ILLLNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

14,

1982

TROJAN CORPORATION

(Wolf Lake),

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 82—23

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

PATRICK 0.

BOYLE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER;

HEIDI

E. HANSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT.

OPINION OF

THE

BOARD

(by D. Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board upon a petition for

variance originally filed on March 3,

1982 by Trojan Corpora-

tion

(Trojan).

The petition requests a variance pursuant to

Rule 505 of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution to allow open burning

of explosive waste

and

explosive contaminated buildings at

Wolf

Lake,

Union

County.

The

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency)

recommended that the variance be denied.

A

public

hearing

was

held

on

September

3,

1982

at

Jonesboro.

Members

of

the

press

and

public

attended,

but

did

not

comment.

Because

the

procedural

history

has

become

somewhat

confused, the essential pleadings

will

be

set

forth

in

detail:

March

3,

1982

Petition for variance

April

5,

1982

First amended petition (“Memorandum”),

which added an affidavit pursuant to

Procedural Rule 401(b) (35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

104.124).

April

19,

1982

Second

Amended

Petition

(Letter from

plant manager to Agency).

June

8, 1982

Recommendation to deny

June 17,

1982

Objection and request for hearing

by Trojan

In its recommendation the Agency took the position that

the

burning would cause air quality levels in excess of the

49-167

---

—2—

standards of Rules

307 and 310 of Chapter 2,

and

would

thus

have to be submitted as

a

SIP revision.

At a prehearing

conference

the

Agency agreed to give

notice

of

hearing

in

accordance with Clean Air Act requirements and Trojan waived

the decision period for

a sufficient length of time to allow

for

such

notice.

FACILITY DESCRIPTION

Trojan Corporation

is presently the owner of an explosive

manufacturing facility at Wolf Lake.

It is largely situated

within the E

1/2, Sec.

33, T11S,

R3W,

3rd P.M., Union County.

The facility was more completely described in PCB 80-133.

The

exact boundary became an issue in this matter,

as

is discussed

below.

The facility has been the subject of many explosive waste

burning variances.

When it first came before the Board it was

owned by Trojan-U.S. Powder Division.

It then came into

possession of International Minerals and Chemical Corporation

(IMC).

The following cases related to this facility:

PCB

71—58

June 14,

1971

PCB

74—32

July

18,

1974

PCB 76—259

January

6, 1977

PCB 77-229

December 8,

1977

March

2,

1978

PCB 79-150

September 6,

1979

September 20,

1979

PCB

79—176

February 7,

1980

PCB 80—133

January

8,

1981

IMC

has

now

spun—off

Trojan

Corporation,

an

independent

entity

which

is

partially

controlled

by

present

and

former

IMC

officers and employees

(R.

86).

Trojan acquired from IMC

an

explosives plant in Utah,

the Wolf Lake plant,

and

IMC’s

former plant in

the

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

near Marion.

Trojan intends to continue operating the Utah

plant; retain some production facilities at Wolf Lake, those

which duplicate those in Utah; and

to continue Wolf Lake only

as a storage and distribution area

and

for standby production

in

case

of

accident

in

Utah.

The

spin—off

was

a

three—way

transaction

which

also

involved

Nitrochem

Energy

Corporation,

which acquired the

49-168

---

—3—

right to make and. sell nitrostarch dynamite,

a major product

of Wolf Lake.

A part of the waste involved in this

variance

is the

final

day’s production which has not yet been made

into sticks

(R.

84).

MATERIAL TO BE BURNED

Trojan proposes to burn about 1.1 million pounds of

explosive

waste

and 21 buiLdings.

The following summarizes

the explosive waste:

Quantity

(pounds)

-

Seismic Cans

600,000

Obsolete Powder

24,000

Nitrostarch

55,000

Washdown Sludge

156,000

Ball Powder

300,000

Seismic

cans,

each consisting of one pound of explosive

in

a

metal

container

with

a

detonator, are used in oil explora-

tion.

These are a recalled product from

a batch which failed

to detonate reliably in the field.

IMC had tried to recycle

them into new products, but was unable to devise a method of

safely opening the

cans.

Trojan believes it has solved the

problem of opening thecans

for burning; however, recycling

of the powder is no longer feasible because of deterioration

and because of the plant shut down

(R,

81).

The steel in the

cans

will be recycled if possible or, alternatively, landfilled

CR. 58,

77).

Nitrostarch is in powder form,

representing the last day’s

production at the plant,

It has not yet been made into sticks.

It is apparently still usable, but Trojan purchased neither

the equipment nor rights to manufacture nitrostarch dynamite.

It is stored in a building and can ignite if exposed to sun-

light

(R.

56,

83).

Washdown sludge was produced from dredging the lagoons

which received wastewater from daily washdown of buildings

and equipment.

During operation the sludge was recovered

and

recycled into product.

After shutdown, there is no product

to mix it into.

The sludge is in steel drums stored in one

of the buildings

CR.

48, 86)~ Obsolete powder is reclaimed

washdown sludge which was not usable in explosives

(R.

89).

Ball powder is an artillery propellant described as a

mixture of gunpowder and nitroglycerin.

It has been stored

in ponds on the Wolf Lake facility for many years.

The liner

has decomposed, allowing it to become mixed with mud.

It is

no longer usable because of the mud and because of deterioration

CR. 52, 82).

49-169

---

—4—

Trojan proposes to burn the explosive waste, except for

the ball powder,

in the remote burning area described in

PCB 80-133.

Burns will take place in 1000 pound lots, up

to 8000 pounds per day.

Trojan proposes to burn the ball powder in place in the

ponds.

Water will be pumped from one pond into another until

8000 pounds is exposed.

This will be burned.

Then enough

water

will

be

drawn

off

to

expose

another 8000 pounds to be

burned.

This will be repeated until

all

powder

is

destroyed.

Trojan proposes to burn 21 buildings in place

(Ex. 4).

These

are

listed

in

detail in the Order.

These represent

most of the production buildings at Wolf Lake.

They

are

wooden frame buildings weighing from 8000 to 40,000 pounds

each.

They are contaminated with explosive residues left from

years

of daily washdowns.

Trojan estimates that each

contains

less

than 100 pounds of explosives.

However,

there is a danger

of fire or explosion which could be initiated by friction or

exposure to sunlight during demolition.

Trojan therefore

proposes to burn the buildings in place with proper precautions.

NECESSITY FOR VARIANCE

Trojan requested a variance from Rules 104 and

402(a)

of

Chapter 2, pursuant to Rule 505.

During the pendency of this

matter it became clear that the proposed burning was also

subject to the “RCRA rules” adopted by the Board in order that

Illinois

might

obtain

Phase

I

interim

authorization

pursuant

to

the

federal

Resource

Conservation

and

Recovery

Act

(R81—22;

February

24,

1981;

6

Ill.

Reg.

4828,

April 23,

1982).

Interim

authorization

was

granted

by

the

United

States

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(USEPA)

on

May

17,

1982

(47

Fed.

Reg.

21,043).

In

that

this

was

fully

addressed

at

the

hearing,

the

Board

deems

the

petition

amended

to

conform

to

the

proof

on

RCRA

issues.

The following summarizes the provisions of Chapter 2

and the RCRA rules which are involved:

Chapter

35 Ill.

2

Adm. Code

Summary

104

Compliance Programs and Project

Completion Schedules

502(a)

Prohibition of open burning

505

Provision

for

open

burning

of

explosive

waste

to

variance

700.105

Requirement that existing

hazardous

waste management facilities obtain

“interim status” or cease operating

49-170

---

-.5—

Chapter

35 IlL

2

Mm,

Code

720,:Li0

Definition

of

“facility”

721.103

Definition

of

“hazardous

waste”

721~i2l

Hazardous waste characteristic

of ignitability

721,123

Hazardous waste characteristic

of reactivity

725,482

Operating standards for open

burning of explosive waste:

minir!tum

distances from property line

Rule 104

of

Chapter 2 requires compliance programs for

certain stationary sources subject

to Part II.

Open burning

is not regulated under Part

II.

The requested variance from

Rule 104 is therefore denied. as unnecessary.

At the hearings Trojan claimed

it was able to meet the

property

line

distance requirements set by

35

Iii. Mm.

Code

725.482.

However, there is considerable uncertainty as

to

what should count toward the weight for application of Section

725.482, and as

to the location of the property line.

The

Board therefore finds that a variance from Section 725.482 is

also necessary.

CLEAN AIR

ACT

ANC SIP

REVISION

For the purpose of this case federal air pollution

regulations mainfest themselves in the form of the State Imple-

mentation Plan

(SIP),

Revision of the SIP requires a public

hearing with certain notice requirements and approval by the

United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA).

The

Agency has taken the position that the open burning rules of

Part V are not a part of the SIP and that

a variance from them

does not require

a SIP revision,

However,

the Agency contends

that the petitioner must also show that no violation of air

quality

standards will be caused.

The air quality standards

of Part III are

a part of the SIP.

In the absence of such a

showing, the Agency contends that a Clean Air Act hearing must

be held and the variance submitted as

a SIP revision.

As noted above,

a public hearing has been held pursuant

to notice required under federal

law.

However, the Board

disagrees with the Agency~sreasoning:

Trojan has not requested

a variance from the air quality standards,

In the absence of

such a variance, Trojan will be expected not to cause such a

49-171

---

violation,

No SIP

.

v

t

~refore required.

Of course,

the

air

qualIty zrpac~

~i

i~

the determination of

arbitrary or unreaso~ar~J

TMPACT

At the hear ~

~d

air

quality modeling data

(Ex.

35).

The Aje

y

c

air quality violations

would not

result

from

E~

~

~1a9te

burning.

Argument

centered on the buii.d~n~

~h ~

~‘osed

difficulties for

petitioner in that the’

t te moved or partially dis-

mantled to alloii for

c

~ron

or a smaller burn.

Carbon

no,.

rnc_t’~’e

.

~u1ates (TSP)

were the

pollutants

of

cncern

r

nect

to CO, the argument

centered on

the

corr

t

~a”tor.

Trojan cited refer-

ences to measuremert

prescription burns”, inten-

tional fires set

ur

~r

1’~ one.

These show a ten-

fold reduction fr n ~

‘

rd~

CO per ton from emissions

expected from burr

r

r

~e.

Trojan’s expert,

Dr. Howard

Heske’~

r

~

urning of these open,

light, wood

frame

bu~

o

~

c prescription burning with

ideal combustio’i

The

A”c

c’~ d~sputhd

this, but did not

present comparahl~

E~~xper’r

t

~y to the contrary.

Trojan~s

modeLng

of

~ai~

~~ilcttes,

and

the

discussion

at the hearing,

proceedea

r

tcE~

ass

mption that air quality

standards had

to

be

met

~.

~

“~e

nearest residences.

In its

brief the Agency p

irted

f~

t

crc

is no such limitation

in the Board~s

rules

F

~c’

s

r

ted above, the issue is

environmental

impact

as

~e.

j.

determination of hardship

rather

than

a

que~tior

of

~‘re

e~

the burning

will cause

a

violation

of air ci~alityz

s

Excessive

contaminant

levels over residences

a

tc

concern in weighing

environmental

damage.

TL

~

c

t

avoid excessive levels

over residences

has

made

~

~r

;~a -“ion

the primary factor

with respect

to

buzrLirg

~‘

u~Jdings.

Trojan

s

modeling

si~

ovm

~t’

t

r

the

smaller buildings

no TSP

air

quality

violat

r,

occur over residences

unless the

wind

is

blowi

i

east,

towards the town of

Wolf Lake,

With

respect

t

i

largest buildings, viola-

tions could

result

witt

o~ a.

irections.

Burning of

these buildings must

m—?

a westerly wind.

The Agency

opposed

‘he

e~-~ ~cice

on

the

grounds

of

inade-

quate showing

of

hardship

~

ss~’

imposed

hardship.

---

In PCB

8 ~‘133the Board

criticized

IMC

for accumulating

explosive

coat

iinatcd

waste

knowing

that it had no lawful

method

of

dispo~ing

of

the

waste,

The Board rejected as self—

imposed

hards~ip

INC

s

arguments

that

the

dangers attendant

from the

size

of

te

orles

justified

a

variance,

This case

is distinguLla~

E ~

that

there

is

no longer an ongoing

operation.

The

~ ~iastesresulted from the shutdown of the

factory and f~

aique cituations such as rejected and spoiled

products.

The

AgerIc~

r’-i

also

argued

self-imposed hardship with

respect to the pu~ ase of the facility and wastes by Trojan.

There

is a

s i~gs~ti

‘i.

that Trojan undertook the clean—up of

Wolf Lake

as

a

pi

t

of

the

price

for the productive assets

it purchased

thai

~nment

of

the

site in

its

present condition

would be

envi’ornentally

unacceptable,

The Board will not

construe

such

a

v’oluntary

undertaking

to clean it up as self—

imposed hardshi:

(The Board does not mean to infer that the

sale absolved

~(

~its

obligation to clean up the site.)

The

Agency

t

t

offered

any

alternative

for cleaning

up the site.

I

s

agests

that

it

could be abandoned in its

present

cond~tio

However,

the

explosive wastes

could be

ignited

accidental~

or

through

spontaneous

combustion.

This

would

likely

result

ir

worse

environmental

damage than prescrip-

tion

burning.

The Board

finds

that

Trojan

has

demonstrated arbitrary or

unreasonable

hards

111

considering

the necessity

of

properly

cleaning up the

si~’~ the

lack

of

alternatives and the minimal

environmental

damage

of

FI’e

open

burning,

The Board will grant

the variance

with

ndatrons

Trojan

did

ro

request

any

specific

time

period for this

variance,

The

proposed

burning

will take about 160 days,

or

32 work

weeks,

to

onplete

under

favorable conditions.

The

Board

has

allowed

nearlj

three

years

in

order

to give adequate

time for

unfavorable

burning

conditions.

Trojan

will be

required

to n

tiiy

t,ie

Agency

upon

completion of the burning.

This will

trigge

early expiration.

Monthly

reports of burning

activities

will

is

be

required,

The

Board

h~c~

t

req

ilred

strict adherence to the

proposed

burning method

f~~r

ball

powder

in

ponds.

The

Board has doubts

as to the

practica

ity

of

partial

burns

(R.

92).

Furthermore,

the attempt

to

keep

the

burns

within

the artificial

weight

constraint

may

h”ve

adverse

environmental consequences from

incomplete

combustion

and

excessive

contamination

of the

remaining

water

~r

the

ponds.

The

Board

has

allowed two

49473

---

—8—

alternatives:

removal of the ball powder

from

the ponds or

burning in larger quantities than that

requested.

Trojan

may exercise its own judgment as to the safest and most environ-

mentally sound disposal method within the range of options

allowed under the Order.

The water in the ponds is probably

contaminated

from

exposure

to

the explosives.

Trojan

has

indicated

that

it

will

pump

water

between

the

ponds

rather

than

into

Wolf

Lake,

or

the equivalent alternative of pumping

onto

the

ground

near the

lake

(R. 90).

Trojan has

not

otherwise

presented

any

details

on

final closure of the ponds.

The

Board

will

not

attempt to

dictate details in this variance, but

will

allow

the

Agency

to handle this through the

RCRA

or

NPDES

permit

programs.

However, Trojan will be prohibited

under

the

variance

from

discharging to waters of the State.

The Board will require Trojan to

utilize

the

burning area

identified in

PCB

80—133.

Trojan

offered

to

move the site in

order to avoid violation of Section 725.482

with

respect to

the explosive waste.

This is not

necessary since

the

Board

has granted a variance from Section 725.482.

Furthermore, it

would be

less desirable environmentally

to

open

a

new burning

site.

The Board has ordered the burning

conducted

under the wind

conditions suggested by Trojan.

Otherwise,

the

operating

conditions are similar to those

imposed

in

PCB

80-133.

Trojan will generally he ordered to comply with

the

RCRA

rules of 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code:

Subtitle

G.

Specifically,

it will

have to file an amended Part A application

with the Agency

reflecting the current ownership and activities

at Wolf Lake,

comply with the closure plan and

financial responsibility

provisions, and utilize the manifest

system

for

movement

of

waste from Marion to Wolf

Lake

for disposal.

This Opinion, supporting the Board~sOrder

of

October

5,

1982, constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions

of law in this matter.

I,

Christari

L. Moffett,

Clerk

of

the Illinois Pollution

Control ~qard, hereby c r

ify that the

above

OpinionAwas adopted

on the ~j’~ day of

-

,

1982

by a

vote

of

~S_o

~tanL,Mo~

Illinois

Pollutici

ntrol

Board