ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 13,
1992
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF ELIZABETH STREET
)
FOUNDRY, FOR AN ADJUSTED
)
AS 91-5
STANDARD FROM 35
ILL. ADM.
)
(Adjusted Standard)
CODE 212.321
)
RICHARD J. TROY AND PETER J.
TROY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER.•
JANET A. MAGNUSON AND KATHLEEN C. BASSI APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by G.
T.
Girard):
On June 14,
1991,
Elizabeth Street Foundry (Elizabeth
Street)
filed a petition with the Board seeking an adjusted
standard pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
(the Act).
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111 1/2,
par.
1028.1.)
Elizabeth Street
is seeking an adjusted standard
from the Board’s regulations limiting particulate matter
emissions from New Process Sources, specifically from Section
212.321.
(35 Ill. Adm.
Code 212.)
This
is the second adjusted
standard sought by Elizabeth Street for this facility and the
facility is subject to an enforcement action before the Board.
(See Petition of Elizabeth Street Foundry AS 89-2; and IEPA v.
Elizabeth Street Foundry,
Inc. PCB 86—161.)
On July 17,
1991,. the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed its response to the petition recommending
that the Board deny the petition.
On May
1,
1992,
a hearing was
held in Chicago,
Illinois.
No members of the public were present
at that hearing.
BACKGROUND
As previously noted this is the second adjusted standard
sought for petitioner’s
facility.
On August
8,
1991, the
petitioner filed a motion to ‘incorporate the record of the
previous adjusted standard proceeding, AS 89-2,
into this record.
The Board grants that motion.
Elizabeth Street
is a small operation which has been facing
difficult financial times.
According to the Petitioner, the
foundry has been in Chicago at the same location for 100 years
and currently employs 25 or 26 persons who work an average of 25
0135-0391
2
to 30 hours a week.
(Tr. at 16.)’
The foundry produces a
specific product at the request of a particular customer who
furnishes the molding pattern and specifications of the type of
iron
(alloy contents etc.)
to be used.
At most the pouring
process occurs every other day.
(Tr.
at 15-16.)
The foundry has
stayed substantially the same since World War I except for an
office area which was
destroyed by fire in 1978.
(See Petition
of Elizabeth Street Foundry AS 89-2, January 24,
1991.)
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
Elizabeth Street proposed that the Board adopt the following
adjusted standard:
For iron foundries with a cupola process
weight less than or equal to 2.25 tons per
hour and which do not melt iron more than six
hours per day and not more frequently than
once every other day, and which are located
in an area where both the Total Suspended
Particulate and PM1O Particulate Fraction
Ambient Air Quality Standard is being met,
the maximum allowable emission rate is 11.5
pounds per hour.
DISCUSSION
Section 28.1 of the Act allows
,in pertinent part,
for an
adjusted standard from a rule of general applicability upon
adequate proof that:
1.
factors relating to that petitioner
are substantially and significantly
different from the factors relied
upon by the Board
in adopting the
general regulation applicable to
the petitioner;
2.
the existence of those factors
justifies an adjusted standard;
3.
the requested standard will not
result in environmental or health
effects substantially and
significantly more adverse than the
effects considered by the Board in
adopting the rule of general
applicability; and
1
The transc’~
.3t is cited as “Tr.
at
“,
the petition is
cited as “Pet.
at
~-,
the petitioner;’s response is cited as “Pet.
Res. at
“
and the Agency’s comment is cited as “Ag.
Com.
at
“.
0135-0392
3
4.
the adjusted standard is consistent
with any applicable federal law.
Elizabeth Street states:
“fat
the time the Board
promulgated Section 212.321 it considered that persons
constructing new process sources could avail themselves of the
latest technologies and incorporate such technologies in the
design of the facility.”
(Pet. at 2.)
Elizabeth Street then
points out that its facility is over 100 years old, and the
existing facility location and plant layout makes it physically
impossible to retrofit the cupola with emission control equipment
without undertaking major construction.
Elizabeth Street thus
maintains that “s)pace
and location constraints
.
.
.
are
factors substantially and significantly different from the
factors relied upon by the Board” when adopting Section 212.321.
(Pet.
at 3.)
Elizabeth Street has estimated that the cost of installing
emission control equipment at its facility would be in the range
of $300,000.
(Pet. at 12)
In this regard, Elizabeth Street has
stated that its earnings during the last taxable year was only
$8,863, and that the installation costs would be beyond its
resources.
Elizabeth Street has indicated that the only viable
alternative to complying with the regulations would be to dismiss
all the workers and close the plant
(Pet.
at 12).
Thus,
Elizabeth Street argues the existence of these factors justifies
the granting of an adjusted standard.
With regard to the final two factors, Elizabeth Street
argues that the foundry only emits particulate matter every other
day for a limited amount of time
(5—6 hours).
Therefore,
according to Elizabeth Street the actual emissions from the
source are significantly lower than the potential emissions from
the source if the plant
is operated round—the-clock in compliance
with the allowable emission rate.
(Pet.
at
6)
Further, Elizabeth
Street argues that data obtained from the Agency indicates that
TSP (total suspended solids)
averages decreased consistently at
the closest monitoring station every year since 1981 and that the
primary ambient concentrations have been below the primary
ambient air quality standard through 1989.
The average for PM1O
(particulate matter which measures less than 10 microns) have
also been significantly below the ambient air quality standard.
(Pet.
at 8.)
For these reasons Elizabeth Street maintains there
would be no negative impact if the adjusted standard were
granted.
(Pet.
at 8.)
The Agency in its response opposed the granting of the
adjusted standard and in fact filed a motion to ~ismiss this
proceeding on the basis that the adjusted standard would not be
acceptable under the federal Clean Air Act provisions and that
the adjusted standard would result in an increase in emissions.
The Board has previously denied that motion to dismiss.
4
(Elizabeth Street Foundry, AS 91—5, March 11, ~92.)
However,
at
hearing the Agency introduced testimony by Mr. Berkley Moore, an
Environmental Specialist with the Agency.
Mr. Moore testified as
to which issues the Agency believes should bear the most weight
in the Board’s consideration of Elizabeth Street’s request.
Mr.
Moore outlined four factors:
1.
Although Section 106.705(g) of the
Board’s regulations requires Petitioner
to adequately quantify the impact on the
environment if Petitioner were to comply
with the regulation of general
applicability as compared to complying
only with the proposed standard,
Petitioner, has not done this.
2.
Although the Board adopted regulations
on April
12,
1972 designed to require
all foundry cupolas to control
particulate matter emissions by December
31,
1973,
at the latest, Elizabeth
Street Foundry has never done so.
3.
The relatively small size and infrequent
operating schedule of Petitioner cupola
as compared to other cupolas in the
State result in relatively small
emissions as compared to those other
cupolas.
4.
Granting the petition will not result in
an increased likelihood of causing or
contributing to a violation of the
Ambient Air Quality Standard for
particulate matter because of the
proposal’s limitations on hours of
operation.
(Tr.
at 28-29.)
Mr. Moore testified that “(b)ecause the Agency believes that
the Board would wish to have an analysis of the quantitative
impact which Petitioner did not provide, the Agency has
undertaken a brief analysis of such impact”.
(Tr. at 30.)
Mr.
Scott Leopold, an Environmental Protection Specialist with the
Agency, performed the modeling analysis on the impact of a
relaxation of particulate emission limitations as proposed by
Elizabeth Street.
(Tr. at 20.)
Mr. Leopold testified that the
modeling analysis was designed to address two questions.
The
first is an assessment of the benefit that would be derived by
installing control equipment so that the source would be in
compliance with existing TSP limitations.
The second is to
determine the impact of the adjusted standard on~the PM1O air
quality on a 24-hour basis to determine whether or not the
adjusted standard would result in a degradation of PM1O air
quality.
(Tr. at 21.)
0135_Q39t~
5
Mr. Leopold stated that the modeling assessment indicates
that if control measures were instituted by Elizabeth Street, the
effect would be a 10 ug/m3 improvement in PM1O air quality.
(Tr.
at 24.)
Mr. Leopold further stated that the analysis
“demonstrates that the relaxation of the particulate limit in
conjunction with the limitation on operating hours will not
result in a SIP deficiency,
since the modeled air quality impacts
from the facility are not significantly higher”.
(Tr. at 26.)
Mr. Moore summarized the conclusions of the Agency regarding
the modeling by stating:
While it
is true petitioner’s proposed limit
on hours of operation will obviate an
otherwise increased likelihood of violating
the air quality standards,
it cannot be
denied that the proposed relaxation will
result in actual air quality that is
significantly worse than it would be were the
cupola to comply with Section 212.321.
(Tr.
at 32.)
Mr. Moore also addressed the remaining three factors in his
testimony.
He noted the small size of the cupola and stated
that:
It is,
in fact, so small that its
uncontrolled particulate emissions are less
than one sixth of those of the two cupolas in
one of the state’s larger foundry operations,
even those larger emissions are well
controlled.
(Tr. at 35.)
He further stated:
If the Board does not promulgate Petitioner’s
proposed regulation,
Elizabeth Street Foundry
would have to either install particulate
control equipment or close down.
In either
case,
a significant improvement in air
quality would result.
If, however, the Board
grants the regulatory relief, actual air
quality in an area that already meets the
PM1O air quality standards will not or could
not get worse.
In addition Elizabeth
Street’s emission
sic
are truly much
smaller than those of most foundries.
(Tr.
at 36—37.)
Elizabeth Street stated
in its response to Agency final
comments that the Agency was correct in that it did not
0135-03.95
6
adequately quantify the impact of the proposed standard on the
environment.
(Pet. Res. at
1.)
However, Elizabeth Street
maintains that its failure to do so was a result of its financial
plight.
Elizabeth Street is willing to accept the Agency’s
analysis on the issue of the impact to the environment.
CONCLUSION
Section 28.1 of the Act allows for an adjusted standard from
a rule when certain conditions have been met upon adequate proof
by the petitioner.
Following a careful review of the record, the
Board will grant the requested adjusted standard.
The Board finds that the circumstances surrounding the
petitioner are substantially and significantly different from the
factors relied upon by the Board when adopting the general
standard.
Elizabeth Street is unique in its small size and also
in that the location of the foundry makes the use of certain
emission controls cost prohibitive.
In addition, the foundry has
a long history of financial plight and the cost of placing
emission control devices could cause the closing of the foundry.2
Further, the Board finds that these factors justify the granting
of an adjusted standard, when combined with the finding that the
requested standard will not result
in substantial environmental
or health effects.
Despite the Agency’s position that it does not support
granting the adjusted standard, the Agency points out that the
small size and infrequent operating schedule of the petitioner’s
cupola will result in relatively few emissions.
(Ag. Com. at
6.)
Further, although Elizabeth Street did not adequately
quantify the environmental impact that compliance with the
general standard would have,
the Agency offered for the Board’s
consideration a modeling analysis.
The analysis clearly
indicates that if the foundry met the standard of general
applicability there would be a corresponding improvement in air
quality.
However, that is true in every case where an adjusted
standard is sought for air.
More significantly the modeling
indicates that a granting of the adjusted standard will not
result in a worsening of the air quality.
(Tr. at 26).
Therefore,
the Board finds that the environmental and health
effects are not substantially or significantly more adverse than
the effects considered by the Board when adopting the general
standard.
Neither the petitioner nor the Agency has stated whether the
2
The Board notes that when granting permanent relief the
Board does not view the financial plight of a petitioner as
dispositive.
(See Elizabeth Street Foundry,
AS 89—2.)
OI35_Q3g~
7
adjusted standard is cons.istent with federal
law.
However, the
Agency has indicated that granting the adjusted standard will not
result in violation of the national ambient air quality
standards.
(Tr.
at 29).
Therefore,
after reviewing all of ‘the
factors, the Board will grant the requested adjusted standard.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
The Board hereby grants Elizabeth Street Foundry an adjusted
standard from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 212.321 with the following
conditions:
For iron foundries with a cupola process
weight less than or equal to 2.25 tons per
hour and which do not melt iron more than six
hours per day and not more frequently than
once every other day,
and which are located
in an area where both the Total Suspended
Particulate an ~Ml0 Particulate Fraction
Ambient Air Quality Standard is being met,
the maximum allowable emission rate is 11.5
pounds per hour.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Ill.Rev.Stat.
1991,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1041) provides for the
appeal of final orders, of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of
the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(But see also
35
Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for
Reconsideration, and Castenada v.
Illinois Human Rights
Commission
(1989),
132 Ill.2d 304,
547 N.E.2d 437).
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, do hereby cert~ythat the aboye opinion and order was
adopted on the
/3
~
day of
C4~_4t~~_~*
,
1992,
by a
vote of
“7—c
.
Dorothy M. ,~nn,Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
0135-0397