ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

August

5,

1971

Environmental Protection Agency)

v.

)

PCB

7l~86

State Line Foundries,

Inc.

David

C.

Landgraf, Attorney for Environmental Protection Agency

Eugene Brassfield, Attorney

for State Line Foundries,

Inc.

Opinion of the Board

(by Mr. Kissel):

On April 23,

1971 the Environmental Protection Agency

(the “Agency”)

filed

a complaint with

the Board against

State Line Foundries,

Inc.

(“State Line”)

in

which

it alleged

that State Line was operating

a job shop gray iron foundry

two miles north of Roscoe, Illinois, since July,

1969

in

violation

of

the Environmental Protection Act

(Section 1003 (b)),

the Air Pollution Control Act

(Sections 24O~2(a), 24O~2(c),

arid 24O~3) and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control

of Air Pollution

(Rule 3~3~000,3~3~llland Table

I of Chapter

III),

The Agency asked that

a cease and desist order be

enter.ed against State Line, thit State Line be required to

make application

for

a permit with the Agency,

that State

Line be closed if the permit was

not granted,

and that penal~

ties be assessed against State Line

for the above described

violations.

On May

4,

1971 State Line filed

a petition for

variance with

the Board in which State Line asked

for

a period

of time up to and until December

31,

1971,

in order to install

a new electric induction furnace during which time

it would

continue to violate the applicable standards~

This petition

for variance was consolidated with

the complaint filed by

the

Agency

On May

25,

1971 State Line applied for

a permit from the

Agency to construct and install the electric induction furnaceS

2

191

---

The permit was issued on June

14,

1971 which contained,

inter alia,

the following condition:

“Condition

(8):

That only pig

iron and clean

casting returns are charged to the furnace.

No contaminated scrap or the addition of magne~

sium for manufacturing ductile iron should be

charged

to

the

furnace.”

On

June

24,

1971

State

Line

filed

a

petition

contesting

“Condition

(8)”.

This

petition

was

consolidated

with

the

other

actions.

on

the

grounds

that

an

electric

induc~

tiori furnace was capable of

manufacturing

ductile

iron and capable of charging

clean

scrap

iron

without

violating

the

Act

of

the Rules and Regu~

lations

On June 10,

1971

a prehearing conference was held before

Clyde

0.

Bowles,

Jr., hearing officer.

As

a result of that

discussion

and others the parties have proposed

a settlement

agreement to the Board.

The document was

filed on July 20,

1971

and it details

the past history of operation

by

State

Line

and recommends granting of the variance to State Line

and recommends

an amendment

to Condition

(8) of the permit.

There

is, however,

a difference of opinion between the par~

ties

as

to whether a penalty should be assessed against State

Line.

The matter of the assessment

of penalties

is left to

the Board.

Each party submitted

a written position on that

matter.

State Line operates

a gray iron foundry near Roscoe,

tllinois,

It began operation in May of 1968

and now has

16

to 17 full time employees.

The foundry is located in

an

open area with only three residences located within one half

mile of the plant.

In the foundry there

is

a 42” cupola

lined down to

30”.

The cupola is operated on the average of

one hour per day with

a charge rate

of

three~ton/hourwith~

out any

air pollution control equipment whatsoever.

The

particulate emissions from a gray iron cupola of this capac~

ity are 43,35 pounds/hour and about 344.25 pounds/hour of

carbon monoxide

gas.

From the stipulation which was signed

by both parties,

it appears that the other areas

of the plant,

i.e.,

shake

out area, grinding operations, etc.,

are

suffi~

ciently controlled

so

as not to violate an~existing rules

and

regulations.

The~principalproblem is the cupola.

2

192

---

Before discussing the matter of penalties,

the Board

must first decide whether to accept the settlement proposed

by the parties.

Essentially,

if the settlement

is accepted,

State Line will be allowed to operate,

as it has

in

the past

few years, without any control devices on its cupola.

This

will mean that excessive particulate emissions will continue

for this period, until December 31,

1971, when

the installa-

tion of the new electric induction furnace will be con~plete.

In matters such

as these

—

variance cases

—

the Board can

grant variances if compliance with

the

law will impose

an

“arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.”

We have said on many

occasions that in determining whether such

a hardship is

imposed the Board

will

employ

a balancing process, that is,

the

harm done

to

the

community

if

the variance is granted

versus

the

loss

to the community

and the petitioner

if

the

variance

is not granted,

We weigh

the test strongly in

favor of

the community

at

large.

In

this particular case

there will be

a significant

loss to State

Line if the

variance

is

not

granted; that is, although

the settlement

agreement does not specifically

say it,

State Line will be

close

to bankruptcy.

In addition, there will

be

a financial

loss

to the community which

is outlined

in Exhibit A which

was attached to

a “Statement of Fact” filed by State Line.

The estimated financial loss

to the community

would

be

about

$341,000.

While all of the money detailed in that Exhibit

would

not

really

be

lost

(for example, real estate taxes

taxes

on

the

land

would

still

be

paid,

or

the

property

would

be

taken

over)

still

a

significant

financial

loss

would

occur

if

State

Line

were

to

shut

down.

Even

though

there

would

be

such

a

financial

loss,

we

feel

that

this

case

would

be

one

in which we would deny

the variance

and

enter

a cease

and desist order against State Line except for the fact that

the operation of the State Line Foundry has not produced any

noticeable effect on the neighbors.

Here

is

a case where

State Line completely disregarded state regulations in that

it

did

not

file

a letter

of

intent and

it did not

file

for

a permit.

State Line tells the Board that

this

was because

it did not know that the regulations existed, but even State

Line

admits that “ignorance of the law is no defense.”

This

inaction by State Line would,

therefore, be enough for us

to

close them down, except it is

apparerit from the record that

the neighbors have no objection to

the

granting of the vari-

ance for these next

few months until State Line can put in the

control equipment.

We therefore feel that the variance should be granted.

2—193

---

The inaction of State Line

in failing to follow the

basic fundamentals of

the

State law on air pollution cannot

go unnoticed.

For if we allowed State Line to walk away from

this case without a penalty being imposed, it could seriously

impair the credibility of the entire pollution control pro-

gram in Illinois.

It would indeed,

in effect, be penalizing

those who did comply with the law

and

filed applications for

permits, thereby having to put control on their equipment

at a

much

earlier date.

If those

who

don’t obey the law are

not penalized,

those who do obey it have a right to ask why

not.

State Line’s failures in this case are indeed serious

ones and, therefore, this Board shall assess a penalty of

$7,500 for State Line’s failure to file for a permit

and

for

its admitted emission, since May of 1968, of substantially

more particulates than are allowed under the regulations.

Indeed,

the penalty would be much greater in amount

if

State

Line were not so heavily committed financially now.

This opinion shall constitute the findings of fact and

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record and the stipulation

signed by both parties on July

9,

1971,

the following order:

1.

The Board hereby approves the compliance

schedule agreed to by

both

parties

as

set

forth

in

the

docu-

ment

entitled “Stipulation to Resolve All Matters, with Ex-

ception of Issue of Penalty, Pertaining

to the ~bove Consoli-

dated Matters”, dated July

9, 1971, which document is incor-

porated into the order herein.

Based upon the compliance

schedule outlined in that document,

State Line will install

by December 31, 1971

an electric induction furnace

in place

of the present furnace.

Until December 31,

1971, State Line

will be allowed to continue to operate its business in a

normal and customary manner, but shall not be allowed to in-

crease the amount of production over and above what was

normal and customary before this settlement and compliance

schedule were approved.

In addition, State Line shall apply

for

art

operating permit for the new furnace, and shall not

use the old furnace after December 31,

1971.

2.

As set forth in the herein above referred to

document, Condition

(8) of

the

issued permit for the installa-

tion of the electric induction furnace shall be modified as

provided in the document.

2

—

194

---

3.

State Line shall permit the Agency, or its duly

constituted agents or representatives, the right to enter

upon its premises at reasonable times during business hours

to inspect the facilities owned by,

or under the control of,

State Line for the purpose of determining whether State Line

is complying with the applicable statutory and regulatory

standards.

4.

State Line shall pay a penalty in the amount of

$7,500 for violation of the Acts and the Rules and Regulations

promulgated thereunder, as described in the document herein-

before referred to, and in this opinion.

5.

State Line shall post with the Environmental

Protection Agency on or before August 15,

1971,

a personal

bond in the amount of $50,000, which sum shall be forfeited

to the State of Illinois in the event that the State Line

plant is operated after December 31,

1971

in violation of

the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions relating

to the control of air pollution.

I, Regina E.

Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control

Board, certify that the Board

opted the above opinion

and order this

4&

day of

____________,

1971.

2

—