ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
March 11,
1993
IN THE MATTER
OF:
)
AS
91—3
PETITION
OF
PEORIA
DISPOSAL
CO.
)
(RCRA
Delisting)
FOR AN
ADJUSTED
STANDARD
FROM
)
(Adjusted
Standard)
35
Iii.
Adm. Code 721.Subpart
D)
ROBIN R. LUNN
AND MICHAEL O’NEIL
OF
XECK, MAHIN
& CATE
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONER,
PEORIA DISPOSAL
CO.
WILLIAM
INGERSOLL
AND
MA1U
GURNIK
OF
THE DIVISION
OF LEGAL
COUNSEL
APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF
CO-PETITIONER
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY.
FRED
C. PRILLAMAN
AND
STEPHEN
F. HEDINGER
OF
MOHA}1,
ALEWELT,
PRILLAMAN & ADANI
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
INTERESTED
PERSON
ENVIRITE
CORP.
OPINION OF THE
BOARD
(by
J.
Anderson):
This
matter is
before
the Board
on
the
April 9, 1991
petition
of Peoria
Disposal Co.
(PDC)
for an adjusted
standard.
The
petition seeks
an
adjusted
standard
from 35
III.
Adm.
Code
721.Subpart
D.
The
petition
essentially
seeks
a hazardous
waste
delisting
for certain
listed
hazardous
wastes
generated
by
PDC
at
its
Peoria
County
facility.
This
opinion supports
the
Board’s
order of
February
4,
1993
granting
an adjusted
standard
on
a
joint
motion for
expedited
decision,
as
explained below.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Peoria
Disposal
Co.
(PDC)
filed
its
initial
petition
on
April
9,
1991.
A
Board
Order
dated
April 25,
1991
cited
certain
deficiencies
in
the
petition.
PDC
filed
its
certificate
of
publication on
April
29,
1991,
and
a response
to
the Board
order
on May
15
and
June
6, 1991.
A
Board
order dated
July 11,
1991
requested
additional
information.
POC
filed
a
status
report
on
January
29,
1992,
and
the Agency
filed
one
on February
3,
1992,
in
response to a
hearing
officer
order
of January
9,
1992.
PDC
filed
an amended
petition
on March
2,
1992,
in
response
to
a
hearing
officer
order
dated
February
10,
1992. The Board
accepted
the
amended
petition
on
March
11,
1992. PDC
filed
a
second
amended
petition
for
adjusted
standard on
May
29,
1992,
with
the Agency
as
co—petitioner,
which
the
Board accepted
by
its
order
of
June
4,
1992.
PDC
again
amended
its prayer
for
relief
in
its
post-hearing
brief
filed
August
18, 1992.
The
Board
received
a request
for
a
public
hearing
from
Mr.
Stephen
Rone,
of East
Peoria,
on May
13, 1991.
Envirite
Corp.
(Envirite),
a competitor
of
PDC,
filed
an appearance
and a
motion
O1O-O1O5
2
to
intervene
on August
19 and September
3,
1991. PDC
filed
in
opposition
to
intervention
on August 23.
The hearing
officer
denied intervention
on
September
11, 1991,
but granted
Envirite
leave
to
participate
at hearing
as an interested
person.
On
March 9, 1992,
Envirite
requested
a
public
hearing.
The Board
held
a public hearing
in Peoria
on June
29,
1992.
PDC,
the
Agency,
and Envirite
participated.
Envirite
filed
a
motion for
extension
of time
to file
its
post-hearing
brief
on
July
27
and its brief
on August
3,
1992.
PDC
filed a
motion
for
extension
to file on
August 4
and
its
post-hearing
brief
on
August
18, 1992.
The
Board
hereby grants
both
motions for
extension
of time and
accepts
both briefs.
PDC
and the
Agency
filed a
joint
motion
for
expedited
decision
on January
14,
1993.
Envirite
responded
on January
26.
The Board granted
the
motion on
January 21,
1993, and
we
granted
the requested
adjusted
standard,
with
conditions,
on
February
4.
This
opinion supports
the Board’s
order
of February
4,
1993.
During
the course
of this
proceeding,
the
Board
docketed
three
public comments.
The
first public
comment
(PC
1),
dated
July 29,
1991,
was
from
Stephen
B. Smith,
Vice
President,
Envirite.
A letter, dated
July
16, 1992
and given public
comment
number 3
(PC
3),
was
a
copy
of
correspondence
sent
by
Stephen
Smith
to
Robert Kayser,
Chief,
Delisting
Section,
USEPA.
Public
comment
number 2
(PC 2),
dated
July
27,
1992,
was
from
Robert
Kayser to
the
hearing
officer.
The
petition filed
in
April, 1991
originally
sought
an
adjusted
standard
as to
K061
and
F006 wastes
treated
by PDC.
The
petition
of
March, 1992,
the
amended
petition
of May,
1992,
and
the amendment
requested
in
the August,
1992
post-hearing
brief
each
sought an adjusted
standard
as to
P006
wastes.
PDC
has
stated
that it will
seek
relief
as
to
K061
wastes
at a
later
time
and
in a
separate
proceeding.
(March 2,
1992
Amended
Petition
as
2.)
The
Board will
therefore
consider
those
portions
of
the
record pertaining
to P006
wastes.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
PDC
owns and
operates
a
permitted
hazardous
waste
treatment
facility
in a
7200 square
foot
building
located
on a
2—acre
site
near
Peoria.
It
receives
about
30,000
cubic
yards
(yd
3
)
of
F006
wastes
into
this Waste
Stabilization
Facility
each
year.
This
waste
is sent
from
about
20
to 30
different
platers,
anodizers,
chemical
etching
and
milling,
and
circuit—board
manufacturers.
F006 waste
is, by definition,
wastewater
treatment
sludge
from
electroplating
operations.
(
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
721.131(a).)
PDC has
operated
this
facility
since
August,
1988.
01
0-0
106
3
PDC
treats
the F006
wastes it
receives
at this facility with
proprietary
reagents
in order
to
stabilize them
so that they do
not
leach
their
hazardous
constituents
into
the environment. It
has
historically
then landfilled the wastes
in a
hazardous waste
landfill
that
it owns and operates. The
incremental increased
costs to
PDC’s
customers
is about $65.00 per
ton for
disposal
of
the
treated
residue as
a
hazardous waste
over what it would cost
to
dispose
of
this waste as
a non—hazardous waste
in
an
industrial
landfill. This added
cost
and the desire to preserve
its
RCRA-pertlkitted
landfill capacity are
the reasons PDC
has
sought
to
delist
the
treated residues pursuant
to 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code
720.122
and 106.Subpart G.
PDC
has
established
procedures for screening incoming wastes
before
accepting
them and
for verifying that treatment has
indeed
stabilized
the wastes received.
PDC has each prospective
customer
submit
certain
information about
its waste and
waste-
generation.
This includes
a material
safety
data sheet; the
results of
treatability studies from POC
Laboratories, Inc.;
and
a
certification
(or analytical results)
indicating
that
no
pesticides
or
herbicides, PCBs,
or dioxins are used
in
the
production
of the
wastes,
and that they
do not appear
in
the
wastes.
After
waste treatment
and
curing,
PDC tests each
treated
batch of
the
wastes to assure that
stabilization
has in fact
occurred.
These
tests
for selected contaminants
involve using
the
same RCRA
TCLP
procedure of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
721.124 that
PDC uses
to
test
the
effectiveness of its
treatability testing.
If the
treated
waste residue
is still hazardous,
POC either
retreats
the waste for further stabilization
or disposes
of the
waste as
hazardous
waste
in its
RCRA-permitted landfill.
The
adjusted
standard
granted with conditions
by
the
Board
on
February
4, 1993 allows PDC to
dispose of
stabilized waste
in
its
industrial
landfill.
The
stabilized waste
that meets
the
delisting
conditions is no longer
considered a
hazardous waste.
PDC
asserts
that its compliance
alternatives
to an
adjusted
standard
are limited.
It asserts
that the
F006 waste cannot
be
recycled,
reused, or treated to
render it nonhazardous.
The
only
alternative
to the
adjusted
standard
is the continued
disposal
of
this
waste in
a RCRA-permitted
facility.
Additionally,
PDC
and
the
Agency
assert by the joint
motion for expedited
decision
of
January 14,
1993
that the decision
in Envirite
Corp. v.
IEPA
(3d
Dist. Jan.
8, 1993)
(No.
3-92—0202),
that each of PDC’s
customers
must
individually
have separate
Section
39(h) authorization
for
landfill
disposal of hazardous
1
wastes,
threatens
to
cause
it
to
01
t-iJ
107
4
stop
receiving
the
F006
wastes
for
RCRA-permitted disposal,
which
would leave PDC
with
a
cessation of operations
as the only
alternative
for compliance unless the
Board
granted the
adjusted
standard.
THE
ADJUSTED STANDARD
The
adjusted standard
granted on
February
4,
1993,
effective
as of that date, renders non—hazardous
up to
50,000
tons
of
F006
waste treated by PDC using
a mechanical
mixer. The treated
residues must meet certain
verification
and testing
requirements
to qualify.
Those
wastes that do qualify
are subject to
the
non-
hazardous solid waste
disposal regulations
of 35 Ill. Adm.
Code
810 through 815, rather than the
Illinois RCRA
regulations of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 703 and 722
through 728.
The verification
and testing condition
requires
PDC to
perform certain tests, both before
and after
waste treatment.
PDC must
perform
bench-scale treatability
testing
before
accepting wastes for production—scale
treatment.
PDC
must
perform tests on the treated
residue to verify
treatment
using
the methods of SW-846 for certain
specified
inorganic
and
organic
parameters on daily-
and monthly—composited
samples.
PDC must
periodically submit
the results
of the treatability
tests
and
other
information
requested by the
Agency together
with a
certification, and it must
maintain its records
of those tests
open for state inspection
for a minimum
of three
years.
PDC must test a daily composite
sample composed
of
grab
samples from each batch of
the treated
residue for
certain
TCL?
inorganic parameters (cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
nickel, and
silver) and for
total distilled-water-leachable
cyanide
before
disposal. If the treatment residue
exceeds
any of
the levels
set
01140-0
I
08
5
for
TCLP
inorganics
or total
leachable
cyanide
2
,
PDC
must manage
the treated
residue
as
a
RCRA
hazardous
waste.
PDC
must
also daily
test
a
representative
grab sample
of
each treated
batch
for certain
TCLP
organic
parameters
(acetone,
bis- (2-ethyihexyl) phthalate,
chloroform,
ethylbenzene,
naphthalene,
N—nitrosodiphenylamine,
styrene,
and
total
xylenes).
If
the initial
daily
test
for
a
specific
treated
batch.fr
orga
ds
-
‘--‘-
--- ---
In
addition
to
the
daily
analyses,
PDC must
perform
a
more
complete
monthly
analysis.
PDC
must
take
a grab
sample
from
each
daily
sample
and
composite
them
for
a
single
monthly
TCLP test
for
all the
126
priority
pollutants
listed
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
423,
App.
A
except
the
pesticides,
PCBs,
asbestos,
and
2,3,7,8-
TCDD
(dioxin).
PDC
may
reduce
the
testing
frequency
to
semi
annually
for
any constituent
found
to be
below
the detection
limit
for
six
consecutive
months.
PDC
must
continue
or resume
monthly
testing
for
any
constituent
that appears
above
the
detection
limit
in any
sample.
The adjusted
standard
granted
is
substantively
very
similar
to
that
requested
in the
May
29,
1992
second
amended
petition,
further
amended
by
PDC’s
post-hearing
brief.
The
post—hearing
brief
added
the
limitation
to the
use only
of a
mechanical
mixer,
thereby
dispensing
with the
original
request
to
allow
mixing
in
a
concrete-lined pit
by a
backhoe.
The
adjusted
standard
granted
differs,
however,
in
that the
failure
of
a
single
repeat
daily
-
one treated
batch.
(See
PC 2
at 2—3
(USEPA
comment).)
This is
not the
Board’s
intent.
Rather,
we intend
to
allow PDC
to composite
grab
samples
from
a single
treated
batch
in
order
to allow
it
to
assure
that
the
confirmation
sample
taken
is indeed
representative
of
the treated
batch.
O11r00109
6
sample
for
TCLP
organics
triggers
the
need
to
manage
the
treated
residue
as
a
RCRA
hazardous
waste,
and
the
second
amended
petition
and
the
post-hearing
brief
requests
that
the
failure
of
a
second
repeat
sample
(i.e.,
the
failure
of a
third
sample)
triggers
the
need
to
manage
the
residue
as
hazardous.
The
post—
hearing
amendments
more
would
clearly
require
a
third
failure
REGULaTORY
STANDARD
FOR
RELIEF
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
720.122
(derived
from
40
CFR
260.22)
provides
for
delisting
of
hazardous
wastes.
Subsection
(a)
provides
for
delisting
of
Part
721,
Subpart
D
(40
CFR 261,
Subpart
D)
listed
wastes
from
a
particular
facility
if
the
generator demonstrates
that
the
waste
exhibits
none
of
the
criteria
for
which
it
was
listed,
and
the
Board
determines
that
no
additional
factors
warrant
retaining
the
waste
as
hazardous.
Subsection
(b)
provides for
rendering
inapplicable
the
“mixtures
and
derived-from”
provisions
of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
721.103—
(a) (2)
(B)
and
(a) (2)
(C)
(40 CFR
261.3(a)
(2)
(ii)
and
(a) (2)
(iii)),
which
basically
maintain
that
any
mixture
containing
a
Subpart
D
listed
waste
and
any
material
derived
from
a Subpart
D
listed
waste
are
hazardous
wastes.
Since
PDC
treats
the
F006
wastes
from
multiple
generating
sources
to
produce
a
waste
deemed
a F006
hazardous
waste
by
the
“mixtures
and
derived—from
rule”,
it
appears
that
pursuit
of
either
alternative
of
subsections
(a) and
(b)
might
have
resulted
in
rendering
the
RCRA
regulations
inapplicable
to
the
PDC-treated
residue.
PDC
nowhere
explicitly
states
that
it
approaches
the
Board
under
either
subsection
(a)
or
subsection
(b).
However,
since
PDC
nowhere
mentions
either
Section
721.103
(a) (2)
nor
full
characteristic
testing
pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
721.Subpart
C,
and
the
thrust
of
the
petition
is
aimed
at
demonstrating
that
the
treated
residue
no longer
exhibits
either
the
characteristic
for
which
F006
was
listed
or any
other
characteristic
warranting
continued management as a
hazardous
waste,
the
Board
infers
that
PDC
submitted
its
petition
pursuant
to
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
720.122(a).
Under
subsection
(a),
PDC
is
viewed
as
the
waste
generator.
For
a
grant
of an
adjusted
standard
delisting
its
waste,
PDC
must
demonstrate
that
the
F006
waste
it
generates
does
not
exhibit
the
toxicity
characteristic
(cadiuium, hexavalent
chromium,
nickel,
or
cyanide)
for
which
USEPA
listed
F006
wastes,
and
the
Board
must
determine
that
there
is
no
reasonable
basis
other
than
that
for
which
P006
was
listed
that
warrants
retaining
the
treated
P006
residue
as
RCRA
hazardous.
(See
35
Ill.
Adin.
Code
720.122(a)
and
(d),
721.111(a) (3),
721.131,
and
721.Appendix
G.)
Additionally,
PDC
must
demonstrate
that
the
waste
will
be
generated
or
managed
in
Illinois
(35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
720.122(p)),
and
the
Board
will
not
grant
the
delisting
if
it
would
render
the
state
RCRA
program
011001
10
7
less
stringent
than
the
federal
program.
(35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
720.122(g)
.)
DISCUSSION
OF
ISSUES
RAISED
Envirite,
PDC’s
competitor,
by
its
participation
throughout
this
proceeding,
and
USEPA
by
PC
2,
raised
a
few
issues
relating
to
the
requested
adjusted
standard.
This
resulted
in
the
imposition
of
the
second—failure
trigger
for
dealing
with
the
treated
waste
as
hazardous
based
on
the
organic
parameters.
Several
other
arguments
did
not
result
in
substantive
amendment
of
the
requested
adjusted
standard.
The
easiest
issue
to
dispose
of
is
that
relating
to
whether
the
waste
will
be
generated
or
managed
in
Illinois.
The
facts
indicate
the
PDC
will
both
generate
and
manage
the
waste
at
its
facility
near
Peoria.
Neither
Envirite
nor
USEPA
challenged
the
petition
on
this
basis.
Therefore,
the
Board
finds
that
the
waste
is
both
generated
and
managed
in
Illinois,
as
required
by
Section
721.122(p).
Before
beginning
the
discussion
of
the
issues,
the
Board
wishes
to
take
note
of
the
Agency’s
joining
as
co—petitioner
after
discussion
with
the
PDC
and
careful
examination
of
details
of
the
petition
and
supporting
documents
(see,
e.g.
1
Tr.
97-103,
re
sampling
protocol,
and
110—11,
re
analytical
procedures).
While
ideally
such
scrutiny
and
the
Agency’s
decision
to
join
as
a
co-petitioner
would
take
place
before
PDC
initially
filed
its
petition,
the
procedure
used
nevertheless
provides
welcome
assistance
to
the
review
process.
(g
In
re
Petition
of
Keystone
Steel
and
Wire
Co.
for
Hazardous
Waste
Delisting,
No.
AS
91—1,
(Feb.
6,
1992)
at
9—10.)
Additionally,
USEPA
submitted
comments
on
the
proposed
adjusted
standard.
(PC
2.)
It
is
worthy
of
note
that
USEPA
commented
that
PDC
submitted
ample
data
with
its
petition,
with
the
reservation
that
it
would
have
sought
groundwater
monitoring
data.
(PC
2
at
1.)
USEPA
did
not
comment
adversely
to
the
Board
granting
the
requested
adjusted
standard.
Rather,
USEPA
noted
a
small
number
of
conditions
it
would
impose.
For
example,
USEPA
would
require
more
infomation
before
allowing
use
of
backhoe
mixing,
USEPA
would
require
PDC
to
manage
batches
of
waste
as
hazardous
until
shown
to
meet
the
delisting
criteria,
and
USEPA
would
add
analyses
for
additional
organic
contaminants
to
the
testing
conditions.
(PC
2
at
2—3.)
We
discuss
these
issues
topically
below.
The
first
contested
issue
relates
to
whether
PDC
has
demonstrated
that
its
treated
F006
residue
is
stable
over
time.
Envirite
contended
that
PDC’s
analytical
results
(
March
2,
1992
Amended
Petition
at
app.
E,
tables
33-51)
indicate
increased
metals
mobility
with
time,
and
a
rapid
drop
in
pH
with
time
iO01
8
indicates
that
this
trend
will continue.
Envirite cites
the
need
to
continue
the
testing
to
follow
up on such a
trend
and
cites
USEPA
method
1320
in
support of
this contention.
(
Ex. 1 at
1—2
and App.
B;
Envirite
post-hearing
brief
at 5 and
12—13.)
PDC
responds that
it
properly
applied
the
appropriate
testing
for
the
proper
duration.
PDC responds
that it
employed
the TCLP
(USEPA
method 1311)
procedure
of
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
721.124
and
40 CFR
App. II
to
perform
the tests.
It argues
that
this
TCLP
test
has supplanted
the former
EP toxicity
test to
which
the
multiple
extraction
procedure (MEP)
of
method
1320
applies,
and
the TCLP
procedure
is far more
aggressive
than the
EP former
toxic—MEP
procedure
because
of
the selection
of acids
and the
repeated agitation
of
samples. PDC
questioned
the
relevance
of
the
aggressive TCLP
procedure
to the
realities
encountered
by
the waste
disposed
of in a landfill.
(PDC
post—
hearing
brief
at
14-16; Tr.
117-21.)
USEPA
did
not
question the
trend
in the analytical
results.
Rather,
tJSEPA
stated
generally that
,‘PDC appears
to
have
provided
an
extensive
set
of analytical
data
to support
its petition
(PC 2
at 1),
and “In
general,
the testing
conditions
included
in the
proposed delisting
are consistent
with
the
format
that
USEPA
has
used
in
past delistings.”
(PC
2
at 2.) However,
we note
that
this is not
an issue
specifically
raised
in
PC
3, the letter
of
July
16,
1992
that Envirite
sent
to USEPA.
Initially,
the
Board agrees
with
PDC’s assertion
that
there
are no
fixed
criteria for
evaluating
the MEP
results
using
the
TCLP
procedure.
In examining
the
results
tabulated
by
PDC
in
the
March 2,
1992 amended
petition
that
also
provide
initial TCLP
results (app.
E,
tables 33
through
48), we do not
see any
distinct
trend or correlation
between
the
slight
drop
in pH
in
subsequent
days’ testing
(about
1 pH lower
on day
nine than
at
the start
of testing) and
the
appearance
of metals
in the
TCLP
leachate.
Of
sixteen samples,
only two
that
would
have
passed
the TCLP
test subsequently
showed
elevated
metals
concentrations
at levels
of regulatory
concern,
two showed
elevated
metals
concentrations
in the initial
TCLP
that diminished
below
levels
of regulatory
concern in
subsequent
days,
and
one
showed
an
elevated
metal
concentration
in
the initial
TCLP
as well
as
in
later tests.
The Board
does
not
see
a
distinct
or
significant
trend in
these
data, as argued
by
Envirite.
Envirite
next argues
that
some
of
the
testing
results
contained in the
petition
indicate
that
some
of the
treated
PDC
residue
contains
hazardous
constituents
at levels
above
those
of
0U4Q
01
12
9
regulatory
concern.
4
PDC
does
not
dispute
this
assertion.
USEPA
expresses
concern
that PDC
manage
no treated
waste
residue
as
non-hazardous
until
it
is
shown
to meet
the delisting
criteria.
(PC 2
at 2—3.)
The
Board
agrees
that
PDC failed
to
show
that
13 of
18
samples
of
treated
residue
met
the
delisting
criteria.
5
The
Board
also
agrees
that
PDC
should
handle
no batch
of treated
F006
waste
as
non—hazardous
until
testing
shows
that
the batch
meets
the delisting
criteria.
However,
this
is no
basis
to
deny
a
delisting.
The
adjusted
standard
granted
requires
PDC
to
manage
all
treated
F006
batches
as RCRA
hazardous
waste
until
testing
demonstrates
that
each batch
meets
the
delisting
criteria.
When
an
individual
treated
batch
is
shown
to meet
the
delisting
criteria,
PDC
is free
to dispose
of that
batch
as
a
non—hazardous
solid
waste.
This
is
despite
whether
the
waste
passes
the
test
nearly
immediately
after
treatment
or PDC
allows
an
extended
cure
time
before
it
meets
the
delisting
criteria.
(
Pr.
181-83.)
Envirite
next
cites
laboratory
quality
control
deficiencies
and
sampling
deficiencies
in the
PDC
petition.
After
review
of
the
petition
and
transcript,
the
Board
agrees
with USEPA.
PDC
has
“provided
an
extensive
set
of analytical
data
to support
its
petition.”
(PC
2
at
1.) Further,
as
stated
above,
that PDC
sampled
over
a limited
time
from
random
or selected
receipts
of
waste
is
immaterial
because
this
adjusted
standard
does
not
delist
the waste
stream.
Rather,
the
adjusted
standard
granted
applies
only
to those
treated
batches
that
meet the
delisting
criteria.
Another
issue raised
by Envirite,
and
noted
by
USEPA,
relates
to
a
lack
of
groundwater
monitoring
data
in
the
petition.
(Envirite
post-hearing
brief
at
5; Pc 2
at
1.)
While
the
Board
agrees
that
the
provision
of
such
data
would
have
been
useful
under
certain
circumstances,
those circumstances
do
not exist
here.
Although
the
permitted
PDC
RCRA
hazardous
waste
landfill
includes
treated
F006
residue
in
the fill,
the record
indicates
PDC
employed
USEPA’s
composite
model
for
landfills
(EPACML)
in
conjunction with
the
Agency
to
determine
the
levels
of
regulatory concern
at
the
compliance
point
based
on the
hypothetical disposal
of
50,000
tons
of
treated
residue
per
year.
(
March
2,
1992
Second
Amended
Petition
at tab
2,
pp.
3-5;
Tr.
93—95.)
Two
failed
for cadmium,
one
for chromium,
one
for
lead,
one
for
nickel,
three
for
acetone
alone
and
one
for
acetone
and
ethyl
benzene
(although
acetone
appeared
in all
blanks),
one
for
naphthalene,
one
for
N—nitrosodiphenylainine
and
styrene
and
one
for
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
alone,
and
one
for
bis-(2-ethylhexyl)—
phthalate.
O1iO-QI
13
10
that
this
is
in
conjunction
with
other
wastes.
(Tr.
122—23.)
Groundwater
monitoring
data
would
have
included
information
relevant
to
the
co—disposed
wastes,
and
not
wholly
relevant
to
the
treated
F006
residues.
The
final
issue
raised
by
Envirite,
and
noted
by
USEPA,
relates
to
the
adequacy
of
PDC’s
monitoring
and
verification
program.
(
Envirite
post-hearing
brief
at
5—6;
Pc
2
at
2-4.)
The
Board
believes
that
the
adjusted
standard
granted
adequately
addresses
these
concerns.
We
bear
two
things
in
mind
in
examining
the
testing
and
verification
plan.
These
are
the
standard
for
issuance
of
a
waste
delisting
and
the
fact
that
the
Agency
or
PDC
can
petition
the
Board
for
modification
of
the
adjusted
standard
if
future
information
indicates
that
this
is
necessary.
The
standard
for
delisting,
cited
above,
is
that
the
waste
must
show
none
of
the
criteria
for
which
USEPA
originally
listed
it,
and
there
must
be
no
other
basis
for
determining
that
the
petitioner
should
continue
to
manage
the
waste
as
hazardous.
As
noted,
USEPA
listed
P006
waste
as
a “T”
(toxicity)
waste
due
to
its
cadmium,
chromium,
nickel,
and
cyanide
content.
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
721.App.
G;
40
CFR
261,
App.
VII.)
PDC
must
test
each
lot
of
treated
waste
for
each
of
these
contaminants.
Further,
partially
in
response
to
the
Agency’s
suggestion
(g
Tr.
97-
98),
PDC
selected
additional
contaminants
and
tested
its
wastes
for
those,
then
selected
the
treatment
parameters
based
on
the
results
obtained.
The
petition
indicates
that
PDC
tested
its
treated
residues
for
a
host
of
contaminants
not
included
in
the
delisting
criteria,
and
its
untreated
F006
wastes
for
a
few
more.
(See
March
2,
1992
mended
Petition
at
app.
E,
tables
21-32.)
This
indicates
that
PDC
did
not
include
all
the
hazardous
constituents
or
TCLP
parameters
(
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
721.124
or
721.App.
H;
40
CFR
261.24
or
261,
App.
VII)
tested
in
the
delisting
criteria
because
either
these
did
not
appear
at
levels
of
concern,
when
considering
a
dilution
and
attenuation
factor
(DAF)
of
19
(e.g.,
mercury,
selenium,
chlorobenzene,
trichloroethylene,
tetrachioro—
ethylene),
or
because
there
was
no
reason
to
suspect
that
the
wastes
would
contain
the
contaminants
(pesticides,
PCBs,
and
dioxin).
Finally,
PDC
must
periodically
test
its
treated
residues
for
all
the
126
priority
pollutants
(except
the
pesticides,
PCB5,
and
dioxin)
and
submit
those
results
as
required
by
the
Agency.
The
broader
list
of
contaminants
includes
the
two
of
concern
to
USEPA:
trichioroethylene
and
tetrachioroethylene.
(PC
2
at
3.)
The
Board
is
not
unmindful
that
if
the
Agency
later
finds
cause
for
concern
because
these
constituents
appear
at
levels
of
significance,
it
can
then
deal
with
the
situation
by
filing
an
O!LO-OI
11
appropriate
petition
for
modification
of the adjusted
standard
before
the
Board. The record
includes
nothing
specific
to
indicate
that
the
Board
should
add
contaminants
to either
the
delisting
criteria
or
the periodic
testing
regime.
CONCLUSION
The
Board
examined
the
petition
to determine
its
completeness
in light
of the
factors of
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
720.122(1).
We have
considered
the
arguments
opposed
to a grant
of
an
adjusted
standard
and the
public
comments received.
After
review of
the petition
and the
record,
the
Board
has
determined
to
grant
the
adjusted standard
delisting
PDC’s
treated
F006
residues
that
meet
the delisting
criteria
proposed
by
PDC and the
Agency.
The petition
supports
the
delisting
criteria proposed
by
POC
and the
Agency.
It adequately
describes
the PDC
process
for
treating
F006 waste and
the methods
and
procedures
PDC will
use
to
accept
and
treat
this waste
and assure
that the
treated
residue
meets the
delisting
criteria.
Further,
the petition
set
forth
an
ongoing regime
of testing
that
will have
the effect
of
either
confirming PDC’s
delisting
criteria,
procedures,
and
process,
or
it
will
ultimately
highlight
any
inadequacies
to the
Agency
and
PDC.
In
granting
this
adjusted
standard,
the
Board has
made
one
substantive
change
in
the
adjusted
standard
as proposed
by
limiting
the number
of
retests
PDC may
perform
if
any particular
batch
fails
to meet
the delisting
criteria.
We believe
that
PDC
should
be
allowed
to retest
a failed
batch,
since
sampling
or
analytical
errors
could
occur.
Further,
additional
curing
time
could
result
in
a more stable
waste
residue.
However,
we believe
also
that PDC
must
either
re—treat
the waste
or dispose
of it
as
a RCRA
hazardous
waste
if
the
second
sample
confirms
the first.
In
addition
to
this single
substantive
change,
the Board
has
made a
handful
of
minor
stylistic
revisions
to the
proposed
language.
None of
these
warrant
individual
discussion.
In
short,
PDC
has
met
its burden
under
35
Ill. Adm. Code
720.122
of
showing
that the
adjusted
standard
granted assures
1)
that
PDC’s
treated
F006
waste
residue
that
meets
the
delisting
criteria
do
not
exhibit
the
characteristic
for
which USEPA
listed
F006
waste,
and
2) that
there
is no other
basis
for retaining
the
waste
as
RCRA hazardous.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
OIiO-Ol
15
12
I,
Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
do
hereby
certify
that the
above
opinion
was
adopted
on
the
/t/—
day
of
1993,
by a vote
of
‘
Dorothy
M
Gu
5
1
,
Clerk
Illinois
PolJion
Control
Board
O1O-Ot
16