ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
July
1, 1982
AURORA METALS DIVISION,
AURORA INDUSTRIES,
INC..,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 82—12
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by D. Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board upon a petition and
amended petition for variance filed February
5 and February 26,
1982 by Aurora Metals Division, Aurora Industries,
Inc.
(Aurora).
The petitions requested a variance from the defini-
tion of industrial process waste, contained in Rule 103 of
Chapter
9:
Special Waste Hauling Regulations, as applied to
certain core sands.
On March 18 the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a motion to dismiss the peti-
tions on the grounds that the sands in question were not
special waste.
On the same date Aurora filed a response
which stated that it was actually seeking a variance from the
substantive provisions of Chapter 9 rather than the definition
and which agreed to dismissal on the grounds urged by the
Agency.
On April 14, 1982 the Agency filed its recommendation
that the variance either be dismissed as requested in the
motion or~,’in the alternative, granted with conditions.
The
recommendation
was
accompanied
by
a
motion
for
leave
to
file
which
is granted.
On April
15 the Board decided to consider
the motion to dismiss together with the petition and recoinmen-
dation.
On April 15 and April 27,
1982 Aurora filed a response
and supplemental response.
The Board deemed these second and
third amended petitions in an Order entered May 27, 1982.
The Agency has not filed an amended recommendation.
Aurora operates a facility in Montgomery, in Kane County.
This is engaged in casting and machining of copper base alloys.
In 1981 it shipped in excess of 1.25 million pounds of castings
and utilized 15 million pounds of sand.
47-315
—2—
Aurora’s.
waste
is
a
mixture
of
cured
and
uncured
core
sandJ
The.
uncured
sand
consists
of
a
mixture
of
binder
and
sand.
This is “cured” by passing sulfur dioxide through the
mold, which is then ready for use.
Aurora indicates that its
ultimate waste consists of a
mixture
of about
3
uncured core
sand and 97
cured core sand.
The cured core sand results
from molds which are discarded after use.
It is not clear
how the uncured sand enters the wastestream.
The Agency’s motion to dismiss was based on its opinion
that the waste was not special, even though it was
a “core
sand”,
because
it did not “pose
a present or potential threat
to human hea1t~~i.or to the environment” and did not have
“inkier—
ent properties which make disposal of such waste in a landfill
difficult
to
manage
by
normal
means.”
(Section
3
of
the
Act,
definition
of
“industrial
process
waste”,)
The
definition
of
industrial
process
waste,
as
contained
in
Section
3
of
the Act,
was
slightly
modified
this
legislative
session by SB 875, to
correct
grammatical
problems
in
the
first
part
of
the
definition.
The
old
version,
as
contained
in
Rule
901
of
Chapter
9
was
changed
as
follows:
“Industrial
Process
Waste”
means any
liquid,
solid,
semi—solid,
or
gaseous
waste
generated
as
a
direct
or
indirect
result
of
the
manufacture
of
a
product
or
the
performance
of
a
service
wh~h.
Any
such
waste
which would pose a present or potential threat to
human healEh or to the environment or with inherent
properties which make the disposal of such waste in
a landfill difficult to manage by normal means
is an
industrial process waste,
“Industrial process waste”
includes but is not limited to...core sands...
In arguing its motion to dismiss, the Agency has ignored
the
fact
that
what
is
now
the
third
sentence
of
the
industrial
process
waste
definition
by
its
terms
presents
a
list,
not
of
examples
of
waste
which
may
he
considered
special,
but
instead
a
list
of
wastes
which
t~~1~islature
in
its
discretion
has
determined
are
special
wastes.
For
the
Board
to
hold
that
the
core sands at issue here are not special wastes would
in.
essence
amount
to
unlawful
acquiescence
in
administrative
“de—listing”
of
core
sands
from
the
group
of
industrial
process wastes
which
t.he
legislature
has
specifically
directed
receive
special
handling.
The
Board
therefore
denies
the
Agency’s
motion
to
1Aurora has characterized its wastes
as “core sand”,
one of the listed industrial process wastes.
The Board
has
assumed
this
is
correct,
“Core
sand”
is
not
further
defined
in the Act.
47-316
disiuiss
and
finds
Aurora~•s,core
sands
to
be
a
special,
industrial
process
waste.
Tha
Board
accordingly
will
consider
the
~nerits
of
this petition.
The
Board
is concerned that sands of varying degrees
of
hazard
are
being
combined
into
a
single
wastestream.
The
Board
has
therefore
required
Aurora
to
develop
a
plan
for
separating
sands
used
in
its
process.
As
noted
above,
the petition
requested
a
variance
from
the
definition
of industrial process
waste.
Aurora
subse-
quently stated
that
it
was
requesting
a
variance
from
the
substantive provisions of Chapter
9.
It
has
not
specified
which
regulations.
The Board will treat the petition as a
request for
variance
from
the
following
regulations:
Rule 201
Permit requirement
Rule 301
Manifest re uired for
delivery
Part
IV
Vehicle
number and
symbols
Part
V
Manifests
and
records
Chapter
9
imposes
duties
on
the
generator, transporter
and
disposer.
A
permit
is
required
of
the
transporter.
The
generator
is
obliged
to prepare a manifest
and
deliver it
to
the transporter.
The disposer must not
accept
the
waste
without a
manifest.
Chapter
7 requires
a supplemental permit
for each special
waste
handled
by
the
disposer.
The
transporter
and disposer have not
been
expressly
identified
and
have
not joinecL~
Insofar as
Aurora
had
a
Chapter
9
permit,
the Board assumes it is the
transporter.
The disposal
sites identified in
Petitioner’s
Exhibit
I
are
“Joliet
ESL, Batavia/Midway,
and
Naperville/Green Valley”.
The Board assumes
Aurora
is not the
operator.
The
disposer’s
problems
will
be
addressed
through conditions
on Aurora’s
variance
and
conditions
on
the
operator’s
supplemental
Chapter
7
permit.
Aurora
states that the classification of
its
sand
results
in a direct
disposal cost premium of more than
$12,000 per
year.
This may result in
part
from preparation and
mailing
of
individual
manifests.
It may also result from Chapter
9 permit
application costs
and
Chapter
7
supplemental permit
costs
passed on
by
the disposer.
The.
Board considers this cost a
demonstration of
arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship
when
balanced
against
the
insignificant
environmental
damage
if
the
waste
is
properly
landfilied,
The
Board
will
therefore
grant
a
variance
from
Rules
301
and
501 of Chapter
9.
47-317
—4—
In
its.
response,
Aurora
indicates
that
it
has
let
its
Chapter
9
permit
expire
in
reliance
on
the
Agency’s. position
that the sand
is
not
special
waste..
The
Board
will
grant
a
variance
from
the
permit
requirement
of
Rule
20.1
for
a
suff i-
cient
time
to
allow
Aurora
to
file
a
new
application.
It
will
théreàfter
be
required
to
display
vehicle
numbers
and
symbols
as
required
by
Rules
401
and
402.
The
variance
will
be
conditioned
on
annual
reports
of
loads
and
destinations
instead
of
the
Part
V
requirement.
This
Opinion
constitutes
the
Board’s
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
in
this
matter.
ORDER
Petitioner,
Aurora
Metals
Division,
Aurora
Industries,
Inc.,
is
granted
a
variance
from
Rules
201,
301
and
501
of
Chapter
9:
Special
Waste
Hauling
Regulations,
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
1.
The
variance
from
Rule
201
will
expire
January
1,
1983.
2.
The remainder
of
the
variance
will
expire
July
1,
1984.
3.
This variance will apply only to “foundry core
sands” produced by Aurora’s casting operations
in Montgomery, Kane County,
as described in the peti-
tion, and transported by Aurora’ s
own
trucks.
4.
Petitioner shall file with the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency an annual report listing
quantities of wastes and destinations.
5.
During the term
of
this
variance,
Petitioner
shall
develop a
plan
for separating the sands used in its
foundry.
6.
Petitioner shall not deliver waste for disposal
unless
the
recipient
has
a
Chapter
7
supplemental
permit for this waste.
7.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
shall specify the form of annual reports in any
Chapter
9 permit issued Petitioner.
8.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency may,
on request by the recipient of Aurora’s waste,
issue or modify a supplemental Chapter 7 permit
47-318
—5—
in
accordance
with
the
Act,
Chapter.
7
and
the
terms
and
conditions
of
this
variance.
9.
The
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
shall
provide a copy of
this
variance
to each waste recip-
ient with a modified Chapter
7 supplemental permit
for the waste described in Paragraph
3.
A
copy
of
this Order shall be carried in all trucks which
transport
this
waste
without
a
Chapter
9 manifest.
10.
Within forty-five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Variance
Section,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706,
a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be
bound to all
terms
and
conditions
of
this
variance.
This forty-five day period shall be held in abeyance
for any period this mattar is being appealed.
The
form of the Certificate shall be as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We),
____________________________,
having
read and fully understanding the Order in PCB 82-12,
hereby accept that Order and agree to
be
bound
by
all of its terms and
conditions.
SIGNED
___________________________
TITLE
__________________________
DATE
___________________________
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that
the. above Opinion and Order
were
adopted
on
the
f~
day
of
~L
,
1982 by a vote
of
&~:-~
.
Illinois Pollution
47-319