ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
March
17,
1971
Gr’~on1eeFoundries,
Inc.
)
)
vs.
)
DCB 70—33
)
Environnental Protection Aqencu
)
Oninion of the Board
(By Mr. Kissel):
On October 28, 1970, Creenlee Foundries, Inc., Cicero, requested
a variance from the Pollution Control
Board
to operate in violation
crc
the Rules and Rertulations ‘overninq Air Pollution, especially as
tt,
narticulnte enissions, until Anril 30,
1971.
The ~etitionersought
this variance in order to onerate its olant with the existing cupola
as its “rinary neltinci source until an electric arc furnace installation
v.is connloted.
The statutory provision requiring Board action in
variance cases within 90 days of
filinç’ has been waived due to several
continuations rec!uested by the notitioner, includina one to conduct
.‘
stack omission test on the cunola.
After a hearina on the petition,
the Board has agreed to arant the variance subject to certain terms
and conditions.
Zreenlee Foundry Co.,
a qrey and ductile iron jobbing foundry,
er’loys a-proximately 85
neople
in a nlant located in the midst of a
pri’tarily industrial area beside the Belt Line Railroad in Cicero.
ireenleo melts between 20 and 30 tons of
metal
a day, nroducina
castin7s tzeighinq fron 3 to 30,000 oounds.
The melting is nresently
accom’,lished
with
the aid of a coke—fired cunola.
The melting nrocess,’
when uncontrolled, discharc’es fly ash, other oarticulates and carbon
nonoxide through the cunola.
Accordin-r to Table II o! Rule 2-2.54 of
the Rules and Reç’ulations CoverMni Air ~ollutionthe
maximum
allowable
emission
rate
from
a
foundry
such as Greenlee ‘s, operating with a load
of 18,000 lbs./hr.
is 23.40 lbs./hr.
On the basis
of a
July, 1967,
reort to the Illinois Air pollution Control Board, Greenlee ±tself
estimated that its cunola was emittina 70 lbs./hr. of narticulate
ntter.
Subseauent to that renort, Greenlee installed a wet cap on
the cu~ola;as both the
°resident
of Greenlee and the Plant Manager
conceded, the primary reason for
the
installation
of
the
wet
cap
was
to ‘revent snarks enanatina from the oneration of the cunola from
snreadinq to nearby buildinqs.Ot.58,
172) Mr. John Johnson, the Plant
:lanager, estimated that emissions with the wet cap were less than 20
lbs./hr.
(R. 25
)
Otto Klein, an Environmental Control Engineer
with the Environmental Protection Agency, seriously disnuted the
1-309
effectiveness
of Greenlee!s wet can in the control of air nollution.
(R.373-5)
Further,
the U.
S. Deoartment of Health,
Education
&
Welfare
publication,
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, estimates
that uncontrolled emissions
from the cunola would be
157 lbs./hr.,
and with
a wet cap,
75 lbs./hr.
A stack emission test by Greenlee was
unsuccessful
since it could not be conducted in accordance with the
ASME Power Test Code 27-1957.
To control the emissions from its melting orocess, Greenlee
proposes
to replace the cupola with an electric
arc
furnace.
Emissions from the furnace will be
to
a bag collector of 30,000 cfm
capacity, with eventual discharge
to ruoture—oroof plastic bacs.
The
furnace was
to have been
in place by February
28,
1971;
Greenlee
requests
a 60-day start-up period from
that date within which to operate
the cupola in conjunction with
the furnace
and to train nersonnel
in
the operation of the furnace.
In its recommendation,
the Agency asks
the Board
to order the
total cessation of the oneration of the cunola
upon the completion of
the installation
of the electric-furnace until
the cupola is brought into compliance with
the anolicable
Rules and
Regulations.
In order to grant
a variance under the Environmental Protection
Act,
the Board must
find that compliance with its rules
and regulations
or with the statute would impose an “arbitrary
and unreasonable
hardship” upon the netitioner.
If
the elant were forced
to cease
operations between now and
the end of April,
this would mean
a severe
loss of business
to
a company in an already marginal industry;
many
customers might withdraw their patterns from Greenlee
and would most
probably never return with their business.
Also~ a large number of
the employees would have to be laid off until
a sufficient number
were trained to operate the electric furnace.
Nor is sufficient capital
available
to Greenlee
to finance operation
when,
in effect,
it would
be manufacturing no products.
As
N,
G. G:eenlee,
‘~residentof
Greenlee Foundries,
Inc.,
stated,
such
a shutdown wnuld
drive hin out
of business.
(R,
115)
Further,
it does
not annear that
this plant’s
emissions over such
a short period of time would cause appreciable
injury or nuisance to any of the nearby residents,
Greenlee
is
therefore free
to operate its cupola until April 3O~ 1971.
Such
grant, however,
is
subject to certain conditions.
On the
day of the hearing,
the Agency~s recommendation included
a request
that
the Board penalize Greenlee $10,000
for dilatory tactics
in
bringing its
facility into comoliance.
The
legal puestion of whether
such
a request constituted
“surprise”
and violated Greenlee’s right
to due process must first be resolved.
First,
the Agency’s
allegation
of delay was based solely on the documents which Greenlee itself had
submitted over
the years
to the Air pollution Control Board and then
1
—
310
to the EPA.
Second,
the hearinq stretched over
10
days
and amoly
enabled Greenlee to attempt to refute
the Agency!s charges.
No
surprise therefore occurred and
a full opPortunity to present
a
case
in rebuttal was afforded.
On July
19,
1967, Greenlee filed
a letter of intent with
the
Air Pollution Control Board
(APCB)
indicating that it was formulating
plans to investigate
the replacement of
its cupola with an electric
furnace.
Greenlee purchased said furnace in November,
1967.
On
Aoril
12,
1968, Greenlee stated
its proposed air contaminant emission
reduction program
(ACERP)
as including the installation of an electric
furnace with gas cleaning eciuipment;
twelve months was
the estimated
completion
time.
On July
1,
1968, Greenlee informed
the Technical
Secretary of the APCB
that the Board of Directors had anproved the
hiring of an engineerinq
firm, whose work they anticioated would be
completed in two months.
After the receipt of
that renort,
another
6-8 months would he needed before the electric furnace could be started
on.
In other words,
in 3u.ly,
1968,
the estimated comoletion date was
~fay, 1969.
In August 1968,
the APCB approved Greenlee’s ACERP.
The
Greenlee
Board of Directors, however,
had not
yet aooroved
the ACERP
and
this issue was
to be submitted
to them in January,
1969.
In
January,
Greenlee
informed
the
Technical
Secretary
that
the
company
had
virtually
stopoed
work
on
its
emission
reduction
prooram
due
to
a
fear
that
the
rronosed
Cross—Town
Exoresswav
minht
run
near
or
through
the
olant.
~‘1hen
the
A°CB incuired
as
to
the
status
of
Green1ee~s
orogram
in
~1arch,
it
was
informed
that
installation
of
a
wet
cap was
underway
but
that
any
orogress
had
stonned
on
the
emission
reduction
erogram.
In
~1av,
1969,
Greenlee
determined
that
the
Cross-
fown
posed
no
problem
to
the
foundry.
(P.
132)
Pinaily,
or.
July
10,
1969,
che
Board
of
Directors
ancroved
the
installation
of
the
electric
furnace.
On
January
22,
1970,
Greenlee
informed
the
APC.B
that
they
foresaw
that
the
installation
would
be
complete
by Aunust,
‘970r
and
submitted
an
ACERB
for
that
date.
The
~.PCB
aporoved
Greenlee
‘s
revised
ACERB
in
Anril
1970.
Subsequently,
Greenlee
noted
that
heavy
spring
rains
and
the
financial
problems
orecinirated
by
a Chicagoland
truck
strike
had
stalled
the
proiect
once
again.
At
this
point,
Greenlee
was
advised
by
the EPA
cc
file
a
variance
petition
before
this
Board.
Thoug1~ Greenlee’s
n~ost
recent
ACERP
called
for
a
completion
date
of
August
27,
1970,
this
variance
asks
for
yet
a
further
extension
until
Aoril
30,
1971.
This Board
is
then asked to approve
a program
initiated in
1967, hut not coonleted
until four years
later.
The
record fully illustrates the
‘~stail”which Greenlee built
into its
orogram:
submission of
a ulan,
APCB approval, then retreat by
the
I3oarc3.
of
Directors
or
by
the
President
of
Greenlee.
Every possible
excuse has been used to avoid compliance.
Greenlee’s correspondence
1
~31~
to
the APCB and the EPA is
renlete with vague plans
and indefinite
promises.
In considering
a penalty for delay,
this Board may only
take into account Greenlee’s failure
to meet the Auaust,
1970, date
proposed
and approved
in the ACERP and
its delay since that date.
Despite the August date,
it has still taken Greenlee
six more months
to complete
the furnace installation.
In the interim, emissions have
continued unabated from
the Greenlee plant.
As
a nenalty for the
dilatory tactics which Greenlee has employed, the Board assesses
a
fine of $2000.00.
In determining the amount of the fine,
the Board
has taken
into account the marginal,
low-orofit nature of Greenlees
business.
The Board also
finds
in accordance with Section
36 of
the
Environmental Protection Act,
that such
a cenalty
is necessary
to
effectuate
the
policies
of
the
Act.
(See
Marquette
Cement
Cc.
v.
EPA,
BCE
70-23).
The
Agency’s
recommendation
also
asked
that
Greenlee
submit
a
plan
for
the
control
of
other
particulate
and
gaseous
emissions
in
other
portions
of
its
onerations,
such
as
the
ductile
iron
process,
and
the
shakeout
and
cleanino
areas.
Greenlee
offered
rio
evidence
at
the
hearing
regarding
controls
of
such
emissions.
The
Boards
concern
about
all
sources
of
air
pollution
dictates
that
control
plans
for
all
sources
in
the
foundry
operation
be
submitted
to
the
EPA.
Greenlee
has
asked
the
Board
to
consider
the
nature
of
its
loan
agreement
before
a
bond
is
required
to
be
posted.
The
Environmental
Protection
Act,
however,
requires
that
in
the
arant
o~ a
variance
by
the
Board
a
sufficient
performance
bond
or
other
security
shall
be
posted
as
a
condition
of
the
variance.
The
above
constitutes
the
Board’s
findinos
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
The
followinc
order
is
hereby
entered:
1)
Greenlee
shall
cease
operation
of
its
cupola
as
of
Pa
1.
1971.
The
cuoola
shall
never
he
onerated
again
aftor that date.
2)
Greenlee
is
not
to
exceed
in
either
Parch
or
Auril
1971,
the
rated
monthly
caoacitv
of
the
cupola.
3)
Greenlee
shall
remit
to
the
Environmental
Prote,~tion
~l:~ouc”
the
sum
of
$2000.00
in
oenalty,
as
a
condition
of tho varianca.
4)
Within
30
days
from
the
entry
of
this
order,
°reeniee
s’i:~11
submit
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
control
ulans
br
ot.!iu
sources
of
air
contaminants,
if
any,
emanatinc from
its faci1~:ies
5)
Greenlee
shall
post
with
the
Environmental
h:ciectice i~or:
on
or
before
March
30,
1971,
in
such
form
as
the
Agency
may
fLr~d
satisfactory,
a
personal
bond
or
other
adequate
securi
t;,
in the
of
$2500.00,
which
sum
shall
be
forfeited
to
the
Statc
c~ Illinois
~n
1
—
312
the
event
that
its
plant
is
operated
after
May
1,
1971, in contravention
of
this
variance,
6)
The
failure
of
Greenlee
to
adhere
to
any
of
the
conditions
of
this
order
shall
be
grounds
for
revocation
of
the
variance.
I,
Regina
E.
Ryan,
Clerk
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board,
certify
that
the
Board
adopted
the
above
opinion
and
order
this
17th
day
of
March,
1971.
~:
(
.
1—313