RECEIVED
CLERKS OFFICE
OCT
2
42005
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
SILBRICO CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 06-011
(Variance—land)
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
(See attached Service
List.)
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that
on
this
24th
day
of
October
2005,
there
was
filed
with
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
Petitioner Silbrico
Corporation’s
Amended
Petition for Variance, which
is attached
and herewith
served
upon you.
SILBRICO CORPORATION
By:
/1
~EIizabeth
&
Harvey
Ci
One of
its attorneys
Elizabeth S.
Harvey
Michael J.
Maher
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL,
LLP
One IBM
Plaza,
Suite 3300
330 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago,
Illinois 60611
Telephone:
(312) 321-9100
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
the
undersigned
non-attorney,
state
that
I
served
a
copy
of
Petitioner
Silbrico
Corporation’s Amended Petition for Variance to counsel of record
in the
above-captioned
matter
via U.S.
Mail
at One
IBM
Plaza,
Chicago,
IL 60611
on
or
before 5:00 p.m.
on
October 24,
2005.
/Sekttaa
627~tZ~
~hette
Podlin
xi
Under penalties
as provided
by
law
pursuant to 735 ILCS
5/1-109,
Icertify
that the statements
set forth
herein
are true
and correct.
2049-001
SERVICE LIST
Case
No.
PCB 06-011
(Variance
--
Land)
Mark V. Gurnik, Assistant Counsel
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency
Division of Legal Counsel
1021
North Grand Avenue
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
IL 62794-9276
Bradley P.
Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph
Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago,
IL 60601
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
oCT
242005
SILBRICO CORPORATION,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
pollution Control Board
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCBO6-011
(Variance—land)
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
)
AMENDED PETITION
FOR VARIANCE
Petitioner
SILBRICO
CORPORATION
(“Silbrico”),
by
its
attorneys
Swanson,
Martin
&
Bell,
LLP,
hereby submits its
amended
petition for
a variance allowing
Silbrico
to dispose of nonhazardous, inert waste at
a
“clean
construction
and
demolition debris”
facility.
Background
Silbrico filed
its
petition for variance
on July
19,
2005.
Silbrico seeks
a variance
to allow it to dispose of two specific waste streams
(off-specification
perlite,
and fugitive
perlite
from
baghouse
dust
collections)
in
a
“clean
construction
and
demolition
debris”
facility.
Silbrico requests
this variance to allow it to
dispose of those waste streams
in
a
“clean” facility while
it pursues
its
petition for site-specific
rulemaking.
(See,
Proposed
Site-Specific
Waste
Regulation
Applicable
to
Sllbrico
Corporation,
R
06-08.)
Alternatively,
Silbrico
asks
the
Board
to
declare
that
the
two
waste
streams
are
analogous to
“clean
construction
and
demolition
debris,”
so
that those wastes
can
be
disposed
of
in
a
“clean
fill”
facility
(otherwise
known
as
a
“clean
construction
and
demolition debris operation”).
On
September
1,
2005,
the
Board
issued
an
order directing
Silbrico
to
provide
additional
information.
This
amended
petition
addresses
the
informational
inquiries
posed by the
Board
in
its
September
1
order,
and
is intended to be read
in
conjunction
with
Silbrico’s
July
19,
2005,
petition
for variance.1
(The sections
below
coincide with
the
numbered paragraphs of the
Board’s order.)
Responses to Board Information Inquiries
Paragraph one.
The
Board
asks
for
identification
of
statutory
provisions,
and
any
additional
regulatory provisions,
from which
a variance
is being
sought.
As discussed
in
Silbrico’s
petition,
the Agency
has stated
that the
two waste
streams
must
be
disposed
of
in
a
permitted
nonhazardous
waste
landfill.
The Agency
further stated
that
the
two
perlite
waste streams
do
not
meet
the
definition
of “clean construction
and
demolition
debris,”
and
therefore cannot
be disposed
of
at
a
“clean fill” facility.
(See petition at pages 2-3;
Exhibit A to petition.)
The
fugitive
perlite
waste
is
a
“pollution
control
waste,”
as
defined
in
Section
3.335 of the
Act,
and the
off-specification
perlite waste is
an “industrial
process
waste,”
as defined
in
Section
3.235
of the Act.
(See Exhibit A.)
Silbrico agrees with
the Agency
that the
perlite waste
streams
are currently
properly classified
as “pollution
control” and
“industrial
process”
wastes,
under
those
statutory
definitions.
Because
they
are
classified
as
“wastes,”
the
fugitive
perlite
and
the
off-specification
perlite
must
be
disposed
of
in
a
permitted
facility
(see
Section
21(e)
of the
Act),
unless
there
is
an
exemption which
allows
an alternate form
of disposal.
The provisions governing
“clean
1
Silbrico will refer to its
July
19 petition
for variance as “petition.”
2
construction
and
demolition debris” (“CCDD”) are one such exemption.
In
its
request for
variance,
Silbrico
seeks
permission
to
dispose
of
its
two
perlite
waste
streams
as
CCDD, while it pursues
its
petition for site-specific
rule.
Additional
searching ofthe Act and the
regulations
reveal no statute or regulation
that specifically states that industrial
process wastes and
pollution
control
wastes must
be
disposed
of in
a
nonhazardous waste
landfill.2
However,
there
is
no
dispute
(see
Exhibit
A)
that
these
two
waste
streams
must
currently
be
so
disposed.
Silbrico
believes
that
the
provisions
of
the
Board’s
waste
rules
must,
at
least
by
implication,
require that industrial
process wastes
and
pollution
control
wastes be
disposed
of
in
a
nonhazardous
waste
landfill.3
Therefore,
Silbrico
reiterates
its
request that the
Board
either:
1)
grant
a
variance
from
the
provisions
of
Part
810
through
817,
only
to
the
extent those
Parts require
disposal of the
wastes
in
a nonhazardous waste landfill; or 2)
in
the alternative,
declare that Silbrico’s
off-specification perlite and fugitive
perlite waste
streams
are
analogous
to
“clean
construction
and
demolition
debris,”
as
defined
in
Section 3.160(b)
of the
Act,
and
can be disposed of at
a
CCDD operation
which meets
the
requirements of Section
22.51
ofthe Act.
Paragraph two.
The
Board
seeks
further
explanation
of
how
the
waste
streams
are
similar
to
“rock”
and
“stone”
generated from
construction
or demolition
activities.
As
noted,
the
two wastes are
made solely of perlite,
which
is
a naturally occurring rock.
While the two
2
As
noted,
the
Part
809
regulations
discuss
whether
industrial
process
and
pollution
control
wastes
are
“special
wastes.”
Silbrico’s
wastes
are
not
special
wastes.
(See
paragraph
six
of
this
amended
petition.)
The
only
other specific
reference
to
industrial
process
or
pollution control
wastes
in
the Board’s
regulations is in the
definitions section of Part
810.
If the
Board
finds
that
its
rules
do
not require
disposal
in
a
nonhazardous waste
landfill,
Silbrico
reserves the right
to make further arguments on
this
issue.
3
waste
streams
are
not
“generated
from
construction
or
demolition
activities,”
the
two
waste streams
may well
be “cleaner”
than
rock or stone generated
from
construction or
demolition activities.
Unlike
rock or stone which
is
a result of construction or demolition,
these
two
waste
streams
are
segregated
from
any
other
material,
and
are
never
commingled
with
other
potential
wastes.
The
wastes,
being
made
entirely
of
rock
(perlite), are inert and contain nothing that will
leach or react when
disposed of.
The provisions for “alternate” disposal
of clean
construction
and demolition debris
recognize that there are some types
of materials,
which would otherwiseba considered
“waste,”
which
do
not
pose
a
threat to
the
environment or
health
if disposed
of
in
an
alternate
manner.
Allowing
CCDD
to
be
disposed
of
at
a
CCDD
operation
(see
paragraph
three
below)
conserves
valuable
space
in
permitted
landfills,
while
still
protecting
the
environment.
The General Assembly
has found:
That
there
are
wastes
which
may
have
reduced
environmental
threat
when
disposed
of
in
monofills because they are non-putrescible,
homogeneous, do
not
contain free liquids, or for other reasons;
(415
ILCS 5/20(d)(4).)
Silbrico’s
two perlite waste streams fit this statement
perfectly.
The
perlite waste
streams
are
non-putrescible,
homogenous,
and
do
not
contain
free
liquids.
Allowing
these two perlite waste streams to be disposed
of as CCDD wastes would carry out the
intent of the
legislature, while protecting
the
environment.
Paragraph three.
The Board
asks
for
a formal
definition
of “clean
fill
facility,”
as
Silbrico
used that
term
in
its
petition for
variance.
At the
time the
petition was
filed, there
was
no specific
statutory
or
regulatory
definition
of
a
“clean
fill
facility.”
Silbrico
used
that
term
in
4
reference
to
facilities
which
accepted
“clean
construction
and
demolition
debris,”
or
“CCDD.”4
However,
since
the
variance petition was
filed, the
Illinois
General Assembly
passed,
and
the
governor
has
signed,
P.A.
94-0272.
Among
other things,
that
public
act
adds provisions
to the
Environmental
Protection Act which establistrregistrattonand
permitting
requirements
for
“clean
construction
or
demolition
debris
fill
operations.”
(See
new
Section
22.51
of the
Act,
added
by
P.A.
94-0272.)
Section
22.51
requires
that any facility which
uses CCDD as
fill material
in
a
current or former quarry,
mine,
or
other excavation
obtain
an
interim
authorization
from
the
Agency.
That
section
also
provides that
the Agency
is
to
propose,
and
the
Board
is
to adopt,
regulations for
the
use of CCDD as fill material,
and further establishes
a
phased-in
schedule
for
requiring
CCDD facilities to obtain
permits.
Thus,
Silbrico
asks
that
it be
allowed
to
dispose
of the
two waste streams
at
a
clean
construction
and
demolition
debris
operation
which
has
obtained
interim
authorization (or, when
required,
a
permit) pursuant to Section 22.51
of the
Act.
Silbrico
proposes the following
language for inclusion
in
the variance:
Silbrico
may use
a
clean
construction
and demolition debris operation, which
has
obtained
the
necessary authorization
and/or
permit pursuant to Section
22.51
of
the
Act,
to
dispose
of
its
“off-specification
perlite”
and
“fugitive
perlite”
waste
streams.
Paragraph four.
Silbrico
has
considered
recycling
the
two
waste
streams,
to
either
sell
or
give
away.
However,
the
only technology
known
to
Silbrico
to
accomplish
recycling
is
to
palletize
the
wastes.
This technology
is
expensive,
and
may
not
result
in
a
“product”
which
the
Agency
would
agree
is
recycled
(as
opposed
to
a waste).
When
Silbrico’s
“Clean fill facility” is also the term
used previously by the
Agency.
See
Exhibit
A.
5
output of wastes was
smaller,
it used to be able to give some of the waste product away
as
a
low-grade
filter
aid.5
Silbrico remains
open to the
possibility of recycling,
should
it
become feasible, but
is pursuing this variance
(and
the
accompanying site-specific rule)
to keep
all of its
options open.
Paragraph five.
As
noted
in
the
petition,
Silbrico
is
located
in
Cook
County,
at 6300
River
Road,
Hodgkins,
Illinois.
The
“area
affected
by
petitioner’s
activity”
is
technically
only
the
Silbrico facility,
since manufacturing
activities occur on site.
The two waste streams
are
retained
on
site
until
they are
trucked
off for
disposal.
Viewing
the
“area
affected
by
petitioner’s activity” more broadly,
it could
be said that the
portion of Cook
County
in
and
around Hodgkins
is
such
an
area.
Paragraph six.
Silbrico does self-certify that the two waste streams
are not
special wastes.
The
most recent self-certification
is attached as Exhibit
1.6
Paragraph seven.
Silbrico’s
perlite
products are manufactured
at
a
rate
of 1500 to 4000
pounds
of
perlite per hour, depending on the product.
The perlite ore
is introduced directly
into the
gas
flame of
a
vertical
tube furnace.
The
ore
reaches
a
temperature
of
1600
to
2200
degrees
Fahrenheit
in
just
seconds,
causing
the
water
in
the
perlite
ore
to
vaporize.
At times
Silbrico is still
able to give away
some of the off-specification
perlite
as
a low-grade filter
aid
or
filler.
However,
Silbrico
cannot
rely
on
that
means
of
“disposing”
of
the
off-specification
perlite
because demand is small and
inconsistent.
6
Exhibit
I
is the first exhibit to
this
amended petition.
Exhibits A through
H
are attached
to the July
19,
2005,
petition for variance.
6
The
ore
then
pops
like
popcorn
and
expands,
forming
both
internal
and
external
air
voids
in each
particle of perlite ore.
Paragraph eight.
The Board
asked for analysis of the perlite
in
units compatible to 35 III.Adm.Code
742.
TYPICAL CHEMICAL ANALYSES
OF PERLITE
ELEMENTS
Mg/kg
Si
33.8
338000
Al
7.2
72000
K
3.5
35000
Na
3.4
34000
Fe
0.6
6000
Ca
0.6
6000
Mg
0.2
2000
Traces
0.2
2000
Oxygen
47.5
475000
Bound water
3.0
30000
Total
100
Of the trace elements (which are less
than
2
of the
perlite waste streams), the
percentage of each element, and
its analysis:
TRACE
ELEMENTS CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
(BY
FOOD CHEMICAL CODEX
METHOD)
ELEMENTS
mg/kg
As
0.001
10
Ba
0.1
1000
B
0.01
100
Cl
0.0005
5
Cr
0.0075
75
Cu
0.0015
15
Ga
0.05
500
Pb
0.001
10
Mn
0.3
3000
Mo
0.003
30
Ni
0.002
20
S
0.2
2000
Ti
0.1
1000
Zr
0.003
30
7
Paragraph nine.
Silbrico
does
not
add
any
chemical
or
constituent
to
its
filter-aid
or
its
soil
amendment
products.
Silbrico
does
add
a
silicone
coating
(0.24
by weight)
before
packaging some of the filler products.
However,
it
is important to note that this silicone
coating
is
added
after
manufacture.
Both
waste
streams
at
issue
here
are
created
during
manufacture,
and
not
during
the
packaging
process.
The off-specification perlite
and the
fugitive
perlite waste streams
do
not
have any coating,
or any other constituent
or chemical,
in them.7
Paragraph ten.
The
Board
seeks
additional
information
on
Silbrico’s
efforts
to
reduce
off-
specification product.
Here,
Silbrico
addresses its
efforts to reduce the
amounts of both
off-specification perlite and fugitive perlite.6
During
the
45
years
in
which
Silbrico
has
been
manufacturing
at
its
current
location,
Silbrico’s
production
has
increased
from
processing
fewer
than
3000
tons of
perlite
ore
per
year
to
more
than
70,000
tons
of
perlite
ore
per
year.
Silbrico
has
continually
upgraded
its
equipment,
revised
its
systems
and
procedures,
and
has
upgraded
the
training
of
its
employees.
This
has
allowed
Silbrico
to
produce
more
product
more
efficiently,
while
reducing
the
amounts
of
off-specification
and
fugitive
perlite.
The
only items the perlite ore
comes
in contact with during
manufacturing
is the
natur&-gasw1~4ch
fuels
the
furnace during
expansion,
and
the
excess
air which
is
used
to
convey
the expanded
perlite
to
the collection area.
8
See
also paragraph
four,
above, regarding recycling efforts.
8
For
example,
currently,
during
normal
operations,
the
dust
collected
from
the
baghouse
(the fugitive
perlite) goes
directly into the
product.
It is only during shutdowns
of production
that the
residual perlite
is discharged
from
the
baghouse
dust collectors,
and
must
be disposed
of.
Previously, the
baghouse
dust (the fugitive
perlite) did
not
go
into
the
product,
so
all
of that
fugitive
perlite
had
to
be
disposed
of.
Likewise,
off-
specification perlite
can now often
be blended
back into the product from which
it came.
This was
not true
in
the past,
and
all
off-specification perlite had to be disposed
of.
It
is
in
Silbrico’s
economic interest,
as well
as in
the
interests
of the environment,
to
“reuse”
the
perlite
waste
streams
(both
fugitive
and
off-specification)
to
make
a
product that
can
be sold,
rather than
allowing
those
waste
streams to
be disposed
of.
Thus,
Silbrico seeks all
opportunities to “reuse” the waste streams,
and thus reduce the
amount which
must be disposed
of.
Paragraph eleven.
All
of
the
off-specification
perlite
and
fugitive
perlite
waste
streams
are
one
hundred
percent
perlite,
with
no
packaging
or other materials
included
in
those
waste
streams.
These
two
waste
streams
come
directly
from
the
manufacturing
process,
which
involves
only
perlite.
The
two waste
streams
are segregated,
and
do
not
come
into contact with
any other materials.
Silbrico’s
other
wastes
(paper,
wood,
packaging,
and
“household-type”
wastes)
are
disposed
of separately
from
the
two
perlite
waste
streams.
(Those “other”
waste
streams
are
disposed
of pursuant to
regulatory
requirements.)
This
variance
request
applies
only to the
two perlite waste
streams,
and
not
to any other waste generated
at
Silbrico.
9
Paragraph twelve.
As
noted
in
its
petition
(see pages 4-5), disposal of the two perlite waste streams
(at
a
nonhazardous
waste
landfill)
currently
costs
Silbrico
between
$40,000
and
$50,000
per
year.
Silbrico
has
explored
costs
of
disposal
at
a
CCDD
operation
and
believes
it would save $20,000 to
$25,000 annually,
on disposal
costs alone,
if
it
could
dispose of the two perlite waste streams at a
CCDD operation.
In addition to savings
in
the
cost of disposal,
Silbrico could
save significant sums
on
the
cost of trucking
the
waste
streams
to
the
disposal
location.
There
is
a
CCDD
operation
(McCook
Quarry
Area
A
&
B)
located
almost
literally
directly
behind
the
Silbrico facility.
There
are several
other “registered” CCDD
operations
in
Cook County.
Trucking costs could
be
greatly
reduced
if Silbrico was
able
to have the waste streams
trucked
only
a
mile
or two.
Given
the
skyrocketing
prices
of
gasoline,
trucking
costs
are,
and will
continue to
be,
a
very important component of the total
costs
of disposing
of the
perlite waste streams.
These
two
components
(disposal
fees
and
trucking
costs)
could
be
greatly
reduced
if Silbrico
is
able to dispose of its
perlite waste streams
at
a
CCDD operation.
However,
an equally
important consideration for
Silbrico
is the
flexibility
it would
gain
if
this
variance
is
granted.
There
are
several
CCDD
operations
in
Cook
County,
and
others
in
the
surrounding
metropolitan
Chicago area.
By
seeking disposal at
a
nearby
CCDD
facility,
Silbrico
has
the
advantage
of competition
in
negotiating
disposal
fees.
The
flexibility
would
also
prevent
Silbrico
from
becoming
the
victim
of
the
shrinking
landfill space in the
Chicago metropolitan
area9:
the lessening
capacity could
adversely
See
page 6
of the
petition, and
Exhibit
D,
regarding the
reduction
in
landfill space.
10
affect Silbrico
in
both the
price
it pays for
disposal,
and
in
the
possibility
of having
no
disposal space at all.
Silbrico has grown
and been successful over the years
because
it
has been nimble
and able to react to changes
around
it.
Allowing
disposal of the waste
streams
at
a
CCDD
operation
would
further
strengthen
the
company,
by
providing
flexibility
in disposal options.
This flexibility
is
an important consideration
in
seeking this
variance.
Paragraph thirteen.
The
compliance
plan
for
the
variance
request
is
to
obtain
a
site-specific
rule
allowing
Silbrico to
dispose of
its
perlite waste streams
at
CCOD operation.
(See page
7
of the
petition.)
If granted,
the
requested variance would allow Silbrico to use
a
CCDD
operation for disposal while the site-specific rule
is pendingY~ It
is difficult to provide
a
specific time schedule
for the site-specific proceeding.
As
noted
in
the
petition,
Silbrico
will
vigorously
pursue the
site-specific.
In
the
event
the site-specific
rule
is
denied
by
the
Board,
Silbrico
will
revert
to
disposal
of
the
two
perlite
waste
streams
in
a
nonhazardous waste landfill.11
Paragraph
14
Similar
to
the
Board’s
request
in
paragraph
ten,
paragraph
fourteen
asks
for
information regarding Silbrico’s
efforts to reduce the
amount of perlite waste.
In addition
to the
information
provided in
paragraphs four and ten,
above,
Silbrico hereby
provides
qualitative information
on
its waste reduction efforts.
10
It
has
been
accepted
practice
before
the
Board for a
petitioner to seek
a
variance
to
allow
it
to
operate while pursuing
a
site-specific rule
or an adjusted standard.
Silbrico
has
proposed
that
the
variance
run for
five
years,
or
until
nine
months
after
the
Board
takes final
action on the site-specific rule, whichever comes first.
(See
page
9
of the
petition.)
This nine-
month
period
would
allow
Silbrico
time to
arrange
for
disposal
in
a
nonhazardous waste
landfill,
in
the
event the
site-specific is denied.
11
The
improvements
in
Silbrico’s
machinery
and
manufacturing
procedures
have
made
it
possible
to
make
more
product
without
greatly
increasing
the
number
of
machines
in
operation.
In
1985
(twenty
years
ago),
one
of
Silbrico’s
machines
produced product at a
rate of
1200 pounds per hour.
This production
rate equated to
a
total
production,
on
that
machine,
of
4,600,000
pounds
for
the
year.
(In
1985
the
fugitive
perlite
waste,
from
the
baghouses,
did
not
go
back
into
the
product,
as
it
normally does
now.)
In
2004 Silbrico produced
117,000,000 of this same product, using
just
four
machines.
If
Silbrico
had
not
improved
its
technology,
systems,
and
procedures,
Silbrico
would
have
needed
twenty-six
machines
to
produce what
it
was
able to produce with four machines.
Twenty-six
machines would have produced at least
seven
times
the
amount
of
perlite
waste
over
the
amount
(about
2000
cubic
yards)
actually disposed
last year.
Paragraph fifteen.
Silbrico
segregates
its
perlite
waste
streams
on
site,
and
then
wets
the
perlite
waste
until
it
is
completely
damp,
and
no
longer
in
a
dry,
dust-like
form.
The
perlite
waste
then
stays
damp
for
several
days.
If
necessary,
the
perlite
waste
is
re-wet,
to
keep
it
damp
while
at
Silbrico’s
facility.
The
waste
is
then
transported
to
the
nonhazardous
waste facility
by
covered
semi-dump trailer
truck.
The
perlite
waste
is
then
disposed
of
and
covered
the
same
day,
at
the
permitted
facility.
Silbrico
is
committed to keeping the
perlite waste from
blowing
while at the
Silbrico facility,
or while
being trucked
for disposal.
The CCDD operations Silbrico
has investigated
handle
disposal
in
the
same way:
the waste
streams
are
disposed of and covered
the
same
day.
The
CCDD
operations
12
have
an
interest
in
keeping
dust
from
blowing
around
their
site,
which
can
cause
problems with
on-site machinery and
adversely affect the
neighbors.
Silbrico notes that
the Agency
will
be proposing,
to the
Board,
regulations for CCDD
operations,
pursuant
to
new Section
22.51
of the
Act.
It
seems
likely that those
regulations
will
prohibit any
blowing
of dust at
a
CCDD
operation.
As
noted
above,
Silbrico
seeks only to
use
an
authorized/permitted CCDD
operation, which
will
comply
with
all
standards
imposed
on
it.
Affidavit.
The affidavit of Tom
Mendius,
Silbrico’s
president,
is attached as Exhibit
J.
CONCLUSION
Silbrico
Corporation
asks
the
Board
to
grant
the
requested
variance.
In
the
alternative, Silbrico asks the
Board
to declare that Silbrico’s
off-specification
and fugitive
perlite waste
streams
should
be handled as “clean construction
and demolition
debris,”
and
can be disposed of at a “clean fill” facility.
Respectfully submitted,
SILBRICO CORPORATION
By:
~t
~
of its
4ttorneys
Dated:
October 24,
2005
Elizabeth S.
Harvey
Michael
J.
Maher
Swanson,
Martin
& Bell,
LLP
One
IBM
Plaza,
Suite 3300
330 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago,
Illinois
60611
Telephone:
(312) 321-9100
13
OCT.
11. 2005
8:10AM
SILBRICO 708/3546698
NO. 749
P.
2
SILERICO
CORPORATION
6300
RIVER ROAD
-
HODGKINS, U111401S
60525-4257
-
PHONE (708) 354-3350
E-MAL:
fl’JpO~$ILBRICO.COM
-
FAX:
(708) 354-6698
-
WWW.SILBRJCO COM
October
10, 2005
ToWhom
It May
Concerni
Pursuant to
the
provisions
of the Environmental Protection Mt, I certify that the
±ixgitive
perlite
waste
(pollution
control
waste)
and
off-specification
perlite
waste
(industrial
process
waste)
generated
at
Silbrico
Corporation
are
not
special
wastes.
Neither of these two
waste
streams
are
liquid wastes;
they
do
not
contain
asbestos
or
P
CBs;
they
are not formerly hazardous wastes rendered nonhazardous;
and they are not
generated
by
shredding
recyclable
metal.
Therefore,
these
two
wastes
are
not
special
wastes.
I determined
that these ftigitin perj.ite and off-specification perlite wastes are not special
wastes by reviewing the attached Material Safety Data Sheet for perlite, and
by
reviewing
the
processes
by which the wastes are generated.
Very truly yours;
-~
171 flt~-~
Torn M. Mendius
President
flBlfl
Page
1 of3
C
SILBRICO
~
COSPOnATION
MATERIAL
SAFETY DATA SHEET
No.:
140
Rev. No.:
11
Date Revised; 3/28/05
I. PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
Trade Name(s): Ryolex®
-
All Grades
CAS #: 93763-70-3
Chemical Name: Sodium Potassium Aluminum Silicate
Formula: Mixture
Manufacturer:
SILBRICO CORPORATION
Address: 6300 River Road
City: Hodgkins
State: Illinois
Zip:
60525
Telephone:
708/354-3350
Emergency: 708/354-3350
II. PRODUCT INGREDIENTS
Ingredient Name: Expanded
Perlite
CAS Number: 93763-70-3
:
100
PEL
and TLV
(except as
noted)
15
mg/rn3 total dust-OSHA
5
mg/rn3
respirable dust-OSHA
10 mg/rn3 total dust-ACGII4
Ingredient Name: This product may contain
crystalline silica:
Quartz
(Typical Analysis)
CAS Number:
14808-60-7
:
0.1
PEL and TLV (except as noted)
1
mg/rn3
respirable quartz
OSHA
& ACGIH TLV
III. PHYSICAL DATA
Appearance and Odor:
Dry
White Powder or Aggregate/No Odor.
Boiling Point:
NA
Evaporation Rate:
NA
Vapor Pressure:
NA
Specific Gravity (H2O
=
1):
2.35
Water Solubility
():
Negligible
NFPA
FIRE HAZARD
SYMBOL
See NFPA
704for detailed explanation
http://www.silbrico.comlrnsdsryo.htm
Page 2 of 3
Melting Point: NA
Vapor Density (Air=1):
NA
Volatile by Volume: None
IV. FIRE AND EXPLOSION DATA
Flash Point (Method): Nonflammable
Flammable Limits: LEL: NA
UEL:
NA
Extinguishing Media: NA
Unusual Fire or Explosion Hazards:
None
Special Fire-Fighting Procedures: None
V. REACTIVITY DATA
Material is Stable.
Hazardous
Polymerization
Cannot Occur.
Chemical Incompatibilities:
Hydrofluoric Acid
Conditions to Avoid:
None in
designed use
Hazardous Decomposition Products: May react with hydrofluoric
acid to form a toxic gas.
VI.
HEALTH HAZARD
DATA
Route(s) ofEntry:
Inhalation? Yes
Skin?
No
Ingestion? No
Health Hazards (Acute and
Chronic):
Acute: Upper Respiratory
Irritant,
Excessive Inhalation of
Any Dust May Overload Lungs.
Chronic: None Known.
Carcinogenicity:
NTP? No
IARC Monographs? No
OSHA Regulations?
No
Signs
and Symptoms of Exposure:
Upper Respiratory
and
Eye Irritation
Medical Conditions Generally Aggravated by Exposure:
Pre-Existing Upper Respiratory
and
Lung Diseases
Emergency and First Aid Procedures:
Inhalation
-
Remove to
Fresh Air
Eyes
-
Flush with
Large Quantities of Water
VII. SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES
Procedures for Spill/Leak:
Vacuum clean or sweep up usthg
a
dust
suppressant such as water.
Uncontaminated materials may be re-used.
Waste Management:
Non-hazardous
as defined by RCRA (40 CFR
part
261).
Method ofdisposal
-
landfill.
Reportable quantity
-
N/A.
VIII.
SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION
Eye Protection:
Goggles or Safety Glasses
are recommended.
http://www.silbrico.comlmsdsryo.htm
Page 3 of3
Gloves: Not normally required.
Respirator:
MSHANJOSH
approved respirator
Ventilation:
Local exhaust ventilation may be required to keep
dust concentrations below
PEL/TLV.
Other Protective clothing or equipment: None
IX. SPECIAL
PRECAUTIONS
Storage Segregation Hazard Classes: NA
Special Handling/Storage: Repair broken bags immediately;
avoid creating
______________
dust
Special Workplace Engineering Controls: Not nonnally required.
H
Perlite is
a naturally occurring substance
and
is therefore included,
F
I~I
but not individually listed,
in the TSCA inventory.
PLAMABIUTY
HMIS Ratings:
0= Minimal
Hazard
E
-
Dust Respirator
R
l~
REACTIVITY
Prepared/Revised by: SILBRICO CORPORATION
PERSONAL
As ofthe date ofpreparation ofthis document,
the foregoing information is
PR2~O~
believed
to be accurate
and
is provided
in good faith to comply with applicable
federal
and
state law(s). However, no
warranty
or representation with respect to
such information is
intended or given.
Back to Ton
Prey
Next
http://www.silbrico.com/msdsryo.htm
OCT.
11. 2005
8:11AM
SILBRICO 708/3546698
MO. 749~
P.
3
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
SILBRICO CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCB US-Oil
)
(Variance—4and)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
Affidavit
of
Tom
1W. Mendhas
I, Tom M. Mendius, being first duly sworn on
oath, deposes and states:
1.
I
have
been employed
at,~SilbhccCorporation
sInce
November 29,
1971.
I
am
currently the president of Slibrico.
2.
1
have
read
the
amended
petition for variaiice,
and the facts
stated
in that petition are true and correctto the best ofmy knowledge and
belief.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH
NOT.
Tom
M.
Meridius
Subscribed arid sworn
to before
~me on this
/i~
day of October, 2005.
TODD I(OKES
NCThRY
PUBLIC.
STATE
OF ILUNOIS
—t~
~t
9Ns~~oAi
N
ryPubic’
1
j~IT
I
j
