ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 19, 1974
WALWORTH COMPANY,
KEWANEE DIVISION,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 74—197
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF TUE BOARD (by Mr. Henss):
Walworth Company operates a conventional gray iron foundry
in Kewanee, Illinois known as its Kewanee Division. Two Whiting
#8 cupolas at this foundry are operated on alternate weekdays to
produce about 400 tons per week of gray and ductile iron castings.
Part of the weekly production is utilized in other manufacturing
operations within Walworth and the remainder is manufactured on
a job basis for other companies. Walworth employs 225 persons at~
its Kewanee Division.
In its Amended Petition, Walworth seeks variance from Rule
203(b) of the Air Pollution Control Regulations until August 15,
1975 in order to continue operating the two cupolas pending modi-
fications to existing air pollution control equipment and install-
ation of new control equipment.
Petitioner’s foundry is located approximately two blocks
from Kewanee’s main business district. A residential area is
located some 200 to 400 feet south and east of the foundry. An
industrial/commercial district extending into the main downtown
business district bounds the foundry on the north. The Kewanee
Division is housed in two large old buildings. Both cupolas,
sand handling equipment, and a molding operation are housed in the
building nearest the residential area.
The foundry operates approximately six hours per weekday with
one cupola operating and one shut down. As shown in the following
table, several sets of process weight rate figures have been
submitted by the parties:
14
—
697
—2—
Original
Amended
Agency Recom-
ITEM
Petition,lbs./hr. Petition,lbs./hr. mendation,lbs/hr
Coke
3,225
2,075
3,225
Scrap Iron
12,560
8,080
12,550
Scrap Steel
6,575
4,230
5,575
Malleable Pig Iron
3,590
2,310
3,990
Spiegeleisen
130
85
130
Limestone fluxes •and
other additions
1,120
720
1,120
TOTAL
27,200
17,500
26,590
In its application for construction permit, Walworth, as required,
used two sets of process weight rate figures. The indicated rates
were: 33,088 lbs./hr. maximum and 27,200 lbs/hr. average. Slightly
compounding the problem is Petitioner’s statement that it had sub-
mitted a process weight rate figure of 27,300 lbs./hr. on the con-
struction permit application form and that the Agency was aware of
this figure since it approved the construction permit (Walworth
Reply to Agency Recommendation, page 7).
Petitioner argues that its use of the 17,500 lbs./hr. figure
was an error committed during preparation of the Amended Petition.
Since both the original Petition and the permit application form
show a 27,200 lbs./hr. rate and Petitioner confirms that to be the
correct figure, the Board will consider that figure to be the
applicable process weight rate for the purpose of this proceeding.
Petitioner states that it initiated studies in 1967 to determine
methods of achieving compliance with the Air Pollution Control Act
of 1967. The Wisconsin Chemical and Testing Company was retained
by Petitioner to conduct stack emission studies. Three tests con-
ducted on Petitioner’s stack in April 1968 showed emission rates
ranging from 153 lbs. of dust/hr. to 248.4 lbs. of dust/hr. Process
weight rates on the three test runs varied from 9.55 tons/hr. to
13.6 tons/hr.
Upon comparing these emission rates to the then allowable rate,
Wisconsin Chemical reported to Petitioner that a dust collection
system having a minimum overall dust collection efficiency of 91.1
would be required to achieve compliance on the east cupola.
After receiving the Wisconsin Chemical report, Walworth signed
a contract with American Air Filter (AAF) in June 1968. Under terms
of this contract AAF was to design and fabricate a Venturi scrubber
warranted to have the capability of reducing Walworth’s particulate
emission rate to less than 21.6 lbs./hr. when the cupola was operated
at a melt rate of 12 tons/hr.
14—698
—3—
Installation of the AAF system began in June 1970 and was
completed in September 1970 at a cost to Walworth of over $150,000.
In November 1970, pursuant to requirements of the contract, AAF
initiated stack tests to determine if the equipment had been
properly installed and would allow Walworth to operate its cupolas
in compliance with the emission limitations. The stack test showed
that the system, as installed, had not brought Walworth’s emissions
into compliance.
AAF then initiated further studies to determine the reason
why the system had failed to achieve compliance. Modifications
made to the system during the period January to November 1971 were
followed by more testing but the results continued to show non-
compliance. In June 1972 changes in design and equipment, including
the addition of a 75 h.p. fan, were completed. AAF performed
additional stack testing on the modified system in September 1972
and submitted the results to Walworth.
Walworth reviewed these test results and rejected them because
of wide variations. Walworth’s opinion was that the results still
showed non-compliance with the Regulations and that AAF had not
complied with the provisions of its contract. Because of dis-
satisfaction with the AAF test, Walworth secured the services of
National Loss Control for further stack testing. National was to
determine the actual emission rate from the foundry and whether or
not this rate was in compliance.
Two series of tests were performed by National. Tests conducted
on November 7 and 17, 1972 showed that Walworth emitted an average
of 28.2 lbs./hr. on a time weighted basis at a melt rate of about
10.4 tons/hr. The allowable rate was 19.69 lbs./hr. The emissions
contained 1,720 ppm of carbon monoxide (allowable rate 200 ppm),
but the afterburners at the foundry were not in operation during
testing for carbon monoxide.
Two tests conducted on March 20, 1973 revealed emission rates
of 38.06
lbs./hr.
and 18.37 lbs./hr. at a charge rate of about 13.68
tons/hr. The allowable rate was reported to be 23.66 lbs./hr. at that
melt rate. The report notes that consideration should be given to
the fact that the ratio of charge to blast was greater during the
initial hours of operation than during later hours. With the after
burners in operation, carbon monoxide emissions were reported to be
less than 25 ppm.
Walworth states that the Agency and its predecessor were fully
informed of all developments at its Kewanee foundry from the period
June 1968 to September 1970. Walworth claims it submitted partially
completed permit applications because it was unable to complete the
forms pending receipt of accurate test results showing compliance
with the regulation.
14—699
—4—
Walworth claims that, upon receiving the test results from
National,AAF refused to undertake further examination of the
Venturi scrubber system to resolve the problem. In June 1973
Walworth filed suit in the U. S. District Court, Northern District
of Illinois, charging AAF with breach of contract and breach of
warranties. Walworth sought damages from AAF for replacement of
parts and lost time and production in excess of S60,000.
After protracted pre-trial discovery and at the discretion
of the Court, AAF agreed to review the design and fabrication of
the system and making necessary changes to bring the system into
compliance.
AAF completed changes in the design of the system in April
1974. Six tests conducted on May 7, 8, and 9, 1974 showed that
the required reduction in particular emissions had still not been
achieved. Tests indicated excessive entrainment of dirty water
which should be separated in the sludge settler or separater
before entry into the fan system. As a result of these tests
AAF informed Petitioner that adequate evaluation of the system
would require field tests with a pilot scrubbing system. The
field tests were required to establish the relation between
scrubbing system pressure drop and emission from the system.
Pilot tests conducted from June 24 to 26, 1974 revealed
that the present system had an inadequate capability for pressure
drop. In place of the present 35 inch pressure drop the system
requires a pressure drop of 60—65 inches. AM determined
the necessity of installing a supplementary fan in order to create
the desired pressure drop in the system. The pilot test indicated
that a 60 inch pressure drop should produce an outlet grain loading
of 0.08 gr./DGCF or a particulate emission rate of about 10 lbs./hr.
Petitioner estimates that its uncontrolled emissions would
probably be about 300 lbs./hr. of iron oxide, coke breeze, and
lime dust. The Agency estimates uncontrolled particulate emissions
of 231.2 lbs./hr. at a process weight rate of 27,300 lbs./hr.
Petitioner states that the 10 lbs./hr. emission rate was based
on pilot tests conducted at a lower tonnage rate and under more
controlled conditions than would be considered standard operation.
Therefore, Petitioner believes that actual operating conditions will
cause a controlled emission rate of 16 to 18 lbs./hr. of particulates
at a higher pressure drop.
Based upon data and Petitioner’s permit application the Agency
estimates controlled particulate emissions from the foundry are now
34.68 lbs/hr. At this rate the present scrubber is approximately
85 effective in removing particulate matter.
14—700
—5—
The Agency stated that an emission rate of 10 lbs./hr.
would meet requirements of both Rule 203(a) and 203(b), but
Petitioner took exception to the mention of Rule 203(a), stating
that Rule 203(a) did not apply to the foundry or this proceeding.
Under the provisions of Rule 203(c) (2)
,
Walworth would be required
to meet the more restrictive emission limitation of Rule 203(a)
unless it had commenced construction or modification on equipment
before April 14, 1972 “sufficient to achieve compliance with
Paragraph (b) of this Rule 203”. On the record there is no
question that Petitioner proceeded with installation with control
equipment that was thought to be sufficient to achieve compliance.
In spite of this effort the record also shows that this system
has not solved Petitioner’s problem.
If Petitioner’s efforts to upgrade the control system are
successful then Rule 203(b) is the applicable Rule. Failure of
the system to the point of abandonment in favor of some other system
or method would, under the provisions of Rule
203(c),
cause Petitioner’s
operation to come under the provisions of Rule 203(a)
.
This is not
to be construed as a directive to stay with the present system
regardless of continued failure of the system. It merely points out
that the more restrictive provisions of Rule 203(a) will have to
be complied with if the present system is ultimately abandoned
and another system or method is used.
Additional control requirements at the foundry will require
additional electrical equipment for proper operation. Bids have
already been secured for the electrical equipment. The cost to
Petitioner for this equipment is estimated to be about $33,000.
Petitioner’s proposed timetable for achieving compliance is as
follows:
Complete by:
1. Select and order additional
fan and auxiliary equipment
August 1, 1974
2. Receive and install equipment.
(Current delivery time is
quoted as 40 weeks).
June 1, 1975
3. Perform shake—down runs and
conduct emission test
July 15, 1975
4.
Submit
data in support of
operating permit
August 15, 1975
In its Recommendation the Agency expressed the opinion that the
schedule was reasonable.
14
—
701
—6—
Walworth states that grant of this variance is required
since valid construction and operating permits are required to
continue operation. Shutting down the foundry would involve a
hardship for both Petitioner and its 250 employees. Continued
operations under variance cause emissions “only slightly out of
compliance” according to Petitioner.
The Agency recommends denial of this variance. In June
1974 the Agency contacted fourteen of Petitioner’s neighbors,
most of whom complained of heavy emissions from the foundry.
The emissions were alleged to have interfered with their ability
to enjoy outdoor activity, hang wash outside, and keep their
houses clean. Some of the citizens indicated that the emissions
caused a choking sensation.
The Agency believes that Petitioner has continued to operate
its cupolas despite 19 separate scrubber malfunctions which occurred
from April 1973 through September 1974. Some of the incidents
involved operating for only one day without the scrubber, while
others were long periods of operation without the scrubber. In
1973 Petitioner operated from the 4th to the 24th. of September
when the scrubber was down with damper problems.
The Agency claims that such operation contravenes the
provisions of Rule 105 of the Air Pollution Control Regulations.
When a malfunction occurs, the Agency recommends the Petitioner
be ~&1owed to complete the charge in the cupola but then be
prohibited from operating the cupolas until the scrubber has been
repaired. Uncontrolled operations may be the cause of citizen
complaints according to the Agency.
The record does not show the length of time this foundry has
been in operation. Petitioner’s neighbors have obviously received
some relief since the installation of the scrubber but, as of
June 1974, are still experiencing intereference with their lives
and property because of the foundry emissions. There is simply
not enough in the record to support the Agency’s contention that
most of the problems experienced by these neighbors is a result
of Petitioner’s operation without the scrubber.
If the variance is granted, the Agency recommends that such
variance be granted only until July 15, 1975 on the condition that:
1. Petitioner submit a program whereby only clean scrap will
be used during the period of variance;
2. Petitioner submit a maintenance program for its modified
scrubber and make such program part of its operating permit appli-
cation.
3. Petitioner complete the charge in the cupola when a scrubber
malfunction occurs and then cease operations until the malfunction is
corrected and submit in writing a complete report of the incident;
14—702
—7—
4. Petitioner submit bi-monthly progress reports;
5. Petitioner limits its process weight rate to 17,500
lbs ./hr.;
6. Petitioner perform stack tests within 35 days of completion
of the proposed modifications, and
7. Petitioner post a bond to insure completion of the scrubber
modifications.
Walworth’s response to the Agency Recommendation raises several
points of interest. On the question of continued operation during
a scrubber malfunction, Petitioner states that cessation of operation
pending corrections would cause serious hardship to Petitioner,
its employees, customers, and the economy of Kewanee. This hardship
would result because, as a jobbing foundry, parts must be timely
produced in order to benefit the customer. The Board is asked to
recognize the nature of the industry, the individuals and the
businesses dependent thereon and how cessation of production
would effect those individuals and businesses.
The Agency also requests a maintenance program for the modified
scrubber. Petitioner states its willingness to submit such a
program to the Agency. In addition, Petitioner claims to maintain
a spare parts inventory in anticipation of any problems except for
problems requiring fabrication of parts. Daily maintenance and
inspection of the scrubber system is under the direction of a
maintenance foreman, and records of such work are kept.
It is our opinion that Petitioner’s uncontrolled emissions
during long periods of scrubber malfunction present an unwarranted
burden upon its neighbors that outweighs the claim of economic hardship.
Continued operation in an uncontrolled mode for ten to twenty days
is totally unacceptable to the Board. The knowledge that Petitioner
must repair the scrubber before resuming operation should provide
the incentive to expedite the repair work. If Petitioner submits
required information and its operating permit application to the
Agency in conformance with Rule 105, then it may obtain the right
to operate during a malfunction or breakdown. As the record now
stands the Board is not convinced that such operation is warranted.
We shall not, however, limit Petitioner to a process weight
rate of 17,500 lbs./hr. When a cupola is operating in conjunction
with the scrubber, excessive particulate emission amounts to about
11 lbs./hr. While this is above the allowable rate, it does not
represent an intolerable excess, as does the uncontrolled emission.
Petitioner shall be limited to 27,200 lbs./hr. for the duration of
this variance.
14—703
—8—
The issue of clean versus dirty scrap comes about as a
result of the Agency’s statement that the excess emissions “may
be caused by the use of dirty scrap”. No evidence is presented
by the Agency that dirty scrap is used in the foundry. Petitioner
asserts that every effort is made to assure that *1 scrap is
utilized and that it is unclear what the Agency defines as dirty
scrap. Petitioner believes that the Agency erroneously equated
the aluminum and magnesium content in scrap engine blocks with
dirty scrap. A requirement that Petitioner continue to utilize
the same grade of scrap as it has in the past should clear up
any misunderstanding by the parties.
It is the opinion of the Board that Walworth has met the
requirements necessary to receive a variance. Walworth’s efforts
to comply show good faith. This record of continuing effort
indicates that Walworth will meet its obligations without the
added inducement of a compliance bond.
Finally, we note that Walworth’s schedule calls for meeting
the standard shortly after the date to which the State of Illinois
has committed in the Implementation Plan, approved by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. From the entire record we believe
that Walworth can and should advance its schedule so that compliance
is achieved by July 1975. Variance will be granted subject to
certain conditions to and including June 30, 1975.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Pollution Control Board.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Walworth
Company be granted variance from Rule 203(b) of the Air Pollution
Control Regulations for its Kewanee Foundry to and including
June 30, 1975 for the purpose of modifying an existing scrubber
system to the extent required to achieve compliance with Rule 203(b)
This variance is subject to the following conditions:
a. Petitioner shall apply for all necessary permits from
the Agency for modification and operation of the scrubber
system.
b. Petitioner shall submit bi-monthly reports to the
Environmental Protection Agency. Said progress report
shall commence on January 15, 1975 and shall provide
details of Petitioner’s progress toward completion of
the scrubber modification program.
c. Within 35 days of the completion of the scrubber
modification program, Petitioner shall have a stack
test performed on its cupola by an independent stack
14
— 704
—9—
testing service. Petitioner shall give five days
prior notice to the Environmental Protection Agency,
Regional Office, 4302 North Main Street, Rockford,
Illinois, phone # 815/987-7576 and shall allow Agency
personnel to observe such test if they so desire.
Results of the stack test shall be submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Springfield office
as soon as they are available to Petitioner.
d. Upon experiencing a scrubber malfunction, Petitioner
shall complete the charge in that cupola and then
cease operation of both cupolas until necessary repairs
to the scrubber system have been completed. After each
such malfunction Walworth shall cause a written report
to be submitted to the Agency detailing the date, time,
and nature of the malfunction and the time required to
complete repairs. This report shall be included as
part of the bi-monthlv report required under Part (b)
of this Order.
e. Petitioner shall limit its charge rate to 27,200 lbs.!
hr. during the period of this variance.
f. Petitioner shall make all reasonable efforts to utilize
the same grade of scrap metal as has been used during
the two years preceding the date of this Order.
g. Petitioner shall submit to the Agency a maintenance
program for the modified scrubber designed to keep said
scrubber at peak operating efficiency. Said program
shall be made a part of Petitioner’s operating permit
application to the Agency for the modified scrubber
system.
I, Christan L. Noffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,
here y certify th above Opinion and Order was a opted this
__________day of
_________,
1974 by a vote of ____to
0
14—705