ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

WAGNER CASTINGS COMPANY

No. 70—24

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION OF

THE

BOARD (BY MR. LAWTON):

January 6, 1971

Wagner Castings Company, a Delaware corporation, with its prin-

cipal plant and foundry in Decatur, Illinois, petitioned for a variance

to continue uncontrolled particulate emissions from its cupolas in an

amount of approximately 100 pounds per hour of melt, melting at approx-

imately sixteen hours per day and a total of 75,300 tons of scrap

iron

per

year. (See petition). Petitioner proposes the installation

of six nine—tan coreless electric induction furnaces which would,

when installed, curtail emissions to a level well within the applicable

regulations. Petitioner has represented, and the evidence indicates,

that the equipment necessary for the foregoing installation will not

be available prior to July

1,

1971,

and that the furnaces will he

installed and ready for operation by January 1,

1972. An

additional

six months of variation is requested for de—bugginq and start-up

of

the

six new furnaces brinaing

the date for final compliance

to July 1, 1972. The Environmental Protection Act, Section

36(b),

limits the granting of variances to a period of one year. This

section further provides

that such variance may

be

extended from year

to year by action of the Board upon satisfactory showing of progress.

:tt

is the decision

of the

Board that petitioner

he

granted a

~:ariance

terminating January

5, 1972

upon the terms and conditions

as

hereinafter set forth.

Petitioner ooerates

both

a

malleable and nodular iron casting

(:acility in Decatur, Illinois,

The subject matter of this variance

~c~uest

pertains only to the rnalleabLe foundry division.

Electric

ifurnaces had previously been installed in the nodular foundry division,

:t~: is anticiated

that the entire installation of the six new furnaces

will cost ap~roximateiy

$1,500,000.00~

Petitioner employs 1,200 em-

ployees

On July 2, 1962, Petitioner filed

an air contaminant emission

reduction program with

the Technical

Secretary of the Air pollution

Control Board indicating violation of existing regulations relative to

1

— 155

---

the cupola air furnace melting equipment and the dust-collection

equipment for its sand system. The sand system was scheduled for

compliance in December, 1969, and was, in fact, in compliance by

September, 1969.

The

program called for replacement of the cupolas

by electric induction furnaces by June of 1973. This air contaminant

emission reduction program was approved by the Air Pollution Control

Board on July 25, 1968. It should be noted that while the plan

contemplated installation of the new furnaces by January of 1973,

the phase-out of

the

existing equipment was not to be completed

until June of 1975. The present request for variance was filed on

October 19, 1970,

and

provided for an installation schedule as

follows

1. Work will begin

durirmq the Christmas shut-down of

1970

to

remove existing equipment

from

the area to be

excavated.

2.

Approximately July

1,

1971,

work will begin on the

excavation and installation of the furnaces themselves.

3. The furnaces will he completed, ready to operate, by

January

1,

1972,.

4. Aporoximately six months will

be

consumed in dc—bugging

and

start-up of the six furnaces.

This will bring

Petitioner

into complete compliance by July

1,

1972.

The Environmental

Protection

Agency filed

a recommendation

with the Boa:rd settinc forth

the

air

contaminant

emission reduction

program as above indicated,

and detailed the findings of its investi-

gation made on October

26,

1970.

interviews with residents

in the

immediate area ind~ated that

the

uncontrolled emissions would pro~

duce a

burden in t:~c community. but

the majority interviewed

“could

reluctantly live

w~th

the

problem and the proposed compliance date”.

The

Agency recommended

that

a variance he granted

for

a perici

of six months,

that

any e~tens:Lon

be

granted

only

upon a showing of

maximum exoedited ~r~fort

and

the reasonableness

of the resulting

time schedule and :1;:~titioner post a sufficient

performance

bond or

other security to ~ssure

compliance with the time schedule.

John A.

Waqrec,

Jr., President of Wagner Castings Company,

was a orinci.pal witness for petitioner.

He testified

that the

corporation was er~:aged in the manufacturing of malleable and nodular

iron

castings and that approximately 1,200

persons were employed,

of which 50

were ~ack. The principal raw

materials

used

in

the

manufacturing

pror~n;s

were

scrap

iron and coke and that

the

contaIn-

inants discharged

~om

the

operation

of

the malleable plant were

iron

oxide and

co’~ ash.

Emission control equipment had

been

---

installed for the sand mixing and grinding operations, but none

exist at the present time on the cupolas of the malleable facilities.

The witness testified that $200,000.00 had been spent for dust-

collecting equipment, and $65,000.00 for control equipment in the

grinding area, both in the malleable facility. Six nine-’ton electric

induction melting furnaces would supplant the two cupolas now used

in the malleable operation, Purchase orders had been placed for

the design, delivery and installation of this equipment with Brown-

Boveri Company at an approximate cost of $1,500,000.00. The purchase

order was introduced in evidence (R21, Exhibit I). The witness

testified that while excavation and land preparation could take

place immediately, the equipment would not be available for six

months. Financing for the purchase and installation had been

arranged. Mr. Wagner testified that

the

company had made a

feasibility study to determine

the

best and most economical way to

melt iron in the foundry operation. Ten to twelve different methods

had been considered by the engineering agency of Lester B. Knight

(R23-24).

The furnaces

to

be installed were described as a higher-

powered furnace with a greater degree of melt per hour than previous

types

of electric induction furnaces (R33). Consideration had been

given tc installation of control devices on

present equipment (R30)

but

was rejected as

being

impractical

and unduly

expensive. The

witness testified to

the schedule

of

installation (R39) which con-

templated

complete installation and availability of operation

with

the new facility by

January

1,

1972,

plus an additional

six—month

period for

testing

and

removal of

existing equipments contemplating

full

compliance

by July

of 1972.

The Hearing Officer stated that he was not satisfied

with

the evidence

in the

record

relative

to the availability

of the equip—

merit and of

the need for the six—month

delay

before

installation

would begin.

He

sugcreste.d that

the Board be furnished with a state-

ment

from Brown—Boveri Company

indicating ~reciseiy what

the requisite

time would

be for the ecuipment to be available for installation,

The E~earinq Officer also indicated that he felt the record should

include zoning and ‘isa maps indicating the character of

the

locality

of the area in which petitioner~s plant was located and more detail

on the contigious and nearov residential

and industrial

uses.

Letters were introduced from the Torrance Park Citiion~sCossnittee

urging denial of the petition for variance,

By stipulation

entered

into between the petitioner

and the environmental Protection Agency,

the Hearincr Officer was permitted to examine the petitioner’s

plant~

~e observed emissions from the two furnaces of dark brmrn smoke

resulting from the burning cn~eration, An officer of petitioner

advised him that when the cupola was charged by the loading of metal

substantial

particulatec

were emitted into the atmosphere for short

periods

ot time.

Considerable smoke arid particulates

on the inside

of the plant where the malleable ooeration took place were observed,

Inspection of the nodular plant which utlii2Cs electric

furnaces

of a type similar te that contemolated for the nalleabie plant

---

disclosed an almost complete absence of smoke and particu.ates,

both inside the plant and being emitted into the atmosphere.

The Wagner facility is located in a highly industrialized

area, although residential neighborhoods are located in

the

immed-

iate vicinity, both to the north

and

south. This area, as well as

others in all directions, are subject to the odors and emissions of

the A. E. Staley plant directly to the east, which has a pervasive

impact on large portions of the City of Decatur.

On the closing of the hearing, the record remained open for

the submission of additional material requested by the Hearing

officer. Zoning and use maps have been received and incorporated

into

the

record, A letter from Brown-Boveri Company was received,

stating that it was in receipt of the purchase order dated Decem-

ber 1, 1970 from petitioner for the installation of six induction—

type furnaces, and that Brown-Boveri Company would be unable to

manufacture and ship the initial portion of this equipment until

on or about August 1, 1971. This delay was attributed to the need

to purchase copper from Switzerland and the fabrication of coils

from this copper which would not be available until the summer of

1971, The statement indicated that Brown—Boveri would expedite

the installation

of

this equipment in every way possible.

An

affidavit

was also received

from

John

A.

Wagner,

Jr.

stating

that

its loan for the proposed installation would

come from the Equitable

Assurance Society

of

the United States.

It

is the Opinion of the Board that the petitioner has

sustained

the

statutory requisites for the granting of a variance. Requiring

petitioner to shut

down

its operation for a period of a

year in

lieu

of

installation

of

‘the new furnaces as proposed, would constitute

an arbitrary

and unreasonable hardship upon petitioner without

suffi-

cient corresponding benefit to the public. While it is manifest

that the present operation constitutes a violation

of

the existing

regulations relative to the emission of

particulates, the

Board

takes

note of

the fact

that

petitioner has been operating pursuant

to an air contaminant emission reduction trogram granted by the Air

Pollution Control Board. The proposed installation and time

schedule

would greatly

accelerate the installation of po11utio~-freeequipment

and bring petitioner into compliance with the law. The Board is satis-

fied that the furnace equipment will not

be available for installation

until

on or

about August 1, 1971, so that a six-month variation would

be

inadequate. By

the same token, ‘the Environmental Protection Act

:linits a

variance to a one—year period, making provision for extension

upon a satisfactory

showing

of

progress in bringing

the operation

into compliance, pursuant to the variation as allowed. Denial of

‘the

variation would result in the closing of the plant, the unemployment

I -~

i5~3

---

of 1,200 workers and the elimination of petitioner’s product from

the market.

The foregoing opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of fact

and conclusions of law.

IT IS THE OflDER

OF

THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THAT:

1, A variance is hereby granted to the Wagner Casting Company,

expiring January 5, 1972, to permit emissions of parti-

culate matter in excess of those permitted by the regula-

tions in

order to

permit installation of six induction

furnaces ordered from Brown—Boveri Company, New Bruns-

wick, New Jersey, pursuant to purchase order dated

December 1,

1970, received in evidence as petitioner’s

Exhibit 1. This variance shall be conditional upon the

filing of a personal

bond in the amount of $50,000.00

with the Environmental Protection Agency to assure

that petitioner will terminate particulate emissions

in excess of those set forth in the applicable regula-

tions, after January 5, 1972. The terms and conditions

of this variance and the bond

required

hereunder, shall

be modified

or

extended

only by action of this

Board.

2. During the

period

that this

variance is in

effect,

petitioner shall

not cause or allow an increase in the

emissions of particulate matter in excess of that amount

being emitted on the date of this order. Petitioner

shall submit to the Environmental Protection Agency and

to this Board, a report no later than August 1, 1971

setting forth the status of installation and availability

of equipment relative to the six induction furnaces to be

acquired and shall submit a monthly report thereafter

to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Board

stating the progress of its installation.

I, Regina

above Opinion

E. Ryan1, certify that the Board has approved the

this

~ day of J4nuary, 1971

2

C7krk of th~~oard

CO~

I

I

DISSENT