A1AL
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
s
‘i” ‘
12009
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
oj7
‘
CO
0,
0is
PETITION OF WESTWOOD LANDS
)
AS 09-Q
INC. for an
ADJUSTED
STANDARD from)
(Adjusted Standard
— Land)OflJVED
portions of 35
Ill.Adm.Code
807.104 and
)
QFFl
in
35
the
IILAdm.Code
alternative,
810.103,
A FINDING
or
OF
)
)
MAR
3120
INAPPLICABILITY.
)
Pollution
STATE
OF
Controi
ILLIN0I
80d
NOTICE
OF FILING
To:
(See
attached
Service List.)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this
31
st
day of March 2009, the following were filed
with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board: Westwood
Lands, Inc.’s Appearance, Petition
for Adjusted
Standard or,
in the
alternative,
a Finding of Inapplicability, and Motion
for Expedited Consideration, which
are
attached and herewith served upon
you.
WESTWOOD LANDS INC.
By:
O
Elizabeth S. Harvey
John P. Arranz
Swanson, Martin & Bell
330
North
Wabash
Avenue
Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
312.321.9100
312.321.0990
(facsimile)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the
undersigned non-attorney, state that I served
a copies of the above-described
documents to
counsel of record via U.S. Mail at
330
North
Wabash Avenue, Chicago, IL
60611, at or before 5:00 p.m.
on
March 31,
2009.
(n\ètteM. Podlin
[xl
Under penalties
as
provided
by law
pursuant to 735 LCS 5/1-109, I certify
that the statements
set forth herein
are true and correct.
4376-00
1
STATE
OP
I
LJjqjj.
SERVICE
LIST
?OlIUtj
Control
soj
Westwood
Lands,
Inc.
v.
illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
AS
09-
(Adjusted
Standard
—
Land)
Division
of
Legal
Counsel
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1021
North
Grand
Avenue
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
SWANSON,
MARTIN &
BELL,
LLP
Wnter’s Direct Dial Line
ATTORNEYS AT
LAW
(312)
923-8260
SUITE
3300
330 NORTH
WABASH, CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS
60611
Writer’s E-mail
Address
-
-
(312)
321-9100 •
FAX
(312) 321-0990
eharvey@smbtriaIs.com
March 31,
2009
Mr
John
Therriault
‘
Assistant Clerk
s
Illinois Pollution
Control
Board
100
West Randolph
Street
i
Suite
11-500
STATOF,
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
POflutjo
Contrd
Re:
Petition
of
Westwood
Lands,
Inc.
AS
09-
Trade
Secret
Claim Letter
Dear
Mr. Therriault:
Pursuant
to
the
provisions of
Sections 7 and
7.1 of the
Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act”) (415
ILCS
5/7
and 7.1),
and Part 130
of the Board’s
procedural
rules
(35
IIl.Adm.Code
Part
130),
petitioner
Westwood
Lands,
Inc. (“Westwood”)
hereby makes
a
claim
for trade secret
protection
of two
exhibits
to its
petitioh
for adjusted
standard. This
letter
is the claim letter
required by Section
130.200(b)
of the
Board’s
rules,
and triggers
the
protections
from
disclosure set
forth in Part 130.
Westwood
seeks trade secret
protection
of
Exhibits
A and C to
its petition for
adjusted
standard.
Portions of
those
documents-
are trade
secrets, as
that term is
defined
in Section 3.490
of the
Act and
in
Section
101.202
of
the Board’s
rules.
Exhibit
A
is the
sales
agreement
between
Westwood
and U.S.
Steel,
for the
purchase
of
the
steelmaking
slag fines
that
are
the
raw material
for Westwood’s
process.
Westwood claims
trade
secret
protection
for portions
of Exhibit A
(Sections
5,
6,
10,
and
23) which contain
confidential
business
information
regarding
price,
billing
and
payment,
royalties, and
greenhouse, gas
credits.
Exhibit C is
a letter from Stein,
Inc.,
another
potential source
of the
slag fines.
Westwood
claims
trade secret
protection for
the
price
provision
of
Exhibit
C. Westwood
notes that the
provisions
of
Exhibits A and
C
for
which
it claims trade
secret
protection
are
business-related
provisions,
and
do
not
include
emissions data,
environmental
information,
or
other
information
directly
relevant
to the
Board’s
consideration of
Westwood’s
adjusted
standard
petition.
The listed
portions of
Exhibits A and
C, for which
Westwood claims
trade secret
protection,
are trade
secrets
because they
contain
Westwood’s
“business plan
which is
secret
in
that
it has
not been
published or disseminated
or otherwise
become a matter
2525
CABOT
DRIVE
• SUITE 204
• LISLE,
ILLINOIS
60532
• (630) 799-6900 • FAX
(630) 799-6901
1860
WEST
WINCHESTER
ROAD
• SUITE 201
• LIBERTYVILLE,
ILLINOIS
60048 •
(847) 949-0025
• FAX (847) 247-0555
415
WASHINGTON
STREET
• SUITE lB
• WAUKEGAN,
ILLINOIS 60085
• (847) 949-0025
• FAX (847) 247-0555
SWANSON,
MARTIN
&
BELL,
LLP
Mr.
John
Therriault
March
31,
2009
Page
2
of
general
public
knowledge,
and
which
has
competitive
value.”
(Section
3.490
of
the
Act
and
Section
101.202
of the
Board’s
rules.)
Thus,
Westwood
claims
trade
secret
protection
for the
enumerated
and
marked
portions
of Exhibits
A
and
C.
Pursuant
to
Section
130.200(c),
Westwood
will
provide
a
further
statement of
justification
upon
request
pursuant
to Sections
130.201
and
130.202.
I
have
enclosed
two
copies
of each
exhibit,
marked
as
required
by
Section
130.302.
One copy
of each
exhibit
is
marked
but
unredacted,
and the
second
copy
is
marked
and
redacted.
I
will
be
happy
to
provide
additional
information
or
answer
any
questions
the
Board
may
have.
Please
protect
these
documents
from
disclosure,
pursuant
to
Part
130
of the Board’s
rules.
Very
truly
yours,
SWANSON,
MARTIN
&
BELL,
LLP
Elizabeth
S.
Harvey
ES
H/jp
Enclosures
cc:
IEPA
Division
of
Legal
Counsel
(w/out
enc.)
PETITION OF
WESTWOOD LANDS
INC. for an
ADJUSTED STANDARD from
portions of 35
lll.Adm.Code 807.104 and
35
Ill.Adm.Code 810.103, or
in the alternative, A
FINDING OF
INAPPLICABILITY.
CLERK’S
OFFICE
Dated: March 31, 2009
Elizabeth S.
Harvey
John P. Arranz
Swanson, Martin &
330 North
Wabash
Suite 3300
Chicago,
IL 60611
312.321.9100
312.321.0990
(facsimile)
4376-001
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
STATE
OF
fL4JN
IN THE
MATTER OF:
)
Pollution
Control
Boaro
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AS 09-
(Adjusted Standard — Land)
APPEARANCE
The
undersigned hereby submit their appearances on behalf of
petitioner
WESTWOOD LANDS, INC.
Bell, LLP
Avenue,
4376OO1
TE
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
IN THE
MATTEROF:
)
PETITION OF
WESTWOOD
LANDS
)
AS 09-
INC. for an
ADJUSTED
STANDARD
from)
(Adjusted
Standard
— Land)
portions of 35
Ill.Adm.Code
807.104 and
)
35
IlI.Adm.Code
810.103,
or
)
in the
alternative, A
FINDING OF
)
INAPPLICABILITY
)
PETITION FOR
ADJUSTED
STANDARD OR,
IN THE
ALTERNATIVE,
A
FINDING OF
INAPPLICABILITY
Petitioner WESTWOOD
LANDS,
INC. (“Westwood”),
by
its attorneys
Swanson,
Martin
&
Bell LLP, hereby
petitions for
an adjusted standard
or, in the
alternative,
a
finding
of inapplicability.
This petition
is
submitted
pursuant to the
provisions of Section
28.1 of the
Environmental
Protection
Act (“Act”)
(415 ILCS 5/28.1)
and 35
lll.Adm.Code
Part 104, Subpart
D.
Westwood
seeks a
determination
that the
raw material
used
in
its
production process
is not a “waste”
and,
therefore, Westwood
does
not need
waste
permits
pursuant
to Parts
807
and
810 of the Illinois
environmental regulations.
In
the
alternative,
if the Board disagrees
that the material
is not a “waste,”
Westwood
seeks an
adjusted standard
from portions of
Sections 807.104
and 810.103 (35
III.Adm.Code
807.104
and 810.103).
INTRODUCTION
Westwood
owns
a
facility
at 4 Caine Drive,
Madison,
Madison
County, Illinois,
that will process
steelmaking slag
fines into a usable
product. Westwood
currently
purchases
the steelmaking
slag fines
(“slag fines”) from
U.S.
Steel’s
Granite City facility,
pursuant
to
a contract between
U.S.
Steel and Westwood.
(See
the contract, attached
as
Exhibit A.)
Westwood
will
process
the
slag
fines
at
its
facility,
and
produce
two
products
for sale:
1)
a course
metallic fraction,
to
be sold
in bulk
form;
and
2) a fine
metallic
fraction
that can
be
sold either
in bulk
form or
processed
into
a
briquette.
Both
products
will
then
be sold for
industrial
use.
Westwood
applied to
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“IEPA”)
for an
air
permit
to
construct
and
operate
the
necessary
air pollution
control
equipment
at
the
facility.
IEPA
found
the application
to be incomplete.
In
addition
to
questions
about air
emissions
from
the
facility, IEPA
found
the
permit
application
to
be
incomplete
because
Westwood
had
not
included
proof of
local siting
approval
pursuant
to Section
39(c) of
the Act.
(See
attached
Exhibit B,
par. 3(b).)
IEPA
stated
that local
siting
approval
was
required
for
a
“new
pollution
control
facility.” Upon
inquiry
by Westwood,
IEPA
informed
Westwood
that
the
slag
fines,
Westwood’s
raw
material,
was “waste”
and, therefore,
triggered
the pollution
control
facility
provisions
of the Act
and regulations.
Westwood’s
raw
material,
the slag
fines purchased
from
U.S. Steel,
is not
a
“waste” and
should
not
be
regulated
as
a
“waste.”
The
steel slag
is not
discarded,
but
collected,
processed,
and
returned
to the
economic
mainstream
as a
product.
THE
MATERIAL
USED
IS
NOT A
‘WASTE”
The
material
used
by
Westwood
in its process
is
not a “waste”
and, therefore,
the
requirements
of
ParIs
807
and 810
of the Board’s
regulations
are
inapplicable.
The
Board
has
previously
recognized
that an
adjusted
standard
petition
can,
in the
alternative,
seek
a finding
of inapplicability.
(In the
Matter
of
Petition
of Illinois
Wood
Energy
Partners,
L.P.
for
an Adjusted
Standard,
AS 94-1
(October 6,
1994);
see
also
Petition
of Jo’Lyn
Corporation
and
Falcon Waste
and
Recycling,
Inc.
for an
Adjusted
2
Standard,
AS 04-2,
(April 7, 2005).)
Westwood seeks a finding
that the
material it
uses
is not a
“waste” and,
therefore, the
requirements
of
Parts 807 and 810 do
not apply.
It is clear
that
the slag fines do
not fit the definition of
“waste.” Section 3.53 of
the Act defines “waste” as:
any garbage,
sludge from
a
waste treatment plant,
water supply treatment
plant,
or air pollution control facility,
or other discarded material.
415 ILCS 5/3.53
(emphasis added).
This same
definition is used in Section
807.104. However, the slag fines are not
“discarded” since it is a useful material which is sold for further use.
Since
the material
is not “discarded”
and
does
not fit any of the other items in the definition of “waste,” the
slag fines are
not
a
waste.
This
interpretation is supported by the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in
Alternate Fuels, Inc. v. Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 215
lll.2d 219, 830 N.E.2d 444, 294 lll.Dec. 32 (2005). The facts of that case are very
similar to this case.
Alternate
Fuels, Inc. (“AFI”) collects, separates, and processes
plastic materials into alternate fuel. That alternate fuel is then sold to
a
power plant
for
use
as fuel in producing electricity. This Board determined that the alternate fuel was
not a
waste.
Illinois Power
v. IEPA, PCB 97-35 and 97-36 (January 23, 1997).
However, despite the Board’s determination, the Agency
initiated an enforcement action
against
AFI.
AFI
then
brought
a declaratory judgment action against the
Agency. Both
the trial court and
the
appellate
court agreed with AFI that the product
was not a
“waste.”
On appeal, the
Illinois Supreme Court
upheld the appellate court’s
decision. The
3
supreme
court reviewed the
facts of the
case,
and then applied
those facts to the
statutory definition
of waste. The court
noted that the term
“discarded”
is not
defined
in
the Act, but turned
to the definition of “recycling,
reclamation
or reuse,”
which also uses
the
word “discarded.”
The court
found
that, pursuant
to that definition,
materials
are
“discarded”
only if the materials
are not returned
to the economic
mainstream.
The
court
held:
We therefore
reject the Agency’s
contention that
“discarded”
is defined
solely
from the
viewpoint
of the supplier in
that a material is
putatively
“discarded”
as “any material
which is not being
utilized
for
its intended
purpose” of
the generator.
There is nothing
in the statute which
would
dictate this
definition. Rather,
the
Act
contemplates that
materials that
may
otherwise
be
discarded
by
the
supplier
may
be diverted from
becominci
waste
and returned to
the economic mainstream.
AFI,
830
N.E.2d
at 457
(emphasis
added).
This
statement applies
equally
to
the slag fines used
by
Westwood.
Westwood
purchases
the slag fines, which
might otherwise
be discarded
or stockpiled,
and returns
the
slag
fines
to
the
economic mainstream.
The supreme
court’s opinion,
affirming
both
the
appellate
and
the
trial
courts,
is clear and definite:
a material
is not a waste
if it
is
returned to the
economic
mainstream.
Like
AFI,
Westwood
uses material
(slag fines) that
might otherwise
be discarded,
but can be
returned to the
economic mainstream
by
recycling. Simply
because
a
material
might be discarded
for lack
of
a market does not
mean that
the material fits
the
definition
of “waste.”
Such an outcome
would lead
to a circular
result: insistence
that
a
recycling
facility comply
with the myriad
requirements
of
Parts
807 and 810
(imposed
on
4
“waste” facilities) could
result in
a lack of a
market,
1simply because no recycling facility
could meet those requirements. In short, an insistence that a material is “discarded”
could result in that material actually being discarded, thus “creating” a waste.
This Board has previously applied the AFI decision in finding that a material that
might otherwise be discarded is not a “waste” when
the material
is
returned
to the
economic
mainstream. In Jo’Lyn, the petitioners used granulated bituminous shingle
material (GBSM) to create
a
paving product known
as
Eclipse Dust Control.
The GBSM
was shredded and then applied to
parking lots, driveways, paths, and other paving
applications. IEPA took the position it has taken here: that
Jo’Lyn’s raw material (the
GBSM) was a waste and, therefore, Jo’Lyn’s facility must
obtain local siting approval
and follow all of the requirements for a pollution control facility.
The Board disagreed. The
Board analyzed the AFI decision, and noted that
the
Illinois Supreme Court determined the
raw material was not
a
“waste”
because it could
be returned to the economic mainstream.
The Board then applied the statutory
definition of “recycling, reclamation,
and reuse,” and found that the GBSM
used by
Jo’Lyn is not “discarded” because Jo’Lyn processed the
GBSM to return it to the
economic
mainstream. The Board concluded:
GBSM is not a discarded
material, and therefore, not
a waste when it is
processed into [Eclipse Dust
Control] and returned to
the economic
mainstream as a paving product.
Jo’Lyn, AS 04-02, at
p.
14 (April
7, 2005).
The Board should follow the
Illinois Supreme
Court’s decision in AFt, and its
own
In this
case,
there
is already
a
market
for steelmaking slag
fines, as evidenced
by Westwood’s
purchase of the fines from U.S. Steel.
(See Exhibit A.)
5
decision
in
Jo’Lyn, and find that the
steel slag fines used by Westwood
are not
a
“waste.”
PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD
If the Board finds that
the material
used by
Westwood is indeed a “waste,”
Westwood seeks an
adjusted standard from specific provisions
of Parts 807 and
810.
The remainder of this petition addresses
the content requirements for adjusted standard
petitions, as
set
forth in Section 104.406 of the Board’s procedural rules.
Standard from which relief
is sought (Section 104.406(a))
Because it is Westwood’s position
that the slag fines should not
be
treated
as a
“waste,”
petitioners hereby identify the definitions of “facility,” “solid waste,” “solid waste
management,”
“waste,” and “unit” contained in Section 807.104 as the specific section
from which an adjusted
standard
is sought. The slag fines should not be treated
as a
“waste,” and
thus the facility is not
a
solid
waste management site. If the
Board grants
an adjusted standard from those definitions of Section 807.104, the remaining
provisions
of Part 807 will not
be
applicable
to petitioners’ facility, as it will not handle
“waste,” and will not be
a
solid waste management site.
Westwood also seeks an adjusted standard from the definitions of “facility,”
“landfill,” and “solid waste” contained in Section 810.103 of the Board’s rules.
The
reasoning is the same
as
Westwood’s request for
an
adjusted standard from
the
enumerated definitions in Section 807.104. The
slag fines should not be treated
as a
“solid
waste,”
and
thus
Westwood’s facility is not
a
“landfill.” If
the Board grants
an
adjusted standard from the identified definitions
of Section 810.103, the provisions
of
Parts
811 through 817 are
not applicable to Westwood’s
facility.
6
Promulgation of the
regulation
of
general
applicability (Section
104.404(b))
Part 807 was promulgated to
implement Sections 5,21.1, and 22 of the Act. Part
810 was
promulgated
to
implement Sections 7.2, 21, 21.1, 22, 22.17, and 22.40 of the
Act.
Level of
justification
(Section 104.404(c))
The
regulations of general applicability (Parts 807 and 810) do not
specify
a level
of justification or other requirements for an
adjusted standard.
Description of
petitioners’ activity (Section 104.404(d))
Westwood’s
facility
is located
at
4
Caine Drive, Madison, Madison County,
Illinois.
As discussed above, Westwood currently purchases slag fines from U.S.
Steel.
2 The contract specifically allows Westwood to reject any fines which do not
comply with the parameters necessary for Westwood’s process. (Exhibit A, par.
4.2.)
Thus, Westwood controls the quality of the slag fines it purchases. The slag fines will
be
transported to Westwood’s facility, where they are unloaded within a building. The
incoming fines are stored in that building, prior to processing.
The purpose of Westwood’s process is to liberate the metallic iron and the iron
oxides from the slag, for reuse. The slag fines are first put through three stages
of size
reduction, each stage with its own dust collection
and related control equipment.
Following size reduction, the fractions are classified
as coarse, medium, fine, and very
fine
fractions. The
coarse fractions are segregated and then
sold in bulk form. The
medium, fine, and very fine fractions
are conveyed to individual
magnetic drums, which
2
While Westwood currently
contracts only with U.S. Steel, there
are
other sources of steelmaking
slag
fines that are potential sources of Westwood’s
raw material. For example, Westwood
has received
a quote
from
Stein, Inc. for the sale of slag
fines. (See Exhibit C.)
7
separate the
predominately metallic particles from the
non-metallic particles. The
metallic
particles
are then pneumatically transported to
separate silos, for storage of the
high grade iron material.
The product in these silos is subsequently fed to a briquetting
operation, where the metallic
fractions
are
combined with hydrated lime and molasses
to create
a
briquette. The resulting briquette is an end
product
of Westwood’s process,
and is then sold.
The advantage of the briquette created
by
Westwood is that it is
easy
to
handle, and
allows for
use
in
a
wide spectrum
of furnace
designs.
There are no emissions, discharges or releases to the land directly from
Westwood’s activities. However, there is a small amount of material from the process
that will be transported off-site to a landfill. The
separation of the metallic
from
the
non
metallic particles results in a non-metallic calcium magnesium silicate. That non
metallic silicate is conveyed to
a
hopper and then pneumatically transported
to a silo.
The non-metallic silicate is subsequently fed to
a
paddle
mixer and blended with water
to produce a moist cake. That moist cake will then be transported to an approved
3
landfill.
Compliance alternatives (Section
104.404(e))
Westwood
believes,
as discussed above, that the slag fines used in its process
are not a “waste.” If the Board finds that the material is indeed
a “waste,” the only
compliance alternative available to Westwood is full compliance
with the panoply of
regulatory requirements imposed
by
the Act
and by Parts 807 and 810. For example,
Westwood would
be
required
to seek local siting approval pursuant
to Section 39.2 of
Westwood believes that in the future, it
will be able to further process
the non-metallic silicate,
thus reducing orpreventing the landfilling
of the silicate. It is also
possible that the silicate
can be
approved for
use as
landfill
cover.
8
the Act (415 ILCS 5/39.2). Local siting approval is an expensive and
lengthy process,
and
costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, including local filing fees. Even
after
local
siting approval
was obtained, compliance with the full set of requirements of Part 807,
including
financial
assurance
requirements, is cost-prohibitive.
These
requirements should not
be
imposed upon Westwood, as its operation is
not the type of operation
contemplated
by
the
Board in promulgating
Parts
807
and
810.
Those requirements are properly directed
to facilities
which
treat, store, or dispose of
waste, with the resulting environmental issues which can arise from such a facility. To
treat Westwood’s facility, which uses only one type of material, in the same way
as a
landfill or
transfer station
is unnecessary for the protection of the environment,
and
beyond the
scope
of facilities
considered by the Board. As the Board noted in
Jo’Lyn,
“AFI
shows that
substantially different factors apply to [Jo’Lyn’s] operation than
the
factors
the Board relied upon in adopting the solid waste regulations at Parts
807 and
810 of the Board’s rules.” Jo’Lyn, at
p.
13. The
same is true in this case: different
factors apply to Westwood’s
operation than the factors the Board relied
upon in
adopting Parts 807 and 810.
Description
of the adjusted
standard
(Section
104.404(f))
Westwood proposes
the following adjusted standard
language:
Westwood Lands,
Inc. is hereby granted an
adjusted standard from the
following definitions
of 35 lll.Adm.Code 807.104:
“facility,” “solid waste,”
“solid waste
management,” “waste,” and
“unit.” Westwood Lands,
Inc. is
further
granted .an adjusted
standard from the following
definitions of
35
lll.Adm.Code 810.103:
“facility,” “landfill,”
and “solid waste.”
These
enumerated definitions
do
not
apply to operations
conducted by
Westwood at
the
facility in Madison
County, Illinois,
so long as:
1.
Westwood
uses only steelmaking
slag fines.
9
2.
For purposes of this adjusted standard, “steelmaking slag fines” is
defined as “slag fines generated from the processing of raw
steelmaking slag.” “Raw steelmaking slag” means “the residual
material
produced in steelmaking
operations.”
3.
Westwood retains control of the quality of steelmaking slag fines,
including the right to reject any steelmaking slag fines that do not
comply with Westwood’s standards for fines.
4.
Westwood operates the facility
in compliance with other provisions
of the Environmental Protection Act.
Quantitative
and
qualitative impact
of petitioners’ activity
(Section
104.404(q))
Westwood’s process produces
no
emissions,
discharges or releases directly to
the
land. The
processing operation
will produce a small amount of non-metallic
calcium
magnesium silicate, in addition to the
iron-rich briquettes.
In the initial stages
of
operation, the calcium magnesium
silicate will be properly disposed
of at a permitted
landfill facility.
4
Thus, the qualitative and quantitative
impact
of compliance with the
rule
of
general applicability is the same
as compliance with the proposed
adjusted
standard.
5This is important to recognize,
as issuance of the adjusted standard
will not
increase emissions, discharges
or releases to the
land by use of the recycling
process.
In fact, because the recycling
process provides
a beneficial
use of the slag fines,
producing a useful product,
issuance of the proposed
adjusted
standard will
actually
decrease emissions and releases, in
an overall sense.
As noted above,
Westwood believes it
will be able to reduce
or eliminate the silicate
which will
need to be disposed of at
a
landfill.
Westwood
will need an air
permit from IEPA for
air emissions.
However, as this petition
does not
seek
an adjusted
standard from the
air regulations,
there is no difference
in qualitative
or quantitative
air
emissions between compliance with
the air regulations
or general
applicability
and
the
proposed
adjusted
standard.
10
Justification
(Section
104.404(h))
As noted
above, the rules of general applicability did
not contemplate the issues
pertaining to the processing of slag
fines into a useful
industrial
product. Thus, those
rules
do
not specify a level of
justification for an adjusted
standard. However, the
proposed
adjusted
standard is justified by
the environmental and
economic benefits of
recycling
slag
fines into a marketable
product.
Westwood has
received support and approval for
its facility from the City of
Madison,
Illinois, where Westwood’s
facility is located.
The facility would be an
economic
benefit to the community, as
well making a useful product from the slag. (See
Exhibits D and E.)
It is also important to note that IEPA
allows steel slag fines to
be
used as a
soil amendment. In fact, IEPA has approved the use of
slag fines from
U.S.
Steel’s
Granite City Works -- the same source of
Westwood’s slag fines
-- as a
soil
amendment at abandoned mines. (See
Exhibit F.) Thus, it is clear that the slag fines
do not
present an environmental threat.
Consistency
with federal law
(Section 104.404(i))
The Board may grant the proposed adjusted standard consistent with federal law.
Hearincj
(Section
104.404(i))
Westwood waives hearing on this petition.
Sujortinq
documents (Section
104.404(k))
Documents supporting this petition
are
attached
as Exhibits A through F.
SECTION
28.1(c)
FACTORS
Section 28.1(c)
of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)) states
that the Board may grant
individual adjusted standards
upon adequate
proof that: 1) the factors
relating to
11
Westwood are
substantially and significantly
different
from the factors
relied upon
by
the
Board in adopting
the general regulation;
2) the existence
of those
factors justifies
an
adjusted
standard; 3) the requested
standard
will not result in environmental
or health
effects substantially
and
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.
The factors
relating to Westwood
are substantially
and significantly
different
In
adopting Part
807, the
Board replaced and
superseded
the “Rules
and
Regulations
for Refuse Disposal
Sites and Facilities,”
adopted
by the Illinois Department
of Public
Health in 1966.
35 Ill.Adm.Code
807.102. Also,
the Board acted
to implement
Section 22 of the
Act, which
gives the Board
authority
to regulate, inter
a/ia, waste
disposal,
storage, treatment,
and disposal
sites. 415 ILCS
5/22. The recycling
activities
conducted by Westwood
are
not
refuse or waste disposal,
and
Westwood’s facility
is not
a landfill or
transfer station.
Instead, Westwood’s
activities
provide an
environmental
benefit
by recycling slag
fines into
a useful product.
This process
actually
reduces
waste,
as
it
returns a material
that
might
otherwise
be discarded, for
lack of a market,
to
the
economic mainstream
and prevents
it from
being disposed
of. Thus, the
factors
relating to Westwood’s
recycling
activities are
substantially
and
significantly
different
than those pertaining
to
activities
regulated
under Parts
807 and 810.
See Jo’Lyn,
at
p.
13.
The
existence of those
factors
iustifies
an
adjusted
standard
As
discussed in this
petition,
these
different
factors
justify
an adjusted
standard.
Westwood
processes steelmaking
slag
fines into
a useful
product. Compliance
with
the
12
extensive requirements of Parts 807 and 810 is
economically unreasonable for
Westwood. Coupled with the fact that compliance
with Parts 807 and 810 does not
provide
any
environmental benefit, the proposed adjusted standard is
justified
as
the
only possible means of compliance.
The adjusted standard will
not
result in adverse environmental or
health
effects
The adjusted standard will not result in adverse environmental or health effects
substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board in
adopting Parts 807 and 810. As discussed, the adjusted standard will not have any
negative environmental or
health
effect
at all. In fact, the
adjusted standard
will
result in
positive environmental and health effects. The slag fines will
be
processed into
a useful
product, while preventing landfilling of the fines. Thus, the
adjusted standard will
provide environmental and health benefits.
The
adjusted standard is consistent with federal
law
The proposed adjusted standard
is consistent with federal law, and granting the
adjusted
standard will
not violate federal law.
CONCLUSION
As demonstrated above, the steelmaking slag fines
are not a “waste.” Thus,
Westwood’s process is not subject to the Board’s solid waste
rules, and no adjusted
standard is necessary. However, in the
alternative and without conceding,
if
the Board
finds
that the steelmaking slag fines
are subject to the waste rules, Westwood
seeks
an
adjusted standard from those
rules.
Compliance
with the rules is
economically
unreasonable, and provides
no environmental or health
benefit.
13
Respectfully
submitted,
Dated: March
31,
2009
Elizabeth
S.
Harvey
John P.
Arranz
Swanson,
Martin
& Bell
330
North Wabash
Avenue
Suite
3300
Chicago,
IL
60611
312.321.9100
312.321.0990
(facsimile)
WESTWOOD
LANDS,
INC.
14
LI’)
0
4-’
-‘
C)
4-’
0
e)G)
LU
—
cuO
x
w
•1-’
Cu
L.
Cu
0
Cl)
it
m
w
w
SP-3-208
03:27P
FROM:O’DOLJERO
PROPERTIES
(906)
475-9551
TO:
19064872921
P.
1
-
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1021
NORTH
GRAND
AVENUE
EAST,
P.O.
Box
19506,
SPRINGFIELD,
ILLINOIS
62794-9506
—
(
217)
782-21
13
ROD
R.
BLAGOJEVICH,
GOVERNOR
DOUGLAS
P.
ScoTt,
DIRECTOR
217/782—2113
CERTIFIED
MAIL
7007
0220
0000
0153
7028
NOTICE
OF
INCOMPLETENESS
August
25,
2008
Westwood
Lands
Attn:
Peter
O’Dovero
110
Airport
Drive
Negaunee,
Michigan
49866
Application
No.:
07100071
I.D.
No.:
U945MIi
Applicant’s
Designation:
Madison
Plant
Received:
July
28,
2008
Construction
of:
Slag
Processing
Facility
Location:
4
Caine
Drive,
Madison,
Madison
County
The
Illinois
EPA
has
determined
the
above
referenced
construction
permit
application
to
be
incomplete
pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Mm.
Code
201.158
because
information
and
data
were
not
provided
as
required
by
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
201.152,
201.160
and
201.169.
Specifically,
the
following
data
and
information
must
be
supplied
in
order
for
the
application
to
be
considered
complete:
1.
Provide
a
completed,
signed
and
dated
APC—629
Illinois
EPA
Air
Pollution
Control
permit
application
form,
and
if
necessary,
an
authorization
of
authority
to
sign
(authorized
agent),
in
order
to
provide
the
signatures
required
by
35
Ill.
Adxn.
Code
201.159.
In
addition,
please
indicate
if
commencement
of
on-site
construction
has
begun
on
any
of
the
emission
units
at
the
above
location
that
an
air
permit
is
being
requested
since
the
October
2007
application
was
submitted?
2.
Detailed
narrative
description
and
presentation
of
all
the
production/material
handling
processes,
emission
units,
and
pollution
control
equipment
at
the
source
that
the
permit
will
need
to
address,
that
includes
but
is
not
limited
to
the
following;
a.
A
process
flow
diagram
that
at
a
minimum
illustrates
the
location
of
all
existing
and
proposed
process
equipment,
emission
units,
pollution
control
equipment,
emission
points,
and
the
proces
flow
of
materials
handled/processed;
EXHIBIT
b.
A
detailed
list
and
description
of
all
existing
and
proposed
process
equipment,
emission
units,
and
pollution
control
J)
equipment
(indicate
what
emission
unit(s)
the
equipment
cozitrols),
including
size
and
maximum
manufacturer’s
rated
capacity
and
date
of
cónstructionhinstallation
and
modification
of
each;
J
AUG8
2008
PRINTEO
ON
RECYCLED
PAPER
SEP-3-206
03:27P
FROM:o’DOcERO
PROPERTIES
(906)
475-9551
TO:
19064872921
P.2
Page 2
c.
A
detailed 4
description, quantification
and
justification of
the
anticipated maximum actual annual and
short-term
operating
emissions
(e.g.,
tons/year, pounds/hour, etc.)
to be
emitted from
all the emission
units
at your source
that
you
would propose
to
include
as
annual
and
short-term
emission limits
in your permit
for the criteria pollutants
(e.g.,
PM,
PM
10,VOM,
N0,
CO,
SO3
HAP,
etc.)
to
be
emitted,
including emission
factors to be used
to estimate
emissions. The application
needs
to
describe the
physical and chemical characteristics of
the
slag
to be
received
and
processed. The application
needs to provide
emission factors
for
all
material/waste
processes including
but not
limited
to the
grinder,
screening, conveying, and packaging/loading
operations
based upon the processing
of the
slag/waste that
would result in
the highest
emissions of pollutants. Provide a list
of materials
to
be
processed tn--eac.o.f
the
emission
units.
Provide
support
documentation for each. emission factor used. List each emission
factor
used
for
each emission unit and include SIC
#,
AP-42
Table
#,
and/or
other
information as necessary to locate
and verify
the
emission
factors
used.
Describe how
the
emission factor used
for
each emission unit is
representative of each process emission
unit (e.g. grinder, screen,
conveyor,
packaging/loading,
eto)
For each
process emissIon unit that the permit is
being
requested
for, provide
information in
a table
similar to the table below
that identifies
the requested throughput and
emission
limits that
Weetwood
Lands
proposes as a permit condition in the construction
permit.
‘
Emission
Maximum
Maximum
Emission
Pollutant
Pollutant
Unit
Throughput Throughput
Factor
Short Term
Annual
Short
Term
Annual
Emissions
Emissions —
d.
A detailed
listing, presentation
and
justification of proposed
maximum
actual operating limitations
on the
annual
and
short-term
throughput or usage
(e.g., gallons/year, tons/year, pounds/hour,
etc.)
of criteria
pollutant-containing
material(s)
to
be
processed/produced
at your source that you would
propose
to
include
in your permit,
including proposed
limitations on the
criteria
pollutant content
(e.g.,
weight percent, pounds per
gallon,
pounds per
ton,
etc.)
of the criteria
pollutant
containing
material(s),
to
be processed/produced
associated with
your proposed maximum
actual
annual
and short-term operating
emi8sione. Please provide
the number
of tons per month and tons
per year
of
slag
/waste
that the source
will
receive
and
the
number of tons per month and
tons
pr
year
that Weatwood Lands
will ship off-site as
product
arid as
waste.
e.
Please
note
that in order for
the
Illinois
EPA to
develop
enforceable permit
conditions related to
emission
limits, the
application must provide/identify
a
measurable
and
verifiable
EP-3-209
03:27P
FROM:O’DOLJERO
PROPERTIES
(906)
475-9551
TO:
19064972921
P.3
Page
3
methodology
(e.g.,
use
of appropriate
emission
factors,
material
pollutant-content
characterization
and
throughput/usage record-
keeping,
recording
durations
of
operations,
etc.)
to
correlate
the
amount
and
rate of
criteria
pollutant-containing material
throughput/usage
and
durations
of
operations
proposed
in
(d)
above to
the
emission
limits
proposed
in
(c) above;
and
f.
A
detailed
listing
and
description
of
activities/equipment at
the
source
that
are
claimedae
being exempt
from
permitting
pursuant
to
the
permitting
exemptions
in
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
201.146.
3a.
Pursuant
to 35
111. Adm.
Code
201.160
and
Section
39(a)
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(Act),
a clear
and
thorough
presentation
including
information
and
data to either
confirm
non-applicability
of
or demonstrate
compliance
with
potentially
applicable
regulatory
requirements
including,
but not limited
to, 35
Iii.
Ada’.
Code
Parts
201
and
212, and
40 CFR
Part
60
Subparts
LL
and
000,
and
Sections
39(c)
and
39.2
(Biting
requirements)
of
the
Illinois
Protection
Act
(Act).
This
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to, listing
the
sections
of the
regulations
(e.g., 212.123,
212.301,
212.302,
212.304
through
212.310,
212.31-2,
212.316,
212.321,
212.324,
etc. of
the regulations,
and
Sections
39(c)
and
39.2
of the
Act.)that
the source’s
activities/equipment
are
subject
to
and
then
submitting
documentation
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
the emission
units
or
air
pollution
control
equipment
will
not
cause
a
violation
of
the
applicable
regulations.
Pursuant
to 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
201.160
and Section
39(a)
of
the
Act,
the
Agency
shall
not
issue a
construction
or
operating
permit
unless
the applicant
submits proof
to the
Agenchat
the
emission
unit(s)
or air
pollution
control
equipment
has
been
constructed
or
modified
to operate
80
as
not
to
cause
a
violation
of
the
Act
or
of
regulations
hereunder.
b.
Proof
of local
siting
approval
as
required
by
Section
39(c)
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(Act)
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
of
Section
39.2
of
the
Act
(415
ILCS
5/3
9.2)
for a
new
pollution
control
facility
as defined
in Section
3.330(b)
of
the
Act.
The
letters
provided
with
the
application
did
not
demonstrate
compliance
by
holding
a public
hearing,
along
with
other
procedural
requirements
of
Section 39.2
of
the Act.
-
4.
A clear
and
thorough
presentation,
including
detailed
calculations,
of
the
potential
to emit
(PTE)
for the entire
source
(including
any
proposed
revisions)
including,
but
not
limited
to,
volatile
organic
materials
(VOM),
nitrogen
oxides
(N0),
carbon
monoxide
(CO),
particulate
matter
(PM,
PM
10
),
sulfur
dioxide
(SO
2
),
and
hazardous
air
pollutants
(HAP)
a.
PTE
shall
be
calculated
based
on the
maximum
potential
usage
of
raw
materials
with
the
maximum
allowable
criteria
pollutant
content,
at the
maximum
potential
production
rate,
and year
round
(8,760
hours/year)
operation
of
all
processes
arid
emission
units
at
the
source.
EP-3-208
03:28P
FROM:O’DOVERO
PROPERTIES
(906) 475-9551
TO:
19064872921
P.4
Page
4
b.
Be
specific
in
describing
the
maxiniuni
content
(e.g.,
weight
percent
1
pounds
per
gallon,
pounds
per ton,
etc.)
and
name and
type
of
criteria
pollutant
(e.g.,
PM,
PM, VOM,
HAP
etc.)
in
each
of the
raw
materials,
wastes and
products
handled
and/or
generated
at the
source
when
presenting
your
calculations.
c.
Provide
documentation
and
references
for
emission
factors
and
other
input data
to
the PTE
calculations
that
support
their
use
as representative
of activities
to
be
conducted
at
this
source.
d.
Please
note
that Pm
calculations
can
not
include
emission
reductions
associated
with
pollution
control
equipment
(e.g.,
baghouse,
filters,
scrubbers,
etc.)
unless
the
use of
pollution
- -
control
equipment
is-
specif.ica-liy
required
by regulations
- —
applicable
to
the
subject
process/activity,
or
if emission
reductions
are
required
to
a certain
percentage
in
order
to
comply
with
an
applicable
emission
rate
limitation
such as
35
Ill.
Adin.
Code
212.321.
If
you
believe
emission
reductions
due
to
controls
are
applicable
for
your PTE
calculations,
please
clearly
identify
those
reductions
and
justify
them
by
referencing
the applicable
regulations/requirements.
e.
Please
note
that emissions
from emission
units claimed
to
be
exempt
from
permitting
pursuant
to
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
201.146
need
to
be
identified
and
included
in
the
PTE calculations.
If
it
can
not
be
demonetratedthat the
source
is
eligible
for”n
operating
permit
pursuant
to
35
Ill. Adm.
Coda
201.169(a).
(e.g.,
PTE calculations
result
in
potential
emissions
of
criteria
pollutants
and/or HAPs
exceeding
major
source
threshold
levels
(i.e., 100
tons/year
for
criteria
pollutants,
10
tons/year
for a
single
NAP and
25
tons/year
for total
HAPs)),
the
Permittee
shall
apply
for
a Clean
Air
Act
Permit
Program
(CAAPP)
permit.
To
avoid
the
CAAPP permitting
requirements,
if applicable,
you
may
want
to
consider
applying
for
a
Federally
Enforceable
State
Operating
Permit
(FESOP).
A
FESOP is
an operating
permit that
contains
federally
enforceable
limits
in
the form
of
permit
conditions,
which
effectively
restrict
the
potential
emissions
of
a
source
to below
major
source
threshold,
thereby
excluding
the
source
from
the
CAAPP.
The
Illinois
EPA
will be pleased
to
review
a
reapplication
for
this
permit
that
includes
the
necessary
information
and
documentation
to correct
the
deficiencies
noted
above.
This
reapplication
may
incorporate
by
reference
the
data
and
information
submitted
to
the
Illinois
EPA
in the
original
permit
application,
provided
that
you
certify
that the
data
and information
previously
submitted
remai-ñs
true, correct
and
current.
The reapplication
will
be
considered
filed
on the
date
it
is received
by
the Illinois
EPA
and
will
constitute
a
new
permit application
for
purposes
of
Section
39(a)
of
the
Act.
Two copies
of
this
information
must
be
submitted
and
should
reference
the
Application
and
I.D. numbers
assigned
above.
SEP-3-208
Ø3:28P
FROM:O’DOUERO
PROPERTIES
(906)
475-9551
TO:
19064872921
P.5
Page
5
The
Illinois
EPA
welcomes
and
in
fact
encourages
discussions,
either
in
person
or
by
telephone,
with
persons
proposing
projects
which
may
be
subject
to
the
alove
regulations.
Such
discussions
may
explain
and
resolve
issues
much
more
effectively
than.
written
correspondence,
to
the
benefit
of
both
the
Illinois
EPA
and
an
applicant.
Please
contact
us
if
you
believe
such
discussions
would
be
helpful.
If
you
have
any
questions
on
this,
please
call
Mike
Dragovich
at
217/762-2113.
C
b&J
Edwin
C.
Bakoweki,
P.E.
Date
Signed:
Acting
Manager,
Permit
Section
Division
of
Air
Pollution
Control
ECB
:
MJD:
j
wS
cc:
Region
3
Ray
Pilapil,
CES
if)
C)
0
4-’
Cu
=
=
.‘
cw,
4-’
cD
4aJ
C)
Cu
--
LU
—
w
Cu<
4-’
Cu
Cu
0
ci)
Cl)
m
I
¶7IL
?ct
9
/
dacttio,z
4
a/n
‘]‘V
zamm
771
—
Jl4aot
July
10,
2008
1111
JUL.
1
2D08
JiJ
Westwood
Lands
il0AirportDrive
BY:
Negaunee,
Mi
49866
DéärMr.
O’Dovero:
-
Having
had
the
opportunity
to
have
representatives
from
Westwood
Lands
provide
Madison
with
a
thorough
overview
of
the
proposed
facility
that
is
to.
be
located
at
4
Caine
Drive,
we
feel
that
the
establishment
of
such
a
facility
in
the
Madison
Industrial
Park,
adjacent
to
the
existing
rail
spurs
and
acreage
on
which
the
slag
may
be
stored,
would
be
viewed
as
beneficial
to
the
community.
The
presentation
offered
considerable
insight
into
the
nature
of
the
techiiology
that
will
be
used
to
process
slag
products
from
various
facilities,
while
providing
assurance
that
sufficient
measures
have
been
taken
to
see
that
any
flues
generated
will
either
be
contained
in
the
process
or
captured
by
a
central
dust
collection
system
and
thus
prevented
from
becoming
airborne.
Coucem’were
also
raised
about
the
potential
generation
of
fugitive
dust
as
a
result
of
thetruck
traffic
iii
the
vicinity
of
the
proposed
Westwood
Lands
facility.
Although
it
is
zoned
commercial,
concerns
were
raised
about
locating
such
a
facility
on
Caine
Drive.
With
the
existing
flow
of
commercial
traffic
being
quite
extensive,
questions
regarding
the
additional
tratflc
and
the
nature
of
the
material
being
transported
arose.
In
response,
those
from
Westwood
pointed
out
that
the
intent
was
to
have
the
trucks
carrying
both
the
material
that
is
to
be
processed
as
well
as
the
resulting
products
access
the
•
facility
from
the
Southeast
corner
of
the
property,
crossing
the
rail
spurs,
and
thus
minimizing
the
use
of
the
existing
roads,
and
in
turn
nGt
traveling
through
thecommunity.
It
was
also
noted
that
the
transfer
of
material
from
the
trucks
used
for
haulage
to
the
plant
will
take
place
inside
the
facility
and
thus
prevent
-
.
th
release
of
any
fugitive
du.t
that
may
be
generated.
.
-
.
As
a
result
of
the
presentation
made
by
Westwood
Lands
personnel
to
the
Council,
as
well
as
others
from
the
community
that
were
in
attendance
for
the
public
meeting,
we
would
like
to
offer
our
approval
of
the
request
for
local
siting
approval
for
this
new
processing
facility
that
is
to
be
located
in
the
Madison
Industrial
Park.
While
most
of
the
slag
produced
at
the
various
steel
making
plants,
located
in
the
vicinity
of
Madison,
is
used
to
produce
aggregate
and
other
granular
base
products,
we
want
to
welcome
Westwood
and
hope
that
the
process
provides
the
means
needed
to
produce
additional
value
added
products
from
the
slag
generated
by
the
various
steel
manufacturing
facilities
in
our
region
of
the
country.
.
inel:.
.
I
.
hn
W.
Hainm”
ayor
6;,
aiian
M
1
Jt
0
.
gj
62.060
(o;s)
S76-66S
-
(ais)
451-4538
2
d
T252L8frSØ5t
:01
ISG-L
(906)
S3LLd3dOdd
0d30G.0:WDdd
U60:Ot
8002-LT-lflf
EXHIBIT
E
City
Clerk
Alexis
Lux
Alderman
Jaffwy
Bridick
Ward
I
Eleanor
Armour
Ward
I
Ron
Grzywacz
Ward
2
Mr.
Peter E.
O’Dovero
Westwood
Lands,
Inc.
110
Airport
Road
Negaunee,
MI
49866
July
1, 2008
r
9
i
!J
B’f:
Ted Ostrenga
Ward 2
Re:
Madison,
Illinois
Facility
Dear
Mr. O’Dovero:
This
will
advise
that the
City Council
for the
City of
Madison,
Illinois
voted
to
approve the
plans of
Westwood
Lands
Tnc.
to
locate
a
manufacturing/process facility
of the
kind
described
in your
presentation
before the council
on
June
24,
2008
at 4
Caine Drive
in
the
Madison
Industrial
Park.
Of
course,
compliance
with
building,
zoning
and
environmental
ordinances,
statutes
and
regulations
will
be
required
as
your
project
goes
forward.
Please
contact
me with
any
questions.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
CITY
OF
MADISON
615
MADISON
AVENUE
MADISON,
ILLINOIS
62060
Mayor
John
W.
Harem
Ill
618-876-6268
•
618-451-4838
Steve
l-4ampsey
Ward 3
Michael
Vrabec
Ward
3
Roshelle
Willams-Gardner
Ward
4
Tyrone
Treadway
Jr.
Ward
4
Very
truly
yours,
OLm
;____
John
T. Papa
City
Attorney
JTP/set
131
F
a
a
S
EXHIBIT
E
2
d
T262L8t’SØST
:QJ
ISS6-Lfr
c9ge)
S3Ilei3dOdd
QeI3r0a.0:W0dd
3Ø:9Ø
8002-L-TW
m
I
/1
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1021 NORTH
GRAND
AvENUE
EAST,
P.O.
Box
19276,
SPRINGFELD,
ILLINOIS
62794-9276
— (
217)
782-3397
JAMES
R.
TI1oi.u’soN
CENTER,
100
WEST
RANDOLPH,
Surit
11-300,
O-uc.&Go,
IL 60601
—
(312)
814-6026
RoD
R. &AGOIEVICH,
GOVERNOR
DOUGLAS
P.
Scori,
DIRECTOR
2171524-3300
V
Granite
City
Works
United
States
Steel
Attn:
Mr.
Larry
Siebeuberger;
Manager
— Environmental
Control
20
th
and
State
Streets
Granite
City,
Illinois
62040
Re:
Steel
Slag
Fines
as
Soil
Amendment
Log
No.
PS 07-059
Permit
File
V
V
Dear
Mr.
Siebenberger:
This
is
in reply
to
your
letter,
dated
April
3,
2007,
regarding
the use
of
steel slag
fines
as
a soil
amendment
in
mine
reclamation
projects
at
“Florida
Little
Dog”
in
Gillespie
and
“Consol
7”
in
Staunton.
The
proposal
is
to place
steel
slag
fines
over
the
top
of the
mine
refuse
to help
neutralize
the
surface
refuse
and eliminate
the
acidic
water
seeps
and
runoff.
The
requirements
of
35
Illinois
Administrative
Code
([AC)
8 17.101
are
not
applicable
for
this
proposed
use of
steel
slag
fines.
However, the
notification
requirements
in
35 IAC
8
17.203
would
apply
for
management
ofbeneficially
usable
steel
and
foundry
industry
waste.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
this
letter,
please
contact
Greg
Morris
at 217/782-5174.
Sincerely,
Stephen
. Nightingale,
P.
Manager,
Permit
Section
Bureau
of
Land
SFN:GEM:bjh\072593s.doc
RocEroRo
—4302
Noith
Main
Street,
RockIord,
1161103—
(81S)
987-7760
•
Das
Pi1NEs
—9511
W.
Harrison
St., Des
Plaines,
IL 60016—
(847)
294-4000
— 595
South
State, Elgin.
IL
60123—
(847)
608.3131
•
PEORIA
— 5415
N.
University
St.,
Peoria,
EL
61614—
(309)
693-5463
BUREAU
oc
LAND -
PEORIA
-.7620
N.
University
St.,
PeorIa,
1161614
—(309)
693.5462
•
CHAMPAIGN
— 2125
South
First
Street,
Champaign,
IL
61820—
(217)
278.5800
SPRINGFIELD
—4500S.
Sixth
Street
Rd.,
Springfield,
IL
62706
—(217)
786.6692
•
CowNsvlu.s
— 2009
MalI
Street, CoilinavIlle,
IL 62234
—(618>
346-Si
20
— 2309W.
Main
St.,
Suite
116,
MarIon,
IL
62959
—(618)
993-7200
PRINTED
ON
RECYCLED
PAPER
Granite
City
Works
U
SS
United
Stales
Sleet
20th
&
State
Streets
Grarite
City,
Illinois
62040
(618)451-3456
April
3,
2007
CERTIFIED
MAIL
NO.
7004
1350
0003
0490
3964
RETURN
RECEIPT
REQUESTED
Mr.
Chris
Liebman
Solid
Waste
Unit
Manager
Bureau
of
Land
illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1021
Grand
Avenue
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9278
Dear
Mr.
Liebmari:
United
States
Steel
Corporation
—
Granite
City
Works
(GCW)
has
been
working
with
the
Illinois
Department
of
Natural
Resources
Offices
of
Mines
and
Minerals
Division
of
Abandoned
Mine
Land
Reclamation
(INDR)
to
find
a
solution
to
abandoned
mines
refuse
at
two
Illinois
sites.
As
you
know,
IDNR
is
proposing
to
use
steel
slag
fines
from
GCW
as
a
soil
amendment
in
mine
reclamation
projects
at
“Florida
Little
Dog”
in
Gillespie
and
“Consol
T
in
Staunton.
The
proposal
is
to
place
steel
slag
fines
over
the
top
of
the
mine
refuse
to
help
neutralize
the
surface
refuse
and
eliminate
the
acidic
water
seeps
and
runoff.
The
steel
stag
fines
are
alkaline
and
are
ideal
for
this
project.
GCW
believes
the
use
of
steel
slag
fines
as
a
soil
amendment
is
a
not
otherwise
prohibited
use
under
817.101(c),
and
there
Is
no
bar
to
using
the
steel
stag
as
a
soil
amendment
for
the
mine
land
reclamation
as
planned.
GCW
Is
requesting
agency
concurrence
that
the
above
soil
amendment
projects
are
not
an
otherwise
prohibited
use
of
the
steel
slag
fines.
I
hope
you
agree
that
the
IDNR
proposed
projects
will
have
a
significant
positive
Impact
on
the
environment
at
these
abandoned
mine
refuse
areas.
Should
you
have
questions
or
require
additional
information,
please
contact
Carl
Cannon
at
(618)
451-3013.
Sincerely,
Larry.Slebe
berger
Manager
—
Environmental
Control
Granite
City
Works
United
States
Steel
Corporation
jm
H:USERS\WORD\BOJ’fine
soil
aznmeodinent
projects.DOC
4376-001
MAR
3
1
2009
Sit
0
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOAIUtion
c(”01S
o
8
QarcJ
IN
THE MATTER
OF:
)
)
PETITION
OF
WESTWOOD
LANDS
)
AS
09-
.
INC.
for
an
ADJUSTED
STANDARD
from)
(Adjusted
Standard
—
Land)
portions
of
35
lll.Adm.Code
807.104
and
)
35
IIl.Adm.Code
810.103,
or
)
in
the
alternative,
A
FINDING
OF
)
INAPPLICABILITY.
MOTION
FOR EXPEDITED
CONSIDERATION
Petitioner
WESTWOOD
LANDS,
INC.
(‘Westwood”),
by
its
attorneys
Swanson,
Martin
&
Bell,
LLP,
hereby
moves
the
Board
for
expedited
consideration
of
its
petition
for
adjusted
standard
or,
in
the
alternative,
for
a
finding
of
inapplicability:
1.
Westwood
has
filed
a
petition
for
adjusted
standard
from
specific
provisions
of
Parts
807 and
810
or,
in
the
alternative,
a
finding
of
inapplicability.
2.
Westwood
owns
a
facility
in
the
City
of
Madison,
Madison
County,
Illinois,
which
will
process
steelmaking
slag
fines
into
a
usable
product.
The
facility
and
required
equipment
have
been
purchased,
and
are
ready
to
operate
upon
obtaining
the
necessary
environmental
permits.
3.
Westwood’s
petition
seeks
a
determination
that
its
raw
material
--
the
steelmaking
slag
fines
--
is
not
a
“waste”
and,
therefore,
its
facility
does
not
need
local
siting
approval
or
waste
permits.
In
the
alternative,
Westwood’s
petition
seeks
an
adjusted
standard
from
specific
portions
of
the
waste
regulations.
4.
Westwood
has
made
a
substantial
financial
investment
in
the
facility
and
the necessary
equipment,
but
cannot
operate
until
its
petition
for
adjusted
standard
is
resolved.
This
delay
is causing
financial
hardship
to Westwood,
which
is a
business
seeking
to survive
in these
difficult economic
times.
5.
Westwood’s
facility
will
be
an
economic
benefit
to
the community
in and
around
Madison,
Illinois.
At a
time
when new
business
initiatives
are
particularly
important,
that
economic
benefit is
delayed
until
after
the
resolution
of this
petition.
6.
Further,
the
delay in
beginning
operations
means
that the
raw material
--
the
steelmaking
slag
fines
-- remains
stockpiled
at
the
U.S.
Steel
facility
in
Granite
City,
Illinois,
from which
Westwood
will purchase
the
fines.
As soon
as Westwood
obtains
the
necessary
permissions,
it
can
begin
operating
and
transforming
the fines
into
a
useful
product.
7.
Westwood
has
waived
hearing
on its petition.
8.
The
Westwood
facility
will
provide
both
environmental
and
economic
benefits.
Based
on the
above,
Westwood
seeks
expedited
consideration
of,
and
decision
on, its
petition.
WHEREFORE,
petitioner
Westwood
respectfully
asks
this
Board
to act
upon
its
petition
as
soon
as
possible,
and for
such
other
relief
as the Board
deems
appropriate.
Respectfully
submitted,
WESTWOOD
LANDS,
INC.
Dated:
March 31,
2009
2
Elizabeth
S.
Harvey
John
P.
Arranz
Swanson,
Martin & Bell,
LLP
330
North Wabash Avenue
Suite
3300
Chicago,
IL
60611
312.321.9100
312.321.0990
(facsimile)
3