ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 13, 1979
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
PROPOSED
AMENDMENT
OF
AIR
)
R78-9
POLLUTION CONTROL RULES
)
203(e)
and
206(b)
PROPOSED OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a petition for
amendment to air pollution control rules filed September 1,
1978
by Olin Corporation
(Olin),
a Virginia corporation author-
ized to do business in Illinois.
The regulatory proposal seeks
to amend Rule 203(e)
and 206(b)
of Chapter 2:
Air Pollution
Control Regulations
(Air Rules).
These provisions set emission
limitations for particulates and carbon monoxide from incinerators.
The proposal would set site specific limitations for two small
explosive waste incinerators operated by Olin near Marion,
Williamson County.
The proposal was published in Environmental
Register, No.
179
,
September
15,
1978.
A public hearing was held
in Marion on November 9,
1978.
An economic impact study
(EcIS)
was prepared by the Illinois Institute of Natural Resources.
An
economic impact hearing was held in Marion on October 23,
1979
pursuant to notice given in Environmental Register, No.
200,
September 17,
1979,
Members of the public attended the hearings
but did not comment,
Olin manufactures various propellant and pyrotechnic devices
on a site leased from the U.
S. Government within the Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge between Marion and Carbondale.
The manu-
facturing process generates explosive waste and explosive con-
taminated waste.
This waste includes reject product,
floor
sweepings and other material which becomes contaminated with ex-
plosive, propellant or pyrotechnic material.
This waste requires
special handling because it is likely to catch fire or explode.
The traditional method of disposal is open burning which can take
place only pursuant to variance as provided by Air Rules 502 and
505.
In the past Olin has been granted such variances,
as well as
variances to operate the incinerators.
The latest of these was
PCB 78-242,
32 PCB 169, November 30,
1978.
In 1975 Olin proposed
a state—wide regulation governing explosive waste incinerators.
This proceeding was later dismissed by order of the Board
(R75-l3;
19 PCB 189, October 30,
1975;
20 PCB 189, February
26,
1976).
There is presently pending before the Board a further petition for
a variance to allow operation of these incinerators during the
notice and comment period involved in this proceeding
(PCB 79-234).
37—89
—2—
The proposal contains no definition of “explosive”
or
“explosive contaminated waste.”
At the hearings Olin and the
Agency agreed to adoption of the definition of “explosive” pro-
posed by Olin in its previous proposal for a state—wide regulation,
R75-l3
(R.
16).
The definition is
as follows:
Explosives:
The term explosives includes any chemical
compound or mixture which, when subjected to heat,
friction,
detonation or other suitable initiation,
undergoes a very
rapid chemical change with the evolution of large volumes
of highly heated gases which exert pressures in the sur-
rounding medium.
In using the term “explosive” in these proposed amendments
the Board intends the term to be as defined above.
However, the
Board will not at this time amend the definitions of Air Rule 201
to include this term since the definition does not depart from the
general meaning of the word and since the proposal is site specific.
The traditional disposal method, open burning,
is undesirable
because of inefficient combustion,
inadequate monitoring and un-
controlled emissions
(EcIS
17;
R.
10).
Disposal in a landfill is
undesirable because the materials remain hazardous for an indefinite
period of time after burial and because it is doubtful if the pract-
ice could in any event be permitted at the present time in Illinois
(EcIS
32;
R.
54,
65,
77).
Several incinerator systems are discussed
in the study
(EcIS
19).
These include a vertical draft incinerator,
a rotary kiln incinerator, SITPA
I and II
(Simplified Incineration
Technique for Pollution Abatement)
and a fluidized bed incinerator.
Also discussed is wet air oxidation in which
an aqueous slurry of
waste
is fed into an autoclave along with steam and compressed air.
There is doubt whether any one of these methods could handle the~
wide range of wastes Olin generates.
They also appear to have
higher capital and operating costs than the incinerators in ques-
tion.
The author of the EcIS was unable to find specific inform-
ation on emissions to determine whether better control could be
achieved with the alternative systems
(EcIS
30).
In 1970 Olin began a program to find an alternative to open
burning.
This program was directed by Mr. Richard Altekruse of
Olin and Dr. Howard Hesketh of Southern Illinois University as
a
consultant.
After
a literature search of various options and some
unsuccessful experimentation with an air curtain destructor, in-
cinerator A was built in 1972.
This
is
a single chamber type
incinerator
with
an
induced
draft,
Waste
is
fed
into
a
combustion
chamber
in
small
packages
by
means
of
a
conveyor
through
a
blast
37-90
—3—
resistant reinforced concrete wall.
The waste
is ignited when
it comes into contact with a bed of incandescent coke.
The
combustion and decomposition products are exhausted by means
of
the induced draft through
a high velocity venturi throat where
they are scrubbed with water,
The contaminants are separated in
a cyclone separatoi~
and
the scrubbed gases exhausted to the
atmosphere
CR.
24,
34,
59,
65).
In 1974 incinerator B,
a destructor retort, was constructed.
This has walls of heavy steel construction to contain shrapnel
from detonation of intermediate calibre ammunition components.
Ignition
is provided by a fuel oil flame rather than a coke bed.
The combustion products are exhausted to the same scrubber used
for incinerator A.
The two can therefore not be operated at the
same time
(R.
26,
34,
65).
Although there are other explosive waste incinerators in
operation,
these are unique in design.
The Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency
(Agency)
has
been involved in their development
and
testing.
The
Agency
believes
the
incinerators
represent
best
available technology
CR,
6).
Nevertheless they
violate
the
emission limits for incinerators for particulates and carbon monoxide.
Rule 203(e) (3)
provides that:
“No person shall cause or allow
the ethission of particulate matter
.
.
.
to exceed 0.2 grains per
standard
cubic
foot
of
effluent
gases
corrected
to
12
percent
carbon
dioxide.”
For
example,
any
emission
in
excess
of
0.1
gr/
cu
ft
would
be
in
violation
if
the
effluent
contained
6
carbon
dioxide.
Rule 206(b) similarly provides that:
“No person shall
cause or allow the emission of carbon monoxide
,
.
.
to exceed
500 ppm, corrected to 50 percent excess air,”
An emission in
excess of 333 ppm would thus be in violation if there were 75
excess
air,
The reason for correcting to 12
carbon dioxide or 50
excess
air is
to prevent circumvention of the rules by dilution of ef-
fluent gases with excess
air,
These rules were based on typical
emissions achievable by a well—operated municipal incinerator,
which, when burning waste containing a typical amount of carbon,
would operate with 50
excess air and generate about
12
carbon
dioxide.
Olin contends, and the Agency agrees,
that this model
municipal incinerator is fundamentally different from Olin’s ex-
plosive waste incinerators
CR.
6).
Two
reasons are given.
First,
the explosive materials typically have a lower proportion of carbon
than municipal waste and hence produce less carbon dioxide when
burned and are unfairly penalized by the correction
to 12
carbon
dioxide
(R.
26,
53).
Second,
the incinerators must operate with
much more than 50
excess air because a large induced draft is
necessary to damp pressure spikes following explosions to prevent
puffing of waste gases through openings in the incinerator and to
37—91
—4—
cool the gases prior to scrubbing.
Whereas more than 50
excess
air in a municipal incinerator indicates inefficient operation,
this
is not the case with regard to the explosive waste incin-
erator
(R.
7,
27, 41,
53).
The air quality impact of the incinerators at Olin’s property
line was studied in a report prepared for Olin by ETA Engineering,
Inc.
of Westmont
(Ex. E).
The study was based on the following
charging and emission rates which are comparable to those given
in testimony at the hearing
(Ex.
E,
p.
4;
R.
28).
Incinerator A
Incinerator B
Max. Waste Throughput
Short-term
300
lb/hr
454 lb/hr
Annual
150,000 lb/yr
20,500 lb/yr
*Max.
Daily Operation
6 hrs
6 hrs
Max. Short—term
Emission Rates
Particulates
0.12 g/sec
0.36 g/sec
Carbon Monoxide
2.5
g/sec
0.45 g/sec
*Incinerators cannot be operated simultaneously.
The ambient air quality impact of the emissions was pre-
dicted based on the Climatology Dispersion Model
(CDM), PTMAX and
PTDIS.
Meteorological data was taken from the National Weather
Service Station records at Terre Haute, Indiana.
Worst case air
quality i~npactsat Olin’s property line are presented in the table
below.
For comparison purposes the significant increments applic-
able to major new emission sources are presented, although these
are not applicable to Olin’s facility
(Ex.
E,
p.
5,
11; EcIS 14).
This conclusion is not affected by the recent decision in Alabama
Power
v.
Costle, No.
78-1006,
U.
S. Court of Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia, June 18,
1979
(R.
74).
Ambient
Carbon
Primary
Significant
Olin “Worst Case”
Monoxide
Standard
Increment
Modeling Results
1 hour
40 mg/m~
2
mg/rn~
0.92 mg/rn3
8 hour
10 mg/rn
0,5 mg/rn
0.64 mg/rn3
Particulates
24 hour
260 ug/rn~
5
ug/rn~
32.3
ug/rn~
Annual
75 ug/m
1
ug/m
0.04 ug/rn
37—92
—5—
Under the proposed rule, Olin’s allowable annual emissions
at its projected operating rate would amount to 108 kg of particu-
lates and 1800 kg of carbon monoxide.
These are small compared
with Williamson County sources emitting 766,000 kg of particulates
and mobile sources emitting 24,000,000 kg of carbon monoxide
annually
(EcIS
4;
R.
56)
Olin’s incinerators are located on privately owned land about
one mile north of the National Forest boundary
CR.
77, Ex.
C).
This
is
an abandoned strip mine near Energy.
The nearest residence
is 0.4 miles distant and there are a few others about a mile away.
Neighboring land uses include Olin’s test facility
for solid
propellants and intermediate calibre ammunition,
farming and coal
recovery from strip mine spoil banks
CR.
38).
Background particu-
late levels of
30 to 45 ug/m3 have been modeled for rural central
Illinois.
However,
there has been no specific work on fugitive
particulate levels
from spoil banks per se
CR,
64).
The inciner-
ators are located in West Marion Township,
a designated non—
attainment area for particulates.
The nearest monitoring station
is 2.8 miles southeast of the incinerators, in Marion.
The
secondary twenty-four hour~National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for particulates was exceeded in 1977 but not in previous years.
Williamson County is unclassified for carbon monoxide
(Ex.
E,
p.
1).
Based on the evidence
in the record, the Board finds that the
incinerators will not prevent attainment of national air quality
standards.
Since the air quality impact study is strongly in-
fluenced by the short operating hours
(six hours),
the proposal
will be amended to limit total daily operating time.
The air quality effects were predicted for Olin’s property
line.
At all points outside the facility the actual effect on
ambient air quality would be less,
The EcIS did not attempt to
quantify the health effects of the expected emissions.
It would
probably not be possible to measure the increase in ambient
concentrations at a distance from the site where there is a high
population density.
Estimation of the health effects was deemed
impossible
(EcIS
15),
The EcIS did not identify any cost associated with the proposed
regulation.
The incinerators were determined to be far cheaper than
the other systems examined in detail
(EcIS
35).
Olin contended that
the alternative to the proposed regulation was to close the facility
resulting in loss of employment and tax base in Williamson County
CR.
32).
The Agency challenged this conclusion,
pointing out that
the more expensive technology would amount to only eight and one—
half percent of the facility’s output
CR.
67).
37—93
—6—
Olin’s proposal has been modified somewhat in the proposed
Order.
The proposal specified the location as
“within four miles
of Marion.”
This has been narrowed to include only Section
3,
T.
9
S.,,
R.
2 E.,
3 PM
(Ex,
C).
The proposal has been rearranged
and the language made more general so that,
in the event other,
similar facilities are constructed, they can be covered by the
same rule by addition of alternative conditions to the definition
of existing small explosive waste incinerator found in Rule 203(e)
(6)
(A)
A substantial change has also been made.
Under the proposal,
the incinerators would be exempt from the applicable incinerator
standard of Rule 203(e) (3)
on condition that, inter alia,
the
emissions of particulate matter “not exceed 50.0 grains
for each
pound of combined waste and auxiliary fuel burned.”
Under the
proposal,
if the facility emitted 50,1 gr/lb, Rule 203 Ce) (3) would
apply and the particulate emissions would be corrected to 12
carbon dioxide.
Considering the evidence in the record,
a de
minimus emission over 50.0 grains per pound could result in a gross
violation of 0.2 gr/cu ft standard of Rule 203(e) (3).
There would
be difficulty in judging the amount of penalty to assess in such a
case.
Furthermore, there would be difficulty in enforcing any
penalty against Olin based on Rule 203 Ce) (3)
since the Board has
found, in adopting this rule,
that the standard applicable to
incinerators in general is not rationally related to these ex-
plosive waste incinerators,
To avoid these problems the 50.0
grains per pound limitation has been dropped as a condition for
exemption.
It will, however, be a violation of Rule 203 Ce) (6) (B)
if the particulate emissions exceed 50.0 gr/lb or 7140 mg/kg of
combined waste and fuel,
The 50.0 gr/lb
limit has also been dropped as
a condition for
exemption from the carbon monoxide limitation of Rule 206(b),
Under the proposal particulates of 50.0 gr/lb would imply no car-
bon monoxide exemption which would result in correction to 50
air resulting in a gross violation of carbon monoxide Rule 206(b),
The rational basis for such a rule is even more tenuous and not
supported by the record.
Ar~
incidental result of
this
modification is that there is no
carbon monoxide limitation
at all for the incinerators so long
as
they comply with the conditions of Rule 203(é) (6) (A).
However,
this is probably the same as the practical effect of the proposal
which in effect judged compliance with the carbon monoxide limit-
ation on the basis of the particulate emissions.
An excursion
over the 50.0 gr/lb particulate standard could not be made more
serious because it resulted in violation of two rules rather than
one.
37—94
—7—
The proposal included no definition of “explosive contaminated
waste.”
As used in the proposed Order,
explosive contaminated
waste
is waste which contains explosives and other wastes which
have become admixed during the ordinary and necessary activities
of manufacture, stOi~geor transportation and from which other
wastes cannot be economically separated with sufficient reliabil-
ity to permit conventional disposal
CR.
22).
It is not the Board’s
intention to authorize the burning of wastes which are not contam-
inated with explosives except as otherwise provided in the Air
Rules.
The Board further expects Olin to exercise due care to
prevent unnecessary commingling with other waste and to separate
waste where practicable.
The proposal provided as
a condition that:
“The incinerators
were designed and built for the sole purpose of burning explosives
or explosive contaminated waste,”
Nothing in the language would
remove the exception from the general incinerator rules upon their
subsequent dedication to burning municipal waste.
This was ob-
viously not the intention of the proposal.
Accordingly, this
condition has been changed to:
“The incinerator burns explosives
or explosive contaminated waste exclusively.”
If other waste is
burned the emissions will be judged on the basis of the rules
applicable
to the waste burned.
A second purpose of the language
in the proposal may have been to differentiate the explosive
waste incinerators on the site from other incinerators.
However,
the explosive waste incinerators have been adequately described
in this Opinion.
The general rules will apply to any other incin-
erators on the site even if they burn explosive waste exclusively.
The proposal in Olin’s earlier petition,
R75—l3, contained
extensive definitions of “ammunition” and “ammunition components.”
The exceptions also named these items specifically.
This is not
included in this proposal and no mention was made of it at the
hearing.
It is clear, however, that incinerator B was designed
primarily to handle ammunition.
The Board therefore notes that
the terms “explosive” and “explosive contaminated waste” may
extend to ammunition and ammunition components as defined in the
proposal in R75—13, provided they meet the general definition of
explosive or explosive contaminated waste.
The incinerators will,
of course, continue to be subject to
the general provisions of the Air Rules, including the permit
requirements of Rule
103 and the monitoring and reporting require-
ments of Rules 106 and 107.
At the hearing Olin agreed to submit
quarterly reports on the amount of explosive waste burned In its
incinerators and the times when such incinerators are operated
37—95
—8—
CR.
32,
39).
No rule requiring this is necessary since
it is
within the power of the Agency to require such reporting and
monitoring by permit condition under the existing~rules.
Like-
wise, Olin will continue to be subject to the episode action
plan requirements of Rule 404
(Ex. D).
There
is
presently
in
effect
an
emergency
Rule
203(e)
(6).
This was adopted by Order of the Board on March 28,
1977;
25 PCB
251.
It is a temporary rule on afterburners which by its own
terms expired March
7,
1977.
This rule will be repealed and the
number used for Olin’s site specific regulation.
ORDER
It
is
the
Order
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
that
Rules
203(e)
and 206(b)
of Chapter 2:
Air Pollution Control Regulations,
be amended to read as
follows:
Rule 203 Ce):
Particulate Emission Standards and Limitations For
Incinerators
(1)
No person shall cause or allow the emission of partic-
ulate matter into the atmosphere from any incinerator
burning more than 60,000 pounds of refuse per hour to
exceed 0.05 grains per standard cubic foot of effluent
gases corrected to
12 per cent carbon dioxide.
(2)
No person shall cause or allow the emission of partic-
ulate matter into the atmosphere from any incinerator
burning
more
than
2000
but less
than
60,000 pounds
of
refuse
per
hour
to
exceed
0.08
grains
per
standard
cubic foot of effluent gases corrected to 12 per cent
carbon dioxide.
(3)
No person shall cause or allow the emission of partic-
ulate matter into the atmosphere from all other exist-
ing incinerators to exceed 0,2 grains per standard
cubic foot of effluent gases
corrected to 12 per cent
carbon dioxide,
(4)
No person shall cause or allow the emission of partic-
ulate matter into the atmosphere from all other new
incinerators to exceed 0.1 grains per standard cubic
foot of effluent gases corrected to 12 per cent carbon
dioxide.
37—96
—9—
(A)
Rule 203(e) (4)
shall not apply to aqueous waste
incinerators which, when corrected to 50 per cent
excess air for combined fuel and charge incinera-
tion, produce stack gas containing carbon dioxide
dry—basis volume concentrations of less than 1.2
per cent from the charge alone;
if all the follow-
ing conditions are met:
Ci)
The emission of particulate matter into the
atmosphere from any such new or existing
incinerator does not exceed 0.1 grains per
standard cubic
foot, dry basis, when correc-
ted to 50 per cent excess air for combined
fuel and charge incineration.
(ii) The waste charge to the incinerator does not
exceed 2000 pounds per hour.
(5)
Exception:
Subparagraphs
(1),
(2)
and
(4)
of this Rule
203(e)
shall not apply to incinerators which burn wood
wastes exclusively,
if all the following conditions are
met:
(A)
The emission of particulate matter from such incin-
erator does not exceed 0.2 grains per standard cubic
foot of effluent gases corrected to 12 per cent car-
bon dioxide; and
(B)
The location of such incinerator is not in a restric-
ted area,
and is more than 1000 feet from resi-
dential or other populated areas;
and
(C)
When it can be affirmatively demonstrated that no
economically reasonable alternative method of dis-
posal is available.
(6)
Exception:
Certain small explosive waste incinerators.
(A)
Subparagraphs
(1),
(2),
(3)
and
(4)
shall not apply
to certain existing small explosive waste incinerators
if all the following conditions are met:
Ci)
The incinerator burns explosives or explosive
contaminated waste exclusively;
(ii)
The incinerator burns 227 kilograms
(500
pounds) of waste per hour or less;
37—97
—10-
(iii)
All incinerators on the same site operate a
total of six hours or less
in any day;
(iv)
The incinerator was in existence prior to
December
6, 1976 and is located in William-
son County in Section
3, Township
9 South,
Range
2 East of the Third Principal Meridian.
(B)
No person shall cause or allow the emission of
particulate matter into the atmosphere from any
such existing small explosive waste incinerator
to
exceed
7140
milligrams
per
kilogram
(50.0
grains per pound)
of combined waste and aux~iliary
fuel
burned.
Rule 206:
Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards and Limitations.
*
*
*
(b)
Incinerators.
No person shall cause or allow the
emission of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere
from any incinerator to exceed 500 ppm, corrected
to 50 percent excess
air.
Cl)
Exception:
This Rule 206(b)
shall not apply to
existing incinerators burning less than 2000
pounds of refuse per hour which are in compliance
with Rule 203(e) (3).
(2)
Exception:
This Rule 206(b)
shall not apply to
certain existing small explosive waste incinerators
which meet the conditions of Rule 203(e) (6) (A).
*
*
*
Mr.
Werner
dissented.
I, Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, here~bycertify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
/31’\day of
~
1979 by a vote of~./
Christan L. Mof
,
Clerk
Illinois Polluti n Control Board
37—98
