ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

June

23,

1971

PHELPS DODGE ALUMINUM CORPORATION

)

#71—66

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO~JAGENCY

)

OPINION

OF

THE

BO~R~

(BY MR. LAWTON):

ALLEN

0.

CLARK

AND

ALFRED

3.

WElDER, Madison, Illinois,

for

PHELPS DODGE ALUMINUM CORPORATION

THOMAS M, McMAHON and

LEE

K, ZELLE, ATTORNEYS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Phelps Dodge Aluminum Corporation, recently merged into

Consolidated

Aluminum

Corporation,

Inc., filed a Petition for variance

of the Open Burning Regulations requesting permission to burn 750

to 1,000 pounds of magnesium trade waste one or two times per week

for an in4eterminate period of time.

Petitioner~splant is located

in Madison, Illinois, and engages in casting, extruding and rolling

magnesium and aluminum mill grade products.

The company processes

about 20,000,000 pounds of magnesium primary ingot per year in re-

milled and alloy operations at its casting plant.

Magnesium fines and

chips are generated during sawing and machining operations in amounts

of approximately 150 to 250 pounds per day.

All reclaimable fines

and chips are remelted,

However, some fines and chips contaminated

with cutting oils and other organjcs are considered too hazardous

to be handled in remelt operations and are disposed of by open

burning

Testimony of Petitioner~switnesses indicates that chips and

fines, when subjected to a melting operation, are likely to burn

on the surface of the melting pots,

Petitioner asserts that it has

expended approximately $80,000.00 over the last five,years in an

unsuccessful effort to develop a compactor for magnesium fines.

Efforts

to recycle have also been studied but to date, have not proven success-

ful.

Petitioner asserts that magnesium waste when moist or contaminated

with cutting oils or other organics generate hydrogen gas and may

ignite spontaneously or explode, which conditions limit the capability

of storage and dispos~l. Likewise, as in the case of other explosives,

enclosed burniz~gwould create severe conditions of danger.

The pro-

posed burning area

is located on the plant property in excess of 1,000

feet from any residential property.

Burning would occur when wind

2 —49

---

conditions are such that the products

of burning would be directed

away from residential areas,

Petitioner~s

plant is located in a

primarily industrial area,

Petitioner states that accumulation of

hazardous magnesium waste will create a

severe condition of danger

to personnel and plant as well as

adjacent properties.

The Environmental Protection Agency recommended that the peti-

tion be denied, principally because of the lack of progress made by

Petitioner and its predecessor, Dow Chemical Co., since 1967, when

an open burning variance had been granted.

The recommendation de-

tails the efforts to install

a chip compactor over a five-year

period with a complete lack of affirmative success.

The Agency notes

also a lack of progress in developing alternative methods of on—site

disposal and absence of exploration of other potential means of dis-

posing of its explosive wastes,

Notwithstanding the written recommen-

dation urging a denial of the variance,

at the hearing the Agency

modified its position and recommended a six-month variation during

which Petitioner would aggressively pursue a program to develop al-

ternatives to its present open burning.

A bond in the amount of

$10,000.00

to be forfeited in

the

absence of showing of satisfactory

progress was also proposed.

A penalty in the amount of $1,000.00

was suggested.

The testimony

at

the hearing related principally to the genera-

tion of the magnesium scrap and the absence of suitable alternatives

to open burning.

The scrap is generated principally by the sawing

of magnesium slabs,

Two

types of magnesium particles result; the

larger pieces can be remelted and ultimately used in the manufacturing

process.

A percentage, however, is either too small for remelting or

contaminated with lubricant, both of which circumstances prohibit

remelting.

Efforts made to remelt these products create the possi-

bility of fires and explosions.

Alternative methods of cutting such

as shearing or torch cutting are not deemed suitable for complian~e

with

industry standards.

The waste material producted by the cutting

is

in ribbon form and when gathered resembl~steel wool.

It was this

material that was used in the chip compactor with the hope that these

materials, when compressed, would form a solid bar.

According to the evidence, the likelihood of danger from the

cutting process itself is slight because of the heat absorption in

the parent plate and the use of coolant sprays.

Occasionally, how-

ever,

fines may become ignited.

Burnable and meltable fines are

sifted out and the meltable fines are put in a melting pot creating a

flux excluding air and preventing burning.

Burnable chips cannot

be

put in the melting pot because they would

~iite on contact,

Approx-

imately 150 to 250 pounds of fines are generated every day.

The com-

pacting efforts were unsuccessful and to some extent dangerous because

of heat generated by the pressure and the possible resulting igpition.

2

—

50

---

A flux melting process uses a large steel melting pot in which magne-

sium chloride and potassium chloride salts are melted which flux is

mixed with the non-meltable magnesium chips.

While the burnable

chips are disposed of, the result is

a “5,000 pound pot full of some

kind of what used to be flux and is now sludge”.

According to the

witness, this alternative procedure was “the most promising of the

failures”

(R,49),

Testimony also indicated that improved housekeeping practices

could minimize the waste products from the cutting operation.

A

method of digestion of magnesium was also considered as well as sub-

mersion of magnesium in sulfuric acid, which is believed to have

inherent danger.

Likewise, burial was considered unsuitable because

of the potential danger.

The burning process was described.

Fines are burned by ignition

from a railroad fuse and only when the wind is from the east or south’~

east to prevent impact on residential properties.

The actual burning

by petitioner was seen by an employee of the Environmental Protection

Agency.

White smoke was generated by the burning and was dispersed

over 100 yards or less from the burning site,

In the opinion of this

witness, the product of this combustion is not toxic although there

might be respiratory hazards that result from any particulate emission.

This witness, who recorded some amount of complaints from adjacent

neighbors, did not have any suggestions on alternative means of

disposal.

At the hearing, the Agency modified its recommendation

to permit the granting of the variation for a six-month period

during which time Petitioner would pursue an aggressive program to

develop an alternative means of disposal,

This case

is similar to previous cases considered by the Board

involving disposal of explosive waste.

(See

~Environmenta1 Protection

Agency v, Olin Corporation, East Alton, Illinois, #70—ll~and ~Olin

Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency,

#70-25~,)

While the product is not one manufactured as an explosive,

the

potential danger of enclosed burning of the waste is similar.

While

Petitioner has made no progress since the original variation was granted

in devising alternative means, the record does not disclose that suit~

able alternative means are available.

As in the explosive waste cases,

we are compelled to hold that the hardship on the petitioner and the

community in forbidding open burning is far greater than the burden

created by the open burning of the waste, particularly, if precautions

are taken to minimize the impact of emissions on adjacent properties.

Obviously,

insistence on compliance with the open burning regulations

would have attributes

of danger which this Board could not insist on.

However, we will require that Petitioner submit to this Board and the

Agency monthly progress reports indicating what steps it is pursuing

in order to seek alternative methods.

We will extend this variance

2

51

---

only upon satisfactory showing that efforts are being aggressively

pursued to find alternative means of disposal,

The circumstances

do not call for t~eimposition of a fine or the requirement

of a

This Opinion constitutes the Board~sfindings of fact and

conclusions of law-

IT IS THi~

ORDER

of the Pollution Control Board that petitioner

be granted a variance for six months from the date hereof during which

time it may burn its magnesium waste in the open, subject to the fol-

lowing terms and conditions:

1,

No pile of waste ignited shall exceed 750 pounds and not

more than two such piles shallbe burned in any one week,

ing shall take place during daylight hours,

2.

Burning shall take place only when weather conditions and

residential properties.

3,

Petitioner shall submit to the Agency and to the Board

monthly reports indicating what steps it is pursuing to find alter-

native means of disposal to open burning.

I, Regina E.

Ryan, Clerk of the Board,

C

rt~fiestha~.the above

Opinion was adopted by the Board this

c~

day of June,

1971.

2

—