ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 7, 2004
     
     
    IN THE MATTER OF:
     
    PETITION OF JO’LYN CORPORATION and
    FALCON WASTE AND RECYCLING INC.
    FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35
    ILL. ADM. CODE 807.103 AND 35 ILL.
    ADM. CODE 810.103, OR IN THE
    ALTERNATIVE, A FINDING OF
    INAPPLICABILITY
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
    AS 04-2
    (Adjusted Standard - Land)
     
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.J. Melas):
     
    Jo’Lyn Corporation (Jo’Lyn) and Falcon Waste and Recycling, Inc. (Falcon Waste)
    recycle asphalt shingles into a road-base alternative, called Eclipse Dust Control (EDC), and
    seek a determination by the Board that the material they use is not a solid waste under the
    meaning of the Environmental Protection Act (Act). In the alternative, Jo’Lyn and Falcon Waste
    request relief from the Board’s solid waste regulations as those limits pertain to their operation.
    Today the Board denies the petitioners’ motions for expedited review, but accepts the amended
    petition and directs the parties to hearing on the petition.
     
    On April 21, 2004, the petitioners filed this petition for a Board determination or an
    adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.103 and 810.103. The petitioners operate a
    facility located in Woodstock, McHenry County. In the petition, the petitioners waived hearing
    and requested expedited review of this matter. On May 20, 2004, the Board found that the
    petition lacked necessary information and did not accept the petition. On July 8, 2004, the
    petitioners filed an amended petition, and supplemented the amended petition on July 14, 2004.
    On August 24, 2004, The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a
    recommendation (Rec.) that the Board deny the petitioners’ petition as amended. On
    September 3, 2004, Jo’Lyn and Falcon Waste filed a response to the Agency’s recommendation
    along with a renewed motion for expedited review.
     
    The Board encourages innovative operations that practice recycling, waste reduction, and
    reuse. Yet the Board must also be concerned with the environmentally safe processing and
    application of recycled materials. Any recycler requesting relief from a Board regulation, such
    as Jo’Lyn and Falcon Waste, must demonstrate that the production, use, and application of their
    product is environmentally safe. Similarly, a request for inapplicability of Board regulations
    requires equally supportive analyses.
     
    Based on the record before it, the Board in its discretion finds that a hearing would be
    advisable. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.422(a)(3); 415 ILCS 5/28.1(d)(2) (2002). The petition,
    amended petition, and supplement to the petition do not fully address Agency and Board
    concerns. At hearing the petitioners may further address concerns raised by the Agency in its
    recommendation. Among the identified concerns not yet fully addressed by the petitioners, the
     
    2
    Agency specifically requests information about the location of the staging area at the facility, the
    measuring area, and grinding and storage areas. A site map, equipment list, written operating
    procedures, testing and measurement procedures for placement and compaction, and timeframes
    for storage were also requested. Rec. at 9. The Agency inquired whether the petitioners would
    perform physical or chemical testing to insure the consistency of the material, granulated
    bituminous shingle material (GBSM). Additionally, the Agency is looking for a comparison of
    any toxic contents of Eclipse Dust Control with materials currently used in traditional paving
    applications. Rec. at 10. Further, the Agency notes that petitioners have not provided test results
    of the GBSM toxic substances content. Nor do the petitioners make a demonstration as to the
    health risks of exposure to humans and livestock. Rec. at 10.
     
    Finally, the Board notes there is no information in this record as to the composition of
    GBSM. The petitioners rely on a 1993 solid waste determination made by the Agency in support
    their request for a finding that the Board’s solid waste regulations do not apply to the GBSM
    they use at the Woodstock facility;
    i.e.
    that GBSM is not a solid waste. In a letter dated May 18,
    1993, the Agency found that the GBSM generated by IKO Chicago, a producer of asphalt
    shingles, is not a solid waste when used for specific applications defined in the letter. Pet. Exh.
    D. The letter indicates that the Agency based its determination on sampling results and analyses.
    However, this information is not in this record. Before the Board can make any finding of
    inapplicability, the Board must have similar current information as to the components of GBSM,
    as well as how and where petitioners plan to store GBSM at the Woodstock facility.
     
    Additionally, the Board encourages petitioners to provide further information in the
    following areas prior to hearing.
     
    1. Characterization of GBSM from IKO Chicago and other potential suppliers,
    including:
    •
    pH
    •
    Percent material passing through a #200 micron screen
    •
    Volatiles (35 Ill. Adm. Code 732.Appendix B, Additional Parameters)
    •
    Base/Neutrals (35 Ill. Adm. Code 732.Appendix B, Additional
    Parameters)
    •
    Polynuclear Aromatics (35 Ill. Adm. Code 732.Appendix B, Additional
    Parameters)
    •
    Metals (35 Ill. Adm. Code 732.Appendix B, Additional Parameters)
     
    2. Comparison of above results to characteristics of hazardous waste at 35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 721 Subpart C.
    3. Comparison of above results to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742 TACO Tier 1 Soil
    Remediation Objectives for Residential and Industrial/Commercial Properties for
    ingestion, inhalation, and groundwater contamination. (35 Ill. Adm. Code 742
    Appendix B)
     
    3
    4.
    Description of how the GBSM forms a cohesive surface through compaction and
    sun exposure.
    5.
    Discussion as to whether fines or loose GBSM are present in newer applications
    after the complete compaction and sun exposure.
    6.
    Description of the expected EDC surface as it wears and weathers beyond its
    useful life and if it yields fines or loose material.
    7.
    Range of expected useful life of EDC surface in years for various applications.
    8.
    Discussion of the fate of the EDC applied product beyond its useful life: whether
    it becomes a new waste to be removed, whether it can be incorporated into a fresh
    application of EDC, whether it can serve as a sub base for another paving
    material, whether it can be removed and used as a component of recycled asphalt
    pavement (RAP), or other.
    9.
    Discussion of EDC used on feedlots and exposure of livestock to ingestion of
    fines or particles.
    10.
    Discussion relating to whether petitioners intend to use GBSM in asphalt hot mix.
     
    If the petitioners choose not to proceed to hearing, the petitioners may move to dismiss
    this matter. Any dismissal will not preclude refiling at a later time.
     
    In summary, the Board accepts the petitioners’ petition, as amended, denies the
    petitioners’ motions for expedited review, and directs the hearing officer to proceed
    expeditiously to hearing.
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on October 7, 2004, by a vote of 4-0.
     
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
     

    Back to top