ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    6,
    1995
    IN THE
    MATTER
    OF:
    )
    )
    PETITION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
    )
    OF ILLINOIS, INC. FOR AN
    )
    ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35
    )
    AS 94-12
    Ill. Adm. Code Sections
    )
    (Adjusted Standard-Land)
    807.665(b) and 811.714(b).
    )
    BARBARA
    B. GUIBORD, WILLIAMS
    AND
    ZEVNIK, PC. APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF PETITIONER;
    ROBERT J. SCHERSCHLIGT, ASSISTANT COUNSEL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
    THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;
    DAVE MARTIN, ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
    CHRISTIAN COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by G.
    T. Girard):
    This matter is before the Board on a petition for an
    adjusted standard filed by Waste Management of Illinois (WMI).
    WMI
    asks that the Board grant an adjusted standard to the Board’s
    rule of general applicability for financial assurance found at 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 807.665(b)
    and 811.714(b).
    That requirement
    provides that in order to utilize an insurer to satisfy solid
    waste disposal facility financial assurance for closure and post—
    closure care, the insurer “shall be licensed to transact the
    business of insurance by the Illinois Department of Insurance
    pursuant to the Illinois Insurance Code”.
    WHI
    filed its petition on June 29,
    1994.
    The Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
    filed a response to the
    petition instanter on July 11,
    1994.
    WMI
    waived hearing; however
    on July 18,
    1994, the Board received a request for a hearing
    which was held on October 25,
    1994.
    Based upon the record and upon review of the factors
    involved in the consideration of adjusted standards, the Board
    finds that
    WHI
    has demonstrated that factors relating to
    WMI
    are
    “substantially and significantly different from the factors
    relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation”.
    Accordingly, the request for adjusted standard is granted with
    conditions for the reasons discussed below.
    ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE
    The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the
    Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.).
    The
    Board is charged therein to “determine,
    define and implement the
    environmental control standards applicable in the State of
    Illinois”
    (415 ILCS 5/5(b)) and to “grant
    ***
    an adjusted

    2
    standard for persons who can justify such an adjustment”
    (415
    ILCS 5/28/1(a)).
    More generally, the Board’s responsibility in
    this matter is based on the system of checks and balances
    integral to Illinois environmental governance:
    the Board is
    charged with the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory functions,
    and the Agency is responsible for carrying out the principal
    administrative duties.
    The Act provides that a petitioner may request, and the
    Board may impose, an environmental standard that is different
    from the standard that would otherwise apply to the petitioner as
    the consequence of the operation of a rule of general
    applicability.
    Such a standard is called an adjusted standard.
    The general procedures that govern an adjusted standard
    proceeding are found at Section 28.1 of the Act and within the
    Board’s procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.
    Where, as here,
    the regulation of general applicability does
    not specify a level of justification required for a petitioner to
    qualify for an adjusted standard, the Act at Section 28.1(c)
    specifies four demonstrations that must be made by a successful
    petitioner:
    1)
    Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially
    and significantly different from the factors relied
    upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation
    applicable to that petitioner;
    2)
    The existence of those factors justifies an adjusted
    standard;
    3)
    The requested standard will not result in environmental
    or health effects substantially or significantly more
    adverse than the effects considered by the Board in
    adopting the rule of general applicability; and
    4)
    The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable
    federal law.
    RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
    The Board’s rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.665(b) provide
    that:
    The insurer must be licensed to transact business of
    insurance by the Illinois Department of Insurance.
    The Board’s rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.714 provide in
    pertinent part that:

    3
    a)
    An owner or operator may satisfy the requirements of
    this Subpart by obtaining closure and post—closure care
    insurance which conforms to the requirements of this
    Section and submitting an executed duplicate original
    of such insurance policy to the Agency.
    b)
    The insurer shall be licensed to transact the business
    of insurance by the Illinois Department of Insurance
    pursuant to the Illinois Insurance Code (Ill. Rev.
    Stat.
    1991,
    ch.
    73,
    pars.
    613 et.
    seq.
    (215 ILCS 5/1
    et.
    seq.).
    The Board originally adopted this provision in 1990,
    in the
    Board’s rulemaking proceeding In the Matter of:
    Development.
    Operating and Reporting Requirements for Non—Hazardous Waste
    Landfills,
    R88-7,
    114 PCB 483,
    (August 17,
    1990)’.
    The Board in
    R88—7 developed and adopted comprehensive statewide regulations
    concerning the operation of landfills.
    The financial assurance
    provisions were one small section of these regulations.
    The
    Board has since amended the landfill regulations to include the
    provisions adopted by the USEPA under the Resource Conservation
    and Recovery Act
    (RCRA)
    Subtitle D in R93-10 RCRA Subtitle D
    Amendments
    (Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 811 and 814).
    In adopting the RCRA Subtitle D requirements the Board
    proceeded pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 22.4 of the Act.
    Under
    Section 7.2 of the Act, the Board may only adopt those
    regulations identical-in-substance to the regulations adopted by
    the USEPA.
    In R93-10, the Board specifically responded to a
    comment from the Agency regarding financial assurance through the
    insurance mechanism.
    The Agency commented on the differences
    between the Board’s landfill regulations and the federal
    requirements.
    The Board stated:
    To the extent the Illinois regulations specify the
    person who must regulate the trustee,
    issuer of a
    letter of credit or the insurer, without more the Board
    perceives that the Illinois regulations go beyond the
    scope of the federal regulations.
    Without regard to
    the Agency’s assertions that most Illinois sites have
    provided financial assurance that does not comply with
    the requirement, the Board cannot amend these
    provisions in the way requested without a proposal from
    the Agency that would initiate a “regular” rulemaking
    on the merits.
    (R93-10, September 15,
    1993 at 18.)
    j
    References to the Board’s prior rulemaking proceedings
    will be cited as “R
    @@,
    date at
    _“;
    the petition will be cited
    as “Pet.
    at
    .“;
    the Agency response will be cited as “Ag.
    Rec.
    at
    “.

    4
    FACILITY DESCRIPTION
    WMI
    is a solid waste management company which owns and
    operates a number of waste disposal facilities throughout
    Illinois.
    (Pet. at 5.)
    Since early 1991, closure and post-
    closure insurance has been issued by National Guaranty,
    a wholly—
    owned subsidiary of WMX Technologies.
    (Pet.
    at 2.)
    WMX
    Technologies,
    Inc.
    is the parent corporation for WMI.
    (Id.)
    For
    the past three years the Agency has accepted the insurance
    policies issued by National Guaranty from
    WMI
    as being in
    compliance with the Board’s regulations.
    (Pet.
    at 3.)
    National Guaranty was established in 1989 to provide
    insurance coverage to the its parent WMX Technologies, Inc and
    affiliated companies.
    (Pet 5—6.)
    National Guaranty provides
    primarily surety bonds and financial assurance policies written
    on a claims—made basis and the policies relate specifically to
    the basic operations of WMX.
    (Pet.
    at 6.)
    National Guaranty is
    known as a “surplus lines carrier” based on the type of coverage
    National Guaranty underwrites.
    (Id.)
    Surplus lines carriers
    underwrite coverage which “is excess or surplus to the ‘admitted’
    or traditional insurance market, that is, coverage which licensed
    or admitted carriers are not prepared to underwrite”.
    (Id.)
    WMI
    asserts that because of the 30—year minimum time frame
    required for closure/post—closure insurance, the traditional
    insurance market remains essentially unwilling to underwrite
    closure and post—closure coverage.
    (Pet.
    at 6.)
    WMI
    argues that
    the closure/post—closure coverage is the type of coverage
    traditionally handled by surplus carriers.
    (Id.)
    If facilities
    cannot use insurance issued by surplus carriers to meet financial
    assurance, as a practical matter insurance will not be available
    for closure/post—closure coverage.
    (Pet. at 6.)
    National Guaranty is “fully authorized to operate in the
    State of Illinois under the statutory S
    plus Lines Exemption,
    215 ILCS 5/445”.
    (Pet.
    at 7.)
    Nationa
    uaranty is required to
    operate through a licensed surplus line~ gent or broker.
    Under
    Illinois law the broker or agent must es
    bush that diligent
    efforts have been made to place the cove.
    ~ewith admitted
    insurance companies before the coverage c
    be placed with a
    surplus lines carrier.
    (Id.)
    Also under
    1.inois law, National
    Guaranty “must meet stringent capital stai
    rds and other
    regulatory requirements imposed upon surpl
    lines carriers doing
    business in Illinois.”
    (Pet.
    at 8.)
    WMI
    maintains that surplus lines insur
    ~e can provide
    financial assurance that is just as reliable
    ts that provided by
    other mechanisms authorized in the regulatic
    .
    (Pet.
    at 6-7.)
    In support of this position,
    WNI
    points out
    t under Illinois

    5
    law surplus lines standards require a policy holder surplus of at
    least
    $5 million.
    (Pet.
    at 8.)
    WMI
    states that National
    Guaranty’s surplus is in excess of $170 million and far exceeds
    capital requirements of many licensed insurance carriers.
    (Pet.
    at 8.)
    RELIEF REQUESTED
    WMI
    is seeking an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    807.665(b)
    and 811.714(b)
    to allow National Guaranty to provide
    financial assurance insurance for WMI’s facilities in Illinois.
    Specifically,
    WMI
    is asking that the standard for
    WMI
    state:
    financial assurance would include closure and post—closure
    financial assurance from an insurance carrier which is
    licensed to transact business of insurance by the Illinois
    Department of Insurance or is eligible to provide insurance
    as an excess or surplus lines insurer in the State of
    Illinois.
    (Pet at 9.)
    AGENCY RESPONSE
    The Agency asserts that the petitioner has correctly stated
    the level of justification required for this adjusted standard to
    be granted, and also appropriately does not discuss the
    quantitative and qualitative impacts on the environment.
    The
    Agency agrees with
    WMI
    that the adjusted standard is consistent
    with federal law.
    (Ag. Rec. at 2.)
    The Agency “concedes” that it has allowed
    WMI
    to use captive
    insurance for the past three years to meet the financial
    assurance requirements of Sections 807.665(b)
    and 811.714(b).
    (Ag. Rec. at 2.)
    The Agency in general supports the granting of
    an adjusted standard and recommends that the standard be
    conditioned on WMX Technologies,
    Inc. being required to pass the
    financial test of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.7l5(b)(3).
    (Ag. Rec. at
    4.)
    The Agency is not suggesting that
    WMI
    be required to provide
    a bond or promise to pay in accordance with Section 811.715
    (C).
    (Id.)
    Rather, the Agency suggests that WMX Technologies,
    Inc.
    annually be required to meet the financial requirements of
    Section 811.715(e) (1) as provided in Section 811.715(e)(2).
    (Ag.
    Rec. at 4.)
    Thus, the Agency is recommending that the adjusted
    standard include a condition which will require
    WMX
    Technologies
    to annually provide documentation of its financial status.
    The Agency does not challenge the sufficiency of National
    Guaranty’s capitalization at this time.
    However, the Agency is
    concerned that the financial position of National Guaranty could
    deteriorate in the future.
    Therefore, the Agency is recommending
    the above mentioned condition.
    (Id.)
    COMPLIANCE
    ALTERNATIVES

    6
    WMI
    has begun to use the “Financial Test/Corporate Guaranty”
    mechanism for financial assurance while seeking this adjusted
    standard.
    WMI
    asserts that the use of the “Financial
    Test/Corporate Guaranty”,
    as provided in Section 811.715, will
    cost “approximately $95,000 more per year than insurance from
    National Guaranty”.
    (Pet. at 9 citing Affidavit at para.
    10.)
    WMI
    argues that these costs constitute an undue burden on the
    parent company WMX because the increased costs do not “result in
    any corresponding increased protection for the environment”.
    (Pet. at 9.)
    HEALTH AND
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    EFFECTS
    WMI
    maintains
    that
    the
    granting
    of
    the
    adjusted standard
    will
    have
    “no
    adverse environmental impact or health effects”.
    (Pet.
    at
    14.)
    WMI
    states
    that
    if
    there
    is
    concern
    over
    the
    viability of a surplus lines carrier, National Guaranty is
    sufficiently capitalized and has “established a three—year
    ‘track
    record’
    in Illinois to allay such concern”.
    (Pet.
    at 10—11.)
    CONCLUSION
    Section 28.1(c)
    of the Act requires that in order for a
    petitioner to receive an adjusted standard the petitioner must
    demonstrate that:
    Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially
    and significantly different from the factors relied
    upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation
    applicable to that petitioner.
    WMI
    has established that National Guaranty is a viable
    company capable of providing adequate financial assurance in
    Illinois.
    WMI
    has shown that use of a mechanism other than
    National Guaranty would be more costly with no additional benefit
    to the health or environment in Illinois.
    Therefore, the Board
    will grant the adjusted standard to WMI.
    The Board is however
    also going to include the conditions recommended by the Agency.
    The Board believes that it the conditions are necessary to insure
    that National Guaranty remains a viable surplus lines carrier.
    On March 22,
    1995,
    the Board received a filing in this
    proceeding which indicated that
    WMI
    would be required to purchase
    non-refundable insurance on March 31,
    1995.
    The filing indicated
    that
    WMI
    had asked the Agency for an extension of that date.
    As
    a general rule the Board grants an adjusted standard effective as
    of the date of the Board decision.
    However, the Board has
    granted retroactive relief in variance proceedings where unusual
    or extraordinary circumstances exist.
    DM1. Inc.
    v.
    EPA, PCB 90-
    227, 128 PCB 241 (December 19,
    1991).
    The Board is convinced
    that such extraordinary circumstances exist here.
    The purchase
    of non—refundable insurance would be a significant financial

    7
    expense when in effect there is only six days between March 31
    and today’s date.
    Further, the Board’s
    own
    schedule was such
    that a decision after the March 22, 1995, filing and today was
    not practicable.
    Therefore, the Board will grant the adjusted
    standard effective March 31,
    1995.
    The Board notes that the Board has recently granted an
    adjusted standard to the financial assurance requirements at 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 811.710 and 811.713.
    (In the Matter of:
    Petition
    of Winnebago Reclamation Service,
    Iric, AS94—11,
    (December 1,
    1994)
    (Winneba~o).)
    In Winnebago, the petitioner set forth
    several factors which were substantially and significantly
    different from those considered by the Board when adopting the
    general rule.
    Those factors included the fact that the
    petitioner had already supplied financial assurance to the USEPA
    and the fact that the petitioner was under a consent decree.
    The Board has also recently declined to grant an adjusted
    standard in Browning—Ferris Industries of Illinois.
    Inc..
    Browning—Ferris Industries of Iowa. Inc..
    and BFI Modern
    Landfill.
    Inc., AS 94—13
    (December 14,
    1994).
    In that case the
    Board found that:
    BFI has presented the type of information which could lead
    to a rule change; however such a change, absent a showing of
    substantially and significantly different factors,
    is not
    appropriate for the adjusted standard proceeding.
    The
    factors related by BFI,
    in part, were considered by the
    Board as recently as the Board’s proceeding in R93—1O.
    Therefore,
    the Board denies BFI’s request for an adjusted
    standard.
    As stated above,
    WMI
    has demonstrated that the factors
    relating to
    WMI
    are substantially and significantly different
    than those relied on by the Board in adopting the financial
    assurance standards.
    Therefore, the Board will grant the
    adjusted standard with conditions.
    This opinion constitutes the Board findings of facts and
    conclusion of law.
    ORDER
    The Board grants the following adjusted standard to Waste
    Management of Illinois effective March 31,
    1995:
    1.
    Instead of the Board’s rules of general applicability
    for financial assurance found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    807.665(b)
    and 811.714(b), the following shall apply:
    Financial assurance would include closure and post—
    closure financial assurance from an insurance carrier

    8
    which is licensed to transact business of insurance by
    the Illinois Department of Insurance or is eligible to
    provide insurance as an excess or surplus lines insurer
    in the State of Illinois.
    2.
    WMX Technologies,
    Inc. shall annually pass the
    financial test of 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 811.715(b) (3);
    specifically providing annual proof that WMX
    Technologies, Inc. meets the financial test set forth
    at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.715(e) (1).
    Board Member J. Theodore Meyer dissents.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
    5/40.1) provides for the appeal of final Board orders within 35
    days of service of this decision.
    The Rules of the Supreme Court
    of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    (But see also,
    35
    Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.)
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
    adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ___________________,
    1995, by a
    vote of
    _____.
    ~Tfr~Z~
    4c.
    Dorothy M.,4unn, Clerk
    Illinois ~llution
    Control Board

    Back to top