ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
Nay
29,
1974
OLIN CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 74-28
ENVIRONIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
3
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
This is a Petition for Variance brought by the Olin Corporation,
hereinafter
“Petitioner”
and
filed
with
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
hereinafter
“Agency”
on
January
17,
1974.
On
January
21,
1974,
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
issued
an
order requesting
additional
information
and
on
ttrch
11,
1974,
Petitioner
filed
an
Amended
Petition
wi th
the
requested
data.
Petitioner
has
had
the problem
of
disposal
of explosive
wastes
for
several
years
and
petitioner
has
previously
been
granted
successive
Variances
to
make
technological
innovations
in
methods
of explosive
waste disposal.
The following are the Variances which Petitioner has
held in the past, including a short description of each Variance:
P~B
70-11
Burning of explosive waste either open
71-7
or
under special
conditions
started in
1967.
73-427
P~B
72-281
Burning of
a building which had some
explosive possibilities.
PCB
70-48
Burning permitted of coal with a sulfur
71—347
content
greater
than
1
in
the
event of
an
episode.
PCB
73-427
Permission
to
open
burn
primers
when
incinerator is
malfunctioning.
PCB
73—450
PermIssion
to
burn
high
sulfur
coal
in
the
event
of curtailment of natural
gas
supply.
12—433
—2—
The Operating Permit for the Scrap Shot Shell
Incinerator
(~
212 1309) was
issued
on March
12,
1973,
with an expiration date
of March
8,
1975.
On August 8,
1973, the same incinerator was
issued another Permit reflecting process innovations;
this Permit
expired on
March
31,
1974.
Petitioner’s
East Alton Plant,
Madjson County,
Illinois,
is
engaged, among other enterprises,
in the business of manufacturing
shot shell
ammunition and primer explosives.
In
the process
of
manufacture, Petitioner generates large amounts of explosive trade
waste.
Presently,
Petitioner disposes the explosive waste
in
a
shot shell
incinerator and a rotary popper incinerator.
Both of these
incinerators are controlled with a scrubber and have been granted
Operating Permits by the Agency.
Petitioner seeks
a Variance for a period of one year or such
lesser time
as Petitioner can place
into operation one of two
alternative compliance plans currently under study.
Petitioner seeks
relief from Section 9(a) of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act, Illinois
Revised Statutes, Chapter
111—1/2, Section 1009(a)) and lllinois Pollution Control Board
Regulations, Chapter 2,
Part II, Rule 203(e).
Petitioner’s pyrotechnic destructor
is included
in the
category of”.
.
all other incinerators.
.
.“
under Rule 2O3(e)(3).
That Rule allows maximum emissions of 0.2 grains per standard cubic
foot of effluent gases corrected to
12 percent carbon dioxide.
The
effective data of this Rule was December 31,
1973 pursuant to Rule
203(i)(2).
According to pages
8a, 8b and Sc of Petitioner’s permit
application,
testing by Industrial Testing Laboratories,
Inc. of St.
Louis,
Missouri indicated calculated emissions from Petitioner’s
incinerator of 0.672 grains per standard cubic foot of effluent gases
corrected to
12 percent carbon dioxide.
Therefore,
Variance from
Rule 203(e)(3)
is necessary.
The Agency after an investigation of Petitioner’s facility,
stated in
its “Recommendation”
to the Board that:
“Because of the high amount of sub—micron particulate matter
being emitted from the present system and the rather large size scrubber
needed to control the particulate,
Petitioner believes that some of
the material must be disposed of by sonic means other than in the
incinerator.
Petitioner~srepresentatives
indicated that the insta1laL~or.
of
a 150 horsepower scrubber necessary to control the sub-micron
particulates would be cost prohibitive.
The Agency specifically
reserves coment
on this assertion.
12—434
—3-
Petitioner presently has
two possible methods
to evaluate
in place of the burning of the scrap material.
But
as yet Petitioner
has not selected an alternative.”
See page 7, Petition for Variance.
“There has been some change in the method of calculating
the emissions based on the percent excess
air.
This change has
shown Petitioner’s
incinerator
to be out of compliance with the
Board rules, whereas
it was previously indicated the existing
incinerator was in compliance.
The Agency has received no objection from citizens concerning
the granting of this Variance.”
WHEREFORE:
The Agency asserts
that the company has not
shown
that compliance will be met at the end of the Variance period.
The company has not shown that
if the Variance were denied that
any economic hardship would result.
Accordingly,
the Agency recommends that the Variance be
denied.
In the alternative, if the Variance should be granted, the
Agency recommends that such Variance be granted only from Rule 2O3(e)(3).
The Board should
not grant
a Variance from either Section 9(a) of
the Environmental
Protection Act or from Rule 102.”
In
its argument
as
to the denial of a Variance of Section 9(a)
the Agency cites
people ex rel. Scott v.
Janson,
10
Ill.
App. 3rd
787,
295 N.E.
2d
140 (1973).
The court held that where enforcement provisions
and sanctions
against an alleged polluter are sought under the Environmental Protection
Act,
a hearing must be had before, and a determination made by,
the
Pollution
Control Board and not the Circuit Court.
(This decision
is
presently pending on
appeal).
The argument that the Agency
advances
is that if the Board grants
a Variance from Section 9(a) this would
foreclose any enforcement action during the length of the Variance.
The Board concurs with the argument of the Agency not only with
relation to Section 9(a) but with all
cases where the Board issues
a
Variance to a Section of the Act or to its
own rules,
This, we believe,
is
axiomatic.
The question is not whether or not the Board’s action
precludes enforcement but whether or not the Petitioner has met his
burden
in order to secure
a Variance.
12
—
435
—4—
We find that the Petittoner has not met that burden with regard
to
a Variance from Section 9(a).
It has failed to show that compliance
would
be met at the end of the Variance period as well as
any economic
hardship that might result.
We further find that the Petitioner has
met its burden with regard to
a Variance from Rule 203(e)(3).
Compliance with Rule 203(e)
can presently be achieved only by
Petitioner’s
ceasing to use its incinerator~s for the disposal of its
explosive trade wastes.
Because of the safety hazard posed by these
wastes, open burning would
be the only remaining safe method for their
disposal.
Obviously,
from the public’s standpoint,
this
is not a
desirable alternative, and would require
a variance to open-burn
(this
Board has granted a ~iariance
in PCB 73-427 for limited open burning of excess
scrap primers
to eliminate
a particular safety hazard facing
Petitioner).
Thus,
compliance with Rule 203(e) would require that Petitioner accumulate
and store these wastes.
Such storage would soon constitute
an unreasonable
and unacceptable safety hazard to plant personnel and property.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of
the
Board.
IT
IS
THE
ORDER
of the Pollution Control
Board:
1.
That
the Petitioner’s
request for a Variance from Section 9(a)
of
the
Illinois Environmental
Protection Act,
Illinois Revised Statutes,
Chapter
111-1/2,
Section 1009(a)
be
denied.
2.
That
the
Petitioner~s request
for
a Variance from the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
Regulations,
Chapter 2,
Part
II,
Rule 203(e)
be
granted
for
a
period
of
one
year
from
the
date
of
this
Order
under
the
tol
lowing
conditions:
a.
Petitioner shall
post
a
Perfonnance
Bond
in
the
amount
of
$50,000
to
assure
the
installation
of
pollution
control
equloment which
wi
I
achievo
como
iance with
tne
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
and the Rules and
Regulations
of
the
Board.
Said Performance
Bond
shall
~e posted
with
the
Agency
in
a form acceptable
to the Agency
at
the
following address:
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Fiscal
Service
Section
2200
Churchill
Road
Sprinqfield~ :liinois
62706
b.
Petitioner
shall
submit
within
60
days
from
the
date
of
this
Order
a
program
designed
to
achieve compliance
with
all
Rules
and
Reoulations
of
the
Board
to:
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Diviston
of Mr
Pollution
Control
Surveillance
Section
2200
Churc:hiii
Road
4~ornnt
e~c~
I~41;noi~F2706
—5—
c.
Petitioner shall submit in writing quarterly
progress reports to the Agency at the above address.
I, Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was
a opted on this
~‘
~44~
day Of
fr~
,.l974 by a vote of
0