ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
30, 1971
BUCKLER FOUNDRY COMPANY,
INC.
v.
)
PCB 71-189
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
William
E.
Buckler,
Jr.
for Buckler Foundry Company,
Inc.
Delbert Haschemeyer
for the Environmental Protection Agency
Opinion and Order of the Board
(by Samuel
R, Aldrich):
On July
12,
1971, Buckler Foundry Company,
Inc.
(“Buckler”)
requested
a variance
from applicable air pollution regulations
for its East Alton,
Illinois, plant.
Petitioner seeks exemption from the rules
for
a period
of nine months in order
to operate
a cupola as necessary while
a
recently installed electric
arc furnace
is being debugged.
Buckler operates
a jobbing semi-production gray iron casting plant
which employs approximately
18
people.
Approximately
8
tons of iron
are melted and poured every other ~ay.
Until June of this year
a
coke—Lired cupola has been employed exclusively for the melting
operation
(R.
56).
William E.
Buckler,
Jr., Vice-President and
Superintendent of Buckler, estimated particulate emissions from the
cupola to be
17 pounds per ton of iron melted
(R.
66).
An Agency
engineer indicated the calculated figure was actually 3,4~when
the
process weight is taken into account
(R.
68).
This
is approximately
twice the allowable rate specified by Rule 2—2.54 of
the Pules and
Regulations Governing
the Control
of Air
Pollution
(R.
71).
Buckler
had
been
operating
with
an
Air
Contaminant
Emission
Reduction
Program
(ACERP)
approved
by
one
of
our
predecessors,
the
Air
Pollution
Control Board,
During tho
pertod
of
the
ACER?
the
Company
was
to
replace
the cupola with
an electric arc furnace.
In June of
1970,
Buckler
requested
an
extension
until
September
30,
1970,
to
permit
installation of
a bag house
and co:npletion of
a charging device
(Pet.
Ex.
2).
In October the Company requested another extension,
this
time for
90 days
to complete installation of
the bag~house
(Pet.
Ex.
3).
The Agency indicates
in its recommendation that
no
action was taken on the
laiter request.
On May
7,
1971,
Buckler
asked the Agency for
an
ndditional period of nine months in which
to
debug
the
ethctric
arc
furnace
(Pet.
Ex.
4)
.
We here consider
erscntialiy
the
same
request.
tenors
indrcates
tsat the electric arc rurnace was
to be ready
~on requLar operation
in early September,
1971
(R.
62).
Petitioner
ftr nine monthn
tine, beginning May
7,
1971,
for debugging.
Juring this
interval the furnace would be operated every other day and
the cupola would be used only in the event of
a major breakdown
(R.23,
25
At
the end of
the nine-month period the cupola would be made inoperable
and the furnace used on an every day basis
(R.
14,
38).
The Agency initially recommended that Buckler’s petition be granted
for
a period not
to exceed
30
days.
Mr.
Buckler pointed out that the
Company melts iron only 10 or 11 days
in
a one-month period
(R.
25).
The period recommended by the Agency would
thus give the Company only
ten working days in which to debug the new equipment and train operating
personnel.
There
is evidence
that
such procedures may take from six
months
to a year
(Pet.
Ex.
5).
Mr.
Buckler
indicated that he
and
his
personnel were inexperienced
in these matters, making the adjustment
particularly
difficult
(R.
16).
The maximum number of operating days
under the Company’s proposed plan would be
99,
although Mr. Buckler
indicated that the cupola would not be employed on these days unless
a major breakdown
were to occur
(R.
25).
At the close of the hearing
the Agency modified its original position, recommending that
a variance
be
granted for
a period not to exceed nine months
(R.
80).
The Environmental Protection Act requires that for
a variance to be
granted,
it must be shown that an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship
would result should the petition be denied,
In the instant case we
find
that Buckler has met its burden of proof.
The record indicates
that
the debugging process and training procedures will require
a
considerable amount of
time,
Were we to deny the petition or grant
a lesser period of time
than that requested, petitioner’s entire
operation would be placed in jeopardy.
Denial of permission
to use
the cupola on
a standby basis could seriously hamper petitioner’s
efforts
to fill orders on time,
Mr.
Buckler indicated that this might
cause the Company to go out of business
(R.
15).
The amount of parti-
culate matter released
if Buckler is allowed
to operate the cu~La is
uncertain,
However,
the cupola is to be used strictly on a standby
basis and indeed may never be used,
Three families interviewed by
the Agency had no complaints about the emissions from the foundry.
In
our judgment
the hardship on petitioner would be unreasonable
and is
not offset by the potential damage
to the environment.
In
a similar
case
(Chambers,
Bering, Quinlan
Co.
v.
EPA, PCB 71-102, August 13,
1971)
we denied
a variance
on the grounds
that:
1)
petitioner had already
had ample time
for debugging and
2)
petitioner requested permission
to use cupolas indefinitely,
albeit on
a standby basis.
Neither of
these
facts
is true
in the instant case.
Buckler’s electric furnace
was
not ready
for
operation until September
of
1971,
and
a variance
is requested only until February
7,
1972.
We will, therefore,
grant
Buckler a variance for
the period of time requested.
Counsel for the Agency pointed out that the conversion project has
been going on
since
1968 and that since then Buckler has failed to
meet
a number of deadlines
for completing it
(R.
80).
However, based
on the facts elicited
at the hearing he recommended that no substan-
tial penalty be
imposed.
It is true that the Company has failed to
meet several projected completion dates
in the past.
Nevertheless,
we are persuaded that petitioner has been confronted with real diffi-
culties in converting
from cupola to electhic arc furnace and has made
a good faith effort to abate pollution.
We thus impose no monetary
penalty.
2—
544
In granting
a variance until February
7,
1972, we will
take steps to
ensure that the cupola is not used excessively.
Petitioner has approxi-
mately four months remaining in which
to achieve full compliance with
the air pollution regulations.
We will limit
the number of days
within this period during which Buckler may operate the cupola to 20.
This should be sufficient time
to allow for major repairs
to the
furnace while ensuring continued operation of the plant.
We will
require petitioner
to make
the cupola inoperable
at the end of
the
variance period.
This opinion constitutes
the Board~s findings of fact and conclusions
of
law.
-
ORDER
1.
Buckler Foundry Company,
Inc.
,
may use
its cupOla
to me-It
iron
in the event of major breakdown of theelectric arc furnace,
such use
to be limited to 20 days during the period from the
date
of this order until February
7,
1972.
2,
Buckler Foundry Company,
Inc.,
shall cease
the
use of the cupola
on February
7,
1972,
and at that
time shall take whatever steps
are necessary
to make the cupola inoperable.
3.
By March
1,
1972,
Buckler Foundry Company,
Inc.,
shall submit
to the Environmental Protection Agency and to the Pollution
Control Board
a written report indicating
the dates subsequent
tO
the
filing of this order
on which the cupola
was used.
The
report is also to indicate what
steps were taken subsequent
to
February
7,
1972,
to
make
the cupola inoperable.
4.
By
February
7,
1972,
Buckler Foundry Company,
Inc.,
shall
be in
full compliance with the Rules
and Regulations
Governing the
Control of Air Pollution.
I dissent
I, Regina E.-Ryan, Clerkof
the Pollution Control Board, hereby
certify
that the
Board adopted the above opinion and order this
3Oday of
Septemier’
1971.
2
—
545