ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 5,
1994
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
)
PETITION OF CABOT CORPORATION
)
AS 91-10
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
(Adjusted Standard)
THE REQUIREMENT OF 35 ILL.
ADM.
)
CODE SECTION 725.293
)
ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by R.C.
Fleinal):
This matter comes before the Board upon two motions filed on
April 18,
1994 by Cabot Corporation (Cabot).
The first is a
motion to file status report instanter.
The second is a motion
for summary determination.
On January
6,
1994, the Board ordered the parties to file
status reports on or before January 31, 1994.
Cabot states that
its counsel did not receive a copy of the Board’s order until
March 1,
1994.
No response to the motion to file instanter has
been received by the Board.
The Board grants the motion to file
instanter and hereby accepts the status report.
In its motion for summary determination Cabot asks the Board
to determine whether the tanks and ancillary equipment at its
Tuscola,
Illinois, facility comprise one tank system or separate
tank systems.
No response to the motion for summary
determination has been received by the Board.
The Board grants
the motion for summary determination as discussed below.
On December 27,
1991, Cabot submitted to the Board
a
petition for adjusted standard pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.414
and
725.293(g).
The petition requested an adjusted
standard from the requirement that Cabot’s Tuscola facility
install secondary containment for its hazardous waste tanks and
ancillary equipment.
Cabot has agreed to install secondary
containment for tank systems by the dates
it believes secondary
containment is required by the regulations.
This matter and the
pending RCRA Part B Post-Closure Permit matter are related.
(See,
Cabot Corporation
(Tuscola Facility)
v.
IEPA, PCB 91—197)
One issue that is not dependent on resolution of issues in
the
RCRA
permit proceeding is the issue of whether the tanks and
ancillary equipment at the Tuscola Facility comprise one tank
system
or separate tank systems.
Cabot has previously agreed to
voluntarily dismiss this matter as long as the one tank
system/separate tank system issue
is resolved.
In previous
orders
the
Board
did
not
decide
whether
the
units
consisted
of
one tank system or separate tank systems.
Cabot
presents
that
the
Agency
now
agrees
with
Cabot
that
separate
tank
systems
exist
at
the
Tuscola
site.
An
August
1992
2
technical document attached to the Agency’s response to
petitioner’s demonstration states that the “(Agency
agreed that
the designation of four
(4)
separate tank systems would be
appropriate based upon the description provided of the design and
function of the various tanks, pipes,
trenches, and sunips.
Subsequent reports submitted on May 7,
1992 and June 12,
1992,
provided detailed documentation of each system.
(Note: this
resolved the issue discussed in the
(Agency’s
comments to the
Board regarding tank system definition.”
(Agency Comments on
Demonstration at 2.)
Cabot has asked the Agency to clarify this
issue before the Board but Cabot has received no response.
At
35 Iii. Adm. Code 720.110 the term “tank system”
is
defined as:
A
hazardous waste storage or treatment tank and its
associated ancillary equipment and containment system.
Also at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.110, the term “tank”
is
defined as:
A
stationary device, designed to contain an
accumulation of hazardous waste which is constructed
primarily of nonearthen materials
(e.g., wood,
concrete,
steel, plastic) which provide structural
support.
Again at 35 Ill. Adm Code 720.110 the term “ancillary
equipment” is defined as:
Any
device including,
but not limited to, such
devices as piping, fittings,
flanges, valves and pumps,
that is used to distribute, meter,
or control the flow
of hazardous waste from its point of generation to
storage or treatment tank(s), between hazardous waste
storage and treatment tanks to a point of disposal
onsite, or to a point of shipment for disposal off-
site.
Cabot further states that the five tanks at the Tuscola
facility were installed at separate times and serve separate
purposes.
The piping and other ancillary equipment were
installed at the same time the tanks were installed.
The
equipment is also constructed of different materials and has
different uses that Cabot believes requires treating each tank
and associated ancillary equipment as separate “tank systems”.
The Board finds that no issues of material fact remain as to
the issue of whether separate tank systems exist at Cabot’s
Tuscola facility.
Cabot has shown that separate tank systems
exist at the Tuscola facility for which the compliance dates, and
the dates by which a petition and complete demonstration must be
3
filed, are the dates set forth in the Board’s January
6,
1994
order and are the same as follows:
Applicable Deadline
Petition
Completed
Unit (Viewed Separately)
Compliance
Filing
Demonstration
North Galigher
Suinp
1-1-94
1—1-92
6—28-92
West Galigher Sump
1—1-95
1—1—93
6—29—93
AB Unit Trench
1—1—98
1—1—96
6—28—96
Tank Farm Sump
7—1—99
7—1—97
12—27—97
D Unit Trench
8—1—99
8—1—97
1—27—98
TK—0048
&
TK—0051
5—1—02
5—1—00
10—27—00
Cabot’s
motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether
there are separate tank systems at its Tuscola facility is hereby
granted.
The parties shall file status reports on or before June
22,
1994 including how they want to proceed in light of today’s
action, also indicating whether this proceeding should now be
dismissed.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution
Contro)~.
Board,
hereby
certify that the above order was adopted on
the
~)
-
day
of
_______________________,
1994 by a vote of
~
—
/
/
,~
)~.
(j~~
Dorothy
M.
G~nn, Clerk
Illinois
Po~11ution Control
Board