ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 3,
1973
ENVIRONMENThL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
#71-386
V.
MONARCH
FOUNDRY
COMPANY,
an
Illinois
corporation
MONARCH
FOUNDRY COMPANY, an
Illinois
corporation
#72—386
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
RICHARD
W.
COSBY,
ASSISTANT
ATIORNEY GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
DALE
FLANDERS
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
MONARCH
FOUNDRY
COMPANY
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(BY
SAMUEL
T.
LAWTON,
JR.):
Complaint
was filed against Monarch Foundry CornDany,
located
in
Piano,
Illinois,
alleging
that between July
1,
1970
and
the
close
of
the
record,
Ièspondent~s
operation
of
its
gray
iron
cupola
caused
emissions
so
as
to
create
air
ooilution,
in
violation
of
Section
9(a)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
and
emitted
particulates
into
the
air
in
violation
of
Rules
2-2.54
and
3-3.111
of
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the
Control
of
Air
Pollution,
and
that
Respon-
dent
installed
certain
equipment
without
a
permit,
thereby
violating
Section
9(b)
of
the Act
and Rule 3-2.110 of said Rules.
On August 15,
1972, an amended complaint was filed which did not
reallege the air pollution violation under Section 9(a)
of
the Act
but
reasserted
violation
of
Rules
2-2,54,
3—3.111,
3—2.110
and
Sec-
Lion
9(b)
of
the Act.
The entry of a cease and desist order and penal-
ties in the maximum statutory amount are sought.
Respondent filed an answer denying violation of the particulate
emission Rules, admitting the installation of
the equipment without
permit, but contending that it was done pursuant to
a program approved
by the Illinois Air Pollution Control Board and that application for
permit after installation was sought and denied by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
7
—
653
A petition for variance was filed and subsequent thereto, an
amended petition for variance.
However,
in view of our finding
that the operation
is presently
in compliance,
the variance is
accordingly dismissed as moot and it will not be discussed in this
Opinion.
Respondent’s operation produces iron castings from raw material
including steel scrap,
pig iron,
scrap castings, limestone and coke.
The cupola in which the melting process
takes place
is equipped
with an after burner and a wet cap.
The Agency’s case is based upon
the employment of particulate emission factors
found in ~ble
7-10
of AP-42.
On the basis of
a metal charging rate of 8.5 tons per
hour and an emission factor of
8 pounds per ton of metal charged,
the Agency calculated emissions from the cupola of
68 pounds per hour
against an allowable emission rate found in Rule 3-3.111 of 19.2
pounds per hour
(Environmental Protection Agency Exhibit 2).
On
the basis of the foregoing computations, a violation would be ~hund.
The first issue to be resolved is which Regulation applies
to
the present proceeding.
Respondent contended that Rule 2-2.54 with
respect to existing small foundries
(under 20,000 pounds per hour)
was applicable, whereas the Agency charged the violation of Rule
3-3.111.
At a process weight rate of approximately
10
tons per hour
(R.
61),
the cupola is small enough to be covered by Rule 2-2.54.
The original size 7 cupola,
in all probability,
exi9ted at that
time.
However,
in September,
1971,
a new Size 9—1/2 cupola was installed
which would not be covered by Rule 2-2.54.
By either Rule,
the maximum
emission rate of particulates for a process weight rate of
10
tons
per hour would be 25.1 pounds per hour, which on the basis of the
Agency’s computation, would
be’ exceeded by approximately
33 pounds
per hour.
The new cupola with wet cap and after burner was installed
in September of 1971
(R. 141) and would not be covered by Rule 2-2.54.
In January of 1972, Respondent installed additional after burners
and made modifications of the wet cap and increased its water pressure
so that a higher degree of efficiency was created subsequent to that
date.
Respondent argues that the enactment of the new Air Pollution
Control Regulations effective April
14,
1972, deferring compliance
to
December of 1973, constitutes a repeal of
the earlier enacted Air
Pollution Regulations, under which Respondent is charged in this
proceeding and that as a consequence, Respondent’s operation
is
subject only
to Section 9(a)
of
the Environmental Protection Act
which prohibits air pollution as
therein defined.
Respondent’s
contention in this respect is wholly lacking in merit.
Rule 114
of
the Air Pollution Control Regulations provides as
follows
7
—
654
“REPEALER.
Each provision of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution,
as amended August 19,
1969, applying to an emission
source shall remain in full force and effect unless and until such
source is required to comply with a corresponding provision of this
Chapter.”
It is clear that Respondent is obliged to comply with the earlier
Rules
to the extent applicable until the new Rules become operative.
Respondent attempts to rebut the Agency’s establishment of violation
based on standard emission factors by contending that its abatement
system was efficient enough to result in compliance.
The Agency’s
calculations indicated an efficiency of 87
would be required using
emission factors from AP-42
(R.
114).
Respondent offered evidence
over objection of the Agency of a stack test of a Modern Equipment
Company wet cap,
the same brand but a different model as that used
by Monarch, demonstrating particulate collection efficiencies on two
tests of 88.6
and 96.3
tRespondent’s Exhibit 9).
This
was offered
as proof that the collection efficiency exceeded both the 80
guaranteed
by the manufacturer
(R.
164) and the 87
which the Agency asserted would
be needed for compliance.
Even higher collection efficiency results would
be obtained if an after burner were used, according to Modern (Respon-
dent’s Exhibit
9).
In addition,
the respondent claims that with an
oversized wet cap,,additional afterburners and increased water pressure,
the wet cap would be operating at a higher efficiency than
the
80.
guaranteed by Modern Equipment Company.
Table 7-10 of AP-42 appears
to be premised on a collection efficiency of approximately 50,
if
a
wet
cap
is
attached
to
the
cupola.
The
evidence
of
the
presence
of
the
additional
after
burners,
the
increase
in
water pressure and the oversizing
of
the
wet
cap
indicate
collection efficiencies far greater than the
50
on
which
the
emission
factors appear to be premised.
Accordingly, we find that lacking an affirmative showing to the
contrary, Respondent’s
submissions are adequate to rebut a showing
of violation at the present time.
We hold that this absence of demon-
strated violation would be effective from January 24,
1972.
However, we
do not feel the evidence is adequate to negate the showing of violation
alleged to have occurred prior to this date and hold that prior to the
improvements of January
24,
1972,
Respondent has not rebutted the showing
of
violation
based
on
the
computations
using
standard
emission
factors.
~ssuming
that
Rule
2-2.54
was
applicable
prior
to
the
installation
of
the
new
Size
9-1/2
cupola
installed
on
September
1,
1971, we find Respondent
bo
have
violated
this
Rule
between
July
1,
1970
and
September
1,
1971.
3ince
the
installation
of
the
new
Size
9-1/2
cupola
constituted
iew equipment, we find Respondent to have been in violation of
~ule 3—3.111 between September
1,
1971 and January 24,
1972,
—3—
7
—
655
when improvements were made which we feel adequate to rebut the show-
ing of violation based on standard emission factors.
We also find that
Respondent has violated Rule 3-2.110 and Section 9(b)
of the Act in
installing the new cupola, wet cap and after burner without necessary
permits.
Respondent received approval of an Acerp program from the Air Pollu-
tion
Control
Board
in
1969.
Section
2-2.54
of
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the
Control
of
Air
Pollution
provide
that
“when
an
emission
reduction program has been approved, the person receiving the approval
shall
not
be
in
violation
of this section, provided that the
improvement
program
is
being
implemented.”
Inherent
in
implementation
of
the
program
is the obtaining of the necessary permits to achieve
it.
We do not
accept Respondent’s bootstrap reasoning that the Acerp approval exonerates
it
from compliance with the permit provisions.
It should also be noted
that the term “this section” could only be applicable to Section
2 of
Chapter
2 of the Air Rules whereas the permit
procedures
are
found
in
Section
2 of Chapter
3 of
the
Air Rules.
Respondent
admits that it
made the installation without the necessary permits and that once permit
application was filed,
it was denied by the Environmental Protection
Agency,
the successor to the Air Pollution Control Board,
(R.
118, EPA
Ex.
1,
R.
156).
Monarch next contends that notwithstanding its failure to obtain
permits,
it
embarked on a program which was superior to that which had
been previously employed, by the expansion of the afterburners, the
screening
of
coke
and
limestone
and
the
increase
in
water
pressure
supplied to the wet cap (R.
141,
R.
179).
As noted, the new cupola
with its after burner, was not in operation until September,
1971
(R.14l),
and the improvements
in the increased after burner size and wet cap modi-
fication were completed on January 24,
1972,
All of these installations
appear to have been made either without permit being sought or subsequent
to permit denial.
Accordingly,
we’ find Respondent to have violated
Rule 3-2.110 of the Rules and Section 9(b)
of the Act,
In view of
our
finding that no present violation has been established by the proofs,
Respondent’s petition for variance is dismissed as moot.
Our decision,
however, does not foreclose the Agency from taking such other and furbher
steps as
it may deem appropriate to establish the violation in a future
proceeding, nor is Respondent foreclosed from seeking a variance under
such circumstances
it deems appropriate.
Our holding in this proceeding
is only that no violation has beendemonstrated subsequent to January
24,,
1972, and, accordingly,
no need for a variance is manifest.
The evidence does support the Agency’s
contention
that violations
of the Air Rules took place between July
1, 1970 and January
24, 1972
and that Respondent has violated the relevant Regulations and statutory
provisions with respect to obtaining permits for installation of
equipment.
In view of Respondent’s financial condition, together
—4—
1
—
656
~‘ithits good faith efforts in obtaining compliance, coupled with
ibsence of,any testimony indicating any adverse impact on the neigh-
oorhood, we are disposed to assess a nominal penalty, which will be
in the amount of $1,000.
We note that Respondent has made a signi-
ficant effort to achieve compliance with the relevant Regulations,
for which we give recognition.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that penalty in the
amount of $1,000 is assessed against Monarch Foundry Company for violation
of Rules 2-2.54 and 3-3.111 and 3-2.110 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Control of Air Pollution and Section 9(b)tof the Environ-
mental Protection Act as found in this Opinion.
Monarc~iFoundry Company
shall pay to the State of Illinois by May 22,
1973,
the aforesaid
sum,
by certified check or money order payable to the State o~Illinois
and shall be sent to:
Fiscal Services Division,
Illinois, Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
I,
Christan
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
certify
that
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted on the
.3
R~
‘3
day
of
May
1973,
by
a
vote
of
4
to
c
WLA4~P
7
—
657
S
I