ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 19, 2001
IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
PETITION OF PROGRESSIVE ) AS 01-7
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ) (Adjusted Standard - NPDES)
(d/b/a ANTIFREEZE RECYCLING) FOR )
AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 721.131(c) )
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by S.T. Lawton, Jr.):
On March 15, 2001, Progressive Environmental Services, Inc. (PESI) filed with the
Board a petition for an adjusted standard pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Environmental
Protection Act (Act). 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (1998). PESI also requested in a cover letter to the
petition that the Board either waives any hearing in this matter or provides PESI with an
expedited hearing.
PESI requests that the Board grant an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
720.131(c),
1 by determining that the reclaimed filtered antifreeze from the petitioner’s
preliminary bag filtration process at a customer’s site is a commodity-like material. Pet. at 1.
2
PESI petitions the Board to find that its filtered antifreeze is not a solid waste under 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 720.131(c), so that its operation will not be subject to Board regulations
concerning the manifest requirements, transportation, and management of the initially filtered
antifreeze. PESI alleged that Board regulations would otherwise require it to special waste
permits to transport and manage the antifreeze at its central processing facility, and to manifest
and report all shipments of antifreeze from its customers’ facilities to its central processing
facility. Pet. at 3.
NOTICE AND HEARING
Section 28.1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (1998)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408
require publication of notice of an adjusted standard proceeding in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area affected by the petitioner’s activity. The notice must be published
within 14 days of filing a petition for an adjusted standard with the Board. See 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 104.408(a). As required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.410, PESI filed a certificate of
publication with the Board on April 4, 2001, indicating that notice of the petition was
published in the
Jersey County Star
on March 15, 2001, and March 29. 2001.
1
The Board notes the petition contains a recurring typographical error throughout the petition,
citing to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.313(c) and 721.131(c) rather than to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
720.131(c). The Board interprets the reference to be to Section 720.131(c), and will review the
petition accordingly.
2
The Board will refer to the PESI petition for an adjusted standard in this matter as “Pet. at ___.”
2
The Board finds that the notice meets the requirements of Section 28.1 of the Act (415
ILCS 5/28.1 (1998)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408 and 104.410.
PROOF AND INFORMATIONAL SUFFICIENCY
Although the notice is proper, the Board finds that the petitioner has not adequately
provided certain proof required by Section 28.1(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c) (1998)), and
information sufficiency requirements in Board regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406,
104.426 and 720.131(c). Specifically, the petition is insufficient for the following reasons:
1.
The petition fails to provide information concerning the extent to which an end market
for the reclaimed material is guaranteed. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c)(4). PESI
provides information about the general use of recycled antifreeze by an established client
base. PESI alleged in its petition that its current on-site antifreeze recycling business has
been in operation since 1997, and that it has an established list of over 100 clients. Pet. at
2. PESI also alleges that “GM, Ford and most other original equipment manufacturers
approve the use of recycled antifreeze.” Pet. at 2. PESI attached to the petition two
unnamed documents that stated General Motors and Ford support the use of recycled
engine coolant. Pet. at 6-7. Petitioner alleges that the St. Louis area supports 3 other
antifreeze recycling companies, and that it is a leading provider of high-quality antifreeze
as a result of using the reverse osmosis conditioning process. Pet. at 3.
Although PESI shows that its clients purchase recycled antifreeze, it does not specify the
number of clients that are willing to buy the higher quality recycled antifreeze, resulting
from the reverse osmosis process. The Board directs PESI to produce a show of interest
from current or potential clients for the higher-quality antifreeze that is processed though
reverse osmosis, rather than the antifreeze that is solely recycled through on-site
filtration.
The Board also directs PESI to quantify the difference in price from on-site filtered
antifreeze and the antifreeze conditioned off-site through the reverse osmosis process.
PESI alleges that filtered antifreeze is worth $1.80 per gallon in the St. Louis metro area.
Pet. at 2. PESI does not indicate how the reverse osmosis processing would increase the
cost of the new product, and whether the St. Louis metro area market would support any
rise in price.
The Board further directs PESI to indicate whether PESI will accept used antifreeze from
customers who contract with PESI to dispose of used antifreeze without accepting the
recycled antifreeze after further reconditioning. If PESI is willing to do so, explain how
PESI intends to market the recycled antifreeze from these customers.
2.
PESI did not adequately address how reclaimed material is handled to minimize loss of
product, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c)(5). PESI alleged that “[o]nly the
impurities removed from the used antifreeze are lost during the reclamation process.”
Pet. at 2. It estimated in its petition that “over 99% of the ethylene glycol content of used
3
antifreeze is reclaimed.” Pet. at 2. However, petitioner does not describe spill prevention
measures taken by PESI during loading, transport, processing and unloading. The Board
directs PESI to provide such information.
3.
PESI did not provide information regarding whether the concrete floor under the
conditioning operation has any floor drains. PESI, in its cover letter to the petition,
alleges that its request for an adjusted standard is analogous to one made by Recycle
Technologies (
In re
Recycle Technologies, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 720.131(c) (September 18, 1997), AS 97-9). In the adjusted standard
concerning Recycle Technologies, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) required their operation to be conducted on a concrete floor without drains.
In
re
Recycling Technologies, Inc. (October 16, 1997), AS 97-9, Agency’s Response to
Amended Petition at 6. The Board directs PESI to provide information on any floor
drains on the concrete floor that may receive discharges from the indoor operation. If
such drains exist, the Board directs PESI to identify to where these floor drains discharge
(as in sanitary sewer, storm sewer, combined sewer, the ground, holding tank, or other
location).
4.
PESI did not provide an analysis of antifreeze that is processed though bag filtration at
customers’ sites and transported to the PESI facility for reverse osmosis. PESI alleged
that it receives antifreeze from over 100 clients. Pet. at 2. Although PESI provided
sample analysis of the residual solids (precipitate) from the reverse osmosis process, it
did not provide information on the initially filtered antifreeze that is transported from
the customers’ facilities. Pet. at 8-12. The chemical and physical characteristics of the
used antifreeze that PESI reclaims in its operation are dependent on the equipment in
which the antifreeze was used, and how the antifreeze was stored at the customer’s site.
See
In re
Recycling Technologies, Inc. (October 16, 1997), AS 97-9, Agency’s Response
to Amended Petition at 6-7.
The Board directs PESI to provide confirmation through chemical analysis that the
antifreeze initially filtered at its customers’ facilities does not meet the hazardous waste
characteristics under the Act and Board regulations. The type of contaminants found in
antifreeze may include benzene from cross-contamination, lead, and tetrachloroethylene
from vehicle radiators.
The Board also directs PESI to provide assurance that its customers store antifreeze in
clean, designated containers, and do not combine the antifreeze with other materials
before PESI picks up the antifreeze to be processed at its central facility.
5.
Petitioner omitted the effective date of June 27, 1995, when providing a reference to
and giving a description of the standard from which an adjusted standard is sought, as
required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(a). The Board directs PESI to amend its
petition accordingly.
4
6.
PESI did not include sufficient information concerning the affected area and the nature
of emissions, discharges, and releases from its operation, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 104.406(d). An adjusted standard would relax requirements for PESI to transport
and handle the antifreeze in this matter, which could lead to a higher risk of spillage.
a.
PESI does not define the affected area of its operation, as required by 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 104.406(d). The Board directs PESI to describe the areas affected
by its antifreeze reclamation operation, including information on the areas of its
customers’ facilities, the truck routes from such facilities to the PESI central
facility, and the area of PESI’s central processing site that might be affected.
b.
PESI does not completely address the nature of emissions, discharges, and
releases in the processing of the antifreeze. PESI alleges that residual solids
(precipitate) are disposed of in a solid waste landfill. However, PESI did not
provide disposal information concerning the bag filters used at customers’ sites,
filter cake, or rejected concentrate from the reverse osmosis system at its central
processing facility. The Board directs PESI to provide information on the
following issues:
(1)
The type of contaminants the bag filters are intended to remove at
customers’ facilities;
(2)
Whether the bag filters remove petroleum products such as oils and
gasoline;
(3)
The manner which PESI disposes the bag filters;
(4)
Any results from testing to determine whether the bags and filter cake
should be disposed of as special or hazardous wastes;
(5)
The manner, if any, that PESI disposes of a concentrated waste stream
from the reverse osmosis filtration, apart from the solids residuals from
the flocculation/precipitation process; and
(6)
The manner in which PESI disposes of any cleaning solution that is used
to clean the reverse osmosis filters.
7.
PESI did not provide information on the cost of complying with the general regulation
of applicability, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c). For example, such costs of compliance
would include any special waste hauling permit fees, permit fees for special waste
management, manifest documents, and additional labor to complete paperwork. The
Board directs PESI to estimate the costs involved if the Board did not grant an adjusted
standard in this matter, and PESI were to be required to obtain special waste permits,
keep records, obtain financial instruments for closure, and incur other such expenses.
5
8.
PESI did not adequately discuss the difference between the quantitative and qualitative
impact of its activity on the environment with and without an adjusted standard,
pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(g). If PESI did not receive an adjusted standard
for its antifreeze operation in this matter, the filtered antifreeze on its customers’ sites
would be considered a solid waste, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c), and
might be classified as a “special waste” under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 808.
PESI does not include any information concerning what requirements it would have to
fulfill to obtain special waste hauling permits, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 809, and
how its proposed operation already addresses such requirements to ensure an
environmentally safe operation. PESI also does not include information concerning
what requirements it would have to fulfill to obtain a permit for operating a special
waste management facility, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 703 or 807, and how its
proposed operation already addresses the relevant requirements.
The Board directs PESI to provide adequate proof of its allegation that “[t]here are no
obvious qualitative or quantitative differences in the impacts to the environment
between adherence to the regulation of general applicability, and the proposed adjusted
standard.” Pet. at 3. In demonstrating a comparable level of care, PESI must include
at least the following:
a.
A description of spill response and cleanup procedures;
b.
Assurances from truck owners that vehicles and tanks will be kept clean and
properly maintained, and that piping, valves, and other such items will be
properly constructed and maintained to prevent leaks and spills;
c.
Whether truck drivers receive adequate training for handling used and reclaimed
antifreeze;
d.
Customer assurances that the used antifreeze will be stored in clean, designated
containers and not mixed with other materials before it is secured by PESI;
e.
Whether floor drains in the PESI central processing facility lead to storm sewers
or ground drainage; and
f.
A chemical analysis of representative samples of initially filtered antifreeze,
which shows whether the antifreeze at its customers’ sites meets the
characteristics of hazardous waste.
9.
Although PESI provides information in its petition that is relevant to section
104.426(a)(1)-(4) of the Board’s regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.426), concerning
the petitioner’s burden of proof, it does not directly address this section. The Board
6
directs PESI to provide such information in this order, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.406(g).
MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING
PESI requested an expedited hearing to meet an alleged March 27, 2001 deadline
imposed by the Agency. PESI does not provide any information concerning the deadline for
the Board to decide this issue. The Board directs PESI to describe the nature of the deadline,
how it relates to the instant case, and why it requests an expedited hearing. The Board also
notes that PESI requested a waiver of the hearing. This issue may be rendered moot if no one
requests a hearing in this matter, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.420.
CONCLUSION
The Board therefore directs petitioner to address in an amended petition the information
requirements of 28.1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (1998)), and Sections 104.406, 104.426,
and 720.131(c) of the Board’s regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406, 104.426, 720.131(c)).
The Board also directs PESI to provide more information concerning its request for an
expedited hearing. The amended petition must be filed with the Board by May 21, 2001, or it
will be dismissed.
If the petitioner files the amended petition, as required by this order, by May 21, 2001,
the Board will accept this matter for hearing. The Agency shall file a response to the amended
petition within 30 days after it is filed with the Board. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.416.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
the above order was adopted on the 19th day of April 2001 by a vote of 6-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
