ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 15, 1975
QUALITY READY MIX CONCRETE COMPANY,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 75—73
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss):
Quality Ready Mix Concrete Company seeks variance to
operate an air curtain destructor in the disposal of approxi-
mately 20,000 cubic yards of unsalvageable wood materials.
Without specifying the Regulation from which variance is
sought, Petitioner states that it requires
the
variance for
about 90 days.
Petitioner has contracted
with
the Chicago Northwestern
Transportation Company to dispose of waste wood and waste
cargo materials which accumulate from the dismantling of about
2,000 railroad cars. The dismantling prog~ramis being con-
ducted in the East Clinton, Illinois railroad yard near
Fulton, Illinois.
In the dismantling program, Chicago Northwestern removes
an average of 12 cubic yards of unpainted, untreated lumber
per railroad car from about 30 cars per day. Petitioner is
able to salvage about 15 of the clean lumber leaving some
10 cubic yards per car that must be disposed of. Another 1 1/2
cubic yards of waste cargo, wood chips and sawdust per car is
separated from the clean lumber and hauled away separately.
Petitioner states that it can dispose of the waste by
hauling to a county landfill 17 miles away at a cost of over
$1,000 per day or by burning with aid of an air curtain destructor.
A sketch submitted with the Petition for Variance indicates
that the nearest residence is located about 1500 feet to the
east of the proposed burning site. A chemical plant is shown
to be about 2000 feet to the northeast.
An Agency investigator visiting the site in February 1975
observed an accumulation of wood approximately 30 feet high, 50
feet wide and 1 mile long located on railroad property~
‘he
investigator was informed that Petitioner intends to use ~1ode1
17—31
—2—
200 Kutrieb air curtain destructor which has a rated design
capacity of 12-15 tons per hour. Petitioner plans to burn
at the rate of about 10 tons per hour. Typical emissions
from the burning fo clean wood waste with an air curtain des—
tructor are as follows*:
Particulate matter
4.6 pounds per ton
hydrocarbons
0.2 pounds per ton
nitrogen dioxide
4.0 pounds per ton
*The Effects of Operating Variables and Refuse
Types on the Emissions From a Pilot-Scale Trench
Incinerator. Proceedings before the Incinerator
Division of ASME, 1968, by J.O. Burckle, et al.
Petitioner told the Agency that it is paid a disposal rate
of $27.00 per car. This rate will possibly change since
Petitioner and Chicago Northwestern are renegotiating the con-
tract to accomodate certain increased costs. At the current
rate of $27 per car Petitioner stands to lose money each day
if it disposes of the wood waste by landfilling.
The Agency “assumes” that Petitioner seeks a variance
from Rule 203(e) (2) of the Air Pollution Control Regulations.
(Particulate Emission Standards for Incinerators) While it is
obvious Petitioner cannot qualify for an Agency permit under
Rule 504(a) (4), it is questionable whether Rule 203(e) (2) is
the applicable Rule as the Agency assumes.
When the Board adopted the Open Burning Regulations, R70-l1,
recognition was given to evidence showing that an air curtain
destructor could substantially reduce emissions from open burning.
Rule 404(a) (4) allowed the Agency to issue permits for the
burning of landscape waste where such burning was to be conducted
with the aid of an air curtain destructor and other conditions
were satisfied. Note: With the adoption of certain amendments
in November 1972, R72-ll, the Open Burning Regulations became
Chapter 5 of the Air Pollution Control Regulations, e.g. Rule
404(a) became Rule 504(a)
In Nickle Brothers Tree Service vs. EPA, PCB 71-392, the
Board gr~tecta variance tr5m trie Itupen i~urning Regulations”
in order to allow Nickle Brothers to burn approximately 120 tons
of waste building lumber with the aid of an air curtain destructor.
In so doing, the Board opened the door to possible extension of
the Open Burning Regulations to include a permit provision for
the burning of clean wood waste with an air curtain destructor
in addition to landscape waste disposal.
It is interesting to review the history of open
burning regulations and applicable definitions. In the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution, Rule 2-1.1
17—32
—3—
prohibited the practice of open burning by salvage operations.
Open burning was defined as “any burning of combustible materials
wherein the products of combustion are emitted directly into
the open air without passing through a stack or chimney”. In
comparison, the Rules defined an incinerator as “combustion
apparatus designed for high termperature operation in which
solid, semi-solids, liquid or gaseous combustible waste are
ignited and burned efficiently and from which the sold residues
contain little or no combustible material”.
With the adoption of the Environmental Rrotection Act in
1970 came a new definition for open burning: “Open burning is
the combustion of any matter in the open or in an open dump”
Environmental Protection Act, Section 3(h). Open burning
was
defined by Rule 401(e) of the Open Burning Regulations, R70—ll,
as “the combustion of any matter in such a way that the products
of the combustion are emitted to the open air without originating
in or passing through equipment for which a permit could be
issued under Section 9(b) of the Act”.
Adoption of Chapter 2 of the Air Pollution Control Regu-
lations brought into play a modification of the word “incinerator”.
As defined in Rule 201, an incinerator is a “combustion apparatus
in which refuse is burned”.
In PCB 71-392 the Rule from which variance was granted
obviously was Rule 402(a) tnow Rule 502(a)) since Chapter 2 of
the Air Pollution Control Regulations had not been adopted at
the time the variance was granted. Rule 5b2(a) is a general
prohibition against open burning. An extension of this variance
(PCB 73—99) failed to specify any particular Rule.
An air curtain destructor was also used for disposal of
landscape waste and clean wood waste in M & S Wood and Paper
Company vs. EPA, PCB 72-236. Here the Board stated:
“It is not known whether the destructor can comply
with the otherwise applicable particulate emission
standard for wood incineration of 0.2 grains per
standard cubic foot of exhaust gas, PCB Regs.,
CU. 1 Rule 203(e) (5), so we cannot very well
require that standard to be met as the Agency
requests; this is precisely why a variance is
requested.”
Neither the Order in PCB 72-236 nor subsequent renewals of
this variance (PCB 73-368, November 15, 1973 and PCB 74-243,
September 5, 1974) specified the exact Rule from which the
variance was granted. It appears, however, that Rule 203(e) (2)
was at issue.
17 —33
—4—
We believe that we should now state specifically which
Regulation is applicable to the use of an air curtain des-
tructor for disposal of wood waste other than landscape waste.
In deciding that, we must determine whether an air curtain
destructor is or is not an incinerator.
As defined in Rule 201 an incinerator is a “combustion
apparatus in which refuse is burned” (emphasis supplied).
Effective operation of an air curtain destructor requires
that the material to be burned be deposited in a pit of
specified dimensions. Air generated by the destructor is
blown through a plenum chamber and nozzle arrangement as a
flat sheet or curtain of air diagonally downward across the
pit. The air is deflected by the back wall to the bottom of
the pit, across the pit against the material to be burned,
and directed finally upward at the front wall until it reaches
the underside of the air curtain. Combustion takes place not
in the air curtain destructor itself but in a pit adjacent to
the destructor.
Thus, by definition, an air curtain destructor is not an
incinerator. No combustion takes place in the air curtain
destructor, The air curtain destructor is merely a device
which aids in the rapid open burning of material and reduces
the amount of contaminants emitted from the open burning.
The Board makes this ruling to differentiate between an
incinerator specifically designed to burn wood waste (as
might be employed by a sawmill, for instance) and the air
curtain destructor which is designed to promote more complete
destruction of air contaminants generated during open burning.
The Board finds that the applicable Rule for the destruction
of wood waste other than landscape waste with the aid of an
air curtain destructor is Rule 502(a).
The Agency states that one of its representatives observed
some uncontrolled burning of wood material by Petitioner in
January 1975. It is believed that a warning with respect to
this incident prompted Petitioner’s decision to seek this
variance and to use an air curtain destructor. The Agency
recommends grant of variance.
The Board finds that Petitioner has met the requirements
for the grant of a short term variance. Landfilling of the
wood waste would be economically prohibitive for Petitioner.
Petitioner states that the disposal program should last
about 90 calendar days. However, the record does not support
any variance extending beyond July 31, 1975. The United States
Supreme Court has recently ruled that the states can grant
17 —34
—5—
variances if such variances do not interfere with the attain-
ment or maintenance of national ambient air quality standards
(Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency vs.
Natural Resources lJetense uouncll, Inc. No. 73-17t2). Illinois
is required to attain the aliLbieni dli standards by July 31,
1975. This Board can grant individual variances beyond that
date only if the variances do not interfere with the attainment
and subsequent maintenance of natiQnal ambient air quality
standards. There is no statement, testimony or data in this
record which would indicate whether the grant of this variance
would interfere with those air quality standards. Therefore,
the variance must terminate on July 31, 1975.
If Petitioner chooses to submit a new petition for variance,
such petition must address the air quality issue.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
ORDER~
It is the order of the Pollution Control Board that
Petitioner Quality Ready Mix Concrete Company be granted
variance from Rule 502(a) of the Air Pollution Control Regu-
lations to and including July 31, 1975 in order to dispose of
clean wood waste with an air curtain destructor. This variance
is subject to the following conditions:
1. Only clean, unpainted and untreated lumber
waste shall be incinerated; all other lumber and debris
shall be separated prior to burning and disposed of by
some other method.
2. An operator must be in attendance at all times
when the air curtain destructor is in operation.
3. Feed to the destructor shall be adjusted so
as to prevent any visible emissions from the destructor
during burning.
4. Material used to promote combustion shall be of
no lesser quality than
#2
fuel oil.
5. Burning shall be conducted only on days when
wind velocity is between 5 and 25 miles per hour.
6. Burning shall be conducted only between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Quantities of material to
he burned shall be restricted to an amount ~qhich can be
consumed within these hours.
17
—
35
—6—
7. The burning site shall be provided with
adequate fire protection and with such equipment as
necessary to control accidental fires.
8. The air curtain destructor shall be operated
in accordance with the manufacturer’s operating in-
structions.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted on
the ___________day of May, 1975 by a vote of
.~—O
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
17—36