ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

7,

1974

GENERAL

ELECTRIC

COMPANY

(MIDWEST

FUEL

RECOVERY

PLANT)

PETITIONER

v.

)

PCB

73—512

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

RESPONDENT

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr. Marder)

This action involves a request for variance filed December 7,

1973,

by General Electric Company to allow operation of its Midwest

Fuel Recovery Plant.

Relief is sought from Rule 207

(e)

(2) of the

Illinois

Air Pollution Control Regulations as

it

applies to industrial

nitrogen oxide emissions.

The Agency in its recommendation dated Feb-

ruary 27, 1974, recommends a grant subject to certain conditions.

The Mic~westFuel Recovery Plant

(MFRP)

is located near Morris in

Grundy County.

It is wholly owned by General Electric.

The MFRP is

a chemical reprocessing plant designed to take partially spent fuel

and to

recover

the

unused

uranium,

plutonium

and

neptunium

for

recycle

as

fresh fuel in order to preserve these natural resources and to pro-

vide waste forms suitable for long term storage.

This is accomplished

by dissolving the fuel material in strong nitric acid and subjecting

this feed stream to chemical separation steps to purify the uranium and

other elements.

The plant is designed to process about

300 tons per year

of

spent fuel which is equivalent to the spent fuel from about

ten

large

nuclear power plants.

High activity wastes resulting from this process are calcined to an

inert oxide form and the other wastes are immobilized for storage on

site

in

reinforced, lined concrete structures.

Because only a small

amount

of

the

products

from

the

plant

are

shipped

in

the

nitrate

form,

it

is necessary that the bulk of the nitric acid used in the process be

decomposed and reconstituted to minimize the utilization of nitric acid

and to prevent potential large scale releases to the environment.

The

control equipment incorporated at the MFRP to achieve such a maximum

re-

cycle

system

includes

calciners,

scrubbers

and

absorbers

installed

at

an aggregate cost of $2,500,000.

Petitioner

was

previously

granted

a

variance

for

this

plant.

In

PCB

72-477,

the Board held that

a variance was warranted subject to certain

conditions.

At the time of the previous grant it was anticipated that

the

MFRP

would

have started up, and that actual on—site environmental

data would have been generated.

However, due to pre-operational and

11

—

469

---

—2

start up procedures, the MFRP has not yet begun operations.

Petitioner

contends that said plant will not commence operations before June

1974.

The above

facts

testify

that any variance granted today would be in ess-

ence a “first” variance.

Therefore the information (i.e~,hardship, en-

vironmental impact, and compliance plan) would be essentially the same

as for the grant of P~B72-477.

Petitioner contends that during the

past

year

there

have

been

no

significant

advances

in

technology

for

the

control

of

nitrogen

oxide

emissions

applicable

to

the

operation of the

MFRP.

It would serve no purpose to reiterate the background generated in

PCB 72-477.

For such detail the reader is referred to the opinion

offered in PCB 72-477, which may be found in the Board’s records, Vol.

7, Page

219.

Pert~inentparts of said opinion are hereby incorporated

by

reference.

The Agency has recommended that

a stack test be performed to verify

the

quantity

of

nitrogen

oxide

generated,

and

that

no

further

variance

be granted until a firm compliance plan be

submitted.

The Board will

require an acceptable stack test, but will not close the door on future

variances.

Future variances will depend on what efforts Petitioner

takes to comply

(e.g., Research and Development program) and must con-

sider the economic and technological criteria involved.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

Petitioner

is granted a variance for its MFRP facility from Rule

207

(e)

(2)

of the Illinois Air Pollution ~Reouiations for one year

from the date of this Order, so

as to allow

a maximum daily emission

of nitrogen oxide of 350 lbs/day subject to the following conditions:

A)

Within sixty

(60)

days after the facility has begun normal

operations, Petitioner shall have a stack test performed,

which shall be conducted in

a manner satisfactory to the

Agency.

The Agency shall be notified at least five

(5)

days in advance of the test, and shall have the right to

have representatives witness the test.

B)

Petitioner shall continue to submit hourly nitrogen oxide

average

n~ntrM-imn

data,

and shall on a monthly basis

submit monthly average data.

C)

Petitioner shall notify the Agency at least ~thirty (30)

days prior to making any process modifications

which

would affect nitrogen oxide emissions.

D)

Petitioner shall continue to diligently pursue methods

to reduce its nitrogen oxide emissions either by control

---

—3—

equipment and/or internal process changes.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

certify that the above Opinio

and Order was adopted by ~e

Board on the

74.~

day of

(~

,

1974,

by a vote of

~

to

0