ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 23, 1992
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
)
PETITION OF KEYSTONE STEEL
)
AS 91-1
AND
WIRE CO. FOR
)
(RCRA Delisting
HAZARDOUS
WASTE DELISTING
)
Adjusted Standard)
SUPPLEMENTAL
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on a March 12,
1992,
filing of a motion for modification by Keystone Steel and Wire
Company
(Keystone).
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) filed its response to the petitioner’s motion for
modification on March 27,
1992.
Keystone filed a motion for
leave to file and reply on April
7,
1992, which is granted.
On
February 6,
1992, the Board granted a delisting of Keystone’s
chemically stabilized electric arc furnace dust
(CSEAFD) from the
lists of hazardous wastes from specific sources found at
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 721.132.
Keystone’s motion requests modification of
one of the conditions imposed on the delisting.
The motion to
modify is granted.
Keystone requests that condition B, limiting the amount of
CSEAFD which is delisted, be changed from the specified 10,000
tons per year (tpy)
to a greater amount.
The 10,000 tpy amount
currently specified in the adjusted standard was based on
Keystone’s estimate of “normal” generation of electric arc
furnace dust (EAFD) before the chemical stabilization treatment.
First, Keystone’s motion for modification states that it did
not anticipate a limitation on annual waste generation;
otherwise
it would have presented the Board with the “maximum” monthly and
annual generation rates at its facility for use as a limitation
on annual waste generation.’
Keystone’s motion to modify
includes a certification of maximum generation rates and
acknowledges that it “appears proper” for the Board to impose a
maximum annual generation rate based on Keystone’s certification.
Keystone believes this is compatible with previous USEPA practice
for delisting a waste.
In its motion for Leave to File and
Reply, Keystone states that the terms and conditions of its air
operating permit are separate from the Board’s delisting action.
Further, Keystone argues that the imposition of a maximum annual
generation rate of waste should not be limited by production
levels the Agency has included as a condition in Keystone’s air
1
The use of annual generation limitations on delistings for
K061 wastes (such as Keystone’s)
is relatively new.
133—189
2
permit,
but rather on the facility’s maximum (steel) production
rate as ~certifiedby Keystone.
Sec~nd,Keystone contends that the 10,000 tpy limit
currently specified in the adjusted standard applies to the
untreated waste
(i.e.
EAFD) and was not multiplied by a factor of
1.4 to achieve the actual amount of the chemically stabilized
waste (i.~e.CSEAFD).
The 1.4 factor is the “bulking” weight
added by the stabilization process to the untreated waste.
Keystone further notes that because it will be adversely
affected if the Board does not modify the limit, a new petition
for adji~stedstandard will be filed if the motion for
modification is denied.
In its response, the Agency states that it is opposed to the
specific limitation proposed in the motion for modification.
The
Agency &tates that although Keystone’s facility may have a
maximum generation rate,
Keystone’s operating permit allows a
lesser amount of untreated waste generation.
The Agency proposes
that ant’ modification to the amount of CSEAFD allowed to be
delisted should be based upon the limits present in Keystone’s
operatixig permit.
Th~eAgency also states that the Board should limit the
amount cf untreated EAFD waste generated by Keystone’s facility
instead of the amount of chemically stabilized waste
(joe.
the
CSEAFD)
.
This type of limitation would ensure against violations
of Keystone’s operating permit and ensure the actual amount of
wastes t.reated even if there are improvements to the chemical
stabilization process.
Th~eBoard finds that, the figure of 10,000 tpy of CSEAFD in
condition B of Keystone’s adjusted standard is incorrect.
The
actual tigure of 10,000 tpy in the petition for adjusted standard
represe~ntedan amount of untreated waste.
To achieve the proper
figure for waste treated by the chemical stabilization process,
the l0,C~O0tpy must be multiplied by a factor of 1.4.
Therefore,
the Board will modify condition B to allow for the bulking that
takes place during the stabilization process.
The Board declines to consider modifying condition B into
the high~eramounts proposed by the Agency and Keystone for the
followimg reasons.
First, the Agency is incorrect in assuming
that the Board is strictly bound to adhere to a limit imposed by
the Ager~cyas a condition in a permit.
An adjusted standard is
for relief from a Board regulation (limitation, standard)
of
general
applicability.
Second, whatever the Agency’s reasons may
be for
a
maximum generation limit based on Keystone’s ‘operating
permit,
such specification will not serve the purpose of ensuring
that the wastes actually generated at the facility, and only
those wastes, will be treated and delisted.
133—190
3
Instead, the Board believes that no maximum waste generating
limitation needs to be specified and that its intent in granting
Keystone’s delisting will be ensured if:
(a)
it is made clear
that only that quantity of EAFD actually generated each calendar
year from Keystone’s operation will be allowed to be stabilized
in the Super DeTox process;
(b) the delisting applies only to the
stabilized waste from that Super DeTox process (i.e. CSEAFD
meeting the specified delisting levels)
whose total quantity
cannot exceed 14 times the quantity of EAFD generated and
treated; and
(c) Keystone provides the Agency with reports or
data showing the amount of EAFD generated at the facility, amount
treated using the Super DeTox process each calendar year and the
amount of CSEAFD delisted each calendar year.
The Board
considers this approach of linking waste quantities to be
delisted to the actual amount of waste generated and tracking a
facility’s wastes (generated, treated and delisted) to be an
improvement over the USEPA approach of specifying a single
maximum generation rate based on a facility’s certification.
The “capping” approach does not as effectively regulate the
wastestream when the quantities generated are below that cap.
Further, the Board’s approach does not have the effect of
unnecessarily, we believe,
limiting the levels of Keystone’s
steel production.
What it assures is that the specific waste
generated solely from a particular level of production at that
facility, and only that waste,
is what is treated and disposed in
a nonhazardous waste facility.
The Board will modify Sections B
and C(1)
of its Order accordingly.
The Board also finds the last
sentence, “These conditions are specific to the upfront exclusion
petitioned for by Keystone.” of Section C(1), to be unnecessary
and will delete it.
The second part of Keystone’s motion for modification noted
Keystone’s concern for the Board’s application of the USEPA’s
generic exclusion levels, derived from best demonstrated
available technology
(BDAT) treatment standards for high zinc
wastes, to Keystone’s non—BDAT treated waste.
Keystone does not
request modification of these standards but requests that the
Board consider “modifying)
its position regarding the
application of generic exclusion levels to delistings.”
The Agency’s response supported the Board’s application of
the generic exclusion levels to Keystone’s stabilized waste.
The
Agency stated that USEPA does not consider the difference between
the generic exclusion levels and the “facility—specific
delistings” to be significant.
The Agency believes that the
Board applied the proper standards and requests that the Board
not modify its opinion.
The Board’s opinion of February 6,
1992 is based upon
Keystone’s petition for delisting.
An adjusted standard
proceeding is decided on a case by case basis and its outcome
133—19 1
4
relies heavily on the petitioner’s information and efforts.
As
stated in the Board’s opinion, due to a lack of certain data in
Keystone’s petition, the Board took a cautious approach to the
granting of the adjusted standard and chose to apply the generic
exclusion levels.
The Board’s action did not establish a general
rule applicable to all delistings.
Therefore, the Board will not
reconsider or modify its opinion on this issue.
To avoid confusion, the Board will reproduce the entire
adjusted standard order in this supplemental opinion and order.
The order contains the changes to conditions B and C(1) as
defined above.
This supplemental opinion constitutes the Board’s
supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law in this
matter.
ORDER
A.
Pursuant to the authority of Section 28.1 of the
Environmental Protection Act, the Board hereby adopts the
following adjusted standard.
This adjusted standard becomes
effective on April
9,
1992 and is applicable only to the
electric arc furnace dust wastes collected in Keystone’s
baghouses and treated by the Super Detox process.
B.
Keystone Steel and Wire Company’s fully cured and
uncured chemically stabilized electric arc furnace dust
(“CSEAFD”)
treatment residue generated by the Super
DeTox stabilization process described in their petition
filed January 22,
1991 is nonhazardous, as defined in
35 Ill. Adm. Code 721.
Keystone shall use the Super
DeTox process to treat no more than the actual amount
of eleOtric arc furnace dust
(EAFD) generated during
each calendar year.
This exclusion for the actual
amount of CSEAFD treatment residue produced each
calendar year (but not exceeding 1.4 times the quantity
of EAFD generated and treated during a calendar year)
is conditioned upon the treatment residue meeting the
verification and testing requirements stated in Section
C listed below to ensure that hazardous constituents
are not present in the treatment residues at levels of
regulatory concern.
When this exclusion becomes
effective both the uncured and fully cured treatment
residues will no longer be subject to regulation under
35 Ill.
Adm. Code,
Parts 722 through 728 and the
permitting standards of
35 Ill.
Adin. Code 703.
Such
wastes shall be required to be disposed of pursuant to
the Board’s non-hazardous landfill regulations found at
35 Ill. Adm. Code 810 through
8.15.
C.
Verification and Testing Requirements
133—192
5
1.
Keystone is required to both verify that the treatment
system is on—line and operating as described in-the
petition, and to submit a report to the Agency showing
that the on—line treatment system can meet the
delisting levels of Section D prior to the operation of
the full—scale treatment system.
Keystone shall also
report annually to the Agency in accordance with a date
set by the Agency, the previous calendar year’s
quantities,
in tons per year,
of: EAFD generated,
EAFD
treated using the DeTox stabilization process, and
CSEAFD produced that has been delisted.
2.
Testing
a.
Initial Testing:
During the first four weeks of
operation of the full—scale treatment system,
Keystone must collect representative grab samples
of each treated batch of the CSEAFD and composite
the grab samples daily.
The daily composites,
prior to disposal, must be analyzed for TCLP
leachate concentrations for all the constituents
listed in condition
(D) (1)
including cyanide
(using distilled water in the cyanide
extractions), and analyzed for the constituent
concentrations in condition
(D) (2).
Analyses must
be performed according to SW-846 methodologies,
incorporated by reference in 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
720.111.
Keystone must report the analytical test.
data obtained during this initial period not later
than 90 days after the treatment of the first
full—scale batch.
b.
Subsequent Testing:
Keystone shall collect
representative grab samples of each treated batch
of the CSEAFD and composite the grab samples to
produce
a weekly composite sample.
The weekly
composites,
prior to disposal, must be analyzed
for TCLP leachate concentrations for all the
constituents listed in condition
(D) (1)
including
cyanide (using distilled water in the cyanide
extractions), and analyzed for the constituent
concentrations in condition
(D) (2).
Analyses must
be performed according to SW-846 methodologies,
incorporated by reference in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
720.111.
The analytical data must be compiled and
maintained on site for’a minimum of three years.
These data must be furnished upon request and made
available for inspection by any employee or
representative of the State of Illinois.
13 3—193
6
D.
Delisting levels:
The TCLP concentrations of the CSEAFD
leachate in mg/i and the concentrations in the CSEAFD waste
in mg/kg shall not exceed the concentrations listed below,
otherwise such wastes shall be managed and disposed in
accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 703 and 722 through 728.
1.
maIl
Antimony
.
.
.
.
0.063
Arsenic
.
.
.
.
.
0.055
Barium
.
.
.
.
.
6.3
Beryllium
.
.
.
.
0.0063
Cadmium
.
.
.
.
.
0.032
Chromium (Total)
0.33
Lead
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.095
Mercury
.
.
.
.
.
0.009
Nickel
.
.
.
.
.
0.63
Selenium
.
.
.
.
0.16
Silver
.
.
.
.
.
0.3
Thallium
.
.
.
.
0.013
Vanadium
.
.
.
.
1.26
Zinc
.
.
.
.
Cyanide
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.42
2.
mg/kg
Total Reactive Cyanide
.
250
Total Reactive Sulfide
500
E.
Data submittal:
All data must be submitted to the Manager
of the Permits Section, Division of Land Pollution Control,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill
Road,
P.
0. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois, 62794—9276,
within the time period specified.
At the Agency’s request,
Keystone must submit any other analytical data obtained
through Section C within the time period specified by the
Agency.
Failure to submit the required data will be
considered a failure to comply with the adjusted standard
adopted herein and subject Keystone to an enforcement action
initiated by the Agency.
All data must be accompanied by
the following certification statement:
Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making
or submission of false or fraudulent statements or
representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions
of Illinois’ Environmental Protection Act),
I certify
that the information contained in or accompanying this
document is true, accurate and complete.
In the event that any of this information is determined
by the Board in its sole discretion to be false,
inaccurate or incomplete,
and upon conveyance of this
fact to Keystone,
I recognize and agree that this
133—194
7
exclusion of wastes will be void as if it never had
effect or to the extent directed by the Board and that
Keystone will be liable for any actions taken in
contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA
obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the
void exclusion.
(Name of Certifying Person)
(Title of Certifying Person)
Date_____________________________________________
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy H.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ab9ve supplementa’. opin1.on and
order was adopted on the
~
day of
~
1992, by a vote of
7-~
.
/~~7~J
Dorothy M.14~inn,Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
133—19 5