ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

4,

1975

DEERE AND COMPANY,

Petitioner,

)

 PCB 74—469

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr.

 Goodman):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

 on Deere and Company~s (Deere)

 Petition for variance

from Rule 203(a)

 of the Air Pollution Control Regulations

(Regulations)

 for their Vermilion Foundry located at Hoopes-

ton, Vermilion County,

 Illinois.

Deere operates a malleable iron foundry utilizing two

air furnaces to produce hot metal.

 One heat per day

is

processed in a furnace, the furnaces operating on alternate

weeks.

 The furnaces are heate.d with number

 2 fuel oil with

an afterburner utilized the first four hours of the cycle

when the temperatures are insufficient to oxidize CO and

hydrocarbons.

 The two air furnaces,

 which are the subject

of this variance,

 have been the subject of two previous

variances, PCB 73-88 and PCB 74-119.

 During the time span

of the previous variances, Deere attempted to achieve com-

pliance by switching its fuel

 from coal to number

2

 fuel oil

and installing a baffle system on the air furnaces in an

 attempt to reduce emissions.

 Although the switch to

 fuel

oil proved to be successful

 in reducing emissions,

the

installation of baffles appeared to increase the emissions

from the furnaces.

 Deere now proposes to make further

studies concerning improvements

 to its basic firing process

and existing control hardware and the’feasibility of addi-

tional controls.

 Pursuant to this proposal,

 Deere has

retained a firm of consultants,

A.

 T. Kearney

 Inc. of

Chicago, Illinois,

 and has conducted initial discussions

with its consultant

 in the matter.

There have been no’citizen complaints concerning the

Deere installation;

 in fact,

 included in the record is

a

petition

 in favor of the variance signed by over 3000 per-

Sons and some 350 letter~ from residents

 of Hoopeston sup-

porting the petition for4yariance.

 The petition is also

supported by numerous to~rjofficials,

 other industries

located

 in Hoopeston, and b~ithe local State Representative

and Senator.

18

—

436

—2—

The arbitrary and unreasonable hardship faced by Deere

in this case revolves around the Company’s use of air fur-

naces

 to produce the malleable iron used in their foundry.

Although used extensively to produce malleable iron in the

 past,

 an air furnace today is

 a relatively rare hot metal

producing piece of eouipment, and,

 as such, there

 is very

little abatement technology which can be directly applied to

the air furnace’s rather unusual operating characteristics.

The obvious abatement equipment choice for a melting furnace

is

 a cyclone or bag house type collecter utilizing air flow

from the furnace to carry the pollutants

 to the abatement

equipment.

 Unfortunately, the metallurgical control of an

air furnace is dependent upon control of the air flow within

the furnace, which makes a direct connection to the normal

furnace abatement equipment very difficult.

Considering the cost and the probable metallurgical

problems involved with development of conventional furnace

abatement equipment at Deere, the Board finds merit in

Petitioner’s proposal that they first investigate variations

in air flow rate, effectiveness of baffles relative to

positioning and size, changes in basic firing process,

and

modification of existing control hardware.

 In addition,

Petitioner agrees to have its consultant begin evaluation of

additional control devices immediately, working on this

approach along with modifications to Petitioner’s current

process.

Deere believes that this two pronged research and

development program has the best chance of producing an

environmentally and economically feasible means of com-

pliance.

 Deere also feels, however, that it must address

the alternatives it would face in the event that a feasible

means

 to comply with Rule 203(a)

 is not imminent or at least

discovered through this program, including proposing a

change in the regulations applicable to small air furnaces.

Deere’s proposed program includes making those expen-

ditures which are necessary for its consultant to perform

its investigation and furnishing full cooperation to its

consultant.

 Petitioner will contract with its consultant

for

 a bi—monthly progress report

 to be filed concurrently

with the Agency.

 Deere also proposes,

 in the event it has

not achieved compliance by the end of 1975,

 that

 it file for

additional variance relief including investigation of the

alternatives developed by its consultant.

18—437

—3—

The Agency, although recommending that variance be

granted,

 proposes

 a somewhat more structured compliance

schedule for the Deere facility.

 Included

 in the Agency’s

recommendation is a requirement for a final report from the

consultant and Deere to complete the program and develop the

alternatives available,

 including a proposal for a change in

the rules concerning small air furnaces.

 The Agency

 also

recommends

 that Deere make

 a commitment of $50,000 for the

consultant,

 and a performance bond to insure said commit-

ment.

 Also included in the Agency proposal

is

 a requirement

for the Petitioner to study alternative methods of melting

iron,

 a detailed analysis of both capital and operating cost

of such system or process, and a study of Deere’s ability to

use other castings or to obtain the castings from other

sources.

Following

 a Board Order of May 29,

 1975,

 requesting air

quality information pursuant

 to the United States Supreme

Court decision of April

16,

 1975, entitled Train v. NRDC et al

43 LW 4467, Deere,

 on July

11,

 1975,

 submitted its verified

response to the Interim Order.

 In this response, Deere

presented its showing as to whether the ambient air affected

by the variance meets the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards.

 Since there is no air quality monitoring data

for the Hoopeston area,

 Deere made various calculations

comparing Hoopeston with nearby cities

 (Bloomington and

Champaign)

 in Air Quality Region

 66 for which air quality

monitoring data

 is available.

 Deere utilized a novel

approach, using emission inventories of particulate sources

in the three

 cities, plotting the Hoopeston area projected

air quality in relation to that of Bloomington and Champaign.

 In addition, Deere modeled the four worst case situations to

check the interactive effect of the Hoopeston industries on

one another.

 These calculations were based upon Turner’s

model from his Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.

These worst case assumptions included modeling the four most

unfavorable wind directions with no plume rise,

 the assump-

tion that all industries discharged from one stack,

and

included the background concentration of

 35 micrograms/cubic

meter in all calculated concentrations.

 The result of the

study indicated that Hoopeston area had an annual geometric

mean for particulate matter of approximately

 48 micrograms/

cubic meter, well within the national ambient air quality

standard of 75 micrograms/cubic meter.

 The method used by

Deere,

 although somewhat crude,

 appears to be sufficient as

a Train showing in this case,

 especially considering the

lack of problems

 in air Quality Region

66.

Considering the record in this case and the two pro-

posals for coiripliance presented by Deere and the Agency,

the

Board finds that

 it would be an arbitrary and unreasonable

18~—438

—4—

hardship upon Deere

 if the variance were not granted.

The

evidence indicates that there exists,

 for Deere’s air fur-

 naces, no directly applicable technology for abatement and

that Petitioner’s program of investigation by the consultant

concerning their melting process, etc.,

 is reasonable in the

face of the expensive and questionable use of existing

furnace type abatement equipment.

 In addition the Board

finds that certain parts of the compliance plans of both

parties have merit,

 a combination of which programs enables

the Board to present a reasonable and yet effective com-

pliance plan for the Deere facility at Hoopeston.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

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 for their Vermilion

Foundry operation at Hoopeston, Illinois, from January

1,

1975,

until

December

31,

1975,

subject

the

following

conditions:

Deer

shall

retain

outside

consulting

firm

commence a research and development program for control of

Deere’s air furnaces on or before April

 15, 1975, to be

completed

before

November

15,

1975.

Furthermore,

said

program

shall

include

but

not

limited

the

following:

a.

 Analyzation

 of the furnace operation char-

acteristics including but not limited to:

 reasons for

variation in air flow, methods of operations,

 time

periods of melt cycles,

 effects of baffles and other

relevant factors;

and

b.

 Determination of whether the air furnace can

achieve compliance with Rule 203(a) without installa-

tion of control equipment; and

c.

 Development and analyzation of methods of

control of Petitioner’s air furnace which would achieve

compliance with Rule 203(a), said methods of control to

include but not be limited to:

 fabric filtration,

scrubbers, multi—clones,

 and precipitator and cyclone;

and

d.

 Analyzation of the technical feasibility of

induction melting and economic feasibility of other

melting methods and procedures;

and

18—439

—5—

e.

 Development of information both for capital

costs and for operations costs

 for the items set forth

in subparagraphs a,

b,

c,

 and d

 in this section.

2.

 On or before August

 15 and October 15,

 1975, Deere

shall submit to the Agency,

 to the Board,

 and to the City of

Hoopeston (Intervenor), interim progress reports detailing

the progress and conclusions,

 or lack thereof, of the re-

search and development program.

3.

 On or before December

1,

 1975, Deere shall submit

to the Agency,

 to the Board,

 and to the Intervenor,

 a final

report of the consulting firm.

4.

 On or before December

31,

 1975,

 Deere shall

 submit

a complete detailed report to the Agency,

 to the Board,

and

to the Intervenor,

 setting forth Petitioner’s decisions and

plans for the Hoopeston facility including its future opera-

tion of the facility, replacement of the malleable iron

castings by some other kind of casting or castings produced

at other facilities,,

 plans with regard to seeking further

variances or rule change for the facility, decisions with

regard to constructing or purchasing replacement facilities

and/or pollution control abatement equipment,

 etc.

5.

 Deere shall submit the following certification to

the Agency within

 30 days of the date of this order:

CERTIFICATION

I

 (we),

________________,

 having read and

fully

under-

standing the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

in PCB 74-469,

 hereby accept such order and agree to be

bound by all of the terms and conditions thereof.

Signed by__________________________

Title _______________________________

Date _________________________________

Mr. Henss took no part in the consideration of this case

and abstains

 from voting herein.

I, Christan

 L. Moffett,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

 hereby

 c rtify the above Op’nion and Order

were adopted on the

_________

 day of

 975 by a

Christan L. Moff tt,

k

Illinois Pollution

C

 ol Board

18—

440