ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 26, 1972

OLIN CORPORATION

)

#72—281

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Samuel

Lawton, Jr.):

Olin Corporation has filed a petition for variance from

the Open Burning Provisions of Section (9) (c) of the

Environmental Protection Act and Section 505, Part V, Chapter

2 of the Board regulations, in order to be allowed to burn

65 powder-contaminated buildings at its East Alton plant and

to decontaminate approximately 10,000 square feet of powder-

contaminated ground within a 120 day period.

The 65 buildings involved are frame 

structures

erected

during World War II as temporary buildings and have been used

for the loading and assembly of military squibs, detonators,

fuses, flares and other military items, This use terminated

in 1970 after a period of approximately 30 years. All of these

buildings have been used for the handling and processing of

dry explosives including Lead styphnate, tetracene, service

lead azide, dextrinated lead azide, polyvinyl alcohol lead

azide, CMC lead azide (RD 1333), diazodinitrophenol, smokeless

powder, black powder, cyclonite (RDX), HMX, pyrotechnic mixes,

zirconium

mixes, mercury fulminate, pentaerythritoltetranitrate,

tetryl, and TNT (trinitrotoluene).

Contamination of the buildings by these explosives has

resulted from dusting and loss of materials and dangerous

explosive contamination continues in these buildings, notwith-

standing extensive cleaning and decontamination procedures

employed by petitioner over the period of their use.

The buildings are presently abandoned and in 

the

process

of deterioration. Petitioner represents that it desires to

decontaminate and remove all buildings from 

the

property because

they

presently constitute a fire and explosion hazard and

preclude the use of other adjacent buildings for purposes desired,

incLuding the storage of gun powder. Removal of the buildings

other than by open burning increases the likelihood of flash

fires and explosions constituting an extreme hazard to workmen

involved. In 1954 such accidents did take place when dismantling

and removal were undertaken without prior decontamination by open

burning. Furthermore, if dismantling is 

fact achieved without

—

507

accident, later burning of the dismantled materials could

create the likelihood of explosion and attendant dangers.

Under the proposed program, the buildings would be burned

using a small quantity of sprayed #2 fuel oil. Petitioner~s

fire department should be on the site to protect adjacent

buildings and neighboring community fire departments would be

placed on a standby basis to prevent the spread of fire.

Petitioner proposes a burning schedule that would limit the rate of

burning as follows: each of two larger buildings (T-129 and

T~l30) would be burned on separate days on which no other

burning would occur. The remainder of the buildings would

be burned at a rate not to exceed 1,500 square feet of

buildings per day. A burning index has been developed by

Olin which has been used as a guide for predicting favorable

burning days and burning will be done only on days when

atmospheric and dispersion conditions are suitable to prevent

the spreading of fire and creation of smoke nuisance.

Included in the petition is a table indicating the weight

of materials to be burned at a total of 191.3 tons. Petitioner

believes that no air pollution will result from the proposed

burning program, although some smoke will emanate from the

burning of construction paper, roofing material and fuel oil

used to initiate combustion.

in addition to the open burning of the buildings, peti~

tioner seeks a variance in order to decontaminate an area of

ground of approximately 10,000 square feet which has been used

£or the past 35 years for the open burning of scrap explosives.

Explosive contaminants still remain in this area and no

alternative method of decontamination is available other than

by open burning. Any effort to remove the contaminated ground

or treat i.t would produce the danger of flash fires and

explosion. To burn this area, petitioner proposes to use a

small quantity of explosive contaminated scrap lumber. The

1.urning of the scrap lumber and the ground decontamination would

all occur on one day.

All residental structures are at least 1,000 feet distant

from any burning area, Residents interviewed by the Agency

expressed no opposition to the grant of the variance.

Petitioner represents that no suitable alternative exists to

the open burning proposed by this variance request. No suitable

means of incineration are available and building dismantling

would produce attributes of danger above referred to. All

iurn.ing would take place within a 120 day period from the grant~

ing of.the variance.

The Agency recommends that the variance be allowed subject

to certain conditions, most of which we adopt, but that the

contaminating powder in the buildings be “flash fired” rather

than having the buildings completely burned. We do not feel

this presents a reasonable alternative. Efforts to .:Elash fire

the explosive material could create the very dangers that

petitioner seeks to avoid. The 

likelihood of explosion or fire

would 

exist 

during dismantling operations if 

any explosive-

contaminated materials remained, 

or if explosive-contaminated

materials were incinerated explosion 

could result 

in that 

loca—

We

have 

considered variances of the 

sort 

Petitioner

proposes 

in

earlier opinions of the Board. 

See

Olin v. EPA,

#70-25 dated December 22, 1970. There 

we said:

“The 

evidence indicates that 

an extremely dangerous

situation exists at the subject site 

in its present

condition, Demolition of structures 

without 

pre-

viously igniting the powder-contaminated portions

would create a substantial danger 

to the workmen

engaged in the dismantling operation, with possible

flash fires resulting from the 

wrecking 

process...

Lastly, the exposed powder on the 

ground 

presents

the potential of serious danger to 

personnel 

and

property in its present condition. The alternatives

confronting Petition are to either allow the present

condition to continue with the attributes of danger

described above, dispose of its powder 

in

enclosed

facilities which will create explosion and danger of

major proportions, or to endeavor to dispose of the

structures and powder under a controlled program

employing the maximum degree of safety and utilizing

meteorological information to minimize the danger and

burden on the surrounding area. While the impact of

the

burning will be primarily on

Olin~s facilities,

there are residential areas that would be affected if

the burning is not properly controlled.

Evidence of witnesses indicates that the state of the

arts 

has not reached

a

point

where there is 

any suit~

able alternative to open burning of explosive wastes

and certainly not in the qualities involved in the

present case. (See testimony of Dr. Robert F. McComb,

Affidavit of 

T,

F, McDonnell attached to the Petition

for Extension of Variance.) The state of the arts

relative to disposal of explosive wastes was considered

and discusset in sutstanteal detail in Case No. PuB70~il,

Application for Extension of Variance of 

Olin Corpora~

tion, which variation related to the Winchester~Weston

Division.

Based upon the evidence adduced at the Hearing and the

matters

set forth in the Petition and Affidavit, it is

the opinion of the Board that the Petitioner has satis~

fied the statutory requisites for a granting of a

variance. Explosive waste previously generate.d hp Olin

operation

and the powder-contaminated structures cannot

be disposed of at the present time other than zopen

burning.

No suitable incineration method or other means

of disposal appear available. Prohibition of disposal

by open burning of the structures and the explosive

wastes would constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable

hardship. To prevent the disposal would result in a

continuing condition of danger to person and property

and to increase the likelihood of water pollution.

Insistence on enclosed burning of explosive waste at

the present time is unrealistic and would impose a

hardship on Petitioner disproportionate with any public

benefit achieved.”

We believe the same reasoning applicable to the facts of

the present case and accordingly grant the variance as re-

quested subject to the terms and conditions hereafter set

forth. Because of the nature of the variance requested, no

bond will be required.

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 the

Petitioner Olin Corporation be granted a variance from the

provisions of Section (9) (c) of the Act and Section 505,

Part V, Chapter 2 of the Board regulations for a period of 120

days from the date of this order to burn in the open 65

powder-contaminated buildings and approximately 10,000 square

feet of powder-contaminated ground subject to the following

terms and conditions:

1.  The burning period shall not exceed 120 days and shall

be completed by January 1, 1973, pursuanL to schedule as

proposed.

2.  Burning shall be conducted only on days when wind

direction, wind speed and meteorological conditions

are such that air pollution and impact on adjacent

areas will be minimized.

3.  Petitioner shall notify the regional office of the

Agency prior to any burning permitted by this variance.

4.  Petitioner 

shall 

submit a final report to the Agency

in writing no more than thirty (30) days after completion

of the burning.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order

on the 

_____

day of’ 

~I: .?~/ ,

1972 by a vote of 

to

. ~

~//

7!

‘~~/t

—

510