ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
30,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
71-248
v.
STERLING ALLOY CASTING COMPANY
MICHAEL
A.
BENEDETTO,
JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ALEXANDER HAGLUND, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Seaman):
Complaint was filed by
the Environmental Protection Agency
against Sterling Alloy Casting Company on August
20,
1971,
alleging
that Respondent,
in
the operation of its Rock Falls foundry, between
January 18, 1967
and June 30,
1970,
emitted contaminants
into the
air in violation of the Illinois Air Pollution Control Act and created
a public nuisance as therein defined, and subsequent to July
1,
1970,
Respondent emitted contaminants
into the air
so as to cause air
pollution,
in violation of Section 9(a)
01
the Environmental Protec-
tion Act.
No proof has been made of any
of
the foreqoinc~violations
and the Attorney General has conceded that ccnp?ainant dces not
intend
to pursue these alleged violations.
The complaint,
further alleges that
SjnCE:
April l~, 19E8,
Respondent’s operation emitted particulates
in
excess
of allowable
limits so as to constitute
violation
of Rules
2—2.1,
2—2.5 and
2—2.54
of the Air Pollution Rules and Regulations and that Respondent
has
failed to file an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program
(l’~c?rp)
in violation of Rules 2—2.22,
2—2.31(f) and 2—2.41 of the Air Pollution
Rules and Regulations.
The first hearing was held on January 14,
1972, at which time
a proposed stipulation was discussed.
The hearing was continued to
March
24,
1972, but as appears from the record, the Stipulation was
never entered into and hearings were not resumed until May
1,
1973,
at which time they were continued to June 13,
1973, pending the com-
pletion of stack testing.
The last hearing was held on June 13,
1973,
at which time the stack tests were testified to.
Respondent’s operation facilities
at Rock Falls consist
primarily of
a gray iron cupola used in the production of castings.
Approximately
80 people are employed and gross sales in the year 1972
amounted to $685,000.00.
Respondent’s initial efforts at air pollu-
tion abatement were somewhat primitive,
and consisted primarily of
9— 133
baffles installed in the cupola, which, even assuming Respondent’s
unsupported suggestion that this equipment was 50
to 60
efficient,
would still not bring the operation into compliance.
Computations
made by the Environmental Protection Agency in December of 1971
(EPA Ex.
I) indicate that with a process weight rate of 10,667 pounds
per hour allowable emissions based on the applicable tables contained
in the Regulations, would be limited to 18.99 pounds per hour against
an actual particulate emission rate of 90.67 pounds per hour based on
standard emission factors
(EPA Ex.
2).
While this figure would be
premised on uncontrolled emissions,
even assuming Respondent’s
50
to 60
efficiency from the baffle installation, the emissions would
be substantially in excess of those permitted by the applicable
Regulations.
This condition maintained at least until November,
1972
(R. June 13,
1973,
p.
26)
when other equipment was installed.
Between February,
1971 and January,
1972, Respondent considered the
installation of
a wet cap, but upon further reflection and receipt
of advice from Environmental Protection Agency personnel,
this pro-
posed program was abandoned as being incapable of achieving the
necessary compliance.
There does not appear to be any question at this point in the
record that Respondent had failed to file
its Acerp and was not in
compliance with the relevant regulations.
Subsequently,
a used
bag house with blowers was installed,
together with three afterburners
used to reduce carbon monoxide emissions.
Additional bag house installa-
tions were made although the precise sequence of events is not clear
from the record.
However, by November,
1972,
the installation was
complete.
(P. June 13,
1973,
p.
26).
The iecord is replete with
evidence that Respondent has experienced difficulties
in the operation
of
this equipment,
as well as in the functioning and repair of its cupola
including inefficiencies of components
of the bag house installation,
wear and corrosion attributable to high temperatures and leakage both
from the bag house operation and charging doors.
CR. 5/1/73,
Pp.
49,
102 and 104 and
R.
6/13/73, pp.
63,
66,
275).
Unquestionably, part
of this inefficiency
is
a result of Respondent’s failure to employ
professional assistance
in the installation of its various abatement
facilities.
Subsequent
to the second hearing and the absence of adequate
testimony as to whether the facility was operating within the
regulatory limitations,
stack tests were proposed and the hearing
continued, pending receipt of this information.
We must conclude,
based on the state of the record,
that the stack tests neither prove
nor disprove compliance with the Regulations.
The first stack test conducted on May 24 indicates compliance
with the Regulations.
However,
it is evident that the scrap employed
in the earlier test was not characteristic of that used in the operation
but was abnormally clean
CR. 5/1/73, pp.199-200),
so as not to fairly
represent the operation of the facilities.
Furthermore, while
12
—2—
9
—
134
sampling ports were to be tested at
5 minutes per port, one port
was sampled for 15 minutes and at least 3 other ports appear not to
have been sampled at all.
Further, deviations in isokinetic condi-
tions indicate that the test was outside of the 10
deviation factor
normally permissible in such testing
(R.
5/1/73, pp. 232—233.)
In addition,
the possibility of particulate emissions escaping
through leaks
in the system and defects in the charging door,
suggest
that the figures demonstrating compliance are subject to question.
The May 25,
1973 test indicated that the abatement equipment was
malfunctioning or inoperative in part,
resulting in an actual
emission of 18.69 pounds per hour against an allowable rate of
15.85 pounds per hour.
Respondent endeavors to justify this dis-
crepancy on the basis that several bags were disconnected and that
malfunctioning
in the system resulted in the higher results obtained.
Even if this was true,
it in no way can be construed as demonstrating
compliance based on the second test.
Accordingly, because of the
aspects of the first stack test above referred to, being of such a
nature as to cast question on the compliance figures demonstrated,
and the failure to establish compliance based on the secc.nd test,
we must reject the stack testsas demonstrating compliance so far
as this record
is concerned.
(Respondent’s Ex.
C).
In recapitulation therefore, we
find that Pespordent has
failed
to file an Acerp,
has been in violation of the Regulations at least
until November,
1972 and has failed. to demonstrate that it
is present-
ly in compliance.
We will assess a penalty for the violations afore-
said in the amount of $1,000 and because of the inadequate state of
the record as
to present compliance, direct Respondent to cease and
desist its particulate discharges
in violation of the Regulations,
the achievement of such compliance
to be accomplished by three months
from the date of this order.
We believe this will give Respondent
adequate time
tc both make suitable testing’ to determine whether,
in fact, it
is meeting
thc’
relevant regulations and if not,
to take
such steps as are necessary,
including the required installation
to achieve such result.
In assessing the penalty aforesaid,
we are
not unmindful of the difficulties enocuntered by foundries
ir
achieving compliance.
However, we believe that Respondent’s
amateurish efforts have unduly suspended compliance, where profes-
sional
advice
and
a
reasonable
expenditure
cculd
have
achieved
the
necessary
results
at
a
far
earlier
date.
We
are
not
impressed
by
the
financial
dat:a
Respondent
has
submitted
that
it
is incapable
of
hrirgincj
its
operation
into
compliance.
If,
indeed,
it
has
spent
$90,000
to purchase and install
such
equipment
as
it
presently
has
on
hand,
a
relatively
modest
-
9
—
135
increased expenditure should bring it into compliance.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Penalty in the amount of $1,000 is assessed against
Respondent for violation of Rules
2—2.22, 2—2.31(f)
and 2-2.41 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Control of Air Pollution for failing to file an
Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program and for
emitting particulate matter in violation of Rules
2—2.1,
2-2.25 and 2-2.54 and Table
I and II of Chapter II
of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of
Air Pollution between April 15,
1968 and November
1,
1972.
Payment shall be made by certified check or
money order, within
35 days from the date of this
Order, and shall be sent to:
Fiscal Services Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Drive,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
2.
No later than 90 days from the date of this order, Respon-
dent shall cease and desist all violations of the Rules
and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution
and the Environmental Protection Act with respect to
emission of particulate matter from its Rock Falls
foundry.
Respondent shall notify the Environmental
Protection
Agency when it believes it has achieved
compliance, and stack tests shall be conducted jointly,
within 15 days thereafter, by an independent testing
agency and report thereof submitted to the Pollution
Control Board.
The Board reserves jurisdiction for such
other and further orders as shall be appropriate based
upon the receipt ~f the foregoing testing data.
1, Christan Moffett, Clerk cf the Pollution Control Board, certify
that the ahçvo Opinion and Order was adopted on the~1O~’ day of
~
1973, by a vote of
~
to
~
—4—
9
—
136