ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 24, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

#72~287

JOHN

SHUMHAY,

CHARLES

SHUNWAY,

DAVID SHUMWAY,

d/b/a

SHUMWAY

FOUNDRY

MR. MELVYN A, RIEFF, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL1 ON BEHALF

OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

MESSRS.

RICHARD

H~SANDERS AND FRANCIS F. YOUSSI, ON BEHALF

OF

RESPONDENTS

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (BY SAMUEL

T.

LANTON, JR.)

Complaint was filed against John Shumway. Charl as Shumway,

ant David Shumway, d/b/a Sfiumway Foundry, allegang that aetween

December

30,

1970

and the date

of hearina-,

Respondents

emil:ted

carticulate

matter from thei:r Batavia foundry cupola

in excess

partaco late I

vrita

i~ ,jo~ ~tic~

of

‘—~

54 of The

R~es

~ ~eguia~ icts

~o~E~Plng

t~e ~ontreI

)i

~i a

et~on,

cout~nued

in effect

by Section 49 (c) of the Environmenta~

Protec thon

Act

anä

violated Section 9 (a) o:J-the Act. A cease

and desast order

and

penalties

in

the maximum statutory amount are

sought.

H~a~aring

was held

in

Batavia

on

August 31, 1972, at which

a stipulation

of settlement

entered into between

Respondent

and the Environmental

Protection

Roencu was submitted for the

Board?s consideration.

Members

of the pub:Lic testified at

the

hearing, none

of

whom expressed opposition to the settlement proposal.

The

stipulation recites that the foundry

has

been operated

for

almost 100 years

by

the

Shuinway

family and presently emoloys

anaroximately 22 persons.

The

foundry uses a thirty-eight

foot

cunola

processing 3,600 pounds of pig iron,

5,000

pounds of new

scrap

iron

and

1,000 pounds

of

coke per day, averaging 1-1/2

hours

per

day,

five days per week.

~co emission control equipment has been installed on the

cupola.

Violation

of Rule 2-2.54 is admitted although Respondents

contend

that

the cupola operates at a high combustion efficiency

as a result of the “unique air feed system in use”.

6

41

---

On April 18, 1967, Respondents submitted a Letter of Intent

to the Air Pollution Control Board but no Air Contaminant Emission

Reduction Program was ever filed.

In March, 1971, abatement equipment was ordered at a cost

of $50,000 for August, 1971 delivery. Variance petition was also

filed in March of 1971 with this Board, which was dismissed by

our

Order of March 22, 1971, #71-45, 1 PCB 363, because of failure to

allege the essential elements upon which a variance would be con-

sidered. No amended petition was filed. On July 8, 1971, Respon-

dent received a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency

for installation of an after-burner,cyclone and bag house.

Difficulty with suppliers and fabricators has delayed installa-

tion of this equipment until September of 1972, notwithstanding

repeated demands and inquiries from Respondents. The stipulation

recites that installation of the pollution abatement equipment,

pursuant to the July 8, 1971 permit, will be completed on or be-

fore September 15, 1972 and will bring Respondents’ operation into

compliance with applicable regulations by September 30, 1972, both

of which dates have now passed. Respondents represent that they

will apply for an operation permit by September 1, 1972. On the

state of the record, we must assume that all permits have been

obtained, all required installations have been made and that the

operation is presently in compliance with applicable regulations.

The stipulation provides that representatives of the Environmental

Protection Agency may inspect the premises at reasonable times to

ascertain whether the operation is in compliance with applicable

regulations. The parties propose the payment of a penalty in the

amount of $1,200 for the violations charged and admitted.

We believe the terms of the stipulation represent a reason-

able settlement of the case, particularly since Respondent’s

operation has presumably been brought into compliance. The $1,200

penalty figure appears appropriate in consideration of all aspects

of the case. We approve the stipulation of settlement as submitted.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of

the

Pollution Control Board, as follows:

1.

The

stipulation between Respondents and the Environmental

Protection Agency is approved.

2. Penalty

in

the amount of $1,200 is assessed against

Respondents for violation of Rule 2-2.54 of the Rules

and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution,

continued in effect by Section 49(c) of the Environmental

Protection Act and for violation of Section 9(a) of

—2—

6 —42

---

said Act, Payment shall be made within thirty-five

days by certified check or money order payable to

the State of Illinois and sent to: Fiscal Services

Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

3. Respondents, John Shumway, Charles Shumway and

David Shumway, d/b/a Shumway Foundry, shall cease

and desist the operation of their Batavia, Illinois

foundry in violation of the Rules and Regulations

Governing the Control of Air Pollution and the

Environmental Protection Act, (Ill. Rev. Statutes,

1972, Chapter 111-1/2).

4. Respondents shall permit representatives of the

Environmental Protection Agency to enter their

premises at reasonable hours for inspection of the

facilities to determine whether the operation is in

compliance with the applicable statutory and regula-

tory provisions.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Bo~rd,

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the

.?~/

day of October, 1972, by a vote of

‘A

to

__________

_______

1,’ ~ /

~

—3—

6 —43

---

.

.