ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 4, 1980
WAGNER
CASTINGS
COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 80—93
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by D. Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon an amended variance
petition filed June
11,
1980 by Wagner Castings Company,
a corpora-
tion
(Wagner).
Charles Rhodes,
d/b/a Rhodes Landfill has joined in
the petition.
Variances are requested from Rules 301,
302 and 501
of Chapter
9:
Special Waste Hauling Regulations
(Rules).
The En-
vironmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
has recommended that the
variances be granted with conditions.
No hearing has been held and
the Board has received no public comment.
On June
15,
1979 Wagner and Chambers, Bering and Quinlan
Com-
pany
(CBQ)
filed petitions for variances from the special waste
manifest requirements
(PCB 79-124 and PCB 79-125).
The Board was
eventually advised that CBQ’s assets had been purchased by Wagner.
The Agency first recommended denial of the variances but then re-
commended a grant after a response supplying more information was
filed.
On March 20,
1980 the Board dismissed the petitions as
inadequate
(37 PCB 537, 539).
Wagner thereafter filed a motion for
modification and an amendment to the petition to provide additional
information and joinder of the Rhodes
Landfill.
The latter was
deemed an amended petition and given the number of 80-93
(PCB 79-
124,
Order of Nay 1,
1980).
On July 10,
1980 Rhodes’
Landfill
was
granted leave to intervene.
On July 21,
1980 the Agency filed a
recommendation incorporating by reference the previous recommenda-
tion
and
amended recommendation.
Since the procedural history has become quite complex, it is
convenient to set forth the pleadings which are now before the
Board (Amended Pet.
2).
Petition in 79—124
June 15,
1979
Response and Exhibit A in 79-124
September 17,
1979
Motion for modification in 79-124
April 28, 1980
Amendment to Petition in 79-124
April 28,
1980
Amended Petition in 80-93
June
11,
1980
Recommendation with Attachments in 80—93
July 21,
1980
—2—
Throughout this proceeding Wagner has insisted that it is
not required to provide information on
its
manufacturing pro-
cesses or the nature of its wastes since it is requesting a vari-
ance only “from paperwork and reporting
(manifest)
requirements.”
Wagner has made no claim that it is unable to provide the informa-
tion or that it would involve disclosure of proprietary informa-
tion.
Wagner has now provided facts minimally sufficient to
warrant consideration on the merits.
Procedural Rules 401(a) (2)
and
(3)
require particular informa-
tion on manufacturing processes.
Other parts of Rule 401(a) in-
directly require information on processes and wastes to be answered
fully in the context of this case
Procedural
Rules 401(a) (1),
(5),
(6),
(7),
(8),
(9)
and
(l0)J~. There is no exception in the Proced-
ural Rules for variances from reporting requirements.
The Board
needs this information in order to be fully advised of Petitioner’s
circumstances and the potential environmental effect of the waste
and so that it can determine whether there is arbitrary or unreas-
onable hardship (Section 36 of the Act).
It is necessary to limit
Chapter
9 variances to definite wastes,
This variance will be
limited to those wastestreams which Wagner has identified.
Compli-
ance with Chapter
9 will be necessary for any other special wastes
generated
Wagner operates an iron foundry which employs about 1250 per-
Sons in Decatur, Macon County.
It produces about 70,000 tons of
finished product annually.
In its casting process molten iron
is
poured into a mold made from
sand
and clay.
The high temperatures
involved cause decomposition of the sand.
At present it is not
reusable and is landfilled.
Wagner generates over 100 tons per
day, resulting in ten truckloads per day or 300 per month.
This
is hauled to Rhodes Landfill, Decatur,
in Wagner’s
own
covered
trucks.
The petition in PCB 79-125 stated that CBQ operated a grey iron
foundry employing about 190 persons in Decatur.
It produced about
7200 tons of finished product per year and about twenty tons of
spent sand per day.
This petition was not listed among the plead-
ings to be incorporated
(Amended Pet.
2).
However, incorporation
was requested in some of the pleadings which are incorporated.
It
is unclear whether Wagner’s current employment, etc.,
can
be de-
duced from adding the figures given in the two petitions.
The
combined operations will result in about 340 loads per month or
4080 loads per year (Amendment to Pet.
2).
The following terms are used in describing Wagner’s waste
streams:
—3—
Core sand--A mixture of sand and clay which has been used
to form the inside of a mold.
Molding sand--A mixture of sand and clay which has been
used to form the outside of a mold,
Foundry sand-—A mixture consisting of roughly one percent
core sand and ninety—nine percent molding sand.
Sludge from wet dust collectors—-A pollution control waste
~ihichis essentially a mixture of foundry sand and water.
Core sand is specifically included in the definition of indus-
trial process waste
(Rule
103).
Spent core sand typically contains
a number of contaminants, notably cyanide.
Molding sand typically
has lower levels of such contaminants.
Wagner mixes the core and
molding sand so that the waste
to be landfilled is foundry sand.
Since it contains core sand it is a special waste regardless of
whether the molding sand is an industrial process waste.
A gener-
ator cannot avoid the requirements of Chapter
9 by mixing special
waste with other waste.
Wagner has provided no detailed description of the process
which produces the sludge from wet dust collectors.
Wagner de-
scribes it as
a pollution control waste.
Therefore it is
a
special waste.
It is hauled in trucks separate from those which
haul dry waste.
Wagner states that “approximately 15-20
of the
tonage
sic
hauled by the petitioner to Rhodes Landfill as
described in the petition is ‘sludge from wet dust collectors’”
(Amended Pet.
3).
Wagner apparently then generates around sixty-
eight loads of wet and 272 loads of dry waste each month, although
other parts of the pleadings may indicate that the wet waste
is
eighty-five loads in excess of 340 dry for a total of 425 loads
per month.
In its Order of Nay 1,
1980 the Board specifically inquired
as to whether a variance was requested for the sludge from wet dust
collectors.
In response Wagner stated, “petitioner is not request-
ing a variance for
‘sludge from wet dust collectors’”
(Amendment to
Pet.
1).
However, Wagner went on to provide additional information
concerning the sludge.
Since this would be irrelevant if the vari-
ance were not requested,
the Board will assume that the “not” in
the quoted statement was
a typographical error and deem the plead-
ings amended.
Wagner has provided no analysis of the sludge but states that
it is essentially foundry sand and water.
An analysis of the foundry
sand was provided
(Response,
Ex.
A).
This showed traces of cyanide,
—4—
cadmium,
chromium, nickel,
lead, tin, copper, palladium and zinc.
These are apparently expressed as parts per million of the foundry
sand and do not represent an analysis of the core sand or a pH
5
leachate test as requested by the Agency
(Rec,
3).
No analysis
of the liquid phase of the sludge is provided.
Wagner estimated its cost of compliance at $10,410 per year
for manifests with each load.
It is assumed that this includes
CBQ’s
costs
(Response,
2,
4).
As an alternative Wagner has proposed
to periodically report to the Agency a summary of its waste dis-
posal.
Monthly reports would cost $150, quarterly reports $82 and
semiannual reports $73 per year
(Response,
3).
The Agency will be
authorized to specify the form and frequency of monitoring by way
of permit condition.
Since only one percent of the foundry sand is core sand Wagner
is actually generating only three or four loads
of it per month.
Assuming the molding sand is not a special waste, the excessive
number of loads, manifests and hence costs may be a self—imposed
hardship resulting from the commingling.
However, Wagner states
that the molding and core sands “are by the very nature of the
casting process shaken off of or out of the finished casting at the
same time and thereby end up mixed together”
(Amended Pet.
4).
The
Board does not at this time find self-imposed hardship~ The vari-
ance will be conditioned on Wagner providing a detailed study of
the feasibility of separation and separate disposal, including cost
estimates.
There are manufacturers who sell devices which they say will
reclaim seventy to eighty percent of the sand normally thrown away.
There are questions as to the quality of the reclaimed sand and the
amount of such sand which could be introduced into the system.
Wagner is investigating this alternative but states that at this
time it is not technically or economically feasible for Wagner’s
operation.
it is not clear whether this discussion is referring
to core, molding or foundry sand (Response,
4).
Since the decompos-
ition problems seem to center on the core sand,
the Board will re-
quire separate studies of the feasibility of reclaiming each.
Based upon the above considerations the Board finds that
Wagner would suffer arbitrary or unreasonable hardship if not
granted a temporary variance from the special waste manifest re-
quirements of Chapter
9.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter.
—5—
ORDER
1.
Petitioner Wagner Castings Company is granted a variance from
Rules 301 and 501 of Chapter
9:
Special Waste Hauling Regu-
lations, subject to the conditions
3 through
8 below.
2.
Petitioner-intervenor Charles Rhodes d/b/a Rhodes Landfill
is granted a variance from Rules 302 and 501 of Chapter 9:
Special Waste Hauling Regulations, subject to conditions
3
through 6
and
9.
3.
This variance will expire on September 4,
1985.
4.
This variance shall apply only to foundry sand and sludge
from wet dust collectors generated by Wagner Castings Company’s
Decatur foundry operations hauled in trucks belonging to Wagner
Castings Company.
5.
Petitioners shall comply fully with the requirements of
Chapter 9 for any other special waste generated, transported,
stored, treated or disposed of.
6.
Within thirty days of the date of this Order Petitioners shall
apply to the Environmental Protection Agency for any and all
neOessary permits or permit modifications.
Petitioners shall
diligently pursue any such application processes until a permit
is issued or finally denied.
This variance shall not be con-
strued as a variance from any permit requirement.
7.
On or before February
1, 1985 Wagner Casting Company shall
submit to the Agency a detailed study,
including cost estimates,
of the feasibility of separation and separate disposal of the
core and molding sand.
It
shall also submit a study,
including
costs, of the technical and economic feasibility of reclaiming
the core sand and the molding sand.
8.
Within forty-five days of the date of this Order, Petitioner
Wagner Castings Company shall execute and forward to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Variance Section,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706,
a Certificate
of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to all terms and condi-
tions of this variance.
This forty-five day period shall be
held in abeyance for any period this matter is being appealed.
The form of the Certificate shall be
as follows:
—6—
CERTIFI
CATI
ON
I,
(We), _______________________________, having read
and fully understanding the Order in PCB 80-93, hereby accept
that Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms
and
con-
ditions.
SIGNED
___________________________
TITLE
___________________________
DATE
______________________________
9.
Within forty-five days of the date of this Order, Petitioner
Charles Rhodes, d/b/a Rhodes Landfill, shall execute and for-
ward to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Variance
Section, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706,
a
Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to all
terms and conditions of this variance.
This forty-five day
period shall be held in abeyance for any period this matter is
being appealed.
The
form
of the Certificate shall be as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We), _______________________________, having read
and fully understanding the Order in PCB 80-93,
hereby accept
that Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms and con-
ditions.
SIGNED ___________________________
TITLE
____________________________
DATE
_______________________________
10.
The Environmental Protection Agency shall by permit condition
specify alternative reporting and other requirements in lieu
of those presently required by Rule 501.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
—7—
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, he
e4~k7certify that th
above Opinion and Order were adopted
on the
4
day of
~p~&~wJP..L.J,
1980 by a vote of
~
Illinois Polluti
trol Board
