ILLINOIS~POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 12,
1990
IN THE MATTER OF:
R90—2
RCRA UPDATE,
USEPA REGULATIONS
)
(Rulemaking)
(7—1—89 THROUGH 12—31—89)
PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
PROPOSED OPINION OF
THE
BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
By a separate Order, pursuant
to Section
22.4(a) of the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act),
the Board
is proposing
to
amend the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
Section
22.4 of
the Act governs adoption of regulations
establishing
the RCRA program in Illinois.
Section 22.4(a)
provides
for quick adoption of regulations which are “identical
in substance”
to federal regulations;
Section
22.4(a). provides
that Title VII
of the Act and Section
5 of the Administrative
Procedure Act shall
not apply.
Because
this rulemaking
is not
subject
to Section
5 of
the Administrative Procedure Act,
it
is
not subject
to first
notice or
to second notice revie~by the
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
(JCAR).
The federal RCRA
regulations are found at
40 CFR 260 through
270.
This
rulemaking
updates Illinois’ RCRA rules to correspond with federal
amendments during the period July
1,
1989, through December
31,
1989.
The Federal Registers utilized are as follows:
54 Fed.
Reg.
33393
August
14,
1989
54 Fed.
Reg.
36641
September
1,
1989
54
Fed.
Reg.
36970
September
6,
1989
54
Fed.
Reg.
41407
October
6,
1989
54
Fed.
Reg.
50977
December 11,
1989
The USEPA amendments
include several site—specific
delistings.
As provided in
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 720.122(d),
the
Board will not adopt site—specific delistings unless and until
someone files a proposal showing why the delisti~igneeds
to be
adopted as part
of the Illinois program.
EXTENSION OF TIME ORDERS
Section 7.2(b)
of the Act requires
that
identical
in
substance rulemakings be completed within one year after the
first USEPA action
in the batch period.
If the Board
is unable
to do so
it must enter
an “extension of time’ Order.
HISTORY OF RCRA,
UST and UIC ADOPTION
The Illinois RCRA, UST (Underground Storage Tanks)
and UIC
(Underground injection Control)
regulations,
together
with
more
I 10—187
—2—
stringent State regulations particularly applicable
to hazardous
waste,
include the following:
702
RCRA and UIC Permit Programs
703
RCRA Permit Program
704
UIC Permit Program
705
Procedures
for Permit Issuance
709
Wastestream Authorizations
720
General
721
Identification and Listing
722
Generator Standards
723
Transporter Standards
724
Final TSD Standards
725
Interim Status TSD Standards
726
Specific Wastes and Management Facilities
728
USEPA Land Disposal Restrictions
729
Landfills:
Prohibited Wastes
730
QIC Operating Requirements
731
Underground Storage Tanks
738
Injection Restrictions
Special procedures
for RCRA cases are included in Parts 102,
103,
104 and 106.
Adoption of
these regulations has proceeded
in several
stages.
The Phase
I RCRA regulations were adopted and amended as
follows:
R81—22
45 PCB
317, February
4,
1982,
6
Ill.
Reg.
4828,
April
23,
1982.
R82—18
51 PCB 31, January 13,
1983,
7
Ill. Reg.
2518,
March
4,
1983.
Illinois received Phase
I interim authorization on May 17,
1982
(47 Fed. Reg.
21043).
The UIC regulations were adopted as
follows:
R8l—32
47 PCB 93, May 13,
1982;
October
15,
1982,
6
Ill.
Reg.
12479.
The UIC regulations were amended
in R82—l8, which
is
referenced above.
The UIC regulations were also amended
in R83—
39:
R83—39
55 PCB 319,
December
15,
1983;
7
Ill.
Reg.
17338,
December
20,
1983.
Illinois received UIC authorization February
1,
1984.
The
Board has updated
the QIC regulations:
R85—23
70 PCB
311,
June 20,
1986;
10
Ill.
Reg.
13274,
August,
8,
1986.
110—iRS
—3—
R86—27
Dismissed at 77 PCB 234, April
16,
1987
(No USEPA
amendments through 12/31/86).
R87—29
January 21,
1988;
12
Ill.
Reg.
6673, April
8,
1988;
(1/1/87 through 6/30/87).
R88—2
June 16,
1988;
12
Ill. Reg.
13700, August
26,
1988.
(7/1/87
through 12/31/87).
R88—l7
December
15,
1988;
13
Ill.
Reg.
478, effective
December
30, 1988.
(1/1/88 through 6/30/88).
R89—2
January
25,
1990;
14
Ill. Reg.
3059,
effective
February 20,
1990
(7/1/88 through 12/31/88).
R89—ll
Proposed Order January 25,
1990;
Proposed March
2,
1990,
at
14
Ill. Reg 3006
(1/1/89 through
11/30/89)
R90—5
Next Doc~et
The Phase
tI RCRA regulations
included adoption of Parts 703
and 724, which established the permit program and final TSD
standards.
The Phase
II
regulations were adopted and amended as
follows:
R82—l9
53 PCB 131,
July
26, 1983,
7 Ill.
Reg.
13999,
October
28,
1983.
R83—24
55 PCB 31, December
15,
1983,
8
Ill. Reg.
200,
January
6, 1984.
On September
6,
1984, the Third District Appellate Court
upheld the Board’s actions in adopting R82—19 and R83—24.
(Commonwealth Edison et
al.
v.
IPCB,
127
Ill. App.
3d
446;
468 NE
2d 1339
(Third Dist.
1984).)
The Board updated
the RCRA regulations to correspond with
USEPA amendments
in several dockets.
The period of the USEPA
regulations covered by the update
is indicated
in parentheses:
R84—9
64 PCB 427,
June
13,
1985;
9
Ill.
Reg.
11964,
effective July
24,
1985.
(through 4/24/84)
R85—22
67 PCB 175,
479, December
20,
1985 and January
9,
1986;
10
Ill. Req.
968,
effective January
2,
1986.
(4/’25/84
——
6/30/85)
R86—1
71 PCB 110,
July
11,
1986;
10
Ill.
Reg.
13998,
August
22,
1986.
(7/1/85
——
1/31/86)
R86—l9
73 PCB 467, October
23,
1986;
10
Ill. Reg.
20630,
December
12,
1986.
(2/1/86
——
3/31/86)
110—189
—4—
R86—28
75 PCB 306,
February
5,
1987;
and 76 PCB 195,
March
5,
1987;
11 Ill.
Req.
6017,
April
3,
1987.
Correction at
77
PCB 235, April 16,
1987;
11
Ill.
Req. 8684, May
1,
1987.
(4/1/86
——
6/30/86)
P.86—46
July
16,
1987; August
14,
1987;
11 Ill. Req.
13435.
(7/1/86
——
9/30/86)
R87—5
October
15, 1987;
11 Ill.
Reg.
19280, November 30,
1987.
(10/1/86
——
12/31/86)
P.87—26
December
3,
1987;
12 Ill. Reg.
2450, January
29,
1988.
(1/1/87
——
6/30/87)
P.87—32
Correction
to R86—l; September
4,
1987;
11
Ill.
Req.
16698,
October
16,
1987.
P.87—39
Adopted June 14,
1988;
12
Ill.
Req.
12999,
August
12,
1988.
(7/1/87
——
12/31/87)
P.88—16
November
17, 1988;
13
Ill.
Reg.
447, effective
December
28, 1988
(1/1/88
——
7/31/88)
P.89—i
September
13, October 18 and November 16,
1989;
13
Ill. Req.
18278, effective November
13, 1989
(8/1/88
——
12/31/88)
P.89—9
March
8,
1990
(1/1/89 through 6/30/89)
P.90—2
This Docket
(7/1/89 through 12/31/89)
Illinois received final authorization for the RCRA program
effective January 31,
1986.
The Underground Storage Tank rules were adopted
in
P.86—i and
R86—28, which were RCRA update Dockets discussed above.
They are
currently being handled in their own Dockets:
P.88—27
April
27.,
1989;
13
Ill. Req.
9519,
effective June
12,
1989
(Technical standards,
September
23,
1989)
P.89—4
July 27,
1989;
13
Ill.
Req.
15010, effective
September
12,
1989
(Financial assurance,
October
26, 1989)
P.89—10
February
22,
1990
(Initial update,
through 6/30/89)
R89—l9
Proposed January
11, 1990;
Proposed February 23,
1990,
at
14
Ill.
Req.
2791
(UST State Fund)
R90—3
Proposed March
8,
1990
(7/1/89
—
12/31/89)
The Board added to
the federal
listings of hazardous waste
by listing dioxins pursuant
to Section
22.4(d)
of the Act:
110—190
—5—
P.84—34
61 PCB 247, November
21, 1984;
8
Ill.
Reg.
24562,
effective December
11,
1984.
This was repealed by R85—22, which included adoption of
USEPA’s dioxin listings.
Section 22.4(d)
was repealed by S.B.
1834.
The Board has adopted USEPA delistings at the request of
Amoco and Envirite:
P.85—2
69 PCB
314,
April
24,
1986;
10
Ill.
Req.
8112,
effective May
2,
1986.
R87—30
June
30,
1988;
12
Ill.
Req.
12070. effective July
12,
1988.
The Board has procedures
to be followed in cases before
it
involving the RCRA regulations:
P.84—lU
62 PCB 87,
349, December
20,
1984 and January 10,
1985;
9
Ill. Req.
1383, effective January 16,
1985.
The Board also adopted
in Part 106 special procedures
to be
followed
in certain determinations.
Part
106 was adopted in
P.85—
22 and amended
in P.86—46,
listed above.
The Board has also adopted requirements limiting and
restricting the landfilling
of liquid hazardous waste,
hazardous
wastes containing halogenated compounds and hazardous wastes
generally:
R8l—25
60 PCB 381,
October
25, 1984;
8 Iii.
Req.
24124,
December
4,
1984;
P.83—28
February
26,
1986;
10
Ill.
Req.
4875,
effective
March
7,
1986.
P.86-9
Emergency regulations adopted at
73 PCB 427,
October
23,
1986;
10
Ill.
Rea.
19787, effective
November
5,
1986.
The Board’s action
in adopting emergency regulations
in P.86—
9 was reversed
(CBE and IEPA
v.
IPCB et al.,
First District,
January
26,
1987).
AGENCY OR BOARD ACTION?
Sections 724.213 and 725.213, which are discussed
below,
include questions as
to whether decisions ought
to be made
by the
Board or Acency.
The following
is
a general discussion of these
questions.
This
is taken from the Proposed Opinion
of October
5,
1989,
in P.88—26.
110—191
—6—
In the proposal,
the Board has almost always changed
“Regional Administrator”
to “Aqency”.
However,
in some
situations
“Regional Administrator” has been changed to
“USEPA”
or “Board”.
Section 7.2(a)(5)
of the Act requires the Board
to
specify which decisions USEPA will retain.
In addition,
the
Board
is
to specify which State agency
is to make decisions,
based on the general division of functions within the Act and
other Illinois statutes.
In situations in which the Board has determined
that USEPA
is
to retain decision—making authority,
the Board has simply
replaced “Regional Administrator”, with “USEPA”.
The regulations will eventually require a
P.CP.A permit for
each HWM facility.
However, many “existing units” are still
in
“interim status”.
Decisions
involving interim status are often
more ambiguous as
to whether they are permit actions.
In
a few instances
in identical
in substance
rules decisions
are not appropriate for Agency action pursuant to a permit
application.
Among the considerations
in determining
the general
division of authority between the Agency and the Board are 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
action
to “waive”
a Board regulation.
For example, the
Agency clearly has authority to apply
a regulation which
says “If
A,
do
X;
if
not A,
do 1”.
On the other hand,
regulations which say “If not A,
the state shall waive
X” are more troubling.
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
qenerally 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
I10—102
—7—
meaning of Section 5(b)
of the Act?
If so,
it must be
made by the Board.
Once
it
is determined that a decision must be made by the
Board,
rather than the Agency,
it
is necessary to determine what
procedural context
is best suited for
that decision.
There are
four common classes of Board decision:
variance, adjusted
standard,
site specific rulemaking and enforcement.
The first
three are methods by which
a regulation can be temporarily
postponed
(variance)
or adjusted
to meet specific situations
(adjusted standard or site specific rulemaking).
Note that there
are differences
in the nomenclature
for these decisions between
the USEPA and Board regulations.
These differences have caused
past misunderstandings with USEPA.
A variance is initiated by the operator filing
a petition
pursuant
to Title
IX of
the Act and
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 104.
The
Agency files a recommendation
as
to what action the Board should
take.
The Board may conduct
a public hearing, and must do so
if
there
is an objection
to the variance.
Board variances are:
temporary;
based on arbitrary
or
unreasonable hardship;
and require
a plan
for eventual
compliance with the general
regulation.
To the extent
a USEPA
decision involves these factors,
a Board variance
is an
appropriate mechanism.
A variance
is not an appropriate mechanism for a decision
which is not based on arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship,
or
which grants permanent relief without eventual compliance.
To
grant permanent
relief,
the Board
needs
to grant a site specific
regulation
or an adjusted standard pursuant
to Sections
27
or
28.1
of the Act, and 35
Ill. Adm. Code 102 or
106.
DETAILED DISCUSSION
The Federal Registers involved in this rulemaking include
the
following:
August
14,
1989
Receipt of
non—hazardous waste
by
units after
final receipt
of
hazardous waste
September
1,
1989
Mining waste exclusion
September
6,
1989
Corrections
to first
third bans
October
6,
1989
Listing of methyl bromide wastes
December
11,
1989
Listing
of aliphatic chlorination
wastes
The
rules have been edited to establish
a uniform usage with
respect
to
“shall”,
“must”,
“will” and
‘may”.
“Shall”
is used
when
the subject
of
a sentence has to do something.
“Must”
is
used when someone
has to do something,
but that someone
is not
the subject
of the sentence.
“Will”
is used when the Board
obligates itself
to do something.
“May”
is used when a provision
110—193
—8—
is optional.
Some of the USEPA rules appear
to say something
other than what was intended.
Others do not read correctly when
the Board or
IEPA is substituted into the federal
rule.
The
Board does not intend to make any substantive change
in the
rules
by way of these edits.
PART 703:
RCRA PERMITS
Parts
702,
703 and 704 were originally based on the
consolidated permit rules
in
40 CFR 122.
These have now been
deconsolidated
to
40 CFR 270 and 144.
Some of the Sections still
show the old Part 122 “Board Notes”.
Because
these Parts lack
the simple relationship
to the current organization of the
federal
rules,
it
is necessary to use a cross reference table.
An updated version of the table appears at the end o~the P.89-9
Opinion.
Section 703.Appendix A
This Section
is drawn
from 40 CFP. 270.42, Appendix
I, which
was amended at
54
Fed.
Req.
33393,
August
14,
1989.
The
amendments add item D.i.f.
to the list of permit modifications.
As
is discussed below,
a hazardous waste facility may accept non-
hazardous waste after closure under certain conditions.
This
amendment allows the permit
to be modified as
a Class
2 permit
modification.
PART 721:
IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Section 721.103
This Section
is drawn from
40
CFP. 261.3, which was amended
at
54
Fed. Req.
36641,
September
1,
1989.
These amendments
concern the mining waste exclusion from the definition of
hazardous waste.
This
is related
to the amendments
related to
listing
1066
in P.89—i, and the issues raised in that Docket by
Big River
Zinc.
Section 721.104, discussed below,
generally excludes from
the definition of hazardous waste any wastes
“from the
extraction, beneficiation or processing of ores or minerals”.
The amendments
to this Section create
rules concerning mixtures
of excluded mine waste with hzardous waste.
Under certain
circumstances mixtures become hazardous wastes
(are “unexciuded”)
pursuant
to this Section.
There are some minor problems with the text
of these
amendments.
The text of
40
CFP. 261.3(a)(2)(i) and
(iii),
which
are proposed as
Sectio.n 72l.l03(a)(2~A) and
(C),
is as follows:
A solid waste
.
..
is
a hazardous waste
if
it
is not excluded
and...
110—19!,
—9—
i)
It exhibits any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste identified
in Subpart
C except
that any mixture of a waste from the
extraction,
beneficiation and processing
of
ores and minerals excluded under
§26l.4(b)(7)
and any other solid waste exhibiting
a
characteristic
of hazardous waste under
Subpart C of this part only
if
it exhibits
a
characteristic that would not have been
exhibited by the excluded waste alone
if such
mixture had not occurred or
if
it continues
to
exhibit any of
the characteristics exhibited
by the non—excluded wastes prior
to mixture.
Further,
for the purposes of applying the
Extraction Procedure Toxicity characteristic
to such mixtures,
the mixture
is also a
hazardous waste
if
it exceeds
the maximum
concentration for any contaminant listed
in
table
I
to 261.24 that would not have been
exceeded by the excluded waste alone
if the
mixture had not occurred
or
if
it continues
to
exceed the maximum concentration for any
contaminant exceeded by the nonexempt waste
prior
to mixture.
iii)
It
is
a mixture
of a solid waste and a
hazardous waste
that
is listed in Subpart
D of
this part solely because
it exhibits one or
more
of the characteristics of hazardous waste
identified
in Subpart
C, unless
the resultant
mixture
no longer exhibits any characteristic
of hazardous waste identified
in Subpart C of
this part or unless the solid waste
is
excluded from regulation under §261.4(b)(7)
and
the
resultant
mixture
no
longer
exhibits
any
characteristic
of
hazardous
waste
identified
in
Subpart
C
of
this
part
for
which
the hazardous waste listed
in Subpart D of
this part was listed.
40
CFP. 26l.3(a)(2)(i)
speaks of wastes “from the extraction,
beneficiation and processing
of ores and minerals”.
Since
extraction, beneficiation and processing are sequential
processes,
it
is unlikely that
a single waste would come from all
three.
Likewise,
there are ores and there are minerals,
but
relatively few “ores and minerals”.
The USEPA
rule is subject
to
the interpretation that
the un—exclusion applies only
to a waste
which comes from all three processes on something which
is ‘both
an ore and mineral.
The Board has proposed to change the and’s
to ors
to avoid
this interpretation.
In the Administrative Code
“A or B” means
“A or
B or both”.
40 CFR 26l.3(a)(2)(i) also references “table
I
in
§261.24”.
This
is Table
I
in Section 721.124.
This form of
110—195
—10—
labeling of tables
is no longer acceptable to the Code
Division.
However, since “Table
I”
is the only table
in Section
721.124,
the Board has shortened
the reference
to “Section
721.124”.
This avoids making a reference which would cause
the
Code Division to ask the Board
to amend Section 721.124.
The
“except” clause added
to 40
CFP. 26l.3(a)(2)(i) does not
have a verb.
The Board has proposed
to add
“is a hazardous
waste”, and to make the clause into a separate sentence.
The USEPA language has an almost complete lack of
punctuation.
‘
Also,
these provisions have many complex
conditions.
Without punctuation,
it
is not clear how the
conditions are to be grouped.
The Board has inserted
punctuation,
so that the proposal reads as follows:
A solid waste
...
is a hazardous waste
if
it
is not excluded
and...
A)
It exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste identified
in Subpart
C.
Except that any
mixture of
a waste from the extraction,
beneficiation or processing
of ores or minerals
excluded under Section 72l.l04(b)(7) and any other
solid waste exhibiting
a characteristic of
hazardous waste
under Subpart
C
is a hazardous
waste only:
if
it exhibits
a characteristic that
would not have been exhibited by the excluded waste
alone
if such mixture had not occurred;
or,
if
it
continues
to exhibit
any of
the characteristics
exhibited by the non—excluded wastes prior
to
mixture.
Further,
for the purposes
of applying
the
EP toxicity (extraction procedure toxicity)
characteristic to such mixtures,
the mixture
is
also
a hazardous waste:
if
it exceeds the maximum
concentration for
any contaminant
listed
in Section
721.124 that would
not have
been exceeded
by the
excluded waste alone
if the mixture had not
occurred;
or,
if
it continues
to exceed the
maximum concentration for any contaminant exceeded
by the nonexempt waste prior
to mixtore.
C)
It
is
a mixture
of
a solid waste and a hazardous
waste that
is
listed
in Subpart
D solely because
it
exhibits one or more
of the characteristics of
hazardous waste
identified
in Subpart
C,
unless the
resultant mixture no longer exhibits any
characteristic of hazardous waste
identified
in
Subpart
C,
or unless
the solid waste:
is excluded
from regulation under Section 721.l04(b)(7);
and,
the resultant mixture
no longer exhibits any
characteristic of hazardous waste identified
in
Subpart C for which
the hazardous waste listed
in
Subpart D was listed.
110—1~~(’~
—11—
This
is still only marginally comprehensible.
The following
is an attempt at restating these provisions in a way that may be
more easily understood:
Definitions
“Characteristic waste” means a solid waste exhibiting
a
characteristic
of hazardous waste under Subpart
C.
“Listed characteristic waste” means a hazardous waste
which
is listed
in Subpart
D solely because
it
is
a
characteristic waste.
“Excluded mine waste” means
a waste
from the extraction,
beneficiation or processing of ores or minerals excluded
under Section 72l.l04(b)(7).
Section 721.103
A solid waste
...
is
a hazardous waste
if
it
is not excluded
and...
A)
It
is a characteristic waste.
i)
However, any mixture
of an excluded mine waste
and a characteristic waste
is
a hazardous
waste only if
it exhibits
a characteristic
which:
The excluded mine waste did not exhibit;
or
The characteristic waste did exhibit.
ii)
Further,
for purposes of applying the
EP
toxicity characteristic of Section 721.124
to
such mixtures,
the mixture
is
a hazardous
waste
if
it exceeds
the maximum concentration
for any contaminant which:
The excluded mine waste did not exceed;
or
The characteristic waste did exceed.
Or,
C)
It
is
a mixture of a solid waste and a listed
characteristic waste, unless the solid waste:
1)
Is an excluded mine waste;
and
ii)
The resultant mixture no longer exhibits any
characteristic for which the listed
characteristic waste was listed.
The Board has not proposed
to rewrite the un-exclusion
in
this way,
but
solicits comment as to whether
the re—write
is
1 10—107
—12—
correct.
If
it
isn’t,
then the changes
to punctuation discussed
above are probably wrong.
Section 721.104
This Section
is drawn from
40 CFR 261.4, which was amended
at
54 Fed.
P.eg.
36641,
September
1,
1989.
These amendments also
concern the mining waste exclusion from the definition of
hazardous waste.
A portion of the text of
40
CFP. 26l.4(b)(7), proposed as
Section 721.104
(b)(7)
is set out as
follows:
The following
.
•
are not hazardous wastes:
7)
Solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation
—and—or processing
of
ores
—end—or
minerals
(including coal),
including phosphate
rock and
overburden from the mining of uranium ore.
For
purposes
of
this subsection, beneficiation of ores
and minerals
is restricted
to the following
activities:
crushing, grinding,
washing,
dissolution,
crystallization,
filtration,
sorting,
sizing, drying,
sintering, pelletizing,
briquetting,
calcining
to remove water
or carbon
dioxide,
roasting
in preparation
for leaching
(except where
the roasting/leaching sequence
p~roducesa final or
intermediate product
that does
not undergo further
beneficiation or processing),
gravity concentration, magnetic separation,
electrostatic separation,
floatation,
ion exchange,
solvent extraction,
electrowinning, preciPitation,
amalgamation, and heap,
dump,
vat tank and
in situ
leaching.
For the purposes of this subsection,
solid waste from the processing of ores
—ertd—or
minerals —d~e~~
~e~de—includes
only:
.
E~-
~ter
~ne
39-- l998~-~
~r~m
eat~e~tof
p~oee~
we
ewete~e~ee4~p~en~
b~ow~own
frei~
~~rtep~e e~ori-
-
A)
__________________________________________
B)
________________________________________________
The
following
solid
wastes
from
the
processing
of
ores
or
minerals,
which
are
retained
within
this
exclusion:
.
.
•
v)
Slag
from
elemental
phosphorus
production;
and
The
following
solidwastes
from
the
processing
of
ores
or
minerals,
which
are
conditionally
retained
within
this exclusion, pending
collection
and
evaluation
of
additionaL
data:
110--
—13—
xx)
Slag from primary zinc smelting.
40 CFR 26l.4(b)(7)
refers
to “calcining to
remove water
and/or carbon dioxide”.
As used
in the Administrative Code,
“and/or” means the same thing as
“or”.
In
P.89—i the Board adopted USEPA rules which added listing
1064,
and which added Section 72l.l04(b)(7)(C), which
is shown
struck through above.
This provision un—excluded certain
pollution control wastes
from primary zinc production.
In
response to comments from Big River
Zinc,
the Board added the
June
30,
1990,
delayed effective date to the un-exclusion.
The
result of this is that the pollution control wastes will become
hazardous wastes
in Illinois on June
30,
1990.
When this
rulemaking
is filed,
the un—exclusion will
be removed from the
rules.
However,
the format of
the rule has been reversed, so
that
it
is now listing exclusions,
instead of un—exclusions.
The
effect of
this
is that the pollution control waste will now be
un—excluded
in silence.
USEPA has clearly
indicated this intent
in the preamble.
(54 Fed.
Req.
36631).
Note also that these
wastes remain listed as
1066.
Also,
a previously unmentioned
zinc production waste,
slag from primary
zinc smelting,
is now
expressly excluded from the definition of hazardous waste.
Section 721.131
This Section
is drawn from 40
CFP. 261.31, which was amended
at
54
Fed.
Req.
50977, December 11,
1989.
These amendments
concern the listing of wastes from free radical chlorination of
certain aliphatic hydrocarbons.
This takes the form of an
amendment
to F024,
and addition of a new listing,
F025.
Section 721.132
This Section
is drawn from 40 CFR 261.32, which was amended
at
54 Fed.
Req.
41407, October
6,
1989.
These amendments concern
the listing
of wastes from production of methyl bromide,
a
pesticide.
This
takes the form of addition of
listing
1131
and
1132.
Section 721.Appendix
C
This Section
is drawn from 40
CFP.
261,
Appendix III, which
was amended at
54
Fed. Reg.
41407,
October
6,
1989.
These
amendments concern
the listing
of wastes from production of
methyl bromide,
a pesticide.
The incorporation
by reference
has
been updated
to include
the analytical methods associated with
these listings.
Section 721.Appendix G
This Section
is drawn from 40
CFP.
261, Appendix VII,
which
was amended at
54 Fed. Req.
41407, October
6,
1989, and at
54
Fed.
Req.
50977,
December
11,
1989.
These amendments concern the
110~i99
—14—
listing of wastes from production of methyl bromide and the
listing of wastes from free radical chlorination
of certain
aliphatic hydrocarbons.
Appendix G has been updated
to list the
hazardous constituents
for which these are listed.
Section 72l.Appendix H
This Section is drawn from 40 CFR 261, Appendix VIII,
which
was amended at
54
Fed.
Req.
50978, December
11,
1989.
These
amendments concern the listing of wastes from free radical
chlorination of certain aliphatic hydrocarbons.
This adds
a new
hazardous constituent,
allyl chloride, which
is produced by this
type of chlorination.
PART 724:
STANDARDS FOR PERMITTED FACILITIES
The following amendments are drawn from 54
Fed.
Req.
33393,
August
14,
1989.
These amendments allow hazardous waste
management units which have received the final volume of
hazardous waste to receive non—hazardous wastes under certain
conditions.
Section 724.113
This Section
is drawn from 40
CFP. 264.13, which was amended
at
54
Fed. Req.
33393, August
14,
1989.
This Section requires
the owner
or operator
to include,
in the general waste analysis
plan,
any non—hazardous wastes
to be
received after the final
volume of hazardous waste.
There
is an ambiguity
in the amendment to 40 CFR
264.13(a).
The Federal Register appears to have dropped
the
second sentence.
However,
this
is
the general standard
for what
the waste analysis plan should contain:
“all the information
which must
be known to treat,
store
or dispose of the waste
in
accordance with the requirements...”
It seems unusual
to
repeal
such a basic standard in
a rulemaking which
is not directly
concerned with waste analysis.
The Board has proposed
to repeal
this language,
but solicits comment.
Section 724.212
This Section
is drawn
from
40 CFR 264.112, which was amended
at 54
Fed.
Req.
33393, August
14,
1989.
This Section governs
closure plans.
40
CFP. 264.ll2(d)(2)(ii)
allows USEPA
to extend
the time at which notification of closure must be given
if
the
owner or operator. “can demonstrate” the capacity
to receive
additional nonhazardous wastes.
Consistent
with
the other
provisions of
this Section,
the Boardhas edited Section
724.2l2(d)(2)(B)
to allow the Agency
to extend the time only
if
the owner
or operator
“demonstrates” the additional capacity.
The USEPA language
is subject
to
the interpretaticn that an
operator who believes he
“can
demonstrate” additional capacity
110—200
—15—
need not notify unless USEPA challenges him.
The Board language
makes
it
clear that an up—front demonstration is required.
The rules generally refer
to the “owner or operator”.
The
intent of
this is that either one can discharge the obligations
under the rules, but
that both are liable for
a failure.
Specifically, either
the “owner or operator” can make the
demonstration contemplated by this Section, and the benefit falls
on both.
However,
40 CFR 264.ll2(d)(2)(ii) provides:
“If
the
owner or operator can demonstrate
that
...
and he has taken
all steps necessary to prevent threats
to human health
...“
This
seems
to contemplate,
for example,
that an operator could gain
the extension,
which would then apply
to the owner,
even though
the owner failed to protect human health.
The Board has
proposed
to correct this apparent error
by rendering “he” as “the owner
and operator”.
Section 724.213
This Section
is drawn from 40 CFR 264.113, which
was amended
at
54
Fed. Req.
33393, August
14, 1989.
This Section governs the
time allowed
for closure.
Subsections
(d) and
(e)
have been
added to specify the conditions under which
a unit may receive
non-hazardous waste after
final receipt
of hazardous waste.
The introductory language
to this Section,
as previously
adopted by the Board, does not
read exactly like the USEPA
language.
The USEPA Section
is worded
in a manner which could be
rea-d as giving operators automatic extensions of closure
deadlines.
The Board reworded
these provisions
to make it clear
that these extensions must be approved
in advance
as permit
conditions.
(P.82—19,
Opinion of July
26,
1983,
p.
45;
53 PCB
131,
175).
40
CFP. 264.113(d)
and
(e)
allow certain units which have
stopped receiving hazardous waste to remain open for non-
hazardous waste.
Subsection
Cd)
applies
to landfills,
surface
impoundments and land treatment units which the HSWA double liner
and leachate collection
reciuirements.
Subsection
(e)
applies to
surface impoundments which, although they don’t meet
the HSWA
requirements, have removed all hazardous liquids, and as much
sludge as possible.
Although hazardous wastes will have been
removed, and the impoundment will
no longer
receive hazardous
waste,
the unit will still
be
a
“HWM unit”, and will eventually
have to close
as such.
There are a several major problems
in translating
40 CFR
264.113(e)
into a State
rule.
REFERENCES TO RCRA ACT
40 CFR
264.113(e)
includes
a number of
specific references
to liner and leachate collection
requirements contained
in the
RCRA Act.
The Board wishes
to avoid unnecessary references to
i10—--201
—16—
federal statutes, since
the APA is unclear as
to whether
these
are incorporations by reference.
The Board believes that
these
requirements are reflected in regulations which the Board has
previously adopted, and has
referenced those regulations
instead.
However,
the Board solicits comment.
In this case
the references are serving the function of an
incorporation by reference,
in that they
rely on the federal
statute to set design and permitting standards.
Whether the APA
applies or not, unnecessary references to federal statutes are
confusing
to the public.
Consider what would happen
if Joe at
Joe’s Garage
tried
to comply with a State
rule referencing
“Section 3019 of RCRA”.
First,
he would have
to obtain a copy of
the federal statute.
This would probably by the USC.
Then he
would have to learn to convert
the RCRA number
to the USC
number.
He would have no way of of knowing whether the
requirement
had been implemented through regulations, nor would
there be any systematic way to find the CFR provision which
implemented
the requirement.
If Joe lucked out and found
40 CFR
270.10(j),
he would still have to find the State regulation
implementing that Section.
In addition to the enforceability
questions this would
raise,
it
is not efficient
to write
regulations unnecessarily confusing to persons who wish to
comply.
The (JSEPA rule references
two of these as “42 USC 3004 and
3005”.
However,
these numbers are
to the RCRA Act itself.
The
USC citation should be
to 42 USC 6901 et
seq.
Section 3004(o)
of
P.CRA includes mandatory design standards
for new surface
impoundments and landfills.
These were adopted
nearly verbatim
in
P.86—1 as
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 724.321(c),
(d) and
(e) and 724.401(c),
(d) and
(e).
Section
3004(o)(l)(B) requires
incinerators
to comply with previous regulatory design
standards.
These are
in
35 Ill. Adm. Code 724.443.
Since
this
Section applies only to surface
impoundments at permitted
facilities,
the Board Section need cite only Section 724.321(c)
—
(e).
Section 3005(j)
of RCRA applies only
to interim status
facilities.
Since
this Section applies only
to permitted
facilities,
the reference
is unnecessary.
However,
it will
be
discussed below in connection with Part
725.
Section 3019 of RCRA requires owners or operators
to submit
exposure information and health assessments.
This requirement
was implemented in
40 CFR 270.10(j)
and
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code
703.186.
The existing
impoundments subject to
40 CFR 264.113(e)
were
required
to retrofit or close under RCRA Section
3004
or
3005.
Subsection
(e)
is
a type of
“extension by rule”
Section
which
allows these units
to remain open
in limited operation following
substantial removal of hazardous wastes.
110—202
—17—
SHOULD BOARD
OP. AGENCY HANDLE
‘MINIPP.OCEDURES’
40 CFR 264.113(e) poses problems
in translation into a State
procedural context.
Section 7.2(a)(5)
of the Act and the factors
considered by the Board
in determining which agency should make
decisions are discussed
in general above.
USEPA evidently allows
a unit to remain open to receive non—hazardous waste
based on the
adequacy of the removal plan and contingent corrective measures
plan.
This “basic showing”,
or
“basic decision”,
of
the USEPA
rule
is set
in the context
of an application
to modify the RCRA
permit.
However,
it
has three possible “mini—procedures” which
may take place outside the context of
the normal permit
procedures.
The basic showing and miniprocedures include:
264.ll3(e)(l)
&
(2)
Basic showing:
unit
is allowed to
remain open
to receive only non-
hazardous waste
following removal
of
hazardous waste and filing
of an
adequate “contingent corrective
measures plan”.
264.l13(e)(3)
Extension
of time for removal of
hazardous waste.
264.113(e)(4)(iii)
Following detection of
a
release,
shortening
the time allowed
for
implementation of
the corrective
measures plan,
or requiring the
cessation of
receipt
of non—
hazardous waste.
264.1l3(e)(6)
&
(7)
Requiring closure
of the unit
following
a failure
to implement the
corrective measures plan,
or
failure
to
“make substantial progress”.
Whether
the basic showing
is within the Agency’s permit
modification jurisdiction depends on whether
it amounts
to a
“waiver” cf the closure requirement
in
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 724.321,
or whether
it amounts
to a “do
A,
or do B
if condition X
is true”
rule.
The basic showing could be construed either way.
On the
one hand,
it
is a “waiver” of the double liner and leachate
collection and removal requirements of Section
724.321.
On the
other
hand,
it
is an alternative standard under which the Agency
reviews permits.
For the reasons discussed below
in connection
with
the other
three
“rniniprocedures”,
the Board has proposed
to
characterize
this
a
a
“waiver” provision which requires some form
of Board action.
40 CFR 264.ll3(e)(3) could be construed as
a mini—procedure
to be used
for after—the—fact extensions
of time to remove
hazardous waste.
However,
the standard for approval is
that the
removal
“will,
of necessity,
take longer”.
This appears
to
contemplate factors which ought
to be known
to the operator
in
110—203
—18—
advance of the removal,
such that the operator should make the
showing by way of normal permit application.
Therefore,
the
Board suggests that the USEPA rule contemplates an advance
showing as part
of the approval of the removal plan.
On the other hand,
40 CFR 264.l13(e)(4)(iii) comes into play
after a release has been detected.
This authorizes USEPA to
alter the corrective measures plan to either shorten the one year
allowed for implementation,
or to require the operator
to cease
accepting non-hazardous waste.
These are emergency actions,
for
which the standard
is
“to protect human health or the
environment”.
The USEPA rules do not specify a procedural
context.
40 CFR 264.ll3(e)(6) and (7)
deal with required closure of
the unit.
These subsections are intertwined.
Under
the former,
the operator is required to close
the unit if
he either:
fails
to implement the corrective measures plan;
or,
fails
to make
“substantial progress”
in implementing corrective action and
achieving groundwater protection standards.
The latter specifies
a tentative decision/public comment/final decision process, which
is an abbreviated version of the
40 CFR 124 permit modification
procedures.
40 CFB 264.1l3(e)(4)(iii),
(6)
and
(7) amount to
“administrative orders”, including a “closure order”.
The Agency
cannot do this pursuant to
its permit issuance authority under
Section 39
of the Act.
This power
is
reserved to the Board under
Title VIII of the Act.
The process
in
the USEPA rules is patterned after the
groundwater protection
rules in
40 CFR 264,
Subpart
F, which
appear
in
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 724.Subpart
F.
These were adopted
in
P.82—19.
(Opinion of July 26,
1983,
p.
26,
42,
53 PCB 131,
156,
172.)
The rules were amended
in P.89—i.
A hazardous waste
management facility is initially permitted with a “detection
monitoring program”.
If
a release
is detected,
the operator
is
required
to file permit modification applications
to establishing
“compliance monitoring” and “corrective action” programs.
If
the
applicant files
the application,
the Agency may act on the
application, and modify
the permit to require the operator
to
carry out remdial action measures.
If the applicant
fails
to
file the application, the Agency must bring an enforcement
action, which may allege failure
to
file the application,
as well
as any underlying violations associated with the release
itself.
(P.82—19,
p.
27).
The procedures
in this rulemaking
differ
in
that
the operator does not initiate~the process with an
application, and Agency actions includea requirement
to close
a
unit.
This
is more like a “cease and desist”
order from the
Board under Title VIII of the Act.
Another
major problem with the (JSEPA rule
is
that
it sets up
a non—appealable determination.
(40 CFR 264.l13(e)(7)(v)).
As
noted above,
for
the Agency
to have
the authority
to make
this
110-204
—19—
type of determination,
it must be
in the context of permit
issuance,
and,
as
such,
subject
to meaningful
review by the
Board.
If a
non—appealable decision is essential to the USEPA
process,
then it can’t be an Agency permit decision.
The Board has therefore concluded that the Agency cannot
implement the mini—procedures
in 40 CFR 264.113(e)
in
the context
of RCRA permit
issuance.
It
is necessary for the Board to take
some action,
by way of enforcement
order, variance, site—specific
rulemaking
or adjusted standard,
to implement these
requirements.
ADJUSTED STANDARD MECHANISM
This still leaves the question as to the character
of the
basic decision to allow the
impoundment to remain open, which
is
discussed above.
One option would be to allow the Agency to make
the basic decision by permit modification,
but
to use Board
decisions to modify or terminate the basic authorization.
This
appears
to’ be
rather complex, and
it obscures the overall
relationship of the basic decision and mini—procedures.
The
regulations seem to be simpler
if
the Board construes the basic
decision as
a conditional waiver which
is altered or terminated
by the miniprocedures,
with the
result that the general
rule,
Section 724.321, again governs.
Consistent with
this,
the Board
has proposed
a Board mechanism for the basic decision,
subject to
modification or termination by Board decision.
As noted,
there are several possible ways for the Board
to
make these decisions.
These include:
enforcement order,
variance, site-specific rulemaking or adjusted standard.
An
enforcement
order or site specific rule would take too long to
meet
the intent
of the federal
rule.
Variances are not
appropriate,
since the standard for
the basic decision does not
involve arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship, and the rule would
crant indefinite
relief,
without leading
to eventual compliance
with the general standard.
The mini—proceedures also lean toward
greater controls,
opposite the usual direction
of
a
variance.
This
is clearly
a situation
for an adjusted standard,
in which
the standards contained
in the USEPA
rule are construed as
“justifications”
for the adjusted standards,
as the term is used
in Section
28.1 of the Act,
and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 106.701
et
seq.
The basic decision
is
to be done by adjusted standard.
The
mini—procedures are subsequent adjusted standards proceedings
in
which
the Board considers whether
to modify or
terminate the
original adjusted standard.
With the basic structure of
35 Ill. Adm. Code 724.213(e)
decided,
it
is now time to turn
to the details.
STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS WITH USEPA RULE
There are a number
of basic problems with the way the USEPA
rule
is structured, which have forced the Board
to completely
110—205
—20—
rewrite the subsection
in order
to implement USEPA’s intent
in
the adjusted standards procedural context.
A correspondence
table appears at the end of
this Opinion.
The main problem
is
that the structure of the USEPA rule
is such that
it
is difficult
to make a concise change to the procedural context.
To start with,
the removal plan and contingent measures plan
appear
in the rule
in the reverse of their temporal order.
The
operator has to remove
the hazardous waste at the outset,
but
only implements
the corrective measures plan
if a release
is
detected.
The way these appear
in the USEPA rule leads
the
reader
to the false conclusion
that removal
is
to follow
corrective measures.
The second basic problem is that
the requirements for the
removal and corrective measures plans are scattered about
the
rules.
The Board has proposed to consolidate all of
the
requirements into subsections
(e)(2) and
(3).
The scattering of
requirements
is the main structural defect which led to the
reorganization.
In the USEPA rule
it
is unclear whether the
scattered provisions are part of the basic decision, or mini—
procedures.
In the State rule it would be necessary deal with
the procedural nature of these requirements at many points
in the
rule.
The result would be
a confusing mess.
Along this line the Board has made
a number of choices as
to
whether to characterize decisions as
a part of
the main decision,
or mini—procedures.
The Board
solicits comment
as
to whether
its
interpretation is consistent with USEPA’s intent.
One example
is found
in subsection
(e)(2)(C),
concerning
extension of the
90 day removal period.
(40 CFR
264.ll3(e)(3)).
As
is discussed above,
the Board has construed
this as a part of the main decision, and moved
it into the
requirements for the removal plan.
The alternative would be to
make
it
a post—hoc mini—procedure,
but, as was discussed above,
this appears
to be inconsistent with the future—tense standard
(“will,
of necessity,
take longer”).
A second example occurs
in subsection (e)(3)(C) and
(D),
which are drawn
from 40 CFR 264.l13(e)(4).
These allow
the
contingent corrective measures plan
to authorize continued
receipt of waste following
a release, and require implementation
of the plan within one year after
a release
(or approval).
‘These
are clearly part of
the plan, which need
to be stated
as
standards for the basic decision.
One possible effect of
moving these into the basic decision
is
to limit
the use of
these standards
in
a post—hoc fashion.
For example, suppose the basic adjusted standard
is issued,
requiring 90 days
for
removal.
However,
bad weather delays
removal
in
a manner which
in retrospect was
“of
necessity”.
Under
the Board
rule
it
is necessary
to reopen
the basic adjusted
standard
to address
this.
A variance or provisional variance
110—20~
—21—
could be
requested if there
is not enough time
to modify the
adjusted standard in advance.
The adjusted standard could then
be modified to conform with the
“as built”
removal.
Two other structural ambiguities in the USEPA rule are in
40
CFR 264.1l3(e)(4),
which
is mainly
in Section 724.2l3(e)(4)
and
(5).
The first problem
is the definition of
a “release”
in the
introduction.
A “release” triggers the miniprocedures,
so that
this is a very important definition for specifying procedures.
The USEPA rule appears
to define “release”
in
a parenthetical,
as
follows:
If
a release
that
is a statistically
significant increase
or
decrease
in the case
of pH
over background values
for detection
monitoring parameters
or contaminants
specified in the permit
or that exceeds
the
facility’s ground—water protection standard
at the point
of compliance,
if applicable,
is
detected in accordance with the requirements
if Subpart
F of
this part,
the owner
or
operator of the unit:
This violates one of
two
canons of rule writing.
It
is
either defining a term in a subordinate clause,
or
it
is
repeating a definition in a parenthetical.
If one
is defining a
term in a rule,
it
is
a complete thought and ought
to be
a
separate sentence, preferably labled as
a “definition”.
Also,
it
is not a good idea to repeat definitions as “aids
to the reader”
in parentheticals.
For example:
“If your horse,
which, by the
way,
is a four legged mammal, breaks his leg..
.“
The problem
with restating definitions
in parentheticals
is that the reader
never knows whether
a redefinition
is intended.
And,
if the
redefinition is not perfect,
the parenthetical opens the door
to
loopholes and contradictory provisions.
The Board has construed the
clause as
a special,
local
definition of
“release”,
and made
it a separate sentence
in
subsection
(e)(4).
However, the Board cannot see any difference
between this definition and the general definition
in Subpart
F.
If
there
is none,
“release” ought
to be defined simply as
“a
release detected pursuant
to Subpart
F”.
The Board
solicits
comment as
to what the difference
is.
There
is yet another apparent error
in the USEPA
rule which
needs
to be corrected.
When one attempts
to convert the clause
directly into a sentence
it becomes apparent that something
is
very wrong.
The USEPA rule reads
“If
a release that is
a
statistically significant
increase
...
or that exceeds
groundwater protection standard...”
The sub~ectchanges
in the
middle of the clause.
Moreover,
the phrase “statistically
significant increase
or
decrease
in the case of pH”
certainly
needs to modify the provisions concerning groundwater protection
110—207
—22—
standards,
as well as detection monitoring parameters.
The Board
has proposed to adopt
the following in Section 724.2l3(e)(4):
Release.
A
release
is
a
statistically
significant
increase
(or decrease
in
the case
of
pH)
over
background
values
for
detection
monitoring
parameters
or
constituents
specified
in
the
permit,
or
over
the
facility’s
groundwater protection
standard at
the
point
of
compliance,
if
applicable,
detected
in accordance
with
the
requirements
in Subpart
F.
The second major problem with this subsection arises from
the
“miniprocedures” in 40 CFR 264.ll3(e)(4)(iii).
USEPA
specifies no procedural
requirements whatsoever
for
these
procedures.
They do not appear
to be permit modifications under
the USEPA rules.
Nor does USEPA specify the procedures
of
subsection
(e)(7).
As
is discussed above,
the Board has proposed
to use the adjusted standard mechanism for the basic decision,
and
to handle this “miniprocedure”
as
a modification of the
adjusted standard.
At several points
the USEPA rule requires the owner
or
operator
to “implement” corrective measures.
(40 CFP.
264.ll3(e)(4)(i),
(4)(iii),
(6)
and
(7)).
Does thismean to
begin to implement the plan, or
to complete the implementation of
the plan?
The Board solicits
comment.
Many of the requirements
in 40 CFR 264.113(e)
have three
aspects:
the operator has
to have a plan to do
X;
he has
to do
X;
and, doing X is
a condition precedent
to doing something
else.
The USEPA rules often omit one or more of these.
For
example,
the USEPA requires a removal plan and requires
removal
of the hazardous waste,
but omits any effect of failure
to remove
on the basic decision to allow
the unit
to continue accepting
non—hazardous waste.
As
is discussed below,
the Board has
proposed to condition the adjusted standard on actually effecting
the removal
(Section 724.2l3(e)(8)(C)(i)).
The USEPA rule also omits an explicit standard for the basic
approval.
It
is pretty clear
that the standard
is
a sufficient
removal plan and contingent corrective measures plan.
However,
the
rules are vague as
to what
a sufficient contingent corrective
measures plan might be.
The
standard may be implied by
40 CFR
264.1l3(e)(l)(i), which provides that the plan may be a
corrective action plan filed under §264.99.
In Section
724.2l3(e)(3)(A),
the Board has proposed that~thecorrective
measures plan ought to meet
the requirements
of
a corrective
action plan, based
on the assumption that
a
release has been
detected from the unit.
Th~Board solicits comment.
The USEPA rule appears
to repeat the standard for required
closure
in
40 CFR 264.l13(e)(6) and
(7).
The Board has proposed
1.10—20S
—23—
to place the standard for closure in Section 724.2l3(e)(7), and
the procedures
in
(e)(8), avoiding
repetition.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RULE
The proposed Board
rule,
Section 724.213(e),
is sufficiently
different from 40 CFR 264.113(e)
that
it merits an independent
explanatory discussion.
The comparison with the USEPA
rule and
reasons
for departure from the text are discussed above.
Section 724.213(e)
allows the owner or operator
of
a surface
impoundment which
is not
in compliance with the double liner and
leachate collection requirements
in Section 724.321
to remove
hazardous waste, and remain open for receipt
of non—hazardous
waste only.
The unit remains
a HWM unit,
and must eventually
close
as
such.
An operator who wishes
to remain open to receive non—
hazardous waste must file a petition for adjusted standard with
the Board.
Procedures are discussed below
in subsection
(e)(8).
The Board will grant
the adjusted standard
if
it has a
sufficient removal plan and corrective measures plan.
The removal plan (Section 724.213(e)(2)) must provide for
removing all hazardous liquids,
and for removing all hazardous
sludges,
to the extent practicable without imparing the integrity
of any liner.
The plan must call for
removal within
90 days
after
the final receipt
of hazardous waste.
The Board may
approve
a longer time
if
the removal will,
of
necessity,
take a
longer
time, and the extension will not pose
a threat
to human
health and the environment.
The contingent corrective measures plan (Section
724.2l3(e)(3))
is
a corrective action plan under Section 724.199,
based on the assumption that a release has been detected,
i.e.,
it
tells what
the operator would do
in the event
a
release were
to be detected.
It differs from
a normal corrective action plan
in that it must be
filed
in advance
of detection of
a
release.
If the operator wishes
to continue receiving non—hazardous wastes
following
a release,
he must demonstrate that continued receipt
will
not
impede corrective action.
The corrective measures plan
must provide
for implementation within one year after
a release,
or after
approval
of
the adjusted standard, whichever
is later.
If
a release
is detected,
the operator must
file
a new
petition for adjusted standard with the Board within
35
days.
Pursuant to
the new adjusted standard,
if the Board determines
that
it
is necessary
to protect human health and the environment,
the Board will modify the original adjusted standard
to require
quicker
implementation
of corrective measures,
or
to require
the
unit to cease accepting waste.
In addition,
the Board will
retain jurisdiction,
or
specify conditions leading
to
further
consideration of the adjusted standard.
(Section
724.213(e) (5) (A)).
110—200
—24—
The Board will terminate the adjusted standard
if the
operator fails
to implement corrective measures in accordance
with the plan,
or
if the operator fails
to make substantial
progress
in implementing corrective measures and achieving the
groundwater
protection standard or background levels,
as
applicable’.
In addition,
the adjusted standard will
automatically terminate
if the operator failed
to remove
hazardous waste,
or failed
to file an adjusted standard when
required to do so.
(Section 724.2l3(e)(7))
Procedures are governed by Section 724.2l3(e)(8).
This
subsection relies on the general adjusted standard procedures
in
35
Ill. Adm. Code 106.701
et seq.
These were adopted
in P.88—5,
July 10,
1989, and appeared on July 21,
1989,
at
13
Ill. Req
12094.
Note that
there are relictual RCRA adjusted standard
procedures
in 35
11.
Adm. Code l06.Subpart
D, which are cited in
other RCRA adjusted standard governing
rules.
The Board sees no
reason why the general
rules cannot be used for this adjusted
standard,
but solicits comment.
These adjusted standards will be
granted based on “justifications”,
as defined
in Section 28.1 of
the Act.
The justifications appear
in Section 724.213(e).
The justification for
the “basic decision” discussed above
is
that the operator has
a sufficient contingent corrective
measures plan and removal plan.
(Section 724.2l3(e)(8)(B)).
The
justifications for modifying or terminating the adjusted standard
are set out in Section 724.2l3(e)(5)(A)
and (e)(7).
These
include:
modification
to accelerate
the corrective action plan
or cease accepting waste, pursuant
to a finding of necessity in
order
to protect human health and
the environment;
and,
termination on failure
to
implement corrective action,
or failure
to make substantial progress
in implementing the plan,
or
achieving groundwater protection standards or background levels.
The basic adjusted standard will include
a number of
conditions
set out
in Section 724.2l3(e)(8)(C).
These generally
repeat the requirements set out above.
The adjusted standard
must include the following conditions:
the removal plan;
removal;
the contingent corrective measures plan;
required
implementation of the plan;
a semi—annual
report;
and,
a
variety of zipper clauses.
These
include a requirement
to file a
new adjusted standard petition within
35 days after
a
release;
automatic termination on failure
to implement removal
or file
a
required adjusted standard petition;
and,
a requirement
to close
in the event
of termination.
Under Section 724.213(e)(9)
the Agency
is
required to modify
the RCP.A permit
to reference the adjusted stahdard.
It
is
necessary
to add this requirement
in
the State
rules,
since
the
adjusted standard process
is outside
the permit issuance
procedures.
Under
Section 724.2l3(e)(lO),
the owner or operator
is
allowed
to file a revised closure plan within
15 days after
an
110—2 10
—25—
adjusted standard is terminated.
This provision is drawn from 40
CFR 264.ll3(e)(7)(iii).
Revision of the closure plan would
proceed by normal permit modification.
COMPARISON OF ADJUSTED STANDARD TO USEPA PROCEDURE
The adjusted standard procedures are somewhat different from
the USEPA procedures for
requiring closure
in
40 CFR
264.ll3(e)(7).
Under
the USEPA procedure,
USEPA first makes
a
(tentative)
decision that the owner
or operator has failed to
implement closure or
to achieve substantial progress.
USEPA
gives
a public notice, and allows
a
20 day public comment
period.
If USEPA receives
no comment,
the decision becomes final
5 days after
the end of the comment period.
Therefore,
in the
absence of comment, USEPA could
reach a final decision
25 days
after
the initial decision.
If USEPA receives public comment,
it
is
to wait
30 days after
the end of
the comment period,
and
publish notice of
the final decision.
This process would require
50 days,
plus the final publication time, again measured from the
initial publication.
Under
the proposed adjusted standards procedure,
a release
would force
the owner
or operator
to file
a new adjusted
standards petition.
The Board would consider modification
pursuant
to Section 724.2l3(e)(5)(A), and either
retain
jurisdiction,
or issue a modified adjusted standard with a
condition requiring a new petition to address required closure.
The following timeline assumes the latter situation.
In the
former situation,
the matter would already be before
the Board,
so that some of
these procedural steps
would already have
occurred, shortening the time to final decision.
The petitioner must give public notice
of the filing of
an
adjusted standard petition within
14 days after filing.
The
public has
21 days
in
which to request a hearing.
If a request
is received,
the Board will aive
at least
20 days notice prior
to
the hearing date.
14 more days are allowed for post-hearing
comment.
If a hearing
is requested,
it would
take around
84 days
to reach a final decision.
It
no hearing
is requested,
the Board
would act on the petition and Agency response.
The
latter
is due
30 days after the petition.
‘Thus
the USEPA process takes some
25
to
50 days,
while the
Board process takes
30
to
84 days.
However,
it
is not possible
to compare
these numbers directly,
since the “procedures” do not
start
at the same moment:
while
the USEPA timeline starts from
the publication of
its initial decision,
the Board’s starts with
the filing of a required petition.
The USEPA
rule does not
articulate any timeline
for the internal mechanisms
leading up to
publication of
the initial decision.
The comparable point
in
the
Board procedure is either the publication
of notice
of
the
petition by day 14,
or
the receipt of the Agency
response by day
30, which
is the first time the State takes a position on whether
closure ought
to be
required.
After subtracting
30 days
for
the
110—2 11
—26—
response,
the adjusted standards process takes from zero
to
54
days, very similar to the USEPA
times.
Section 724.242
This Section
is drawn from 40 CFR 264.142, which was amended
at
54 Fed.
Req.
33393, August 14,
1989.
This Section has been
amended to specify the closure cost estimate in the event a unit
is going to accept
non-hazardous waste after
its final volume of
hazardous~waste.
PART 725:
STANDARDS FOR INTERIM STATUS FACILITIES
The following amendments are drawn from 54 Fed. Req.
33393,
August 14,
1989.
These amendments allow hazardous waste
management units which have closed
to receive non-hazardous
wastes under certain conditions.
These pose many of the same
issues as the Part 724 rules.
However,
these decisions take
place outside the context
of the permit program.
Issues
in
common between Parts
724 and 725 will not
be repeated.
Section 725.113
This Section is drawn from 40 CFR 265.13,
which was amended
at
54 Fed. Req.
33393, August
14,
1989.
40 CFR 265.13 and the following Sections repeat
the
following phrase, with varying punctuation:
“...hazardous waste
or nonhazardous waste,’ if applicable,
under
§265.113(d)
...“
The
Board has attempted
to correct
the punctuation, and render
this
phrase consistently as:
“...hazardous waste,
or rionhazardous
waste
if applicable under
§265.113(d),
.
Section 725.212
This Section
is drawn
from 40 CFR 265.112, which was amended
at
54 Fed.
Req.
33393, August
14,
1989.
Section 725.213
This Section
is drawn from
40 CFR 265.113, which was amended
at
54 Fed.
Req.
33393, August
14, 1989.
This includes the
addition of Section 725.213(d) and
Ce),
which govern
the
conditions
under which
a unit may
continue
to receive
nonhazardous waste after
it has received its final volume of
hazardous waste.
This
is similar
to Section 724.213, discussed
above, except that approval for interim status units must come
outside the permit system.
However, one of
the conditions
in
40
CFP. 265.113(d)
is that the owner or operator
of
an interim status
unit must file a Part
B permit application.
Therefore,
these
provisions apply only to interim status units with an application
pending.
For
this reason, many references
go to the final
permitting
rules.
110—212
—27—
One difference is
in the introduction to
40
CFP.
265.113(d):
USEPA may allow interim status units
“to receive
non—hazardous wastes”.
However, under
40 CFR 264.113(d), USEPA
may allow permitted units
“to receive only non-hazardous
waste”.
The Board
solicits comment.
As discussed above,
40
CFR 264.113 and 265.113
include
references
to Sections 3004 and 3005 of RCRA.
The references,
in
40 CFR 265.113(e),
to Section 3004 appear
to be
irrelevant,
since
Section
3004 applies
only to permitted facilities.
However,
the
references
to Section 3005 do apply
to ihterim status facilities.
As was discussed above,
the Board wishes
to avoid making
unneccesary references to
federal statutes, prefering to
reference the derivative State
rules.
It
is somewhat more
difficult
to locate
the requirements
of
Section 3005(j)(1),
(2)
—
(4)
and
(13)
in the regulations.
Section
3005(j)(l) prohibits
acceptance of
hazardous wastes at an
interim status surface
impoundment, unless
the unit meets
the standards 3004(o)(l)(A)
of
RCRA,
the standards
for new facilities.
This appears
to be
reflected in Section 725.321(a).
Section 3005(j)(2)
—
(4) are
exceptions
to 3005(j)(1).
They do not appear
to correspond with
the exceptions stated
in the
rules.
The Board solicits
comment
as
to whether
it
is necessary to reference
these exceptions,
and
as
to where
the exceptions are located
in
the rules.
Section 3005(j)(13)
allows the Administrator
to modify the
requirements of Section 3005(j)(1)
in the case of surface
impoundments subject
to prior consent decrees.
It
is not clear
whether
this reference has any place
in
the State
rules, pursuant
to Section 7.2(a)(l).
In summary,
the Board has proposed to
re,ference only
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 725.32l(a’~.
The Board
solicits comment.
A second possible difference between the rules
for interim
status and permitted facilities occurs
in Section
725.213(e)(3)(A) and
(B), which relate the contingent corrective
measures plan to the corrective action plan under Part
724.
As
was discussed above,
the USEPA Part
264 rule provides that the
contingent corrective measures plan may be one previously filed
under
§264.99.
This
is omitted from the interim status
rule.
However,
as noted above,
units subject
to this
rule have to file
Part
B applications, which might include
a
corrective action plan
under §264.99.
The Board sees no reason why
this couldn’t be
used here, and has retained this reference.
As
was
also discussed above,
the USEPA rule lacks
a standard
for approval
of the contingent corrective measures plan.
The
Board
fixed this above
by
reference
to the
equivalent
of §264.99,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 724.199.
Note that the corrective action plan
is unique
to Part 264:
there
is no equivalent
in Part 265.
Although the interim status unit
is not subject
to §264.99,
it
is
required to file an application pursuant
to
it.
There
is no
110—213
—28—
reason why the Board should not borrow this standard from the
final
rules with respect
to the interim status facilities also.
Therefore,
in Section 725.2l3(e)(3)(A) and
(B),
the Board has
proposed to use the same language as
in Part 724.
The definition of “release”
in Section 725.2l3(e)(4)
is
different
for the interim status rules,
because interim status
facilities lack “detection monitoring parameters” and
“groundwater protection standards”.
Rather,
the interim status
facility just monitors for
“hazardous constituents”.
Also,
“release”
is judged against Subpart F of Part 265.
The Board has proposed to use the same adjusted standards
procedures
for the interim status approval as for permitted
facilities.
Indeed,
a major advantage of the adjusted standard
mechanism in this situation is that there is no need to create a
special procedural system managed by the Agency outside the
permit system.
Because the interim status facility lacks
a formal permit,
there is no necessity for Agency action following an adjusted
standard granted by the Board.
There
is therefore no need for an
equivalent of Section 724.2l3(e)(9), which requires modification
of permits to conform with
the adjusted standard.
Section 725.242
This Section
is drawn from 40 CFR 265.142, which was amended
at
54 Fed.
Req.
33393, August
14,
1989.
PART 726:
STANDARDS FOR RECYCLING,
ETC.
Section 726.120
This Section is drawn from 40 CFR 266.20, which was amended
at
54 Fed. Req.
36970,
September
6, 1989.
These amendments
concern corrections
to the first
third land disposal bans,
concerning use of
commercial fertilizers made from hazardous
waste.
PART 728:
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
The following amendments were drawn
from 54
Fed. Req.
36970,
September
6,
1989.
They are corrections
to the first
third land
disposal bans,
which were adopted
in previous Dockets.
Section 728.101
This Section
is drawn from
40 CFR- 268.1, which was amended
at
54 Fed. Req.
36970,
September
6,
1989.
Paragraph
(c) has been
broken into two paragraphs,
(c) and
(e)
.
The former now deals
with “restricted” wastes, which may still be land disposed
if
certain “exemptions” have been granted.
New paragraph
(e) states
the exclusions from Part 728:
Small quantity generator waste;
110—214
—29—
waste pesticides disposed on the farm;
and,
wastes identified or
listed after November
8,
1984
(the effective date of the HSWA
amendments
to RCRA), and for which no land disposal prohibitions
or treatment standards have been promulgated.
The last exclusion is keyed
to the date of USEPA action
in
listing additional wastes.
It appears to be necessary
to
reference the USEPA action on this point.
Section 728.105
This Section
is drawn from
40 CFR 266.5, which was amended
at
54 Fed. Req.
36970,
September
6,
1989.
This Section
incorporates by reference the USEPA procedures for case—by—case
extension of effective dates for
land bans.
Extensions granted
by USEPA are deemed extensions of the derivative Board rule.
The
Board has proposed
to update the incorporation by
reference
to
include the USEPA amendment.
Section 728.106
This Section
is drawn from 40 CFR 268.6, which was amended
at
54 Fed. Req.
36970,
September
6,
1989.
In Section
728.l06(f)(l), “restricted waste”
is changed
to
“prohibited
waste”.
Section 728.107
This Section
is drawn from
40 CFR 268.7,
which was amended
at
54 Fed. Req.
36970,
September
6,
1989.
The amendments reflect
minor changes
in wording
to subsections
(a)(3),
(a)(4) and
(b)(8),
and add
(c)(4).
Section 728.108
This Section is
drawn from 40 CFR 268.8, which
was amended
at
54 Fed. Req.
36970,
September
6,
1989.
This Section
incorporates by reference the USEPA procedures for extensions
of
certain landfill and surface impoundment restrictions.
The Board
has proposed to update the incorporation.
However,
in that this
procedure will no longer
be available after May 8,
1990,
the
Board
solicits comment as
to whether
it would
be better
to repeal
it.
Section 728.132
This Section
is drawn from
40
CFR 268.32, which was amended
at
54 Fed.
Req.
36970,
September
6,
1989.
The correction
concerns Section 728.132(f).
40 CFR 268.32(f) originally read:
“may be disposed
in a landfill or surface impoundment only
if
such disposal
is
in compliance with
...
§268.5(h)(2)”.
The Board
noted a problem with this wording and adopted
“the facility”
in
place of the underlined words.
USEPA has now corrected the
110—215
—30—
problem by replacing
the underlined words with “such unit”.
The
Board has proposed
to now adopt
the USEPA correction.
Section 728.133
This Section is drawn from 40 CFR 268.33,
which was amended
at
54 Fed.
Reg.
36970,
September 6,
1989.
There are major
problems with the Federal Register
text of these corrections.
Item 24 in the Federal Register instructs to remove
“1015
wastewaters”.
However,
this listing does not appear
in Section
728.133(a).
it also appears absent from the Federal Register
cited
in the correction.
One possiblity is
that
the listing was
added subsequent
to the orginal Federal Register.
Another
possibility
is that the listing for
“1015”
should be removed.
Yet another possibility
is that
“1015”
should be changed
to
“1015
nonwastewaters”,
thereby removing
“1015
wastewaters” from the
“1015”
listing.
The Board
solicits comment.
Item
32 in the Federal Register instructs to change “extract
of the waste”
to “extract of the waste,
or
the generator may use
knowledge of the waste.”
This
is introducing a concept into
these rules
that the generator does not have to perform
analytical
testing
if he knows what
is
in the waste.
For
example, see
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 722.111.
The problem
is that
“extract of the waste” does not appear in the Board rule or the
Federal Register cited
in the correction.
Worse,
there
is
no
apparent way
to introduce the new language into the base text in
a grammatically acceptable way.
The text of
the Board proposal
is set forth as follows.
The Board solicits comment as
to
whether this captures the meaning:
g)
To determine whether
a hazardous waste listed
in Section
728.110 exceeds the applicable treatment standards
specified
in Sections 728.131 and 728.143,
the initial
generator shall
test a representative sample of
the
—~a~ee~~eetof—extract
of the waste,
or the generator
may use knowledge of
the waste,
or
the generator
shall
test
the entire waste depending on whether the treatment
standards are expressed as concentrations
in
the waste
extract or
the waste.
If
the waste contains
constituents
in excess
of
the applicable Subpart
D
levels,
the waste
is prohibited from land disposal and
all requirements of this Part are applicable except as
otherwise specified.
Section 728.144
(No amendment)
This Section
i’s drawn from 40 CFR 268.44,
which
was amended
at
54 Fed.
Req.
36970,
September 6,
1989.
The amendment changes
the office with USEPA which
is to
receive requests for
“variances”
from treatment standards.
This has been rendered as
an adjusted standard
in the Board
rule, and the office
remains
unchanged at the State
level.
110—216
—31—
Section 728.150
This Section
is drawn from
40 CFR 268.50, which was amended
at
54 Fed.
Reg.
36970,
September
6,
1989.
The prohibition on
storage
of
restricted
wastes has been corrected.
CONVERSION TABLES
FOP. SECTION 724.213(e)
The following tables show equivalence between
35
111.
Adm.
Code 724.213(e) and 40 CFR 264.113(e).
STATE TO FEDERAL TABLE
35
Ill. Adm. Code
40 CFR
106.711
106.903
106.903
724. 213(e)
724.213(e) (1)
724.213(e) (1) (A)
724.213(e)
(1) (B)
724.213(e) (2) (A)
724.213(e) (2) (B)
724.213(e) (2) (C)
724.213(e) (2) (C) (i)
724. 213(e) (2) (C)
( ii)
724.213(e) (3) (A)
724.213(e) (3) (B)
724.213(e) (3) (C)
724.213(e) (3) (D)
724.213(e) (4)
724.213(e) (5) (A)
724.213(e) (5) (A) (i)
724.213(e) (5) (A) (ii)
724.213(e) (5) (B)
724.213(e) (5) (C)
724.213(e) (6)
724.213(e)(6) (A)
724.213(e) (6) (B)
724. 213(e)
( 6) (C)
724.213(e) (7)
724.213(e) (7) (A)
724.213(e) (7) (A)
724.213(e) (7) (3)
724.213(e) (7) (B)
724.213(e) (8)
724.213(e) (8) (A)
724.213(e) (8) (3)
724. 213(e) (8) (C) (i)
724.213(e) (8) (C) (ii)
724.213(e) (8) (C)
C iii)
724.213(e) (8) (C) (iv)
724. 213(e) (8) (C) (v)
264.113(e) (7)
(
ii)
264 .113(e) (7) (iii)
264.113(e)
(7)
(iv)
264.113(e)
264.113(e)
(1)
264 .113 (e)
( 1)
( ii)
264.113(e)
(1)
(i)
264.113(e)
(2)
264.113(e) (2)
264.113(e) (3)
264.113(e) (3)
264.113(e) (3)
state
264.113(e) (1)
264.113(e) (4)
264.113(e) (4)
264.113(e) (4)
264.113(e) (4)
(iii)
264.113(e) (4) (iii)
264.113(e)
(4) (iii)
264.113(e) (4) (i)
264.113(e) (4) (ii)
264.113(e) (5)
264.113(e)
(5)
264.113(e)
(5)
264.
113
( e)
(
5)
264.113(e)
(6)
264.113(e)
(7)
264
.
113(e)
( 6)
264.113(e)
(7)
264.113(e)
(6)
state
state
state
264.113(e)
264.113(e)
264.113(e)
264.113(e)
state
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(1) (ii)
(2)
(1) (i)
(4) (i)
110—217
—32—
724.213(e) (8) (C) (vi)
724. 213 ( e)
C 9)
724.213(e) (10).
n.s.e.
n.s.e.
264.113(e) (6)
state
264.113(e) (7)
(
iii)
264.113(e) (7) (v)
264.113(e) (7)
(i)
FEDERAL TO STATE TABLE
40 CFR
264.113(e)
264.1l3(e)(l)
264.113(e) (1)
(i)
264.113(e) (1) (i)
264.113(e) (1) (i)
264.113(e) (1) (ii)
264.113(e)
(1) (ii)
264.113(e) (2)
264.113(e) (2)
264. 113 (e)
( 2)
264. 113(e)
( 3)
264.ll3(e)(3)
264. 113
(
e)
(
3)
264.ll3(e)(4)
264.113(e) (4) Ci)
264.113(e) (4)(i)
264.113(e) (4) Ci)
264.113(e) (4)(ii)
264.113(e) (4) (ii)
264.113(e) (4) (iii)
264.113(e) (4) (iii)
264. 113(e) (4) (iii)
264. 113 (e)
( 5)
264.113(e) (5)
264. 113(e) (5)
264.113(e) (5)
264.113(e) (6)
264.113(e) (6)
264.113(e) (6)
264. 113
( e)
(
6)
264.113 C e)
(
7)
264.113(e) (7)
264.113(e) (7)
(i)
264.113 (e) (7)
(ii)
264.113(e) (7)
C iii)
264.113(e) (7)
( iii)
264.113(e) (7) (iv)
264.113(e) (7) (v)
state
state
state
state
state
state
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
724.213(e)
724.213(e) (1)
724.213(e)
(1) (B)
724.213(e) (3) (B)
724. 213(e) (8) (C)
( iii)
724.213(e) (1) (A)
724.213(e) (8) (C)
(i)
724.213(e) (2) (A)
724.213(e) (2) (B)
724.213(e) (8) (C)
( ii)
724.213(e) (2) (C)
724.213(e) (2) (C)
(i)
724.213(e) (2) (C)
(
ii)
724. 213
( e)
(
4)
724.213(e) (8) (C) (iv)
724.213(e) (3) (D)
724.213(e) (5) (B)
724.213(e)
(3) (C)
724.213(e) (5) (C)
724.213(e) (5) (A)
724.213(e) (5) (A) (i)
724.213(e) (5) (A)
(ii)
724.213(e) (6)
724.213(e) (6) (A)
724.213(e) (6) (B)
724.213(e) (6) (C)
724.213(e) (7) (A)
724.213(e) (7) (B)
724.213(e) (7)
724.213(e) (8) (C)
(vi)
724.213(e)(7) (B)
724.213(e) (7) (A)
n.s.e.
106.711
106.903
724.213(e) (10)
106.903
n.s.e.
724.213(e) (9)
724.213(e) (8) (C) (v)
724.213(e) (8)
724.213(e) (8) (A)
724. 213(e)
( 8) (B)
724.213(e) (3)
(A)
110—218
—33—
This Proposed Opinion supports the Board’s Proposed Order
of
this same day.
Because of
its length,
the proposal will not
appear
in the Environmental Register, or
in the Opinion
volumes.
However,
the Opinion and Order will be mailed
to
persons on the mailing
list,
and will be published in the
Illinois Register.
The Board will
receive written public comment
for
45
days after the date
of publication of the proposal
in the
Illinois Register.
I,
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify ~hat
the above Proposed Opinion was adopted
on the
/~~-dayof
~
,
1990,
by a vote of
~
/~ ,~/
‘~
~
~
Dorothy M.
Gufln,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
110-21Q
