ILLINO
IS
POLLUT :ON
CONTROL
BOARD
June
9~
1977
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB
76—263
SOUTH
SIDE
FOUNDRY
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
MR.
PATRICK
J.
CHESLEY.
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
DIVISION,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT;
MR.
RICHARD
J.
TROY,
OF
SNEIDER
&
TROY,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Dumelle)
On October 22,
1976
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed
a Complaint
against
South
Side
Foundry
(Foundry),
a
corporation
located
in
Peoria
County
held
by
two
family
members.
The
Complaint
charges
Respondent
with
operating
its
cupola
without
having
obtained
an
operating
permit
from
the
Agency
as
required
by
Rule
103(b)
(2)
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
Rules
and
Regulations,
Chapter
2:
Air
Pollution.
A
hearing was
held
February
8,
1977
at
Peoria
City
Hall.
At
the
hearing,
Respondent
reluctantly
admitted
being
in
tech-
nical
violation
of the Rule
(R.9).
Respondent
believed,
up
until
the
time
of
the
enforcement
aet:ion,
howevcr,
tflr~iti5
permit
appli-
cation
was
being
processed.
Securr:~
conimui~i
ua~ions
with
Agency
personnel
reinforced
this
belief.
Respondent
had applied for
a permit
in
October,
1972,
Notice
of the denial
was received in December of
1972.
The
basis
for
the
denial
was
the need for a variance
from
the Board.
On
January
19,
1973,
the Board
granted the Foundry a variance
(PCB
72—lOS)
.
It was
at this stage
that the Foundry thought its
permits application would
be
processed
since
it
then
met
all
the
substantive
requirements for
25
—
693
—2—
the Agency permit;
it did not realize, nor was
it subsequently
informed,
that it had to refile all of the information with the
Agency.
The Board agrees with the Agency that the polluter should bear
the responsibility for compliance with the pollution laws.
Based
on that reasoning and that Respondent has admitted it did not have
the required permit,
the Board finds South Side Foundry in violation
of Rule
103(b) (2)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution.
The Board does not
believe,
however,
that a penalty in this case would aid enforcement
of the Act.
Respondent believed it was doing all it could to comply
with the Regulation and the facts support that the belief was justi-
fied.
Between l~72and the time of the present enforcement action,
the
Foundry and Agency personnel communicated a number of times by letter,
by telephone, and via Agency visits.
As a result, Respondent testi-
fied, the Agency had been advised of the Foundry’s current status
(R.8).
Respondent notified the Agency that its permit application
was being processed by the Agency
(R.7,50), and that conversion to
oil
or
propane,
which
had
been
ordered
in
a
previous
enforcement
action, was not feasible due to lack of available space
for a tank
(R.8).
The Agency’s response was this enforcement action.
Consideration of the Act’s Section
33(c)
factors supports this
conclusion as well.
No members of the public reported any injury or
nuisance resulting from Respondent’s violation.
While the Foundry
has been in operation for
50 years,
the president claimed is
a small
operation, one that doesn’t even keep
logs of the cupola operation.
In 1972
family members contributed to the company to keep
it out of
bankruptcy.
The Foundry studied alternatives.
The cost of conversion
to electric furnaces would have been “a couple hundred thousand” back
in 1972
(R.3l).
The Combustor Equipment Company reported there was
no available space
to locate a gas tank.
While no evidence was
offered as to proximity to residential areas,
Respondent indicated it
is surrounded by a highway,
a railroad, Peoria Water Company and a
meat company.
Given
that
RespondenL
notified
the Agency of
its
activity,
that
the Foundry had complied with the substantive requirements for the
permit,
and that it had attempted to convert to a more efficient
system,
i.e. that no bad faith was shown,
the Board finds that a
penalty
is unwarranted.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of fact and conclu-
sion of law.
—
~i94
—3--
ORDER
1.
Respondent
South
Side
Foundry
is
hereby
found
to
have
violated Rule 103(b) (2)
of the Pollution Control Board Rules
and Regulations,
Chapter
2:
Air Pollution.
2.
Respondent
South Side Foundry shall submit to the Agency,
within
30 days of the date of this Order,
its permit appli-
cation in compliance with all the procedural
requirements of
the Agency.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify
the above Opinion and Order were adçpted on the
g-k
day
of
~.
,
1977 by a vote of
~
Christan
L.
Moff
jt~,~iClerk
Illinois Pollutithi~-~ontrolBoard
25
—
695