ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 2B, 1987
EMERGENCY TECHNICAL SERVICES
)
CORP.,
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 87—12
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
MR. RICHARD 0. WOOD, BURDITT, BOWLES & RADZIUS, LTD., APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERe
MS. BOBELLA GLATZ APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board on a Petition for
Variance filed by Emergency Technical Services Corporation of
Illinois (ETSCI) on January 28, 1987. Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 237.103, Explosive Waste, ETSCI is seeking a variance from
the prohibition against open burning as set forth by Section
237.102. ETSCI is requesting that the Board grant the variance
for a period of five years or until ETSCI has a permitted
facility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
which ever occurs first. ETSCI filed two exhibits which were
inadvertantly left off the Petition on January 30, 1987. The
Illinois Environmental Agency (Agency) filed its Recommendation
on April 20, 1987. By its Order of April 30, 1987, the Board
granted the Agency’s Motion to File Instanter the Agency
Recommendation. In the Recommendation, the Agency recommends
that the Board grant the variance subject to various
conditions. On May 15, 1987, ETSCI filed a Motion for Leave to
File a response to the Agency Recommendation Instarter, The Board
hereby grants the motion. In its response, ETSCI states that it
has no objection to any of the variance conditions requested by
the Agency. In its Petition, ETSCI waived its right to a hearing
and no person objected to the Petition. As a result, no hearing
was held in this matter.
ETSCI is an Illinois corporation engaged in
the
disposal of
explosive chemicals by way of detonation. ETSCI’s offices are
located in Schaumburg, Illinois, and it employs two full—time and
five part—time employees. All ETSCI employees have valid State
blaster’s licenses. (Pet., p. 1).
78-190
2
ETSCI has a year to year agreement with the Illinois
National Guard (Guard) for use of a small portion of the Guard’s
2,500 acre Marseilles Training Site (Site) located in Marseilles,
LaSalle County, Illinois. ETSCI utilizes a 100’ by 100’ area at
the Site for its detonation operations. (Pet., p. 2). This
detonation area is located about one mile north of the Site’s
headquarters buildings. The detonation area is also near an area
used by the public for dog training and hunting. Entry to the
Site is by permit only through Gate 60 which is located about
six
miles west of the detonation area. (Ag. Rec., p. 2).
ETSCI detonates small quantities of explosive or shock
sensitive chemicals at the request of schools, hospitals and
small businesses which need to dispose of such chemicals. The
types of chemicals commonly detonated by ETSCI include common
ethers, picrics, organic peroxides and trinitro compounds. The
volume of ether commonly encountered by ETSCI can be as much as
one gallon. Other materials range in weight from 5 grams to 500
grams (Pet., p. 2). ETSCI asserts that the quantity of explosive
material destroyed during any detonation never exceeds two
pounds. (Pet., p. 3).
Typically, ETSCI employees pick up the material to be
detonated, package it for safety in transit, and transport the
chemicals to the Site. At the Site, the materials are given a
small booster charge and are exploded in small volumes over a
period of time. Equipment used in this process includes a
“Galuariometee sic
,
a blasting machine, insulated wire and
proper sized blasting caps and prima sic cord.” ETSCI claims
that explosions reach a temperature of 6000 F and 50,000 pounds
of pressure. According to ETSCI, the detonation process
completely destroys the material without any detrimental
environmental impact (Pet., p. 2).
On December 18, 1986, the Board granted ETSCI a 45—day
provisional variance concerning the same detonation process at
issue here. (PCB 86—217). The provisional variance granted by
the Board was subject to conditions of which most have been
proposed again by ETSCI. The provisional variance expired on
February 1, 1987.
Environmental Impact
ETSCI states, “The process of destroying explosive or shock
sensitive chemicals through controlled detonations presents no
adverse environmental impact either to existing ambient air
quality or to the soil. The resulting by—products from
explosives and explosive ethers consist of carbon dioxide, water
and small quantities of nitrates.”(Pet., p. 2). ETSCI
specifically cites a study of its detonation emissions conducted
by Hazards Research Corporations in 1983 (Exhibit #1 to the
Petition). ETSCI claims that the results of this study indicate
78191
3
that the discharge into the atmosphere following detonation is
comprised of CO2 and H20. (Pet., p. 2). It is admitted by ETSCI
that the detonations o~some materials, such as picric acid,
produce dense smoke, but ETSCI asserts that the constituents of
the smoke produce no negative environmental impact (Pet., p.
3). ETSCI also claims that since only small quantities of
material are destroyed during any one detonation, Agency air
monitoring stations would not reflect the activity covered by the
proposed variance. (Pet., p. 3).
In addition, ETSCI states that the destruction of explosive
materials through controlled detonation does not create any
residues which have a negative environmental impact. ETSCI
personnel claim that they cannot recall any incident when a
material failed to completely detonate thereby leaving a
residue. According to ETSCI, residues are caused by one or more
of the following factors:
1) selection of materials inappropriate for explosive
treatment,
2) improper condition of the materials (e.g. too moist),
3) utilization of insufficient booster charges.
ETSCI asserts that all of its personnel involved in the
detonation process have the necessary training and experience for
proper disposal. (Pet., p. 3).
In its Recommendation, the Agency states that the closest
residence to the detonation area is located about one mile
away. ~Jithregard to topography, the detonation area is below
the level of most of the surrounding land. The Site manager
stated that ETSCI was assigned that area in order to minimize
noise and blast wave problems. No complaints from the public
have been received by either the Site manager or the Agency
concerning the operations of ETSCI. The Agency was informed by
the President of ETSCI that detonation sessions occur about twice
per month and that each session lasts about two hours (Ag. Rec.,
p. 3).
The Agency expects emissions from ETSCI operations to
include paritculates and combustion products. (Ag. Rec., p. 3).
The Agency questions the validity of the emissions study
presented by ETSCI as Exhbit #1 to the Petition. The copy of the
study examined by the Agency was missing page 3. The Board notes
that a complete copy of the ETSCI study was filed on May 15,
1987. The Agency also states that the study lacks explanations
or sufficient detail concerning methodologies of the study.
Specifically, the Agency points to omissions concerning
analytical method, sampling method, analytical detection limits,
and analyzed species. (Ag. Rec., p. 7).
78-192
4
The Agency states that there is a lack of available
literature regarding the short—term or long—term environmental
effects of the disposal of shock sensitive materials by means of
detonation. In addition, the Agency is concerned about the
possibility of incomplete detonation. Mr. Jim O’Brien, Manager
of the Office of Emergency Management for the Agency has viewed
detonations in which smoke resulted due to an incomplete
detonation. Also, according to O’Brien, incomplete detonation
can result in “discolored powdery, particulate—type emissions”
remaining at the point of impact subsequent to an explosion that
produced no smoke. A video tape, supplied by ETSCI and presented
as an exhibit to the Recommendation, does show smoke as a product
of a detonation by ETSCI. Due to these concerns, the Agency has
proposed that the variance include a condition requiring soil
sampling of the blast site for each day of operation. The Agency
also requests that the variance be limited to materials which it
believes are shock sensitive and that cannot be disposed of by
other means. As a result, the Agency asserts that some of the
chemicals proposed for detonation by ETSCI are in fact not
suitable for detonation. Specifically, the Agency states that
the detonation of Lauroyl peroxide, Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide,
and tert—Butyl peroxypivalate should not be allowed under the
variance because there are alternative reaction procedures
available to destroy these chemicals or render them non—
hazardous. In addition, the Agency asserts that Cumene
hydroperoxide is not shock sensitive and should not be included
on a list of chemicals that ETSCI may detonate. The Agency
concludes that if the variance is granted with conditions as
proposed by the Agency, “little injury would result to the
environment and to the public therefore.” (Ag. Rec., p. 5—7).
ETSCI finds all of the Agency recommendations to be acceptable.
(Repsonse to Ag. Rec).
Compliance Plan
Once the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
promulgates regulations for facilities engaged in the open
detonation of explosive wastes under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), ETSCI plans to apply for a Part B permit
for a site in Missouri or at another location. ETSCI submitted a
copy of the USEPA’s proposed rulemaking “Hazardous Waste
Management System; Standards for Owners and Operators of
Miscellaneous Units” (51 Fed. Reg. 40726) as exhibit #2 to the
Petition. Consequently, ETSCI is requesting a variance for a
five—year period or until it has a RCRA permitted facility
operational, whichever occurs first.
Hardship
It is apparent that without the variance, ETSCI’s detonation
operations would not be in compliance with Board regulations.
78-193
5
ETSCI claims that a denial would not only impose hardship upon
itself but also upon the schools, hospitals, and small businesses
which have no alternative means to dispose of these explosive or
shock sensitive materials. (Pet., p. 4). With regard to the same
issue, the Agency Recommendation states,
The prohibition of open burning and present
lack of rules for detonation of shock
sensitive wastes does preclude safe disposal
of these chemicals from schools, hospitals
and small businesses who may possess them in
Illinois. Such chemicals present a greater
danger to life and health when remaining “on
the self” sic at these facilities. The
service performed by ETSCI is a needed one.
(Ag. Rec., p. 4)
The Agency further asserts that since no standards are yet
available from the USEPA, no estimates of costs of controls for
compliance are available. (Ag. Rec., p. 4).
Alternative Methods for Compliance
ETSCI states that neither landfills or incinerators will
accept explosive material for disposal. In the past, ETSCI has
sought, on a case by case basis, emergency permits from the
Agency to destroy explosive or shock sensitive materials “on
site” at the g~nerator’s property. However, ETSCI claims that
schools and hospitals are generally not located so as to allow
the safe detonation of the materials. According to ESTCI, the
only alternative to disposal of these materials would be storage
by the generators. However, ESTCI claims that such storage of
explosive or shock sensitive materials creates risks especially
since some materials become increasingly shock sensitive with
age. (Pet., p. 3—4).
Findings
The Agency claims that if the Board grants a variance
“little injury would result to the environment and the public.”
There is nothing in the record which suggests that this is an
incorrect conclusion. The area where ETSCI will detonate its
materials is sufficiently isolated so as to minimize the impact
of the explosions on the general public. Similarly, the evidence
indicates that the chemical products of the detonations would not
have a significant negative impact upon the surrounding
environment. This is particularly true when considering the
frequency of the detonations as well as the amount of material
detonated.
78-194
6
Both the Agency and ETSCI agree that the type of disposal
provided by ETSCI is needed in order to rid schools, hospitals,
and businesses of explosive chemical wastes. There also appears
to be no alternative means of disposal of such materials.
Given all of the above considerations, the Board finds that
denying ETSCI a variance would result in an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship. Therefore, the Board hereby grants ETSCI
a variance subject to conditions. The conditions adopted by the
Board include those which the Agency has requested in its
Recommendation. This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The Board hereby grants Emergency Technical Services
Corporation of Illinois (ETSCI) variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
237.102, pursuant to the provisions of 35 Iii. Adm. Code 237.103,
from May 28, 1987 until May 28, 1992 or until the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or the Board promulgates
regulations which are applicable to the detonation operations of
ETSCI, whichever occurs first. This variance is subject to the
following conditions.
1. The open detonation shall only be conducted between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at the area assigned to
ETSCI in the Illinois Natural Guard Marseilles Training
Site located in Marseilles, Illinois.
2. The open detonation shall only commence when the cloud
cover over the detonation site is no more than 50
percent.
3. Any visibly contaminated soils and vegetation shall be
excavated after each day of operation by ETSCI and be
containerized for disposal as a special waste.
4. Monitoring to verify the efficiency of the technique
will be performed as follows:
a) A videotape of each detonation shall be made and
will include:
1) the “waste” container along;
2) the material as prepared, with initiator, co—
explosive (if used) and blasting cap;
3) the actual detonation and shortly thereafter,
showing fire and smoke evolved; and
78-195
7
4) a close up of the detonation site, documenting
residue or lack thereof.
b) This videotape will be made available to the Agency
upon request.
C)
A soil sample of the detonation site where the
blasts have disturbed the soil shall be taken. One
composite sample per day of operation shall be
taken, and the sample shall be analyzed for parent
materials detonated, with at least 0.1 ppm
detection limit, unless evidence can be provided
documenting that a higher detection limit is the
best commonly achievable.
d) A record shall be made of air temperature, wind
speed, wind direction, cloud cover, humidity,
precipitation for each day of operation and any
significant change that occurred during operations.
5. Materials to be detonated shall be limited to:
a) “common ethers”
1) Diethyl ether (ethyl ether)
2) dioxane
3) isobutyl ether
4)
isopropyl ether
5) tetrahydrofuran
b) “aromatic trinitro compounds”
1) picramic acid
2) picram,ide
3) picratol
4) picric acid (trinitrophenol)
5) pricrl chloride
6) picrylsulfonic acid
7) trinitroaniline
8) trinitrobenzene
78-196
8
9) trinitrotoluene (TNT)
10) trinitrosalicylic acid
c) “organic peroxides”
1) acetyl peroxide
2) benzoyl peroxide
3) tert—butyl—hydroperoxide
4) tert—butyl—perbenzoate
6. Materials containing the following toxic metals will not
be detonated: Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium,
Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Gallium, Germanium, Hafnium,
Indium, Iridium, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel,
Osmium, Platinum, Rhenium, Rhodium, Ruthenium, Selenium,
Silver, Tellurium, Thallium, Tungsten, and Vanadium.
7. Petitioner shall submit to the Agency for the duration
of the variance period, quarterly reports which shall
contain the following information:
a) Date of detonation
b) Type of Material detonated
c) Amount of material detonated
d) Results of composite soil sample taken subsequent
to detonation.
The quarterly report shall be addressed as follows:
Mr. Otto Klein
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Field Operations Section
P.O. Box 19276
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276
8. Within 45 days of the Board’s Order, Petitioner shall
execute a Certification of Acceptance and Agreement
which shall be sent to:
Bobella Glatz
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 19276
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276
78-197
9
This certification shall have the following form:
I, (We)
,
hereby accept
and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of the
Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 87—12, dated May
28, 1987.
EMERGENCY TECHNICAL SERVICES CORP.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
By:
(Name)
(Name)
(Date)
Chairman J.D. Dumelle concurred.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~J~7-
day of
_________________,
1987, by a vote
of ______________________
orothy M. Gunn, Clerk
2LJ
Illinois Pollution Control Board
78-198