ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 

1974

TROJAN-U.S. POWDER CO.,

a

Division of 

Coimnercial Solvents

Corp.,

PETITIONER

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

MR. NORBERT GARRISON, ATTORNEY, in behalf of TROJAN-U.S. POWDER

CO.

MR. LARRY

EATON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, and MR. RONALD LINICK,

ATTORNEY, in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE 

BOARD

(by Mr. Marder)

This action involves a request for variance originally filed under

Docket Number P~B 71-57 and PCB 71-58. The Board~sOrder of June 14,

1971, 

granted certain aspects of said variance requests, subject to

numerous conditions. Upon appeal to the Appellate Court and Motion

to Reconsider to the Board, the Board issued a further Order on Oct-

ober 14, 1971, modifying its June 14, 1971, Order. A pertinent part

of the October 14, 1971, Order provided for a new hearing to be held

in the matter. The Board on January 

17,

1974, after delay for unknown

reasons, renumbered the variance request PCB 74-32 and set it for hear-

ing.

The original request asked for relief to grant permission for open

burning of explosive wastes for Petitioner~s Marion and Wolf Lake fac-

ilities. Since this time all production operations have ceased at the

Marion facility and the instant variance request centers around the

Wolf Lake facility only. Relief is sought to burn up to 1000 pounds

of non—solid explosive contaminated wastes per day and 100 pounds of

solid explosive wastes per day. The record of PCB 71-57 and 71-58 as

well as the record of a prehearing conference held on March 12, 1974,

was incorporated into this record. Hearing was held on March 27, 1974,

Trojan owns and operates a facility for the manufacture of various

explosive products located near Wolf Lake in Union County, Illinois.

This facility is located on some 1250 acres of land immediately adjac-

ent to Shawnee National Forest. Operations take place in widely separ-

ated buildings numbering over twenty, and employ approximately 105 per-

sons (R. 31).

Mr. John 

Jackson, plant manager for Trojan, detailed the operations

13

—

105

—2—

of the Wolf Lake facility (R. 47-48). One of the products produced

is termed a “sensitizer” which is manufactured by mixing cornstarch

with sulphuric and nitric acids to produce nitrostarch. This mater-

ial is then neutralized with ammonia and recovered as a solvent. The

powdered material can then be used in the wet or dry form depending

on need. The wet nitrostarch is then mixed with ainmonium and sodium

nitrates in a building called a “scale house.” The mixture then goes

to the “punch house” for packing into shells. From the “punch house*

the material is either paraffin-sealed and packed, or just packed in

magazines.

The facility also receives quantities of explosive materials which

are introduced into the process. Such items as TNT and RDX are re-

ceived in packages and mixed with other components.

Wastes are generated in a

number 

of different ways. Contaminated

wastes consist of packaging material and empty or contaminated shells.

Packaging material consists of

about 

150 #/day of ball powder drums,

250

4t

of TNT boxes, and some 50# of empty nitrate bags.

Solid wastes

are generated by cleaning sumps, cleaning beneath buildings or return

and/or improperly formulated dynamite,

Solid wastes and contaminated

wastes are separated (R. 63)

The central issue in this action is whether or not Trojan has exer-

cised good faith

in attempting to develop alternate means of disposing

of their explosive waste.

Much of the testimony reflected on the pos-

sible options of such disposal for each type of waste. There would

seem to be general concurrence that solid wastes reflect a much more

serious and potentially dangerous disposal problem than do contamin-

ated wastes. As mentioned, solid wastes are separated from contamin-

ated wastes; however, due to the nature of the process in some instan-

ces contaminated 

wastes can have qua~1tities of solid waste contained

therein. This is due to the fact that empty cartridge casings could

have powder residue left in them or on rare occasion a full cartridge

could

be

mixed into the contaminated wastes (R, 24).

From this logic

can

determine that contaminated wastes have the potential to be

solid wastes.

It is this possibility

that tends to cause Trojan to

shy away from incinerating

such contaminated wastes.

Various methods of disposal were discussed as

follows:

1. Hand picking of contaminated wastes prior to disposal: Both

Mr. Jackson and Mr. Dowling (Petitioner’s

employees) spoke of

hand picking of contaminated wastes.

This would entail going

through each item before it is placed in a trailer

for dispos-

al. Material which contained solid waste would then be separ-

ated for disposal (R. 24). Mr. Jackson testified that no at-

tempt was ever made to hand pick wastes (to his knowledge), nor

did he have any idea as to what costs would be generated by such

an operation (R. 63). It is the Board’s opinion that such a

study would be prerequisite to future plans in that the nature

of combustibility of the two segments of contaminated wastes

would play an integral part in future compliance plans.

13 * 106

-.3—

2. Incineration: Much discussion centered around the use

of incineration as a viable technique. Mr. Dowling stated

that in his opinion incineration was not a viable approach

in that to safely burn one needs open space and that any

incinerator would be in essence a confined space (R. 138).

He further stated that he would not recommend incineration

even after hand picking because of the chance of missing a

full shell which would then become an explosive force with-

in the confines of the incinerator (R. 168). Mr. Dowling

related his experiences as a technical representative for

Petitioner in that in all the plant sites he has visited

or has knowledge of, open burning is the rule of thumb for

this type of wastes CR. 114)

The point that is distressing to the Board is that very little re-

search has been conducted by Petitioner in order to determine whether

such a system could be designed and operated (most particularly for

contaminated wastes) 

No outside consultants were ever hired (R. 145)

and internal efforts were at best meager (R. 144).

Mr. Richard Altekruse (manager process engineering, Olin Corp.)

appeared under subpoena and discussed Olin’s experience with an explos-

ive waste incinerator. He stated that Olin’s incinerator took two years

to develop (R. 203), and was internally developed after consultation

with an outside consultant from Southern Illinois University proved non-

productive (R. 187).

The differences between Olin’s wastes and Trojan’s wastes were point-

ed out. Olin predominantly manufactures what is termed blank powder or

magnesium flares. The rate of reaction of such material is a few hun-

dred feet per second and is used to burn rather than explode. Trojan’s

waste has detonation velocities of 20,000 feet per second and pressures

of many atmospheres (R. 135). The main difference is the explosive ver-

sus burning properties of the two wastes. Mr. Dowling related discuss-

ions with Olin regarding a test burn of Trojan’s material (R. 112) 

Olin

representatives turned down the

re~quest; however, there is doubt that

Olin understood the nature of the request (R. 195). Olin’s incinerator

can be used to burn RDX at about 10 

#/hr,

and would have no problem

burning ammonium nitrate bags (R. 198).

3. Landfill operation:

Another possible method of disposal

discussed was landfilling.

In the opinion of Mr. Dowling,

this method would be unsatisfactory from a safety viewpoint

(R. 23). Mr. Dowling related that due to the insolubility

of certain explosives there is a perpetual danger of care-

lessly digging up explosives and suffering an explosion.

Substances such as Tro—Gel would be a severe hazard, while

ammonium nitrate would pose a slight hazard (R. 

150-153).

He related an experience where material lying dormant as

long as 25 years exploded upon excavation (R, 155).. Once

again the difference in the type of waste generated (solid

v. Oontaminated) plays a major part in whether landfilling

is a viable alternate.

13

—

107

Environmental Protection Agency Exhibit #1 is a report submitted

for Trojan by Mr. R, A. Woodley (director of environmental control) de—

tailing~Trojan’s effo~ts~to solve their open burning problem, This ré—

port was dated September 10, 1971, and was issued in response to the

Board’s Order in PCB 71*57 and 71-58, requiring the submittal of “a

firm program for alternative disposal of explosive wastes.” The report

details that contacts were made with nine separate facilities to secure

information on incineration, and that all of these companies were will-

ing to undertake research projects at Trojan’s expense; however, none

had a ready-made solution (Exhibit 1, Pg. 3). The report also details

preliminary tests of a 1/4” steel incinerator which indicated that ex-

plosive contaminated wastepaper can be incinerated if handpicked; how-

ever, the report also states that the handpicking operation would be

“extraordinarily expensive” (Ex. 1, Pg. 4). The report concludes by ask-

ing permission to install and operate an air curtain destructor. The

Agency denied the request, based on the fact that air curtain burning

was in fact open burning with a slightly greater degree of sophistica-

tion (Reco. Pg~4).

Since the 1971 report there is very little evidence that Petitioner

has done anything to further investigate the alternate possibilities

open. Petitioner rests on the contention that alternates to open burn-

ing are unfeasible, and shows no good faith effort to explore or develop

such technology. In its own 1971 report Petitioner states that “incin-

eration can be used” and bares its reluctance to proceed with experiment-

ation on the grounds of high~cost. Nowhere in the record does Petitioner

allege financial hardship, and the

Board has held time 

and

again that ec-

onomic 

impact alone is not sufficient grounds for variance (~~f

Car—

roilton and Carrollton Farmers Elevator Co.

Environmenta1~

Protection

~,PcB7l-21O,Haro1dL.Swordsv~nvironmenta1ProtectionAenc,

PCB7O-6), T e Board as, however, held that variance can e granted 

no technology exists, and a viable research program is undertaken (Mt.

~e1Pub1icUtilitOo.v.,Environmenta1ProtectionAenc,POB7l-l5,

Union Oil Co. of California ~hica o Refine v. Environmental Protection

~~cB7~—447~.    

In 72-447 variance was granted due to a goo ait

showing which included an ongoing research program. No such ongoing

program exists here.

Were it not for the potential danger to the persons employed at the

Wolf Lake plant, the above would be sufficient for a dismissal. Howev-

er, we are faced with a situation in which the Board must rate the safe-

ty of those working at the facility as a top priority. The Board will

not grant a variance of extended duration; it will rather grant a short

variance which will allow open burning for such time as to allow Petit-

ioner to initiate and follow through with a plan intended to alleviate

the problem. Such a plan .should give careful consideration to hand—

picking of wastes with the goal of safely incinerating contaminated

wastes, The Board after careful consideration of all facts elicited

can come to two general conclusions:

I. Separation and safe incineration of contaminated wastes

is a distinct possibility and should be vigorously pur-

sued.

2. Incineration of solid wastes presents a much more diffi-

cult problem and a compliance plan for this type of mat-

erial may require a significant amount of time. The Board

13 — 108

would he receptive to such a plan.

ETirr~nrn~n1-.~1

impact is, of course, a major consi~9pr~tinnin our de-

terminations. In the instant case, the only data was presented by the

Agency (although the burden of proof is clearly on the Petitioner). Pet-

itioner’s nearest neighbor is about 1/2 mile from the burning site, and

generally population within one mile is sparse. Expected emissions are

as follows:

From solid wastes    

5 lbs. p.~vfic~n1M~s/l00lbs.

From 

wastes 8.5 lbs. part./l000 lbs. waste

25 lbs. CO/bOO lbs. waste

2 lbs. NC/bOO lbs. waste

1 l~. NO~/1000 lbs. waste

It is the Agency’s opinion that these emissions should not cause un-

reasonable 

i~i~-

rf~r~’n~

with pe~sonsor property.

Considering all factors, the Board will grant a six—month variance,

to allow open burning with certain conditions. It is the opinion of

this Board that little has been done by Petitioner in the way of good

faith efforts to achieve compliance.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

Variance is granted to Trojan—U.S. Powder to open burn a maximum of

100 lbs./day of solid explosive wastes and up to 1000 lbs./day of con-

taminated explosive wastes for a period of six months from the date of

this Order, subject to the following:

I. Within three months of the date of this Order, Trojan

shall file with the Agency and the Board a detailed

plan to bring about compliance. Such plan shall in-

clude as a minimum:

A) A firm compliance date, if possible.

B) A timetable for an ongoing research and development

program either internally or externally conducted.

C) A complete economic study on handpicking of wastes.

D) Distinction between plans for solid and 

‘~~t—~

wastes.

2. Respondent shall, within 3O~days from the date of this

Order, post a performance bond in the amount of $10,000

in a form satisfactory to the Agency guaranteeing compli-

ance with this Order. Bond shall be forwarded to the

Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental Protect-

13 —

109

—6—

ion Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Ill-

inois 62706.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify th~t the above Opinon and Order was adopted by the

Board on the

L~’~’~’

day of

__________,

1974, by a vote of

____

0

13—110