ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

26,

1991

~HE ENSIGN BICKFORD COMPANY,

)

)

Petitioner,

PCB 91—96

v.

)

(Variance)

ILLINOIS, ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

LISA MARIE ANDERSON,

GARDNER CARTON

& DOUGLAS APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF PETITIONER; JULIE ARNITAGE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF 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 June 14,

1991.

EBC is seeking a variance

pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 237.103

in order to open burn wooden

process equipment and to thermally sanitize or “flash” piping and

metallic

process

equipment

suspected

of

containing

residues

of

potentially contaminated materials.

Although EEC has been granted

two variances

in the past

for open burning

(PCB 88-156,

88-168,

consolidated

and

PCB 90-242),

the

company

seeks

a new variance

because the equipment requiring “flashing” and the location of the

open burning area were not referenced

in the previous petitions.

EEC

is

an

explosives

manufacturer

with

operations

at

a

facility located outside of the town of Wolf Lake in Union County,

Illinois.

EBC

is

a wholly-owned

subsidiary

of

Ensign-Bickford

Industries

(“EEl”).

The explosives manufacturing plant

is located

thirty minutes equi-distant between Carbondale,

Illinois

arid

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.

EEC manufactures explosive devices with non-electric blasting

caps

in an assembly-line process

at the plant.

The process also

includes packaging

and storage

activities.

EEC generates

small

quantities of waste creating a potential

risk of explosion in the

126—299

---

2

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 EEC’S

routine

cleaning,

repair

and

maintenance

functions.

The

waste

water

contains explosive HMX aluminum particles.

EEC

proposes

to

sanitize,

through

open

burning,

a

wide

assortment of process

tanks,

pumps,

piping and wooden

artifacts

that have been extracted from the manufacturing processes over the

years due to age, product modifications and process improvements.

This equipment has been stock-piled at the facility

in what has

commonly become known as

the

“bone

yard”.

It is suspected that

potential residues of Nitrostarches, PETN and TNT may remain in the

dead spaces and cavities of this equipment.

Due to the structure

of the bone yard and the equipment itself, access to these cavities

is extremely limited and also prohibitive due to the nature of the

materials which may remain.

It is estimated that between five and

ten pounds of these materials are dispersed in approximately 50

tons of equipment.

EEC proposes

a series of separate “flashing”

operations to be completed within one year of the date on which the

variance is granted.

The company intends to burn the waste off the

equipment in order that it can be reused or sold.

Even though EBC

will

not

be

able

to

sell

or

use

all

of

the

equipment

upon

decontamination,

the company is presently unaware of any landfill,

disposal facility or incinerator which would accept this equipment

for treatment.

Environmental Impact

Due to the limited nature of the project, EBC believes that

the open burn will not cause or contribute to any violation of the

ambient air quality standards or cause any environmental

impact.

The Agency concurs with this

analysis.

Further,

EEC is planning

to take sufficient precautionary measures to minimize any effect

from open burning on human health and plant and animal life in the

area.

The

open burn area will be

located

south

of all process

buildings

in an agricultural

portion of

the Wolf-Lake

facility.

A minimum distance

of

1,250

feet will be maintained between

the

open burn area and all public routes, railroads, process buildings

and private properties.

Open burning will take place only on calm clear days on which

wind speeds are anticipated to be

less than

10 miles per hour.

With wind speeds at or below this range, EBC submits that the risk

of

environmental

harm

or

extensive

dissemination

is

inconsequential.

The local

fire department and county

forestry

service will be notified

as to the exact dates and times

of the

burns

to ensure

against the unlikely event

of

fire escaping

the

controlled

area.

Further,

EEC

has

instituted

the

following

procedures

to

control

the

fires:

(i)

access

to

internal

communications or

alarm systems;

(ii)

a

convenient

telephone or

126—300

---

3

hand held radio to summon emergency assistance

for the personnel

stationed around the area;

(iii)

portable fire extinguishers, and

(iv) access to water via Wolf Lake and a 32,000 gallon water tower.

The plant

fire truck will also be available

in the event

of

an

emergency.

As

an

alternative

to open burning,

EBC could

continue

its

process of stock—piling the equipment in the bone yard.

However,

as the

objective

is

to

either

sell,

reuse,

or dispose

of

this

equipment,

continued

storage

does

not

seem

to

be

a

feasible

alternative.

Both the Agency and EBC assert that solvent washing

of this equipment will generate

a greater amount of waste to be

disposed and will not insure adequate decontamination.

Therefore,

emissions from solvent washing could have an even greater negative

impact on the health,

safety and welfare of the community and the

environment

than

the

controlled

open

burning.

In

fact,

EBC

maintains that very few companies in the explosive industry pursue

this course of action because the mixing of the chemical compounds

is

itself

exceptionally

hazardous.

As

a

result,

the

only

alternative to open burning would be to maintain the bone yard as

it currently exists.

Hardship

Essentially, the prohibition on open burning enumerated at the

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

237.102

is

forcing

EBC

to

take

no

action

regarding this equipment.

The insignificant air emissions which

would result from the open burning of these materials would not

cause

or

contribute

to

exceedance

of

the

ambient

air

quality

standards.

As mentioned above, EEC is unaware of any other method

of sanitizing this equipment

in order to reuse,

sell,

or dispose

of

the

materials.

EEC

is

also

unaware

of

any

transporter

or

disposal facility which would accept this material

“as is”.

Any

other compliance option which may be available would undoubtedly

have a greater potential for inadvertent explosions and greater air

emissions,

far outweighing those which would be presented by an

open burn.

Finally,

these

as yet unknown alternatives would

be

substantially

more

burdensome

in

terms

of

expense

than

open

burning.

Therefore,

the

company

argues

that

granting

of

this

variance would benefit not only EEC, but the public as well.

Consistency with Federal Law

Both the Agency

and

EEC

submit that emissions which would

result

in the open burning of the company’s bone yard would not

cause or contribute to any violation of the National Ambient Air

Quality

Standards.

Further,

the

State

of

Illinois

has

not

submitted 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 237.103 to the USEPA as part of the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

to attain and maintain primary and

secondary air quality standards under the Clean Air Act.

Thus,

grant of

this variance will not require a SIP revision.

Finally,

the burning will

be done in compliance with EBC’s permits issued

126—301

---

4

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Conclusion

The Board finds that due to the structure of the bone yard and

the

equipment therein,

access

to

such

spaces

and

cavities

is

extremely

limited

and

prohibitive

due

to

the

nature

of

the

materials which may remain.

Consistent with accepted practices in

the explosive industry, the equipment should be treated as though

it

has

the

potential

to

explode.

It

therefore

should

be

decontaminated prior

to disposal,

reuse

or sale.

Because there

exists no alternative to open burning this particular equipment,

we find that EEC would suffer an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship

absent

the grant

of this variance.

Further,

we

find that the

issuance of this variance

is consistent with federal law for the

reasons

mentioned

above.

Finally,

we

conclude

that

the

environmental impact,

if any, will be negligible.

Accordingly, we

will grant this variance subject to certain conditions.

This

opinion consitutes

the

Board’s

findings

of

fact

and

conclusions of law.

ORDER

Ensign-Bickford Company is hereby granted a variance pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 237.103 for its Wolf Lake Facility,

subject

to the following conditions:

1.

The

open

burn

site

shall

be

limited

to

that

site

referenced in the Petition.

2.

Petitioner,

shall

limit the burn to only the explosive

contaminated

equipment

referenced

in

the

petition,

specifically:

Total dunnage

=

172,800 lbs

Explosives

100 lbs

Materials consumed

=

2,000 lbs

Total Pounds

=

174,900 lbs

Total Tons

87.45 tons

3.

Petitioner shall limit the amount of clean fuels burned

to that necessary to flash the equipment of explosives.

4.

Heat sensitive devices shall be placed in the equipment

to be flashed to ensure temperature control.

5.

The

burns

and

possible

re—burns

referenced

in

the

petition shall be conducted within one year of the date

126—302

---

5

of this Order.

6.

Open burning shall take place on calm clear days on which

wind velocity is greater than 2 miles per hour but less

than 10 miles per hour.

7.

Open burning shall take place only during daylight hours.

8.

Petitioner shall comply with all

RCRA requirements.

9.

Petitioner shall have fire prevention plans and equipment

ready and

in place

at the facility prior to the first

burn.

10.

Open

burning

shall

at

all

times

be

supervised.

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.

11.

Petitioner

shall

notify

the

surrounding

community,

including the local fire department and county forestry

service,

of the exact dates and times

of the burns.

A

copy of such notifications shall be sent to the Agency.

12.

The

above

mentioned

notifications

shall

include

a

telephone number

for nearby residents

to

call

in

the

event of any complaints.

13.

Petitioner shall use wire mesh screen over the materials

to be burned.

14.

Any complaints shall be forwarded to the Regional Office

in Collinsville within

24 hours.

15.

This variance shall expire one year from the date of this

Order.

16.

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

126—303

---

6

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 91-96, dated

September

26,

1991,

understand and accept the

said Opinion and

Order,

realizing

that

such

acceptance

renders

all

terms

and

conditions thereto binding and enforceable.

Petitioner

By:

Authorized Agent

Title

Date

Section

41

of

the Environmental

Protection Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1989,

ch.

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 N.

Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, herebycertify that ~e

above Opinion and Order was adopted

on the

~

~—

day of

~

1991 by a vote of 7c’

~7&Z4~

37i

.

/~/

Dorothy M. ALinn,

Clerk

Illinois P~ZlutionControl Board

126—304