ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 11,

1993

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

RCRA

UPDATE, USEPA REGULATIONS

)

 R92-10

(1/1/92

—

 6/30/92)

)

 (Identical

 in Substance

)

 Rules)

Post—adoption Corrections.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by J. Anderson):

The Board adopted a final opinion and order in this matter

on January 21,

 1993, which allowed 30 days for the filing of

post—adoption comments,

 especially from the agencies involved in

the authorization process.

 On March

3,

 1993,

 the Board received

a comment from USEPA.

 Pursuant to that comment, the Board will

reconsider the January

21,

 1993, opinion and order, which will be

supplemented as set out below.

As was discussed in the opinion (at p.

 3), the Board

received this comment informally from USEPA by telephone prior to

January 21,

 1993.

 We are not specifically addressing those

comments which merely confirm the informal comment as set forth

in the prior opinion.

Three items in the comment confirm conclusions reached by

the Board in the opinion.

 USEPA has confirmed that 40 CFR

261.4(b) (13) and

 (14)

 (721.104(b)(13)

and

 (14)

 are reserved

subsections.

 (Opinion,

p.

 18.)

 USEPA has also agreed with the

removal of the alternative calculation provision in 40 CFR

264.252

 (724.352.

 (Opinion,

p.

 38.)

 USEPA has also confirmed

that the June 13,

 1991,

 stay of certain wood preserving drip pad

provisions was in existence as of the date of the proposal,

but

was terminated on December 24,

 1992.

 As discussed in the final

opinion, the Board acknowledged the termination of the USEPA

stay, but extended the State stay through completion of R93-4,

the next RCRA Update.

 (Opinion, p.

 46.)

USEPA has also referred two of the Board’s requests for

comment to headquarters.

 The first concerns the possibility that

the USEPA amendments

 (at 57 Fed. Reg.

 3486,

 January 29,

 1992)

to

40 CFR 270.21(c)

 should have been directed to 270.21(d)

703.207(c)

 and (d).

 (Opinion, p.

11,

 12.)

 The second request

appeared in the October

16,

 1992, proposed opinion at p.

50:

Existing 40 CFR 265.221(c)

 725.321(c)

 contains the

alternative design and operating practices

demonstration...

 This has apparently been repealed and

replaced with new language which is unrelated to the

 alternative demonstration.

 The Board has proposed to

repeal this language, but solicits comment as to

whether this might be an editorial error by USEPA.

On

136

2

the one hand,

 it is possible that USEPA intended to

instead replace subsection

 (b), which contains a

notification requirement which may be in conflict with

the new language in 40 CFR 265.19(d)

 725.119(d))

above.

 On the other hand,

 it is possible that USEPA

has determined that the alternative should be available

for permitted units only.

 If USEPA intended to retain

the language,

 it has failed to make amendments which

would be necessary to accommodate the LDS rules.

The Board made no changes to the rules concerning these possible

issues.

The final issue raised by the USEPA comment concerns Section

724.323(c)

 264.223(c).

 As adopted by USEPA, this subsection

violated Administrative Code Division format requirements in that

it had a level of subdivision with no text.

 The Board therefore

had to insert grouping text at the empty level.

 (Opinion,

p.

31.)

 The text in the January 21,

 1993,

 order read as follows:

c)

 To make the leak or remediation determinations in

subsections

 (b) (3),

(4)

and

(5)

 above, the owner

or operator shall:

1)

 Either:

A)

 Assess the source of liquids and amounts

of liquids by source;

B)

 Conduct a fingerprint, hazardous

constituent or other analyses of the

liquids in the LDS to identify the

source of liquids and possible location

of any leaks, and the hazard and

mobility of the liquid; and

C)

 Assess the seriousness of any leaks in

terms of potential for escaping into the

environment; or

2)

 Document why such assessments are not needed.

USEPA has correctly pointed out that,

 as written, the

“either”

governs

“A,

and

C”,

rather

than

the

 “1 or 2”.

The

Board

 will therefore modify the text to read as follows:1

The Board will also make the same modification to

identically worded Sections 724.353,

 724.404,

 725.323, 725.359

and 725.403.

 (See pages 112,

 123,

 150,

 155 and 161 of the Order)

01 ~0-0

137

c)

 To make the leak or remediation determinations in

subsections

 (b) (3),

 (4) and

(5)

 above, the owner

or operator shall either:

1)

 Perform the following assessments:

A)

 Assess the source of liquids and amounts

of liquids by source;

B)

 Conduct a fingerprint, hazardous

constituent

other

analyses

the

liquids

 the LDS to identify the

source

liquids

 and possible location

of any leaks,

 and the hazard and

mobility of the liquid; and

C)

 Assess the seriousness of any leaks in

terms of potential for escaping into the

environment;

2)

 Document why such assessments are not needed.

This supplemental opinion and order supplements the Board’s

opinion and order of January 21,

 1993.

 The Board will make the

above changes to the text of the rules before they are filed with

the Administrative Code Division and published in the Illinois

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M.

 Gunn,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above supplemental opinion and

order was adopted on the

 ,/~Z-’ day of

 1993, by

a vote of

~

Dorothy N. ~nn,

 Clerk

Illinois P~3(lutionControl Board

ORO-0 138