ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 11,
1992
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION OF AMOCO OIL
COMPANY
)
AS 91-4
FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
(Adjusted Standard)
35 ILL ADM. CODE SECTIONS
725.213(d) (1) (B) and 725.321(a)
OPINION
~AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
adjusted standard filed on May 10,
1991, by Amoco Oil Company
(Amoco).
Amoco requests an adjusted standard from the closure
and design provisions of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 725.213(d) (1) (B)
and
725.321(a)
respectively; Amoco seeks to delay closure of certain
wastewater treatment ponds at its Wood River facility so as to
use them to treat nonhazardous waste.1
In accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.712, Amoco notified
the Board on June 10,
1991, that it caused notice to be timely
publIshed in The Telegraph
(Alton)
and in the Journal of Wood
River Township.
On June 6,
1991, the Board ordered that Amoco
address certain deficiencies.
On July 5,
1991, Amoco filed an
amendment to its petition in response to that Board Order.
On
August
2,
1991, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed its response to the petition and amendment
recommending approval.
On August 22,
1991,
the Board granted an
August 15,
1991, motion by Amoco, with which the Agency
concurred, to withdraw its request for hearing earlier contained
in its May 10,
1991 filing.
No hearing has been held.
BACKGROUND
Amoco operated its Wood River Refinery from 1908 until 1981.
Operations expanded during those years to include an adjacent
petroleum additives plant, marketing distribution facility,
and
dock facilities,
all
of which are still
in operation.
The site
is located in the American Bottoms floodplain valley of the
Mississippi River.
The ponds of concern are located on the east side of Amoco’s
Wood River Riverfront Property (property).
The property is
surrounded by: the Mississippi River on the west; Wood River on
1
This is the second use of the adjusted standard proceeding
for delayed closure.
The first, Petition of Olin Corporation, AS
90—8,
February
27,
1992,
includes
a
fuller
discussion
of th~
process, which will only partially be repeated here.
131—43
2
the east;
Shell Oil Company on the south; and the former channel
of Wood River on the north.
(Pet. Introd., Appendix E,
p.
3-2).
Amoco’s wastewater treatment system initially consisted only
of multi—acre Ponds,
designated as
1,
1A,
2,
2A,
3,
3A and
4,
situated on its Wood River Riverfront Property.
The ponds were
originally created in 1957 as borrow pits for constructing flood
control levees by the Army Corps of Engineers.
In 1977 Amoco
added
a treatment plant to the wastewater system.
Af~erthe refinery closed,
the wastewater treatment plant
was donated to the City of Wood River
(Wood River), while Amoco
retained ownership of the ponds.
By agreement, Amoco must store
in its ponds wastewater from what is now Wood River’s Publicly
Owned Treatment Works
(POTW), as needed by the POTW for
maintenance or other operational needs.
The Ponds constitute a RCRA surface impoundment area,
and
are considered part of AMOCO’s interim status facility.
They
cover about 40 acres.
Historically, the ponds were used for
storage and equalization of surface water run—off and process
wastewater from the now—closed refinery before treatment,
as well
as for managing Dissolved Air Flotation
(DAF)
float.
While
analytical data
is not available to fully characterize the
constituents of the process wastewater,
the DAF float is a listed
hazardous waste.
(Pet.
p.
3,
7, Appendix E; Amend.
Pet.
p.
3;
Attach.
6,
7).
The East Surge Pond (ESP)
is a designation that refers to
Ponds
2,
2A,
3,
3A and
4 of the RCRA surface impoundment area,
and it is the area in which these ponds are located which is the
subject of this delayed closure petition.
The remaining Ponds
are designated as the West Surge Pond
(WSP)
and are to be closed;
currently the WSP functions as the surge pond for Wood River’s
POTW.2
The intended use of the ESP
is to delay closure so as to
continue to provide nonhazardous wastewater storage capacity for
Amoco and Wood River’s POTW.
More specifically, the sources of
wastewater will include: domestic sewage and commingled
stormwater from the Cities of Wood River, Hartford, and South
Roxanna; process wastewater and stormwater from Amoco’s petroleum
additives plant, as well as its marketing distribution and dock
facilities; and groundwater pumped as part of Amoco’s hydraulic
gradient control and subsurface hydrocarbon recovery program,
as
further discussed below.
(Pet.
p.
7, Agency Resp.
p.
1, 2).~
2
A
“permitted
nonhazardous
waste
management
unit”
now
occupies former Pond
5,
located south of the ESP and east of the
WSP.
(Pet. Appendix E,
p.
3—2; amend.
Pet.
attach.
3).
3The Board has paginated the unnumbered pages of the Agency’s
Response.
131—44
3
All hazardous waste liquids and sludges have been removed
from those portions of the ESP that will be reconfigured for
receiving the nonhazardous wastewaters,
i.e.
a partition of Pond
2 and Ponds 2A,
3,
3A and 4; these ponds will be hydraulically
connected by dike removal or culverts, and then graded and lined
with one foot of compacted clay.
The hazardous liquids and
puinpable sludges that were removed were chemically fixed.
The
chemically fixed material was delisted by the USEPA and placed in
an onsite, permitted,
nonhazardous waste landfill.
The
supernatent storm water and surface water run—on was pumped to
the Temporary Surge Basin or the West Surge Pond before being
treated at the Wood River POTW.
The non-pumpable “heavy” sludges
are being removed in two steps:
they are transferred from Ponds
3 and 4 to the southern portion of Pond 2 for temporary storage;
next these sludges will be solidified and transferred into a new
landfill called the Pond
1 Landfill, which will be located in the
area of Pond
1 and the north portion of Pond 2.
(Pet. Appendix
D,
F;
Amend.
Pet.
Attach.
E).
There are about seven employees involved
in operating the
ESP and about 350 employees at the adjacent Amoco facilities.
(Pet.
p.
7, and a location map and site plan in Appendix F).
REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
Since
1985, Amoco has been implementing under interim status
a
RCRA
closure of its Wood River Riverfront property, including
the RCRA surface impoundment area.
Then,
in 1989,
the USEPA
amended the RCRA regulations to, under certain circumstances,
allow facilities to delay closure after the final receipt of
hazardous waste in order to continue to receive non-hazardous
wastes in a surface impoundment.
In April,
1990, Amoco submitted to the Agency a Delayed
Closure Plan,
as part of the Amended Closure Plan,
which
addressed the disposal of remaining wastes and proposing the
construction of a new basin,
the ESP,
as described above.
The
Agency approved the plan in June 1990.
Within the Amended
Closure Plan is the “Engineer Report Pond
1 Landfill Riverfront
Property, Wood River
(former)
Refinery”, detailing the
construction of the Pond
1 landfill, which was submitted to the
Agency
in March 1991 and approved in June 1991, with the
following condition #13 which states:
The delayed closure of the hazardous waste
(S04)
surface
impoundments is subject to Illinois Pollution Control Board
approval of the petition for adjusted standard as required
by 35 IAC Section 725.213.
(Agency Resp.
p.
2,3; see also Pet. Appendix D).
On July 3,
1990,
as Amoco was preparing its RCRA Part B
Permit Application for the ESP, the Board adopted the USEPA’~s
131—45
4
delay of closure regulations.
In the Matter of: RCRA Update.
USEPA Regulations, R90-2,
113 .PCB 131, July
3,
1990.
The rules
are found
in the Board’s regulations at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 724.213
and 725.213.
Part 724 contains standards for owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal
facilities; Part 725 contains interim status standards for owners
and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal
facilities.
The format and language of both Sections 724.213
and
725.213 is very similar.
As required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code
725.213(d),
in October 1990, Amoco submitted its RCRA Part
B
Permit application to the Agency seeking the use of the delay of
closure regulatory provisions to accept nonhazardous waste.
The
Agency has deferred reviewing the application until the Board
acts on this petition.
(Pet.
p.
8, para.
12).
In order to implement its delay of closure option, Amoco
seeks an adjusted standard from two rules.
First, Amoco seeks an adjusted standard from 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 725.213(d) (1) (B).
In pertinent part the rule provides:
d)
Continued receipt of non—hazardous waste.
The Agency shall
permit an owner or operator to redeive non—hazardous wastes
in a
***
surface impoundment unit after the final receipt of
hazardous wastes a~-that unit if:
1)
The owner or operator submits
*~*
a new Part
B
application if none was previously submitted,
and
demonstrates that:
~
B)
There is a reasonable likelihood that the owner or
operator or another person will receive non—
hazardous waste
in the unit within one year after
the final receipt of hazardous wastes; and ~
It
is the one year requirement from which Amoco seeks
relief.
Even apart from the fact that the final receipt of
hazardous wastes occurred in 1981, Amoco asserts that one year
would not provide enough time to design,
permit and construct the
ESP
in any event.
(Pet.
p.
4,5).
Second, Amoco seeks an adjusted standard from the 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 725.321(a).
In pertinent part the rule provides,
for
surface impoundments receiving hazardous waste:
Section 725.321
Design Requirements
a)
The owner or operator of
a surface impoundment must
install two or more liners and leachate collection
system in accordance with 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 724.321(c),
with respect to each new unit,
replacement of an
existing unit,
or lateral expansion of an existing unit
131—46
5
that is within the area identified in the Part A permit
application,
and with respect to waste received
beginning May 8,
1985.
(Pet.
p.
4,
5).
It is the multi-liner and.leachate collection system from
which Amoco seeks relief, on the basis that no hazardous wastes
will be disposed.
Why an adjusted standard is needed from this provision needs
some explaininci.
First,
the adjusted standard provisions,
containe’d in the rule of general applicability at
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 725.213(e), provide
in the first paragraph:
Surface impoundments.
In addition to the requirements
in subsection
(d)
see
above
an owner or operator of
a
hazardous waste surface impoundment which
is not in
compliance with the liner and leachate collection
system requirements in Section 725.321(a)
shall receive
non—hazardous wastes only as authorized by an adjusted
standard pursuant to this subsection.
Section 725.321(a),
quoted earlier above,
references 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 724.321(c).
That Section contains more specificity
regarding the liners,
and,
importantly,
its requirements apply
“with respect to all waste received after the issuance of the
permit”.
We also note that 35 Ill.
Adin. Code 724.213(e)
requires
an adjusted standard
in essentially the same manner as does the
interim status adjusted standard provisions of
35 Ill. Adm. Code
725.213(e)
quoted in part above.
We will discuss this further
in
the Board Discussion segment of the Opinion.
The Agency agrees that the rules proposed by Amoco are the
appropriate standards from which an adjusted standard
is sought.
(Agency Resp.
p.
3).
Amoco believes that its impoundment
is covered by Part 725,
the interim status regulations.
Amoco alternatively requests an
adjusted standard consistent with its petition from Part 724,
the
regulations addressing permitted facilities,
if determined as
appropriate by the Board.
(Pet.
p.
22).
JUSTIFICATION
We will summarize here Amoco’s responses to the levels of
justification regarding the two rules from which Amoco requests
relief.
(We note that the information required in the Board’s
procedural regulations
is distributed throughout various parts of
the Opinion for clarity.
See Section 28.1 of the Environmental
Protection Act
(Act)
and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 106.705 generally.)
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 725.213(d)(1)(B).
Since Section
725.213(d)
(1)
(B) does not specify the level of justification in
13 1—47
6
the rule,
the adjusted standard determination is based on
adequate proof by Amoco that the justifications in Section
28.1(c)(1),(2),(3)
and
(4)
of the Act are satisfied.
The
justifications and Amoco’s responses are:
Section 28.1(c)
1.
Factors relating to the petitioner are substantially and
significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board
in adopting the general regulation.
Response: The Board regulation corresponds to the federal
regulation providing for delayed closure
(40 CFR
265.113(d)(1)(ii)).
Both contemplate that delayed closure will
involve waste removal and receipt of wastes immediately
thereafter without retrofitting.
Amoco’s approach is more time
consuming,
but, Amoco asserts,
is more protective of the
environment.
Instead of disposing of the liquids and sludges
offsite, Amoco
is consolidating and chemically treating the
wastes and then disposing them onsite.
In addition, Amoco opted
to close part of,
and delay closure of the other part of, what is
a large surface impoundment.
However to do this requires some
construction to create the ESP within the existing impoundment,
and Amoco asserts that USEPA did not consider this in adopting
the one year time frame.
~-
Amoco also notes that it has been involved in clean—up and
closure activities for several year-s following final receipt of
hazardous waste in 1981 and prior to the delay of closure rules;
thus it would have been impossible for Amoco to comply with the
one year requirement in any event.
(Pet.
p.
12,
18,
19, para.
44(a))
2.
The existence of those factors justifies an adjusted
standard.
Response:
Amoco could not have forseen in 1982, when its closure
activities commenced,
the compliance requirements of a regulation
adopted in 1990.
Even if this were not so, the project would
have been multi-year in any event,
given the magnitude of the
closure and clean—up project involving development of work plans,
securing of permits etc. and construction of an onsite permitted
management unit for delisted
wastes.
(Pet.
19,
20,
para.
44(b)).
We note that Illinois adopts the RCRA regulations “identical
in substance”
to the federal
regulations.
See Sections
7.2
and
22.4
of
the
Act.
Thus,
neither the Board
nor the Agency
have
independently weighed the merits of the .USEPA’s regulation.
131—48
7
3.
The requested standard will not result in any environmental
or health effects which are substantially and significantly more
adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the
rule of general applicability.
Response:
The extension of time will not result in such
significantly more adverse effects.
Since the Refinery closed
and closure activities began in 1982, Amoco has (since 1984 and
expanded in 1990)
maintained a groundwater monitoring program
that encompasses the perched water table and the uppermost
aquifer.~ The program also identifies the limits of an
underground hydrocarbon pool on top of the groundwater table,
identified in 1984,
and located just north of the ESP,
but partly
located under Pond 2.
(The pool contains an estimated 6,400
barrels of liquid,
is about 100,000 square feet across with an
average thickness of one foot, and its structure has remained
unchanged since
1986).
Pursuant to an Interim Corrective Action
Program,
there is groundwater hydraulic gradient control
in the
vicinity of the pool, which is being managed by operation of a
cone
o.f depression groundwater pumping system at the former
Refinery.
(Pet.
p.
9,
20,
para.
(c); Appendix F); Amend.
Pet.
p.
2.,
Exh.
E; Agency Resp.
p.
2).
4. The adjusted standard is consistent with federal law.
Response:
See 1. above.
The petition
is consistent with the
premise underlying the delay of closure regulations insofar as
units that formally held hazardous wastes are being beneficially
utilized where appropriate.
(Pet.
p.
20,
21, para.
(d).
Amoco also notes that it has submitted the required
Contingent Corrective Measures Plan and Hazardous Waste Removal
Plan as part of its Part B Permit application.
(Pet.
p.
20,
para.
47)
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 725.321(a).
Since
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
725.321(a),
a rule of general applicability,
specifies
a level of
justification, which Amoco asserts consists of two criteria,
Section 28.1(b)
of the Act applies.
The two “criteria” addressed
by Amoco relate to its plan for removing hazardous wastes and its
contingent corrective measures plan, which must be included
in
the petition.
(See Section 725.213
(e)(1)(A)
and
(B)).
First, pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 725.213(e) (2), Amoco
has submitted a Hazardous Waste Removal Plan which provides for
removal of all the wastes to the extent practicable, to be
completed within 90 days following final receipt of hazardous
waste,
unless the petitioner demonstrates to the Board that the
removal will take longer and that the extension will not pose a
threat to human health and the environment.
(Pet.
p.
6,
Para.
5., Appendix D).
For reasons expressed earlier, Amoco asserts
13 1—49
8
that it has demonstrated why completion of its removal of the
hazardous wastes within 90 days was not practicable.
Second, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 725.213(e) (3), Amoco,
as noted above, has submitted a Contingent Corrective Measures
Plan which addresses the requirements of 35
Ill. Adm. Code
724.199
the
Compliance Monitoring Program
and is to be
implemented within one year after a release or within one year of
grant of an adjusted standard, whichever is later.
(Pet.
p.
6,
Para.
6, Appendix E).
The justifications required for an adjusted standard
criteria in Section 725.213
(e)
contains a sizeable number of
justifications,
many of which address actions that have already
been taken by Amoco or are related to adjusted standards needed
in the event of a release.
The Agency states that, under the Amended Closure Plan,
which it has already approved, Amoco properly completed the waste
removal process.
As verified by Agency field inspection and
follow-up Field Operations Section reports, Amoco has removed
contaminated sludges from the RCRA surface impoundments.
Also,
Amoco has proposed to stabilize the sludges and place them in a
RCRA landfill.
The Agency asserts that these clean-up steps are
in accordance with 35
1L1. Adm. Code 725.213(e) (1) (A), which
requires that a petition for adjusted standard must include
a
plan for removing hazardous wastes; and 725.213(e) (2), which
requires that the removal plan provide for removing all hazardous
liquids and hazardous sludges to the extent practicable while
preserving liner integrity.
ALTERNATIVES
As an interim status facility, Amoco states that its options
at the time were:
a) Closure under 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 725.213(b);
b)
Delay of closure under 35
Ill. Adm. Code 725.213(d);
or
c)
Installation of minimum technology requirements
(two or more
liners and
a leachate collection system)
under
35
Ill. Adm. Code
724.321(a).
Amoco chose option
(b).
(Pet.
p.
.7).
Amoco could comply with 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 725.321(a) by
installing two liners and a leachate collection system.
These
installations would cost about $6.2 million,
an amount which
is
in addition to the $28.8 million already spent or committed on
the Riverfront Property for remediation and closure.
Yearly
maintenance and operating for the new liner and leachate
collection system would be about $110,000.
Alternatively, Amoco could withdraw its current Part B
application and close the ESP as a RCRA landfill pursuant to Ill.
Adm. Code 725.
The capital costs would be about $41.4 million.
Yearly operating and maintenance costs would be about $500,000.
13
1—50
9
Amoco
asserts that,
without grant of its petition,
it will
be forced to spend $6.2 million to $41.4 million, the extra
expenditures would not provide additional environmental
protection,
and Wood River’s POTW would not have use of the
ponds.
(Pet.
p.
4).
Amoco has no alternative to compliance with the one-year
requirement of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 725.213(d) (1) (B);
as noted
earlier,
the final receipt of hazardous wastes into the ESP
occurred in 1981, nine years prior to the effective date of the
delay
of’ closure regulations.
The Agency agrees with the above estimates,
although noting
that the Agency did not conduct an independent cost analysis for
each alternative.
(Agency Resp.
p.
4).
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
In accordance with the Agency—approved Closure Plan,
Amoco
has removed all liquid hazardous wastes and consolidated nearly
all of the hazardous sludges, to the extent practicable, from the
ESP.
The USEPA has stated that this approach will reduce the
threat posed by any release to the environment from a surface
impoundment.
(54 Fed. Reg.
33376, August
14,
1989).
To ensure that all wastewaters placed into the ESP will be
non—hazardous, under its permit Amoco will sample the first
discharge to the ESP each quarter.
Also, Amoco will use its
existing Contingency Plan to manage any incident threatening the
quality of the wastewater
.
(See Appendix
I)..
Amoco’s RCRA Part
B permit application contains the provisions for detection and
mitigation of releases
in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 724.
The ES?
is to be lined with a “nominal” one-foot thick
imported clay liner,
so as to reduce migration of the stored
wastewater from the ESP.
Amoco’s consultant, using a computer
model,
evaluated the potential impact on groundwater and ongoing
remediation efforts.
10,000 days after recharge was initiated,
simulated steady-state conditions were observed; the uppermost
aquifer exhibited no rise in hydrostatic head,
indicating that
there would be no change in the direction of groundwater flow and
that the current monitoring system could monitor any releases.
-Amoco does note that liners and a leachate collection system
would slightly diminish the likelihood of subsurface wastewater
migration as compared to its proposed clay liner.
However, Amoco
asserts that,
even if migration occurred, significant changes to
groundwater quality would be unlikely, given that the wastewater
is non—hazardous.
Amoco notes that it has installed a groundwater system to
monitor the uppermost aquifer pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code:
Subpart F.
Should a release be detected, Amoco will implement
131—51
10
the Contingent Corrective Measures Plan pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 725.213(e)(5).
All groundwater assessment activities will
be performed and reported quarterly in accordance with the
Sampling Analyses Plan.
(Pet. Appendix H).
Non—hazardous wastewaters would occasionally fill the ES?,
and normal evaporation could potentially release minute amounts
of hydrocarbons to the atmosphere.
However, Amoco asserts that
the evaporative emissions would be identical if, absent grant of
the petition, Amoco elected to install a liner and leachate
collecti’on system.
(Pet.
p.
13-15).
AMOCO’S AND AGENCY’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE
Amoco asserts that construction and permitting schedules
will dictate the schedule for accepting non—hazardous wastewaters
into the ESP.
Therefore, Amoco proposes that the Agency approve
the schedule for implementing the delay of closure provision.
Amoco proposes the following adjusted standard language to
provide relief from the “within one year” requirement of
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 725.213(d) (1) (B):
Amoco
is authorized to begin receiving non—hazardous
wastewaters in the East Surge Pond upon approval of
this Petition.
Th~
schedule for receiving non-
hazardous wastewaters will be subject to approval by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
(Pet.
p.
12).
Pursuant to Section 725.213(e), Amoco also requests that it
be authorized to “receive non-hazardous wastewaters in the ESP
for purposes of
storing the wastewaters prior to treatment at the
City’s POTW,
prior to formal closure.
In this regard,
Amoco
proposes the following language:
Amoco Oil Company may receive non—hazardous wastewaters
into its East Surge Pond,
subject to the conditions
specified in 35 AC 725.213(e) (8)
(C)
(i) through
(vi).
(Pet.
p.
13).
The Agency proposes revisions encompassing the language in
the first paragraph of Amoco’s proposal as follows:
Amoco Oil Company may receive only non—hazardous
wastewaters into the East Surge Pond on its Wood River
Riverfront Property following Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency approval of a modified closure plan
that includes a schedule for receiving non-hazardous
waste.
(Agency Resp.
p.
4).
13 1—52
11
The Agency asserts that
it did not have conditions to
recommend,
although we note that its proposed language conditions
the effectiveness of the adjusted standard. on subsequent Agency
action.
The Agency also did suggest that the Board include the
conditions stated in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 725.213(e) (8) (C) (i—vi)
and
referred to by Amoco.
The Agency also noted that 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 725.213.(e)(8)(C)(v)
should reference the reasons for
terminating the adjusted standard found at
35 Ill. Adm. Code
725.213(e)(7)(A).
(Agency Resp.
p.
4,5).
Board Di’~scussion
The Board finds that Amoco has provided sufficient
justification for its requested grant of an adjusted standard.
We believe that Amoco has demonstrated that:
1.
Amoco has justified its requested relief from the
requirement that non—hazardous waste be received within one
year after final receipt of hazardous waste,
as required by
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 725.213(d)
(l)(B).
2.
The Hazardous Waste Removal Plan, originally provided to the
Agency as part of Amoco’s Part B Permit Application, has
been implemented and satisfies the level of justification
required by 35
IlL. -Adm.
Code 725.213(e) (2).
Regarding
Section 725.213(e) (2) (C), the Board specifically finds that
Amoco has demonstrated that the removal of hazardous waste,
of necessity,
could not be achieved within 90 days.
3.
The Contingent Corrective Measures Plan meets the
justification level of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 725.213(e) (3).
4.
No significant adverse human health or environmental impacts
are expected.
5.
The additional expenditures that Amoco would otherwise have
to spend is not warranted in relation to any environmental
benefit,
and Wood River will benefit from the project.
6.
The justification requirements of Section 28.1(b) and
(c)
have been satisfied.
We now refer to Amoco’s request that the Board alternatively
grant the adjusted standards from Part 724 if we determine that
is the appropriate course.
We have determined that the
appropriate relief for Amoco is to grant
it an adjusted standard
from the comparable provisions in both Part 724 and 725.
We note that the Opinion accompanying the adjusted standard
granted to Olin Corporation discussed situations similar to that
which we find here.
(In the Matter of: Petition of Olin
Corporation for an Adlusted Standard from 35
111.
Adin.
Code 724
131—53
12
and 725 Related to Closure and Post Closure of RCRA Regulated
Surface Impoundments AS 90—8,
February 27,
1992).
We conclude that the adjusted standard relief granted to
Amoco under the interim status provisions of Part 725 does not
provide for continued permit—related operations; adjusted
standard relief is required under the permit—related provisions
of Part 724.
As earlier noted,
the liner and leachate requirements
of
Section 724.321(c)
apply to waste received after the issuance of
the permit.
Also, while we recognize that Section 724(d) (1) (B)
speaks only to a “modified” permit situation, we note that the
language creates an anomoly when read in conjunction with its
counterpart in Part 725, which speaks to both a new and
“amended”
permit situation.
We conclude that granting an adjusted standard
to the Part 724 counterparts of the Part 725 rules not only
assures relief for continued operations,
but also assures that
the adjusted standard will be incorporated into Amoco’s Part B
permit so as to be additionally enforceable as
a permit
condition.
We also note that this approach avoids the potential
for conflict between Agency—imposed permit conditions and those
in the adjusted standard.
As discussed in 01-in,
the Board’s adjusted standard
procedures contemplate situations where concurrent relief
is
needed, and are patterned after the USEPA procedure;
requiring
separate petitions would be “repititous and uneconomical”.
(Id.
Opinion p.
7,8).
We therefore will grant an adjusted standard
from 35 Ill. Adm Code 724.213(d) (1) (B), 725.213(d) (1) (B),
724.321(c)
and 725.321(a).
Finally,
the following Order will be crafted differently and
more completely than the language proposed by either the Agency
or Amoco.
We note that we have determined not to condition grant
of the adjusted standard on Agency approval of a modified closure
plan. The record indicates to us that the Agency has already
approved such a plan,
subject only to grant of adjusted standard.
In any event,
the Agency did not explain why it needed such a
provision or otherwise explain why the adjusted standard should
not take effect as of this date.
The adjusted standard does not
“waive” Agency authority;
it simply allows the exercise of
it
consistent with Board regulation.
We will include the-suggested
conditions found in Section 725.213(e) (8) (C); the conditions are
identical in its Part 724 counterpart.
This constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
13
1—54
13
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act,
and in accordance with the Opinion, the Board
grants Amoco Oil Company an adjusted standard from 35 Ill.
Adm.Code 725.213(d) (1) (B),
724.213(d) (1) (B), 725.321(a),
and
724.321(c),
subject to the following conditions:
1.
This adjusted standard applies to Amoco Oil Company’s East
Surge Pond on its Wood River Riverfront Property, but only
ins’ofar as the East Surge Pond rec’~ivesonly non—hazardous
wastewaters.
2.
This adjusted standard specifically recognizes:
a.
A plan for removing hazardous wastes.
b.
A requirement that the owner or operator remove
hazardous waste-s in accordance with the plan.
c.
A contingent corrective measures plan.
d.
A requirement that,
in the event of a release,
Amoco
shall: within 35 days,
file with the Board
a petition
for adjusted standard; implement the corrective
measures plan;
and,
file semi-annual reports with the
Agency.
e.
A condition that the adjusted standard will terminate
if Amoco fails to: implement the removal plan;
or,
timely file a required petition for adjusted standard.
The reasons for terminating the adjusted standard are
found at 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 725.213(e) (7) (a).
f.
A requirement that,
in the event the adjusted standard
is terminated, Amoco shall commence closure of the unit
in accordance with the requirements of the closure plan
and this Part.
3.
This adjusted standard shall be included as a condition in
Amoco’s Part B permit.
4.
At any time, Amoco or the Agency may petition the Board to
modify the terms and conditions of this adjusted standard.
Section 41 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111
1/2,
par.
1041,
provides for appeal
of final orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the
Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
131—55
14
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above
.0
~nion ançi Order was
adopted on~he //~L day of
‘-~‘-~-‘~-‘
,
1992 by
a vote of
/‘C)
~
~.
Dorothy M. Gq~, Cl
k’
Illinois Pol~jAtionControl Board
131—56
