ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
5,
1974
OLIN CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
)
vs.
)
PCB 74-335
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
Mr.
Dumelle):
On
September 10,
1974, Olin Corporation filed
its Petition For Variance
seeking therein relief for
a period of one year from the provisions
of Air
Pollution
Control
Rules 203(e)
(Particulate Emission Standards and Limitations
for Incinerators)
and 206(b)
(Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards and Limitations,
Incinerators)
in order to allow continued operation of its experimental
combustion
device.
In the alternative, Petitioner requests
a variance from the provisions
of Rule 502(Open Burning Prohibition)
and Section 9(c)
of the Environmental
Protection Act, relating to open burning.
Petitioner further seeks clarification
as
to whether
a permit will
be required under Rule 103 to continue the operation
of this
device,
and,
if so,
Petitioner seeks relief from Rule 104, requiring
a compliance program.
Petitioner manufactures various propellant and pyrotechnic products at its
facility located within Williamson County, near Marion,
Illinois.
The subject
of the Petition
is the disposal
of explosive and pyrotechnic wastes generated
during the manufacturing process.
The products manufactured by Petitioner vary from year to year.
However,
all
of its products are related to
a propellant or pyrotechnic technology.
The
United States through
its
Department of Defense is the major customer for such
products.
The quantity and type of raw materials processed by Petitioner may
vary widely depending upon Petitioner’s success
in bidding for Government contracts.
Actual amounts of explosive wastes generated are directly related
to production
volume.
While Petitioner cannot state with certainty what its product line or
volume will
be in
1975,
it is estimated that the maximum amount of explosive
waste generated weekly will
not exceed the following amounts:
Ammonium Nitrate Propellant
500 lbs.
Double Base Propellant
300 lbs.
RDX Type Explosive
200 lbs.
Single Base Propellant
20
lbs.
Ammonium Perchlorate Propellant
20 lbs.
Boron-Potassium Nitrate Propellant
200 lbs.
Black Powder
10 lbs.
Nitroglycerine
in Sawdust
25 lbs.
Potassium Perchiorate Propellant
20 lbs.
Firecracker Mix
50
lbs.
Colored Smoke Mix
100 lbs.
Contaminated Packaging
200 lbs.
Pyrotechnic
Flare Scrap
50
lbs.
14
—629
-2-
This waste
Is generated by activities
such
as machine clearing,
floor sweepings and rejected product.
Petitioner proposes to dispose
of the scrap
in
its experimental
combustion device which
is operated
two days
a week.
This device will handle
a maximum scrap rate of 400 lbs.
per hour.
Normally the scrap
is
fed
in
2
to
3
lb.
increments
and each
increment
is fully consumed before another is
added.
The quantity and type of contaminants discharged
by Petitioner’s
experimental
combustion chamber are estimated to be less than 24 grains
of particulate matter and less than 0.001
cubic feet of carbon monoxide
per pound of scrap burned.
The device here involved is designed to
operate with approximately 3000
excess air to insure that the rapidly
expanding gases from the combustion of explosive wastes are pulled
through the scrubbing devices rather than puffed out the various openings
of the combustion chamber.
Further,
the explosive scrap burned
has
a
low carboncontent.
Thus,
when the particulate emission calculations
of rule 203(e) are applied to this device with the required adjustments
eliminating excess air and correcting to 12
C02, it does not meet the
applicable regulations.
It does, however,
remove 99.74
by weight
of
the particulate emissions generated.
The carbon monoxide emissions
limit of rule 206(f)
is also exceeded
by this device when the required correction to 50
excess air is made.
Charcoal at the base of the combustion chamber
is utilized as an ignition
source for the explosive scrap and as
a refractory material
for the
extremely high flame temperature resulting from the burning of this scrap.
While the flame temperature
is high,
the heat value of this material
is
low, and it is rapidly cooled
by the excess air required.
Petitioner
believes that this sequence
of
events generates the unacceptably high
amounts of carbon monoxide.
Petitioner notes,
however,
that the
maximum carbon monoxide produced is 1.6 lb. per hour of operation.
Petitioner has no program to bring this device into compliance with
existing regulations.
It is Petitioner’s contention that this device
represents
an advance
in the state of the art which
is not recognized
by present regulations.
Petitioner has been before this Board several
times due to
explosive waste disposal problems.
(See PCB 71—60,
PCB 71-231,
PCB 72—357, 72—517, and PCB 73—395.)
Initially, Petitioner obtained
a variance from the Board
in order to allow open burning of
pyrotechnic and explosive wastes while controlled methods
of
thermal
destruction were investigated.
Eventually, Petitioner
developed the combustion device described above.
On September 13, 1974 an Agency representative visited Petitioner’s
plant
to observe the operation of the device.
During that visit,
emissions were 5-10
opaque and all
operations were found
to be
in
order.
The Agency
is aware of only one malfunction that has occurred
during
the operation of the device and has no information to indicate
that Petitioner has failed to abide fully with prior orders of the
Board.
14
—
630
-3—
The Agency calculates that the actual
carbon monoxide emissions from
the combustion device approach
.05 cubic feet per pound of scrap burned,
and that the particulate emissions are approximately 24 grains per pound
of scrap burned.
An important aspect of Petitioner’s operation is
that
99.7
by weight of the particulate emissions
is removed.
The Agency agrees that the existing emission standards are not well
suited to apply to Petitioner’s device and that regulatory changes are in
order to correct that problem.
The parties are currently seeking
a mutu-
ally acceptable proposed amendment to existing regulations which will cover
the device and bring Petitioner into compliance.
The proposed date for the variance extends beyond May 30,
1975.
We
are aware that action by this Board may not stay the impact of a federally-
approved implementation plan.
However, at the least,
a variance does grant
protection from the state regulation.
We are disposed to grant relief.
Petitioner’s combustion device rep-
resents
an advance in
the state of the art which greatly reduces the part-
iculate emissions from the disposal
process and is vastly preferable to
open burning.
The device
is operated
in an
isolated strip mine area, there-
by minimizing possible injury to the public and to the environment.
Variance
will be granted from the provisions of Rule 203 (e)
and 206
(b)
in order
to allow continued operation of the combustion device.
Variance from
Rules
103
is not necessary since the Agency can grant
a permit based upon
the variance contained herein.
Mr.
Henss dissents.
This Opinion constitutes
the findings of fact and conclusions
of law
of the Board.
IT
IS
THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Olin Corporation
be granted
a variance for
a period
of one year from the date of this Order
from the provisions of Rules
104, 203
(e) and 206
(b) of Chapter 2 of the
Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations
in order to permit continued
operation of its combustion device, subject to the following conditions:
1.
Olin Corporation shall
apply for an operating permit for its com-
bustion device from the Agency; and
2.
Olin Corporation shall
not operate
its combustion device
to exceed
a maximum scrap incinerating rate of 400 pounds per hour.
3.
Olin Corporation shall file a compliance plan with the Agency incorp-
orating its research and development program into the plan and report quarterly
to the Agency on progress.
14—631
-4-
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
do hereby certify t~tthe ~boveOpinion and Order was adopted
on this
5Ø~
day of
(J,flhJ)-?/?,
,
1974 by
a vote of
i/__
1
~
Christan
L.
Moffett, Cler
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
14—632