ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 1, 2005
SILBRICO CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 06-11
(Variance – Land)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):
On July 19, 2005 Silbrico Corporation (Silbrico) filed a petition for variance with the
Board. Silbrico seeks a variance from provisions of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 810 through 817 to
the extent that these parts require the disposal of Silbrico’s industrial process waste and pollution
control waste in a non-hazardous waste landfill. Silbrico generates the waste at a manufacturing
facility located in Cook County. Alternatively, Silbrico requests that the Board determine
Silbrico’s waste to be analogous to “clean construction and demolition debris” that can be
disposed of in a “clean fill” facility. Silbrico has also filed a petition for site-specific rulemaking
for a rule to allow it to permanently dispose of its waste in a “clean fill” facility. The Board
docketed the rulemaking petition as R06-08.
See
Proposed Site Specific Perlite Waste
Regulation Applicable to Silbrico Corporation (35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 810), R06-8.
The Environmental Protection Act authorizes the Board to grant temporary relief from its
regulations in the form of a variance.
See
415 ILCS 5/35(a) (2004). The person requesting the
variance must prove that compliance with the Board’s regulations “would impose an arbitrary
and unreasonable hardship.”
Id.
Below, the Board briefly describes Silbrico’s operations and
variance request. The Board then identifies informational deficiencies in the petition that
preclude accepting it for hearing at this time. Finally, the Board gives Silbrico time to file an
amended petition to correct the deficiencies.
BACKGROUND
Silbrico was founded in 1946, and is located at 6300 River Road, Hodgkins, Cook
County. Silbrico manufactures products using perlite, a volcanic rock that expands up to 20
times when heated. Silbrico’s product line includes insulation, filter aids, filler and soil
conditioner. Perlite soil conditioner is the little white kernels found in potting soil. Wastes are
generated from off-specification product and fugitive emissions captured by the bag house and
housekeeping. Wastes are currently disposed of at a non-hazardous waste landfill. Pet. at 2.
Silbrico asserts that due to the inert and non-hazardous characteristic of the off-
specification perlite and the fugitive perlite (collectively perlite waste), it seeks to dispose of
2
these wastes at a “clean fill” facility that accepts only clean construction and demolition debris as
defined at 415 ILCS 5/3.160(b) (2004). Pet. at 1-2. Silbrico asserts that allowing the disposal of
the waste perlite at a “clean fill” facility would save valuable space in municipal waste landfills
and result in significant cost savings, while posing no environmental violation or threat. Pet. at
2. The petition for variance seeks authorization for Silbrico to dispose of the perlite waste at a
“clean fill” facility while the petition for site-specific rule is pending. Pet. at 2.
Silbrico asserts that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) has taken the
position that the waste perlite must be disposed of at a non-hazardous waste landfill, rather than
at a “clean fill” facility. Pet. at 2. Silbrico contends that a search of the Board regulations has
located no regulation specifically stating that industrial process wastes and pollution control
wastes must be disposed of in a non-hazardous waste landfill. Pet. at 2-3. Thus, Silbrico asks
the Board to either grant a variance from the provision of Parts 810 through 817 to the extent that
those Parts require disposal of the waste perlite in a non-hazardous waste landfill, or in the
alternative, declare that the perlite waste are analogous to clean construction and demolition
debris and can be disposed of in a clean fill facility. Pet. at 3.
As noted above, the Agency has not yet filed its recommendation. Under the Board’s
procedural rules, that recommendation is not generally due until 45 days after the filing of the
petition or amended petition, unless ordered otherwise. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.216(b). Under
the Board’s procedural rules, Silbrico may file a response to the recommendation or an amended
petition within 14 days after the date of service of the recommendation. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.220.
INFORMATIONAL DEFICIENCIES
The Board’s procedural rules specify what variance petitions must contain.
See
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 104.204. The Board cannot accept Silbrico’s petition for hearing because it is
deficient in a number of respects. To attempt to rectify the deficiencies, Silbrico must address
the following issues.
1.
In the petition, Silbrico asserts that a review of the Board’s landfill regulations at
35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 810-817 indicates that there are no provisions in the rules
that specifically require disposal of waste from facilities like Silbrico to be
disposed of in non-hazardous waste landfills. Pet. at 2. Identify any statutory
provisions, as well as any specific regulatory provisions you may have identified
after the filing of the petition, from which a variance is being sought.
See
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 104.204(a).
2.
In the petition, Silbrico identifies “rocks, stone” to show how Perlite as a rock
meets this definition. Pet. at 7. The definition’s phrase “generated from
construction or demolition activities” modifies “rocks, stone.” The petition does
not address how the waste is similar to construction or demolition debris from the
perspectives of composition, quantity, or generation. The petition also does not
discuss how the circumstances behind the provisions for construction or
3
demolition debris are similar to the Silbrico waste.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.204(a).
3.
Provide a formal definition or citation for a “clean fill’ facility” as referred to on
page 3 of the petition. If no definition can be provided, explain what a “clean fill
facility” means in the context of the requested relief.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.204(a).
4.
Has Silbrico considered recycling the subject waste streams and selling them as
“clean fill?”
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(a).
5.
Address the area affected by the petitioner’s activity.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.204(b)(1).
6.
Does Silbrico now self-certify that wastes are not special wastes? If so, provide a
copy of the most recent self-certification.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(b)(2).
7.
Indicate the amount of materials used in the perlite manufacturing process.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(b)(6).
8.
The typical chemical analysis for Ryolex Perlite found in Exh. C lists constituents
in units of percent. Please provide analyses in units compatible to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 742. Indicate whether the perlite waste streams individually or collectively
exceed the Tier 1 Soil Remediation Objectives for the parameters listed in Exh. C.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(b)(6).
9.
In the petition, Silbrico states that “Perlite is a naturally occurring rock, and the
expansion process does not add any chemicals or constituents to that rock.” Pet.
at 7. Although no chemicals or constituents are added during the expansion
process, does Silbrico subsequently add something to manufacture Perlite into
different forms under its product line of insulation, filler, filter aid, and soil
conditioner? Do the fugitive emissions and off-spec product contain any of these
additives or materials? If so, comment on their contribution to the waste stream
in terms of quantity and chemical analysis.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(b)(6).
10.
Describe Silbrico’s efforts to reduce off-specification product. Describe any
efforts to reuse or recycle the off-spec waste or bag house waste.
See
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 104.204(b)(7).
11.
Distinguish how much of the 2,000 cubic yards per year is actually perlite and
how much might be other additives or materials – such as packaging or other
components of the final product line.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(b)(8).
12.
Provide a cost comparison to dispose of the perlite waste in an inert waste landfill.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(e).
4
13.
No time schedule is provided for the compliance plan. Does Silbrico intend for
the time schedule to be driven by the rulemaking process in R06-8?
See
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 104.204(f).
14.
In the petition, Silbrico states that “Silbrico will, of course, continue to use all
efforts to minimize the amount of off-specification perlite and fugitive perlite that
need to be disposed of.” Pet. at 8. Expand upon this, describing what efforts
Silbrico has made in the past and what continuing efforts Silbrico is making.
Elaborate quantitatively on Silbrico’s waste minimization efforts to date and how
previous waste production compares to the current figures provided of 2,000
cubic yards per year.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(g).
15.
In the petition, Silbrico states that “It is safe to dispose of the waste streams in a
‘clean fill’ facility, and there will be no impact to the environment.” Pet. at 8.
Provide further comment on how the waste is currently disposed of to keep the
light-weight perlite from blowing around,
i.e
. in containers, covered by daily
cover, etc. Comment on how the waste would be disposed of at a clean fill
facility,
i.e
. in containers, covered by daily cover, etc. If the clean fill facility
provides no dedicated containers or daily cover, comment on how fugitive perlite
will not become airborne and blown outside the facility’s fill area.
See
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 104.204(g).
AMENDED PETITION
The Board orders Silbrico to file an amended petition to address the informational
deficiencies described above. Pursuant to Board regulations, the decision deadline will be
calculated from the date an amended petition is filed.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.228;
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.232(a)(2). Silbrico must file the amended petition on or before October 3,
2005.
RECOMMENDATION
As noted above, the Agency has not yet filed its recommendation. Under the Board’s
procedural rules, that recommendation is not generally due until 45 days after the filing of the
petition or amended petition, unless ordered otherwise. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.216(b). Under
the Board’s procedural rules, Silbrico may file a response to the recommendation within 14 days
after the date of service of the recommendation. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.220.
In addition to the requirements set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 216, the Agency should
address Siblrico’s assertion that there are no provisions in the rules that specifically require
disposal of waste from facilities like Silbrico to be disposed of in non-hazardous waste landfills.
The Agency should consider any information Silbrico submits in response to this order in
making its recommendation.
CONCLUSION
5
The Board finds that Silbrico’s petition is insufficient in the manner set forth above.
Silbrico is directed to file an amended petition to address the issues outlined by the Board on or
before October 3, 2005.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above order on September 1, 2005, by a vote of 5-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
