ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
1,
1992
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF CONVERSION
)
SYSTEMS,
INC. FOR ADJUSTED
)
AS 92-9
STANDARD
FROM 35
ILL.
ADM.
)
(Adjusted Standard)
CODE 810.103,
811.306,
)
AND
811.507
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by 3. Anderson):
Currently before the Board are
1) an August 24,
1992
petition for adjusted standard from Conversion Systems, Inc.
(CSI),
2) an August 24,
1992 motion for leave to file a limited
copies and other matters from CSI, and 3)
a September 10,
1992
motion for extension of time to file a recommendation from the
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).
CSI filed its response
to the Agency’s motion on September 21,
1992.
In its petition,
CSI waived hearing.
CSI’s Adiusted Standard Petition
CSI seeks an adjusted standard from 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code
810.103 so as to classify its stabilized product, Poz—O—Tec
(POT) materials, as an inert waste, and to obtain relief from the
Board’s requirements for liner installation and construction
quality assurance at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.306, and 811.507.
The
requested relief will allow CSI to dispose of its POT materials
as an inert waste and allow the materials to be used as a liner
material for on-site landfills receiving only electric utility
coal combustion wastes.
POT materials are produced by CSI’s
patented process which involves mixing dewatered flue gas
desulfurization
(FGD)
sludge and fly ash with a stabilizing agent
(lime)
While the information provided by CSI in support of its
petition generally meets the informational requirements of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 106.705, the petition contains certain
deficiencies or requires further clarification.
Accordingly, the
Board directs CSI to file an amended petition addressing the
following points:
1.
CSI requests adjusted standards that apply to POT
materials produced by using FGD sludge and fly ash
generated by force oxidized limestone scrubber systems.
Since fly ash is usually captured by baghouses or
electrostatic precipitators which precede the FGD
scrubber, the Board requests CSI to clarify whether or
not the particulate control equipment is considered as
a part of the force oxidized scrubber system.
OI36~O27I
2
2.
The leachate testing data included in the petition
indicate that,
except for sulfates and total dissolved
solids
(TDS), the leachate concentrations of all other
constituents meet the standards that are set forth at
35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 302.301,
302.304,
and 302.305
(i.e.,
the criteria used to classify a solid waste as inert).
However,
instead
~of pr~posing~
alte~nate
1é~/ë1s~fbr
sulfates and TDS
(based on the performance of the
process) and retaining 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302 levels for
other constituents, CSI has chosen not to include
leachate testing as a condition of its proposed
adjusted standard.
Because the inert waste
classification under existing 35 Ill.
Adiii.
Code 811 is
based on the quality of the leachate generated by the
waste, the Board requests CSI to either:
a)
explain why leachate testing has not been
proposed as a part of the adjusted standard;
or
b)
include leachate testing as a part of the
proposed adjusted standard and propose
alternate levels for sulfates and TDS.
3.
The proposed adjusted standard does not include any
verification and testing requirements to show that the
permeability of the disposed POT materials is l0~
cm/sec or less on an ongoing basis.
•Since the low
permeability of the POT materials is one of the main
factors relied upon by CSI to justify its request for
an adjusted standard of the Board standards,
a
verification and testing protocol to show compliance
with the proposed adjusted standard should be proposed
as a condition of the proposed adjusted standard.
4.
The proposed adjusted standard exempts POT constructed
liners from meeting the construction quality assurance
(CQA) requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.507.
However, CSI has not provided any justification for
requesting such an exemption other than stating that
certain requirements relating to particle size
distribution and plasticity are not relevant to POT
materials.
In order to address this issue, the Board
requests CSI to either:
a)
identify the specific CQA requirements under
35 Ill.
Adin. Code 811.507 which are not
applicable to POT constructed liners;
or
0136-0272
3
b)
provide additional justification for not
requiring construction and testing of a test
liner.
5.
If the requested relief is granted and if a utility
complies with the conditions of such adjusted standard,
t1IflThbistflity~hic1f
~
and fly ash can take advantage of the adjusted standard
by employing CSI’s stabilization process to manage its
waste and forego coming to the Board for site-specific
relief.
How will CSI provide reassurance that its
clients will comply with any potential conditions that
the Board may include in the requested relief?
CSI’s
is directed to file its amended petition on or before
November 13,
1992,
or this matter will be subject to dismissal.
CSI’s Motion for Leave to File Limited Co~Dies
In its motion,
CSI requests that, due to the voluminous
nature of the attachments to its petition,
it be allowed to file
an original and three copies of the attachments to its petition
with the Board with one copy to the Agency.
CSI also requests
the Board to accept its method of publication as being in
conformance with the requirements of 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 106.711.
35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 106.711 requires publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the area likely to be affected by the
petitioner’s activity.
Accordingly, CSI states that,
because
coal burning power generation facilities throughout Illinois
could take advantage of the adjusted standard,
it is causing
notice of its petition to be published in the Chicago Sun Times
and the Springfield Journal Register.
The Board hereby grants CSI’s motion to file a limited
number of copies of the attachments to its petition.
The Board
also accepts CSI’s method of publication.
However,
in light of
the extensive nature of the revisions to the petition and in
order to assure that proper notification of the amended petition
is given, CSI should republish notice of the amended petition.
In addition, the Board notes that CSI is required to file a
certificate of publication pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.712.
The Board directs
CSI
to file its certificate within 30 days of
filing its amended petition.
Agency’s Notion for Extension
The Agency,
in its motion, requests an additional 45 days
in which to file a recommendation in this matter.
In support of
its motion for extension,
the Agency states that the Board is
under no statutory time frame to decide this matter.
The Agency
adds that the issues presented in the petition are technically
complex and require a great deal of time to adequately review,
Ot36-O27~3
4
and that its technical expert does not have adequate time
available to review the petition within the 30 day review period
set forth in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 106.714.
In response,
CSI states that although it does not oppose the
Agencylsmotion, an
expedited
Board~dectsion
in
this~ntatter~would
allow
CSI to market its Poz-O-Tec process effectively.
More
specifically,
CSI states that much of the impetus for filing the
petition is to make available environmentally superior coal—
burning power generation facilities as well as cost—competition
alternatives for the disposal of flue gas desulfurization by-
products which CSI believes will be produced in response to the
sulfur dioxide emission reductions required pursuant to the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA).
As a result, many facilities
subject to the Phase
I reductions in the
CAAA
are currently
deciding the types of controls and waste disposal methods they
will utilize to comply with the requirements and are reluctant to
commit to alternatives which are not permitted under current law.
CSI also notes that although it realizes that the petition is
detailed and that there are competing demands upon the Agency,
the Agency has had the petition for two and one half months
(i.e.,
since June 26,
1992).
Accordingly, CSI believes that an
additional 45 days should be more than sufficient to review the
petition.
The Board notes with concern the reasoning that the Agency
cites in support of its motion for extension
(i.e., that the
Board is under no statutory time frame to decide this matter).
The Board calls the Agency’s attention to In the Matter of:
Petition of Keystone Steel and Wire Company for Hazardous Waste
Delisting
(May 23,
1991), AS 91—1.)
Because the Board has
directed CSI to file an amended petition, however, the Board
grants the Agency’s motion for extension of time to file its
recommendation.
Accordingly,
the Agency is directed to file its
recommendation on or before December 14,
1992.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify ~thatthe above order was adopted on the
/4-i~
day of
________________,
1992,
by a vote of
7-0.
~
Dorothy N. ~nn,
Clerk
Illinois P~1lutionControl Board
0
I 36-027L~