ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
10,
1975
FRANK
FOUNDRIES
CORPORATION,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 74—460
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by Mr.
Zeitlin)
The Petition for Variance filed by Frank Foundries Corporation
(FFC)
on December 10,
1974, sought relief
from the carbon monoxide
standards of Rule 206(e)
of the Air Pollution Regulations of the Pollution
Control Board
(Board) until March 31,
1975.
On January 22,
1975, Petitioner
filed an Amended Petition, also seeking relief from Rule 206(e),
but
until December 31,
1975.
Petitioner owns and operates a grey iron foundry in Moline, Illinois,
and produces approximately 600 tons per week of grey iron castings.
Petitioner’s facility is bounded on the north by the Mississippi River,
and the east,
south and west by industry and the downtown Noline business
district.
The nearest residential, area is approximately
½
mile south;
however, many people work within 250 feet of the.facility.
In addition,
the LeClare Hotel is located approximately 1/8 mile southwest
of the
facility, and has many permanent residents.
Petitioner has stated in both the original and amended petitions
that
it
is unable
to comply with the 200 ppm limits for CO under Rule
206(e).
The initial Variance Petition sought relief only for sufficient
time to conduct further stack tests, and to allow FPC sufficient time to
conduct an experiment regarding complete gas ignition
in the grey iron
cupolas,
employing a small torch mounted at
the level of
the charge
doors.
The Amended Petition herein notes
that this experiment was a
failure, and that further stack tests indicate continued violation of
the 200 ppm limit for CO.
Emissions now apparently vary from 80 to
800
ppm
of
CO.
In its amended petition,
Petitioner rules out the installation of a
gas—fired afterburner to control the emission source,
due
to
the unavailability
of natural
gas.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
in its
Recommendation filed March
7,
1975, believes that,
regarding the unavailability
of natural gas, there is an element of self—imposed hardship that could
have been avoided if Petitioner had acted
in
good
faith, and in a timely
manner.
Pursuant to Rule l03(b)(2)(A), Petitioner was to obtain an
operating permit for its emission sources by December
1,
1972.
Rule
103(b) (2) (B) mandates that Petitioner submit its permit application with
sufficient lead time for thorough Agency consideration.
16—375
—2—
Had Petitioner not been dilatory the emission problems from the cupolas
may have been recognized,
and an acceptable compliance program worked
out with the Agency, during a period when natural gas was still available.
Further, the Agency notes
that Petitioner did not consider any
other alternative control methods to achieve compliance in either its
original petition or the amendment thereto.
Such alternatives could
include a vibrating feeder with reduced charge door area,
an oil—fired
afterburner,
installation of an induction furnace,
or chemical removal
of
CO in the scrubber system.
Petitioner has not articulated
a control program which will achieve
compliance but rather asks for
a variance until December
31,
1975,
in
order
to “investigate other cupola operations to determine
if they
reached a solution which may be applicable
to Frank Foundries Corporation
operation.”
Therefore Petitioner,
by failing
to comply with the requirements
of Board Procedural Rule 401,
has failed to qualify for a variance.
Rule 401 requires any Petition for Variance to include
(vi)
a description of existing and proposed equipment for the
control of discharges;
(vii) a time schedule for bringing the activity into compliance;
(viii)
a detailed description of
the program to be undertaken to
achieve compliance,
including a time schedule of all phases involved
from initiation to completion and the estimated costs involved;
(ix)
an explanation of why Petitioner believes the program
proposed will achieve compliance.
In Mt. Cannel Public Utilities
v. Environmental Protection Agency,
the Board held:
“As a matter
of policy,
this Board does not favor the
granting of
any variances without some definite assurance
that the emissions will be controlled by available poll-
ution control devices as soon as possible.
Except for
cases of
‘no technology available’ this Board must require
that those who seek
‘a shield against enforcement cases’
(which is what a variance is) must have a definite program to
control the emissions with existing control technology.”
PCB 71—15,
1
PCB 463,
469
(1971):
See also, Union Oil Co.
v.
~
PCB 72—447,
10 PCB 217,
222
(1973).
The Board is of the opinion that
in the absence of a firm compliance
program or a demonstrated unavailability of control methods, Petitioner
has not alleged any arbitrary or unreasonable hardship as required for the
findings necessary in the matter
of variances.
No hearing was held in this matter.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of
fact and conclusions of
law of the Board
in this matter.
i~
_~7~
—3—
IT
IS THE ORDER OF THE Pollution Control Board that
a Petition for
Variance in this matter be dismissed without prejudice, for lack of
adequate information and for failure
to comply with the Board’s Procedural
Rules
as regards variances.
Mr. Henss abstains,
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board hereby certify that
t
e above Opinion and Order were adopted on
the
~~day
of ____________________________,
1975
by
a vote of 3to
Christan
L. Noffett(
‘
rk
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
16—377