ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
27, 1974
DEERE AND COMPANY,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 74—119
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss):
Deere and Company requests variance for a period of one year
from Rules 103
(permits),
104
(compliance programs)
and 203(a)
(particulate emissions)
of the Illinois Air Pollution Control
Regulations
for operation of its malleable iron foundry at
Hoopeston,
Illinois.
The facility in question is a 60 year old
foundry which uses two air furnaces for melting.
In PCB 73-88
Petitioner was granted a variance until December 31, 1973 for the
purpose of modifying the two furnaces so as to achieve compliance
with the particulate regulations.
In that proceeding the Board
ordered that:
“a) Petitioner shall operate only one of the two
furnaces at a time;
b)
one furnace shall be converted to utilize
#2 fuel oil and be equipped with an afterburner by September 15,
1973;
c) a stack test shall be conducted on the converted furnace
by September 30,
1973;
d)
if
the stack test proves compliance
with Rule 203(a)
Petitioner shall convert the second furnace to
oil firing by December 31,
1973.
If
the stack test fails to
prove compliance Petitioner shall apply for a variance indicating
what control methods will be used and the time schedule for
bringing the air furnaces into compliance”.
Petitioner converted one furnace to oil
and
then performed
two stack tests on the furnace during the same batch cycle.
The
tests showed emission rates of 4.69 lbs./hr. and 1.59 lbs./hr.
Deere submitted the stack test results to the Agency, believing
they would be averaged to show emissions of 3.14 lbs./hr.,
comfortably under the allowable emission rate of
3.7 lbs./hr.
Conversion of the second furnace was then scheduled so as to be
completed by December 31,
1973.
The Agency denied an operating permit for the first converted
furnace on the gráund that the first test
(4.69
lbs./hr.)
failed
12
—637
—2—
to demonstrate compliance with the Regulations.
Deere resub-
mitted its application for permit in February 1974 arguing that
the Agency had made an error in calculating the allowable
emission rate.
The operating permit was again denied and this
variance proceeding
followed.
The Agency asserts
that the issues raised in this variance
proceeding can only be adjudicated in an appeal from permit
denial “if at all”.
For the purpose of deciding this variance
case,
the Agency states,
“the Board must accept the Agency’s
interpretation regarding the stack tests and the computation
of the applicable emission rate”.
We do not accept the Agency’s limited view of our function..
Petitioner has raised two important issues in conformance with
Rule 401(a) (v) of the Procedural Rules.
We shall decide those
issues.
A determination of the allowable emission rate and the
actual rate of emission is
a basic part of a variance proceeding,
as it is
a permit proceeding.
In filing a petition for variance,
rather than an appeal from permit denial, Deere states that
regardless
of its dispute with the Agency over the averaging of
stack tests and determining the cycle
time of the process,
the
matters
“can be resolved more expeditiously by further control
efforts than by litigating the permit denial”.
Operation of an air furnace on a batch cycle requires that
the furnace be charged with raw materials which are melted,
adjusted for metallurgical content and then discharged from the
furnace.
The Agency contends and the stack tests clearly show
that particulate emissions from the batch cycle are heaviest
during the earlier stages of the melt cycl~. For this reason
the Agency proposes that Petitioner be required to conduct one
test run of the stack test during “the first hour of the cycle,
excluding any warm up period during which no metal is in the
furnace”.
On the record provided,
the Board finds
that stack tests
conducted at different stages of
a cyclical process, where emission
rates are known to differ during the process,
cannot be averagect hi
determining whether compliance has been achieved with applicable
regulations.
If results of one test exceed the applicable emission
rate standard then the cyclical process
is being operated in violation
of that standard regardless of what the other tes~smay show.
Where
such excessive emissions occur during a process start—up, the start—up
emissions may be permitted under the provisions of Rule 105 of the
Regulations.
The Agency,
in its Response to Board Request for Supplemental
Information,
states that the parties are in agreement on the
—3—
following facts:
a)
the charge rate is 64,000
lbs. per cycle;
b)
the melt cycle time of
16 hours yields
a process weight rate
of 4,000 lbs,/hr.;
c)
the allowable particulate emission rate
is 3.7 lbs./hr.
These figures and rates are in substantial
agreement with the information provided by Deere in its Comment
filed June
7,
1974.
It appears, therefore,
that
the
dispute
over the method of computing the allowable emission rate can
be resolved, and the rate of 3.7 lbs./hr.
coincides with our
findings
in
PCB
73-88.
Because of the delay in bringing the first furnace into
compliance, conversion of the second furnace to oil firing has
not occurred. Petitioner ceased operating the second furnace on
coal and this forced the converted furnace to be in constant
operation.
This has taken its toll on the converted furnace
and Petitioner must either proceed with conversion of the second
furnace or periodically shut down the converted furnace for
repairs.
Petitioner contends that the degree of particulate
control demonstrated
in the first furnace should be convincing
enough to justify conversion of the second furnace pending
experimental modifications on the firstS furnace.
Experimental modifications contemplated by Deere to further
reduce its emissions include the placing of an inverted brick
bung behind the choke bung and a wall of brick on the stack
floor at one end of the arch area.
It is believed that some
variation in arrangement of these baffles will cause particle
impingement to the degree necessary to reduce emissions by an
additional
20,
the reduction required to achieve compliance.
Cost of the entire experimental project is not expected to
exceed $10,000.
The Agency believes that the untested control
scheme might work,
in view of the small degree of control
required to achieve compliance, and would effect a substantial
economic savings to Deere.
Petitioner
requests
that
it
be
permitted
to
convert
the
second
air
furnace
to
#2
fuel
oil,
install
an
afterburner
and
then
operate
the
second
converted
furnace
for
“one
week
periods
only when the first air furnace is undergoing
repairs
and
maintenance
or
when
the
baffles
are
being
installed
or
modified”.
All
equipment
and
parts
are
on
site and conversion
of the second
furnace
will
be
completed
within
one
month after receipt of our
Order
allowing
the
conversion.
Petitioner
has
argued
convincingly
that considerable heat loss would occur if
#2 furnace were
operated for less than a full week at a time.
The Agency no
longer objects to the company’s proposed schedule for operating
the furnaces.
The EPA recommends
that Deere be required to submit a new
variance
petition,
including
a
compliance
plan
and
project
—
639
—4—
completion
schedule,
in the event new stack tests
fail to
prove compliance.
The Agency says such compliance plan should
specify control equipment which “has a generally accepted per-
centage of efficiency, and which is acceptable to the Agency”.
Deere argues that this condition might jeopardize the Company’s
“rights and remedies”,
such as appeal of any permit denial, a
variance petition for different relief,
or
a shut down of the
facility.
However,
the Agency contends that such condition is the
essence of Part
6 of our prior Order.
In addition the Agency
points out that Petitioner
is requesting a license to pollute
while conducting experimental tests and therefore it
is not
unreasonable
to require Petitioner to go to proven technology
if
the experiments fail.
Finally, the Agency takes the position
that the condition would not prevent Petitioner
from seeking
other remedies available under the Act.
We concur with the
Agency’s view on this matter.
The final dispute is over length of variance.
Petitioner
seeks
a December 31, 1974 expiration date, contending that its
stack testing firm currently has a sixty day backlog and cannot
possibly
perform
the
required
stack
test
before
August
1,
1974.
The
Agency,
on
the
other
hand,
recommends
a
four
month
variance.
The
issue
does
not
relate
to
actual
construction
or
arrangement
of
the
baffles
but
to
the
availability
of
a
test
firm
for
testing
of
emissions
for
each
baffle
configuration.
Petitioner claims
that “at most,
two or three modifications could be achieved and
tested
within
four
months”.
Th~Agency
presently
has
a
list
of
37 approved independent testing firms qualified to conduct stack
tests and seeks
to have Petitioner schedule at least one test
prior to July
7,
1974.
The plant will shut down for 20 day
vacation on that date.
We cannot require that a stack test be conducted prior to
July 7, because Petitioner would have only
a few days to make
the necessary arrangements after receipt of our Order in this
case.
However, we suggest that Deere contact other stack testers
if that becomes necessary to avoid delay in the program.
Deere and Company has satisfactorily shown its need for
variance from Rule 203(a)
and we shall grant the variance until
December 31,
1974.
We think the longer period will be needed in
order to modify the second furnace following the various experi-
ments.
With the grant of variance from 203(a)
the Agency may now
address the application for permit on the two furnaces.
We
will grant variance from Rules 103 and 104 for the baffle system
in order to avoid
a continuous shuffling of permit papers during
the experimental period.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
12—640
—5-.
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Deere
and Company be granted variance from Rule 203(a) of the Air
Pollution Control Regulations until December 31, 1974 for the
operation of two air furnaces
at its Hoppeston foundry and from
Rules 103 and 104 of the Air Pollution Control Regulations until
December 31,
1974 for the purpose of installing and testing
furnace baffles designed to bring compliance with Rule 203 (a)
The variance is subject to the following. conditions:
1.
Petitioner shall convert the second air furnace to
#2 fuel oil and install an afterburner on it within
45 days after receipt of this Order.
2.
Petitioner shall, after converting the second furnace,
operate said furnace for periods not in excess of one
week, but only when the first furnace
is down for
maintenance or repair or baffle modification.
3.
Petitioner shall make every reasonable effort to
avoid delay in its stack testing program and shall
make use of the list of stack testing firms described
in these proceedings if it becomes necessary to avoid
delay in the program.
4.
Petitioner shall notify the Agency in advance of stack
tests and allow Agency personnel to observe such tests
if they so desire.
As far as possible the testing
shall be conducted during the same period of the batch
cycle as those tests conducted on September
25,
1973.
5.
On or before October
31, 1974 ~Petitioner shall submit
to
the Agency a report on the stack test results.
If
the stack test proves that the first furnace has been
brought into compliance with Rule 203(a),
Petitioner
shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits for
the baffle system and
immediately thereafter
install
the baffle system on the second air furnace.
All
details of the successful baffle system shall be
supplied to the Agency when Petitioner makes application
for the permits.
6.
If the stack test fails to prove compliance with Rule
203 (a), Petitioner shall apply for such additional
variance or may be needed beyond December 31,
1974 and
shall indicate what control methods will be used and
the time schedule for bringing the air furnaces into
compliance.
—
641
—6—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certif
the above Opinion and Order
j.~as adopted
this
~74’~
day of
________,
1974 by a vote of
‘5
to
p
~JJL~