ill

i NO i

~‘

POLLUTI

CONTROl,

ROAPI)

August

19~~)i

Tin-;

MATTER

LI-’:

PETTTTON

CONVERSiON

SYSTEMS,

)

93—5

INC.

FOP

ADJUSTED

STANDAR)

FROM

)

(Adjusted

Standard)

iLL.

ADM.

CODE

PART

811

(MONOFILL)

ORDER OF THE

 BOAPL)

 (by J.

 Anderson)

On July

2,

 1992,

 Conversion Systems,

 Inc.

 (CSI)

 filed

a

motion regarding procedural matters that included

 a request that

the Board determine whether an adjusted standard is an

appropriate procedural mechanism for CSI’s petition.

The

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

 (Agency) does not object

to CSI’s motion, which accompanied CSI’s petition for an adjusted

standard from 35

 Ill.

 Adm.

 Code 811

 (monofill).’

 The motion

asserts that this procedural iss~ewas raised by the Agency and

the disagreement has impeded the’ discussions between the Agency

 and CSI.

On July 20,

 1993,

 the Agency filed a response and motion to

dismiss CSI’s petition.

 On July 20, CSI filed a response to the

Agency’s motion to dismiss.2

 On July 21,

 1993,

 the Agency filed

a motion for leave to file, which

 is granted,

 and a modification

to its motion to dismiss.

 Letters of support for proceeding with

the adjusted standard were also received from Central Illinois

Public Service Company

 (August

2,

 1993, August 6,

 1993);

 Central

Illinois Light Company

 (August

3,

 1993);

 and the City of

Springfield

 (August

4,

 1993).

 On August

5,

 1993, CSI filed a

motion for expedited decision,

 which we need not rule on

 in that

the decision is rendered today.

On the same day,

 July

2,

 1993,

 CSI also filed a

companion petition,

 docketed as AS

 93-4,

 for adjusted standard

from 35

 Ill.

 Adm.

 Code 811

 (liner).

 The filings

 in both dockets

addressed similar procedural matters,

 some of which were

addressed

 by separate orders of the Board on July 22,

 1993.

In

like manner,

 the Board will continue here to address the

remaining procedural

 issue regarding whether the adjusted

 standard

 is the appropriate procedural mechanism.

~‘

 We note that the Agency and CSI argued this same issue

in

 a predecessor docket,

 AS 92—9.

 In that both CSI and the

Agency again argued the issue

 in the present filings,

 the Board

will

 not review the arguments

 in the AS 92-9 record on this

is

S U

e.

Alternative

 tech

 olo!,1re~.

The

Board

 views

 requests for approval

of

 alternate technologies

 from the

following

 perspective:

a)

consideration

of

 new alternate technologies

is

to

 be encouraged;

b)

 the Board

 will

continue to make flexible

use

of

 the adjusted

standard,

 except

 as expressly limited

by

the

statute,

as

a

procedural

 vehicle

 to bring issues before

it

 for consideration on

the merits; and

c)

 the merits

of

 a petition

is

 a separate and

distinct issue

 from the procedure used.

Nature of relief sought.

 CSI requests Board approval

 of its

proposed Poz-O-Tec treatment process to be used on utility ash

and Flue Gas Desulfurization waste,

 but limited to where new

landfills are receiving the waste generated by

 a particular

utility.

 We note that the definition of landfill

 in the Board’s

landfill regulations presently does not regulate the surface

impoundments commonly used by most utilities for disposal.~

CSI requests that the Board allow the use of Poz—O—Tec

materials “to be disposed of

in

 a monofill

 chemical

 waste

landfill

 without the need for a liner, cap or leachate

collection system,

 as has been a commercial practice for the past

seventeen years.t’

 (Pet.

at

1.)

Arguments.

 This Board order today is not to be construed as

reaching any conclusions about the merits of CSI’s proposal or

any of the merit—related arguments of the parties.

 We also note

that we anticipate shortly seeking more information from CSI

pending a more detailed review of the petition.

The Agency’s arguments

 in essence assert that an adjusted

standard cannot be granted on other than a site specific basis,

with the operator as a necessary party (although the Agency

acknowledges that the Board’s P1MW regulations allow for

technology-specific adjusted standards that are not site-

specific).

 We note that the Agency’s legal arguments paralleled

 those put forth

 in the companion docket AS 93-4.

CSI argues that it cannot realistically supply site—specific

information regarding the hydrogeology or surrounding land uses

of each site utilizing its Poz—O-Tec,

 and does not agree that

it

must do so.

 CSI points out that all of the site specific

information the Agency has indicated as necessary must be

The supernatent discharged

 from the utility surface

impoundments, commonly called ash lagoons,

 is regulated by NPDES

permit.

 The Board earlier had held

 a number of hearings on

a

proposal of the utilities that included proposed amendments to

the landfill regulations that would regulate ash lagoon disposal,

but the utilities moved

 to dismiss

the

proposal

 prior to Board

action.

(In

the Matter

of:

 IndustLy

Amendments to the

 df ill

Regulations

 (Parts 810—815J,

 dismissal

 order

 April

9,

1992.)

presented

the

I\qen~

-y

before

any

waste

accepted

either

the

permit

process

the

report

i nq

required

for

onsite

facil

ities.

Board

c~~clusions.

The

 Board concludes that CSI’s petition

for

an adjusted standard

 is an appropriate procedural

 approach.

While the Board appreciates the “site-specific” tradition,

we

 find nothing

 in the adjusted standard language,

 implicitly or

otherwise,

 precluding any person who has developed

 a new

alternate technology from seeking approval for its use by others.

Section 28.1 does not limit petitioners to only owners and

operators applying on

 a site—by-site basis.

 The Board has

provided for,

 and granted, adjusted standards

in

 a number of

settings,

 including those involving the developer or

manufacturer.4

We emphasize that the landfill regulations are drafted to

hold the owner or operator of

 a specific site responsible for

compliance with the regulations and any applicable adjusted

standard in all respects,

 up to and including compliance with the

non—degradation standard of no contaminant transport beyond 100

feet

 in 100 years.

CSI’s petition for adjusted standard is accepted.

We

suggest that Board’s comments in Keystone,

 (In the Matter of:

Petition of Keystone Steel and Wire Company for Hazardous Waste

Delisting,

 (February

6,

 1992,

pp.

 8-10), AS 91-1.) may be

especially helpful here,

 in that

 in this proceeding and the RCRA

delisting in the Keystone proceeding, we share the experience of

dealing with a rather new use of the adjusted standard process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

C.

 A. Manning and B. Forcade dissented.

I,

 Dorothy M.

 Gunn,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

 hereby certify, that the above order was adopted on the

 day of

//~

~

 1993,

 by a vote of

_____

~.,

Dorothy M.

 Gunn,

 Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control

 Board

See e.

q.,

 the adjusted standards

 related to: new

alternate technologies

 in the P1MW program; the diesel exhaust

program, where AS was granted

 to engine manufacturer but vehicle

owner

responsible

 for ongoing maintenance.