pursuant to Procedural Rule 203 102.120.’ Section 720.122(d)states:

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

20,

1985

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PETITION OF AMOCO OIL COMPANY

)

 R85-2

PROPOSED RULEO

 PUBLICATION FOR

PUBLIC

 COMMENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B~Forcade):

This matter

 comes before

 the Board

on

 a January 16, 1985~

regulatory propc~alby Amoco

Oil

 Company (“Amoco”)

 to exclude

from regulation

 a hazardous waste,

 a treated waste residue

at

its wood River f~cility~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

 Iii.

 Adm, Code

720,120(a).

Amoco proposes this delisting pursuant

 to Section 22,4(a)

of

the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), Xli.

 Rev,

 Stat.,

1983

ch. 111 1/2,

 par.

 1022,4(a),

and

35

 Ill. Adm, Code 720.120(a)

and

720.122(a),

 This

 is the first hazardous waste deiistin9

proceeding

to

come

 before

 the Board and, consequently, ~

number

of procedural issues arise

 that warrant some discussion.

 Section

22.4(a)

 of the Act reads as follows:

The

 Board

 shall

 adopt

 within

180

 days

 regulations

which

are

identical

in

 substance

to

 federal

regulations

 or amendments thereto promulgated

by

the

Administrat;or

of

the

United

States

Environmental

Protection

 Agency

to

 implement Sections

 3001,

 3002,

3003,

3004,

and

3005,

the

 Resource

Conservation

and Recovery

Act

of

1976

 (P.L.

 94—580),

as

 amended.

The provisions

 and requirements

 of Title VII

of

 this

Act

shall

not

apply

to

rules

adopted

under

this

subsection.

Section

of

the

Illinois

Administrative

Procedures Act

relating

procedures

for

rulemaking

shall

not

apply

rules

adopted

under

this

subsection.

Section 3001 of RCRA deals

with

 the identification

anã

listing

 of hazardous wastes,

 Presumably,

 section 22.4(a)

 also

applies

 to the delisting

 of RCRA hazardous waStes before

the

Board.

 Section 720.122

the

State~s

RCRA

regulations

deals

with waste deiis~ing.

Subsection

(a)

provides

that:

67-167

—2-

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 places the proposal on a 180

day time clock and 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 RCM 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

independently evaluate the merits of a delisting petition that

has been granted by the USEPA.

 Clearly, more scrutiny is

envisioned than in peremptory rulemakings 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.

67-168

3—

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.

 The only limitation on the Board

is that it must act within 180 days of final federal action.

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 Act (“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

provide

 t)ie 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 Chemfix 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

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 OAF 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

67169

—4—

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

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~snormally found

 in the environment,

and

(3)

 the ability of PNA~sto 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~sfound

 in the wastes

at

Amoco~sWood 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,

 HP 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

~.mocohas 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~simpoundments,

 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~streated waste be identified and

retrievable.

 Amoco,

 in its amended petition, proposed modified

language that reflects these additional conditions,

 (Amended

Petition, p.

2).

Pursuant to Section 22,4(a)

 of the Act,

 the Board proposes

to amend the RCRA regulations and will provide notice

 in the

Illinois

 ister

 for public comment, pursuant

to

35

 Ill. Adm.

code 102.103.

 This proposed amendment provides an exclusion for

Amoco~streated 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 J,

 as proposed by Amoco,

because Appendix

 I has already been designated

 as the appropriate

location

 in R85~22.

 Additionally, Amoco~sproposed amendment of

Section 721.132

 is unnecessary as similar

 language has already

67-170

been

proposed

 b85—22

 on October

0,

19

3

an

is

 a3 pted

as

final

 today,

in

 eparate Board acti

The following proposed amendment

 to ~

 Ill. Adm. Code Part

721,

 Appendix

I

 is su3mitted for pu~Fcat~orT~Fi~eiUn~is

for public comnen

lxi

 as~~

3~

 d u~id5~Sectinn720.l20

ani

 ,20,l2

Al~

~‘

)IX

 Tabic A

 A~TLS~XC~UDED

FROM NCN-.P CHIC SOURCCS

(Reserved

~

 dix I, Table

B

 WASTES EXCLUDED

FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

~lit

 ~ess

Amoco Oil

 Wood River,

150

 1lli2~~llonsof DAF

Cor~~

 Illinois

 f1o~tfroroleurnr~i~

~

 fou~~ur3~~2n~

at

 treatmer~wrth the

Cher fix st~ETTizatT~i~

~r~i~

 i~ij~xcl~si

on

~hel5~on

~iii~a~is

waste

after

chemical

mixi~jratJ~j~erea~t

ith the waste_are monitored

con inuo

~deo

f

the

 mits

 resented

Iedew~nstratio~~

~

I~

 rfrom each treatment unit,

cj~tedandE~cit

~

 fth e levels of

 1ea~3

or

 total chromium exceed_0.5

oar i~the EP extract

 then_the

wat~ ~

om~os~~9~!iodis

s~d~ed

h~-~ardous~_the

rice

shall

d

o

bermed_cells_to

ensure that the waste_is

identifiable

 in the event

 that

removal is_ne~~~r,

FROM COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS1

OFF—SPECIFICATION SPECIES, CONTAINER RESIDUES,

AND SOIL RESIDUES_THEREOF

Facility

 Address

 Waste Description

(Reserved)

IT

IS

 SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy

 Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the abqve Proposed Rule and Opinion

arid

Order~as

adopted

 on the ~ O~ day

__________,

1985,

 by a vote

of

_______

~

Dorothy M. pnn,

 Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

67-172