May

16, 1974

FERGUSON AND LANGE

FOUNDRIES,

INC.,

Petitioner,

)

PCB 74-82

vs.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

John A.

Cook,

Attorney,

on behalf of Petitioner;

Kathryn

S.

Nesburg, Attorney, on behalf of the Environmental

Protection Agency.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE: BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):

The Petitioner

is

Ferguson and

Lange Foundries,

Inc. (herein-

after Petitioner).

The Petition was filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency (hereinafter Agency)

on March 3, 1974.

This is a Petition for an Extension of the Variance granted

in PCB 73-474.

The Pollution Control Board (hereinafter Board)

granted the Variance from Rules 3-3.111

and 203(a)

until Feb-

ruary 28, 1974.

Petitioner operates

a foundry

in Chicago which produces

grey iron and ductile i~roncastings utilizing

a cupola furnace

which emits particulates and carbon monoxide.

Petitioner entered

into a turn-key contract with Combustion

Equipment Associates,

Inc.

(CEA)

on April

26, 1971

to engineer

and

install control

equipment to limit the particulate

emission

wtthtn the requirements

of the Environmental Protection Act.

Under the terms

of the contract, CEA assumed full responsibility

for all

facets of the job,

including design of equipment and

supervtsion of subcontractors.

On

March 22,

1973, the Board fined Petitioner

$200 for

failure to obtain a construction permit and operating the cupola

in vi’olation of Rule 3-3.111

of the Rules and Regulations

Governing

the Control of Air Pollution (PCB 72-284).

At the same time, the

Board granted Petitioner

a Variance until

March 31, 1973 in order

to continue operation of the cupola

in

an uncontrolled state

(PCB 73-46).

On November 8,

1973, Petitioner again filed

a Petition for

Variance.

The emission control system had been installed but

a design

error by CEA necessitated the replacement of a large motor

12

—

291

---

—2—

and modification of

a portion of the baghouse filter system.

The Board granted the Variance until

February 28, 1974

(PCB 73—474) after making the finding that the delay was not

caused by Petitioner and that the delay would result

in limited

particulate emissions.

Petitioner requests the variance extension until

April

30,

1974

in order to have time to complete certain finishing work and

adjustments to the system.

Petitioner’s facility is located

in a highly industrial

area.

Measurements of particulates taken at the nearest air

monitoring station (within two miles of the facility) show a

concentration of 132 micrograms

of oarticulates per cubic meter

as compared

to the National Air Quality Standard of 75 micrograms

per cubic meter.

Petitioner has expenüed approximately $140,000 in an attempt

to bring

its facility into compliance by installing

a control

system consisting of a

direct—flame

afterburner,

a baffle chamber,

a water spray quench system,

a cyclone,

and

a positive pressure

daghouse.

The manufacturer of the contrcl

system has guaranteed

the

efficiency

to be 99~9

-

more than

adequate

to

bring

the cupola

into

compliance.

The Agency states

in

its Recommendation to the Board,

“Petitioner

claims

that

CEA

is

primarily

responsible

for

the delay because of

its

failure

to meet

its

contractual

obligations

and

complete the

work

on

time,

Because

of

the nature of Petitioner’s

contract

with

~IE4,

that is, putting CI~Ain

complete

char~geof

design,

planning,

contractino,

and sub-contractina, Petitioner was unable to control

tn~proare~sof

tne

i~~ta~

~at

or

Thus

t

gould

amount

to

an

arotra~y

and

unreasonable hardshic

to

deny

the

Variance

when

the

delay

is

not

toe fauit of Petitioner~ hhiiet

ne

Board

agrees

that

at this period

of oomtdiance

to

deny

a

variance

would

he

arbitrary,

it

cannot

base

Li

e ~~nalna

on

the

Aqency ~ reeson

no

The

D@~

~tionercannot

delegate his

statutory

respons~ihility

to

another

narty.

He

has

~

oh~nator

and

any

)lislde

co~tr1c:u~i

egreernents

cannot rei’eve

him

as

to this Board.

The Agency has

not received any

adverse

citizen

comment with

~esoe~ ~oMe qranL

ci’~

~

ia’~

~roeanc ne

~es that the successfu

comoletion of the installation of control equipment will bring

Petitioner~s

facility into compi

once

us

dpinion constitutes one rindi nbc

01

tact

anb

conc~

us ons or

law of

the Board,

---

-3—

IT

IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control

Board:

1.

That the Variance from Rules 3-3.111

and 203(a)

be

granted until

April

30,

1974,

subject to the following conditions:

a.

Within sixty (60)

days of the date of this Order,

the Petitioner shall

have performed a stack test on

the

cupola control

equipment.

Petitioner shall

give five

(5)

days notice of the test to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Region

II

Office

Illinois Naval

Armory

East Randolph at the Lake

Chicago, Illinois

60602

Telephone:

(312)

793-4966

and allow Agency observation

if required.

Petitioner

shall

submit complete results of the said test to the

Agency at the aforementioned address within thirty (30)

days.

b.

Petitioner shall

apply

all necessary operating

permits

for the facility from the Agency.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, c~tifythat the above Opinion and Order was adopted on

t

is

/1.

‘1

day of

47p

,

1974 by a vote of

—~

12

—

293