ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
24, 1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION OF AMOCO OIL COMPANY
)
R85—2
FINAL
ORDER
ADOPTED RULE.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by B.
Forcade):
This matter
comes before
the Board
on
a January 16,
1985,
regulatory proposal by Amoco Oil Company
(“Amoco”)
to exclude
from regulation as
a hazardous waste,
a treated waste residue
at
its Wood River
facility.
This proposal was filed and docketed
prior
to final U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(“USEPA”)
action
to delist
the waste residue
in question.
On September
13,
1985,
Amoco’s petition for exclusion pending before the USEPA was
granted
and
is published
at
50
Fed.
Reg.
37364.
On November 14,
1985, Amoco
filed an amended proposal
that included additional
exhibits presented
to USEPA during
the
federal delisting,
provided modified regulatory language and subsequent amendments
to
40 CFR 260 through 265,
as required by 35
Ill. Adm. Code
720.120(a).
On December
20,
1985,
the Board proposed
a rule delisting
the waste
in question and
on January 31,
1986,
the proposed rule
was published
for public comment
in
the Illinois Register
at
10
Ill.
Reg.
2246.
One comment was
received on March
14,
1986,
from
the Secretary of State’s Office regarding Administrative Code
Unit
format.
These non—substantive changes have been made at
Final Order.
Amoco proposes this delisting pursuant
to Section
22.4(a)
of
the Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”),
Ill.
Rev. Stat.,
1983
ch.
ill
1/2, par.
1022.4(a),
and 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 720.120(a)
and
720.122(a).
This
is the first hazardous waste delisting
proceeding
to come before
the Board and,
consequently,
a number
of procedural
issues arise that warrant some discussion.
The
Board
notes, however,
that
its
role and authority
in delisting
matters
is subject
to change during various phases of
the ongoing
RCRA authorization process.
Section
22.4(a)
of
the Act reads as
follows:
The
Board
shall
adopt
within
180
days
regula-
tions
which
are
identical
in
substance
to
federal
regulations
or
amendments
thereto
promulgated
by
the
Administrator
of
the United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
implement
Sections
3001,
3002,
3003,
3004,
and
3005,
of
the Resource Conservation
and Recovery
Act
of
1976
(P.L.
94—580),
as
amended.
The
69.314
—2—
provisions
and requirements
of Title VII
of
this
Act
shall
not apply
to rules
adopted
under
this
subsection.
Section
5
of
the
Illinois
Administrative
Procedures
Act
relating
to
procedures
for
rulemaking
shall
not
apply
to
rules adopted under
this subsection.
Section 3001 of RCRA deals with the identification and
listing of hazardous wastes.
Section 720.122 of the Board’s
RCRA
regulations deals with waste delisting.
Subsection
(a)
provides
that:
General
delisting
or
delisting
of
specific
wastes
from
specific
sources
which
have
been
adopted
by
USEPA
may
be
proposed
as
state
regulations
which
are
identical
in
substance
pursuant
to Section
720.120(a).
Section 720.120(a)
states,
in pertinent part, that the
“petition shall
take the form of
a proposal for
rulemaking
pursuant
to Procedural Rule 203
102.120.”
Section 720.122(d)
states:
Any petition
to delist
directed
to
the Board
or
request for determination directed
to the Agency
shall
include the information
required by 40 CFR
Section 260.22.
These various sections seem to combine two types of
procedures for
a delisting petition.
Sections 720.120 and
720.122 require delisting
to take the form
of substantive
rulemaking.
Petitioners must submit
the proposed language with
justification for
the rule and submit the same substantive
information that the USEPA requires under 40 CFR Section
260.22.
Section 22.4(a)
of the Act suspends many of the
conventional rulemaking requirements.
While the Board routinely amends
its regulations
to be
“identical
in substance” with federal RCRA amendments,
the Board
has decided not
to include site—specific delistings
in
its
RCRA
updates.
The reasons for this are two—fold.
First, many site—
specific delistings have
no impact on
the Illinois RCRA program
and second, delistings may deserve more scrutiny than could
be
afforded
in
a RCRA update.
Therefore,
it
is up to
a waste
generator
to petition the Board
in
a timely manner
to delist
a
waste
that has an impact on the Illinois system.
Section 102.202
of the Board’s Procedural Rules creates
a
procedure that
is comparable
to federal
notice and comment
rulemaking.
Section 22.4(a) of the Act dispenses with merit
hearings, economic analysis and review by the Joint Committee
on
Administrative Rules.
The level
of scrutiny that the Board may
give
to these petitions
is more limited than
in
a conventional
rulemaking.
This is not
to say that the Board may not
69-315
—3—
independently evaluate
the merits
of
a delisting petition that
has been granted by the USEPA.
Clearly, more scrutiny
is
envisioned than
in peremptory ruleinakings such as for New Source
Performance Standards
(NSPS)
or National Emission Standards For
Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS).
The Board
is allowed
180
days
to act and
the RCRA regulations
require the compilation of
a
record equivalent
to
that presented
to the USEPA.
Additionally,
while hearings are not mandatory,
the Board
is not prohibited
from holding
a merit hearing.
The Board,
in
the instant proceeding, has elected not to
hold
a hearing.
However,
the Board believes that it has
authority
to hold
a hearing
on
its own motion or
at the
request
of
an interested participant.
Whether
or not the Board has
authority
to refuse
to delist
a waste
that has been delisted by
the USEPA
is
a question the Board need not reach in today’s
decision.
As
a
final procedural note,
Section 720.122(c)
of the
regulations provides
a mechanism whereby the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)
“may determine
in
a
permit or
a letter directed
to
a generator that
a waste
from a
particular source
is not subject to these
regulations.”
Such
a
permit
or letter
is only binding on the Agency and not on other
persons
or the Board.
The Agency clearly
is not required
to make
such
a determination through
a
letter
or permit.
Amoco operated
a petroleum refinery at Wood River,
Illinois,
from 1908
to
1981.
With the commencement of operation in 1977 of
an advanced design wastewater treatment plant that included
a
dissolved air flotation
(DAF)
unit, Amoco began
to produce DAF
float,
a material later
listed by USEPA under RCRA
as
a hazardous
waste and designated K048.
See
40 CFR 261.32.
DAF float
is
listed because
it contains hexavalent chromium and lead.
This
material was
so stable and resistant to treatment
that it was
necessary
to store
the waste
in wastewater
surge ponds until
some
methods of management could
be developed
(Petition,
p.
3).
Refining operations
at the Wood River facility were
permanently shut down
in 1981, and Amoco subsequently donated the
wastewater treatment plant
to the City
of Wood River
for use
as
a
Regional Treatment Plant.
In the transfer agreement, Amoco
agreed
to clean and
lower these
surge ponds to provide the City
with 150 million gallons of surge capacity
in order
to complete
construction and tie—in of
the equipment for the treatment plant
(Petition,
p.
4)
Amoco proposes
to engage Chernfix Technologies,
Inc.,
to
remove and chemically stabilize the DAF float.
Amoco asserts
that from
a practical standpoint,
the resulting treated waste
will
not
be hazardous since
it will exhibit none of the four
characteristics
of hazardous waste.
Under current regulations,
however,
the treated DAF float would
be defined
as hazardous
because
it derives from the treatment of
a listed generic
69-316
—4—
hazardous waste. The treated material will
be placed
in
a special
solidification area nearby that has been suitably constructed.
(Petition,
p.
5).
Amoco petitioned USEPA to delist the treated DAF float.
On
October
23,
1984, USEPA proposed
to exclude, on
a one—time basis,
150 million gallons
of the treated waste
that will
be generated
by Amoco.
49 Fed. Reg.
42589
(October 23,
1984).
However,
in
that notice,
USEPA expressed concern over the
level of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PNA’s)
found
in the waste.
As
previously noted,
the waste
in question was not originally listed
based
on hazardous characteristics associated with PNA content,
but due
to hexavalent chromium and lead.
However,
subsequent
to
DAF float’s listing, USEPA became concerned with PNA levels
in
the waste.
50
Fed.
Reg. at
37365
(September
13,
1985).
Since
that notice was published,
USEPA completed
a study on
PNA’s
to determine:
(1)
the toxicity
of the various PNA’s,
(2)
background levels of PNA’s normally found in~theenvironment, and
(3)
the ability of PNA’s
to migrate
from waste into the
environment.
In particular, USEPA wanted
to determine whether
PNA’s should
be added
as
a basis
for listing
the chemically
stabilized DAF float sludge generated by Amoco.
This study was
made available for public comment on May
9, 1985,
at
50
Fed. Reg.
19551.
Based upon the
information contained
in the PNA study,
USEPA believes that
the
level
of PNA’s found
in the wastes at
Amoco’s Wood River
facility would not pose
a threat
to human
health
and environment.
Based
on test data submitted by Amoco
from representative
samples which included total digestion for metals,
EP toxicity
and oily waste
EP toxicity test data, multiple extraction test
data, oily waste multiple extraction test data,
and total
analyses for
95 potential organic contaminants, USEPA found that
Amoco has demonstrated that the Chemfix process successfully
binds
the inorganic toxicants within the matrix
of the residue,
thereby limiting
their mobility.
USEPA further believes that the
Chemfix treated waste will not contain sufficient quantities
of
volatile organics
to be of regulatory concern.
While USEPA found
the treated waste
to be non—hazardous for
all
reasons and excluded
it from hazardous waste control under
specified conditions,
it did impose additional sampling and
monitoring requirements.
Due
to the large volume of waste
contained
in Amoco’s impoundments,
the high content of toxic
metals in
the waste and the fact that the data
in the petition
was based on laboratory and pilot scale data, USEPA required
testing
of the treated waste
to assure that stabilization occurs
and that
each day’s treated waste be identified
and
retrievable.
Amoco,
in
its amended petition, proposed modified
language
that reflects these additional conditions.
(Amended
Petition,
p.
2).
69-317
—5—
Pursuant
to Section 22.4(a)
of the Act,
the Board amends
the
RCRA regulations
to allow an exclusion for Amoco’s treated waste
that
is
identical
to the exclusion adopted by USEPA on September
13,
1985.
However,
the Board will place the exclusion in
Appendix
I rather than
3,
as proposed
by Amoco,
because Appendix
I has already
been designated
as the appropriate location in R85—
22.
Additionally, Amoco’s proposed amendment of Section 721.132
is unnecessary
as similar language has already been adopted on
December
20,
1985.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts
the amendment
to 35
Ill. Adm. Code
Part 721, Appendix
I:
Section 72l.Appendix
I
Metheds e~Ane~ysi~
~ei~
?er4i~~e&
bee—~—B4ex~t~
et~
Bee~~
+Re~ee~ed-~
Wastes
Excluded under Section 720.120 and
720.122
A
~s
reme~e~~phy
e~P?BB +Repea~ed~
Table A
Wastes Excluded From Non—Specific Sources
Facility Address
Waste Description
(Reserved)
(Source:
Former Appendix
I, Table A Repealed
at
10 Ill.
Reg.
998,
effective January
3,
1986;
new Appendix I, Table A
adopted
______
Ill. Reg.
___________,
effective
_______________)
Thb~eB
BFPPP Key ~e~s
ar~d3en
A~t~d~ee
?r~tef~e*Repe~ed+
Table B
Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
Facility Address
Waste Description
Amoco Oil
Wood River,
150 million gallons
of DAF
Company
Illinois
float from 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
69.318
—6—
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
puiriped
into bermed cells
to
ensure that
the waste
is
identifiable
in the event that
removal
is necessary.
(Source:
Former Appendix
I, Table B Repealed at
10
Ill. Reg.
998, effective January
3,
1986;
new Appendix
I, Table
B
adopted
_____
Ill. Reg.
___________,
effective
_______________
~~+e
e
e~Aeet~re~eM~sse~Mert~ered
~
~e
Sei~ee~ed—~ei~
Mei~e?ing7 bew Rese~i~ert7
MeSpeeei~e~y
~ef
S~~i~ee~Beteri~rte~4en
efPe~e—TPe~~—7
~
~ex~e
er~n~edB~ber~ze—p—
e~dBee~urert~+~epee3e~-)~
Table
C
Wastes Excluded From Commercial Chemical
Products,Off—Specification
Species, Container
Residues,
and Soil Residues Thereof
Facility Address
Waste Description
(Source:
Former Appendix
I, Table
C Repealed at
10
Ill. Reg.
998, effective January
3,
1986;
new Appendix
I, Table
C
adopted
_____
Ill.
Req.
__________,
effective
_______________
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Final Order/Adopted Rule was
adopted on the
~
day of
~T2
,
1986,
by
a
vote of
7c-~’
.
7/
~
~7,
~
Dorothy M.
Günn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
69-319