ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 10,

1983

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

ROWE FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY,

)

PCB 80-174

Respondent.

and

ROWE FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY,

)

PCB 81-49

)

Petitioner,

)

CONSOLIDATED

v.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

Respondent.

WAYNE

L. WIEMERSLAGE, TECHNICAL ADVISOR, AND VINCENT W.

MORETH,

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

RICHARD

3. KISSEL, MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTER & SONNENSCHEIN,

APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF ROWE FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by I.

G,

Goodrnan)

On September 29, 1980 the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (Agency) filed a Complaint docketed as PCB 80—174 against

Rowe Foundry and Machine Company

(Rowe) alleging certain viola-

tions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act)

and

Chapter

2:

Air Pollution Rules and Regulations

(Rules).

On

April

2, 1981 Rowe filed a Petition for Variance docketed as

PCB 81-49 requesting relief from the Rules until such time as

the Board determined Rowe~sproposed site—specific regulation

docketed as R81—l5,

On September

15,

1982 the Board dismissed

R81—l5.

Hearing having been held in both PCB 80—174 and PCB

81—49 on December 13,

1982, the parties herein now petition the

Board to consolidate the two dockets

for purpose of decision.

That motion is hereby granted.

The Board has received no public

comment other

than

that

received as

testimony at hearing

in this

matter.

5

1-89

---

2

and o ~op

actiO

C

enfr’

I

proced

i

note

r

variarcc

Board

s’

Facts a

J

as

to

‘~

The

Rowe

)q

yule

I

cast

~iiJ~n

and is

Quali~y

been de~

issue

pi

monox)

d~

As

is L~p

on

an

I

I

than

ore

porates

attached

locatior

temperatu

of

carbon

emisicTn~

nois

Air

Agency

i~

On

occ~s

of the

the

scru’

of

scrap

i

scrubbe~

the

offend

The

orly

the

furr

Li

presented

a

Stipulation,

Statement

of

Facts

1~r

~it

Agreement

which

purports

to

settle

botl

3

~h

a

settlement

agreement

is proper

in

an

suant

to

Section

103,180

of

the

Board

s

Board,

however, has stated that it doc~

1

settlement agreement with respect to a

For purposes of the variance petition, the

L c

~o

~onstrue the Stipulation, Statement

of

0)

1

~c tiement Agreement as merely an agreement

‘~

e

case.

i

recites the facts of this ease as follows.

~

a gray-~~ironfoundry located in Martins~

is

it

i

uroduces

counterweight castings formed

in

ic

tty

has been in existence for over 65 years

~

e

largest

single

private employer.

Air

I

~

~i

66,

in which the facility is located, has

n

lassified

for carbon monoxide,

The

common

d

ooth

of

the cases is the level of carbon

0)

r~

ii

the

facility~s

cupola melting operation.

f

a

s

all

foundry operation, the cupola operates

t

e

~asis,

the

total

operating time being less

r

o~

LC

foundry operating time,

The cupola incor—

bbr;~to

Iontrol particulate emissions which

is

poia immediately above the melting zone.

The

he exhaust duct apparently causes a reduction of the

~ the stack gases below that required for oxidation

roxidu

Ttere were no regulations

for carbon monoxide

e t~iethe equipment was initially installed.

U

peraiing permit was received from the Illi—

itic,~ uortrol

Board in 1969.

Subsequently

the

C

a

L

e

year

operating

permit for the cupola in

1973.

o’,e

tas

experienced

blockages in the charging area

~.

t

arge

pieces of scrap metal lodging above

ciha

s~.ducts

and blocking the continuous feed down

a~ U

toe

irelting

zone,

Rowe would then turn off

the

llow ~te

direct

heat from the melting zone to melt

pie e of iron and allow the operation to continue.

rat~vewould be to terminate the operation, cool

I ph ~cally

remove the scrap iron block,

Ir

J

191

Role

tested the cupola stack in anticipation

of

appi

a

~orpe~ir

renewal.

The results of that test

indi-

cated

thU

~ar~r~

o~.ide

levels

were

greater than allowed

by

Rule 2~6

c

~oer

c~irected

to

50

excess

air.

Subsequently,

in

SepterCbe~

tU /gency denied the

renewal

application

stating

that

no pEriu~cay be granted due

to

the

violation

of Rule 206(e),

In

1980

ER

c addea approximately

eight

feet to the height

of the

stack to

rurove erission

dispersion

upon

the

advice

of

an

engi-

neer

a~ t

U

S

Invironmental

Protection

Agency.

51-90

---

3

The Complaint in PCB 80—174 in Count

I alleges violation of

Section 9(a)

of the Act and Rule 102 of the Regulations

in that

the cupola discharges contaminants that tend to cause air pollution.

The Agency has moved for voluntary dismissal of this count after

review of the available evidence.

That motion is hereby granted.

Counts

II, III and IV of the Complaint allege violation of Sections

9(a) and

9(b)

of the Act and Rules

103(b)(2),

105(a)

and 206(e)

of the Regulations in that Rowe operated the cupola without an

operating permit, without a permit to operate during malfunction

or breakdown, and in violation of the Board’s carbon monoxide

standards.

In the Stipulation Rowe admits the allegations of

Counts

II, III and IV of the Agency’s Complaint and agrees to

pay a penalty of $1,000.00.

In June,

1981 an engineering firm

under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tested

the carbon monoxide emissions from Rowe.

The Agency used these

data to model the ambient air quality in the area

(Exhibit B).

This analysis showed no violations of the 1-hour Ambient Air

Quality Standard or the 8—hour Ambient Air Quality Standard,

using worst-case conditions.

Further analysis by the Agency,

using a more realistic average emission rate and average stack

exit velocity, indicated a maximum concentration of 5.5 ppm, well

below the carbon monoxide air quality standard of

9 ppm

(Exhibit

B).

In May,

1982 the Economic Technical Advisory Committee of the

Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources (ETAC)

issued

a report with regard to the proposed site—specific regulation.

The ETAC Opinion supported the Agency’s finding with respect to

air quality standards for carbon monoxide.

It thus appears that

Rowe’s carbon monoxide emissions have caused little or no adverse

environmental effects.

Considering these

facts and the fact that Rowe has apparently

corrected the blockage problem by charging smaller pieces of scrap

iron, the Board

finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement

is

an adequate resolution of the enforcement case in PCB 80—174 and

will accept the Settlement Agreement as proposed by the parties.

With respect to the Variance Petition in PCB 81—49,

the

following additional facts were presented.

Rowe has investigated

a catalytic incinerator to oxidize the excess carbon monoxide

emissions.

The physical bulk of this incinerator makes its

installation infeasible and it would require an expenditure of

approximately $163,000.

Another alternative investigated

is an

afterburner system at a cost of approximately $60,000 to $75,000

excluding installation costs.

Notwithstanding the cost of the

installation and its operation,

the incinerator would require

gas

in excess of that allocated to Martinsville by the trans-

mission company servicing that town.

Rowe has been informed by

the Martinsville Gas engineer that the city could not guarantee

the additional

fuel.

The third alternative involves the instal-

lation of an entirely new melting and control facility.

The cost

of this facility in 1980 was estimated to be approximately

$200,000 not including installation and engineering.

Rowe esti—

51-91

---

4

system would be between $300,000 and $400,000.

Rowe estimates

that approximately 500 heats or melting periods remain in the

life of the existing cupola.

Under normal conditions, Rowe would

operate approximately 100 heats each year and,

therefore, approxi-

mately five years would remain in the present cupola’s useful

life.

Under adverse economic conditions, of course,

that five—

year useful life would be extended.

In the Stipulation of Facts,

as so construed by the Board,

Rowe proposes a variance for five

years or 500 heats, whichever first occurs, provided that Rowe’s

emissions do not violate the Ambient Air Quality Standards for

carbon monoxide.

Rowe proposes to report quarterly to the Agency

concerning the cupola usage and shall commence construction of a

new cupola incorporating carbon monoxide control equipment immed-

iately following the 475th heat.

In addition,

Rowe proposes to

follow a housekeeping and maintenance plan,

that has already been

implemented,

to reduce sand and dust on the foundry premises

(Exhibit D).

The Stipulation further provides that the Agency will support

a renewal of the variance

for

up to five years should Rowe not

expend the useful life of the cupola within the proposed five—year

variance.

The Board reiterates that

it is utilizing the proposed

Stipulation and Settlement Agreement as a Stipulation of Facts in

the variance proceeding PCB 81-49.

Whatever the Agency may or may

not agree to do with respect to the future of this cupola is of no

consequence to the Board in this decision or in any future decision.

Any extension of this variance,

if granted, would stand on its

merits at the time of the petition.

The Board agrees that under the circumstances

in this case

it would be an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship to compel Rowe

to comply immediately with Rule 206(e),

The facts indicate that

immediate compliance would cause an interruption in the plant’s

activity at a time of high unemployment in the State and/or the

excessive use of a limited natural resource with the use of an

afterburner.

Balanced against that hardship is the de minimus

potential damage to the environment from Rowe’s emissions of

carbon monoxide.

The Board in the past has considered shut down

of equipment as a suitable compliance plan in the grant of a

variance.

International Harvester

Company

v,

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

23 PCB 441,

PCB 75—271

(September

15, 1976).

The Board will grant the variance requested and order

Rowe to

execute its proposed compliance plan.

Rowe has filed a Motion to Amend its Petition for Variance

according to the provisions of the Stipulation of Facts.

That

motion is hereby granted.

The Agency proposes to submit the

variance,

if granted,

as

a revision to the Illinois State Im-

plementation Plan

(SIP) pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

In addi-

tion Rowe agrees to submit to the Agency an application for

operating permit of the cupola system including provisions

for

malfunction operation.

51-92

---

5

One citizen testified at hearing concerning the

emissions

from

the cupola

and

its

effect

on

his well being.

It

appears from

the

record and the

testimony

that

the

proposed

compliance

plan

and

the

corrective

measures

already taken by

Rowe

will

result

in

the

alleviation of his

problems.

This

Opinion constitutes

the

findings of

fact

and

conclu-

sions

of

law

of

the

Board

in

this

matter,

ORDER

1.

Joint Motion for Consolidation of PCB 80—174 and PCB 81—49

i~

hereby

granted.

2.

Rowe

Foundry and

Machine

Company is

found in violation of

Sections

9(a) and

9(b) of the Illinois

Environmental Pro-

tection

Act

and Rules l03(b)(2),

105(a)

and 206(e)

of

Chapter

2:

Air

Pollution,

3.

Rowe

Foundry and Machine Company shall

pay, within 45 days

of the date

of this Order,

a penalty in

the amount of

$1,000.00

for

the

violations

found

in paragraph

1 above,

said

payment

to be made by certified

check or money order

which is

to be sent to:

Illinois

Environmental Protection

Agency,

Fiscal

Services Division,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield,

Illinois 62706,

4.

Count

I

of

the Complaint in PCB

80—174 is hereby dismissed.

5.

Motion

of Rowe Foundry and Machine Company to amend its

Variance Petition in PCB 81-49

is hereby granted.

6.

Rowe

Foundry and Machine Company is hereby granted variance

from Rule 206(e)

of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution for its cupola

facility located in Martinsville, Illinois under the follow-

ing conditions:

a.

Variance is granted until February 1,

1988 or until

the

facility has completed

500 melting cycles or heats,

whichever

first occurs.

b.

Rowe

Foundry and Machine Company

shall execute the Com-

pliance Plan contained in the Stipulation, Settlement of

Facts

and

proposed Settlement

Agreement

filed

December

14,

1982, which document is hereby

incorporated by reference

as

if fully set forth herein.

c.

Rowe Foundry and Machine Company shall execute the

housekeeping and maintenance plan described in Exhibit

D of the document noted in paragraph b.

above.

51-93

---

d.

The carbon

monoxide emissions

from the cupola shall not

violate the

Ambient Air Quality

Standards for carbon

monoxide

contained in Rule 310:

Carbon Monoxide,

Chapter 2:

Air Pollution,

e.

The cupola

operation shall not

permit a level of carbon

monoxide to

exceed 75,591 ppm

corrected to 50

excess

air and

shall not exceed

a

production rate of

14 tons

of iron poured

per

hour.

f.

Rowe

Foundry and Machine Company shall

report quarterly

to the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency starting

April

1,

1983

concerning the

number of heats processed

in the prior

quarter.

7.

Within forty—five

days of the date

of this Order, Rowe Foundry

and Machine Company

shall execute and

forward to the Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road, Spring-

field, Illinois

62706,

a Certificate

of Acceptance and Agree-

ment to be bound

to all terms and

conditions of this Order.

This forty-five day

period shall

be held in abeyance for any

period this matter

is being appealed.

The form of the cer-

tificate shall be

as follows:

CERTIFICATE

I,

(We),

__________________

_________—

,

having read

the Order of the

Illinois

Pollution Control

Board in PCB 80—174

and PCB 81-49 Consolidated,

dated

_____

___

understand

and accept the said

conditions thereto binding and enforceable.

By:

Title

Date

51-94

---

7

IT IS

SO ORDERED.

Board

Member Werner concurred,

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby cçrtify th~tthe above Opinion

and Order

was adopt~4

on the ~

day of

~L~La~

,

1983

by

a

vote of

~O

.

L

Christan

L,

Moffet~K1Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

51-95