ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
13,
1973
OLIN CORPORATION,
a Virginia Corporation,
Petitioner,
)
PCB 73-395
vs.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Mr.
Patrick
0.
Boyle,
Attorney on behalf of Petitioner.
Mr.
Dale
R.
Turner,
Assistant Attorney General and
Mr.
Paul Schmierbach,
Attorney, appeared on behalf
of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Seaman)
On September
17,
1973,
Petitioner,
Olin Corporation,
filed
its Petition seeking
a one—year variance
from
Rule 203(e)
of this Boardts Air Pollution Regulations
(effective January
1,
1974)
At
its
facility in Williamson
County,
Illinois,
Petitioner manufactures,
inter alia,
items which require
propellant
or pyrotechnic
technology.
Petitioner has
disposed of
the explosive wastes therefrom by open
burning pursuant to the terms
of
a Variance originally
granted
by
the Illinois Air Pollution Control Board
(yR 67-60)
and subsequently extended by
the Illinois
Pollution Control Board
(PCB 72—517,
PCB 72—357,
PCB 71—371,
PCB 71—60)
Petitioner
has constructed
a new and novel pollution
control device
for
the disposal
of
its explosive and
pyrotechnic wastes
(hereinafter termed
“experimental
combustion deviceT)
.
This experimental permit granted
by
the Agency on March
3,
1972
(OB
02
72
041,
FIPS #199
055).
On February
9,
1973,
Petitioner submitted
an application
to operate
its new device
(application
# C—3—02-039,
I.D.
#199
055
AAR)
.
The Agency denied said application
o’.i
March 12,
1973.
Petitioner,
by the instant action
seeks
variance
to operate the experimental combustion
d
‘ice
for
a term of one year.
The pollution control equipment
on the subject device
consists
of
a wet venturi scrubber
and
cyclone,
costing
a totalof
$14,000.
The Agency calculates that the
described pollution control equipment has
a particulate
removal efficiency
of 99.7.
10 —353
—2—
Petitioner estimates
that
the maximum amount
of explosive scrap to be disposed of
in any one week
during 1974 will be
as follows:
Maximum Amount
category
per Week
Arnmonium Nitrate Propellant
300
lbs.
Double Base Propellant
40
lbs.
Single Base Propellant
20
lbs.
Pyrotechnic Flare Mix
10,000
lbs.
(high Magnesium
content)
Fuel Oil
Sufficient
to immerse
pyrotechnic mix as
required
for safety
reasons
RDX
100
lbs.
Contaminated Packaging
and Transfer
100
lbs.
Materials
The Agency calculates
emissions from the device
to be
1.24 pounds per hour particulates
and 1.61 pounds
per
hour carbon monoxide.
The subject device
is
situated in
a remote area
on
a strip mine spoil
land owned by Petitioner.
Particulate
concentrations
in Petitioner’s
site area are
64 micrograms
per cubic meter
(maximum 24—hour average)
and
32 micrograms
per cubic meter
(annual geometric mean)
.
Both
of these
concentrations
are well below primary
~nd secondary
national air quality standards.
The l9~5oarticuiate
primary air quality standard is 75 ~ig/m~ annual geometric
mean and
260 pg/m3
for
a 24-hour average.
Petitioner
states that
it knows
of no safe means
to
dispose
of
the explosive ~caste here
involved other than
by open burning
or operation
of
the subject experimental
device.
The Agency concludes
(Recommendation,
p.3)
that considerably more pollution would
be emitted
should
Petitioner continue
to open burn than
if Petitioner
employed
its experimental combustion device.
10
—
354
—3—
Petitioner
has
no compliance program since it
alleges that the subject device represents
an advance
in
the state
of the art which
is not presently
recognized in
the Illinois Emission Standards
and
Limitations
for stationary
sources.
Petitioner’s
views have been presented
to
the Standards Section
of the Division of Air Pollution Control at meetings
held in Springfield,
Illinois, on April
26,
1973
and
September
6,
1973.
Further,
Petitioner
intends to
petition this Board for regulations covering
the
subject device.
The cost of constructing
the subject device was
approximately $90,000 and
it
is estimated that the
cost of
operation, vis—~—vis the cost of open
burning, would entail
a ten-fold increase
in labor
alone
(R.22).
The Agency recommends
that this variance
be granted and emphasizes
that Petitioner has had
a
good record of compliance with previous Board Orders.
We
are disposed
to grant the variance requested,
subject
to conditions.
Petitioner’s
device
appears
to have advanced
the state
of
the art and we will allow
it
an opportunity
to prove
its effectiveness.
In any
event,
both the Agency •and Petitioner currently agree
that utilization
of
the
subject device will greatly
diminish
the amount of air pollution being presently
experienced
from open burning of explosive wastes.
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,
Olin Corporation,
be granted
a Variance
from Rule
203(e)
of the Air Pollution Regulations
to
operate the subject experimental combustion
device
for
the disposal of
its pyrotechnic wastes
for
a period
of one
year
from the date of this
Order,
subject to the following
conditions:
1.
That
the firing rate
into Petitioner’s
experimental combustion device
shall
not
exceed
500 pounds per IDur of pyrotechnic
wastes.
2.
That Petitioner
shall obtain
from
the Agency
an Operating Permit for
the experimental
combustion device.
10
—
355
—4—
3.
That Petitioner shall not open burn any
pyrotechnic wastes.
In the event of
a
breakdown
of the experimental combustion
device, Petitioner shall
store all
pyrotechnic wastes until repairs are
completed; however,
if
the
time period
necessary
for repairs creates unreasonable
safety hazards,
then Petitioner may open
burn such stored wastes
after actual notice
and approval by the Agency
for each instance
of open burning.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board,
certify that the above
Opnion
and Order was adopted this
,3’~’1
day of
1973 by
a vote of
_____
to
~
10—356