tLLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    12,
    1973.
    WIRCO CASTINGS,
    INC.
    v.
    )
    PCB 73—4
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    Mark M. Hart and Everett E.
    Hart, appeared on behalf of
    Petitioner;
    Dale Turner, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf
    of Environmental Protection Agency.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Seaman):
    Petition for variance was filed with the Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (“Agency”)
    on January
    3,
    1973.
    Petitioner,
    Wirco Castings,
    Inc.,
    is a gray iron foundry located in
    New Athens,
    St. Clair County, Illinois.
    Wirco operates a
    twenty—ton Ajax induction furnace, which was placed in opera-
    tion in February,
    1972.
    Petitioner seeks a variance to
    operate a cupola—type furnace during such times as the
    induction furnace is shut down for maintenance or repair.
    Wirco estimates it will need to operate its cupola-type
    furnace three to eight weeks during a one-year period.
    The emissions from the cupola furnace,
    as calculated by
    the Agency, are as follows:
    Estimated
    Cupola Process
    Emission
    Allowable
    Melt Rate
    Weight Rate
    Particulates
    4 T/hr
    5 T/hr
    22.4
    lb/hr
    12.0 lb/hr
    3 T/hr
    3.75 T/hr
    16.8 lb/hr
    9.92 lb/hr
    The difference in emissions between the cupola and induction
    furnace as calculated by the Agency using Compilation of Air
    Pollutant Emission Factors, AP—42, pp. 7—13,
    are as follows:
    Cupola emissions
    5.6 lb/T
    Induction furnace emissions
    1.5 lb/T
    Increased emissions using cupola furnace
    4.1 lb/T
    Petitioner states that if this variance is not granted,
    it
    will be forced to cease production during such times as its
    induction furnace is under repair.
    This, because the castings
    which constitute the bulk of Wirco’s production are primarily of
    7
    —
    545
    —2—
    the automotive parts type and
    are
    ordered
    on short
    and rigid
    time schedules, which renders stock-piling impractical.
    Petitioner further states that should this variance be
    denied, Wirco will be forced to lay off its production employees
    (approximately
    90 people) during the periods when the induction
    furnace is shut down;
    and that such a practice would create a
    hardship for the employees and make it difficult for Wirco to
    retain trained and experienced employees.
    Wirco’s request for
    a variance states that the cost of an additional induction
    furnace to be used on
    a stand-by basis would be approximately
    $200,000.
    Petitioner further indicates that it would cost
    $75,000 to
    $100,000
    to install adequate control equipment on
    the cupola.
    The request for variance concluded that it is
    “financially impossible” for Petitioner to undertake either
    alternative at this time;
    however, such an investment could be
    justified in approximately five years.
    It is noted that Peti-
    tioner has offered no data to substantiate its financial hard-
    ship.
    In this regard,
    Petitioner, by Mr. Everett Hart, General
    Manager,
    stated at a hearing held on March 14,
    1973,
    as follows:
    “Now,
    I have asked for a five year period, but I
    have no way of knowing at the end of five years what
    the economic condition of the country would be, or
    whether we would be in a position to make an invest-
    ment of that type, but we had to select some time
    element,
    so we picked five years, but it is strictly
    arbitrary as far as we are concerned.
    We have no way
    of saying we will be in a better financial position
    five years from now than we are right now,
    so that it
    is about all
    I can say about the financial side of it.”
    Wirco is located in a sparsely settled area one—half mile
    outside the city limits of New Athens, a town of
    2,000 popula-
    tion.
    The next nearest community is approximately four miles
    from the plant.
    The Agency has received no compliants from
    residents near Petitioner’s plant.
    The Board notes that Petitioner’s request for variance and
    the testimony of Mr. Hart at the hearing are remarkably devoid of
    data and evidence in support of
    its assertions and request.
    In
    particular, Petitioner offered what can only be termed meager
    substantiation for its assertions,
    as regard financial inability,
    probability of lay-offs and the purported impossibility of
    stock-piling.
    It is the decision of the Board that
    in view
    of the severe
    hardship to both Wirco and its employees, which would result
    from three to eight weeks of idleness per year,
    and the incon-
    clusiveness of the evidence as to whether,
    in fact, operation of
    the cupola would result in violations,
    a variance for a period
    of
    six months will be granted.
    7
    —
    546
    —3—
    Petitioner
    is also put on notice that should it request
    an extension of this variance,
    a more diligent, documented and
    factually supportive petition will be requisite to favorable
    action by this Board.
    This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclu-
    sions of law of the Board.
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Variance
    be granted to Wirco Castings, mc,
    for the term of six months from
    the date of this order
    subject to the following conditions:
    I.
    Petitioner shall not operate its gray iron cupola
    furnace
    in excess of the following limitations:
    A)
    The gray iron cupola furnace shall not be operated
    in excess of forty
    (40) days during the period of this Variance.
    B)
    During any one day of operation,
    the gray iron
    cupola shall not exceed thirty
    (30)
    tons of gray iron castings.
    C)
    The operation of the gray iron cupola shall not
    have a melt rate that exceeds
    four
    (4) tons per hour.
    II.
    Petitioner shall maintain and keep in good operating
    order and operate during all times when the gray iron cupola is
    operating its afterburner and wetcap control devices on the
    gray iron cupola.
    III.
    Petitioner shall inform the Agency of the projected
    operation of the gray iron cupola furnace,
    in writing,
    at least
    forty-eight
    (48) hours prior to the use of the gray iron cupola.
    IV.
    After each period of operation of Petitioner’s gray
    iron cupola furnace,
    Petitioner shall supply to the Agency,
    in
    writing, forty-eight
    (48)
    hours after such period of operation
    the following information concerning its gray iron cupola:
    A)
    The number of days during the period of operation
    that Petitioner operated its gray iron cupola.
    B)
    The daily iron casting production for each day
    Petitioner operated its gray iron cupola.
    V.
    Petitioner shall submit to the Agency, with any request
    for variance extension,
    information on the financial position
    of the company and any other data to substantiate Petitioner’s
    claim that it is unable to purchase control equipment on its
    cupola or purchase an additional induction furnace.
    VI.
    The gray iron cupola shall be granted only in accordance
    with paragraph I of this order and, then only when it
    is abso-
    lutely necessary that the induction furnace he shut down for
    maintenance and repair.
    The cupola and induction furnaces shall
    never be operated concurrently.
    7
    —
    547
    —4—
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Ppllution Control
    Board, certify that the above opinion a d order was adopted by
    the Board on the
    /c~”
    day of
    -
    1
    ,
    1973, by a vote
    of
    cj
    to~j
    .
    7
    —
    548

    Back to top