No. 507

   

    

A Publication of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

    

    

August, 1996

R

R

ulemaking Update

ulemaking Update

riennial Water Quality

Proposed For First Notice, R94-

1(B)

On July 18, 1996, the Board

proposed amendments to the

Illinois water quality regulations

on ammonia nitrogen for First

Notice Publication in the

Illinois

Register

. The amendments are

based on a mandatory triennial

review of the Illinois stream water

quality regulations conducted by

the Illinois EPA (Agency), as

required under the federal Clean

Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et

seq.). The larger Agency

proposal amends Parts 302 and

304 of the Water Pollution

Control regulations to revise the

general water quality standards for

ammonia nitrogen, mercury, and

lead; secondary contact and

indigenous aquatic life standards;

and other regulations. The

segment of the proceeding

involved in subdocket R94-1(B)

relates to ammonia nitrogen. The

segment of the proceeding adopted

on May 16, 1996, designated

subdocket R94-1(A), related to

mercury and lead.

The Agency filed the proposal,

docketed by the Board as R94-1,

on February 24, 1994, and the

Board accepted it on March 17,

1994.

(Cont’d on p. 2)

W

W

ater Law Conference

ater Law Conference

The Illinois Water Resources

Center, the Illinois Department

of Natural Resources and other

groups are sponsoring a one day

conference on Water Law. The

conference, at Jumer’s Chateau in

Bloomington, Illinois, is sched-

uled for October 23, 1996.

The conference will address

two recent comprehensive water

studies, water law issues, and

concerns regarding the current le-

gal structure. For more informa-

tion,

see page 26-27.

B

B

oard Update

oard Update

djusted Standards And

Determinations Lists

Pursuant to Section 28.1(d)(3)

of the Environmental Protection

Act, the Board is publishing in

this issue of the Environmental

Reg-ister a list of all final determi-

nations on adjusted standards

made within fiscal year 1996 (July

1, 1995 through June 30, 1996).

Accompanying that listing is a list

of all final determinations on

combined sewer overflow excep-

tions during the fiscal year. To

receive a copy of any of these

determinations, please write to the

Clerk of the Board and specify the

docket number of the case. A

copy of the adjusted standards list

will appear in the Illinois

Register, as required by Section

28.1(d)(3). For the complete

listing of adjusted standards s

ee

page 22.

Inside This Issue

Appellate Update

p2

Board Rules on Caterpillar Case

p4

Significant Federal Actions

p5

Final Decisions

p16

New Cases

p18

Calendar of Hearings

p20

E

NVIRONMENTAL

R

EGISTER

E

NVIRONMENTAL

R

EGISTER

T

T

A

A

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

2

R

R

ulemaking Update

ulemaking Update

(Cont’d from p.1)

The Board decided to proceed on the proposal as a

Section 28.2 federally required rule on May 5, 1994.

The Board proposed amendments based on the R94-1

proposal for First Notice publication in the Illinois

Register on September 15, 1994, and Notices of

Proposed Amendments appeared in the Register on

September 30, 1994. The Board held a pre-hearing

conference on the proposal on November 10 and 22,

1994 and January 26 and November 8, 1995.

The Board severed the docket on January 4, 1996,

when it proposed the subdocket R94-1(A) amendments

for First Notice publication in the Illinois Register. A

Notice of Proposed Amendments appeared in the

January 26, 1996 Register. The Board proposed the

amendments for Second Notice review by the Joint

Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) on March

21, 1996. On May 16, 1996, the Board adopted the

R94-1(A) amendments, after receiving a Certificate of

No Objection from JCAR. The R94-1(A) amendments

became effective on May 24, when filed with the

Secretary of State. A Notice of Adopted Amendments

appeared in the June 7, 1996 issue of the Illinois

Register (at 20 Ill. Reg. 7682).

(See issues 487, Oct.,

1994; 503, Apr., 1996 & 505, June, 1996.)

Direct questions to Diane F. O'Neill, at 312-814-

6062 (Internet address: doneill@pcb016r1.state.il.us).

Request copies of Board orders from the Board's

Chicago receptionist, at 312-814-3620. Please refer to

docket R94-1(B).

astewater Pretreatment Amendments Adopted,

R96-12

The Board adopted identical-in-substance

amendments to the Illinois wastewater pretreatment

regulations for public comment on July 18, 1996. The

update docket, R96-12, included USEPA amendments

that occurred to the federal regulations upon which the

Illinois rules are based between July 1 and December

31, 1995. During that time USEPA amended its 40

CFR 136 regulations three times in ways that could

potentially impact the Illinois wastewater pretreatment

program by adding analytical procedures. On August 2,

1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 39586), USEPA added to an

analytical procedure for determining polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) in wastewater. On August 28, 1995

(60 Fed. Reg. 44670), USEPA further added procedures

for determining total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) in

wastewaters. Finally, on October 16, 1995 (60 Fed.

Reg. 53529), USEPA added whole effluent toxicity

(WET) testing methods. Part 310 of the Illinois rules

incorporates 40 CFR 136 by reference, so the Board

updated that provision incorporating the new methods.

The Board proposed the amendments for public

comment on April 18, 1996. A Notice of Proposed

Amendments appeared in the May 3, 1996 Illinois

Register, at 20 Ill. Reg. 6126, and the public comment

period expired 45 days after that date on June 17, 1996.

Direct questions to Diane F. O'Neill, at 312-814-6062

(Internet address: doneill@pcb016r1 .state.il.us).

Request copies of the Board's opinion and order from

Victoria Agyeman, at 312-814-3620 (Internet address:

vagyeman@pcb016r1.state.il.us). Please refer to

docket number R96-12.

A

A

ppellate update

ppellate update

larendon Hills Bridal Center (

Learsi and Co., Inc.) v.

The Illinois Pollution Control Board and the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

, No. 2-96-0083, slip

op. (Second District July 31, 1996) (unpublished Rule 23

order).

This case involves an appeal by Clarendon Hills Bri-

dal Center (Learsi and Co., Inc.) (Learsi) from a Board

decision which denied Learsi reimbursement for some of

the expenses incurred when it removed underground

storage tanks (USTs) from its property.

In October of 1990, Learsi discovered through soil

tests that widespread petroleum contamination existed at

the site in question and notified the Emergency Services

Disaster Agency that a release had occurred at the site.

At the end of October of 1990, three USTs were found on

the site and a fourth UST was discovered later. In order

to qualify for reimbursement from the UST Fund, Learsi

obtained a corrective action plan from GSC Environ-

mental, the consultants working on the remediation proj-

ect. The corrective action plan was approved by the Illi-

nois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) in

January of 1991.

During the time the plan was awaiting approval by

the Agency, the excavated portion of the site collected 8

to 10 feet of rainwater. The Agency told Learsi that the

water could be pumped into a sewer but that a discharge

permit would be needed to do this and that the permit

could take up to four months to obtain. Learsi instead

pumped the water and disposed of it as a special waste.

W

W

C

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

3

Learsi completed the cleanup and the Agency issued a

clean closure letter for the site. Learsi then submitted a

reimbursement request for $825,080.31 in corrective ac-

tion costs to the Agency on June 29, 1992. On February

18, 1993, the Agency sent a final determination letter

and voucher to Learsi disallowing $45,786.95 in ex-

penses and Learsi appealed to the Board. The February

18, 1993, letter misstated the amount requested by Learsi

for reimbursement. A representative for Learsi contacted

the Agency about the mistake and on April 29, 1993, the

Agency issued a clarification of its earlier letter. The

second letter denied $414.906.60 of the claimed expenses

After a hearing, the Board affirmed the Agency’s deci-

sion to deny reimbursement of $330,434.37 of the

$331,404.05 in contested costs.

In the appeal, Learsi argued the Board erred when it

denied its reimbursement request because the request was

not on Agency forms. Learsi contended that the Agency

policy requiring time and materials forms or a competi-

tive bid could not be enforced because the policy has not

been promulgated as a rule in accordance with the Ad-

ministrative Procedures Act (APA) [5 ILCS 100/1-1 et

seq.].

The Second District observed that the Agency ac-

countants testified that, although the Agency preferred

the use of its own forms, it was not necessary for the

owner to submit the information in a particular manner.

However, since the statute requires that the Agency de-

termine the reasonableness of a cost, the owner had to

provide the information in a way that demonstrated the

reasonableness of the cost. One way of doing this is

through competitive bidding. The Agency accountant

testified that while the Agency preferred that the process

include publication and consideration of at least three

bids, that there could be times when only two bids were

acceptable or where publication was not required.

In reviewing this testimony, the Second District found

that the Agency did not have any requirements other than

that the owner must demonstrate the reasonableness of

the cost of the corrective action. The court found that the

Agency did not mandate that owners follow a particular

method in order for there to be a reasonableness determi-

nation in favor of an owner. Instead, the Agency was

simply suggesting ways in which reasonableness could be

established. This, the court held, was not an adoption of

a rule requiring APA compliance. It was instead an in-

terpretation of statutory language as it applied to par-

ticular facts. Thus, the court found that Learsi was not

denied reimbursement based upon any improperly prom-

ulgated Agency policy.

Next, Learsi argued that the Board’s decision was

against the manifest weight of the evidence. More spe-

cifically, Learsi contended that the Board erred in not

considering evidence admitted at the Board hearing but

not submitted to the Agency. The first piece of evidence

was a handwritten note which the Board hearing officer

did not admit at hearing. The Board in its opinion stated

that even if the evidence had been admissible it was in-

sufficient to constitute a competitive bid. On a motion

for reconsideration by Learsi, the Board acknowledged

that the note was admitted into evidence but stated that

the admission did not affect the determination and out-

come in the case.

The other piece of evidence the Board allegedly did

not consider was testimony about what an invoice from a

trucking company was for when the information was not

contained on the invoice. The Board in its opinion im-

posed the evidentiary rule applicable in permit appeal

cases which disallows information from being part of the

record in the Board proceeding which was not available

to the Agency at the time it makes its determination. The

Board did this despite the fact that, in previous UST

cases, it had allowed new evidence into the record be-

cause the Agency had not promulgated rules identifying

the type of information necessary to complete a reim-

bursement application. The Board reasoned that, in this

case, Learsi knew or was obligated to know that it was

required to demonstrate that the disputed cost was for

corrective action. Although the court disagreed with the

Board’s reasoning, it agreed that previous Board cases

allowing new information to come into evidence were

distinguishable and held that no new evidence may come

in at the Board hearing. The court emphasized that the

question before the Board was whether the application as

submitted to the Agency meets the requirements of the

Act.

The final argument made by Learsi was that the evi-

dence offered at hearing showed that the corrective action

costs it incurred were reasonable. The Board found that

the evidence supported the Agency’s determination that

certain costs were not reasonable. The court held that the

Board had considered all the relevant evidence and that

the Board’s decision on the contested items was not

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

DT Landfill Corp. v. County of Will

, No. 3-96-

(unpublished rule 23 order).

This case involved an appeal by CDT Landfill Corp.

(CDT) of the issuance of administrative citations for

violations of section 21(o)(9) of the Environmental Pro-

tection Act (Act) [415 ILCS 5/21(o)(9)]. The Board

found that CDT had violated the Act and the Third Dis-

trict affirmed the Board’s ruling.

CDT is the operator of a landfill in Will County

(County). CDT operates pursuant to a permit issued by

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).

C

C

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

4

The Agency has delegated to the County the right to is-

sue administrative citations within Will County pursuant

to section 4(r) of the Act.

In December of 1994 and January of 1995, the

County issued three citations for violation of section

21(o)(9) of the Act. The citations were issued based

upon on-site inspections for exceedance of height limits

depicted in CDT’s development plan which was part of

CDT’s permit. In December of 1995, the Board issued an

order with one dissent, finding that CDT violated Section

21(o)(9) of the Act for all but one of the citations. CDT

appealed to the Third District the remaining two viola-

tions.

The Board in its order determined that CDT’s height

limitations in the development plan applied not only at

closure but also during landfill operations. The Board

found that structural integrity, proper drainage, stability

and maintenance, were all things that would be affected

by the height limitations during operation of the landfill.

Additionally, the Board found that CDT’s permit referred

to two dimensional boundaries of trench markings and

waste footprints as stated in the development plan. Fi-

nally, the Board held that the plan was part of the permit

and that the permit did not allow CDT to operate above

the height limitations in the plan.

The Third District found that the Board’s decision

was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

More specifically, the court found that CDT’s plan con-

tained height limitations which were intended to be ap-

plied during operations.

Finally, CDT argued that the standard of proof in

administrative citations should be heightened. They

contended that because the violations could subject them

to thousands of dollars in fines that the preponderance of

the evidence standard was not high enough. The Third

District disagreed. The court stated that the test for

whether to heighten the standard was a balance between

the public interest and the private interests sought to be

protected. In this case, the court found that the protec-

tion of the public’s health, safety, and welfare, out-

weighed any interest CDT had in not receiving an ad-

ministrative citation.

B

B

oard rules on caterpillar case

oard rules on caterpillar case

On August 1, 1996, the Board moved an order con-

cerning International Union, United Automobile Aero-

space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America

and UAW Local 974; and Citizens for a Better Environ-

ment v. Caterpillar, Inc. This citizens enforcement case

concerned soil and groundwater contamination at Cater-

pillar’s East Peoria manufacturing facility. In a seven-

count complaint filed September 1, 1994, complainants

alleged that Caterpillar committed seven violations of the

Environmental Protection Act (Act) and 14 violations of

corresponding Board regulations. The alleged violations

flowedrom Caterpillar’s discovery of the soil and

groundwater contamination occurring as a result of a

now-closed dry cleaning operation at the facility. The

alleged violations concerned the way in which Caterpillar

managed the contaminated soil which was excavated

from the ground.

Specifically, complainants alleged violations of Re-

source Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Envi-

ronmental Protection Act provisions and RCRA regula-

tions including: Section 21(e) for unlawful operation of a

waste treatment, storage and disposal site; Section 21(f)

for operating a hazardous waste management facility

without interim status; Section 21(f)(1) and 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 703.151 and 703.180 for constructing and operat-

ing a new hazardous waste management facility without

a hazardous waste permit; Section 21(f)(2) and Sections

702.121(a) and (b), 703.126, 703.152(a), 703.154, and

703.155(a)-(c) for operating in violation of Board haz-

ardous waste regulations; Section 21(f)(3) and 703.121

for failure to apply for and obtain a post-closure permit;

and, Section 21(f) for unlawful storage of hazardous

waste in excess of the 90-day hazardous waste on-site ac-

cumulation limit. Concerning water and groundwater

violations of the Act, complainants alleged Section 12(a)

for causing or allowing the discharge of any contami-

nants so as to cause water pollution. Complainants

sought declaratory relief, specifically requesting the

maximum allowable civil penalty allowed by law, in the

amount of $200,000,000. Complainants also sought in-

junctive relief in this matter.

The Board voted unanimously on August 1, 1996,

that Caterpillar properly managed the excavated soil

containing hazardous waste pursuant to Illinois RCRA

closure requirements; however, the Board found Cater-

pillar technically out of compliance for approximately a

two-year period. Pertaining to the hazardous waste vio-

lations, the Board found Caterpillar in violation of Sec-

tions 21(e) and 21(f)(1) of the Act and Sections 722.134,

703.121(a), 703.152(a), 703.154, and 703.155 of the cor-

responding Board regulations. The Board also found

Caterpillar in violation of Section 12(a) of the Act for

discharging contaminants into the groundwater. The

Board did not order any civil penalties or remedies,

finding that Caterpillar has already committed to a

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

5

RCRA closure plan and continues to remediate its

groundwater contamination problem. A copy of the

Board’s 38-page decision may be requested from the

Clerk’s office. Direct questions to Amy Hoogasian at

312-814-8917 (Internet address: ahoogasi@pcb016r1

.state.il.us). Request copies of the Board's opinion and

order from Victoria Agyeman at 312-814-3620 (Internet

address: vagyeman@pcb016r1.state.il.us). Please refer

to docket nu

mber PCB 94-240.

S

S

IGNIFICANT FEDERAL ACTIONS

IGNIFICANT FEDERAL ACTIONS

The Board continues its series of reports on recent

federal actions from the Federal Register that are of

interest to the Board and the regulated community.

Below are highlighted over 35 such actions that

occurred in July, 1996:

rants Available for Sustainable Development

Projects

On July 1, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 33913), USEPA

solicited applicants for the federal Sustainable Development

Challenge Grant program. The program, which arises

from the President's March 16, 1995 report, “Reinventing

Environmental Regulation,” and given a high priority by

USEPA, is intended to “encourage community, business,

and government to work cooperatively to develop flexible,

locally-oriented approaches that link place-based

environmental management with sustainable development

and revitalization.” USEPA stated that there are a limited

number of grants available for fiscal year 1996 and that it

intends full implementation of the program in fiscal year

1997. In addition to soliciting for grant applicants, USEPA

sought comment on the design for full implementation.

Among examples of sustainable development projects,

USEPA cited demonstration of community-based

agricultural pollution prevention practices, the design and

establishment of an eco-industrial park, a plan for

managing timber lands, and sound urban redevelopment as

an alternative to suburban sprawl. Eligible applicants

include not-for-profit private agencies, institutions, and

organizations and public agencies, institutions and

organizations. Grants will be classified into two groups:

up to $50,000 and between $50,000 and $100,000. The

program requires at least a 20 percent non-federal match of

the total project budget.

AA NESHAP Adopted for Off-Site Waste and

Recovery Operations

On July 1, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 34139), USEPA adopted

Clean Air Act (CAA) national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) applicable to off-site

waste and recovery operations. The NESHAP will regulate

the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from types of

facilities that USEPA has determined are major sources

(emitting 10 tons per year of any single HAP or 25 tons per

year in aggregated HAPs) of one or more of 98 specified

HAP compounds and which receive certain wastes, used

oil, and used solvents from off-site locations for treatment,

storage, or disposal or recovery. The rule will require

application of maximum achievable control technology

(MACT) to tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil-

water separators, drains and other material conveyance

systems, process vents, and equipment leaks. USEPA

estimated that the NESHAP will reduce HAP emissions by

82 percent or 47,000 tons per year for this category. It

estimated that the nationwide capital equipment cost of the

NESHAP is about $42 million and the annual cost is $18

million, or about $380 per ton of HAP emissions

eliminated.

ederal CAA Title V Permit Rules Adopted

On July 1, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 34201), USEPA adopted

the rules under which it will issue federal Clean Air Act

(CAA) Title V permits. Under the federal CAA Title V

operating permit program, the states bear primary

responsibility for issuing Title V permits. The new rules

are for federal issuance of permits in areas either lacking an

approved Title V permit program or an adequately

administered program. The rules are effective July 31,

1996. In adopting the rules, codified as 40 CFR 71,

USEPA noted that it is considering amendments to the 40

CFR 70 requirements for state Title V permit programs and

that any amendments to 40 CFR 70 will require

corresponding amendments to the new 40 CFR 71 rules. In

response to requests for delay, USEPA stated that it was

adopting the 40 CFR 71 permit rules at this time, rather

than wait to finalize amendments to the 40 CFR 70

requirements for state-issued permits, because the CAA

required adoption of the rules by November 15, 1995.

(Note: USEPA granted interim approval of the Illinois

Clean Air Act Title V air operating permit program

(CAAPP) on March 7, 1995 (at 60 Fed. Reg. 12478). See

issue 493, Apr., 1995. The non-renewable interim

approval expires March 7, 1997. Illinois must cure certain

deficiencies in its operating permit program to gain full

approval from USEPA: correct certain deficiencies in the

insignificant activities regulations, amend Section

39.5(13)(c)(vi) of the Act to require the use of the

significant modification procedure to incorporate emissions

trades into CAAPP permits, develop regulations defining

enhanced NSR for implementing 40 CFR 70.7(d)(1)(v), and

G

G

C

C

F

F

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

6

incorporate the federal acid rain provisions into the Act by

reference.

The one-year time period for submittal of permit

applications and three-year period for application

processing began with the interim approval. Illinois must

submit a complete corrected program package for USEPA

review by September 9, 1996, if USEPA finds bad faith on

the part of the state, or if USEPA disapproves that package,

USEPA will be required to apply sanctions to the state, and

could be required to promulgate a federal implementation

plan for the state.

USEPA also approved Illinois' federally enforceable

state operating permit program (FESOP) for limitations on

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under CAA § 112 and the

preconstruction permitting program for the purposes of

implementing the federal CAA § 112(g) rules between when

USEPA promulgates final regulations and when Illinois

adopts § 112(g) regulations.)

 

onditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator

Requirements

On July 1, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 34251), USEPA

amended its RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste and Subtitle

D solid waste facility and activity classification rules to

prohibit the disposal of conditionally exempt small quantity

generator (CESQG) waste at nonhazardous, non-municipal

solid waste landfills (non-MSWLFs) that do not meet

certain standards. The rules establish location restrictions

and groundwater monitoring and corrective action

standards for landfills that accept CESQG waste. Among

the location provisions are prohibitions relating to location

in a 100-year floodplain or wetland. The amendments

clarify that the CESQG may dispose of its waste at a

MSWLF subject to the 40 CFR 258 standards or in a

facility that meets the new standards incorporated by the

amendments into 40 CFR 257.

The amendments are generally effective on January 1,

1998. However, the clarifications applicable to the

CESQG are effective on January 1, 1997 (with a

compliance deadline of January 1, 1998), and the

groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements

are effective on July 1, 1998.

(Note: USEPA undertook this action pursuant to the

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).

That means that they will go into effect in Illinois, as a

matter of federal law, when effective at the federal level;

there will be no delay in effective date until Illinois

incorporates the amendments.

The Board will have to include segments of this matter

in the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste update docket for

the period July 1 through December 31, 1996, which is not

yet reserved. The questions remain whether the Board will

have to make additional amendments to the nonhazardous

waste landfill rules and what procedure the Board should

follow for making those amendments. The major part of

these amendments do not directly relate to either the federal

40 CFR 258 municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF)

regulations, which is the basis for the Board's RCRA

Subtitle D identical-in-substance mandate of Section

22.40(a) of the Act, or the 40 CFR 260 through 273 RCRA

Subtitle C rules, which are the basis for our identical-in-

substance mandate of Section 22.4(a) of the Act. They

may, nevertheless, be what USEPA considers an essential

element of a RCRA Subtitle C or Subtitle D program that it

desires the state to incorporate. It may be possible that a

Section 27 general rulemaking or Section 28.1 federally-

required rulemaking proceeding will be necessary to fully

incorporate these amendments.)

 

ffluent Guideline Plan Proposed

On July 3, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 35041), USEPA

proposed a new wastewater effluent guidelines plan. It is

the plan by which USEPA intends to develop new and

revised effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.

USEPA invited comment on the plan before it proceeds to

adopt it. The plan is mandated biennially by the Clean

Water Act (CWA). The last plan published was for 1994,

in the August 26, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 44234) issue of the

Federal Register

.

Among the priorities listed in the new proposed plan is

the continued development of 10 rules outlined in the 1994

plan that will affect pulp, paper, and paperboard; pesticide

chemicals; coastal oil and gas extraction; centralized waste

treatment; pharmaceutical manufacturing; metal products

and machinery; landfills and incinerators; industrial

laundries; and transportation equipment cleaning facilities.

USEPA projects completion of all the guidelines, except

that for pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities, between

1996 and 1999, depending on funding. USEPA further

intends to begin development of revised guidelines for the

iron and steel industry, complete preliminary studies of the

photographic processing and chemical formulating and

packaging industries, and plan development of guidelines

for seven additional, as yet unidentified industries for

adoption between 2000 and 2003. The candidates for such

guideline development include petroleum refining, textile

mill, inorganic chemical, steam electric power generating,

photographic processing, and chemical formulating and

packaging facilities. One factor in consideration of any

guidelines for the steam electric power generating industry

is the need for control of zebra mussels.

USEPA stated that it selects categories for guideline

development based on three basic factors: environmental

factors, utility to states and publicly-owned treatment works

C

C

E

E

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

7

(POTWs), and economic factors. The environmental

factors involve comparison of the discharges of various

categories to approximate risk to human health and the

environment. The specific environmental factors include

the total priority pollutants discharged, the total pollutants

discharged, the total priority toxic pounds-equivalent

discharged, the number of carcinogens present, the number

of facilities discharging to water quality-impaired receiving

waters, and the number of documented cases of sediment

contamination. Among the specific factors for gauging the

utility to POTWs are the average priority pollutants

discharged, the average priority toxic pounds-equivalent

discharged, and the number of discharging facilities. The

economic factors include the cost and economic

achievabilty of additional controls and investment cycle.

USEPA stated that it developed its current effluent

guidelines plan pursuant to the consent decree in NRDC v.

Browner, No. 89-2980 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 1992), as

subsequently modified, which commits USEPA to taking

final action on effluent guidelines, to conduct preliminary

studies for others, and to form an advisory committee, the

Effluent Guidelines Task Force. USEPA intends to

develop the new and revised guidelines according to its

own priorities under the consent decree.

AA Certification Program Adopted for Gasoline

Testing Rules Proposed and Amended

On July 5, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 35309), USEPA adopted

a program for certification of detergent additives used in

gasoline motor fuels for control of intake valve deposits and

port fuel injector deposits. An interim program, adopted

on October 14, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 54678), has been in

place to aid implementation of the requirement of section

211(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that effective January 1,

1995 gasoline motor fuels contain detergents to control

engine deposits. The new regulations will establish

standardized testing procedures and performance standards

to ensure adequate deposits control. USEPA stated that the

control of deposits reduces nitrogen oxides (NO

x

),

hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions

in engine exhaust. Control of deposits further enhances

fuel economy.

On July 11, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 36506), USEPA

adopted a direct final rule amending the CAA testing

requirements for registration of fuels and fuel additives.

The rule makes minor amendments to the health-effects

testing requirements for exposure of animals to evaporate

and engine exhaust emissions. Among other amendments,

the rule allows greater flexibility in selection of a test

engine and clarifies the exposure time, oxygen purity,

background measurements, driving schedules, exposure

concentration, and dilution system requirements. A notice

of proposed rule in the same issue of the

Federal Register

(61 Fed. Reg. 36535) proposed further amendments to the

registration requirements. Along with clarifying and

streamlining the regulations, the amendments would no

longer require those who solely blend additives to fuel to

register as fuel manufacturers.

pt-Out Procedures for CAA Reformulated Gasoline

Denial of Reconsideration of Phase II Standards

On July 8, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 35673), USEPA adopted

procedures for states that voluntarily opted into the federal

Clean Air Act (CAA) reformulated gasoline program to opt

out of the program. The rules, effective August 7, 1996,

apply only to opt-out requests submitted prior to December

31, 1997. USEPA intends to adopt separate rules

applicable to later opt-out requests. The rule also removed

areas from the program in response to requests from the

states of Maine, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Section 211(k) of the CAA requires the use of

reformulated gasoline in the nine largest U.S. cities with

serious ozone problems. States are allowed to opt into the

program for other cities and areas. Phase I of the

reformulated gasoline program, adopted on February 16,

1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 7716), effective December 15, 1993, is

intended to reduce the emission of volatile organic material

(VOM) through the reformulated fuel. Phase II of the

program would also reduce nitrogen oxides (NO

x

)

emissions. The 1993 rules did not include opt-out

procedures.

In an unrelated action, on July 9, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg.

35960), USEPA solicited comment on its intent to

reconsider the Phase II reformulated gasoline standards.

The Phase II standards will control NO

x

emissions

beginning in 2000. The American Petroleum Institute

(API) petitioned for reconsideration of the Phase II rule in

1995, contending that the standards were contrary to the

goals of the CAA, that USEPA overstated the potential air

quality benefits of the rule in adopting it, and that the

standards are not a cost-effective strategy for ozone control.

USEPA disagreed and stated that the petition did not

present new information not considered when it originally

adopted the Phase II standards. USEPA expressed interest

in considering any such new information and invited

comment on its intent not to reconsider the standards.

USEPA further solicited comment on the effects of

delaying the implementation of the Phase II standards.

astewater Pretreatment Standards Amended for

Leather Tanning and Finishing Facilities

On July 8, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 35680), USEPA adopted

a direct final rule that amends the wastewater pretreatment

C

C

O

O

W

W

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

8

standards for certain new (PSNS) and existing (PSES)

facilities in the leather tanning and finishing category. The

amendments are effective October 7, 1996 unless earlier

expressly withdrawn. The facilities for which the standards

are revised are those that conduct dehairing operations and

discharge wastewater into the collection system of a

publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The

amendments will eliminate the upper (alkaline) pH limit for

discharges from four subcategories of facilities that perform

dehairing, and they will allow local POTW operators to

establish a site-specific alternative limitation based on local

conditions. The associated notice of proposed regulation

appeared in the same issue of the

Federal Register

(61 Fed.

Reg. 35705).

USEPA undertook this action in response to a petition

from the industry. To lower the pH, facilities were often

forced to acidify their wastewater, which threatened worker

safety through the possible generation of toxic hydrogen

sulfide gas. USEPA further stated that relieving the

facilities of the need to use acid would reduce operating

costs, and some POTWs actually use the alkaline waste to

help neutralize other, acidic wastestreams.

(Note: The Board will need to include this action in the

identical-in-substance wastewater pretreatment update

docket for the period July 1 through December 31, 1996.

That docket is not yet reserved.)

 

roposed Amendment of CAA Transportation

in Pilot Program

On July 9, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 35994), USEPA

proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA)

transportation conformity rule (TCR) to create and

implement a conformity pilot program. USEPA also

solicited participants for such a program. The pilot

program would exempt up to six areas from the existing

TCR requirements to allow three years of experimentation

into alternative conformity procedures. The intent is to

allow states greater flexibility in meeting the CAA

transportation conformity requirements by allowing the use

of procedures that are more suitable to the particular area or

conditions.

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires that all

transportation activities conform to state air quality

implementation plans (SIPs). A conforming activity will

not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing

violations, or delay timely attainment of national ambient

air quality standards (NAAQSs). USEPA adopted the TCR

to implement the CAA transportation conformity

requirements as 40 CFR 51 and 93, on November 24, 1993

(58 Fed. Reg. 62188). (USEPA subsequently amended it

on August 7 and November 14, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 40098

and 57179).) In a separate notice in the same issue of the

Federal Register

(61 Fed. Reg. 36111), USEPA proposed a

third set of amendments to allow more flexible and

streamlined implementation of the TCR, by allowing states

to use motor vehicle emissions budgets to be used in

evaluating a project, in place of the “build/no-build” test.

Among the proposed amendments were also the use of

modeling tailored to the particular area and allowing rural

areas to choose among several tests. USEPA stated that

successful experimentation in the pilot program could result

in further amendment to the TCR process and procedures.

AA

 

Findings of Failure to Submit a Required SIP

Against Illinois and Sister States

On July 10, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 36292), USEPA

adopted a final rule that made formal findings under the

Clean Air Act (CAA) against Illinois, nine sister states,

and the District of Columbia of failure to submit a

required state implementation plan (SIP) for nine ozone

nonattainment areas. USEPA entered the finding

because it concluded that these entities had failed to

submit a required “rate of progress” (ROP) SIP. The

entry of the finding, effective on July 3, 1996, starts the

CAA 18-month timeclock for imposition of mandatory

federal sanctions against the states for the failure.

Unless a state submits the necessary SIP, sanctions will

be imposed against it within 18 months, by January 3,

1998.

Section 182(c) of the CAA requires states with

serious, severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment areas

to submit SIPs that would reduce the emissions of

precursor volatile organic material (VOM) in those

areas at the rate of nine percent every three years,

beginning in 1996 and ending when they attain the

ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

This SIP is called the ROP SIP. It further required the

affected states to submit an attainment demonstration

for the ROP SIP by November 15, 1994. For a variety

of reasons, such a delay in the development of

necessary federal guidance and ozone transport, some

states were unable to achieve this deadline. USEPA

sent out a memorandum on March 2, 1995 that offered

the alternative submittals. USEPA divided the

submittals into two phases and offered the opportunity

for later submittal of the required SIP elements. Phase

I, due at the end of 1995, was to include a SIP

providing for the first nine percent ROP by the end of

1999, a SIP commitment to submit remaining ROP

reductions at a specified time after 1996 no later than

1999, and a SIP commitment to submit the attainment

demonstration by mid-1997, to be followed by any rules

necessary for implementation of the SIP by the end of

P

P

C

C

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

9

1999. The Phase II submittals were the mentioned

remaining elements. Illinois, the nine sister states, and

the District of Columbia have been unable to meet the

Phase I deadlines.

Section 179(a) of the CAA mandates sanctions

against any state on the basis of four findings by

USEPA. The first finding, the one made in this notice,

is that the state has failed to timely submit a SIP

required under the Act. If a state has failed to make the

required SIP submittal within 18 months, the first

sanction, federal offset requirements, will go into

effect. If the state has still failed to make the submittal

within six months of imposition of offsets, the highway

funding sanction will be imposed and USEPA will be

required to implement a federal implementation plan

(FIP) for the area within 2 years of the finding, by July

3, 1998. On the other hand, the sanctions clock will

stop if USEPA makes a finding that the state has made a

complete SIP submittal.

mended CAA State HAP Program Approval

Procedures

On July 10, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 36295), USEPA

adopted a direct final rule that amends the procedures

for approval of state hazardous air pollutant (HAP)

programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA). USEPA

amended the procedures to clarify the rules, reduce the

regulatory burden, and afford more flexibility to the

states. A notice of proposed rule appeared in the same

issue of the Federal Register (61 Fed. Reg. 36326).

The amendments, effective August 19, 1996 unless

expressly withdrawn before that time, will allow up-

front approval of the state mechanism for implementing

existing and unchanged federal CAA section 112

standards, obviating the need for submission of

individual delegation requests by the states on a rule-by-

rule basis. USEPA further eliminated provisions as

unnecessary. It removed a mandatory 6-month

reporting requirement as duplicative of the reporting

requirements already included in the individual

maximum achievable control technology (MACT)

standards. It eliminated a requirement for coordination

on accident investigations as reiterating a requirement

of the CAA. USEPA also revised its rules to provide

for approval of prohibitory state program elements that

act to limit sources' potentials to emit specific

pollutants.

eetings and Technical Workshop on Drinking

Water Issues

On July 10, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 36328), USEPA

announced a meeting on streamlining the approval of

Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) analytical methods. This meeting is the fourth

in a series of meetings held since last Fall to outline

plans for methods flexibility and streamlining the

process for evaluating and allowing the use of new

analytical technologies. The meeting was scheduled for

July 24, 1996 in Denver, Colorado. The meeting was

to consider such topics as the range of acceptable

modifications to approved methods that do not require

approval of an alternative method, standardization of

quality control and acceptance criteria, streamlining the

approval process to timely take advantage of emerging

analytical technologies, and the harmonization and

standardization of methods across the several USEPA

programs.

On July 18, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 37464), USEPA

announced a meeting to discuss options for its role in

laboratory performance evaluations for the purposes of

the CWA and SDWA. USEPA stated that it is presently

reevaluating its role in laboratory performance

evaluations due to its lack of adequate funding and its

inability to create a dedicated fund for deposit of user

fees. USEPA presently has three laboratory

performance evaluation programs: water supply, water

pollution, and Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)

quality assurance. USEPA stated that it had discussed

the possibility of the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) assuming this rule, but that NIST

determined that such would be inconsistent with its

mission. USEPA has eight other options under

consideration, each discussed in the draft report,

“Externalization of EPA's Water Laboratory

Performance Evaluation Programs.” The meeting is

scheduled for August 27, 1996 in Washington, D.C.

roposed Restrictions on the Use of Pesticides to

Protect Groundwater Supplies

On July 10, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 36368), USEPA

announced that it was to hold a meeting of the State

FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group on July

15 and 16 in Arlington, Virginia. Among the topics the

group was to discuss was the proposed pesticide state

management plans (SMPs). USEPA proposed

restrictions on the use of five pesticides (alachlor,

atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, and simazine)

identified as probable or possible carcinogens on June

26, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 33259). The proposed

restrictions would allow states to protect groundwater

resources through the development of SMPs, which will

be implemented in the context of a larger

comprehensive state groundwater protection program

(CSGWPP). A CSGWPP, which describes the state's

overall approach to groundwater protection, is designed

A

A

M

M

P

P

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

10

to integrate state and federal groundwater protection

efforts. Under the proposed rules, USEPA would

evaluate a state plan for pesticide use restrictions and

use its authorities under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to restrict the

use of the pesticide.

otice of Petition to Register Acetic Acid as a

Issued for Illinois Use of Another Pesticide

On July 10, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 36369), USEPA

published a notice of a petition to register a pesticide

with an active ingredient not used in any pesticide

product previously registered under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The pesticide was to use acetic acid (ethanoic acid) at a

concentration of 25 percent for nonselective control of

herbaceous and grass weeds on noncrop, right-of-way,

and industrial lands. (Acetic acid, at a concentration of

about five percent, is the major component of vinegar.)

In the same issue of the

Federal Register

(61 Fed.

Reg. 36377), USEPA gave notice that it had issued

experimental use permits under FIFRA. One of those

permits allows the use in 1996 and 1997 of 328.04

pounds of an herbicide on 4,000 acres of soybeans in 28

states to test the control of various weeds. The

herbicide is the 3-oxetanyl ester of 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-

2-pyrimidinyl)-amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic

acid.

raft Guidance on Environmental Justice

Available

On July 12, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 36727), USEPA

announced the availability of draft guidance on

environmental justice in its National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) analyses. A Presidential

memorandum of February, 1994 requires federal

agencies to incorporate an environmental justice

assessment into their ongoing projects and future

planning. It requires consideration of environmental,

human health, economic, and social effects of federal

actions, including the effects on minority communities

and low-income communities.

oals Published for

 

CWA Effluent Guidelines and

Performance Standards for Pulp and Paper Facilities

On July 15, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 36835), USEPA

published a document describing its goals and

preliminary analysis relating to Goals Published for

Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent guidelines and

pretreatment standards and Clean Air Act (CAA) new

source performance standards for emission of hazardous

air pollutants (HAPs) from pulp and paper facilities.

USEPA proposed integrated standards for reductions in

discharge of water pollutants and emission of HAPs

from these facilities on December 17, 1993 (58 Fed.

Reg. 66078) and corrected the proposal on March 17,

1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 12567). As a result of litigation in

Environmental Defense Fund v. Thomas

, No. 85-0973

(D.D.C.), USEPA was to have issued final regulations

relating to the dioxin and furan discharges from certain

members of the industry by June 17, 1996, but was

unable to meet that deadline. Since the proposal,

USEPA has announced the availability of new data

under consideration on several occasions (60 Fed. Reg.

9813, Feb. 22, 1993; July 5, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg.

34938; Mar. 8, 1996, 61 Fed. Reg. 9383), and has held

meetings with interested persons on the proposed rules.

The current notice stated that USEPA presently

evaluating all the comments and data received and that

the final standards will be based on different

technologies than those originally contemplated for the

bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade

sulfite facilities. USEPA stated that it intends to adopt

the standards for these two subcategories of the industry

based on these new technologies, and that will continue

its evaluation of the other eight proposed subcategories.

SEPA Advisory Committee Meetings

On July 15, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 36881), USEPA

announced that the Environmental Financial Advisory

Board was to meet in San Francisco, California on

August 15 and 16, 1996. The purpose was to discuss

the development of a strategic action agenda for the

year on such issues as brownfields redevelopment,

private sector participation in delivering environmental

services, financial tools to pay for sustainable

environmental systems, and funding options for drinking

water systems.

On July 16, 1996 (62 Fed. Reg. 37051), USEPA

announced that the National Environmental Education

Advisory Council was to meet August 5 and 6, 1996 in

Washington, D.C. The purpose of this meeting was to

aid USEPA's implementation of the National

Environmental Education Act of 1990. The council was

to review the council's newly available draft report to

N

N

D

D

G

G

U

U

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

11

Congress assessing environmental education in this

country.

dvanced Notice of Decisions Whether to Retain

Particulate Matter Based on Review

On July 18, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 37427), USEPA

announced that it was to conduct a public meetings on

its intent to propose decisions by November 29, 1996

whether to retain or revise the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQSs) developed under the Clean

Air Act (CAA) for ozone and particulate matter (PM).

The meetings were scheduled for July 25, 1996, in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and August 5, 1996, in St.

Louis, Missouri.

On June 12, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 29719), USEPA

published an advance notice of its intent to propose

decisions by November 29, 1996 whether to retain or

revise the NAAQSs for ozone and PM. USEPA stated

that it used the advanced notice to identify key issues it

is considering in deriving its decisions on the NAAQSs.

The November 29 date for proposal of USEPA's

determinations derived from a judicial order in

American Lung Association v. Browner

, 884 F. Supp.

345 (D. Ariz. 1994).

(See issue 506, July, 1996.)

 

n Reconsideration, Exemption from Ban

Extinguishers

On July 18, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 37430), USEPA

proposed an exemption from the Class II nonessential

products ban for hydrochlorofluorocarbon- (HCFC- or

halon-) containing fire extinguishers for non-residential

uses. USEPA undertook this action in reconsideration

of an earlier ban imposed because it had determined that

suitable substitutes to HCFC existed.

USEPA implemented section 610 of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) on December 30, 1993 by adopting

regulations banning the use of Class II ozone-depleting

substances in nonessential foam or plastic, aerosol, and

pressurized products. The Section 610 ban was self-

implementing, effective January 1, 1994, but USEPA

codified it to clarify definitions and provide exemptions,

as provided by the CAA. From that regulation, USEPA

exempted the use of HCFC-containing fire extinguishers

for certain aircraft and marine uses until suitable

substitutes were available. The expanded ban applies to

all non-residential use of HCFC-containing portable fire

extinguishers. USEPA stated that the significant new

uses policy (SNAP) does not review the efficiency of

substitutes, making SNAP unreliable for review of

potential substitute fire extinguishants. USEPA

reconsidered its earlier determination based on its

conclusion that no suitable substitutes exist at this time.

ermits Improvement Team Concept Paper and

Draft Recommendations Available

On July 19, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 37744), USEPA

announced the availability of a concept paper and draft

recommendations from the Permits Improvement Team

(PIT). USEPA created PIT to evaluate its permitting

programs and those of the states and develop

recommendations for improvements in efficiency and

process. USEPA intends to use the paper as an overall

guide for reforms. USEPA stated that the individual

region and program offices can evaluate and incorporate

any changes based on comments on the report.

roposed Amendment of Army EIS Regulations

On July 22, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 37865), the

Department of the Army proposed amendments to its

Regulation 200-2. Army Regulation 200-2 implements

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA), which requires federal agencies to conduct

environmental impact studies (EISs) prior to engaging

activities that might have an impact. The Army stated

that the amendments expanded a list of categorical

exclusions, separated the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Recovery Act (CERCLA)

from NEPA, and delegated the authority to approve

EISs.

roposed Amendments to CAA NSR and PSD

Rules

On July 23, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 38249), USEPA

proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) new

source review (NSR) and prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) regulations of 40 CFR 51 and 52.

USEPA undertook this action largely in response to the

recommendations of the Clean Air Advisory Committee

Subcomittee on NSR Reform. USEPA stated that the

proposed amendments would be the first comprehensive

overhaul of the system in 15 years. Some of the

amendments are further prompted by the CAA

amendments of 1990, to resolve issues that have

prevented some states from fully implementing the

program and causing uncertainties in the program.

Among the key features of the amendments indicated

by USEPA as designed to relieve regulatory burden

were the following: deregulation of changes at “clean”

emissions units and “clean” facilities, promotion of

A

A

O

O

P

P

P

P

P

P

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

12

voluntary plant-wide limits, the encouragement of

pollution prevention and innovative control

technologies, enhanced public awareness provisions,

revised requirements for control technology

determinations, better coordination of permit reviews,

increased State flexibility, and more offset credits

available to nonattainment area sources. Proposed

deregulatory changes highlighted by USEPA were the

exclusion of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the

PSD requirements, and relaxation of requirements on

the substitution of ozone-depleting substances (ODS)

with lower potency. Amendments highlighted as

proposed based on requirements mandated by the 1990

CAA amendments were (1)revised major source

thresholds and emissions offset ratios for sources

according to the severity of a nonattainment area's

ambient air quality problem, (2)special requirements for

determining major modifications of sources in serious

and severe ozone nonattainment areas, and

(3)requirements for the submittal of control technology

information into USEPA's informational clearinghouse.

USEPA stated that the proposal also includes

“housekeeping” revisions to the NSR rules relating to

technology review, complete application criteria, and

public participation.

eeting of Advisory Committee for Acute

Substances

On July 24, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 38446), USEPA

announced a meeting of the Advisory Committee for

Acute Exposure Guidelines Levels for Hazardous

Substances (NAC/AEGL) on August 5-7, 1996 in

Washington, D.C. USEPA stated that among the

chemicals up for discussion are ammonia, methyl

mercaptan, hydrazine, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen

cyanide, cyanogen chloride, and 1,2-dichloroethylene.

raft Priority List of Hazardous Substances

Prepared for Department of Energy NPL Sites

On July 24, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 38451), the

Department of Health and Human Services Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (HHS) published

a draft listing of hazardous substances found on

Department of Energy (DOE) sites on the

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) National

Priorities List (NPL). HHS prepared the list in

cooperation with USEPA pursuant to a provision of

CERCLA that required the preparation of lists of the

most common hazardous substances found on federal

and non-federal NPL sites. The list is used to determine

the order in which HHS develops toxicological profiles

for toxic substances. The list considers frequency of

occurrence, toxicity, and the potential for human

exposure in prioritizing the substances. HHS used 22

DOE NPL sites in assembling the listing of the top 20

radionuclides and top 20 non-radionuclides at these

sites.

pproval of Illinois Motor Vehicle Refinishing

15% ROP Revision

On July 25, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 38577), USEPA

published a direct final rule approving the ozone state

implementation plan (SIP) revision for the motor

vehicle refinishing emissions regulations adopted to

implement the federal 15% rate of progress (ROP)

requirements. A notice of proposed rule appeared in the

same issue of the

Federal Register

(61 Fed. Reg.

38683).

The Board adopted the regulations as Part VI of the

state ROP rules on April 20, 1995, under docket R94-

31.

(See issue 494, May, 1995.)

The Part VI

regulations lower the allowable volatile organic material

(VOM) emissions from motor vehicle refinishing

operations in the Chicago and Metro-East areas by

imposing limitations on the VOM content of coatings

and surface preparation materials, requiring the use of

specific coatings applicators and applicator cleaning

equipment, and providing a control equipment

alternative. The regulations further impose record-

keeping and reporting requirements on refinishers.

USEPA stated that the approved Part IV ROP rules will

reduce VOM emissions by 16.3 tons per day (tpd) in the

Chicago area and 1.2 tpd in the Metro-East area.

pproval of Illinois Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Rules

On July 25, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 38582), USEPA

approved portions of the Illinois vehicle inspection and

maintenance (VIM) program. It conditionally approved

other portions based on a letter from the Illinois EPA

(Agency) committing to submit certain items to USEPA

within one year. The revision provides for the

implementation of the VIM program in the Chicago and

Metro-East areas, which, according to USEPA, will

reduce volatile organic material emissions in the state

by over 38 tons per day.

The Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law of 1995

(VEIL; 625 ILCS 5/13B), provided authority for the

Agency to implement an enhanced VIM program for the

Metro-East area and certain portions of the Chicago

nonattainment area and mandated that the Board adopt

M

M

D

D

A

A

A

A

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

13

implementing regulations. The Board adopted the

enhanced VIM regulations on December 1, 1994 in

dockets R94-19 and R94-20.

(See issue 490, Jan.,

1995.)

Section 182(b) and (c) of the federal Clean Air

Act (CAA) requires the use of VIM programs in areas

not meeting the national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for ozone and/or carbon monoxide. The

CAA specifies the use of “basic” VIM programs in

“moderate” nonattainment areas and “marginal”

nonattainment areas with existing VIM programs. It

requires the use of “enhanced” VIM programs in

“serious,” “severe,” and “extreme” ozone

nonattainment areas with urbanized populations of

200,000 or more. In Illinois, the Chicago and Metro-

East St. Louis (Metro-East) areas are classified as

“severe” and “moderate” nonattainment for ozone,

respectively, and as such are subject to the VIM re-

quirement.

In reviewing the Illinois program, USEPA noted that

the Chicago area to which the Illinois enhanced VIM

program applies includes Chicago, Aurora, Crystal

Lake, Elgin, Joliet, and Round Lake Beach-McHenry

urbanized areas. Since the CAA does not require

enhanced VIM in urbanized areas with a population less

than 200,000, only the basic VIM program would have

otherwise been required in the Aurora, Crystal Lake,

Elgin, Joliet, and Round Lake Beach-McHenry areas

and in the Metro-East area. USEPA granted conditional

approval to segments of the program because Illinois

needed only to submit an executed contract for vehicle

testing and amendments to regulations to obtain full

approval. The existing program deficiencies that

USEPA was giving Illinois a year to correct included

the need for documentation addressing program

evaluation, testing operator certification, inadequacies

in the fleet testing provisions, public information and

consumer protection, product recalls, on-road testing,

and regular audits of program enforcement. The state

has one year to submit the required documentation to

maintain the conditional approval.

on-Aerosol Forms of Hydrochloric Acid, Diethyl

from EPCRA Reporting Requirements

On July 25, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 38600), USEPA

deleted non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid from the

list of substances whose release facilities must report

under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-

to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). Upon petition of

BASF Corp., E.I. duPont de Nemours, Monsanto Co.,

and Vulcan Materials Co., USEPA took this action

based on its determination that non-aerosol forms of

hydrochloric acid do not have acute, chronic, or

environmental effects. Aerosol forms of hydrochloric

acid include mists, vapors, gas, and fog. USEPA stated

that it is presently similarly reevaluating the listings for

nitric and phosphoric acids.

On July 29, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39356), USEPA

deleted diethyl phthalate (DEP) from the list of EPCRA

reporting substances. USEPA undertook this action in

response to a petition from the Fragrance Materials

Association. It reviewed the available data and

determined that DEP cannot reasonably be expected to

cause adverse human health or environmental effects.

USEPA very specifically highlighted that although

phthalates have generally been linked with hormone

disruption effects, it is unaware of any data specifically

attributing such effects to DEP.

On July 31, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39891), USEPA

deleted di-(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (DEHA) from the list of

EPCRA reporting substances. USEPA concluded that

DEHA met the delisting criteria of EPCRA based on a

petition from the Chemical Manufacturers Association

(CMA). Upon review, USEPA concluded that DEHA

does not cause acute adverse human health effects at the

concentrations likely to be encountered outside facility

boundaries, that is does not cause systemic,

developmental, and reproductive effects except at high

doses, that it has a low chronic toxicity, and that DEHA

does not pose a significant environmental threat.

raft Methodologies Invited for Land Disposal

Study

On July 25, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 38684), USEPA

invited draft methodologies for a surface impoundment

study under the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act

of 1996. That legislation overruled segments of the

decision in

Chemical Waste Management v. EPA

, 976

F.2d (D.C. Cir. 1992),

cert. denied

, -- U.S. --, 113 S.

Ct. 1961 (1993), relating to managing decharacterized

hazardous wastes in wastewater treatment systems or by

underground injection. The legislation also mandated

that USEPA complete a study within five years of the

environmental and human health effects of managing

decharacterized wastes in wastewater treatment system

surface impoundments or in Class I non-hazardous

injection wells. USEPA stated that it is seeking

information to begin the segment of the study dealing

with surface impoundments. It invited the submission

of methodologies for undertaking the study. USEPA

stated that the study could result in further regulation of

these facilities managing the decharacterized waste,

since the legislation authorizes such regulations as

necessary for protection of human health and the

environment.

N

N

D

D

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

14

ow-Enhanced Standard Option Added to CAA

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

Requirements

On July 25, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39031), in a

supplemental final rule, USEPA added a low enhanced

performance option to the Clean Air Act (CAA) vehicle

inspection and maintenance (VIM) Requirements. The

low enhanced option will apply, effective September 23,

1996, in qualifying Northeast Ozone Transport Region

(OTR) states (defined under the CAA as comprising

states in the northeastern U.S., not including Illinois).

The amendments would allow ozone attainment areas,

marginal nonattainment areas, and moderate

nonattainment areas not having urbanized populations

greater than 200,000 to use the low enhanced option and

achieve emissions reductions equivalent or greater to the

high enhanced option by other means. The low

enhanced option would include annual emissions testing

of 1968 model year (MY) and newer light duty vehicles

and light duty trucks, on-board diagnostics checks of all

MY 1996 and newer vehicles, remote sensing for MY

1968-1975 vehicles, catalyst checks on MY 1975 and

newer vehicles, and PCV checks on pre-MY 1975

vehicles. USEPA stated that the emissions reduction

targets for the low-enhanced VIM requirements are less

than those for the pre-existing basic VIM requirements.

omments Sought on CAA Industrial Combustion

Request

On July 29, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39450), USEPA

solicited comment on the Industrial Combustion

Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) Information Collection

Request (ICR) prior to submitting the request to the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

Sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

require USEPA to develop regulations that will limit the

emission of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and priority

pollutants from combustion sources. Subject sources

include industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers;

process heaters; waste incinerators; and stationary

internal combustion engines that burn oil, natural gas,

coal, wood, and non-hazardous wastes. USEPA intends

working with stakeholders in the context of the ICCR to

develop efficient regulations.

(See issue 506, July,

1996.)

USEPA stated, however, that it intends to issue

the ICR if the information gathered through the ICCR

by January, 1997 is inadequate for assembling

regulations. The data gained by USEPA through the

ICCR or ICR will aid USEPA in assembling the

required rules.

ublic Meetings on the Applicability of the

Loading, Unloading, and Storage

In an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPRM) dated July 29, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39521),

The U.S. Department of Transportation Research and

Special Projects Administration (RSPA) announced

meetings scheduled September 13, 1996, in Atlanta,

Georgia; September 25, 1996, in Sacramento

California; and October 30, 1996, in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. RSPA explained that it has issued

numerous interpretations, consistency determinations,

and preemption determinations of its regulations as to

the coverage of the hazardous materials regulations

(HMR) to particular situations, but that the results of

those interpretations are not widely known. RSPA is

considering clarifying amendments of its HMR, to

include those interpretation in the text of the rules.

RSPA stated further that some of those determinations

have become outdated, requiring their modification.

RSPA further noted that enhanced clarity of the HMR

will aid in determining the applicability of segments of

USEPA and Occupational Safety and Health

Administration rules whose applicability is dependent

on the inapplicability of the HMR.

dministrative Records of CERCLA Response

Actions Available

On July 30, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39646), USEPA

published a notice of the availability of the

administrative records in response actions under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The

responses occurred at numerous facilities across the

country at non-federal facilities, including 25 in Illinois:

•

Amoco Chemical (Joliet Landfill), Will County

•

Beloit Corp, Winnebago County

•

Bisbee Lindeed Company, Cook County

•

Byron Salvage Yard, Ogle County

•

Dupage County Landfill/Blackwell Forest

Preserve, Dupage County

•

Ethyl Corp., Ethyl Petroleum Additives Div.,

St. Clair County

•

H.O.D. Landfill, Lake County

•

Hawkins Property, Sangamon County

•

IBS Dioxin Site, Peoria County

L

L

C

C

P

P

A

A

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

15

•

Ilada Energy Co., Alexander County

•

Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West Brand Of

DuPage River), Dupage County

•

Kerr-McGee Reed Keppler Park, Dupage

County

•

Kerr-McGee Residential Areas, Dupage

County

•

Kerr-McGee Sewage Treatment Plant Site,

Dupage County

•

Lenz Oil Service Inc., Cook County

•

Manito/Hall Mercury Site, Tazewell County

•

MIG/Dewane Landfill, Boone County

•

Mr. Chrome Bumper, Cook County

•

Muscle-Ag, Rock Island County

•

Old La Salle Dump, La Salle County

•

Ottawa Radiation Areas, La Salle County

•

Outboard Marine Corporation, Lake County

•

Pagel's Pit, Winnebago County

•

Riverdale Chemical, Cook County

•

Yeoman Creek Landfill, Lake County

USEPA stated that the records available were the basis

for selection of response actions at the sites.

(Note: On June 17, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 30510),

USEPA published the updated National Priorities List

(NPL). (See issue 506, July, 1996.) The two lists

differ. The current listing includes eight sites that did

not appear in that NPL listing: Bisbee Lindeed

Company, Ethyl Corp., Hawkins Property, IBS Dioxin

Site, Manito/Hall Mercury Site, Mr. Chrome Bumper,

Muscle-Ag, and Old LaSalle Dump. On the other hand,

the NPL listing included 11 sites that did not appear on

the current listing of sites for which records are

available: Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Adams County

Quincy Landfills 2 & 3, Cross Brothers Pail Recycling,

Galesburg/Koppers Co., Interstate Pollution Control,

Inc., Jennison-Wright Corp., Parsons Casket Hardware

Co., Southeast Rockford groundwater contamination,

Tri-County Landfill/Waste Management of Illinois,

Wauconda Sand & Gravel, and Woodstock Municipal

Landfill.)

 

roposed Streamlined Procedures for Modification

of POTW Wastewater Pretreatment Programs

On July 30, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39803), USEPA

proposed amendments to the requirements for modifying

wastewater pretreatment programs incorporated into a

publicly owned treatment work's (POTW's) NPDES

permit. USEPA proposed amendments to streamline the

procedures for obtaining the modifications, for the

purpose of reducing the cost and burden of obtaining

such modifications.

Under the federal pretreatment regulations, a POTW

must submit documentation indicating the adequacy of

its pretreatment program. When approved, the entire

program--including legal authorities, compliance

assurance procedures, adequate funding, a local limit

development demonstration, an enforcement response

plan, and a list of significant industrial users is

incorporated as an enforceable condition of the POTW's

NPDES permit. The federal regulations require that a

POTW follow certain procedures in making a

“significant change” in its program. Such change

would include changes to legal authorities, changes

resulting in less stringent local limits, changes to the

POTW's mechanism to control significant industrial

users, changes in the POTW's method for implementing

categorical pretreatment standards, decreases in the

frequency of industrial user self monitoring or

reporting, decreases in the frequency of the POTW's

inspection or sampling of the industrial user, changes to

the POTW's confidentiality procedures, significant

reduction in the POTW's resources, and changes in the

POTW's sewage sludge disposal and management

practices. Currently, the procedure for review of the

permit modification is the same as for initial review of

the POTW's pretreatment program. The proposed

amendments would reduce the number of items that are

considered “significant changes,” allow more rapid

implementation if no adverse comments are received,

and shortening notice periods. USEPA further invited

comment on ways that it may implement the

pretreatment program without including the program as

an NPDES permit condition.

hirty-eighth TSCA Interagency Testing

Committee Report Submitted to USEPA

On July 30, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39831), USEPA

published notice that the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA) Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) had

submitted its 38th report to the Administrator of

USEPA, as required semiannually under section 4(e) of

TSCA. The report, published in full, recommended that

USEPA add 18 nonylphenol ethoxylates to the priority

list of substances recommended for testing rules and

delete white phosphorus, two high production volume

chemicals (diethylene glycol dimethyl ether and

diethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate), and two

oxygenated gasoline additives (ethyl

tert

-butyl ether and

tert

-amyl methyl ether) from the list. Under TSCA,

USEPA may issue regulations that require testing of

chemicals and chemical groups to determine the risks

they pose to human health or the environment.

P

P

T

T

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

16

urrent Listing Published of States Where a CAA

Federal Operating Permit Program is Effective

On July 31, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39877), USEPA

published a listing (current as of date) of jurisdictions in

which there is a Clean Air Act (CAA) federal operating

permits program. Under the CAA and implementing

regulations, the states bear the primary responsibility

for issuing Title V operating permits. However, where

the state does not have an approved permit program,

USEPA will conduct the review and issue the permits.

As explained by USEPA, regulations setting forth the

procedures for federal issuance of operating permits

appeared in the July 1, 1996

Federal Register

(61 Fed.

Reg. 34202) and became effective on July 31.

(See

above item re federal Title V permit rules.)

The

published listing indicates those jurisdictions in which

the new procedures for federal permit review became

effective. All or part of 11 states and three territories

are listed.

(Note: USEPA approved the Illinois Title V permit

program on November 22, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 57834;

see issue 499, Dec., 1995). Therefore, Illinois is

unaffected by this listing.)

 

eports Available on Utility of TSCA Data

On July 31, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39958), USEPA

announced that reports are available prepared by

contractors on the utility to state environmental

protection and public health efforts of the data

submitted by manufacturers pursuant to the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA). The reports were

prepared by the Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, and the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources. USEPA contracted

with the four state agencies for the purpose of

determining the utility of the TSCA information,

including confidential business information, to the

states. The states submitted the reports in May and

June, 1996. The reports indicated,

inter alia

, that the

information provided insight into the toxic effects of

manufactured chemicals, the facilities and processes

producing them, and how they are used. The states

found that the information would be useful in improving

risk assessments, in the permitting process, in

identifying instances where regulatory relief may be

appropriate, and in fostering intergovernmental

cooperation.

Corn

On July 31, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 39959), USEPA

published notice that it had received an application for

pesticide registration from DeKalb Genetics Corp. for

an active ingredient not previously registered. The

active ingredient for which registration was sought was

corn borer-resistant corn containing insecticidal Bt

protein II, which contains the plant pesticide active

ingredient Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki CryIA(c) d-

endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its

production in corn at 100 percent.

F

F

inal Decisions 7/18/96

inal Decisions 7/18/96

86-2

In the Matter of: Petition of the City of LaSalle for

Exception to the Combined Sewer Overflow Regulations

- The Board granted the City of LaSalle an exception

with conditions, from the prohibition of the water

pollution control regulations against combined sewer

overflows, as it relates to retention of the first flush of

storm flows, from the requirement that 10 times average

dry weather flows receive at least primary treatment, and

from the deadlines for compliance. Board Members J.

Theodore Meyer and M. McFawn dissented

94-244

Rodney B. Nelson, MD v. Kane County Forest

Preserve, Jack E. Cook, Chairman, and the Kane County

Board, Warren Kammer, Chairman - The Board

concluded that the complainant had failed to prove that

the respondent had contaminated groundwater and

threatened to cause pollution of the Fox River and

dismissed this citizen's water enforcement action against

a Kane County facility.

95-73

Dennis Manarchy, Mary Beth Manarchy, Chris

Mandoline, and Beverly Kagy-Mandoline v. JJJ

Associates, Inc., d/b/a The Gotham Nightclub - The

Board found that the Cook County respondents had

caused noise pollution in violation of the Act and Board

and ordered them to cease and desist from further

violation.

95-100

C & S Recycling v. EPA - The Board denied a

motion for stay and granted the Agency’s motion for

summary judgment and affirmed the Agency's denial of a

land permit for this Cook County recycling center.

Board Member J. Theodore Meyer dissented.

C

C

R

R

P

P

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

17

95-155

General Business Forms, Inc. v. EPA - The

Board granted this Cook County facility a variance,

subject to conditions, from certain volatile organic

material emissions requirements of the air pollution

control regulations applicable to lithographic printing

facilities located in the Chicago metropolitan area.

96-2

People of the State of Illinois. v. Phoenix Oil

Company- The Board accepted a stipulation and

settlement agreement in this air enforcement action

against a Cook County facility, ordered the respondent to

pay a civil penalty of $6,000.00, and ordered it to cease

and desist from further violation.

96-38

People of the State of Illinois. v. City of

Metropolis- The Board accepted a stipulation and

settlement agreement in this land and water enforcement

action involving a Massac County facility, ordered the

respondent to pay a civil penalty of $10,000.00, and it to

cease and desist from further violation.

96-125

Color Communications, Inc. v. EPA - The Board

affirmed the Agency’s denial of an air permit and

directed this Cook County petitioner to file one complete

application covering both of its facilities. Board Member

Joseph Yi concurred. Board Members J. Theodore Meyer

and Emmett E. Dunham dissented.

96-138

Stepan Company v. EPA - The Board granted

voluntary withdrawal of this underground storage tank

fund reimbursement determination appeal involving a

Cook County facility.

96-171

Exel Sales, Inc. v. EPA - The Board granted

voluntary dismissal of this underground storage tank

fund reimbursement determination appeal involving a

Winnebago County facility.

96-202

People of the State of Illinois. v. Donald and

Robert Hastie, d/b/a Hastie Trucking and Mining

Company, a partnership - The Board accepted a

stipulation and settlement agreement in this air

enforcement action against a Hardin County facility,

ordered the respondents to pay a civil penalty of

$3,000.00, and ordered them to cease and desist from

further violation. Board Member J. Theodore Meyer

dissented.

96-224

D’Arcy Oldsmobile v. EPA - Having previously

granted a request for an extension of time to file, the

Board dismissed this reserved docket because no

underground storage tank fund reimbursement

determination appeal was timely filed on behalf of this

Will County facility.

96-253

People of the State of Illinois. v. Material Service

Corporation - The Board accepted a stipulation and

settlement agreement in this water and mining-related

pollution control enforcement action involving a Kane

County facilities, ordered the respondents to pay a civil

penalty of $5,000.00, and ordered it to cease and desist

from further violation. Board Member J. Theodore

Meyer dissented.

97-14

  

Rexam Medical Packaging, Inc. (Formerly DRG

Medical Packaging, Inc.)

v. EPA - Upon receipt of an Agency

recommendation, the Board granted this Lake County

facility

 

a 45-day provisional variance from the testing

deadline set forth in the 15-month variance granted

October 19, 1995 in PCB 95-99 from certain of the air

pollution control regulations applicable to the emission of

volatile organic material from flexographic printing

presses in the Chicago metropolitan area.

97-15

  

City of Paris

v. EPA

- Upon receipt of an Agency

recommendation, the Board granted this Edgar County

waste treatment facility a 45-day provisional variance

from certain five-day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD

5

), suspended solids, and ammonia requirements of

the water pollution regulations.

97-16

  

Olin Ordnance, Marion Operations

v. EPA

- Upon

receipt of an Agency recommendation, the Board granted

this Williamson County facility a 45-day provisional

variance from the prohibition of the air pollution control

regulations against open burning.

AC 96-48

County of Jackson v. Southern Illinois

Regional Landfill - The Board entered a default order,

finding that this Jackson County respondent had violated

Sections 21(o)(5) and 21(o)(12) of the Act and ordering

it to pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00.

AC 96-49

County of Jackson v. Southern Illinois

Regional Landfill - The Board entered a default order,

finding that this Jackson County respondent had violated

Sections 21(o)(5) and 21(o)(12) of the Act and it to pay a

civil penalty of $1,000.00.

AC 96-50

County of La Salle v. Lone Star Industries -

The Board entered a default order, finding that this

Lasalle County respondent had violated Sections

21(p)(1), 21(p)(3), and 21(p)(4) of the Act and ordering

it to pay a civil penalty of $1,500.00.

AC 96-55

EPA v. Ray Stokes and Bidleman, d/b/a Rays

and Bidleman’s Tree Card, and Michael Rengel - The

Board granted voluntary withdrawal of this

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

18

administrative citation against Peoria County

respondents.

R96-12

In the Matter of: Pretreatment Update, USEPA

Regulations (July 1, 1995 through December 31, 1996) -

See Rulemaking Update.

N

N

ew Cases 7/18/96

ew Cases 7/18/96

96-254

Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA - The Board denied involuntary

dismissal and accepted an amended petition for a variance from

certain particulate emissions requirements of the air pollution

control regulations filed on behalf of this Crawford County facility.

96-256

People of the State of Illinois v. Crier Development

Company and Bradley S. Cowell - The Board received this water

enforcement action against a DuPage County facility for hearing.

96-258

Crawford Automotive Company v. EPA

- The Board

accepted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file an

underground storage tank appeal on behalf of a Cook County

facility.

96-259

North Shore School District #112 v. EPA

- The Board

accepted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file a

underground storage tank appeal on behalf of a Lake County

facility.

96-260

People of the State of Illinois v. Pipe and Piling Supplies

(USA), Ltd. - The Board received this air enforcement action

against a LaSalle County facility for hearing.

96-261

People of the State of Illinois v.

G.M. Demolition

Corporation - The Board received this air enforcement action

against a Cook/Kankakee County facility for hearing.

96-262

People of the State of Illinois v. R.

Frietsch and Company,

Inc. - The Board received this air enforcement action against a

Peoria/

Tazewell County facility for hearing.

96-263

People of the State of Illinois v Field Container Company,

Ltd., and Field Container Management Corporation

- The Board

received this air enforcement action against a Cook County facility

for hearing.

96-264

People of the State of Illinois v American Waste

Processing, Ltd. - The Board received this RCRA Subtitle C

enforcement action involving a Cook County facility for hearing.

96-265

Edward M. Pearl v Bicoastal Corporation, Singer

Corporation, Controls Corporation of America Employee Profit

Sharing and Retirement Trust, and Eaton Corporation

- The

Board held this citizen's land, special waste, and

RCRA

Subtitle C

enforcement action against a

Cook

County

facility for a frivolous and duplicitous determination

.

96-266

J. Clarke Baker & Company and Real Estate Fund, Inc. v

Brunswick Corporation, L & J Engineering, Inc., GPE Controls,

Inc., and Vapor Corporation

- The

Board held this citizens'

land, special waste, and

RCRA Subtitle C

enforcement

action against a

Cook

County facility for a frivolous and

duplicitous determination

.

96-267

People of the State of Illinois v Atlas Dismantling

Corporation, and Cary Corners Partnership

- The Board received

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

19

this air enforcement action against a Cook County facility for

hearing.

97-1

Lawrence Cadillac v. EPA - The Board accepted this request

for a 90-day extension of time to file an underground storage tank

appeal on behalf of a Cook County facility.

97-2

People of the State of Illinois v Jersey Sanitation Corporation

- The Board received this air, water, and land enforcement action

against a Jersey County facility for hearing.

97-3

T & H Machine, Inc. v. EPA

- The Board accepted this

request for a 90-day extension of time to file an underground

storage tank appeal on behalf of a DuPage County facility.

97-4

Reckitt & Coleman, Inc. v. EPA

- The Board accepted this

request for a 90-day extension of time to file an underground

storage tank appeal on behalf of a Cook County facility.

97-5

Herb

Treder (Site Classification and Completion

Report)

v. EPA - The Board accepted this request for a 90-day

extension of time to file an underground storage tank appeal on

behalf of a Cook County facility.

97-6

Herb

Treder (High Priority Corrective Action Plan

and 45-Day Report)

v. EPA - The Board accepted this request

for a 90-day extension of time to file a underground storage tank

appeal on behalf of a Cook County facility.

97-7

Herb

Treder (High Priority Corrective Action

Completion Report)

v. EPA - The Board accepted this request

for a 90-day extension of time to file a underground storage tank

appeal on behalf of a Cook County facility.

97-8

People of the State of Illinois v Canton Industrial

Corporation - The Board received this used tire and land

enforcement action against a Jersey County facility for hearing.

97-9

  

People of the State of Illinois v. C & S Recycling, Inc., Flood

Brothers Disposal Company, Inc., William Flood, individually, and

as President of C & S Recycling, and Brian Flood, individually,

and as Treasurer of C & S Recycling

- The Board received this

land enforcement action against a Cook County facility for

hearing.

97-10

People of the State of Illinois v

Allsteel, Inc. - The Board

received this RCRA Subtitle C enforcement action against a Kane

County facility for hearing.

97-11

People of the State of Illinois v White & Brewer Trucking

-

The Board received this water, groundwater, and land enforcement

action against a Montgomery County facility for hearing.

97-12

Amoco Oil Company v. Office of State Fire

Marshal - The Board accepted this underground storage

tank fund reimbursement determination appeal involving

a Cook County facility for hearing.

97-13

Village of Rockdale v. EPA - The Board held this petition

for a variance for a Will County facility from the standards for

issuance and restricted status requirements of the public water

supply regulations, as they relate to the combined radium content

and gross alpha activity of the petitioner’s water, for the Agency

recommendation.

97-14

  

Rexam Medical Packaging, Inc. (Formerly DRG

Medical Packaging, Inc.)

v. EPA

-

See Final Actions

97-15

  

City of Paris

v. EPA

-

See Final Actions

97-16

  

City of Paris

v. EPA

-

See Final Actions

AC 96-56

County of Jackson v. James Qualls - The

Board received an administrative citation against a Jack-

son County respondent.

AC 96-57

County of Jackson v. Southern Illinois Re-

gional Landfill - The Board received an administrative

citation against a Jackson County respondent.

AC 96-58

County of Jackson v. Gary Easton - The

Board received an administrative citation against a Jack-

son County respondent.

AC 96-59

County of Jackson v. Greg Burris, individu-

ally, and d/b/a Burris Disposal Service - The Board re-

ceived an administrative citation against a Jackson

County respondent.

AC 96-60

County of Will v. Arthur Hammel - The

Board received an administrative citation against a Will

County respondent.

AC 96-61

County of Will v. First United Bank, Trust

#1279 - The Board received an administrative citation

against a Will County respondent.

AC 97-1

EPA v. Banner Disposal, Inc. - The Board re-

ceived an administrative citation against a Fulton County

respondent.

AC 97-2

EPA v. Joseph C. Smith and Laverne A. Smith

- The Board received an administrative citation against

Jersey County respondents.

AC 97-3

County of Will v. Charlotte Raymond, Domin-

ick Raymond, Joseph Raymond, Margaret Flamini, Frank

Raymond, Jr., Andrea Domzalski, and Annette Stilts -

The Board received an administrative citation against

Will County respondents.

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

20

AC 97-4

EPA v. Joseph C. Smith and Laverne A. Smith

- The Board received an administrative citation against

Jersey County respondents.

AS 96-11

In the Matter: of: Chemetco, Inc. petition for

an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part

720.131(a) & (c) - The Board held this petition for a

solid waste determination under the land pollution con-

trol (hazardous waste) regulations for a Madison County

facility pending receipt of publication.

AS 96-12

In the Matter: of: Petition of Illinois Depart-

ment of Transportation, District 8 for an Adjusted Stan-

dard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 302.208, 302.124 and

302.203 (if required) - The Board acknowledged receipt

of this petition for a adjusted standard from certain re-

quirements on behalf of a St. Clair County facility and

held it pending receipt of publication.

C

C

ALENDAR OF HEARINGS

ALENDAR OF HEARINGS

All hearings held by the Board are open to the public. Times and locations are subject to cancellation and rescheduling

without notice. Co

nfirmation of hearing dates and times is available by calling the Clerk of the Board at 312- 814-6931.

14-Aug-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 96-107

R, Air

People of the State of Illinois v. ESG Watts, Inc.

--County Building, County

Board Room, 1504 Third Avenue, Rock Island, Illinois

16-Aug-96

10:00 A.M.

R96-017

R, Air

In the Matter of: Exemptions from State Permit Requirements, Amendments

to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201 and 211

--James R. Thompson Center, 100 West

Randolph, Room 9-040, Chicago, Illinois

19-Aug-96

09:00 A.M.

PCB 96-053

N-E, Citizens

David and Susi Shelton v. Steven and Nancy Crown

--James R. Thompson

Center, 100 West Randolph, Room 9-040, Chicago, I

llinois

20-Aug-96

09:00 A.M.

PCB 96-053

N-E, Citizens

David and Susi Shelton v. Steven and Nancy Crown

--James R. Thompson

Center, 100 West Randolph, Room 9-040, Chicago, I

llinois

21-Aug-96

09:00 A.M.

PCB 96-053

N-E, Citizens

David and Susi Shelton v. Steven and Nancy Crown

--James R. Thompson

Center, 100 West Randolph, Room 9-040, Chicago, I

llinois

21-Aug-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 95-162

L-V

Illinois Landfill, Inc. v. IEPA

--Vermillion County Court House Annex,

County Board Room, 6 North

Vermillion, Danville, Illinois

23-Aug-96

09:00 A.M.

PCB 96-211

P-A, Air

Hydrosol, Inc. v. IEPA

--James R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph,

Room 9-040, Chicago, I

llinois

28-Aug-96

02:00 P.M.

AC 96-051

AC

Montgomery County v.

Envotech Illinois, Inc.

--Montgomery County Court

House, Courthouse Square, Hillsboro, Illinois

4-Sept-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 96-252

UST-FRD

Martin & Beyley, Inc. (

Huck’s Food Store #15) v. IEPA

--Salem City Hall,

City Council Room, 101 South Broadway, Salem, Illinois

10-Sept-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 95-072

UST-FRD

Burwell Oil Services Inc., d/b/a Total G. B. Oil v. IEPA

--Pekin City Hall,

City Council Chambers, 400 Margaret Street,

Pekin, Illinois

20-Sept-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 96-184

A-V

J.M. Sweeney Co. v. IEPA

--Lake Zurich Village Hall, Lower Conference

Room, 70 E. Main St., Lake Zurich, Illinois

27-Sept-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 96-110

N-E, Citizens

Sara Scarpino and Margaret

Scarpino v. Henry

Pratt Company--Old Kane

County Courthouse, Courtroom 110, 100 South Third Street, Geneva, Ill

i-

nois

Calendar Code

3d P

Third Party Action

A-C

Administrative Citation

A-E

Air Enforcement

A-S

Adjusted Standard

A-V

Air Variance

CSO

Combined Sewer Overflow Exception

GW

Groundwater

HW Delist

RCRA Hazardous Waste Delisting

L-E

Land Enforcement

L-S-R

Landfill Siting Review

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

21

L-V

Land Variance

MW

Medical Waste (Biological Materials)

N-E

Noise Enforcement

N-V

Noise Variance

P-A

Permit Appeal

PWS-E

Public Water Supply Enforcement

PWS-V

Public Water Supply Variance

R

Regulatory Proceeding

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

proceeding (hazardous waste only)

S0

2

S0

2

Alternative Standards (35 ILL. ADM.

CODE 302.211(f))

SWH-E

Special Waste Hauling Enforcement

SWH-V

Special Waste Hauling Variance

T

Thermal Demonstration Rule

T-C

Tax Certifications

T-S

Trade Secrets

UST-Appeal

Underground Storage Tank Corrective

Action Appeal

UST-E

Underground Storage Tank Enforcement

UST-FRD

Underground Storage Tank Fund Reim-

bursement Determination

W-E

Water Enforcement

W-V

Water Variance

WWS

Water-Well Setback Exception

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

22

ADJUSTED STANDARDS AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW DETERMINATIONS LISTS

Section 28.1(d)(3) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) [415 ILCS 5/28.1(d)(3)] requires the Board to annually

publish in the Illinois Register and the Environmental Register a listing of all determinations made pursuant to Section

28.1 at the end of each fiscal year. This notice sets forth all adjusted standard and combined sewer overflow exception

determinations made by the Board during fiscal year 1996 (July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996).

Final Actions Taken by the Pollution Control Board

in Adjusted Standards Proceedings

during Fiscal Year 1996

(between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996)

Docket/Docket Title

Final Determination

AS 91-13: In the Matter of: Petition of

City of Rock Island for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304

On October 19, 1995, the Board granted this Rock Island facility

an adjusted standard from the total suspended solids, iron, and

manganese effluent standards of the water pollution control

regulations for the discharge on an intermittent basis of

wastewater from its potable water treatment sedimentation basins

to Black Hawk Creek, subject to conditions.

AS 93-1: In the Matter of: Petition of

Quantum Chemical Corp., USI Div., for

an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 304.120(c)

On June 6, 1996, the Board granted this Grundy County facility

an adjusted standard from certain biochemical oxygen demand

and total suspended solids effluent requirements of the water

pollution control regulations.

AS 93-4: In the Matter of: Petition of

Conversions Systems, Inc. for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811

(Liner)

On July 7, 1995, the Board granted the petitioner an adjusted

standard from certain of the landfill liner and intermediate cover

requirements of the land pollution control regulations for landfills

using its Poz-O-Tec

®

process and materials, subject to conditions;

the Board reserved rulemaking docket R96-1 to consider

incorporating this adjusted standard into a rule of general

applicability. (The Second Notice period for R96-1 ends on

August 14, 1996, leaving the Board free to adopt regulations in

this regard.)

AS 93-5: In the Matter of: Petition of

Conversions Systems, Inc. for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811

(Monofill)

On July 7, 1995, the Board granted the petitioner an adjusted

standard from certain of the landfill compaction, liner, leachate,

and intermediate and final cover requirements of the land

pollution control regulations for monofills using its Poz-O-Tec

®

process and materials, subject to conditions; the Board reserved

rulemaking docket R96-1 to consider incorporating this adjusted

standard into a rule of general applicability. (The Second Notice

period for R96-1 ends on August 14, 1996, leaving the Board free

to adopt regulations in this regard.)

AS 94-2: In the Matter of: Petition of the

Solar Corp. and the IEPA for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code

218.Subpart PP

On July 20, 1995, the Board granted this Lake County facility an

adjusted standard from certain of the requirements of the air

pollution control regulations otherwise applicable to emissions of

volatile organic material from miscellaneous product

manufacturing processes, subject to conditions.

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

23

AS 94-3: In the Matter of: Petition of

Outboard Marine Corp. (OMC Waukegan

Facility) for an Adjusted Standard from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 218

On December 7, 1995, the Board granted this Lake County

facility an adjusted standard, subject to conditions, from certain

of the volatile organic material (VOM) emissions and

recordkeeping requirements of the air pollution control

regulations applicable to “other units” (a marine engine die

casting operation) in the Chicago metropolitan area.

AS 94-4: In the Matter of: Petition of

Chase Products Co. for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code

218.Subpart DD

On May 16, 1996, the Board granted this Cook County facility an

adjusted standard, subject to conditions, from certain of the

volatile organic material emissions requirements of the air

pollution control regulations applicable in the Chicago

metropolitan area.

AS 94-8: In the Matter of: Petition of

Acme Steel Co. and LTV Steel Co. for an

Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Sections 302.211

On July 7, 1995, the Board the granted the petitioners an adjusted

standard from the thermal discharge requirements of the water

pollution control regulations for their Cook County facilities, as

that section would apply to their discharges to the Calumet River

between the 95th Street Bridge and the O’Brien Lock and Dam.

AS 94-15: In the Matter of: Petition of

Lone Star Industries, Inc. for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section

811.320(d)

On August 24, 1995, the Board denied an adjusted standard from

certain of the land pollution control (landfill) regulations

pertaining to establishing the background concentration of

contaminants in the groundwater at this LaSalle County facility.

AS 94-19: In the Matter of: Petition of

Hepworth U.S. Holdings, Inc., Manley

Brothers, and Silica Sand Trust for

Adjusted Standard from Treatment of

Overflows and Bypass Regulations 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 620.410

On November 16, 1995, the Board granted this LaSalle County

facility an adjusted standard, subject to conditions, from the Class

I Groundwater quality standards for lead, nickel, and arsenic,

applicable to the 50-acre northwest portion of the 550-acre

facility.

AS 95-1: In the Matter of: Petition of

Tommy House Tire Co. for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 848.202

(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(5)

The Board granted this Macon County facility an adjusted

standard with conditions, from the tire and building separation

requirements of the land pollution control (used tire) regulations.

On June 6, 1996, the Board granted reconsideration and removed

a condition from the adjusted standard.

AS 95-3: In the Matter of: The Joint

Petition of the City of Metropolis and the

EPA for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 304 for Suspended Solids, 5-

Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD

5

)

and Ammonia Nitrogen

On June 6, 1996, the Board granted this Massac County petitioner

an adjusted standard, with conditions, from certain of the

biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and

ammonia nitrogen effluent requirements of the water pollution

control regulations.

AS 95-4: In the Matter of: Petition of the

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

of Greater Chicago for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 811,

812, and 817 (Sludge Application)

On August 24, 1995, the Board granted this Cook County peti

-

tioner an adjusted standard from certain of the land pollution

control regulations to allow the use of wastewater sludge in lieu

of soil for final cover at certain types of landfills.

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

24

AS 95-7: In the Matter of: Petition of

Western Lion Limited for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code

814.Subpart C

On July 20, 1995, the Board found that the petitioner had not

timely filed a certification of publication and dismissed this

petition filed on behalf of a Coles County facility for an adjusted

standard from certain of the closure requirements of the land

pollution control regulations.

AS 95-8: In the Matter of: Petition of

Illinois Department of Transportation,

District 8 for an Adjusted Standard from

35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124

On October 20, 1995, the Board granted this Madison County

facility an adjusted standard as recommended by the Agency from

the iron effluent requirements of the water pollution control regu-

lations, subject to conditions, to allow the continued discharge of

groundwater from its deep well system into the Mississippi river;

but the Board found that since the petition requested relief only as

to iron, there was insufficient information in the record to support

a similar adjusted standard applicable to the petitioner's

discharges of total suspended solids.

AS 96-1: In the Matter of: Petition of

Illinois Power Co. (Baldwin Power Plant)

for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 302.208 and 304.105

On May 2, 1996, the Board granted this Randolph and St. Clair

County facility an adjusted standard, subject to conditions, from

certain of the boron effluent requirements of the water pollution

control regulations standard for its discharges into the

Kaskaskia

River.

AS 96-2: In the Matter of: Petition of

Western Lion Limited for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code

814.Subpart C

On January 4, 1996, the Board granted voluntary withdrawal of

this petition filed on behalf of a Coles County facility for an

adjusted standard from certain of the land pollution control

(landfill) regulations applicable to chemical and putrescible waste

landfills that will remain open after September 18, 1997.

AS 96-3: In the Matter of: Petition of

Cabot Corp. for an Adjusted Standard from

35 Ill. Adm. Code 738.Subpart B

On March 7, 1996, the Board granted this Douglas County

facility an adjusted standard, with conditions, from certain of the

land disposal restriction requirements of the underground

injection control rules of the land pollution control regulations.

AS 96-4: In the Matter of: Petition of

Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. (Coles

County Landfill) for an Adjusted Standard

from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(d)(3)(A)

and 811.317(b)

On December 20, 1995, the Board granted voluntary dismissal,

without prejudice, of this petition for an adjusted standard from

certain of the groundwater impact assessment and assessment

monitoring requirements of the land pollution control (landfill)

regulations.

AS 96-5: In the Matter of: Petition of

Illinois Department of Transportation,

District 8 for an Adjusted Standard from

35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124

On April 4, 1996, the Board granted this Madison County facility

an adjusted standard, with conditions, from the total suspended

solids effluent requirements of the water pollution control

regulations.

AS 96-8: In the Matter of: Petition of

Central Illinois Light Co. (Duck Creek

Station) for an Adjusted Standard from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.208 and 304.05

On June 22, 1995, the Board granted this Fulton County facility

an adjusted standard, with conditions, from certain boron effluent

discharge requirements and water quality standards of the water

pollution control regulations.

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

25

Final Actions Taken by the Pollution Control Board

in Combined Sewer Overflow Proceedings

during Fiscal Year 1996

(between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996)

86-2: Petition of the City of La Salle for

Exception to the Combined Sewer

Overflow Regulations

On December 20, 1995, the Board denied this La

Salle County

petitioner a permanent exception to the combined sewer overflow

regulations due to water quality effects of the discharge and

closed the docket. On February 15, 1996, the Board granted

reconsideration, vacated its prior order, and accepted a second

amended petition for hearing. (On November 3, 1994, the Board

granted the petitioner an extension of a temporary exception from

the prohibition against discharge of combined sewer overflows

until December 1, 1995. The Board granted an adjusted standard

based on this petition on July 18, 1996.)

Address

written comments or request copies

concerning the substance of the rulemaking, noting the appropriate

docket number, as follows:

Name:

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Address:

Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone:

312-814-3620

Address

questions

concerning this notice, noting the appropriate docket number, as follows:

Name:

Michael J. McCambridge, Attorney

Address:

Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone:

312-814-6924

Internet:mmccambr@pcb016r1.state.il.us

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

August, 1996

Illinois Water Law:

Challenges and Opportunities

October 23, 1996

in conjunction with:

Biennial Conference

Illinois Section, American Water Resources Association

October 22, 1996

Jumer's Chateau

1601 Jumer Drive

Bloomington, IL 61704

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Location:

The Water Law Conference will be held at

Jumer's Chateau, 1601

Jumer Drive, Bloomington, Illinois. On the

preceding day, at the same facility, the Illinois section of the American Water Resources Association will hold its biennial

conference.

Lodging:

For persons wishing to attend both meetings, and for those arriving early for the Water Law Conference, sleeping

accommodations are available at the rate of $69.00 plus tax (single) or $78.00 plus tax (double). Room reservations should

made by contacting

Jumer's at (309)662-2020 by October 1, 1996.

Registration Fee

:

•

Water Law Conference only: $60.00

•

Illinois Section, AWRA Conference only: $60.00

•

Registration for both conferences: $100.00

The fees will cover a continental breakfast, lunch, coffee breaks, and conference materials.

See following page for Registration form and program schedule.

---

August, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 507

Print and fill out the following form and return it to:

Water Conferences

Water Resources Center

Institute for Environmental Studies

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

1101 W. Peabody Drive

Urbana, IL 61801

Phone: 217-333-0536

Fax: 217-244-8583

Please Check the appropriate box:

?

Water Law Conference, October 23, 1996, $60.00

?

Illinois Section, AWRA Conference, October 22, 1996, $60.00

?

Both conferences, $100.00

Name: __________________________________________________________

Organization: _____________________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip: ___________________________________________________

Please include check payable to University of Illinois/Water Resources Center.

PROGRAM SCHEDULE:

8:00 am -- Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00 am -- Welcome

9:30 am -- Water Law I: Survey of Eastern Water Law

10:30 am -- Refreshment Break

10:45 am -- Water Law II: Analysis of Illinois Water

Law

11:45 am -- Focus Session I: Surface Withdrawals and

Instream Flows

12:30 pm -- Lunch

1:45 pm -- Focus Session II: Groundwater Withdrawals

2:30 pm -- Focus Session III: Access and Recreation Uses

3:15 pm -- Refreshment Break

3:30 pm -- Concurrent Sessions A

•

Water Rights

•

Drought Management

4:15 pm -- Concurrent Sessions B

•

Climate Change

•

State/Local Authority and Coordination

5:00 pm -- Conference Closing