1 BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
3 IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
4 REVISION OF THE WASTE ) R97-27
DISPOSAL RULES; AMENDMENT ) (
Rulemaking)
5 TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 817.101 )
6
7
8
9 The following is the transcript of a
10 rulemaking hearing held in the above-entitled
11 matter, taken
stenographically by Kim M.
Howells,
12 CSR, a notary public within and for the County of
13 Cook and State of Illinois, before Richard
McGill,
14 Hearing Officer, at 100 West Randolph Street,
15 Room 9-040 Chicago, Illinois, on the 2nd day of June
16 1997,
A.D., commencing at the hour of 10 o'clock
17 a.m.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
2
1 A P
P E A R A N C E S:
2
HEARING TAKEN BEFORE:
3
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
4 100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
5 Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-6983
6 BY: MR. RICHARD
McGILL
7
ROSS & HARDIES,
8 150 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 2500
9 Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 558-1000
10 BY: MR. CHARLES W. WESSELHOFT,
11 Appeared on behalf of Illinois Cast
Metals Association.
12
13 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
14 Ms. Kathleen M.
Hennessey
15 Ms.
Marili McFawn
16 Mr.
Anand Rao
17
18 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MEMBERS
PRESENT:
19
Ms. Kimberly A.
Robinson
20
Mr. Kenneth E. Smith,
P.E.
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
3
1 I N D E X
2 PAGES
3 GREETING BY HEARING OFFICER............. 4
4 TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL SLATTERY....... 9
5 TESTIMONY OF HAROLD HORTON.............. 11
6 TESTIMONY OF GEARY SMITH................ 14
7 QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION............. 25
8 TESTIMONY OF MR. KENNETH SMITH.......... 60
9 CLOSING COMMENTS BY HEARING OFFICER..... 64
10
11 E X H I B I T S
12 Marked for
Identification
13
Exhibit No. 1........................... 24
14
Exhibit No. 2........................... 24
15
Exhibit No. 3........................... 25
16
Exhibit No. 4........................... 59
17
Exhibit No. 5........................... 59
18
Exhibit No. 6........................... 62
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
4
1 MR.
McGILL: Good morning. My name is Richard
2 McGill, and I've been appointed by the Illinois
3 Pollution Control Board to serve as a hearing
4 officer in this regulatory proceeding entitled in
5 the matter of Revision of the Waste Disposal Rules
6 Amendment to 35 Illinois Administrative Code
7 817.101. The docket number for this mater is
8 R97-27, and today is the first hearing.
9 Due to inclement weather, the
10 representatives of the Illinois Environmental
11 Protection Agency have been delayed this morning.
12 Accordingly, we're going to recess this hearing
13 until 11 o'clock.
14 Are there any questions?
15 Thank you.
16 MS. HENNESSEY: Before we go off the record, let
17 me just introduce myself. For the record, I'm Kathy
18 Hennessey, the board member assigned to this
19 rulemaking and to my left is
Anand Rao who's from
20 the board's technical unit who will be assisting us
21 as well.
22 We look forward to seeing you again in an
23 hour. Thank you.
24 (Break taken.)
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
5
1 MR.
McGILL: Good morning. Again, my name is
2 Richard
McGill, and I'll be the hearing officer in
3 this regulatory proceeding entitled in the matter of
4 Revision of the Waste Disposal Rules, Amendment to
5 35 Illinois Administrative Code 817.101.
6 On March 4, 1997, this proposed
rulemaking
7 was filed by its proponent, the Illinois Cast Metals
8 Association or ICMA.
9 Again, also present today on behalf of the
10 board is Kathleen
Hennessey, the lead board member
11 on this
rulemaking, also Board Member
Marili
12 McFawn.
13 MS.
McFAWN: Good morning.
14 MR.
McGILL: And Anand Rao from the board's
15 technical unit.
16 Please note that a service list and notice
17 list sign-up sheets for this proceeding are located
18 at the back of the room. The service list and
19 notice list have been updated to reflect the
20 addition of Kim
Robinson, counsel for the Illinois
21 Environmental Protection Agency.
22 Also at the back of the room are copies of
23 the
prefiled testimony,
ICMA's petition for the rule
24 change, and the updated notice and service lists.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
6
1 Those on the notice list will receive only board
2 opinions and orders and hearing officer orders.
3 Those on the service list will receive these
4 documents plus any
prefiled testimony.
5 I just have a few comments about the
6 procedure we will follow today. This hearing will
7 be governed by the board's procedural rules for
8 regulatory proceedings. All information which is
9 relevant and not repetitious or privileged will be
10 admitted. All witnesses will be sworn and subject
11 to cross-questioning. Testimony was
prefiled for
12 four witnesses. Three for ICMA and one for the
13 agency.
14 For today's hearing, we will begin with
15 ICMA's presentation of its proposal. After
ICMA's
16 three witnesses testify, there will be an
17 opportunity to ask them questions.
18 This will be followed by the testimony of
19 the one witness for the agency and then an
20 opportunity to ask questions of the agency's
21 witness. After any questions of the agency's
22 witness, any interested persons who did not
prefile
23 testimony may testify if time permits.
24 Anyone may ask a question of any witness.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
7
1 I ask, however, that during the question period if
2 you have a question, please raise your hand and wait
3 for me to acknowledge you.
4 Also, please note that any questions asked
5 by a board member or staff are not intended to
6 express any preconceived notions or bias, but only
7 to build a complete record for review by the other
8 board members who are not present today.
9 We're going to break for lunch at
10 approximately 11:50 today. Are there any questions
11 on the procedure we will follow?
12 Okay. Seeing none, I want to note that
13 there is currently one additional hearing scheduled
14 in this matter for Friday, June 20th at 10:00 a.m.
15 at the Illinois State Library, 300 South Second
16 Street, Room 403 in Springfield, Illinois.
17 At the end of today's hearing, I will set a
18 deadline for
prefiling testimony for the second
19 hearing.
20 Before ICMA begins its presentation, I note
21 that
ICMA's prefiled testimony was served late on
22 several persons. Does anyone on the service list
23 have any comment as to the timing of service of
24 ICMA's prefiled testimony?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
8
1 Seeing none, we will proceed
ICMA's
2 presentation of its proposal.
3 Mr.
Wesselhoft, you may begin.
4 MR. WESSELHOFT: Good morning. My name is Chuck
5 Wesselhoft. I'm the attorney for Illinois Cast
6 Metals Association.
7 We will be presenting three witnesses this
8 morning in support of our proposed rule.
9 Mr.
Slattery will be giving an overview of
10 the proposed rule and how it fits into the existing
11 rulemaking, and Harold
Horton and Geary Smith will
12 be presenting testimony concerning their foundry
13 processes and how their sands are generated.
14 At this point, I think we can swear the
15 witnesses.
16 (Witnesses sworn.)
17 MR. WESSELHOFT: The first witness will be
18 Michael
Slattery.
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
9
1 WHEREUPON:
2 M I C H A E L P. S L A T
T E R Y ,
3 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
4 sworn, testified and
saith as follows:
5 D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N
6 by Mr.
Wesselhoft
7 Q. Could you state your name for the
8 record and your position for RMT?
9 A. Good morning. My name is Michael
10 Slattery employed by RMT, which is Residuals
11 Management Technology of Madison, Wisconsin. I'm
12 currently a vice-president for the company and
13 program manager for the metals industry.
14 Q. And what's your relationship to ICMA?
15 A. Currently, I'm serving on the board of
16 directors for the Illinois Cast Metals Association.
17 I have been the past executive director, past
18 president and active since about 1984.
19 Q. Could you give a brief summary of your
20 prefiled testimony?
21 A. I think so.
22 When we initiated the beneficial use
23 rulemaking process with R90-26, we were attempting
24 to focus on the greatest need in Illinois, which was
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
10
1 for the iron and steel industry large producers of
2 foundry sand that had no escape, so to speak, from
3 the system, and with the upcoming promulgation of
4 new solid waste rules, we worked diligently with
5 Ross &
Hardies to prepare a
rulemaking to create the
6 beneficial use that we now have in place under 817.
7 At that time, the non-ferrous industry did
8 not seem to be a priority to us because it's in
9 Illinois a fairly small industry, and we neglected
10 to incorporate that as part of the
rulemaking
11 process. It was focused strictly on SIC codes for
12 iron and steel.
13 Our purpose in coming back now is to
14 address their need, and they have demonstrated
15 through analysis of their waste streams that they
16 can meet the same criteria that was set forth in 817
17 for yard and steel industry. This will not apply to
18 all the non-ferrous sectors, but a fairly large
19 portion of it.
20 Q. Attached to your testimony were some
21 SIC code pages. I think those address the SIC codes
22 that were referenced in our proposal; is that true?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. WESSELHOFT: Okay. The next witness is
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
11
1 Harold
Horton.
2 WHEREUPON:
3 H A R O L D H O R T O N ,
4 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
5 sworn, testified and
saith as follows:
6 D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N
7 by Mr.
Wesselhoft
8 Q. Would you state your name for the
9 record?
10 A. My name is Harold
Horton. I'm with the
11 Chicago Aluminum Castings Company, and I'm also
12 currently the president of the Illinois Cast Metals
13 Association.
14 Q. Would you give a brief summary of your
15 testimony?
16 A. My testimony previously submitted
17 outlined for the board the processes of the
18 utilization of foundry sand in our operation. We
19 are a jobbing aluminum sand foundry. We do jobbing
20 and custom work.
21 Our procedure is utilized by floor molding,
22 squeezer molding, and automatic machine molding.
23 The sand medium that we use is derived from olivine
24 sand to which we only add
bentonite clay because the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
12
1 olivine sand as it is mined has no clay content, and
2 we require clay and moisture to turn it into a
3 molding medium for the foundry.
4 We currently have not disposed of sand
5 because it is a recyclable closed-sand system that
6 we utilize. But sometime in the future, we do
7 anticipate having to dispose of our sand to
8 replenish it and formulate new sand using olivine
9 sand in the future.
10 I think that pretty much covers what we
11 submitted to you.
12 Q. Okay. Is the olivine sand process that
13 you use typical of the aluminum business?
14 A. It's utilized in a fair number of
15 non-ferrous and ferrous foundries. Olivine sand,
16 because it has no clay content, is actually a rock
17 that is crushed up and turned into a variety of
18 screen-size, mesh-size sand for utilization in the
19 industry in replace of silica sand or other types of
20 sand that are used in molding medium.
21 Q. Do you add any binders to your sand?
22 A. The only thing we add to the sand is
23 bentonite clay, four to five percent, and we add
24 moisture.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
13
1 In our own shop, we do add a wetting agent
2 which simply breaks down the water to -- breaks down
3 the surface tension of the water to enable to wet
4 the sand more. It has no other function. It does
5 not contaminate the sand or the atmosphere in any
6 other way.
7 We run about four to five -- about four to
8 five percent moisture, and
bentonite mold mixed with
9 the sand creates the molding median.
10 Q. Is it typical of aluminum foundries to
11 recycle at the high rate that you do?
12 A. I'd say that it is pretty well,
13 particularly where -- we were originally using a
14 natural abundant sand,
albany sand, which many
15 non-ferrous foundries use, aluminum foundries in
16 particular, because it has a natural clay content.
17 The olivine sand, that type of sand --
18 albany sand, excuse me, does not function in an
19 automatic sand system. There's too much clay in the
20 sand. So we have to control that clay and utilize
21 the olivine sand.
22 Some foundries use silica sand that has no
23 natural clay content, which we then use in bonding
24 with
bentonite to do the same thing that we are
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
14
1 doing with olivine sand.
2 MR. WESSELHOFT: Okay. Thank you.
3 And our final witness will be
Geary Smith.
4 WHEREUPON:
5 G E A R Y S M I T H ,
6 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
7 sworn, testified and
saith as follows:
8 D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N
9 by Mr.
Wesselhoft
10 Q. Would you please state your name for
11 the record?
12 A. Good morning.
Geary Smith. I'm the
13 vice-president, general manager for Manufacturer's
14 Brass & Aluminum Foundry. We're located in Blue
15 Island, Illinois, and we make both aluminum as well
16 as copper-base castings for the jobbing market.
17 Most of our product goes into the
18 electrical industry. Some goes into -- more and
19 more is going into the food handling business. We
20 make a lot of castings for companies that make
21 equipment which is used to make hamburger patties or
22 chicken nuggets and those types of things.
23 In our process, we start with washed and
24 dried silica sand, which we purchase from the
Wedron
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
15
1 Silica Company located in the Ottawa area of
2 Illinois.
3 We then coat -- we process the sand through
4 mixers, which coat the sand with binders that hold
5 the grains of sand together. There's two chemicals
6 that go together in this mixing process. It's a
7 very high-speed mixer.
8 The molds are then formed around the
9 pattern equipment, opened. Cores are placed in
10 position, if necessary, closed up, molded metal is,
11 of course, poured into them. They're broken open,
12 and then the sand gets reprocessed through a
13 reclamation unit.
14 It breaks the sand back down into a grain
15 size because upon breaking it apart it's in fairly
16 large chunks of sand, so it breaks it back down to
17 its grain size.
18 The
vibratory action of that reclamation
19 system does have a dust collection system attached
20 to it to pull off all the fines because if the fines
21 keep building up, it causes some quality problems
22 for us.
23 The sand is -- this reclaimed sand is then
24 sent back to a silo, which is located right next to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
16
1 the new sand silo, and then we simply blend 80
2 percent reclaim sand and 20 percent new sand into --
3 they're blended together and sent back to the
4 mixture to form another mold, and the process just
5 repeats itself over and over.
6 The sand which -- that 20 percent which we
7 just cannot continue to keep using goes to the
8 landfill. You know, that sand has been tested, not
9 only of the TCLP process -- because we, obviously,
10 had to have that in order to be able to classify it
11 as a special waste to be sent to the landfill, but,
12 of course, had it tested to the new standards, the
13 R90-26 -- well, the 817 standards.
14 The ability for us to be able to put this
15 sand, which is past this criteria, into some type of
16 beneficial reuse will obviously mean that the
17 landfill space will not be filled up, and we will be
18 able to save a considerable amount of money because
19 at this time we're spending close to $16,000 a year
20 to have the sand removed.
21 Actually, we're spending more money to have
22 the sand removed than it costs us to purchase the
23 sand to begin with. The raw sand I'm just talking
24 about, not the binders that go with it.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
17
1 Q. Okay. Based on your personal
2 knowledge, are the binders that you use similar to
3 the binders that are used in the ferrous foundries?
4 A. As far as I know, they are. I'm not an
5 expert on binder chemistries and so forth, but they
6 -- because we pour at such lower temperatures than
7 iron or steel castings do, we don't use as much.
8 We only put in approximately one percent
9 total binder, one percent by weight. So I don't
10 know exactly how much a ferrous foundry would need,
11 but I'm sure it's a larger percentage, maybe a half
12 to twice as much as what we do.
13 I did bring with me and can give to you the
14 MSDS sheets on that material. In all cases, we've
15 never had any problems with it. Our employees work
16 well with it. They have never had any problems, and
17 it has passed all the tests that were required by
18 our landfill to be able to put it there.
19 As a matter of fact, our understanding is
20 that the landfill actually likes receiving these 15
21 cubic yard hoppers of sand because they love to be
22 able to put it on and cover the material that
23 they're already placing in the landfill.
24 So to sum it up, I don't think it's any
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
18
1 different than what a ferrous foundry would use. If
2 anything, there's a smaller quantity of it being
3 used.
4 MR. WESSELHOFT: All right. Mr.
Slattery would
5 like to present some additional testimony that has
6 not been
prefiled concerning some research that has
7 been conducted by the University of Illinois on
8 foundry sand uses.
9 BY THE WITNESS:
10 A. And certainly those documents could be
11 made available for the board to review, but I would
12 like to step back because we're sitting here
13 reflecting on the last set of hearings when the rule
14 was promulgated to allow us to go forward and
15 conduct beneficial use.
16 We did so knowing that we had the board's
17 support and the agency's support, and we
18 aggressively presented that to the foundry
19 industry.
20 Under Harold's guidance, we basically
21 decided that we wanted to continue doing research
22 work to further promote beneficial use of foundry
23 sand in the state of Illinois, and we retained the
24 University of Illinois to conduct research ferrous
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
19
1 using foundry sand that met the criteria of
2 beneficial use to further enhance wet farm ground --
3 wet farmland, rather, basically ground that was too
4 wet to plow or too wet to harvest, and the thought
5 was that the foundry sand would improve drainage of
6 tillable ground in the state of Illinois and further
7 enhance the -- potentially enhance the yield and
8 make that foundry sand of great value to the
9 farmer.
10 That project was done in conjunction with
11 the farm group near
Geneseo, and a preliminary
12 report was just received to the board here recently
13 in the last two weeks, and Phase I gave very
14 favorable results showing that the foundry sand
15 improved the time frame in which the farmer can
16 plant so he could get in sooner.
17 The crops -- as they monitored the crops
18 through the summer, they grew healthy, and they
19 produced at least the same yield that a regular farm
20 yield would provide. Foundry sand didn't enhance
21 the yield any more than what it was, but it didn't
22 deter it.
23 They also studied the metal uptake into the
24 roots of the plant and found no increase of any
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
20
1 metals due to foundry sand. Basically, it was as
2 you would bind the natural soils.
3 We are, Harold and a few other board
4 members, attempting to find some additional research
5 money perhaps through the state of Illinois or one
6 of the agencies, and we intend to go forward and do
7 this for two more seasons to further enhance the
8 validity of the research and make sure that we've
9 done this very scientifically.
10 But we believe that this could be the
11 greatest value ever created for the use of foundry
12 sand and beneficial use promulgation.
13 MS. HENNESSEY: Can I ask you, did that foundry
14 sand, was that non-ferrous foundry sand or ferrous
15 foundry sand?
16 MR. SLATTERY: It was ferrous foundry sand.
17 MS. HENNESSEY: Do you have any idea whether the
18 results would be any different with non-ferrous
19 foundry sand?
20 MR. SLATTERY: If it met the criteria of
21 beneficial use, I believe it would be the same.
22 MS. HENNESSEY: Thank you.
23 MR. RAO: Are there any changes in the physical
24 characteristics of the sand from non-ferrous
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
21
1 foundries and ferrous foundries? The
2 characteristics here are all based on chemical
3 makeup of the sand.
4 MR. SLATTERY: Physical characteristics?
5 MR. RAO: Yeah. Are they pretty much the same?
6 MR. SLATTERY: I think they are, yes.
7 MR. WESSELHOFT: We will be presenting an
8 additional witness in the next hearing, Professor
9 Paul Trojan from the University of Michigan who will
10 address chemical differences between the two types
11 of sands as they may exist. We don't know at this
12 point that they do exist, but he will discuss
13 those.
14 I'd like to enter this
prefiled testimony
15 as exhibits.
16 MR.
McGILL: Mr. Wesselhoft, you made a motion
17 to have
prefiled testimony of Michael
Slattery,
18 Harold
Horton, and Geary Smith entered into the
19 record as if read?
20 MR. WESSELHOFT: Correct.
21 MR.
McGILL: Is there any objection to entering
22 into the record as if read the
prefiled testimony of
23 Michael
Slattery, Harold
Horton or Geary Smith?
24 MS. HENNESSEY: I don't have an objection, but a
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
22
1 request. Could the witnesses, Mr.
Horton and
2 Mr. Smith, describe the attachments to each of their
3 testimony? I don't think that you ran into that in
4 their summary, the test results.
5 D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N
6 (
cont'd)
7 by Mr.
Wesselhoft
8 Q. Mr.
Horton, could you describe for me
9 samples that were tested and the test procedure that
10 was used?
11 A. Yes. The samples that we submitted for
12 testing for the LCT came from, I believe, if I
13 recall, about three different locations within our
14 closed-sand system. We don't take it off from one
15 lump.
16 We submitted three or four separate clumps
17 of quantities of sand from different locations
18 within our system arbitrarily.
19 The testing that was done was at the
20 American
Foundrymen's Society Environmental
21 Laboratory, and the results have been submitted, and
22 as far as I know, they speak for themselves. I'm
23 not a chemist, and they seem to be passing the tests
24 of usable sand.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
23
1 Q. Was the procedure used in 817?
2 A. It was under the 817 parameters, yes.
3 Q. Mr. Smith, if you could?
4 A. We also took samples of sand throughout
5 the process. This sand is strictly the reclaim
6 portion. There's no brand new sand mixed into
7 this. It's strictly that 80 percent which is
8 reprocessed.
9 So the silo that contains this reclaim
10 sand, we took small samples out of there
11 periodically throughout the day, and then put them
12 into a large container, sent them to the same
13 facility that Mr.
Horton used, the Lester B. Knight
14 Environmental Laboratory.
15 So it was a -- we probably sent to them a
16 quantity of sand five or six times greater than what
17 they actually needed, so then they put it through
18 their
splitters to get a nice homogenous blend and
19 proceeded to do the neutral leach test per the 817
20 requirements.
21 (Ms.
Robinson and Mr. Smith
22 entered the proceeding.)
23 MS. HENNESSEY: Thank you.
24 MR.
McGILL: Thank you. Is there any objection
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
24
1 to entering into the record as if read the
prefiled
2 testimony of Michael
Slattery, Harold
Horton or
3 Geary Smith?
4 Seeing none, I am marking as Exhibit No. 1
5 and entering into the record as if read the
prefiled
6 testimony of Michael
Slattery filed with the board
7 on May 16, 1997, which includes as attachments
8 excerpts from the Standard Industrial Classification
9 Manual and also test results.
10 (Exhibit No. 1 marked
11 for identification,
12 6/2/97.)
13 MR.
McGILL: I am marking as Exhibit No. 2 and
14 entering into the record as if read the
prefiled
15 testimony of Harold
Horton filed with the board on
16 May 16, 1997, which includes test results and an
17 attachment.
18 (Exhibit No. 2 marked
19 for identification,
20 6/2/97.)
21 MR.
McGILL: And, finally I am marking as
22 Exhibit No. 3 and entering into the record if read
23 the
prefiled testimony of
Geary Smith filed with the
24 board on May 16, 1997, which includes test results
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
25
1 as an attachment.
2 (Exhibit No. 3 marked
3 for identification,
4 6/2/97.)
5 MR.
McGILL: We will now proceed with questions
6 for
ICMA's witnesses.
7 As I mentioned earlier, if you have a
8 question, please raise your hand and wait for me to
9 acknowledge you. If you would first state your name
10 and the agency you're with.
11 MR. K. SMITH: My name is Kenneth Smith. I'm
12 with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
13 MR.
McGILL: Go ahead.
14 MR. K. SMITH: I don't know if this was covered
15 prior to my arrival, but in Part 817.106 delineates
16 which parameters the foundry sands are to be tested
17 for and delineates three categories of waste that
18 the foundry sand could potentially be classified
19 under.
20 With the introduction of these two
21 additional SIC codes and to the scope and
22 applicability portion of Part 817, are there any
23 other parameters which would need to be added to the
24 817.106 parameter list?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
26
1 MR. WESSELHOFT: Just briefly let me restate
2 what I said before, we will have a witness at the
3 June 20th hearing that will cover that. He's
4 Professor Paul Trojan from the University of
5 Michigan.
6 MR. K. SMITH: That's it. Thank you.
7 MR.
McGILL: No further questions?
8 Before the board proceeds with its
9 questions, does anyone else have any questions?
10 Do any of the board members present have
11 any questions?
12 MS. HENNESSEY: I'd just like to ask
13 Mr.
Slattery to -- I missed him on -- could you just
14 briefly describe the test results that are attached
15 to your testimony?
16 It's already been admitted, but I think it
17 would be helpful to have a brief overview.
18 MR. SLATTERY: What has been attached to my
19 testimony is a copy of analytical results for Aurora
20 Industries, which is a foundry located in
21 Montgomery, Illinois.
22 A person who was working there at the time,
23 Tom
Skibinski, had forwarded copies of his analysis
24 to me in November of 1994. I then provided this
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
27
1 information to Mr.
Wesselhoft for inclusion in the
2 exhibits.
3 As I recall in reviewing the results, it
4 did meet the criteria of beneficially usable.
5 MS. HENNESSEY: What kind of a foundry is Aurora
6 Industries?
7 MR. SLATTERY: I believe that they are a copper,
8 brass foundry, but I don't think that they're
9 pouring leaded brass.
10 MR. G. SMITH: If you'd like, I can --
11 MR. SLATTERY: Go ahead.
12 MR. G. SMITH: I'm somewhat familiar with their
13 organization.
14 That's correct. They make a lot of
15 castings for the pump and propeller industry in
16 permanent molds, but then they do have this no-bake
17 operation, which is similar to ours.
18 I think they use a slightly different
19 binder system, but they use silica sand and make
20 castings the same way.
21 But Mr.
Slattery is correct. They don't
22 pour any alloys of copper base which contain any
23 significant amounts of lead. So it's the same kind
24 of criteria that we have.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
28
1 We do not pour any alloys that contain any
2 lead, so we're able to pass the standards, and even
3 our TCLP tests which were run again earlier this
4 year confirm that we don't have any levels of lead
5 in the sand. So it's a similar type operation that
6 we have.
7 MS. HENNESSEY: Okay. Thank you.
8 I would also ask, Mr.
Slattery, if you
9 could provide us with the results of the Phase I
10 study that U of I did. That would be helpful at the
11 next hearing.
12 MR. SLATTERY: I will do that.
13 MS. HENNESSEY: And, Mr. Smith, you mentioned
14 that you have the MSDS sheets for binders. Could we
15 have those entered into the record?
16 MR. G. SMITH: If you want to.
17 MR. WESSELHOFT: We could do that today, or we
18 can enter it when Professor Trojan discusses it.
19 MS. HENNESSEY: Whatever you prefer. If you
20 would prefer to wait then on that, that's fine.
21 MR. WESSELHOFT: Yeah. I think we will be
22 forwarding those to Professor Trojan for his
23 analysis.
24 MS. HENNESSEY: That's fine.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
29
1 Thank you.
2 MR. RAO: Mr. Smith, you just mentioned about
3 pouring lead and brass.
4 Are you familiar with the foundries which
5 are involved in pouring leaded alloys?
6 MR. G. SMITH: I've worked at foundries where we
7 made bronze castings and valve castings.
8 MR. RAO: Is it a common practice in
9 none-ferrous foundries to pour leaded brass and also
10 do other types of non-ferrous castings because it
11 involves leaded brass?
12 MR. G. SMITH: It can be done, yes. You can
13 pour leaded copper-base alloys and other non-leaded
14 copper-base alloys within the same foundry and the
15 same sand, yes.
16 MR. RAO: And how do you envision this rule to
17 work in a foundry where these kinds of activities
18 are taking place? Would it be waste segregation?
19 MR. G. SMITH: If they have two distinctly
20 separate sand systems, they could do that, but if
21 it's all in the same system, they're going to have
22 to adhere to the testing procedures.
23 First they've got to -- as I understand it,
24 they have to pass the TCLP. And if they don't pass
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
30
1 that, you know, there's no sense of even going
2 beyond that, so. . .
3 MR. RAO: If they do pass the TCLP with the
4 proposed changes, will they be able to even use
5 these rules? Because I was looking at the proposed
6 language, and it cites we are including these two
7 SIC codes with the exception of foundries which pour
8 brass.
9 So are they pretty much excluded?
10 MR. WESSELHOFT: That was our intent, yes.
11 MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you.
12 MR. HORTON: I would think that -- it's my
13 opinion that even though they may have the same SIC
14 code that we're asking for, that doesn't mean that
15 they're going to automatically pass the testing
16 required under 817.
17 I think that's the fundamental basis for
18 the ruling, but we don't know whether they have two
19 separate sand systems or segregate their sand in a
20 way to allow them to submit whatever sand they are
21 using that passes the tests.
22 So the SIC code itself doesn't
23 differentiate between one sand system and another.
24 MR. RAO: Yeah, I understand that. I was just
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
31
1 trying to get clarification as to how the rules
2 apply because the way it's proposed, they're
3 excluded from using these rules.
4 MR. G. SMITH: There will be -- there are a
5 significant number of foundries today, and there's
6 going to become more and more foundries in the
7 future that elect to exclude the leaded alloys.
8 The National Sanitation Foundation is
9 working with the foundry industry, and the foundry
10 industry is working on developing copper-base alloys
11 that do not contain lead, and yet can be used for
12 plumbing-type applications.
13 So more foundries -- there are a number of
14 them. We're just one, but there are more and more
15 foundries that are electing to not pour the leaded
16 alloys, and so that's going to become more and more
17 prevalent in the future.
18 MR. RAO: Thank you.
19 MR. WESSELHOFT: Just to elaborate on
ICMA's
20 intent in its language, if a facility is pouring two
21 alloys, one is leaded and one is not, and they
22 cannot segregate the sands, then the segregated
23 non-leaded brass sand would qualify under the rule.
24 If the sands are mixed, it is our intent that they
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
32
1 would not qualify.
2 MR. RAO: Okay.
3 MR.
McGILL: Could we go off the record for a
4 moment?
5 (Discussion had off
6 the record.)
7 MR.
McGILL: Mr. Wesselhoft, your last statement
8 was fairly significant in terms of foundries that
9 pour leaded brass, and I guess we'd like to have
10 that statement under oath.
11 I don't know if one of the witnesses will
12 be comfortable providing that information, or if you
13 would like to be sworn to testify in terms of the
14 intent of the proposed rule regarding foundries that
15 pour leaded brass.
16 MR. WESSELHOFT: Mike?
17 MR. SLATTERY: I will do that. I was whispering
18 in his ear.
19 The intent of the rule as we moved ahead in
20 helping the non-ferrous industry was to recognize
21 that there are facilities that pour multiple
22 metals. They have multiple SIC codes, and they have
23 a mix of operating systems.
24 It is our belief and intent that with them
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
33
1 to help themselves, they have to be in a position of
2 segregating the waste streams that come from the
3 various metals.
4 So if they are pouring leaded brass, we've
5 already told them that there's no way we can include
6 them due to the lead content. They would never pass
7 TCLP to begin with.
8 However, if they are doing non-leaded
9 metals, they can easily qualify for the beneficial
10 use. So there is some burden of responsibility on
11 the industry to ensure that they have that
12 segregation in place, and if they don't, they will
13 not be able to take advantage of the rule.
14 Now, I would clarify that -- at least I
15 would expound a little bit that we're not sure how
16 many facilities are in that computation. There are
17 many who are strictly aluminum. There are many who
18 are strictly non-leaded alloys, and then there are
19 those who do multiples.
20 MR.
McGILL: So just to clarify, your
21 understanding is the intent of the rule change
22 regarding a facility that -- foundry that both pours
23 leaded brass and other non-ferrous metals that if
24 that foundry segregated the leaded brass pouring
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
34
1 from its pouring of other metals, none-ferrous
2 metals, that it could qualify for Part 817 in terms
3 of the metals which are not leaded brass?
4 I mean, let me try to restate that. If a
5 given foundry pours leaded brass and that foundry
6 also pours other non-ferrous metals, within these
7 two SIC codes that have been proposed, can that
8 foundry qualify for Part 817?
9 MR. SLATTERY: If it has separate systems.
10 MR.
McGILL: Okay.
11 MR. SLATTERY: If the foundry is pouring a
12 combination of alloys in the same sand system on a
13 given day, no. They would not be able to
14 segregate.
15 However, if they have multiple pouring
16 lines, completely separate of each other, yes, they
17 could. They could qualify.
18 MR. HENNESSEY: I just was wondering, as I
19 understand the rule, correct me if I'm wrong, the
20 testing for the sand that is being covered by Part
21 817 is an annual test, correct?
22 MR. SLATTERY: Yes.
23 MS. HENNESSEY: Did you consider whether the
24 rule also needs to have in place some procedures for
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
35
1 ensuring the segregation of sand systems that may be
2 used for the leaded brass and other systems?
3 MR. SLATTERY: No. In looking back to the
4 earlier
rulemaking, I recall discussions about the
5 segregation of waste streams within a foundry, how
6 we would ensure that proper testing procedures were
7 being done, and I believe that we gave proper
8 testimony to the board that ensured it is the
9 responsibility of the generator to analyze each
10 waste stream at the point of generation, not
11 necessarily commingling all the wastes into a common
12 waste piling at the back end of the plant.
13 I think that we still have that same
14 philosophy in place, yes.
15 MR.
McGILL: So just to follow up on that in the
16 example we've been discussing, if you had leaded
17 brass and then you had separate metals processed,
18 those would be distinct waste streams?
19 In other words, I'm just looking at the
20 Rule 817.104 regarding sampling frequency. It says
21 all individual waste streams shall be tested
22 annually.
23 So in our example, if leaded brass is
24 completely segregated from another process, there
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
36
1 would need to be sampling of each waste stream?
2 MR. SLATTERY: Yes, yes.
3 MR.
McGILL: And the leaded brass would simply
4 not be -- do not come within that 817.
5 MR. SLATTERY: Yes.
6 And just as another example within a given
7 foundry, you could have house dust that was related
8 to a melting emission that would be segregated that
9 would not be part of that initial use.
10 So we have gone to the industry and have
11 been very adamant about it making sure that they
12 follow that protocol of individual waste stream
13 sampling and not commingling.
14 So those who have come forward to do
15 beneficial use have been very cautious.
16 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
17 We're going to take a break for lunch now,
18 and we'll reconvene in one hour. So at 12:50, we'll
19 start up again and continue this question period.
20 Are there any questions?
21 Thank you. Let's go off the record.
22 (Whereupon, a lunch recess
23 was taken reconvening at
24 12:50 p.m.)
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
37
1 MR.
McGILL: Good afternoon. We're going to
2 resume with the questioning period, questions of
3 Michael
Slattery, Harold
Horton, and Geary Smith who
4 are here on behalf of ICMA.
5 I'd like to give the agency an opportunity
6 to ask any questions that they might have at this
7 time.
8 MR. K. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. This is
9 Kenneth Smith. I'd like to direct a question to
10 Mr.
Slattery.
11 On Page 2 of your testimony, the second
12 paragraph, it's stated that the results for
13 Manufacturer's Brass and Aurora Industries indicate
14 complete compliance with the beneficially usable
15 waste limits. I have reviewed Attachment C of your
16 testimony, and I've noted that the manganese
17 concentration for the Manufacturer's Brass Aluminum
18 Foundry exceeds the beneficially usable waste limit,
19 and, consequently, it would be classified as a
20 potentially usable waste.
21 Is that also your understanding?
22 MR. SLATTERY: Let me find that correct page
23 first.
24 MS. ROBINSON: It looks like it's the beginning
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
38
1 page of Attachment C, for the record, and it's Page
2 2 of Mr. Slattery's testimony.
3 MR. SLATTERY: I'm looking at Attachment C, and
4 I would agree that the concentration of .189 is over
5 the limit of beneficially usable.
6 MR. K. SMITH: All right. Thank you.
7 MR.
McGILL: I'm sorry. Mr.
Slattery, what was
8 the concentration?
9 MR. SLATTERY: .189.
10 MR.
McGILL: .189.
11 MR. SLATTERY: The acceptable standard is .15.
12 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
13 MR. SLATTERY: I can only offer that that was an
14 oversight.
15 MR. K. SMITH: Secondly, on Page 2 of your
16 testimony it's stated that the Chicago Aluminum
17 Foundry shows an
exceedance of beneficially usable
18 waste limits for cadmium, lead, and selenium.
19 I'd also add that it appears from my review
20 of the results on Attachment C of your testimony
21 that this particular sand also exceeds the arsenic
22 standard and the standard for 1,2
dichloroethane.
23 MR. SLATTERY: I am looking at Attachment C, and
24 I would agree that those two compounds are over the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
39
1 limit for beneficial usable waste. Again, that was
2 an oversight on our part.
3 MR. K. SMITH: Thank you.
4 MR.
McGILL: Mr. Slattery?
5 MR. SLATTERY: Yes.
6 MR.
McGILL: Did you want to add anything more?
7 MR. SLATTERY: Just one moment.
8 (Brief pause.)
9 MR. SLATTERY: It does appear that -- I'm not
10 sure, but it appears that part of the problem could
11 be where they set the detection limit where they
12 have set less than .006 rather than to set a lower
13 detection limit on than the standard.
14 We have encountered that in some of the
15 other laboratories in Illinois.
16 MR.
McGILL: Your comment relates only to 1,2
17 dichloroethane?
18 MR. SLATTERY: Yes.
19 MR.
McGILL: And just --
20 MR. SLATTERY: Probably also the arsenic, yeah.
21 MR.
McGILL: Did you have anything else to add,
22 Mr.
Slattery?
23 MR. SLATTERY: No.
24 MR.
McGILL: Just for clarification, an arsenic
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
40
1 level of .068 for Chicago Aluminum, that exceeds the
2 low risk waste limit; is that correct?
3 MR. SLATTERY: I'm looking at the table in
4 817.106, waste classification limits. It appears
5 that the results for Chicago Aluminum on their
6 arsenic at .068 would exceed beneficially usable.
7 However, it is less than the criteria of potentially
8 usable, which is .1.
9 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
10 Did the agency have any further questions?
11 MS. ROBINSON: We have no further questions.
12 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
13
Anand Rao, do you have any questions?
14 MR. RAO: Yes, I have just one clarification
15 question.
16 Mr.
Slattery, in Attachment C where you
17 have summarized testing results, for Chicago
18 Aluminum, there are some numbers that appeared to be
19 missing as far as
trihalomethane, vinyl chloride,
20 and
xylenes.
21 Would you explain, you know, whether that
22 was something that was tested for is, or is it
23 just. . .
24 MR. SLATTERY: Let me look.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
41
1 (Brief pause.)
2 MR.
McGILL: Just for clarification of the
3 record, this question relates to Attachment C of
4 Michael
Slattery's prefiled testimony.
5 MS. HENNESSEY: Which is now Exhibit 1.
6 MR.
McGILL: Correct, which is now Exhibit 1.
7 MR. SLATTERY: Dr.
Rao, to answer that, it
8 appears that those parameters were not on the
9 analytical sheet that we have here. Therefore, they
10 weren't transferred onto the summary chart. I can't
11 offer any further explanation.
12 MR. RAO: Okay.
13 MR.
McGILL: Just to follow up, which analytical
14 results were you referring to?
15 MR. SLATTERY: It's one for Chicago Aluminum
16 Castings dated February of 1995.
17 MR. WESSELHOFT: It was the attachment of Harold
18 Horton's testimony.
19 MR.
McGILL: Okay. So those test results are in
20 Exhibit 2, the
prefiled testimony of Harold
Horton?
21 MR. WESSELHOFT: Right.
22 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
23 MR. RAO: And I have one more question.
24 In the same sheet, that's Attachment C to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
42
1 Exhibit 1, you have aspects that say represents
2 total rather than leach results, and I can't find
3 any aspects on the list that you summarize here.
4 So could you please explain if that's
5 something that we need to worry about?
6 MR. SLATTERY: Just a moment. I'm not sure.
7 (Brief pause.)
8 MR. SLATTERY: It appears to be an error on our
9 part. That was put on
accidently and has no bearing
10 to this exhibit. It should be stricken from the
11 exhibit.
12 MR. RAO: So all the testing results are based
13 on leach?
14 MR. SLATTERY: All are leach test results, yes.
15 MR. RAO: Thank you.
16 MR.
McGILL: Any other questions from the board
17 members present? I had a few questions relating to
18 test results.
19 Will ICMA -- in addition to the test
20 results that are included in the
prefiled testimony,
21 will ICMA have any additional test results to offer
22 into the record?
23 MR. WESSELHOFT: At this point, we don't believe
24 so.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
43
1 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
2 I had a few questions regarding the test
3 results on foundry sand from Aurora Industries and
4 Manufacturer's Brass that were included in the
5 prefiled testimony.
6 First of all, did each of these foundries
7 make both aluminum castings and copper alloy
8 castings?
9 MR. G. SMITH: I can address that in our foundry
10 we make, yes, both aluminum and copper based.
11 It's by volume of -- because of the fact
12 that aluminum weighs one-third of what copper base
13 weighs, if I try to equalize that, it's
14 approximately 65 to 70 percent aluminum in our
15 particular situation.
16 We do pour the aluminum bronzes and silicon
17 bronzes in that same sand. Speaking on behalf of
18 Aurora, I've never worked there or anything, but
19 I've been there, and I don't think they pour very
20 much aluminum at all especially not in their sand
21 foundry application. They pour aluminum probably in
22 some permanent molds, but not in sand.
23 So it's exclusively copper. I think they
24 pour a lot of pure copper and silicon bronzes and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
44
1 aluminum bronzes.
2 MR.
McGILL: Okay. So then at Manufacturer's
3 Brass, you pour -- would you just recite those?
4 MR. G. SMITH: The major aluminum alloys in the
5 300 series and then alloys in the 500 series within
6 the aluminum classifications, and within the copper
7 base, it's the silicon bronzes, some manganese
8 bronzes, copper, and aluminum bronzes.
9 But the volume of metal is heavily aluminum
10 oriented, 65 to 70 percent of our work is actually
11 aluminum castings.
12 MR.
McGILL: What series were you referring to
13 there?
14 MR. G. SMITH: Aluminum series. The 300 series
15 is an aluminum silicon alloy, and the 500 series is
16 an aluminum manganese chemistry.
17 MR.
McGILL: What is that a reference, the
18 series?
19 MR. G. SMITH: The aluminum association series
20 of standard industrial classification for the
21 alloys.
22 MR.
McGILL: Okay. Let me just ask for your
23 facility, which foundry sand waste stream was
24 sampled to obtain the leach A test results that were
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
45
1 submitted with your
prefiled testimony?
2 MR. G. SMITH: Our no-bake system. We pour all
3 those different alloys in that system. It's a
4 silica-base system that uses this chemical binder to
5 actually bond the grains of sand together.
6 MR.
McGILL: So the foundry sand sample that was
7 used to extract the leach A, that foundry sand could
8 have been waste from aluminum and bronze pouring.
9 It's all mixed together?
10 MR. G. SMITH: Well, we would make molds with
11 the same sand, and these jobs would get poured out
12 of aluminum, and these jobs for these customers get
13 poured out of one of the copper-base alloys, but the
14 sand stays within the same system, yes. But it is
15 segregated.
16 Ever since we have begun to, of course,
17 follow all the various regulations, foundries are
18 very familiar with keeping their waste stream
19 segregated and testing them accordingly. So all of
20 our waste streams are sand or dust from the back
21 house or sand and dust from glass cleaning
22 operation. Those are all segregated.
23 MR.
McGILL: So this sand sample was taken from
24 where?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
46
1 MR. SMITH: It was taken at various times
2 throughout the day right where the reclaim sand is
3 fed onto a magnetic -- electromagnetic conveyer that
4 blends it with the brand new sand. So we only take
5 the reclaim sand. There's no brand new sand mixed
6 in with this.
7 It's that 80 percent reclaim that goes back
8 into the system. So it's strictly that sand which
9 would have gone right to the mixers to be used to
10 make another mold.
11 MR. RAO: So this is sand from the silo that you
12 referred to?
13 MR. G. SMITH: Right. What we simply do is once
14 that silo gets full, and we can't put any more into
15 it -- because we're putting in 20 percent new sand
16 all the time, eventually the reclaim sand silo gets
17 full, and we can't put any more into it, then we've
18 got a valve on there that we open up, put that sand
19 into a hopper, and then take it out, and put it into
20 one of these 15 cubic yard hoppers and take it away.
21 MR.
McGILL: So the sand that was sampled
22 resulted from aluminum pouring and copper pouring,
23 et cetera?
24 MR. G. SMITH: Copper base, right.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
47
1 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
2 Regarding Aurora Industries, perhaps Mr.
3 Slattery could comment.
4 In your
prefiled testimony, Mr.
Slattery,
5 that's reference to -- on Page 2, this is now
6 Exhibit 1, there's a referenced to Aurora Industries
7 being a copper alloy and aluminum foundry.
8 Would you happen to know which foundry sand
9 waste stream was sampled to obtain the leach A test
10 results from that facility?
11 MR. SLATTERY: I do not know. I think that we
12 could determine that answer, but I honestly don't
13 know.
14 MR.
McGILL: So the case of Manufacturer's
15 Brass, the leach A was extracted from a mixture of
16 individual foundry sands, and then the foundry sands
17 came from copper pouring, aluminum pouring, et
18 cetera, but we don't know the case at Aurora
19 Industries?
20 MR. SLATTERY: No.
21 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
22 I had a -- were there any other questions
23 relating to test results?
24 MR. RAO: I have a follow up question to what
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
48
1 you were asking Mr. Smith earlier.
2 You mentioned how you store this sand in a
3 silo, and then you reuse it. If you had a, you
4 know, lead brass pouring operation, suppose if you
5 had it, I don't know if you do, the waste sand from
6 such an operation would not be mixed with this
7 reclaim sand from other processes if you want to
8 reuse it?
9 MR. G. SMITH: If we wanted to be able to make
10 use of this, we would have to take any molds that
11 had a leaded alloy poured into them and keep them
12 segregated, which, in all honesty, would be
13 difficult to do.
14 We'd almost have to have two separate
15 systems. A foundry that wants to pour -- is forced
16 to pour leaded alloys in the same system that they
17 would pour non-leaded alloys isn't going to be able
18 to -- probably will not be able to make use of this
19 because it probably will not be able to pass the
20 817.
21 They could very well pass the TCLP for a
22 special waste being put into a landfill, but they
23 won't be able to pass this.
24 There are foundries that do have separate
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
49
1 sand systems. One for aluminum or one for
2 non-leaded alloys, and then one -- you'd have to
3 have a separate sand system. You couldn't break out
4 molds that had been poured in leaded alloys in with
5 that other material.
6 MR. RAO: But, basically, you're saying it has
7 to be segregated if they want to --
8 MR. G. SMITH: I would think that they would
9 have to have two distinctly separate systems in
10 order to do that, and, you know, they would have to
11 monitor it accordingly.
12 MR. RAO: Thank you.
13 MR.
McGILL: I had a few other questions
14 relating to economic matters.
15 My hearing officer order of April 30, 1997,
16 required ICMA to include in its
prefiled testimony
17 more complete responses to certain questions
18 proposed in a form entitled, quote, Agency Analysis
19 of Economic and Budgetary Effects of Proposed
20 Rulemaking, end quote.
21 I'm going to ask several questions relating
22 to that form. Hopefully, they can be answered by
23 ICMA's witnesses here today. To the extent they
24 cannot be answered today, the questions will be on
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
50
1 the record and will need to be answered in
ICMA's
2 prefiled testimony for the hearing on June 20th.
3 My first question is, how many Illinois
4 foundries are included within SIC codes 3365 or
5 3366?
6 MR. WESSELHOFT: I'm not sure that we have
7 anyone who could make that statement today.
8 MR.
McGILL: Okay. It would be helpful if we
9 could get that information or at least find out how
10 many within ICMA would come within those SIC codes.
11 My next question was, how many of those
12 facilities pour leaded brass? That would be another
13 question we'd be interested in getting an answer
14 to.
15 MR. WESSELHOFT: I don't think we have that
16 today either.
17 MR.
McGILL: Okay. Thank you.
18 Do you know how much foundry sand is
19 disposed -- in terms of non-ferrous foundries that
20 might be able to avail themselves to this Part 817,
21 if this rule change is made, how much foundry sand
22 will be disposed of annually in Part 811 landfills?
23 MR. SLATTERY: I know that we can give you that
24 answer at the next hearing. I won't have that
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
51
1 today.
2 MR.
McGILL: Thank you. And then if you could
3 also include the total annual costs for
4 transportation and disposal of that material to Part
5 811 landfills.
6 My next question is, can you explain how
7 the proposed amendment will reduce administrative
8 expenses for foundries?
9 MR. WESSELHOFT: Do you want an economic number
10 on that or just a general description?
11 MR.
McGILL: General description.
12 MR. WESSELHOFT: We'll give you that next time.
13 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
14 There was also a mention in the petition of
15 how the proposed amendment will reduce
16 administrative expenses for the agency.
17 Do you have any sense of how the rule
18 change would reduce the agency's administrative
19 expenses?
20 MR. WESSELHOFT: I think we can give you an
21 opinion on that next time.
22 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
23 And one other question relating
24 specifically to form. Will the proposed rule change
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
52
1 have any other effect on state revenues or
2 expenditures?
3 MR. WESSELHOFT: We'll try to address that.
4 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
5 My next question is, what are the
6 opportunities available for recycling and reuse of
7 these non-ferrous foundry wastes?
8 MR. SLATTERY: In today's current market?
9 MR.
McGILL: Yes.
10 MR. SLATTERY: I would say they're very
11 comparable to what we're experiencing with iron and
12 steel foundries. The sand being equal and meeting
13 the criteria of beneficially usable, the marketplace
14 is calling for the use of this sand and the
15 production of cement, where they need silica as a
16 product in manufacturing cement.
17 We've seen applications where parties are
18 making concrete using the sand as an exchange of
19 other sand products that they would normally use.
20 There's been some projects with the use of foundry
21 sand in asphalt. I don't think that has been that
22 strong in Illinois, but I know there have been some
23 projects taken and developed along those guidelines,
24 construction,
backfill material.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
53
1 The term
flowable fill which was very hot
2 in Ohio two years ago has not caught on that well in
3 Illinois, but it is an option.
Flowable fill being
4 a low cost trench
backfill material that goes in
5 somewhat like a slurry, sets up in a ditch, allows
6 the workers to lay the pipes without having to go in
7 and compact all the sand, the natural sand
8 material.
9 Those are several that come to mind. I
10 can't think of any others right now. There has been
11 some work done with concrete blocks and firebrick
12 with sand.
13 MR.
McGILL: All right. These uses that you're
14 mentioning, are those specific to ferrous foundry
15 sand?
16 MR. SLATTERY: Currently, yes, because they're
17 the only ones that have the sand available, but
18 either ferrous or non-ferrous sand would qualify for
19 that use.
20 MR.
McGILL: Are there any other -- there was
21 reference in your
prefiled testimony to markets for
22 waste sand that predecessor
rulemaking R90-26
23 enables steel and iron foundries to find.
24 Are these the markets you're referring to?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
54
1 MR. SLATTERY: Yes.
2 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
3 Do you anticipate that this rule change
4 would lead to the establishment of new foundry waste
5 landfills?
6 MR. SLATTERY: New foundry waste landfills for
7 non-ferrous?
8 MR.
McGILL: Yes.
9 MR. SLATTERY: No, I don't think so. Based on
10 what my knowledge of the non-ferrous industry is,
11 I'm not aware of any non-ferrous foundry landfills
12 at this time.
13 MR.
McGILL: Right.
14 Do you anticipate with the rule change that
15 non-ferrous foundry waste landfills might be
16 established?
17 MR. SLATTERY: No, I don't think so.
18 MR.
McGILL: This is a question specific to
19 Chicago Aluminum. This is from the
prefiled
20 testimony of Mr.
Horton.
21 Mr.
Horton, could you exemplar the
22 difference in the amount of sand Chicago Aluminum
23 presently disposes, which is approximately two tons
24 per year and the amount it potentially could dispose
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
55
1 which is approximately 37 tons per year?
2 MR. HORTON: In our closed-sand system with
3 aluminum being a much lower pouring temperature than
4 brass or iron metals, we do not burn up or dissipate
5 the workability that the
bentonite clay that is
6 added to the olivine sand, which will give it the
7 bonding properties that are required.
8 Therefore, we are -- we can continue to use
9 the sand without completely throwing out a batch of
10 sand like they do in the iron foundries or steel
11 foundries. We can continue to recycle that sand,
12 and we do add four general sands to the castings and
13 is shaken off in shake out at the band saw, for
14 example, and so on or droppings on the floor and
15 losses within the conveyer system itself in
16 spillage.
17 We do replace and only utilize perhaps 100
18 or 200 pounds in a week of new sand added. So
19 that's why we don't find it necessary or a
20 requirement of the molding process to maintain our
21 viability of the sand.
22 However, we try and analyze and think about
23 the results that we perceive from the testing that
24 we've done with a buildup of certain things that
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
56
1 seems to be a little bit just outside the parameters
2 of beneficial use possibly, and at certain times
3 it's possible that it's an accumulation of buildup
4 over ten or 15 years that we, in fact, have been
5 utilizing the initial 37 tons of sand that we
6 started our process back in 1981 with.
7 When we became automated in utilizing the
8 system. We have never disposed of our sand lump in
9 its entirety. It's always been -- our estimate is
10 probably two tons a year, and this is from other
11 sand that really is still usable.
12 So it's economically unfeasible for us to
13 dispose of the whole system like they do and are
14 required to do in the iron foundries or steel
15 foundries. It's an advantage for aluminum because
16 of the nature of the aluminum foundry business that
17 we're in.
18 But there may be a point in time when
19 product requirements or the advancement of the
20 industry at some point in time in the future would
21 require us to revamp our sand system, but at that
22 time, we, obviously, would want to try and utilize
23 that disposable sand instead -- in reusable
24 situations instead of taking up landfill space, and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
57
1 I'm sure that there are other foundries and similar
2 situations in the aluminum field.
3 MR.
McGILL: Thank you. Are there any other
4 questions for these witnesses?
5 MR. K. SMITH: No.
6 MS. ROBINSON: No questions.
7 MR.
McGILL: Thank you very much for your
8 participation.
9 Mr.
Wesselhoft, do you want to make a
10 motion regarding the material safety data sheets?
11 MR. WESSELHOFT: Yeah. I'd like to move that we
12 enter these -- two material safety data sheets were
13 supplied to me by Mr. Smith from binders he uses to
14 process this. I'd like to propose these as
15 exhibits.
16 One is
Techniset and Resin,
17 T-e-c-h-n-
i-s-e-t, and the other is Delta Set
18 Coreactant.
19 MR.
McGILL: And these are material safety data
20 sheets from --
21 MR. WESSELHOFT: Binders that Mr. Smith uses in
22 his process.
23 THE COURT: At Manufacturer's Brass?
24 MR. WESSELHOFT: Right.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
58
1 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
2 MS. HENNESSEY: Mr. Smith, are these the
3 material safety data sheets that you were referring
4 to earlier?
5 MR. G. SMITH: Yes, these are the sheets that I
6 gave to Mr.
Wesselhoft.
7 MR. SLATTERY: Yeah. There's two chemicals that
8 go together that complete the process. I don't
9 think you have copies of those.
10 MS. ROBINSON: May we take a look at those?
11 MR.
McGILL: Sure.
12 MS.
McFAWN: So these are the two chemicals used
13 in the no-bake molding process?
14 MR. G. SMITH: Yeah. They both go into the
15 machine at the same time. They're pumped into the
16 machine and coated. They literally get coated onto
17 the grains of sand. One percent -- one-half percent
18 of each of these is coated on the sand. It's a very
19 small percentage of this material.
20 MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.
21 MR.
McGILL: Sure.
22 Is there any objection to entering into the
23 record material safety data sheets for a product
24 referred to as 23-75 Delta Set
Coreactant, Part II?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
59
1 MS. ROBINSON: The agency has no objection.
2 MR.
McGILL: Is there any objection to entering
3 into the record material safety data sheets or a
4 product referred to as 20-105
Techniset Resin NF?
5 MS. ROBINSON: No objection.
6 MR.
McGILL: As there's no objection, I'm going
7 to mark as Exhibit No. 4 the material safety data
8 sheet with the product name 20-015
Techniset Resin
9 NF. It's a material safety data sheet for
10 Manufacturer's Brass.
11 (Exhibit No. 4 marked
12 for identification,
13 6/2/97.)
14 MR.
McGILL: And I'm going to mark as Exhibit
15 No. 5 material safety data sheet for a product
16 that's referred to as 23-75 Delta Set
Coreactant
17 Part II also material safety data sheet for
18 Manufacturer's Brass.
19 (Exhibit No. 5 marked
20 for identification,
21 6/2/97.)
22 MR.
McGILL: At this point in time, I'd like to
23 ask Miss
Robinson on behalf of the agency if you
24 would like to begin your presentation?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
60
1 MS. ROBINSON: Yes, we would at this time.
2 MR.
McGILL: Excuse me. Would you please swear
3 in the witness?
4 (Witness sworn.)
5 WHEREUPON:
6 K E N
N E T H E. S M I T H , P. E. ,
7 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
8 sworn, testified and
saith as follows:
9 MR. K. SMITH: My name is Kenneth Smith. I'm an
10 engineer in the solid waste unit of the UIC Unit,
11 permit section, within the Division of Land
12 Pollution Control, Bureau of Land of the Illinois
13 EPA.
14 The Solid Waste UIC Unit is responsible
15 for, in part, the permitting of
nonhazardous waste
16 landfills.
17 I have been employed at the Illinois EPA
18 since January 1989. I received bachelor of science
19 degree in civil engineering in March 1984 from
20 Cleveland State University. I'm a licensed
21 professional engineer in the state of Illinois.
22 In response to Item 1(d) of the form
23 entitled Agency Analysis of Economic and Budgetary
24 Effects of Proposed
Rulemaking, the Illinois EPA
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
61
1 does not believe this
rulemaking will result in any
2 measurable increase or decrease in cost associated
3 with rule implementation.
4 The Illinois EPA believes the inclusion of
5 waste streams generated by non-ferrous industries
6 into the Part 817 program has the potential to
7 result in benefits to both the state of Illinois and
8 the foundries covered through the elimination of
9 disposal costs for the wastes involved and the
10 conservation of landfill disposal space.
11 However, the Illinois EPA wishes to reserve
12 support of this
rulemaking until and contingent upon
13 a review of the proponent's testimony.
14 Thank you.
15 As Mr.
Wesselhoft replied in response to
16 one of my questions earlier, we understand that
17 there's going to be some testimony from the Illinois
18 Cast Metals Association in regards to additional
19 parameters that may or may not be added to 817.106,
20 and we look forward to that testimony on June 20th.
21 MR.
McGILL: Thank you.
22 Miss
Robinson, did you want to make a
23 motion to have this
prefiled testimony of Mr. Smith
24 entered into the record as if read?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
62
1 MS. ROBINSON: Oh, yes, please. Would this then
2 be Exhibit No. 6?
3 MR.
McGILL: Yes.
4 MS. ROBINSON: Would you like me to have the
5 court reporter mark that for --
6 MR.
McGILL: I'll mark it up here, thanks.
7 There's a motion from the agency to have
8 the
prefiled testimony of Kenneth Smith entered into
9 the record as if read.
10 Is there any objection to entering into the
11 record as if read the
prefiled testimony of Kenneth
12 Smith?
13 Seeing none, I'm marking as Exhibit No. 6
14 and entering into the record as if read the
prefiled
15 testimony of Kenneth Smith filed with the board on
16 May 16, 1997.
17 (Exhibit No. 6 marked
18 for identification,
19 6/2/97.)
20 MR.
McGILL: Are there any questions for the
21 agency's witness?
22 MR. WESSELHOFT: I have one question.
23 MR.
McGILL: Could you just state your name for
24 the record?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
63
1 MR. WESSELHOFT: Yeah. Chuck
Wesselhoft for
2 ICMA.
3 In the several years since the 90-26 rules
4 have been in place, are you aware of any problems or
5 concerns that the agency has had with the beneficial
6 use of foundry sands from the ferrous foundries?
7 MR. K. SMITH: No problems, but there are
8 certain parts of the 817 we feel needs some
9 clarification, but we haven't encountered any
10 problems.
11 MR. WESSELHOFT: Thank you.
12 MR.
McGILL: Any further questions for the
13 agency's witness?
14 MS. HENNESSEY: I just want to clarify that the
15 IEPA is reserving support of this
rulemaking until
16 you hear Dr. Trojan's testimony; is that correct?
17 MR. K. SMITH: Yes, that's correct. You know,
18 because they're non-ferrous foundries going to be
19 possibly added to the
rulemaking. We would like to
20 hear some testimony as to whether the parameter list
21 in 817.106 should be expanded.
22 MS. HENNESSEY: And based on what you've heard
23 today and in reviewing the
prefiled testimony, do
24 you take issue with any of the statements that the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
64
1 proponents have made today?
2 MR. K. SMITH: No, I don't.
3 MS. HENNESSEY: Okay. Thank you.
4 MR.
McGILL: Any further questions for
5 Mr. Smith?
6 Does anyone else wish to provide any
7 testimony today?
8 Seeing no response, I'll move on to a few
9 procedural matters to address before we adjourn.
10 I note again that there will be an
11 additional hearing on Friday, June 20th at 10:00
12 a.m. at the Illinois State Library, 300 South Second
13 Street, Room 403 in Springfield, Illinois.
14 Anyone who wishes to testify at the second
15 hearing must
prefile their testimony.
Prefiled
16 testimony must be received by the board no later
17 than June 9, 1997. The mailbox rule does not apply
18 to this filing.
19 You must file your
prefiled testimony with
20 the clerk of the board and simultaneously deliver it
21 to all persons on the service list. You should
22 contact me or the clerk's office to make sure that
23 you have an updated service list.
24 Interested persons who wish to testify at
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
65
1 the second hearing and who do not
prefile their
2 testimony as required will be allowed to testify
3 only as time permits.
4 Copies of the transcript of today's hearing
5 should be available at the board by Wednesday or
6 Thursday of next week. A few days after that, the
7 transcript should be available through the board's
8 own page on the Worldwide Web.
9 Are there any other matters that need to be
10 addressed at this time?
11 MS. ROBINSON: Will you be requiring
prefiled
12 questions on the testimony?
13 MR.
McGILL: No. Any other questions?
14 I'd like to thank everyone for their
15 participation today. This hearing is adjourned.
16 (Whereupon, these proceedings
17 were adjourned pursuant
18 to agreement to be reconvened
19 on June 20, 1997.)
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
66
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 COUNTY OF C O
O K )
3
4 I, KIM M. HOWELLS, CSR, do hereby state
5 that I am a court reporter doing business in the
6 City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State of
7 Illinois; that I reported by means of machine
8 shorthand the proceedings held in the foregoing
9 cause, and that the foregoing is a true and correct
10 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken as
11 aforesaid.
12
13
14
______________________________
15 KIM M. HOWELLS, CSR
Notary Public, Cook County, IL.
16
17
18 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me
this________day
19 of___________, A.D., 1997.
20 __________________________
Notary Public
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292