ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 18,
    1979
    DEPARTMENT
    OF
    THE ARMY,
    SAVANNA
    ARMY
    DEPOT,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB
    79—183
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION OF THE BOARD
    (by Dr. Satchell):
    This matter comes before the Board upon a petition for
    variance filed August 31, 1979 by Petitioner, Department of
    the Army, Savanna Army Depot.
    The petition requests, apparently
    pursuant to Rule 505,
    a variance from Rules 202(b)
    and 502(a)
    of
    Chapter
    2:
    Air Pollution.
    Rule 202(b)
    proscribes emission of
    smoke or other particulate matter with opacity greater than 30.
    Rule 502(a)
    proscribes open burning, while Rule 505 provides an
    exception for explosive waste burned pursuant to a variance.
    Petitioner waived its right to a hearing and requested expedited
    consideration, alleging an emergency.
    On September 27,
    1979 the
    Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) recommended grant of the
    variance with certain conditions.
    On October 4, 1979 the Board
    entered an Order granting the variance subject to similar con-
    ditions.
    Some confusion has arisen concerning the interplay of the
    air pollution rules concerning open burning.
    The petition made
    no reference to Rule 505 but requested only
    a variance from the
    emission limits and general rule against open burning.
    The Agency
    recommended a variance from Rule 505, which provides:
    “Open
    burning of wastes creating a hazard of explosion, fire, or other
    serious harm, unless authorized by other provisions in this Part,
    shall be permitted only upon application for and grant of a
    variance
    .
    .
    .“
    A variance from Rule 505 would allow open burning
    of explosive waste without a variance.
    To avoid this absurd re-
    sult,
    the better view is that Rule 505
    is a procedural rule which
    sets
    forth the method by which one obtains,
    through the variance
    procedure, permission to destroy explosive waste in violation of
    substantive rules.
    The variance should therefore be granted from
    the emission standards and open burning rule and not Rule 505.
    To the extent that this contradicts previous Board opinions, they
    are overruled.
    (International Minerals and Chemicals Corporation
    v. EPA, PCB 79-150,
    Opinion of September 20,
    1979.)
    35—5 37
    —2—
    The petition requested a variance to burn 1800 pounds of M2
    explosive propellant with an unknown stabilizer content.
    M2
    explosive propellant consists largely of nitrocellulose and
    nitroglycerin with barium and potassium nitrates, graphite and
    ethyl centralide stabilizer.
    As the propellant ages it deterior-
    ates and the stabilizer content decreases.
    The stabilizer content
    is used to judge the safety.
    When the propellant is accepted from
    the manufacturer it is assigned a lot number and the stabilizer
    content
    is monitored by lot.
    The 1800 pounds involved here has
    been issued to military units and returned unused.
    Several lots
    may have been commingled and the lot identifications have been
    lost.
    The stabilizer content is unknown and the ‘Ordnance
    could
    pose
    an immediate threat to life or property.
    It therefore
    requires prompt destruction.
    Petitioner previously had a variance which expired July 1,
    1979
    and which permitted open burning of such materials
    (29 PCB 359).
    A
    request for a similar variance is presently pending before the
    Board in Department of the Army,
    Savanna Army Depot v. EPA, PCB 79-
    108.
    Among the issues in that proceeding is the timetable for
    construction at the depot of an explosive waste incinerator with
    emission controls.
    However, this device could not be constructed
    in time
    to provide immediate destruction of the 1800 pounds of M2
    explosive propellant.
    This variance was restricted to open
    burning of this one lot and does not affect the other proceeding.
    The Depot is located in Carroll County in an attainment area
    for primary standards for total suspended particulates and sulfur
    dioxide.
    The nearest residence
    is 3.5 miles
    away and the nearest
    air monitoring station
    is 9.0 miles away in Galena.
    The Agency
    estimated that the burning will produce 5.2 pounds of particulates.
    There is no reliable basis
    for estimating other emissions.
    The
    Agency agreed that the damage to the environment is clearly out-
    weighed by the threat to life and property.
    The Agency considers
    the emissions de minimus and will not submit the Order to the
    U.
    S. Environmental Protection Agency as an amendment to the State
    Implementation Plan.
    The Board required the burning to be properly carried out and
    supervised.
    Petitioner was required to notify the Agency the day
    before the burning and the Agency was given~theright to postpone
    the burning because of weather conditions or ambient air quality.
    The petition and Agency recommendation specified no expiration date.
    The variance will expire whenever the 1800 pounds is destroyed but
    in any event by October
    4,
    1980.
    This Opinion, supporting the Board’s Order of October
    4,
    1979,
    constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in
    this matter.
    —3—
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control B~~ard,hereby cextify the above Opinion was adopted
    on the
    ~
    day of
    ~‘~4,~uM.)
    ,
    1979 by a vote of
    s/...o
    Illinois Pollution
    Board
    35—5
    39

    Back to top