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 KECK,

MAHIN

&

CATE

APPEARED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER, PEORIA DISPOSAL CO.

WILLIAM INGERSOLL

AND

MAR1~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 MOHAN, ALEWELT,

PRILLAMAN

&

ADAMI

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 Ill. 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.

 PDC 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

01 ~0-0

105

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 F006 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 F006 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

 (yd3)

 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.

 (~g 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-permitted landfill capacity are the reasons PDC has

sought to delist the treated residues pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.

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 PDC Laboratories, Inc.;

and

a certification

 (or analytical results) indicating that no

pesticides or herbicides,

 PCB5,

 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,

 PDC 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 Core.

 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 wastes,1 threatens to cause it to

Section

 prov~.des

s

ni~i~ant

part

tkaws

~

 hazardous

waste

stream

may

 flQt

depos~ted~

I L~0-0

4

stop receiving the FOOG 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 TCLP

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

al::

generator

thed.ieposatsite owneran~

operato~for~

khe

deposit

o~tha~t

spe~it~~hazaroU~

waste

strea*~

~ei~

m~grant

~

I~azardo~

~wa~te

~treain~~

o~1y

aftr~

~generat~r~ha

~easorzab1~r

demonstrated

tbati

~

~eäs~tUt~r

e~c~mt~

~easo

eS~~the

~aste

cannot

 rea~oflab1~t

 ~4jEJd

~

 reuse,

nor

in~ine~ted

e~ai~a~y~

~psa~)~o~

oq~n~y

txeated~so

render

~it

~

0i~0-O

108

for TCLP inorganics or total leachable cyanide2, 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—ethylhexyl)phthalate,

 chloroform, ethylbenzene,

naphthalene, N—nitrosodiphenylamine, styrene, and total xylenes).

If the initial daily test for a specific treated batch for

organics exceeds any of the levels set for TCLP organics~~DC

~ay

ana~tyze

~ se~n4 sa~Le~ it

t1~e~

se~~a~e

a1s~~eed~

any

~o~an~Q

para~ne~ter~

ia~Ist~

manage the

)*tth*. as

~.a

2~~A

haz~r4o~aw~ete

the

meanix~g

the

word

‘¼ompoeite~’

applJ.ed -to

organic

pai~ame~e

~ntfrmat

ton

~am~L&ng, in~

r~grapb~

 4~o) o~

th~

~b~ua~t’~

order~.

wish

a1v~oi~

aner~o~iea~s

inte~pretat~n

that

~*composited

refers

combining

grab

samples

•~•~••••~•~••

one

treated

batch.

(~g

2—3

(IJSEPA

comment).)

This

not

the

Board’s

intent.

Rather,

intend

allow

PDC

composite

grab

samples

from

single

treated

batch

order

allow

assure

that

the

confirmation

sample

taken

indeed

representative

the

treated

batch.

addition

the

daily

analyses,

PDC

must

perform

complete

monthly

analysis.

PDC

must

take

grab

sample

from

each

daily

sample

and

composite

them

for

single

monthly

TCLP

test

for

all

the

126

priority

pollutants

listed

Ill.

Adm.

Code

423,

App.

except

the

pesticides,

PCBs,

asbestos,

and

2,3,7,8—

TCDD

(dioxin).

PDC

may

reduce

the

testing

frequency

 semi-

annually for any constituent found to be below the detection

limit

for

six

consecutive

months.

PDC

must

continue

resume

monthly testing for any constituent that appears above the

detection

limit

any

sample.

The

adjusted

standard

granted

substantively

very

similar

that

requested

the

May

29,

1992

second

amended

petition,

further

amended

PDC’s

post-hearing

brief.

The

post—hearing

brief

added

the

limitation

the

use

only

mechanical

mixer,

thereby

dispensing

with

the

original

request

allow

mixing

concrete-lined

pit

backhoe.

The

adjusted

standard

granted

differs,

however,

that

the

failure

single

repeat

daily

~/I

~for

~cathniwn~I

9

m~f

fO~~thromiWa~ ~

L ~

mgfL

~or~n.t~ke3~,

~U~2

~ng~(I~

~tI~e~

fox~

~oy~aXu~de~

16~mg/i for

ac~etone~

O.O5i~

mqfI

for

~

phtba~ate~G4.3.4 ~mg/I

~o~r~h1or

o~a~

mgfI

hyIk~enae.r~e,

~m~/I

~or

naphthaIene~

Ii I3~~gJ

foi~

~~i~o-0~09

sample

for

TCLP

organics

triggers

the

need

manage

the

treated

residue

RCRA

hazardous

waste,

and

the

second

amended

petition

and

the

post-hearing

brief

requests

that

the

failure

second

repeat

sample

(i.e.,

the

failure

third

sample)

triggers

the

need

manage

the

residue

hazardous.

The

post—

hearing

amendments

would

clearly

require

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

Part

721,

Subpart

(40

CFR

261,

Subpart

listed

wastes

from

particular

facility

the

generator

demonstrates

that

the

waste

exhibits

none

the

criteria

for

which

was

listed,

and

the

Board

determines

that

additional

factors

warrant

retaining

the

waste

hazardous.

Subsection

(b)

provides

for

rendering

inapplicable

the

“mixtures

and

derived-from”

provisions

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

Subpart

listed

waste

and

any

material

derived

from

Subpart

listed

waste

are

hazardous

wastes.

Since

PDC

treats

the

F006

wastes

from

multiple

generating

sources

produce

waste

deemed

F006

hazardous

waste

the

“mixtures

and

derived—from

rule”,

appears

that

pursuit

either

alternative

subsections

(a)

and

(b)

might

have

resulted

rendering

the

RCRA

regulations

inapplicable

the

PDC-treated

residue.

PDC

nowhere

explicitly

states

that

approaches

the

Board

under

either

subsection

(a)

subsection

(b).

However,

since

PDC

nowhere

mentions

either

Section

721.103

(a)

(2)

nor

full

characteristic

testing

pursuant

Ill.

 Adm.

Code

721.Subpart

and

the

thrust

the

petition

aimed

demonstrating

that

the

treated

residue

longer

exhibits

either

the

characteristic

for

which

F006

was

listed

any

other

characteristic

warranting

continued

management

hazardous

waste,

the

Board

infers

that

PDC

submitted

its

petition

pursuant

Ill.

 Adin.

Code

720.122(a).

Under

subsection

(a),

PDC

viewed

the

waste

generator.

For

grant

adjusted

standard

delisting

its

waste,

PDC

must

demonstrate

that

the

F006

waste

generates

does

not

exhibit

the

toxicity

characteristic

(cadmium,

hexavalent

chromium,

nickel,

cyanide)

for

which

USEPA

listed

F006

wastes,

and

the

Board

must

determine

that

there

reasonable

basis

other

than

that

for

which

F006

was

listed

that

warrants

retaining

the

treated

F006

residue

RCRA

hazardous.

(~g

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

generated

managed

Illinois

(35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

720.122(p)),

and

the

Board

will

not

grant

the

delisting

would

render

the

state

RCRA

program

~~i~0-01

less

stringent

than

the

federal

program.

(35

Ill.

Adm.

 Code

720.122(q)

DISCUSSION

ISSUES

RAISED

Envirite,

PDC’s

competitor,

its

participation

throughout

this

proceeding,

and

TJSEPA

raised

few

issues

relating

the

requested

adjusted

standard.

This

resulted

the

imposition

the

second-failure

trigger

for

dealing

with

the

treated

waste

hazardous

based

the

organic

parameters.

Several

other

arguments

did

not

result

substantive

amendment

the

requested

adjusted

standard.

The

easiest

issue

dispose

that

relating

whether

the

waste

will

generated

managed

Illinois.

The

facts

indicate

the

PDC

will

both

generate

and

manage

the

waste

its

facility

near

Peoria.

Neither

Envirite

nor

USEPA

challenged

the

petition

this

basis.

Therefore,

the

Board

finds

that

the

waste

both

generated

and

managed

Illinois,

required

Section

721.122(p).

Before

beginning

the

discussion

the

issues,

the

Board

wishes

take

note

the

Agency’s

joining

co-petitioner

after

discussion

with

the

PDC

and

careful

examination

details

the

petition

and

supporting

documents

(see.

e.g.

•

Tr.

97-103,

sampling

protocol,

and

110—11,

analytical

procedures).

While

ideally

such

scrutiny

and

the

Agency’s

decision

join

co-petitioner

would

take

place

before

PDC

initially

filed

its

petition,

the

procedure

used

nevertheless

provides

welcome

assistance

the

review

process.

(~,g In

Petition

KeYstone

Steel

and

Wire

Co.

for

Hazardous

Waste

Delistinc~,

No.

91—1,

(Feb.

1992)

9—10.)

Additionally,

USEPA

submitted

comments

the

proposed

adjusted

standard.

(PC

2.)

worthy

note

that

USEPA

commented

that

PDC

submitted

ample

data

with

its

petition,

with

the reservation that

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

—

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.

 (~gEx.

 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, USEPA 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

argues

that

some

the

testing

results

contained in the petition indicate that some of the treated PDC

residue contains hazardous constituents at levels above those of

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

show

that

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; Pr.

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

 (a’though

 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.

01i~O-0I

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 F006 waste as a “T”

 (toxicity) waste due to

its cadmium, chromium, nickel, and cyanide content.

Ill.

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

 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.

 (~g~

March

2,

 1992 Amended 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, tetrachloro—

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:

 trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene.

(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

O1L~0-OI

lL~

appropriate

petition

for

modification

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(i).

 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

PDC 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.

ORO-Ul

12

I, Dorothy M.

 Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

 do hereby certify that the above opinion was adopted on

the

//~/-~

day

~7~i

-~I---”,

1993,

 by a vote of

~‘

—~)

/•2~’

/2~.

,..

Dorothy

Gupr~, Clerk

Illinois

PolJ~?ion

Control

Board

OI~O-O1