ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 19,
1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
R91—12
PETITION OF USX
)
(Identical in Substance
CORPORATION FOR HAZARDOUS
)
Rulemaking)
WASTE DELISTING
)
ADOPTED ‘RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
1
By Order attached hereto, pursuant to Section 7.2 and
22.4(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act),
the Board
effects amendments to the Illinois RCRA hazardous waste
regulations at 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 721.Appendix
I, Table B.
The
amendment adopts an exclusion for fully cured,
chemically
stabilized electric arc furnace dust/sludge from the USX Steel
Corporation, Southworks Plant,
Chicago, Illinois.
This amendment
is identical in substance to an exclusion adopted by USEPA on
April 29,
1991.
The Board will allow post-adoption comments
through January 21,
1992.
Section 22.4(a) provides for quick adoption of regulations
establishing the RCRA program in Illinois when those regulations
are “identical
in substance”
to federal regulations.
The
adoption proceedings for identical in substance rulemakings are
quicker because these rulemakings are not subject to Title VII of
the Act or Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act and,
therefore,
are not subject to first or second notice review by
the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
(JCAR).
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111 1/2, par. 1022.4(a).)
In place of the Title
VII and Section 5 proceedings is the requirement that the Board
consider comments from USEPA,
Agency, the Attorney General,
and
the public before adopting the regulation.
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111 1/2,
par. 1007.2(a).
Identical
in substance rulemakings
are therefore proposed for a comment period before adoption.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Board proposed the amendments for public comment on June
6,
1991.
The proposed amendments were published in the Illinois
Register on June 28,
1991
(15 Ill.
Reg.
9288).
The Board
received three public comments in the 45 day comment period
‘The Board acknowledges the contributions of Elizabeth Handzel
and Morton Dorothy in preparing this Opinion and Order.
128—369
2
following the date of publication.
PC
1
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
August
12,
1991
PC
2
United States Steel Corporation, August
13,
1991
PC
3
United States Steel Corporation, August 29,
1991
(amended comment)
In addit~ion,a memorandum from the Administrative Code Division
was received on July 11,
1991.
HISTORY
The federal RCRA regulations are found at 40 CFR 260 through
270.
The history of the corresponding Illinois RCRA regulations,
together with more stringent State regulations particularly
applicable to hazardous waste, can be found in the August
8,
1991
Final Opinion of the Board in docket R91-l.
—
PCB
,
August
8,
1991.
As detailed in R9l-1, adoption of the RCRA regulations
has proceeded in several stages.
The pertinent section for this rulemaking,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
721.Appendix I, was adopted in R81—22,
43 PCB 427;
5
Ill. Reg.
9781,
effective May
17,
1982.
Table B of Appendix I, entitled
“Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources”, has been amended twice
when the Board adopted,
identical in substance, USEPA delistings
for Amoco Oil Company
(R85—2,
69 PCB 314, April 24,
1986;
10
Ill.
Reg.
8112,
effective May 2,
1986)
and Envirite Corporation
(R87-
30,
90 PCB 665, June 30,
1988;
12 Ill.
Reg.
12070,
effective July
12,
1988.).
Of particular interest to this matter,
on March
1,
1990,
USEPA delegated authority to Illinois to administer several
additional components of the RCRA program, including the
authority to delist hazardous waste in lieu of USEPA and pursuant
to 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 720.122.
(55 Fed.
Reg.
7320.)
As a result
of the USEPA delegation of delisting authority, the Board’s
identical in substance regulations required modification.
The
Board adopted R90-17 on February 28,
1991,
(effective May
9,
1991) to amend 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 720.120,
720.122,
721.110 and
721.111 to allow use of the adjusted standards procedures for
delistings and make several other changes.
Several post-adoption
modifications to R90—17 were made in a Board Order of April
11,
1991.
Section 720.122(m)
continues to authorize persons to propose
“identical in substance” delistings following USEPA action.
This
provision was retained after State authorization for situations
where USEPA might retain authority to delist.
The Board does not
adopt identical in substance delistings unless and until someone
128—370
3
files a petition for such action.
On July 5,
1990,
the Board received a letter from USEPA
concerning the transfer of the USX Steel delisting petition and
file.
A Board non—identical in substance rulemaking docket was
reserved on July 19,
1S90 and the USEPA file was transferred to
the Board docket
(R90-18)
on August 27,
1990.
On November 9,
1990, USX notified the Board that USEPA had agreed to reopen its
file and make a final determination on the delisting petition.
The Board granted USX a six month extension on November 29,
1990
to await final action by USEPA.
On April
29,
1991,
USEPA published its final decision
granting an exclusion from the hazardous waste lists for specific
wastes generated by USX.
(56 Fed. Reg.
19579)
On May
9,
1991,
USX requested the Board to “accept without further review the
delisting” of the specified hazardous waste.
The Board reserved
docket R9l-12 for an identical in substance rulemaking in this
matter.
The original docket, R90-18, was dismissed by separate
Order.
DISCUSSION
The Board’s proposal for public comment,
issued June
6,
1991,
specifically solicited comment on five questions concerning
the correct method of testing for conditions
1
(A) and
(B), the
effect of the delegation of delisting authority on data
submittal, revocation, withdrawal and modification of the
delisting,
and the equivalent State statute to 18 U.S.C.
§6928,
as cited in condition 3.
The Board specifical.lyrequested that
USEPA comment on these questions as well as the Agency and USX.
USEPA did not file a comment with the Board.
EP vs. TCLP Testing Methodologies
The federal delisting for USX specifies that initial
(first
four weeks of operation
)
and subsequent sample collection and
testing of the delisted waste must be performed according to
SW-
846 methodologies and, more specifically, using EP toxicity
analysis.
The Board questioned whether the EP toxicity analysis
was the proper methodology to use for testing the delisted waste.
The Board’s inquiries stemmed from recent changes to the federal
RCRA regulations mandated by the 1986 Hazardous and Solid Wastes
Amendments.
Those changes to the federal RCRA regulations
altered the regulatory definition of hazardous waste by replacing
the EP toxicity characteristic with the TCLP toxicity
characteristic.
The USEPA adoption of the TCLP toxicity analysis
became effective On September 25,
1990.
The Board adopted the
federal changes in R90—lO,
an identical in substance rulemaking,
on August 30,
1990.
Considering this recent change, the Board
asked for comment on the use of the EP toxicity analysis.
128—37 1
4
Both the Agency and USX addressed this question.
The Agency
responded that the delisting should be tested using TCLP analysis
because the land disposal restrictions are based on TCLP
methodologies for this type of waste.
USX’s response contained a
comparison of the EP and TCLP methodologies.
USX proposes that
since both provide nearly equivalent results in the analysis of
leachable metals from the treated material, EP toxicity analysis
is as correct as TCLP toxicity analysis.
The Board has retained the EP toxicity analysis for final
adoptiofi of the delisting for three reasons.
First,
it appears
that USX is correct in implying that in this instance the EP
toxicity analysis would not be dissimilar to the TCLP analysis.
Second, the Board notes that when the TCLP methodology was
adopted the Board stated in its opinion that the EP methodology
could still be used for testing.
Specifically, the opinion noted
that “an
August
2,
1990 USEPA correction
also advised
generators wishing to continue using the EP toxicity test that,
although the test was removed from the regulations,
it was
available as Method 1310 in SW 846.”.
R90—10,
—
P.C.B.
—,
August
30,
1990.
The third reason the Board is retaining the EP toxicity
analysis is because of limitations on identical
in substance
rulemaking found in the Act.
Section 7.2(a)
of the Act states in
part;
“In adopting “identical in substance” regulations, the only
changes that may be made by the Board to the federal
regulations are those changes that are necessary for
compliance with the Illinois Administrative Code, and
technical changes that in no way change the scope or meaning
of any portion of the regulations, except as follows:
7.
The Board may correct apparent typographical and
grammatical errors in USEPA rules.”
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1007.2(a)).
Without input by USEPA to the contrary, the Board will assume
that the testing with the EP methodology specified in the federal
delisting remains the correct analysis to be used on the treated
waste material.
For these reasons the EP toxicity analysis will
be retained in the State delisting regulation.
Authority to Delist and Enforce
In its proposal for public comment, the Board sought comment
on the problem of who had the authority to revoke, modify or
withdraw the exclusion as a result of this delisting occurring in
the middle of the transfer of delisting authority, from the
federal to the state level.
This issue arises out of the fact
128—372
5
that USEPA had virtually completed its review of the USX
delisting petition but had not taken final action when Illinois
received delisting authority.
At that time,
even though the
authority had been delegated, the petition was granted by the
USEPA as a matter of administrative economy.
The effect of this
set of facts is to leave the status of the USX delisting in a
gray area between federal delisting and enforcement authority and
state delisting and enforcement authority.
The Board
specifically requested that USEPA and the Agency address this
issue.
As noted earlier, the USEPA did not file a comment and USX’s
comment deferred to the Agency and USEPA.
The Agency’s comment
states,
“According to the Chief of the Delisting Section at
USEPA,
Mr. Bob Kayser, the USEPA may act on the federal
level,
independent of any state action.
The Agency should have the authority to revoke
tIie
delisting on the state level.
The USEPA should have
the authority to revoke the delisting on the federal
level.
Thus,
both Agency and USEPA should be
referenced in the regulation.”
While the Board accepts the USEPA’s comments as relayed by
the Agency, we believe that the Agency misstated its own role
here.
Under the Illinois system, the Agency’s enforcement powers
differ from those of the USEPA in that the Agency cannot be
delegated the power to,
in effect, unilaterally undo a Board
rule.
Only the Board can revoke a delisting.
With regard to the USX delisting petition and the effects of
Illinois’s newly delegated authority,
the Board construes the USX
delisting as having the same status as that of Amoco Oil Company
and Envirite Corporation.
As noted above,
these companies have
also been delisted under Section 7.2 of the Act, the identical in
substance procedures,
after review and final action by USEPA.
The function of the Board under Section 7,2 of the Act is not to
review the merits of these petitions,
but to assure that the
Board’s regulations reflect federal actions.
The Board concludes
that,
despite the recently delegated delisting authority,
the
Board
is still required to ensure that its regulations reflect
any USEPA action to modify or revoke any one of these delistings
(or USEPA action allowing it to be withdrawn).
With regard to enforceability at the State level, the effect
of the delegation of delisting authority to Illinois on
enforceable remedies varies depending on whether the Board or the
USEPA first initiated the delisting process.
The question here
is how does the delegation affect the enforceable remedies of
USEPA initiated delistings adopted via identical in substance
128—373
6
procedures.
One could argue that the delisting delegation to the
State does not change the enforcement picture,
since identical
in
substance delistings were not adopted pursuant to the delisting
delegation.
The Board concludes,
however, that the delegation of
delisting authority to Illinois implicitly enhances the
opportunity for enforcement at the State level for violations
of
the Board’s identical in substance delistings.
But, the remedies
available to a party bringing an enforcement action before the
Board are limited to those that will not cause the remedy to
alter the Board’s rule so as to be in conflict with the substance
of the ~JSEPAdelisting.
This suggests that any remedy concerning
modifications or revocations of this delisting would need to be
taken in some manner in concert with the USEPA.
The Board notes
that there are other remedies authorized by the Act,
including
penalties, that remain available as enforcement tools.
Condition
5 has been added to the delisting to incorporate
the conclusions of the Board concerning the effect of the
delegation of delisting authority to Illinois on the TJSX
delisting.
Condition 5 lists the violations that are enforceable
against USX and states that enforcement is governed
by. Title VIII
of the Act.
Although this Condition specifically references the
Agency as the enforcing authority, the Act allows any person to
enforce violations of the Board’s regulations.
Finally, Condition 6 of the delisting has been added to
allow the state delisting to track with the federal delisting.
Condition
6 requires USX to notifytheBoard
of USEPA action
which modifies, terminates, revokes,
or otherwise alters the
federal delisting.
USX is required to notify the Board by filing
a petition that requests that the Board take action equal to the
USEPA action.
Data Submittal
The Board also requested comment on whether USX should be
required to submit its testing and analysis results to the
Agency.
One result of the Board’s decision to follow State
regulatory and enforcement policies with regards to this
delisting is that the Agency must compile its own records on the
USX delisted waste.
The Agency comment agreed that since the
State will exercise its delisting authority independent of USEPA,
Agency should receive testing data’ for evaluation of USX’s
compliance with the delisting.
USX’s comment stated that sending duplicate data to Agency
seemed unnecessary.
Even so, USX agreed to send test result data
to the Agency for the first four weeks of operations,
in
compliance with the terms of condition 1(A).
USX agreed to make
the data compiled pursuant to condition 1(B) available to the
Agency.
This is in essence what is required of USX by the USEPA
delisting.
128—374
7
The Board has included,
in the new condition four, the terms
under which the Agency will receive data submittal of the test
results from analysis of the treated waste.
These terms are
identical to the terms for data submittal to the USEPA contained
in condition 3.
Although the Agency requested that two divisions
receive the data submittal, the Board is including only one
division address to avoid undue burden on USX.
Enforcement Statute
The final question posed by the Board in its proposal for
public comment concerned the statutory authority for enforcement
of fraudulent data submittal.
Condition 3, governing data
submissions to the USEPA, cites to 18 U.S.C.
6928 for this
authority.
The Board wanted to know whether or not an equivalent
state statute could be included in the state delisting.
As
discussed above, the Agency can enforce this delisting using any
provisions of the Act which do not conflict with the restrictions
of an identical in substance rule,
including Section 44.
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1044.)
The Board has decided
not to specifically identify this one section of the Act within
the context of the delisting so as to avoid any confusion which
might result.
General Changes
In every identical in substance rulemaking,
it
is necessary
for the Board to make certain clarifying changes throughout the
proposed regulation.
These changes involve the identification of
and division of authority between the federal and state
government agencies.
In this case,
the Board needs to clarify
which delisting,
federal or state,
is being referenced, which
government is being referenced,
and which state agency is to make
decisions according to the general division of functions within
the Act and other Illinois statutes.
The Board has identified, whenever the term “exclusion”
or
“delisting”
is used, whether the term refers to the federal or
the state delisting.
In situations in which the Board has
determined that USEPA will retain decision-making authority, the
Board has replaced the terms “EPA” and “Agency” with “USEP~A”.
References to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in the
regulation are made using the term “Agency”.
When determining the general division of authority between
the Agency and the Board, as required by Section 7.2(a) (5)
of the
Act, the Board considers the following:
1.
Is the person making the decision applying a Board
regulation,
or taking action contrary to
(“waiving”)
a.
Board regulation? It generally takes some form of Board
128—375
8
action to “waive” a Board regulation.
2.
Is there a clear standard for action such that the
Board can give meaningful review to an Agency decision?
3.
Is there a right to appeal?
Agency actions are
generally appealable to the Board.
4.
Does this action concern a person who is required to
have a permit anyway?
If so there is a pre—existing
permit relationship which can easily be used as a
context for Agency decision.
If the action concerns
a
person who does not have a permit,
it is more difficult
to place the decision into a procedural context which
would be within the Agency’s jurisdiction.
5.
Does the action result in exemption from the permit
requirement itself?
If so, Board action is generally
required.
6.
Does the decision amount to “determining, defining or
implementing environmental control standards within the
meaning of Section 5(b)
of the Act?
If so,
it must be
made by the Board.
After consideration of the above factors, the new subsection
(4)
of this delisting reflects the division of power between the
Agency and the Board.
The Agency will receive all data submittal
from USX and has the authority to request additional data
obtained by USX through conditions
1(A) and
(B).
Finally the Board notes that,
as originally proposed in the
proposal for public comment, the Board has added a statement that
SW—846
is incorporated by reference in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.111
in condition
1 of the proposed exclusion.
In condition 3, the
Board has also altered the phrase “conditions
(1)(A)
or
(1)(13)”
to read “conditions
(1)(A)
or
(B)” to conform to Illinois
drafting practice.
In the proposed notice to amend, the Board corrected several
typographical errors in other areas of Part 721.
One of those
errors, the misspelling of the word “subpart” in the table of
contents, has already been corrected.
(R91-1,
—
PCB
,
August
8,
1991.)
The Board will still be correcting a misspelling of
the word “crystallization” in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 721.Appendix
I,
Table A and Table B.
As noted above, the Board will allow post—adoption comments
through January 21,
1992.
ORDER
128—376
9
The following proposed amendments to 35
Ill. Adm. Code
721.Appéndix
I are submitted for publication in the Illinois
Register and for public comment:
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
G:
WASTE DISPOSAL
CHAPTER I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER
C:
HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
PART 721
IDENTIFICATION
AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
721.101
Purpose of Scope
721.102
Definition of Solid Waste
721.103
Definition
of Hazardous Waste
721.104
Exclusions
721.105
Special
Requirements for Hazardous Waste Generated
by Small Quantity Generators
721.106
Requirements for Recyclable Materials
721.107
Residues of Hazardous Waste in Empty Containers
721.108
PCB Wastes Regulated under TSCA
SUBPART B:
CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
AND FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTES
Section
721.110
Criteria for Identifying the Characteristics of
Hazardous Waste
721.111
Criteria for Listing Hazardous Waste
SUBPART
C:
CHARACTERISTICS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Section
721.120
General
721.121
Characteristic of Ignitability
721.122
Characteristic of Corrosivity
721.123
Characteristic of Reactivity
721.124
Toxicity Characteristic
SUBPART D:
LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Section
7.21.130
General
721.131
Hazardous Wastes From Nonspecific Sources
721.132
Hazardous Waste from Specific Sources
721.133
Discarded Commercial Chemical Products, Off-
Specification Species, Container Residues and
Spill Residues Thereof
Appendix A
Representative Sampling Methods
Appendix B
Method 1311 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure
(TCLP)
128—377
10
Appendix C
Chemical Analysis Test Methods
Table A
Analytical Characteristics of Organic Chemicals
(Repealed)
Table B
Analytical Characteristics of Inorganic Species
(Repealed)
Table C
Sample Preparation/Sample Introduction Techniques
(Repealed)
Appendix G
Basis for Listing Hazardous Wastes
Appendix H
Hazardous Constituents
Appendix
I
Wastes Excluded under Section 720.120 and 720.122
Table ‘A
Wastes Excluded from Non—Specific Sources
Table B
Wastes Excluded from Specific Sources
Table C
Wastes Excluded From Commercial Chemical Products,
Off—Specification Species, Container Residues,
and
Soil Residues Thereof
Appendix
J
Method of Analysis for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-
Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
Appendix
Z
Table to Section
721’. 102
AUTHORITY:
Implementing
Section 22.4 and authorizedby Section
27 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111 1/2,
pars.
1022.4
and 1027).
SOURCE:
Adopted
in R8l—22,
43 PCB 427,
at 5
Ill.
Reg.
9781,
effective as noted
in
35
Ill.
Adm.. Code
700.106; amended and
codified in R81—22,
45
PCB
317,
at
6
Ill. Reg.
4828,
effective as
noted’in
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 700.106; amended in R82-l8,
51 PCB 31,
at
7
Ill. Reg.
2518,
effective February 22,
1983; amended in R82—
19,
53 PCB 131, at 7
Ill. Reg.
13999, effective October
12, 1983;
amended in R84—34,
61 PCB 247,
at
8
Ill. Reg.
24562, effective
December 11,
1984; amended in
R84—9,
at 9 Ill.
Reg.
11834,
effective July 24,
1985; amended in R85—22 at 10 Ill.
Reg.
998,
effective January
2,
1986; amended in R85—2 at 10
Ill. Reg.
8112,
effective May 2,
1986;
amended in R86—1 at 10
Ill. Reg.
14002,
effective August
12,
1986; amended in R86—l9 at 10 Ill. Reg.
20647, effective December
2,
1986;
amended in R86—28 at
11 Ill.
Reg.
6035,
effective March 24,
1987; amended in R86—46 at 11
Ill.
Reg.
13466, effective August
4,
1987;
amended in R87—32 at
11
Ill. Reg.
16698, effective September 30,
1987;
amended in
R87-5
at 11 Ill. Reg.
19303, effective November 12,
1987;
amended in
R87—26 at
12 Ill.
Reg.
2456, effective January 15,
1988;
amended
in R87—30 at
12
Ill.
Reg.
12070,
effective July 12,
1988;
amended in R87—39 at 12 Ill. Reg.
13006, effective July 29,
1988;
amended in R88-16 at 13 Ill. Reg.
382,
effective December 27,
1988;
amended in R89—l at 13
Ill.
Reg.
18300,
effective November
13,
1989;
amended in R90—2 at 14 Ill. Reg.
14401, effective
August 22,
1990;
amended in R90—lO at 14
Ill.
Reg.
16472,
effective September 25,
1990;
amended in R90—l7 at 15 Ill.
Reg.
7950, effective May
9,
1991; amended in R90-11 at 15
Ill.
Reg.
9332, effective June 17,
1991;
amended in R91—1 at 15 Ill. Reg.
14473, effective September 30,
1991.
128—3 78
11
Section 72l.Appendix
I
Wastes Excluded under Section 720.120
and 720.122
Table A
Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific
Sources
Facility Addres.~3
Waste Description
Envirite Corp.
Dewatered wastewater sludges
(EPA
Harvey, Illinois
Hazardous Waste NO.
F006)
generated from
electroplating operations; spent cyanide
plating solutions
(EPA Hazardous Waste
No.
F007) generated from electroplating
operations;
plating bath residues from
the bottom of plating baths
(EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F008)
generated from
electroplating operations where cyanides
are used in the
process;
spent stripping
and cleaning bath solutions
(EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F009)
generated from
electroplating operations where cyanides
are used in the process; spent cyanide
solutions from salt bath pot cleaning
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. FOil) generat-
ed from metal heat treating operations;
quenching wastewater treatment sludges
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. F0l2) gen-
erated from metal heat treating where
cyanides are used
in the process; waste-
water treatment sludges
(EPA Hazardous
Waste No.
F019)
generated from the
chemical conversion coating of aluminum
after November 14,
1986.
To ensure that
hazardous constituents are not present
in the waste at levels of regulatory
concern, the facility must implement
a
contingency testing program for the
petitioned wastes.
‘This testing program
must meet the following conditions for
the exclusions to be valid:
1)
Each batch of treatment residue
must be representatively sampled
and tested using the EP Toxicity
test for arsenic, barium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead, selenium, silver,
mercury, and nickel.
If the
128—379
12
extract concentrations for
chromium,
lead,
arsenic, and silver
exceed 0.315 ppm; barium levels
exceed 6.3 ppm; cadmium and
selenium exceed 0.063 ppm; mercury
exceeds 0.0126 ppm; or nickel
levels exceed 2.205 ppm, the waste
must be re—treated or managed and
disposed as a hazardous waste under
35 Ill. Adm. Code 722 to 725 and
the permitting standards of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 702,
703, and 705.
2)
Each batch of treatment residue
must be tested for reactive and
leachable cyanide.
If the reactive
cyanide levels exceed 250 ppm or
leachable cyanide levels
(using the
EP Toxicity test without acetic
acid adjustment)
exceed 1.26 ppm,
the waste must be retreated or
managed and disposed as a hazardous
waste under 35
Ill. Mm. Code 722
to 725 and the permitting standards
of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 702,
703,
and
705.
3)
Each batch of waste must be tested
for the total content of specific
organic toxicants.
If the total
content of anthracene exceeds 76.8
ppm, 1,2-diphenyl hydrazine exceeds
0.001 ppm, methylene chloride
exceeds 8.18 ppm, methyl ethyl
ketone exceeds 326 ppm,
n—
nitrosodiphenylamine exceeds 11.9
ppm, phenol exceeds 1,566 ppm,
tetrachioroethylene exceeds 0.188
ppm, or trichioroethylene exceeds
0.592 ppm, the waste must be
managed and disposed as a hazardous
waste under 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 722
to
72’S and the permitting standards
of
35 Ill. Adm. Code 702,
703, and
705.
4)
A grab sample must be collected
from each batch to form one monthly
composite sample which must be
tested using gas chromatography,
mass spectrometry analysis for the
compounds listed in No.3 above as
128—380
13
well as the remaining organics on
the Priority Pollutant List
(incorporated by reference, see 40
CFR 423 App. A
(1983)
(as adopted
at 47 Fed. Reg. 52,309
(Nov.
19,
1982)), not including later
amendments).
5)
The data from conditions
1-4 must
be kept on file at the facility for
inspection purposes and must be
compiled, summarized, and submitted
to the Administrator of USEPA by
certified mail semi-annually.
The
USEPA will review this information
and if needed will propose to
modify or withdraw the exclusion.
Should USEPA propose to modify or
withdraw the exclusion, Envirite
shall promptly provide notice
thereof to the Board.
The decision
to conditionally exclude the treat-
ment residue generated from the
wastewater treatment systems at
Envirite’s Harvey,
Illinois
facility applies only to the
wastewater and solids treatment
systems as they presently exist as
described in the delisting petition
submitted to the USEPA.
The
exclusion does not apply to the
proposed process additions
described in the petition sub-
mitted to USEPA as recovery includ-
ing cry3talizcLtion crystallization,
electrolytic metals recovery,
evaporative recovery, and ion
exchange.
(Source:
Amended at
Ill. Reg.
,
effective
)
128—38 1
14
Table B
Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
Facility Address
Waste Description
Amoco Oil Company
150 million gallons of DAF float from
Wood River,
Illinois
petroleum refining contained in four
surge ponds after treatment with the
Chemfix stabilization process.
This
exclusion applies to the 150 million
gallons of waste after chemical
stabilization as long as the mixing
ratios of the reagent with the waste are
monitored continuously and do not vary
outside of the limits presented in the
demonstration samples;
one grab sample
is taken each hour from each treatment
unit,
composited, and EP toxicity tests
performed on each sample.
If the levels
of lead or total chromium exceed 0.5 ppm
in the EP extract, then the waste that
was processed during the compositing
period is considered hazardous;
‘the
treatment residue shall be pumped into
bermed cells to ensure that the waste
is
identifiable in the event that removal
is necessary.
Envirite Corp.
Spent pickle liquor
(EPA Hazardous Waste
Harvey,
Illinois
No. K062) generated from steel finishing
operations of facilities within the iron
and steel industry
(SIC Codes 331 and
332); wastewater treatment sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste No.
K002) generated from
the production of chrome yellow and
orange pigments; wastewater treatment
sludge
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K003)
generated from the production of
molybdate orange pigments; wastewater
treatment sludge
(EPA Hazardous Waste
No.
K004) generated from the production
of zinc yellow pigments; wastewater
treatment sludge
(EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K005) generated from the production
of chrome green pigments; wastewater
treatment sludge
(EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K006) generated from the production
of chrome oxide green pigments
(anhydrous and hydrated); wastewater
treatment sludge
(EPA Hazardous Waste
128—382
15
No.
K007) generated from the production
of iron blue pigments; oven residues
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K008) generated
from the production of chrome oxide
green pigments after November 14,
1986.
To ensure that hazardous constituents
are not present in the waste at levels
of regulatory concern, the facility must
implement a contingency testing program
for the petitioned wastes.
This testing
program must meet the following
conditions for the exclusions to be
valid:
1)
Each batch of treatment residue
must be representatively sampled
and tested using the EP Toxicity
test for arsenic, barium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
selenium, silver,
mercury,
and nickel.
If the
extract concentrations for
chromium,
lead,
arsenic, and silver
exceed 0.315 ppm; barium levels
exceed 6.3 ppm; cadmium and
selenium exceed 0.063 ppm; mercury
exceeds 0.0126 ppm; or nickel
levels exceed 2.205 ppm, the waste
must be re—treated or managed and
disposed as a hazardous waste under
35
Ill. Adm. Code 722 to 725 and
the permitting standards of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 702,
703, and 705.
2)
Each batch of treatment residue
must be tested for reactive and
leachable cyanide.
If the reactive
cyanide levels exceed 250 ppm; or
leachable cyanide levels
(using the
EP Toxicity test without acetic
acid adjustment)
exceed 1.26 ppm,
the waste must be re—treated or
managed and disposed as hazardous
waste under 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 722
to 725 and the permitting standards
of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 702,
703, and
705.
3)
Each batch of waste must be tested
for the total content of specific
organic toxicants.
If the total
content of anthracene exceeds 76.8
ppm, l,2-diphenyl hydrazine ex~eeds
128—383
16
0.001 ppm, methylene chloride
exceeds 8.18 ppm, methyl ethyl
ketone exceeds 326 ppm, n-
nitrosodiphenylamine exceeds 11.9
ppm, phenol exceeds 1,566 ppm,
tetrachioroethylene exceeds 0.188
ppm, or trichloroethylene exceeds
0.592 ppm, the waste must be
managed and disposed as a hazardous
waste under 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 722
to 725 and the permitting standards
of
35 Ill. Adm. Code 702,
703,
and
705.
4)
A grab sample must be collected
from each batch to form one monthly
composite sample which must be
tested using gas chromatography,
mass spectrometry analysis for the
compounds listed in No.
3 above as
well as the remaining organics on
the Priority Pollutant List
(incorporated by reference, see 40
CFR 423 App. A
(1983)
(as adopted
at 47
Fed. Reg.
52,309
(Nov.
19,
1982)), not including later
amendments).
5)
The data from conditions
1-4 must
be kept on file at the facility for
inspection purposes and must be
compiled, summarized, and submitted
to the USEPA Administrator by
certified mail semi—annually.
The
USEPA will review this information
and if needed will propose to
modify or withdraw the exclusion.
Should USEPA propose to modify or
withdraw the exclusion,
Envirite
shall promptly provide notice
thereof to the Board.
The decision
to conditionally exclude the
treatment residue generated from
the wastewater treatment systems at
Envirite’s Harvey, Illinois
facility applies only to the
wastewater and solids treatment
systems as they presently exist as
described in the delisting petition
submitted to the USEPA.
The
exclusion does not apply to the
proposed process additions describ-
128—384
17
ed in the petition submitted to
USEPA as recovery,
including
cryatQlization crystallization,
electrolytic metals recovery,
evaporative recovery, and ion
exchange.
U5X Steel Corporation,
Fully-cured chemically stabilized
Chicago,
Illino4s
electric arc furnace dust/sludge
(CSEAFD) treatment residue (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K061) generated from
the primary production of steel after
April 29.
1991.
This exclusion
(for
35,000 tons of CSEAFD per year)
is
conditioned upon the data obtained from
USX’s full-scale CSEAFD treatment
facility.
To ensure that hazardous
constituents are not present
in the
waste at levels of regulatory concern
once the full-scale treatment facility
is in operation,
USX shall implement a
testing program for the petitioned
waste.
This testing program must meet
the following conditions for the
exclusion to be valid:
1.
Testing:
Sample collection and
analyses
(including guality control
(OC)
procedures)
must be performed
according to SW-846 methodologies.
SW—846
is incorporated by reference
in 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 720.111.
A.
Initial Testing:
During the
first four weeks of operation
of the full scale treatment
system, USX shall collect
representative grab samples of
each treated batch of the
CSEAFD and composite the grab
samples daily.
The daily
composites,
prior to disposal,
must be analyzed for the EP
leachate concentrations of all
the EP toxic metals,
nickel,
and cyanide
(using distilled
water in the cyanide
extractions), and the total
concentrations of reactive
sulfide and reactive cyanide.
USX shall report the
128—385
18
analytical test data,
including quality control
information, obtained during
this initial period no later
than 90 days after the
treatment of the first full-
scale batch.
B.
Subsequent Testing:
USX shall
collect representative grab
samples from every treated
batch of CSEAFD generated
daily and composite all of the
grab samples to produce a
weekly composite sample.
USX
then shall analyze each weekly
composite sample for all of
the EP toxic metals,
and
nickel.
The analytical data,
including quality control
information, must be compiled
and maintained on site for
a
minimum of three years.
These
data must be furnished upon
request and made available for
inspection by any em~1oyeeor
representative of USEPA or the
Agency.
~
Delisting levels:
If the EP
extract concentrations for
chromium,
lead,
arsenic, or silver
exceed_0.315 mg/l;
for barium
exceeds 6.3 mg/l;
for cadmium or
selenium exceed 0.063 mg/i;
for
mercury exceeds 0.0126
mg/i;
for
nickel exceeds 3.15
mg/l;
or for
cyanide exceeds 4.42 mg/l,
total
reactive cyanide or total reactive
sulfide levels exceed 250 mg/kg and
500 mg/kg, respectively, the waste
must either be re-treated until it
meets’ these levels or managed and
disposed of in accordance with
Subpart C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(42
U.S.C.
6901 et seq.).
3.
Data submittal to and enforcement
by USEPA:
Within one week of
system start-up USX shall notify
the Section Chief, Delisting
128—386
19
Section
(see address below) when
its full—scale stabilization system
is on—line and waste treatment has
begun.
The data obtained through
condition (1~(A)
shall be submitted
to the Section Chief,
Delisting
Section,~CAD/OSW
(05-333),
U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W.,
Washington,
DC 20460 within the
time period specified.
At USEPA’s
request,
tJSX must submit any other
analytical data obtained through
conditions
(1) (A) or
(B) within the
time period specified by the
Section Chief.
Failure to submit
the required data obtained from
conditions
(1) (A) or
(B) within the
specified time period or maintain
the required records for the
specified time will be considered
by USEPA, at its decision,
sufficient basis to revoke USX’s
federal exclusion to the extent
directed by USEPA.
All data must
be accompanied by the following
certification statement:
“Under
civil and criminal penalty of
law
for the making or submission of
false or fraudulent statements or
representations
(pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the
Federal Code which include, but may
not be limited to,
18 U.S.C.
~6928), I certify that the
information contained in or
accompanying this document is true,
accurate and complete.
As to the
(those)
identified section(s)
of
this document for which
I cannot
personally verify its
(their)
truth
and accuracy,
I certify as the
company official having supervisory
responsibility for the persons who,
acting under my direct
instructions, made the verification
that this information is true,
accurate and complete.
In the
event that any of this information
is determined by USEPA in its sole
discretion to be false,
inaccurate
or incomplete,
and upon conveyance
of this fact to the company,
I
128—387
20
recognize and agree that this
federal exclusion of wastes’ will be
void as if it never had effect or
to the extent directed by USEPA and
that the company will be liable for
any actions taken in contravention
of the company’s
RCRA
and CERCLA
obligations premised upon the
company’s reliance on the void
exclusion.”
~
Data Submittal to A~ency: The data
obtained through condition
(1) (A)
must be submitted to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency,
Planning and Reporting Section,
2200 Churchill Road,
P.O. Box
19276, Springfield,
IL 62794—9276
within the time period specified.
At Agency’s request, USX must
submit any other analytical data
obtained through conditions
(1) (A)
or
(B) within the time period
specified by the Agency.
All data
must be accompanied by the
following certification statement:
“Under civil and criminal penalty
of law for the making or submission
of false or fraudulent statements
or representations
(pursuant to the
applic~ableprovisions of Illinois’
Environmental Protection Act
),
I
certify that the information
contained in or accompanying this
document is true,
accurate and
complete.
As to the
(those)
identified section(s)
of this
document for which
I cannot
personally verify its
(their)
truth
and accuracy.
I certify as the
company official having supervisory
responsibility for the persons who,
acting under my direct
instructions, made the verification
that this information is true,
accurate and complete.
5.
Enforcement by the Agency:
Whenever the Agency finds that USX
has violated the standards in this
exclusion, has failed to submit the
required data obtained from
128—388
21
conditions
(1) (A) or
(B) within the
specified time period, has failed
to maintain the required records
for ‘the specified time or has
submitted false,
inaccurate or
incomplete data,
the Agency may
take such action as
is allowed by
Title VIII of the Act.
~
Notification to the Board:
Upon
modification, termination,
revocation,
or other alteration of
this exemption by USEPA.
USX shall
file
a petition, pursuant to Part
102, with this Board requesting
that the Board follow the USEPA
action.
(Source:
Amended at
Ill. Reg.
,
effective
)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board
,
hereby certify ~at
the above Order was adopted on the
___________
day of
~
,
1991, by a vote of
“~‘
/~
~Dorothy
N. G)~n,Clerk’
Illinois Pollution Control Board
12 8—389
