IL1It4OIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 20, 1985
OLIN CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 85—86
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF TEIE BOARD (by R. C. Flemal)z
This matter comes before the Board by the Petition for
Variance and First Amended Petition for Variance filed by Olin
Corporation (“Olin~)on June 21, 1985, and July 11, 1985,
respectively. Olin is seeking variance for a period not to
exceed three years from the open burning prohibition of 35 Ill.
Adm, Code 237.102. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(‘~Agency”) filed its recommendation on August 12, 1985,
recommending that variance be granted conditionally. The Board
received a written objection to the granting of this petition
from Mr. Hal Armstrong, who lives approximateiy~miie from
Olin’s burn site, This objection necessitated a heating, which
was held September 11, 1985.
Olin develops ~nd manufactures various propellants,
pyrotechnic devices, small and medium caliber ammunition, and gas
generator propulsion devices at a former U.S. Army Ordnance Plant
located in the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge west of
~4arion in Williamson County, Illinois. These materials are
produced for the U.S. Department of Defense and for export to
foreign governments. In addition to the manufacturing facility,
Olin operates a test range and waste thermal treatment facility
on 290 acres of land two miles northwest of Marion, also in
Williamson County. It is at this site that the open burning
proposed by Olin would take place.
Petitioner states that as part of its contracts with the
Department of Defense, Olin is required to test the ammunition it
manufactures by firing a certain number of rounds (generally one
per test) into containers of fuel. These tests are intended to
simulate the conditions that would occur when firing ammunition
into enemy vehicle fuel tanks, The ammunition types that could
require testing include 50 caliber MPC, and 20 MM, 25 MM, and 30
~4~1HEI and MPC. The fuels required to be tested are diesel fuel,
gasoline, Jet A and Jet B, and containers holding 3 to 33 gallons
are used during testing, the size of the container varying with
the nature of each particular test. When a round of ammunition
65-505
—2—
is successfully fired into one of the containers of fuel, the
fuel ignites and burns, causing violation of section 237.102.
Petitioner states it extinguishes the ignited fuel after
approximately 5 minutes, and contends that typically 1 to 5
gallons of fuel are burned per test. Olin anticipates that the
Department of Defense would require no more than 300 of the
aforementioned tests per year.
Previously, Petitioner has received variances from the Board
which allowed it to openly burn explosive wastes and allowed
operation of explosive waste incinerators PCB 71—160 (1971); PCB
71—371 (1972); PCB 71—517 (1973); PCB 79—234 (1980)j Pea 81—118
(1982); PCB 83—102 (1983); PCB 84—69 (1984)1. The two most
recent variances allowed activity similar to that involved in
this petition.
Olin and the Agency concur that the proposed testing will
result in only insignificant environmental impact to the area
surrounding the burn site, Olin submitted the following data
(which the Agency considers to be correct) detailing the annual
emissions resulting from the tests:
Annual Emissions
Based on the worst case, i.e. 33 gallons of fuel
and the full amount of the explosive charge
contained in each round of ammunition burned in
each test, and assuming 300 tests performed in one
year the annual emissions would be as follows:
Pollutant
Tons/Year
Particulates
0.0099
Sulfur dioxide
0.2805
Carbon monoxide
0.0265
Nitrogen oxides
0.1095
Olin alleges, however, that based on past
experience, no more than 5 gallons of fuel would
be burned per test. Therefore, assuming 5 gallons
of fuel and the full amount of the explosive
charge contained in each round of ammunition
burned in each test and 300 tests performed in one
year, the annual emissions would be as follows:
Pollutant
Tons/Year
Particulates
0.0015
Sulfur dioxides
0.0420
Carbon monoxide
0.0055
Nitrogen oxides
0.0165
65-506
—3—
Petitioner contends, and the Agency does not contest that
there is no feasible method of conducting the required tests
other than by open burning. Consequently, Olin submits no
compliance plan in support of its petition for variance relief.
Moreover, the Agency has stated that given the testing
requirements, it is unable to say that compliance is even
technologically possible (Recommendation, par. 16). Petitioner
has attempted to achieve compliance in the past by utilizing
filtration equipment and by researching the feasibility of a test
facility to contain the explosions. Neither potential solution
was found to be useful because each prevented the simulation of
actual battle conditions, a prerequisite of the tests. Without
variance relief the only option available to Olin would be to
conduct the tests at an out—of—state location; Olin submits that
the cost of doing so would be prohibitive and that failure to
gain variance would place Petitioner at a competitive
disadvantage on two contracts it anticipates gaining within the
pendency of the variance. For these reasons Olin and the Agency
agree that denial of variance relief to the Petitioner would
constitute an unreasonable hardship.
The Board finds that denial of variance relief in this case
would cause Olin to suffer an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,
and so grants Petitioner variance from section 237.102 for a
period of three years. It is uncontroverted that emissions
resulting from Olin’s testing have an insignificant environmental
impact on the surrounding area, and that it is technically and
economically infeasible for Olin to conduct these tests without
violating section 237.102.
The only contested issue between the parties to this case
relates to the duration of the variance period; Olin requests
three years and the Agency recommends two years. Olin’s request
for three years is predicated on its expection of bidding on two
additional contracts, one this year and the other in 1987, which
would entail testing similar to that required under its present
contract. The first contract would consist of 20MM MPC and would
run from 1986 through 1987. Olin estimates 200 tests could be
required under this contract. The 1987 contract would involve
200 25MM MPC tests, with testing running from July, 1987 through
1988*. Since both these contracts call for 200 tests, the
emissions attributable to each would be only two—thirds of the
amount resulting from the immediate testing program, the latter
*The Board notes that Petitioner’s request for variance “not
to exceed three (3) years” (Amended Petition, p.1) is seemingly
at odds with Petitioner’s apparent intent to have variance to
allow testing which “would begin the first of July 1987 and run
for 18 months or therefore 1987 through 1988” (Amended Petition,
p.5), in that a three year period would not include the entirety
of 1988. Though this is an inconsistency, the Board will not
assume the task of redrafting Olin’s Amended Petition. If in
fact Olin is still in need of variance relief when this variance
expires on September 21, 1988, Petitioner will have to take the
appropriate actions at that time to extend its variance relief.
65-507
*4—
an amount which the Agency finds to be insignificant. Thus
should Olin receive the 1987 contract, its emissions during the
contested third year would equal approximately two—thirds of
Petitioner’s emissions under its first—year contract. During the
second half of 1987, when two sets of tests would be occurring if
Olin successfully bids for both new contracts, the rate of
emissions could be expected to be one—third higher than the
present rate. Since denial of the requested third year of
variance would threaten to put Olin at a competitive
disadvantage, and since the potential testing to be done by Olin
during the third year would not differ in character but would
occur with lesser ~requency, the Board finds its appropriate that
the variance run ~:crthree years.
The concern expressed by the Agency that a two—year variance
“would allow closer regulation of the testing activity”
(Recommendation, par. 19) the Board finds unpersuasive. The
conditions imposed with the granted variance provide for Agency
oversight throughout Olin’s testing activity. The Agency also
opined that a two—year variance period would be sufficient to
give Olin “adequatu time to pursue a more permanent remedy”
(Recommendation, par. 19), including a possible site—specific
rule. The Board finds this to be an insufficient argument to
reject the three—year term requested by Petitioner.
As noted above, the Board received an objection to Olin’s
petition from Mr. Hal Armstrong, whose home is approximately 1/2
mile from the burn site, Mr. Armstrong complained of smoke and
noise emanating from the Olin property. The Agency received a
similar complaint from Mr. Armstrong. Subsequent Agency
investigation “did not show that the complaints were related to
the ammunition testing” (Recommendation, par. 5). However, the
Agency does make several recommendations regarding conditions to
be imposed along with granting of the requested variance which
are intended to safeguard neighbors from possible impact of the
ammunitions testing program; the Board finds these conditions
reasonable and therefore adopts them in full.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Olin Corporation is hereby granted variance beginning
September 21, 1985 from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 237.102 for ammunitions
testing conducted at Olin’s Test Range and Waste Thermal
Treatment facility in Williamson County, Illinois, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This variance shall expire September 21, 1988.
2. This variance pertains exclusively to open burning
relating to ammunitions testing pursuant to contract with the
United States Government.
65-508
—5—
3. Should Olin receive private complaints concerning its
open burning practices, or should the Agency contact Olin
concerning complaints it has received regarding the open burning
which is the subject of this variance, Olin shall immediately
discontinue testing unless and until meteorological conditions
are such that the open burning will not constitute a possible
violation of section 9(a) of the Act.
4. Olin shall keep available such records of the testing as
may enable it to develop an ammunition testing procedure which
does not constitute open burning as defined in the Act.
5. Olin shall ~3ubmitquart~rly reports of the testing to
the Agency, the
f
ii
such report. due thirty days from this
date. Such reports •~hal1be sent to:
Illinois Envirc~mental Protection Agency
Division of Afr Pollution Control
2009 Mall Stre~:.
Collinsville, ::~iinois 62234
Such reports shall include, as a minimum, time and place of
each burning, identification of the quantity of oil burned,
meteorological conditions in the vicinity, and complaints
received by Olin and action taken thereon.
6. Olin shall conduct the open burning activities only
between the hours of 8:00 a.in. and 5:00 p.m.
7. Olin shall provide a phone number available to receive
complaints on a 24—hour per day basis.
8. Olin shall assign one person the responsibility of
responding to citizen complaints, thereby allowing the public
access to some one person familiar with the test burning
procedures.
9. Within forty—five days after this date the Petitioner
shall execute and send to:
Mr. ~iiliam D. Ingersoll
Enforcement Attorney
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
a certification of acceptance of this variance by which it agrees
to be bound by its terms and conditions.
This forty—five (45) day period shall be held in abeyance
for any period during which this matter is appealed. The form of
the certification shall be as foiio’~~s~
~5-509
—6—
CERTIFICATION
The Olin Corporation, having read the Order of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, in PCB 85—86 dated September 20, 1985,
understands and accepts the said Order, realizing that such
acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and
enforceable.
Olin Corporation
By:
Authorized Aqent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the bove Order was adopted on
the
_______________
day of
______________,
1985, by a vote
of
~7O
~
Dorothy M. Gur(n, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
65-510