ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 22, 1991
THE ENSIGN BICKFORD COMPANY
)
and THE TROJAN CORPORATION,
)
Petitioners,
PCB 90—242
v.
)
(Variance)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTIPN AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
ROY HARSCH, GARDNER CARTON &
DOUGLAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF.
THE
PETITIONER, and JULIE ARNITAGE
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. Dumelle):
This matter is before the Board on petitioner’s (“EBC”)
variance request filed on December 21, 1990. Petitioner is seeking
to modify the variance granted in PCB 88—156 and PCB 88-168
(consolidated) on August 10, 1989. There, the Board granted EBC
and the Trojan Corporation (Trojan), both wholly owned subsidiaries
of Ensign Bickford Industries (EBI), a variance from 35 Ill. Adin.
Code 237.102, authorizing them to open burn explosive waste and
explosive contaminated waste, as permitted by 35 Ill. Adm. Code
236.103, subject to certain conditions, for a period of five (5)
years from the date of the Order. Petitioner requests that the
amount of explosive contaminated materials allowed by the current
variance order be increased, and that the EBC and Trojan materials
and the explosive and pyrotechnic materials be combined. On March
11, 1991 the Agency recommended that the variance be granted
subject to conditions
.
Hearing was held on July 10, 1991 in Anna,
Illinois.
EBC and Trojan are explosives manufacturers with operations
at a facility located outside of the town of Wolf Lake, Union
County. Trojan is the owner of the facility and EBC rents space
from Trojan. Both are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Ensign—
Bickford Industries (“EBI”). The explosives manufacturing facility
is located thirty minutes equi-distant between Carbondale, Illinois
and Cape Girardeau, Missouri on approximately a 450-acre site. The
facility is bordered by Shawnee National Forest on the North and
East, Wolf Lake on the West and Illinois Route 3 and farmland on
the South. The nearest residence is approximately one—half mile
from the facility. Wolf Lake has a population of approximately 250
people. Both Union County and all of its neighboring counties are
attainment areas for all criteria pollutants. The petitioners note
that the nearest air monitoring station is located in Carbondale,
approximately twenty miles away. There have been no violations of
particulate standards at this station in the last three years.
125—323
2
EBC manufactures explosive devices with non-electric blasting
caps in an assembly-line process at the plant. The process also
includes packaging and storage activities. EBC generates small
quantities of waste creating a potential risk of explosion in the
course of manufacturing, the Nonel Primadet Assemblies. This waste
takes the form of off-specification product, packaging materials,
and explosive contaminated laboratory waste.
Explosive-
contaminated solvents and waste water result from EBC’s routine
cleaning., repair and maintenance functions. The waste water
contain9 explosive HNX aluminum particles.
Trojan manufactures cast boosters. These boosters are
manufactored by melting and mixing TNT and PETN. This mixture is
subsequently poured into cardboard molds, necessitating related
packaging and storage activities. Explosive waste, including TNT,
PENT, and pentolite, and explosive-contaminated waste are generated
through the manufacture of these cast boosters. This waste takes
the form of off-specification product, packaging materials, and
explosive-contaminated laboratory waste. Currently, TrOjan employs
approximately 160 people at its Wolf Lake facility.
COMPLIANCE PLAN
In our August 10, 1989 decision we found:
...the petitioners’ compliance plan is to
investigate possible methods of disposal
during the variance period. If a technically
feasible and economically reasonable disposal
method is identified, the petitioners will
devise a time table to come into compliance.
If an alternative to open burning is not
found, the petitioners will pursue an adjusted
standard or a site-specific rule change. The
Agency noted in its recommendation that
explosives incinerators are used by the
explosives industry to render waste inert.
However, the petitioners failed to consider
the installation and operation of an
explosives incinerator as an alternate
compliance plan. The installation of an
incinerator should be investigated during the
variance period.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
As noted above, the nearest residence is approximately one—
half mile from the facility. In addition Union County is
attainment for all criteria pollutants. The nearest air monitoring
station is located twenty miles northeast of Wolf Lake. This
station has measured no exceedences of the standard for total
125—324
3
suspended particulates (TSP) for the past three years.
Petitioner states that open burning of explosive waste and
explosive—contaminated waste will be conducted in such a time,
place and manner as to minimize the emission of air contaminants.
While open burning of the waste will have some unquantifiable
environmental impact, it should not cause any violation of national
ambient air quality standards.
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW
In accordance with the provision of Section 35 of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 111-1/2,
par. 1035 (1985)), the Board may grant variances only where they
are consistent with the provisions of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C.A. par. 7401 ~ ~g. (1983) and the. 1990 .~uuendinentsto the
Clean Air Act (P.A. 101—549)). The State of Illinois has not
submitted 35 Ill. Adm. Code 237.103 to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency as part of the State Implementation Plan to
attain and maintain primary and secondary air quality standards
under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. par. 4701 et seq. (1983) and
the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (P.A. 101-549)).
Consequently, grant of the petition for variance will not require
a SIP revision and is therefore consistent with federal law.
HARDSHIP
In consideration of a variance, the Board is required,
pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Act, to determine whether the
Petitioner has presented adequate proof that it would suffer an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship if required to comply with the
Board’s regulation at issue. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 111—1/2,
par. 1035(a).
The basis for the requested relief is that the amount of
explosive contaminated waste burned during second quarter 1990
exceeded the amount authorized by the variance issued on August 10,
1989. Petitioner alleges that the exceedence was unforeseen and
was the direct result of a change in vendors used to supply TNT to
EBC’s operations. The original vendor, which ceased operations,
used paper bags for packaging whereas the new vendors use heavy—
gauge cardboard containers, the weight of which results in an
increased total weight of materials burned. EBC has little if any
ability to impact the packaging of the explosive materials.
Moreover, Petitioner alleges that the consolidation of EBC’s
and Trojan’s materials is necessitated by the consolidation of
manufacturing operations and that this has contributed to a larger
amount of burning. In its previous variance, we have already held
that EBC has incurred an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. We
find today that the circumstances which have transpired since then
warrant the revisions EBC requests. At the same time, we caution
125—325
4
that the provisions of the 1989 variance still apply. That is,
this revision will only span a ‘three-year period. In the interim,
the Board expects EBC to implement a different process other than
open burning or file for permanent relief consistent with our
previous Order.
This constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
EBO is hereby granted a variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
237.102 and authorization to open burn explosive waste as permitted
by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 237.103, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall diligently pursue an alternative to open
burning its explosive waste and explosive—contaminated waste.
2. Petitioner shall submit to the Agency, as quickly as
reasonably possible, information pertaining to Condition one
(1) as such becomes available.
3. At any time during the variance period, the Agency may
identify new alternatives to open burning for petitioner to
evaluate for technological feasibility and economic
reasonableness. The evaluation shall be completed and a
report made to the Agency as quickly as reasonably possible
after notice by the Agency to petitioner. of the new
alternative.
4. Petitioner, upon ascertaining to a reasonable degree of
certainty that there exists an alternative to open burning
which is technologically and economically feasible, shall
implement this alternative to dispose of its explosive waste
and explosive-contaminated waste. Such implementation shall
occur not later than the expiration date of the variance.
5. Petitioner, upon ascertaining to a reasonable degree of
certainty that there exists no alternative to open burning
which is technologically and economically feasible, shall
proceed with:
a. a petition for an adjusted standard or;
b. a petition for a site-specific rule change.
Such petition shall be filed not later than August 10, 1993.
6. Petitioner shall take reasonable measures to minimize the
contamination of materials during manufacturing operations.
7. Petitioner shall weigh and record all materials to be burned.
125—326
5
8. Petitioner shall maintain records with weekly totals, by
specific type and weight of waste burned. A compilation of
these records shall be submitted on a quarterly basis to the
Agency. These records shall be available for Agency
inspection at all times when petitioner is in operation.
9. Petitioner shall submit progress reports on a quarterly basis
to the Agency. The reports shall detail the companies and
individuals contacted regarding alternative methods of
disposal with documentation, including copies of
correspondence, and cost and any test results of alternative
methods of disposal; a list of any trade associations
contacted regarding possible alternative methods of disposal;
a list of trade publications and reviews consulted regarding
possible alternative methods of disposal.
10. Petitioner shall be limited to open burning once a day, Monday
through Friday, for a maximum of four hours per burn. Burning
will begin only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
11. Open burning shall take place on calm clear days on which wind
velocity is greater than 2 miles per hour but less than ten
miles per hour.
12. Petitioner shall use cages to burn explosive-contaminated
materials so that the dispersement of any ash is nominal at
best. Petitioner shall maintain the cages so that the design,
function and efficiency of the cages is not substantially
altered from the cages as—built.
13. Petitioner shall promptly clean up and dispose of any ash
after every burn in accordance with all RCRA requirements.
14. Petitioner shall use a concrete pad to prevent residual waste
and waste constituents from contacting surface soils.
15. Petitioner shall comply with all RCRA requirements.
16. Petitioner shall have fire prevention plans and equipment
ready and in place at the facility prior to the first burn.
17. Petitioner shall train its employees in the proper procedures
to be followed regarding the open burning. Additionally,
training manuals delineating the procedures shall be readily
available to employees and Agency inspectors.
18. Petitioner shall fence off the entire burn area prior to the
first burn.
19. Petitioners shall notify the surrounding community, prior to
the first burn, that there will be periodic open burning. A
copy of the notification shall be sent to the Agency.
125—32 7
6
20. The above mentioned notification shall include a telephone
number for nearby residents to call in the event of any
complaints.
21. Any complaints shall be forwarded to the Regional Office in
Collinsville within 24 hours.
22. Petitioner shall not burn more than the following:
Exp1losive-contaminated solvents
130 lbs/week
Materials to start fires
75 lbs/week
Explosive-contaminated materials
3900 lbs/week
Pyrotechnic materials
35 lbs/week
TNT waste
10 lbs/week
PETN waste
10 lbs/week
Pentolite waste
810 lbs/week
Composition B waste
21 lbs/week
Other explosives
114 lbs/week
23. This variance shall expire on August 10, 1994.
Within 45 days after the date of this Opinion and Order
Petitioner shall execute and forward to:
Julie Armitage
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road, P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276
a certificate of acceptance of this variance by which it agrees to
be bound by the terms and conditions contained herein. The 45 day
period shall be in abeyance for any period during which the matter
is appealed. This variance will be void if the Petitioner fails
to execute and forward the certificate within the 45 day period.
The form of the certification shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I, (We),
____________________,
having read the Opinion and
Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, in PCB 90-242, dated
August 22, 1991, understand and accept the said Opinion and Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions
125—328
7
thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By: Aul3iorized Agent
Title
Date
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1989, cli. 111-1/2 par. 1041) provides for appeal of final
orders of the Board within 35 days. The Rules of the Supreme Court
of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above ‘Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
~?‘~“—~-
day of
_______________,
1991 by a vote of 7-6
D6rothy M. G nn, Clerk
Illinois P0 lution Control Board
125—32 9