ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

10, 1980

OLIN

CORPORATION,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 79—234

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Satchell):

This matter comes before the Board upon variance petition

filed November

8, 1979 by Olin Corporation

(Olin)

a Virginia

corporation.

The

petition reauests

a variance from Rules

104,

203(e)

and 206(b)

of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution Control Regulations.

The reciuested variance from the particulate and carbon monoxide

emission standards would allow operation, without a compliance

program, of two small explosive waste incinerators near Marion,

Williamson County.

These incinerators are the subject of a

proposed site-specific regulation before the Board in R78—9.

In

an Order entered December 13,

1979 the Board proposed to grant

Olin a site-specific rule change.

This variance would allow

in~terimoper~ation,

Olin has received similar variances

in the

past,

the last of which expired July

1,

1979

(PCB 78-242,

32 PCB

~,69,November

30,

1978),

The

Board takes~official notice of the

record in those proceedings.

The Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed a recommendation on December

13,

1979.

At a recent

hearing in R78-9 the Agency agreed to expedited consideration of

this petition since there

is a

safety hazard involved in accumu—

lating explosive waste,

On December

13,

1979 the Board entered

an Order granting Olin the requested variance with conditions.

The details of the

incinerators and their effect on air

quality are discussed in the Opinion

in R78-9 and will not be

repeated here.

The Board finds that it would he an arbitrary and

unreasonable hardship

not to allow Olin to operate the incinerators

during the notice and comment period.

A hearing recently held in

the regulatory proceeding produced no adverse comment and the

Agency has received no public comment on the variance request.

The conditions

of

the variance are similar to those recom-

mended

by

the Agency and follow the conditions of the proposed

site-specific Rule

203 (e) (6).

The Agency recommended limiting

the

operating

rate of the incinerators,

However, there

is no

basis in the record for the numbers chosen.

The Board has instead

limited the hours of operation in both the variance and the Pro-

posed Order.

The Agency also asked that Olin be ordered to comply

with Chapter

9:

Special Waste Handling Regulations.

This condi-

tion has been omitted since there is no indication that Olin is

not in compliance.

Olin will be subject to the applicable pro-

visions of Chapter

9 regardless of this variance.

The Agency believes the variance is approvabie

as

a revision

to the State Implementation Plan

(SIP),

The Agency requests a pub-

lic hearing to afford citizens an opportunity to object and to meet

the provisions of §110 of the Clean Air Act,

Although there has

been ample opportunity for objection in R78~9and pursuant to

the

Agency’s advertisement for comments to the variance request under

Procedural Rule

403(b), the Board agrees that technical compliance

with the notice requirements

of the Clean Air Act may be necessary

for SIP approval.

Rather than delay grant of the variance the

Board has made this hearing a condition,

In the event there

is

public objection,

the variance will expire six

weeks after

the

hearing,

In this case Olin may file a new variance petition or

request reconsideration under Procedural Rule

334.

This Opinion, together with the Board’s Order of December

13,

1979, constitute the Board’s

findings of fact and conclusions

of law in this matter,

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted on

the

_____

day of

,

1980 by a vote of

C ristan

L. Mo fet

,

Illinois Pollution C n rol Board