sources and their
potential environmental impact.
Additionally, by using an
unpermitted oversized magnesium inoculation ladles
(MI-2)
in its
magnesium inoculation process, Respondent increased the emission of
particulate material to the atmosphere which can adversely impact
17
the
environment.
2.
The
parties
agree
that
the
Respondent’s
facility
has
social
and
economic
value.
3.
Respondent
operates
emission
sources
which
emit
or
are
capable of emitting particulate matter.
4.
Respondent agrees that it
is technically feasible and
economically reasonable to operate its ferrous and non-ferrous
foundries consistent with all federal and state air pollution
rules and regulations.
5.
Respondent did subsequently come into substantial
compliance by eliminating the use of the oversized ladles in its
magnesium operation, upgrading its emission control equipment,
including the addition of a baghouse for its magnesium
inoculation operation and a side draft hood on the non-ferrous
foundry shake-out operation, and also did provide to the Agency a
draft permit application for review and comments.
in response to these factors the Respondent states as
follows:
1.
Respondent’s ferrous and non-ferrous foundries are
located in an attainment area for particulate matter, and the
Respondent
is not a major source except pursuant to the Clean Air
Act Permit Program.
Emissions from the Respondent’s facility do
18
not injure or interfere with the protection of the health,
general welfare and physical property of the people.
2.
Respondent’s
facility
has
social
and
economic
value.
3.
Respondent’s facility is suitable to the area in which
it is located.
4.
Respondent has implemented technically practicable and
economically reasonable reductions in emissions from its
facility.
Ix.
CONSIDERATION OF SE~~ION42(h)
FACTORS
Section 42(h)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/42(h)
(1994), provides
as follOws:
In determining the appropriate civil penalty to be
imposed under subdivisions
(a),
(b) (1),
(b) (2)
or
(b) (3)
of this Section,
the Board is authorized to
consider any matters of record in mitigation or
aggravation of penalty, including but not limited to
the following factors:
1)
the duration and gravity of the violation;
2)
the presence or absence of due diligence on the
part of the violator in attempting to comply with
requirements
of
this
Act and regulations
thereunder
or
to
secure
relief therefrom as
provided
by
this
Act;
3)
any
economic
benefits
accrued
by
the
violator
because of delay
in
compliance
with
requirements;
19
4)
the amount of monetary penalty which will serve to
deter further violations by the violator and to
otherwise aid in enhancing voluntary compliance
with this Act by the violator and other persons
similarly subject to the Act; and
5)
the number, proximity in time, and gravity of
previously adjudicated violations of this Act by
the violator.
In response to these factors the Complainant states as
follows:
1.
Since at least approximately December,
1986, Respondent
constructed and operated its non-ferrous foundry operations at
its facility, without obtaining an operating permit from the
Agency.
Additionally,
at the time of the inspector’s visit on
February
19,
1991, Respondent failed to have any records of its
cupola cap-up malfunction and of any excess emission that
occurred as a result of the cap-up malfunction that occurred that
day.
From at least March 5,
1991, Respondent utilized large
(oversized)
inoculation ladles
(MI-2)
for its magnesium
inoculation operation, without the use of an effective collection
hood resulting in excess particulate emissions,
known
contaminants, being discharged into the environment.
Respondent
also ducted an emission collection intake to wet collector *6 to
control emissions from its large inoculation ladles, the tapping
area in addition to the emissions from sand shake-out #2.
20
Further,
Respondent
turned
off
and/or
took
out
of
service
its
afterburner,
and operated the cupola without the afterburner as
was required by its permit,
resulting in the uncontrolled
emissions of carbon monoxide.
Respondent also operated three
gas-fired ladle preheat burners in the tapping area of its
ferrous foundry, without a permit issued by the Agency
2.
Respondent has been diligent in its attempts to comply
~with the requirements of the Act and Board’s regulations
following
the
Agency’s
notification
of the violations.
3.
Complainant is unaware of any quantifiable economic
benefits accrued because of the delay in compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
4.
A civil penalty of twenty-nine thousand ($29,000.00)
dollars is reasonable based on the duration and nature of the
violations.
5.
On May 16,
1995, Beloit and this Complainant, filed
with this Board, a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in
settlement of alleged air pollution violations at Beloit’s
manufacturing plant located in Rockton, Winnebago County,
Illinois
(PCB 94-125).
In response to these factors, the Respondent states as
follows:
21
1.
The Agency improperly denied Respondent’s permit
application for the non-ferrous foundry.
The operating permit
for the grey iron foundry covered the use of large
(oversized)
inoculation ladles
(L-2)
in the magnesium inoculation operation.
Respondent operated the large
(oversized) inoculation ladles
approximately 704 minutes per year and ceased their operation on
June 24,
1993.
Respondent operated its small inoculation ladles
at all times with the use of air pollution control equipment.
Respondent maintained th~proper r~cord~of the Psbruary
19,
1991,
cap-up malfunction of the cupola.
Respondent operated its
cupola with the afterburner to control emissions of carbon
monoxide.
Respondent was not required to obtain permits for the
modification of wet collector #6 air pollution control equipment.
The operating permit for the grey iron foundry covered the use of
gas-fired ladle pre-heater burners.
2.
The Respondent has been diligent in complying with
requirements of the Act and regulations thereunder including the
filing on February 1,
1993,
of a Petition for Permit Review,
PCB
No. 93-16.
22
3.
No economic benefits accrued to the Respondent.
x.
TERMS
OF
SETTLEMENT
1.
Respondent
shall
pay
a
civil
penalty
of
twenty-nine
($29,000.00)
thousand dollars into the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Trust Fund within thirty
(30)
days from the date on
which the Board adopts a final order approving this Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement.
Payment shall be made by certified
check or money order, payable to the Treasurer of the State of
Illinois, designated to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Trust
Fund and shall be sent by first class mail to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
-
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794-9276
Respondent’s Federal Employer Identification Number is 39-
0159010, and such number shall appear on the face of the
certified check or money order.
2.
Pursuant to Section 42(g)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/42(g)
(1994),
interest shall accrue on any penalty amount not paid
within the time prescribed herein,
at the maximum rate allowable
under Section 1003(a) of the Illinois Income Tax Act,
35 ILCS
5/1003(a)
(1994)
23
a)
Interest on unpaid penalties shall begin to accrue
from the date the penalty amount is due and
continue to accrue to the date payment is
received.
b)
Where partial payment
is made on any payment
amount that is due, such partial payment shall be
first applied to any interest on unpaid penalties.
c)
All interest on penalties owed the Complainant
shall be paid by certified check payable to the
Treasurer of the State of Illinois for deposit in
the Environmental Protection Trust Fund and
delivered to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794-9276
The name and number of the case and Respondent’s
Federal Identification Number
(“FEIN”)
shall
appear on the face of the check.
Respondent’s
FEIN is 39-0159010.
3.
Effective immediately,
the magnesium inoculation
ladle(s) used in Respondent’s magnesium inoculation operation
shall have a diameter which is at least
five
(5) inches smaller
24
than
the
diameter
of
the
magnesium
inoculation
collection
hood.
4.
Respondent shall at all times operate its cupola with
its
afterburner
operating.
Respondent
shall operate its cupola
with its afterburner at a minimum temperature of 1400 °Fto
control the emission of carbon monoxide in compliance with
Section 216.381 of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code.
5.
Effective immediately,
Respondent shall monitor the
afterburner temperature of its cupola, and shall record such
temperatures on a continuous basis.
Respondent shall maintain at
the foundry, all such temperature
recordings for a period of
three
(3)
years and shall make all such recordings available to
the Agency during any inspection of the foundry.
6.
Within sixty
(60) days from the date on which the Board
adopts a final order approving this Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement, Respondent shall perform a stack test for carbon
monoxide
(“CO”) emissions from the cupola in accordance with
Section 216.101 of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code.
a)
Within fourteen (14) days of Respondent’s receipt
of the results of such stack test,
Respondent
shall provide to Complainant a copy of the
results.
b)
In the event the stack test results show that the
25
emission of CO from the cupola exceeds the
limitations
contained
in
Section
216.381
of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code, within thirty
(30) days of
receiving the results, Respondent shall initiate
corrective measures.
Beloit shall, within sixty
(60)
days of completion of the corrective
measures, perform a stack test for CO emissions
from the cupola in accordance with Section 216.101
of
35
Ill.
Adm.
code.
Within
fourteen
(14) days
of
Respondent’s
receipt
of such stack test
results,
Respondent shall provide to Complainant
a copy of the results.
7.
Respondent shall at all times maintain all equipment
utilized at its foundries, including but not limited to its
ladles,
baghouses,
collection
hood,
the side draft hood and
barrel
fans
located
in
the tapping area,
and cupola,
irs
such
manner
such
that
the
operation
of
any equipment will not cause a
violation of any statute and air pollution regulations.
8.
By July 31,
1996, Respondent shall install capture and
control of its tapping and pouring emissions in the ferrous
foundry as follows:
a)
Respondent shall engineer a side draft hood placed
26
adjacent to the cupola; shall engineer and install
barrel
fans
to blow the air and particulate matter
during
tapping
and
pouring
in
the
cupola
area
toward
the
hood;
shall
install
the
necessary
duct
work
and
fan;
and
shall
add
a
20,000
scfm
baghouse
to
complement
the
existing 12,000 scfm magnesium
inoculation
baghouse;
b)
On October 30,
1995, Respondent submitted a
construction permit application including the
necessary engineering drawings to the Agency,
for
the construction and installation of the
equipment,
identified in paragraph X.8.a.
above.
On October 30,
1995,
the Agency issued to Beloit,
construction permit number 95100128, for the
construction and installation of the equipment
identified in paragraph X.8.a. above, as
Respondent demonstrated compliance with the
applicable statutes and air pollution regulations
in its construction permit application.
A copy of
this permit was provided to the Attorney General’s
Office.
27
c)
Within thirty
(30)
days of completion of the
installation,
of the equipment identified in
paragraph X.8.a. above, Respondent shall notify
the Agency
and the Attorney General;
d)
Once the above-referenced equipment is installed,
operating,
capturing and controlling Beloit’s
tapping and pouring emissions in accordance with
permit number 95100128 issued to Beloit on October
30,
1995,
Complainant acknowled9e~that Respondent
will be in compliance with the applicable statutes
and air pollution control regulations.
9.
On December 23,
1994, Respondent provided to the Agency
a draft operating permit application for both its ferrous and
non-ferrous foundry including all equipment and related control
device(s)
associated with both foundries.
No later than sixty
(60) days from the date
on which the Board adopts a final order
approving
this
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for Settlement,
Respondent shall file with the Agency a final completed operating
permit application.
10.
Respondent shall
obtain all permits for the operation
of its ferrous and non-ferrous foundries.
Respondent retains all
of its rights to permit review.
Once final, and not subject to
28
any permit review,
Respondent shall
at all times comply with any
and all standard and special condition(s)
contained in any and
all such operating permit(s)
issued by the Agency.
11.
Respondent currently has pending a Permit Appeal, case
number PCB 93-16.
Respondent agrees to dismiss such permit
appeal case within fourteen (14) days from the date on which the
Board’ adopts a final order approving this Stipulation and
Proposal fo~Settlement,
or within fourteen (14) days of
receiving final permit(s)
from the Agency, whichever is later.
Final permit(s)
as used herein shall mean the permits that are at
issue in this case.
12.
The Respondent does not admit to past violations of the
Act and applicable air pollution control regulations.
XI.
CERTIFICATION
~ND
REPORTS
1.
All certifications,
correspondence(s), documents,
notifications,
reports, scope of work,
studies, and any other
documentation required by this Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement shall be submitted in writing and sent by certified
mail or any form of mail delivery which records the date of
receipt,
to the Attorney General and the Agency at the addresses
which appear below or .to such other addresses which the Attorney
29
General and the Agency may hereafter designate in writing.
Karen Barancik
Assistant
Counsel
Illinois
EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Tom Walsh
Illinois
EPA
4302 North Main Street
Rockford,
IL 61103
RoseMarie Cazeau or designee
Assistant
Attorney
General
Environmental Bureau
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago,
IL
60601
Howard
Chinn,
P.E.
Chief
Engineer
Attorney
General’s
Office
Environmental Bureau
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago,
IL 60601
Don Sutton
Manager, DAPC Permit
Section
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
2.
All
documents including plans, approvals and all other
correspondence(s)
to
be
submitted
to Beloit pursuant to this
Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement
shall
be
sent
to:
Dixie
Laswell,
Esq.
Seyfarth,
Shaw, Fairweather & Geraidson
55 East Monroe Street
Suite
4200
Chicago,
IL 60?03-5903
Cris Proctor
Foundry Engineer
Beloit Corporation
429 Gardner Street
South Beloit,
IL
30
XII.
COMPLIANCE
WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This Settlement Agreement in no way affects Respondent’s
responsibility to comply with any federal, state or local
regulations,
including but not limited to, the Act,
415 ILCS 5/i
et seq.
(1994), and the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code Subtitles A through H.
XIII.
RIC~TOF ENTRY
In addition to any other authority,
the Agency,
its
employees and representatives, and the Illinois Attorney General,
his agents and representatives,
in accordance with constitutional
limitation shall have right of entry into and upon Beloit’s
ferrous and non-ferrous foundry which are the subject of this
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement at all reasonable times
for
the
purposes
of
carrying
out inspections including taking
photographs, collecting samples, collecting information,
and
enforcing the terms of this Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement.
31
XIV.
DISCHARGE OF LIABILITY
In consideration of Beloit’s payment of a $29,000.00
penalty, the actions Beloit has taken to date and shall take
pursuant to this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement, the
commitment
to refrain from further violations of the Act, and the
dismissal by Beloit of its Permit Appeal,
case number PCB 93-16
which is currently pending before the Pollution Control Board,
the Complainant shall release, waive and discharge, Beloit from
violations of the Act which were the subject matter of the
Complaint herein, upon completion of all actions required by this
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement and upon receipt by
Complainant of all payments required in Section X. of this
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
However, nothing in this Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement shall be construed as a waiver by the Complainant of
the right to redress future violations of the Act,
the Board’s
Regulations or this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement, or
to obtain penalties with respect thereto.
32
Xv.
FINAL COMPLIANCE AND TERMINATION OF_THE
STIPULATION
AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMEN~1’
1.
Final Conpliance
The Respondent shall notify the Complainant,
in
writing, within sixty
(60) days after achieving final compliance
with the terms of
this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
The notification of final compliance shall be attested to by a
responsible corporate official of Respondent who shall state:
“I certify under penalty of law that this document was
prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the
information submitted based on my inquiry of those
persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, and that the information submitted in or
accompanying this
notification
of
final
compliance
is
to the best of my knowledge true, accurate and
complete.
I am aware that there are significant
penalties
for
submitting
false
information,
including
the possibility of fine and/or imprisonment for knowing
violations.”
Upon
receipt
of Respondent’s certificate of final
compliance, the Complainant shall, within sixty
(60)
days
thereof, notify Respondent
in writing of any dispute concerning
any of the information set forth in or accompanying the
certificate of final compliance.
Such certificate shall not be
deemed to demonstrate Respondent’s final compliance until any and
all disputed issued are resolved between Respondent and the
33
Complainant.
2.
Terminat.~ono~St~pulatio~ndP~Q~oBalforSettlement
1~xc-ept~
~pec~ific~1ly provided herein,
this
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement shall terminate sixty
(60)
days following Respondent’s demonstration of final
compliance as set forth in Section
XV.l.
above and the resolution
of all disputed matters.
However, Sections X.
4,
7 and 10 shall survive and shall not
be subject to and are not affected by the termination of any
other provision(s) of this Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement.
34
WHEREFORE,
Complainant and Respondent request that the Board
adopt and accept this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement as
written.
AGREED:
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
JAMES
E. RYAN
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW
3.
DUNN,
chief
Environmental Enforcement Division
By:
WILLIAM D.
SEITH,
Chief
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
Dated:
1i//311~1r
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
BELOIT CORPORATION
PAUL
T.
CURRY
GENERAL
MANAGER
By:
~
/
L~
Dated:
~
,4~5
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
11
JO~H
bEODA
G~ ral Counsel
D”ivision of Legal Counsel
Dated:
c:\wpwin6O\wpdocs\tnisc\rmcst2b
35
