ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
September 1,
1994
THE ENSIGN-BICKFORD COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 93—139
(Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by C.
A. Manning):
This matter
is before the Board pursuant to a petition for
variance filed by the Ensign-Bickford Company (EBCO) on July 26,
1993.
This variance request seeks to extend a prior variance we
granted on August 22,
1991 in PCB 90-242 for an additional five
year period,
or until August 10,
1999.
Petitioner has received several variances from the Board
which cumulatively allow for the open
burning of certain
explosive wastes at its Wolf Lake, Union County facility.
On
August 10,
1989,
EBCO and the Trojan Corporation, both wholly-
owned subsidiaries of Ensign Bickford Industries,
were first
granted a variance from
35
Iii.
Adm. Code 263.102 and authorized
to open burn explosive waste as permitted by
35 Ill. Adm. Code
237.103,
for a period of five years.
(EBCO v. IEPA (August 10,
1989)
(PCB 88-156 and PCB 88—168)
(cons.).)
EBCO was also
granted a variance to flash metallic process equipment and open
burn other wooden process equipment on September 26,
1991,
(EBCO
and Trolan Corp.
v. IEPA (September 26,
1991)
PCB 91-96)
and on
August 26,
1990,
EBCO also received a provisional variance in PCB
90-83 to allow the open burning of two wooden buildings
contaminated with explosive material that were decommissioned as
the facility was modernized.
(EBCO
V.
IEPA (August 26,
1990)
PCB—
90—83.)
Except for the five-year extension,
EBCO is asking herein,
for the identical relief we granted in PCB 90-242.
There,
we
allowed an increase in the amount of explosive waste and
explosive-contaminated waste material that EBCO could open burn,
due to a change in the packaging material received by EBCO.
That
variance also combined the EBCO and Trojan materials into a
single set of limitations to allow greater operational
flexibility.
The August 22,
1991 variance is scheduled to expire
August
10,
1994,
and therefore, EBCO is seeking to continue open
burning of explosive waste and explosive-contaminated waste,
wood buildings contaminated with explosive material, and to
thermally sanitize metallic process equipment contaminated with
2
explosive material.
On July 13,
1994 the Agency filed a
recommendation to grant the variance with the Board.
The Agency
has added certain conditions governing the activity at the site,
and agrees the variance should be granted until August 10,
1999.1
For the reasons discussed below,
the Board finds, pursuant
to Section 35(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act),
that
EBCO has presented adequate proof that immediate compliance with
the Board regulations for which relief is being requested would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
(415 ILCS
5/35(a).)
Accordingly, the variance relief requested is granted
subject to the conditions specified in the Board’s order.
Compliance Efforts
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 petitions
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
explosives industry to render waste inert.
However,
the petitioners failed to consider the installation and
operation of an explosives incinerator as an
alternative compliance plan.
The instillation of an
incinerator should be investigated during the variance
period.
(PCB 90—242
(August 22,
1991)
at 125—324, quoting PCB 88—156 and
PCB 88—168 (cons.)
(August
10,
1989).)
Additionally,
according to Condition
4 of the Board’s August 22,
1991,
Order in PCB 90-242, we stated that EBCO,
“...upon ascertaining to a reasonable degree of
certainty that there exists an alternative to open
burning which is technologically and economically
1EBCO
and
the Agency have been discussing
the possibiliy
of EBCO’s pursuing an
adjusted
standard
before
the Board
rather
than
EBCO’s
continued
use of the
“varianc&’
mechanism.
(IEPA Rec.
it
6.)
As
such,
the Agency
also suggested
that the variance
be
conditioned
to terminate either on
August
10,
1999,
or on
the effective date of the Board
granting
an
adjusted
standard.
We
accept the recommendation,
and have incorporated
this
condition
into
our order.
3
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.”
While EBCO has determined that incineration of its explosive
waste in a rotary kiln (an explosives incinerator)
is an
alternative to open burning which is technologically and
economically feasible, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency
(USEPA)
is not currently processing RCRA applications for
new hazardous waste incinerators.
This will prevent EBCO from
permitting,
constructing, and utilizing this alternative in any
definite time period.
Accordingly, EBCO requests this variance
to allow the continued open burning of explosive waste and
explosive—contaminated packaging waste.
In its “Variance Recommendation,” the Agency points out that
EBCO has discontinued open burning of solvent waste and disposes
of it at a commercial RCRA treatment, storage and disposal
facility.
(IEPA Rec.
at 2.)
Additionally, the Agency notes
that the petitioner does not have any outstanding state
enforcement actions pertaining to air pollution presently before
the Board or any circuit court.
(~
at
3.)
Environmental Impact
EBCO operates an explosive products manufacturing facility,
which occupies approximately 456 acres and is located outside the
town of Wolf Lake,
Union County,
Illinois, bordering the Shawnee
National Forest, Wolf Lake,
and farmland.
EBCO leases the land
from Trojan, the owner of the property, and manufactures cast
boosters,
a Class A explosive,
at the facility.
The Wolf Lake
facility is situated approximately one-half hour equidistant from
Carbondale,
Illinois and Cape Girardeau,
Missouri.
The town of
Wolf Lake has a population of approximately 250 persons, and the
nearest residence is approximately one—half mile from the EBCO
facility.
The nearest monitoring station, which is
located
twenty miles northeast of Wolf Lake, has measured no exceedences
of the standard for total suspended particulates
(TSP)
for the
past six years,
and Union County is in attainment for all
criteria pollutants.
In the course of manufacturing the explosives,
“..
.waste
explosives are generated in the form of off—specification
product, explosive contaminated packaging materials, explosive
contaminated wastewater treatment sludge, explosive contaminated
spent activated carbon and explosive contaminated solvent from
laboratory maintenance procedures.”
(Pet. at 6.)
Petitioner
states that the facility will conduct open burning of explosive
waste, explosive contaminated waste, wooden buildings and thermal
sanitizing of metallic equipment in such
a time, place and manner
as to minimize the emission of air contaminants.
While open
4
burning of the waste will have some unquanitifiable environmental
impacts, open burning should not cause any violation of national
air quality standards.
The Agency agrees with this analysis.
(IEPA Rec.
at 3.)
Compliance with Federal Law
In accordance with provisions of Section 35 of the Act, the
Board may grant variances only where they are consistent with
federal law,
in this case, the provisions of the Clean Air Act
(
42 U.S.C.A. par.
7401, et seq.
(1983)
and the 1990 Amendments to
the Clean Air Act
(P.A. 101—549)).
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
(
42
U.S.C.A.
par. 7401,
et seq.
(1983)
and the 1990
Amendments
to
the
Clean Air Act
(P.A.
101-549)).
Consequently, granting 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.
(415 ILCS 5/35(a) (1992).)
EBCO notes that as a result of installing automated
production lines,
certain material handling equipment found to be
inadequately built will be replaced and certain existing wooden
manufacturing structures,
all of which are contaminated with
explosive materials, will be decommissioned.
The petitioner
notes that potential residues of nitrostarches, PETN and TNT may
remain in the dead spaces and cavities of the equipment,
and
access to such spaces and cavities is extremely limited due to
the nature of the materials which may remain.
(See generally,
Pet.
at 7—11.)
The Agency points out that “consistent with
accepted practices in the explosive industry, the equipment must
be treated as though
it has the potential to explode,
and thus
(be) decontaminated, prior to disposal, reuse or sale.”
(IEPA
Rec.
at 4.)
EBCO alleges that without a variance from the
prohibition on open burning,
it will be prevented from
decontaminating the wooden building debris and equipment and,
thus,
from selling, reusing or disposing of the equipment,
as it
has no alternative to open burning for decontamination purposes.
EBCO historically has shipped PETN in metal drums; however,
the U.S. Department of Transportation has changed the shipping
requirement, MM 181, that applies to PETN.
The new shipping
requirement will go into effect on October
1,
1994.
EBCO asserts
that the new requirement will lead to an increase in the amount
5
of explosive—contaminated waste for disposal since,
in order to
comply with MM 181 in an economically feasible manner,
it will
have to use a corrugated cardboard container.
(See generally,
IEPA Rec. at 5.) Petitioner alleges that it needs an increase in
the amount of material it is authorized to open burn in order to
facilitate operation flexibility and to address concerns about
complying with the RCRA 90-day storage limitation for hazardous
waste, due to increased production and the use of new packaging
materials.
(~
Pet.
at 8.)
EBCO alleges that since construction of a new hazardous
waste incinerator to handle explosive waste is not currently
possible due to USEPA’s policy of not giving priority to
processing RCP.A permit applications, any other manner of disposal
of the explosive waste,
explosive—contaminated waste and the
wooden buildings poses a safety hazard due to the risk of
explosion,
is less environmentally sound and
is more costly.
(See generally,
Pet. at
13-18.)
EBCO cannot ship packaging
waste off-site for disposal due to OSHA regulations, and it
alleges it has been unable to find a landfill, disposal site,
or
incinerator for nonprocess waste such as demolished structures
and equipment requiring flashing.
(~
IEPA Rec. at 5.)
The Board finds that,
in the absence of a modification to
the August 22,
1991 variance, EBCO will incur an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship.
The Board will grant the petitioner a
variance to open burn explosive waste and explosive—contaminated
waste while continuing to investigate whether a hazardous waste
incinerator can be permitted,
constructed and operated.
This constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
EBCO 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:
A.
Explosive waste and explosive—contaminated waste.
1.
Petitioner shall diligently pursue an alternative to
open burning its explosive waste and explosive—
contaminated waste.
2.
Petitioner
shall submit to the Agency
information
pertaining to Condition #1 as soon as such information
becomes available.
3.
At any time during the variance period, the Agency may
identify new alternatives to open burning for
6
petitioner to evaluate for technological feasibility
and economic reasonableness.
The evaluation shall be
completed and a report shall be submitted to the Agency
in soon as practicipal after petitioner recieves notice
of such 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.
5.
Petitioner shall take reasonable measures to minimize
the contamination of materials during manufacturing
operations.
6.
Petitioner shall weigh and record all materials to be
burned.
7.
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.
8.
The report in Paragraph
7 should be addressed to:
Mr. John Justice, Regional Manager
Bureau of Air
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Mall Street
Collinsville,
Illinois
62234
9.
Open burning shall take place on calm,
clear days
during daylight hours
on which wind velocity is greater
than two miles per hour but less than ten miles per
hour.
10.
Petitioner shall use cages to burn explosive—
contaminated materials so that the dispersement of any
ash is minimal.
Petitioner shall maintain the cages so
that the design function and efficiency of the cages is
not substantially altered from the cages as built.
11.
Petitioner shall promptly clean up and dispose of any
ash after every burn in accordance with all RCRA
requirements.
12.
Petitioner
shall use
a concrete pad for open burning of
K044 and K045 sludges to prevent residual waste and
7
waste constituents from contacting surface soils.
13.
Petitioner shall comply with all RCRA and OSHA
requirements.
14.
Petitioner shall have fire prevention plans and
equipment ready and in place at the facility prior to
the first burn.
15.
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.
16.
Petitioner shall fence off the entire burn area prior
to the first burn.
17.
Petitioner 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.
18.
The above-mentioned notification shall include
a
telephone number for nearby residents to call in the
event of any complaints.
19.
Any complaints shall be forwarded to the Regional
Office in Collinsville within twenty-four hours.
20.
Petitioner shall not burn more than the following:
Materials to start fires
100
lbs/week
Explosive-contaminated materials
5000 lbs/week
Pyrotechnic materials
50
lbs/week
Combined TNT and PETN waste
50
lbs/week
Pentolite waste
1000 lbs/week
Composition B waste
150
lbs/week
B.
Wooden Manufacturing Buildings
1.
Petitioner shall remove the roofing materials from the
“North Booster,” the “South Booster,” and the “Dryer”
buildings prior to burning the structures.
2.
Petitioner
shall remove all explosive waste materials
from the buildings prior to burning the structures.
3.
Petitioner shall not burn two buildings on the same
day.
4.
Petitioner shall only burn a building on calm,
clear
8
days when the wind velocity is greater than two miles
per hour but less than ten miles per hour.
5.
Petitioner shall promptly clear the site of resultant
ash after it has burned each building.
6.
Petitioner shall have fire prevention plans and
equipment ready and in place at the facility when it
burns a building, as described in its April
11,
1990,
variance request to the Agency
(Pet.
Exh.D).
7.
Petitioner shall notify the Agency, the local fire
department, and the county forestry service of the
exact date and time when the proposed burning will
occur, at least seventy—two hours
in advance of when it
is intended to occur.
8.
Petitioner shall submit notification pursuant to 40
C.F.R.
61 Subpart M at least
10 working days prior to
demolition.
C.
Material Handling Equipment
1.
The open burning site shall be limited to that site
referenced in the Petition.
2.
Petitioner shall limit the amount of clean fuels to
that necessary to flash the equipment of explosives.
3.
Heat-sensitive devices shall be placed in the equipment
to be flashed to ensure temperature control.
4.
The flashing operations shall be completed within eight
weeks of the automated process building equipment being
rebuilt.
5.
Petitioner
shall
forward
written
notification to the
Regional Office in Collinsville within five business
days after the rebuilding is completed.
6.
Petitioner shall comply with requirements A—9, A—li, A-
13, A-l4, A-l5,
and A—l9 whenever flashing is
conducted.
D.
Duration
1.
This variance shall expire on August 10,
1999,
or the
effective date of an adjusted standard for EBCO,
whichever shall occur first.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
9
If petitioner chooses to accept this variance, within 45
days Within 45 days after the date of this opinion and order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to:
James J. O’Donnell
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794—9276
a certificate of acceptance and agreement to be bound by all the
terms and conditions of the granted variance.
The 45—day period
shall be held in abeyance during any period that this matter is
appealed.
Failure to execute and forward the certificate within
45 days renders this variance void.
The form of the certificate
is as follows:
I
(We),
,
having
read the opinion and order of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
in PCB 93-139, dated September
1,
1994, 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 Act
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111—1/2
par.
1041; 415 ILCS 5/41)
provides for appeal of final orders of
the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme Court of
Illinois establish filing requirements.
10
I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
adopted on the
/?~
day of
7-~~
,
1994,
by a vote of
c~-
~
-
Dorothy N.
unn, Clerk
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
