ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

7, 1972

E.

I. DuPONT deNEMOURS

&

COMPANY

#72-6

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(BY MR. LAWTON):

Petition filed by

E.

I. DuPont deNemours

& Company requests

variance of the open burning regulations with respect to its

Seneca,

Illinois works, in order to dispose of six explosive magazines, one

nitroglycerin manufacturing building and one TNT processing building.

Petitioner represents that the burning will not require longer than

eight hours, including extinguishment of embers,

and smoke emissions

will not exceed four hours duration.

While the petition states that

burning would be done during January or February

‘when there was snow

cover on the ground providing minimum control

risk” we assume that the

failure to achieve such burning during these months will not make

an

appreciable difference.

Mechanical dismantling of the buildings is deemed impractical

because of the high personnel risk associated with the use of tools

and equipment on explosive—impregnated and coated structural members.

The facilities are located in a rural area with access to water

from wells, ponds and the Illinois River.

No residents live near the

facilities.

The Environmental Protection Agency recommends the variance be

granted providing burning take place only when the adjacent ground is

covered with snow or soaked with water, that fire-fighting equipment

sufficient to prevent spread of fires be held on stand—by, and burning

he conducted only between the hours of 9:00 A.M.

and 5:00 P.M.

and only

when atmospheric conditions are suitable

for

dispersion.

The Board has previously considered variance requests where ex-

plosive contaminated buildings were involved.

See The Olin Corporation

v. Environmental Protection Agency,

#70-25.

That explosive contaminated

structures are not susceptible to closed burning is obvious.

Nor can

dismantling take place without danger to those involved in the dismant-

ling operation.

Insistence that the buildings remain in their present

conditionwould create danger to trespassers and others and allow the

possibility of fires being started by lightning or natural causes.

Re-

quiring compliance with the open burning regulations under circumstances

such

as are present here would be unreasonable.

The hardship on petitioner

is obvious.

3

—

751

---

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT

IS

THE

ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that petitioner

be allowed to dispose of six exnlosive magazines, one nitroglycerin

manufacturing building and one TNT processing building by open burning,

subject

to

the

following

terms

and

conditions:

1.

Burning

shall

be

conducted

on

a

single

episode

basis

between the hours of 9;eO A.M.

and 5:00 p. N..

2.

Such burning shall take place only when the ground is

covered with snow and when ad4acent areas have been

adequately soaked with water.

3.

Fire-fighting equipment sufficient to prevent spread of

fires shall be present.

4.

Burning

shall

take

place

only

when atmospheric conditions

are

suitable

f~r dispersion.

I,

Christan

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Pollution

Control

Boa~,

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

as

adopted

on

the

7

~

day

of

March,

1972, by a vote of

___________________

3

—

752