IN THE MATTER OF :
)
AS 07-
PETITION OF CABOT CORPORATION
) (Adjusted tandard)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )
35 Ill . Adm. Code Part 738, Subpart B
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board Cabot Corporation's Appearance of Eric E . Boyd, Appearance of
Geoffrey B . Tichenor, Petition for Reissuance of Adjusted Standard, Motion to Stay
Proceedings, and Motion for Relief from Filing Requirements .
DATED : April 12, 2007
CABOT CORPORATION
By:
One of Its Attorneys
Eric E. Boyd (6194309)
Geoffrey B . Tichenor (6284135)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
131 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel. (312) 460-5000
Fax: (312) 460-7000
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHI 11200342 .1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD APR 1 Z 2001
RECEWED
CLERK'S OFFICE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
CHI 11200342 .1
SERVICE LIST
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Attention: Clerk
100 W . Randolph Street
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Legal Counsel
Attention: Bill Ingersoll
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O . Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62799-9276
Printed on Recycled Paper
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Eric E . Boyd, hereby certify that on April 12, 2007, I caused a copy of Cabot
Corporation's Appearance of Eric E. Boyd, Appearance of Geoffrey B . Tichenor, Petition
for Reissuance of Adjusted Standard, Motion to Stay Proceedings, and Motion for Relief
from Filing Requirements
to be served upon the parties listed below via First Class U .S. Mail :
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Attention: Clerk
100 W. Randolph Street
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Legal Counsel
Attention: Bill Ingersoll
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62799-9276
CHI 11200342 .1
Printed on Recycled Paper
By :
RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
APR 1 2 2001
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOISBoard
IN THE MATTER OF
:
AS 07-
PETITION OF CABOT CORPORATION
)
(Adjusted Standard)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
35 Ill . Adm. Code Part 738, Subpart B
)
APPEARANCE OF ERIC E
. BOYD
I hereby file my appearance in this proceeding, on behalf of Cabot Corporation
.
Eric E. Boyd
Eric E
. Boyd (6194309)
Geoffrey B . Tichenor (6284135)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
131 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel . (312) 460-5000
Fax
: (312) 460-7000
DATED
: April 12, 2007
CHI 11200199.1
Printed on Recycled Paper
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDRECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
APR 1 2 2007
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF
:
)
Pollution Control Board
AS 07-
C)
PETITION OF CABOT CORPORATION
)
(Adjusted Standard)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )
35 Ill
. Adm. Code Part 738, Subpart B
)
APPEARANCE OF GEOFFREY B
. TICHENOR
I hereby file my appearance in this proceeding, on behalf of Cabot Corporation
.
By : Geoffrey
B . T
~c
nor
Eric E. Boyd (6194309)
Geoffrey B
. Tichenor (6284135)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
131 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel. (312) 460-5000
Fax
: (312) 460-7000
DATED
: April 12, 2007
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHI 11200202 .1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERK'S
OFFICE
APR 1 2 2007
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
Pollution Control Board
AS 07- U
PETITION OF CABOT CORPORATION
)
(Adjusted Standard)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
35 111
. Adm. Code Part 738, Subpart B
)
PETITION FOR REISSUANCE OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot"), the Petitioner, through its attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, and pursuant to 35 111 . Adm
. Code, Part 738, Subpart C and 35 Ill
. Adm. Code, Part
104, Subpart D, requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") reissue an
adjusted standard from the requirements of 35 Ill
. Adm. Code, Part 738, Subpart B
(prohibiting the injection of certain restricted hazardous waste) for underground injection
control ("UIC") Wells Nos
. 2 and 3 located at its Tuscola, Illinois facility (the "Facility")
.
In support of this Petition, Cabot states as follows
:
I . BACKGROUND
Facility and Process Description
I
.
The Facility manufactures fumed metal oxides, including fumed silica (SiO
2).
The manufactured products contain unique properties making them important additives in
a diverse variety of products from paints and printing inks to pharmaceuticals and
cosmetics
.
2 .
The fumed metal oxide manufacturing process involves the hydrolysis of a blend
of chlorosilanes, silicon tetrachloride, methyl trichlorosilane, trichlorosilane, and
aluminum trichloride
. The Facility also operates several other related operations where
fumed metal oxides are treated to produce specific products
.
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHI 11200235
.1
Page 1 of 7
Nature of The Facility (35 IlL Adm. Code § 104.406(d))
3 .
The Facility is located approximately three miles west of Tuscola on Route 36 in
Douglas County, Illinois
. The Facility occupies approximately 92 acres of land .
4.
In operation since 1958, the Facility currently employs approximately 160 people .
Waste Identification and Characteristics (35 Ill. Adm. Code § 104.406(d))
5 .
The Facility generates a number of waste streams, some of which are disposed of
on-site in UIC wells
. A portion of the waste that Cabot disposes in its UIC wells is
restricted waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") . See 40
CFR Part 148, Subpart B and 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 738, Subpart B .
6.
Waste streams injected in the UIC wells include acidic waste water from air
pollution control scrubbers, stack drains, fan drains, other equipment drains and
washdown (D002) ; unsold by-product HCL (D002) ; surface water drainage, seepage,
multi-source leachate from the leachate collection system, and groundwater and leachate
purged from on-site monitoring wells (F039) ; and spent acetone from the QC laboratory
(F003).
The Facility's UIC Wells (35 Ill, Adm. Code § 104.406(d))
7 .
Presently, Cabot injects hazardous waste into Wells Nos . 2 and 3 pursuant to an
UIC permit from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA"), effective
October 18, 2001 . In 1996, Cabot plugged and abandoned Well No
. 1, into which Cabot
previously injected restricted waste, in accordance with a closure plan approved by IEPA
.
Illinois' Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions
(35 I1 . Adm. Code §§
104.406(a)-(b))
8 .
The Board's regulations specifically prohibit the underground injection of certain
restricted hazardous wastes . See
35 Ill. Adm . Code Part 738, Subpart B.
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHI 11200235 .1
Page 2 of 7
9.
The Board's UIC regulations were adopted pursuant to the "identical-in-
substance" rulemaking mechanism to implement an UIC program for Illinois . The
prohibitions relating to spent solvents (F003), 35 Ill . Adm. Code § 738 .110(a), and liquid
corrosive wastes (D002), 35 Ill . Adm. Code § 738
.116(c)(2), were adopted in R89-2 . 14
Ill. Reg. 3089 (March 2, 1990), effective February 20, 1990 . The prohibition relating to
multi-source leachate (F039), 35 Ill . Adm. Code § 738 .116(c)(1), was adopted in R90-14
.
15 Ill. Reg. 11425 (August 9, 1991), effective July 24, 1991 .
Prior Federal and State Hazardous Waste Injection Approval
10.
Cabot previously received federal and state approval to inject hazardous waste
into the Facility's UIC wells . U.S. EPA granted Cabot a "no-migration exemption" for
Well No. 2 pursuant to 40 CFR Part 148, Subpart C on November 6, 1990 . See 55 Fed.
Reg
. 49340 (November 27, 1990). Subsequently, on February 4, 1991, the U
.S
. EPA
granted an exemption for Well No . 1
.
See
56 Fed. Reg. 5826 (February 13, 1991) . The
Board issued Cabot an Adjusted Standard from the requirements of 35 Ill . Adm. Code
Part 738, Subpart B for Wells Nos . 1 and 2 on February 17, 1994. See the Board's
February 17, 1994 Order in AS 92-8, a copy of which is attached as ExhibitA ("AS 92-
8).
11 .
In November 1994, U .S. EPA modified the federal exemption to clarify that
Cabot could dispose of leachate and purge water in its UIC wells
. See, e.g., 60 Fed. Reg.
58623 (November 28, 1995) . U.S
. EPA later authorized Cabot to inject restricted waste
into Well No . 3 . See 61 Fed. Reg. 4996 (February 9, 1996)
. On March 7, 1996, the
Board granted both of these modifications to Cabot's Adjusted Standard
. See the Board's
March 7, 1996 Order in AS 96-3, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, ("AS 96-3").
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHI 11200235 .1
Page 3 of 7
II. PETITION FOR REISSUANCE
Description of Proposed Adjusted Standard (Ill. Adm. Code § 104.4060)
13 .
Pursuant
to
35 Ill. Adm
. Code Section 738 .120(e), Cabot seeks reissuance of the
Adjusted Standard granted by the Board under AS 96-3 on March 7, 1996
. Specifically,
Cabot requests that the Board extend the Adjusted Standard through December 31, 2027 .
Level of Justification Necessary to Obtain An Exemption from the Waste
Injection Prohibition (3511L Adm . Code § 104.406(c))
14.
35 Ill. Adm . Code Section 738 .120(a)(1)(A) establishes the level of justification
necessary to obtain a reissuance of an exemption from the prohibition on injection of
prohibited wastes . Section 738 .120(a)(1)(A) requires a demonstration that :
Fluid movement conditions are such that the injected fluids will not
migrate within 10,000 years in either of the following ways :
i) Vertically upward out of the injection zone ; or
ii) Laterally within the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface
with an underground source of drinking water (USDW), as defined in 35
111. Adm . Code 730[ .]
Justification for Proposed Adjusted Standard and Supporting Documents (35
Ill. Adm. Code §§ 104.406(h),(k))
15 .
To justify its Petition, Cabot relies solely upon the document entitled "2007
Petition for Renewal of Exemption from the Land Disposal Restrictions" filed with U
.S .
EPA ("U .S. EPA Petition") on March 8, 2006 . A copy of the U .S
. EPA Petition is
attached as
ExhibitC . The U .S . EPA Petition constitutes Cabot's proposal to extend the
Facility's "no-migration exemption" from the federal hazardous waste injection
regulations until December 31, 2027
. The information contained in the U .S . EPA
Petition satisfies all the requirements set forth in 35 111 . Adm . Code Part 738, Subpart C
to merit an adjusted standard under Illinois law
. The following table cross-references the
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHI 11200235 .1
Page 4 of 7
relevant portions of the U .S. EPA Petition with each particular requirement of 35 Ill
.
Adm . Code Part 738, Subpart C :
Location in the Board's Regulations
Location in the U.S. EPA Petition
Section 738 .120(a)(1)(A)
Sections 2.0 et seq . and 3 .0 et seq .
Section 738 .120(a)(2)
Sections 1 .3 and 4.0 et seq .
Section 738 .120(b)
Section 2 .3 and 3 .0 et seq .
Section 738 .120(d)(2)
Section 1 .5.3 through 1 .5 .6
Section 738 .121(a)(1-3)
Sections 1 .0 through 4 .0 et seq .
Section 738 .121(a)(4)
See Paragraph 16 below.
Section 738 .121(a)(5)
Sections 1 .0 through 4 .0 et seq .
Section 738
.121(a)(6)
Section 3
.9
Section 738 .121(b)
Sections 2 .3 through 2 .5 ; 3 .3 and 3 .5
Section 738 .122(a)(1)
Sections 1
.3, 1 .5
Section 738 .122(a)(2)
Section 1 .5
Section 738 .122(a)(3)
Sections 1
.0 through 4 .0 et seq .
16.
Cabot provided a quality assurance and control plan ("Plan") to U .S. EPA which
addresses all aspects of the federal demonstration . As the Plan likewise addresses all
aspects of the state demonstration, Cabot submits the Plan, a copy of which is attached as
Exhibit D, for the Board's approval in satisfaction of 35 Ill . Adm
. Code § 738 .121(a)(4) .
17 .
Cabot's U .S . EPA Petition makes the demonstration required by 35 111
. Adm .
Code Section 738 .120(a)(1)(A) .
The Petition is Consistent With Federal Law (35 Ill
. Adm. Code § 104.406(i))
18
.
The Illinois state UIC program is identical-in-substance to the federal UIC
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHI 11200235 .1
Page 5 of 7
program. For that reason, the Illinois UIC program "is intended to be no more (or less)
stringent than the federal program ." (AS 96-3 at 6) (quoting AS 92=8 at 7) .
19.
Accordingly, if U .S . EPA grants Cabot an extension of its "no-migration
exemption" under federal law, the Board should do the same .
20.
Cabot requests that the Board, the IEPA and the U .S. EPA work together to
minimize procedural redundancies in the reissuance process . Cabot has separately filed a
"Motion to Stay Proceeding" requesting that the Board stay its decision on the Petition
until U .S . EPA acts on Cabot's U .S. EPA Petition . See Cabot's Motion to Stay
Proceedings, filed herewith .
Inapplicable and Overly Burdensome Information
21 .
Certain information discussed in 35 111 . Adm. Code Part 104, Subpart D, including
the information required by Section 104 .406, Subparagraphs (e) and
(g), is inapplicable
and unduly burdensome
. Cabot, therefore, has not submitted such information at this
time. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 104
.406 (providing the petitioner with the option of
withholding inapplicable information) . The Board did not find information Cabot
omitted to be necessary in either AS 92-8 or AS 96-3 . Should additional information
assist the Board to reach a favorable resolution in this proceeding, however, Cabot will
provide the additional requested information at a later date .
Proposed Language for Reissuance of
Adjusted Standard (35711. Adm
. Code §
104.4060)
22
.
Cabot proposes that the Board adopt the following language in its Order granting
Cabot's Petition :
Cabot Corporation is hereby granted a reissuance of the adjusted standard
from the requirements of 35 Ill . Adm . Code Part 738, Subpart B, for the
underground injection control Wells Nos
. 2 and 3 at its Tuscola, Illinois
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHI 11200235 .1
Page 6 of 7
facility. This adjusted standard constitutes an exemption from the
prohibitions of Subpart B such as to allow the underground injection
disposal of wastes classified as acidic water (D002), by-product
hydrochloric (D002), spent acetone (F003) and multi-source leachate
(F039). This adjusted standard is subject to all conditions imposed by
U.S. EPA pursuant to its grant of Cabot's "Petition for Renewal of
Exemption from the Land Disposal Restrictions ."
No Hearing Requested (35 Ill. Adm. Code § 104.406(J))
23 .
Cabot does not request a hearing in this proceeding .
Certification ofan Authorized Representative (35 IlL Adm. Code §
738.122(a)(4))
24
.
The certification of Carl Troike, the Facility's General Manager, is attached as
Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference .
III. CONCLUSION
25 .
Cabot Corporation respectfully requests that the Board reissue the Adjusted
Standard granted in AS 96-3 and extend its duration through December 31, 2027 .
DATED : April 12, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
CABOT CORPORATION
Eric E. Boyd (6194309)
Geoffrey B
. Tichenor (6284135)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
131 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel . (312) 460-5000
Fax
: (312) 460-7000
CHI 11200235
.1
V-\ Q
By:
5
One of Its Attorneysys
V
Printed on Recycled Paper
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT A
114
MATTER OF
:
`,'
OPINION, AND
ORDER OF
THE BOARD (by R
.C '~Flemal)
x
:
rpf~
=
imended petition for
This mz_ter is before Cabot oCorporation (Cabot) 0fl September
djusted standard
fileBtsYthat
the Board grant an exemption troll
25,::
;1992 g Cabot requ
the underground injection control
(UIC
dis osal'prohibitions in
)
p
disposed-at ;
35 I11 .
:Adm
: Code 715-subpart B for certain wastes
Cabot's Tuscola facility
.-' The United states Environmental
protection Agency (USEPA) has granted an exemption from the
parallel federal UIC rules
The Board's responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act (Act)
:(4l5',ILCS 5/1 et seq
.) .
Board
envirOnment
is charged
control
therein
st
andardsto
1bdetelmine,int and implement the
applicable inetandSimplement the
environmental control standards appiies blnrt
e .St
adjusted
Illinois",
.(Act at section
a(n)
ustif
'such
an adjustment"
:(Act at
sond_for
section 28
.1(a))person„
re
generally7#the",Bonrd!,s
responsibility n
.
this
integral
matter
to
is
Illinois
based on
environmentthe
aystem_oftprincipal,
:
.chacks
adjudicatoryand'-balancesrfunctions
,
charged with the rulemaking
Agency
istrative.duties
responsible for carrying out
Based upon the record before it and upon review of the
Hoard
factors
finds
involved
that Cabot
in the
has
consideration
demonstrated that
of adjusstandards,
grant
adjustedthe
er
u,sted
standard in the instantllatt
i
nted
rrantad
.Tha
;:n
d j
c
standard accordingly
anrxQAOUHD
Cabot operates a inorganic chemical manufacturing facility
(SIC Coda 2Blocated
too
acreslandjempleys 184
hpers
ns
ity
occupies
The facility
approximatelya
manufactures silicon dioxide
(Sic,),
marketedconsists,
under the
ess
iof
aTchlor
silanenfeed stock
.t0
of-the hydrolysis/oxidation
produce
.siO, and hydrochloric acid,
.(HC1) :1
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL'BOARD
February
; 11,°1994
AS ;:92-B
B
(Adjusted Standard)
t
.Several hazardous waste streams are generated at the Tuscola
facility . The majority are disposed of in one of two UIC wells,
;;;
,(Well No . 1 and Well No
. 2) located at the facility . The waste
streams injected in the UIC wells include acidic waste water from
it pollution control scrubbers,,stack drains,_ ;fan drains, other
,
equipment drains, and wash downs (D002)I ;
plus unsalable by-
product HC1 (also D002) ; spent acetone from . the QC laboratory
(FO03)
; and surface water drainage,,seepage,
;c.leachate, andd
groundwater (F039) .
, .
The two UIC wells are permitted by,the Agency .
Wastes with hazardous waste numbers D002, F003, and F039 are
explicitly prohibited' from underground injection unless an
exemption has been granted . Cabot disposes of these wastes via
underground injection based in the exemption granted under
federal law .
The injection zone at the Cabot site includes the upper part
of the Franconia Formation, all of the Potosi and Eminence
Dolomites and the Gunter Sandstone, and the lower part of the
Oneota Dolomite between the depths of 5,400 and 4,442 feet
. The
immediately overlying confining zone is the Shakopee .Dolomite
between 4,442 and 4,124 feet . The confining zone is separated
from the lowermost source of underground drinking water at a
depth of 2,750 feet by sequences of permeable and less permeable
sedimentary rocks which provide additional protection from fluid
migration
Reg
. 49340
into
(November
underground
27, 1990)sources
.)
of drinking water
. (55 Fed .
-
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Cabot has sought and obtained "no-migration exemptions" from
USEPA pursuant to the exemption procedures found at 40 CFR 148.20
jet seq, for the same wastes here at issue
. Cabot's petition to
USEPA was submitted in April 1989 . On August 24, 1990 USEPA
issued
34739 .
a
On
notice
November
to grant
6, 1990
the
USEPA
exemptions
granted
published
the exemption
at 55 Fedfor
.
WellReg
.
No . 2, published at 55 Fed
. Reg . 49340 (November 27, 1990) and on
published
February 4,
at
1991
58 FedUSEPA
. Reggranted
. 5826
the
(February
exemption
13, 1991)for
Well
.
No
. 1,
On August 3, 1992 Cabot filed a petition with the Board
seeking to effectuate the exemption in State law
. The Board
I
The prohibition against waste F003 occurs at Section
738 .110 of the Board's regulations and at the parallel 40 CFR
148 .10 of USEPA regulations ; the prohibitions against wastes D002
and F039 occur at Section 748
.116 and 40 CFR 148 .16,
respectively .
initially docketed the petition as a site-specific rulemaking
under_
docket R92-16
. However, by orders of August 13, 1992 .the
Board'closed docket R92-16 and redocketed the matter as thet==
:instant proceeding, AS 92-8 . In redocketing this matter;as
an -
adjusted standard, the Board observed
:
neither the Board nor USEPA rule provides for,,
has
published
regulatory
IIQL taken
Federal
action
regulatory
Register
on a "no-migration
actionnotices
. Rather,of
exemption"non-regulatory
. it has.''
.USEPA-
:_=
actions which appear to be similar to adjusted
standards . • The UIC actions are not rules, and will nott
appear in the CFR
.
Section 13(c) of the Act requires the board to . •
adopt
regulationsfederal
rules
regulations
.
which are
. In
"identical
this case,
in
there
substance"
are notoy.%
:
471,
(In reAugust
: Petition
13, 1992)of
Cabot Corporation,
R92-16, 135 PCB
Board
On September
In
also
Its
directed
August
24, 1992
13,
Cabot
Cabot
1992
to
responded
order
file certain
opening
by filing
additional
Docket
the
AS
amended92-8
informationthe
.
petition here before the Board .
On December 1, 1992 the Agency filed its response to Cabot's
amended
onsisting
petitionof
the
.
Agency
The Agency
record
response
of its
is
participation
accompanied
before
by exhibitsUSEPA
in response to Cabot's request for federal exemption .
The Agency argues first that Cabot's petition before the
Board should be dismissed for lack of State authority to grant
the
the requested
alternative
exemption
that the
(see
adjusted
following)standard
. The
be grantedAgency
argues
.
in
desired
By
to
order
move
of
the
November
instant
4,
matter
1993 the
to
Board
decision
observed
on the
that
freshestit
-record
opportunity
filings
possible,
have
to
been
bring
and
madeaccordingly
any
.
matters
allowed
up-to-dateCabot
. No
and
additionalthe
Agency
ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE
The Act at Section 28 .1 provides that a petitioner may
request, and the Board may impose, an environmental standard that
jai
from
(a)
the
applicable
standard that
solely
would
to the
otherwise
petitioner,
apply
and
to the
(b)
petitioner
different
as
the consequence of the operation of a rule of general
applicability . Such a standard is called an adjusted standard
.
A
The general procedures that govern an adjusted standard
proceeding are found at Section 28 .1 of the Act and within the
Board's procedural rules at 35 Ill . Adm .,Code Part 106
.
The procedures via which an adjusted standard from the UIC
prohibitions may be sought, and the level of justification
required for a petitioner to qualify for a UIC adjusted standard,
are set out at 35 111 . Adm . Code 738 .Subpart C . : 738 .Subpart C
was adopted in Board docket R92-2, VIC UPDATE, January 25, 1990,
:
effective February 20, 1990 . The 738 .Subpart C regulations are
identical-in-substance
>,73s,Subpart
C has
to
the
the
following
federal-,UIC
organlsattontexemption
procedures
PART 738
•-
SUBPARTHAZARDOUS
C : PETITION
WASTE INJECTION
STANDARDS
RESTRICTIONS
AND PROCEDURES-
Section
738 .120
Petitions to Allow Injection of a Prohibited Waste
738 .121
Required Information to Support Petitions
738 .122
Submission, Review and Approval or Denial of
Petitions
738 .123
Review of Adjusted Standards
738
.124
Termination of Adjusted Standards
Each of the Part 738 sections is identical-in-substance to
the federal UIC exemption provisions, with the correspondence as
follows :
Mate Revelation
Section 730
.120
Section 730
.121
Section 738 .122
Section 738
.123
Section 738 .124
Federal Regulation
JtUTHORITY
A threshold issue ra
:aed by the Agency is whether the Board
has authority to grant exemptions from UIC land disposal
prohibitions
. The Agency contends that this authority, unless
delegation,
explicitly delegated
is vested
to
solely
the State
in the
as
Administrator
part of a primacyof
USEPA . In
to
the
the
instant
provisions
case the
of Part
state
738,
has
and
never
accordingly
sought primacy
the Agencywith
respect
contends that the State has never been given the authority to
grant exemptions from land disposal prohibitions
. On this basis,
the Agency recommends that the Board dismiss the instant docket,
40 CFR 148 .20 (1988)
40 CFR 148 .21 (1988)
40 CFR 148 .22 (1988)
40 CFR 148
.23
(1988)
40
CFR
148 .24 (1988)
The Board is unable to agree with the Agency'
•+;;The%
tdministrator
.of USEPA has explicit authority to grant exemptions
from the federal UIC law
. But the law at issue here is State
law:
p~`In
State law the authority to grant exemptions ;is
vested
. in
the;Board .
.
.
This authority resides in the
Board pursuant to f
regulations adopted under Sections 13(e) and 22
.4(a) of the Act
which,-among other matters, mandate that the Board adopt -='
regulations
.Implementing a stat£ UIC program.,
;The_Agency has
presented nothing in the Act, nor in any precedent,' that in any,!
way suggests invalidity of the State regulations .
.absent ..USEPA's
`delegation of primacy
rvx'
Cabot
t
has sought and received exemption under federal la_'
'from the Administrator of USEPA
. To receive exemption under,,
State
law sabot must, accordingly and as it now does,
. . seek
t.exemption
from
the Board .
}
. The Board notes that in arriving at this conclusion
regarding authority, it distinguishes the issue of authority from
the issues of
conflict and relative stringency that might arise
"from Cabot holding an exemption under federal law for the same
activity prohibited under State law . The conflict/stringency
tissues go to the merits of Cabot's request for exemption from the
:''State UIC regulations, to which the award next turns .
1SFRITS
The
elements of justification required for an exemption
,';`under
Board regulations are the same as those required for
t7j-
;
presented
federal exemptionto
USEPA
.
as
Cabot
demonstration
accordingly
of
stands
the merits
on its
of
petition
its petitionas
"`before the Board
.
The Agency observes that it actively participated in the
Lt-VSEPA review of Cabot's federal petition . (See, e .g ., Exhibits
;2-12 to Agency's Response.) The Agency observes that it was
assisted in its review by the Illinois State Geological Survey
and Illinois State Water Survey, and that it conducted an
= extensive technical review and submitted numerous comments to
` •U
SEPA regarding the Cabot petition . The Agency further observes
that, although it initially considered Cabot's federal petition
to contain "deficiencies or inconsistencies" (Agency Response at
T
8), Cabot ultimately addressed and satisfied all of the
'Agency s concerns
. The Agency accordingly concludes that it has
,no
new comments to present to the Board in the instant
proceeding
. (Id . at 29 .)
,The demonstration that must be made to gain the "no-
migration exemption" here requested is found at Section
728
.120(a)(1)(A) . A showing is required that :
Fluid movement conditions are such
.that-the
fluids,.vill not .. migrate ,within 10,000 years
Vertically upward out of the injection,,zone, or
ii)
. Laterally within the injection `
. zone, to a point
- of
discharge or interface with an Underground Source
.,
of Drinking Water (USDW)
;as,defined ;,in 35 .
Adm . Code,730
In proposing to grant the exemptions requested by Cabot,
USEPA summarized the elements that enteredrinto,
.its decision to
move forward on Cabot's petition
:
The draft decision' to approve Cabot's petition for
continued injection was reached after a careful
consideration of the factors involved in an
environmentally protective injection operation . These
factors include the type of waste injected, well
construction, well operation, proof of mechanical .~
integrity of the wells, properties of the injection and
confining zones, including their ability to receive and
confine the waste, a detailed search for any abandoned
boreholes which may serve as a conduit for upward waste
migration, and comprehensive modeling of the existing
.
waste plume and further growth and movement of the
plume, both vertically and laterally, for the next
10,000 years . (55 Fed . Reg . 34741 (August 24, 1990) .)
In granting the federal exemption for injection into Well
No
. 21 , USEPA found
:
USEPA personnel reviewed all data pertaining to the
petition including but not limited to well
construction, regional and local geology, seismic
activity, penetrations of the confining zone, and the
mathematical models submitted by Cabot to demonstrate
that no migration from the injection zone would occur .
The USEPA has determined that the geological setting at
the site as well as the construction and operation of
Well No
. 2 are adequate to prevent fluid migration out
of the injection zone within 10,000 years, as required
under 40 CFR Part 148 . (55 Fed . Reg . 49340 (November
27, 1990) .)
USEPA has further found :
I USEPA's findings with regard to Well No .` 1, which were
presented at a later date, were substantively the same . See 58
Fed . Reg . 5826 (February 13, 1991) .
s
I
1
As
required by 40 CFR part 148,-Cabot 'hasLdemonstrated to
reasonable degree of certainty-that :there .vill - be no<=
:. 'c!.r
migration of hazardous constituents 'fzom' .the'injection - zone
for as long as the waste remains hazardous .' This final .-`t"=
decision allows the continued underground injection by, Cabot
of specific restricted hazardous* wastes 4including :-'i: ;t
.hydrochloric acid and wastewaters contaminated with .%
hydrochloric acid which are hazardous_because
;they are
corrosive (i .e ., pH:-is
less than .or::equal'•t o 2 .0-hence its
waste code of D002 under 40 CFR,,261)`a
:multisource leachate
.(Code F039) contaminated with small amounts of 1 .1-
dichloroethylene, 1 .2-dichloroethylene I methylene chloride,
phenol, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene from a
closed waste storage impoundment and low concentrations of
residual spent acetone (Code F003) rinsed from laboratory
glassware cleaned with solvent into'a Class I hazardous
waste i .jcctie .^- veil specifically identified as Well No . 2
at the Tuscola facility . This decision constitutes a final
USEPA action for which there is no administrative appeal .
(55 Fed . Reg. 49340 (November..27 1990), . and 58 Fed . : Reg .
5826 (February 13, .1991) .) .;_
The Board has also reviewed the justification provided by
Cabot to USEPA, and finds that Cabot has made all the
demonstrations required pursuant to the identical-in-substance
regulations at 35 Ill . Adm
. Code 738
.Subpart C . ; •, . . .
As an additional matter, the Board observes that programs,
such as the State UIC program, that are intended to be identical-
in-substance" with federal programs are, by their nature,' :
intended to be no more (or less) . stringent than the corresponding -
federal program . The Board finds that withholding the exemption ;?
that Cabot here seeks would cause a more stringent State law to
apply to Cabot, in contradistinction to the stringency principle . ;
In sum, the Board finds that Cabot has demonstrated that
grant of adjusted standard in warranted . The Board further finds
that the conditions imposed by USEPA on the similar federal
exemption are necessary limitations on the grant of this adjusted
standard . Accordingly, the adjusted standard will be granted
subject to those conditional .
'
.The Board notes that the leachate concentration limits
specified in today's order (condition 2) are the same as thoseC
specified in Cabot's federal exemption
. These concentration
limits are derived from health-based levels using a conservative
"final to initial" concentration ratio of 0 .003 . USEPA notes,'
that the concentration ratio of 0
.003 provides 10 times the
dilution sufficient to increase the pH of the waste from 0 .5 to
2
.0 and more than enough to reduce the concentration of all
hazardous constituents to nonhazardous levels . (55 Fed . Reg .
;j i
Cabot
Corporation
-'is hereby,granted
,.anadjusted standard : . .
from, the requirements, of
.35 .I11~ Adm ,Code ;738 .Subpart B for the
nderground
.injection control Wells,Nos rl
:''and 2 at<its,:Tuscola,
Illinois, facility ,This
:adjustedsstandard constitutes an •
;,
exemption
; from' the' prohibitions of'Subpart B such as to allow the
nderground injection disposal of
wastes classified as'acidic,~~"d
water .(D002),
.by-product hydrochloric` acid I(D002), spent acetone
(F003), and multi-source"leachate
:#(F039)"'''The adjusted standard
i subject-to the following
: conditions :
1)z
; The monthly average injection rate must not exceed 400
;,gallons„ per minutep
:
^
(2) The concentrations-fof
ths',constituents'included in the .
injected leachate may .not ..exceed the following values :
(3) Injection must occur only,': into the Franconia, Potosi,
and Eminence Dolomites and ; the Gunter Sandstone ;
(4) The injection zonee consists' of the Franconia, Potoni,
Eminence, and Oneota Dolomites and the Gunter
Sandstone, found between 4,441 and 5,400 feet in
Cabot's Well No . . 1 and between 4,442 and 5,400 feet in
Cabot's Well No . 2 ;,;,.and,
(5) Cabot shall , be in
full compliance with all conditions
,`-.
of its permits and - .other conditions relating to the
exemption found in,35 Ill. Adm
. Code 738
.123 and
738 .124 .
IT IS SO ORDERED .
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
_
5/41 (1992)) provides forr the appeal of final Board orders within
35 days of the date of service of this order
. The Rules of the :e
supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements . (See
also 35 Ill .Adm .Code 101 .246 "Motions for Reconsideration" .) .,,
Acetone
.47,000 mg/L
Tetrachloroethylene
1
.66 mg/L
Methylene Chloride 59 .0 -mg/L
Trichloroethylene-'
1 .66 mg/L,-
1,2 Dichloroethylen
.33 mg/L
1,1 Dichloroethylene
2
.33 mg/L
Phenol';,
_
12, 000,1- , s: : mg/L .; .
34743 (August 24, 1990) and Exh
. 4 at 8-4
.
I ; : Dorothy;x.'BUnn
;~Clerk -of the Illinoin .Pollution
._Control
Board ; hereby'certif
atttheabo a opinion a idiorder-.vaa
adopted on the''/
,day
oV`
vota,of,.° 6
- O . .
'1994 ; a
Dorothy„N . ;
G
;= Clark ' ' '
. ..r;
Illinois`Po ution_Control..Board
EXHIBIT B
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 7, 1996
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
CABOT CORPORATION PE1111ON
)
AS 96-3
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
(Adjusted Standard-UIC)
35 ILL. ADM . CODE PART 738,
)
SUBPART B
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C . Flemal) :
This matter comes before the Board upon a Petition for Modification and Reissuance of
Adjusted Standard filed by Cabot Corporation (Cabot)
. The purpose is to conform the
exemption Cabot currently holds under Illinois underground injection control (UIC) law with
exemptions granted to Cabot under federal UIC law.
The requested modifications consist of clarification that leachate and purge water may
be disposed in Cabot's UIC wells, in conformity with a similar finding of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued in November 1994 ; and that injection of
restricted waste may take place in Cabot's new UIC Well #3, in conformity with a finding of
USEPA issued in January 1996 .
The Board's responsibility in this matter arises from the Environmental Protection Act
(Act) (415 ILCS 511 et seq.)
. The Board is charged therein to "determine, define and
implement the environmental control standards applicable in the State of Illinois" (Act at
Section
5(b)) and to "grant . . . an adjusted standard for persons who can justify such an
adjustment" (Act at Section 28 .1(a)).
More generally, the Board's responsibility in this matter
is based on the system of checks and balances integral to Illinois environmental governance :
the Board is charged with the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory functions, and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) is responsible for carrying out the principal
administrative duties .
The Act also provides that "the Agency shall participate in [adjusted standard]
proceedings". (415 ILCS 28.1(d)(3) .) On February 15, 1996 the Agency filed a
recommendation that the instant requested adjusted standard be granted
. The recommendation
was accompanied by a motion to file instanter
. The motion is hereby granted .
Based upon the record before it and upon review of the factors involved in the
consideration of adjusted standards, the Board finds that Cabot has demonstrated that grant of
an adjusted standard in the instant matter is warranted
. The adjusted standard accordingly will
be granted subject to conditions set out by USEPA on a similar federal exemption .
EXHIBIT
B
1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Cabot has previously been granted an exemption from the general prohibition against
underground injection of restricted waste
. That exemption was initially granted by USEPA in
1990 upon petition from Cabot with support of the Agency', and subsequently issued by the
Board in docket AS 92-8 2. The exemption
.was then, as now, based on the "no-migration"
provisions found under both federal and Illinois law .
In late 1994 Cabot sought clarification of its federal UIC exemption from USEPA such
as to make explicit that certain leachate and purge water could be disposed in the UIC wells
.
On November 4, 1994 USEPA entered this clarification into Cabot's federal exemption .
(Petition Exh
. D.) Cabot did not at that time request that the Board also introduce the
clarification into State law .
In August 1995 Cabot made a second request regarding its federal exemption,
specifically requesting that the exemption allow disposal in a new UIC well, known
as Well
#3
. This request was proposed to be granted by USEPA by publication on November 28,
1995 at 60 Fed . Reg . 58623 et seq. In addition, a public notice, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.10,
was published in the local papers on December 5, 1995, and a public hearing was tentatively
set for January 1996
; USEPA subsequently canceled the hearing "due to lack of public interest
in the decision" (Supp . Exh . at 3). The USEPA has now reissued the exemption, including
exemption for Well #3, with an effective date of January 22, 1996
.
Simultaneously with filing of its federal request regarding Well #3, Cabot filed the
instant matter with the Board . The initial filing occurred on August 17, 1995 ; the petition was
filed under the old docket number, AS 92-8 . By order of September 7, 1995 the Board found
that Cabot's petition was sufficiently different from the adjusted standard granted in AS 92-8
to require opening a new docket . The Board also found the petition insufficient and required
that Cabot submit additional material to meet the requirements of Section 106
.705 of the
Board's procedural rules
. (35 Ill
. Adm
. Code 106 .705.)
Cabot filed an amended petition curing the insufficiency on October 19, 1995
. Among
the additions made to the peitition was requested language for the adjusted standard
.
' See 55 Fed . Reg . 49340 (November 27, 1990) and 56 Fed
. Reg . 5826 (February 13, 1991) .
2 In the Matter of; Petition of Cabot Corporation for
anAdiusted Standard from 35 Ill . Adm.
Code 738 .Subpart B,
AS 92-8, February 17, 1994 .
s USEPA's Notice of Reissuance is in the record of this matter as an
attachment to Cabot's
filing of January 23, 1996, and is identified as
Supplemental Exhibit cited as "Supp . Exh .".
Cabot has waived hearing in this matter
. No other person has requested a hearing, and
accordingly none has been held .
Cabot has requested expedited consideration by the Board
. By order of January 18,
1996 the Board granted this request consistent with the Board resources and the need to
complete the record in this matter
.
NATURE OF THE FACILITY AND DISCHARGE
The facility at issue is located at Tuscola, Illinois
. Itt occupies approximately 100 acres
and is located three miles west of Tuscola on Route 36
. Cabot employs 184 people at the
facility which has been in operation since 1958 . The facility is an inorganic chemical
manufacturing plant which manufactures fumed silicon dioxide (or fumed silica, SiO2)
marketed under the registered trademark of Cab-O-Sil®_ Silicon dioxide is used as an additive
in many products .
The production process involves the hydrolysis/oxidation of a chlorosilane feedstock to
produce SiO2
and hydrochloric acid (HCI) . (Pet
. at 2 .)° The chlorosilane feedstocks include
silicon tetrachloride (SiCI
4 ), methyl trichlorosilane (CH3 SiCI2 ), and trichlorosilane (HSiCI2
) .
(Id.)
The central reaction in the manufacturing process is combination of silicon tetrachloride
with oxygen and hydrogen to produce both fumed silica and hydrogen chloride vapor
.
(USEPA Notice of Intent to Reissue Exemption, 60 FR 58623, 58624 .) Separation results in
fumed silica, product hydrochloric acid, and wastewaters contaminated with hydrochloric acid
;
the latter requires disposal
. Cabot usually injects this waste, along with rainwater runoff and
seepage into its UIC wells . (60 FR 58624 .)
Other hazardous waste streams are also generated at the facility, of which many are
injected into its UIC wells . (Pet . at 2
.) Those waste streams injected into the UICs include
acidic wastewater from air pollution control scrubbers, stack drains, fan drains, other
equipment drains and washdown (D002) ; surface water drainage, seepage, leachate,
monitoring well purge water and groundwater (P039)
; spent acetone from the QC laboratory
(P003)
; and unsalable by-product HCl (D002) . (Id.)
The facility has three UIC wells which have been issued UIC permits from the Agency
.
Wells #1 and #2 have been used pursuant to the existing federallstate exemption to inject
hazardous waste
. UIC Well #3 has not been used to inject hazardous waste . However, Cabot
intends to replace Well #1 with Well #3 once Well #3 is authorized
; at that time Cabot will
plug and abandon Well #1 . (Id.)
4
Cabot's August 17 petition will be cited as "Pet . at " ; the Agency's recommendation will
be cited as "Agency at _"
.
4
UIC ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE
The Illinois Environmental Protection Act at Section 28
.1 (415 II-CS 5128 .1 (1994))
provides that a petitioner may
request, and the Board may impose, an environmental standard
that is different from the standard that would otherwise apply to the petitioner as the
consequence of the operation of a rule of general applicability
. Such a standard is called an
adjusted standard
. The general procedures that govern an adjusted standard proceeding are
found at Section 28
.1 of the Act and within the Board's procedural rules at 35 Ill
. Adm . Code
Part 106.
Cabot seeks an
adjusted standard from the requirements set forth at 35 111 . Adm
. Code
Part 738, Subpart B which prohibit the underground injection of certain restricted hazardous
wastes . The procedures via which
an adjusted standard from the UIC prohibitions may be
sought, and the level of justification required for a petitioner to qualify for a UIC adjusted
standard, are set out at 35 III
. Adm . Code 738.Subpart C
. 738 .Subpart C has the following
organization
:
PART 738
HAZARDOUS WASTE INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
SUBPART C
: PETITION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
Section
738.120
Petitions to Allow Injection of Prohibited Waste
738 .121
Required Information to Support Petitions
738 .122
Submission, Review and Approval or Denial of Petitions
738 .123
Review of Adjusted Standards
738 .124
Termination of Approved Petition
Each of the Part 738 sections is identical-in-substance with the federal UIC exemption
provisions, with the correspondence as follows
:
Section 738.120(a)
specifies:
Any person seeking an exemption from a prohibition under Subpart B for the
injection of a restricted hazardous waste into an
injection well or wells shall submit
State Regulation
Federal Regulation
Section 738 .120
40 CFR 148 .20 (1988)
Section 738.121
40 CFR 148 .21 (1988)
Section 738 .122
40 CFR 148 .22 (1988)
Section 738 .123
40 CFR 148 .23 (1988)
Section 738
.124
40 CFR 148 .24 (1988)
5
a petition for an adjusted standard to the Board, pursuant to 35 Ill
. Adm . Code
106 .Subpart G, demonstrating that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will
be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the
waste remains hazardous.
The demonstration that must be made to gain the 'no-migration exemption' here
requested is found at Section 738
.120(a)(1)(A). A showing is required that :
Fluid movement conditions are such that the injected fluids will not migrate
within 10,000 years :
i)
Vertically upward out of the injection zone ; or
ii)
Laterally within the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface
with an Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW) as defined in
35 Ill . Adm . Code 730.
USEPA'S MODIFICATIONS OF EXEMPTION
Cabot's instant request is for two modifications of the existing State exemption . These
are (1) that there be explicit identification that multi-source leachate from Cabot's leachate
collection system or purged from on-site monitoring wells (purge water) is among the wastes
for which underground injection may occur, and (2) that Well #3 be explicitly identified as a
well within which underground injection may occur . Both modifications have already been
granted by USEPA with respect to federal law .
The multi-source leachates at issue are classified as RCRA F039 wastes . The original
USEPA exemption did specifically identify F039 waste as one of the wastes for which
exemption was granted
; so did the Board's February 1994 grant of adjusted standard .
However, the content of Cabot's specific multi-source leachates did not correspond fully with
the chemical constituents listed in the original federal exemption
.
To rectify this situation, Cabot in August 1994 requested that USEPA modify the
exemption
. Cabot supplied USEPA with the full additional list of constituents. (Petition Exh .
C
.) On November 4, 1994 USEPA issued Cabot a modification of the exemption that added
the new constituents in question to the list of exempted wastes for Wells #1 and #2.
(Petition
Exh . D
.) USEPA found that Cabot's original no-migration demonstration remained valid even
considering the disposal of the leachate and purge water. (Id. ; Pet. at 4 .)
Cabot's argument to USEPA regarding the use of Well #3 was made on the same basis
as the original grant of exemption for Wells 91 and #2 . That is, Cabot argued, and USEPA
agreed, that use of Well #3 presented a no-migration hazard . In awarding the exemption for
Well # 3, USEPA noted :
As required by 40 CFR part 148, Cabot has demonstrated, to a reasonable
degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents
from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous . This final
decision allows the initiation of underground injection by Cabot of specific
restricted hazardous wastes, including hydrochloric acid and wastewaters
contaminated with hydrochloric acid which are hazardous because they are
corrosive (Waste Code D002), a multi-source leachate (Waste Code F039)
contaminated with small amounts of 1 . 1-dichloroethylene, 1 .2-dichloroethylene,
methylene chloride, phenol, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene from a
closed waste storage impoundment, and low concentrations of residual, spent
acetone (Waste Code F003) rinsed from laboratory glassware cleaned with
solvent, into a Class I hazardous waste injection well, specifically identified as
Well No. 3, at the Tuscola facility. This reissuance also incorporates
conclusions based on geological data gathered during construction of that well
and contained in the petition for reissuance dated August 16, 1995, into the
Administrative Record of the decision to grant Cabot Corporation an exemption
from the Land Disposal Restrictions . This decision constitutes a final USEPA
action for which there is no administrative appeal . (Supp . Exh . at 3 .)
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In its granting the original UIC exemption to Cabot in AS 92-8, the Board placed
weight both on the quality of USEPA's technical review and on the need to keep Illinois'
identical-in-substance environmental programs in conformity with the corresponding federal
programs . The Board today again gives weight to both of these considerations .
As regards the technical merits of the Cabot's request, the Board observes that
awarding of any exemption for underground injection of wastes requires a substantial
demonstration on the part of an applicant . These are detailed in the Board's order in AS 92-8,
and will not be repeated in full here.
As regards the identical-in-substance nature of today's adjusted standard request, the
Board observes, as it did in AS 92-8, that because the Illinois UIC program is identical-in-
substance with the federal UIC program, it is intended to be no more (or less) stringent than
the federal program
. (AS 92-8 at p . 7 .) The Board today finds, also as it did in AS 92-8
(Id.), that State denial of the exemption granted Cabot under federal law would cause a more
stringent State law to apply to Cabot .
In sum, the Board finds that Cabot has demonstrated that grant of an adjusted standard
is warranted. The Board has also reviewed the justification provided by Cabot to USEPA, and
finds that Cabot has made all the demonstrations required pursuant to the identical-in-substance-
regulations at 35 Ill. Adm . Code 738 .Subpart C.
The Board further finds that the conditions imposed by USEPA on the similar federal
exemption are necessary limitations on the grant of this adjusted standard
. Accordingly, the
adjusted standard will be granted subject to those conditions . These include addition to the
Board's February 1994 grant of adjusted standard language that reflects the USEPA
modifications of November 4, 1994 regarding limits on F039 waste and of January 22, 1996
regarding use of Well #3
.
This opinion constitutes the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law in this
matter .
ORDER
Cabot Corporation is hereby granted an adjusted standard from the requirements of 35
Ill . Adm . Code 738, Subpart B, for the underground injection control Wells #1, #2, and #3 at
its Tuscola, Illinois, facility
. This adjusted standard constitutes an exemption from the
prohibitions of Subpart B such as to allow the underground injection disposal of wastes
classified as acidic water (D002), by-product hydrochloric (D002), spent acetone (F003) and
multi-source leachate (F039) . This adjusted standard is subject to the following conditions
:
7
a)
b)
The monthly average injection rate must not exceed 400 gallons per minute ;
The concentrations of the constituents included in the injected leachate will not
exceed the following values :
Acetone
47,000
.00 mg/L
Tetrachloroethylene
1 .66 mg/L
Methylene chloride
59 .0 mg/L
Trichloroethylene
1,2 Dichloroethylene
1 .66 mg/L
.33 mg/L
1,1 Dichloroethylene
2 .33 mg/L
Phenol
1,1 Dichloroethane
12,000 .00 mg/L
.33 mg/L
1,2 Dichloroethane
1 .66 mg/L
Trans 1,2 Dichloroethane
33 .33 mg/L
Cis 1,2 Dichloroethane
23 .33 mg/L
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
66 .66 mg/L
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1 .66 mg/L
.66 mg/L
Chloroethane
Chloroform
3
.33 mg/L
.33 mg/L
Ethylbenzene
233 .33 mg/L
Xylene (Total)
3333 .33 mg/L
Toluene 333.33
mg/L
1,1,1,2 Tetrachloroethane
.33 mg/L
1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane
.33 mg/L
Cyanide (Total)
66.66
mg/L
Barium
666.66 mg/L
Cadmium
1.66 mg/L
Chromium
33.33 mg/L
c)
Direct injection shall occur only into the Franconia, Potosi, and Eminence
Dolomites and the Gunter Sandstone
;
d)
The injection zone consists of the Franconia, Potosi, Eminence and Oneota
Dolomites and the Gunter Sandstone, found between 4,421 and 5,400 feet in
Cabot's Well q1, between 4,442 and 5,400 feet in Cabot's Well #2, and
between 4,452 and 5,400 feet in Cabot's Well #3
; and
e)
Cabot must be in full compliance with all conditions of its permits and other
conditions relating to the exemption found in 35 Ill
. Adm . Code 738.123
and
738.124 .
IT IS SO ORDERED
.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/41 (1994), provides for
appeal of final orders of the Board within 35 days
. The Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois
establish filing requirements . (See also 35 111
. Adm . Code 101
.246, Motions for
Reconsideration .)
I, Dorothy M
. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
the
1996,
above
by a
opinion
vote of
and
7 -,
order
9
.
was adopted on the
`aJ day of ,11'1? 4A-ck
8
Dorothy M . unn, Clerk
Illinois Pol
on Control Board
EXHIBIT
C
See Separate Binders
EXHIBIT D
See Separate Binder
EXHIBIT E
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
AS 07-
PETITION OF CABOT CORPORATION
) (Adjusted Standard)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )
35 111 . Admin . Code Part 738, Subpart B
)
CERTIFICATION OF PETITION FOR REISSUANCE
OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
I, Carl
Troike
Facility General Manager
Name
Title
I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am
familiar with the information submitted in this Petition and all attached
documents, and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for obtaining this information, I believe that submitted
information is true, accurate and complete . I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment
.
CHI 11200176.1
ftpd,C //, 2-re ~
Date
I
EXHIBIT
E
1
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
PETITION OF CABOT CORPORATION )
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM )
35 111 . Adm. Code Part 738, Subpart B
)
CHI 11200203 .1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA
E
f
«
ti'
JWFICE4
E P
AS 07- C) :51
(Adjusted Standard)
AF
, '
u1vi
STATE.,)'-
ILLINOJS
Pollutia . :t), lrrol
Board
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS ON CABOT CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR
REISSUANCE OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot"), through its attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and pursuant to
35 Ill . Admin. Code §§ 101 .500 and 100 .514, moves to stay the Board's decision on Cabot's
Petition for Reissuance of Adjusted Standard ("Petition"). In support of this motion, Cabot
states:
1 .
On April 10, 2007, Cabot filed the Petition seeking reissuance of its adjusted standard
from the Illinois state underground injection control ("UIC") regulations for Wells Nos . 2 and 3
at its Tuscola, Illinois facility ("Facility").
2.
The Board previously granted Cabot an adjusted standard from the Illinois state UIC
regulations on February 17, 1994 under Docket AS 92-8 (hereafter "Board's February 17, 1994
Order").
3 .
Subsequently, on March 7, 1996, the Board accepted Cabot's petition to modify and
reissue the adjusted standard under Docket AS 96-3 (hereafter "Board's March 7, 1996 Order) .
4.
On March 8, 2006, Cabot filed its "2007 Petition for Renewal of Exemption from the
Land Disposal Restrictions" with U .S . EPA ("U .S .
EPA Petition") . The U.S . EPA Petition
constitutes Cabot's effort to obtain reissuance of the Facility's "no-migration exemption" from
the federal hazardous waste disposal injection regulations (set forth at 40 C .F.R. Part 148)
Printed on Recycled Paper
through December 31, 2027 .
5.
The U .S
. EPA Petition demonstrates that the continued injection of waste into Wells Nos
.
2 and 3 will be protective of human health and the environment for as long as the waste remains
hazardous .
6 .
The Illinois state UIC regulations are identical-in-substance to their federal counterparts ;
thus, the justification for reissuance under the state and federal UIC regulations is the same
.
7 .
In AS 92-8, the Board determined that denying the proposed adjusted standard where
U.S
. EPA had found that Cabot made all requisite demonstrations under the federal UIC
regulations "would cause a more stringent State law to apply to Cabot, in contradistinction to the
stringency principle ." (Board's February 17, 1994 Order at 7) .
8 .
Likewise, in AS 96-3, the Board found that "the State denial of the exemption granted
Cabot under federal law would cause a more stringent law to apply to Cabot
." (Board's March
7, 1996 Order at 6) .
9 .
Consequently, staying the Board's decision on the Petition until U .S
. EPA takes action on
the U .S
. EPA Petition will assist the Board in making the appropriate determination and ensure
that the Board does not apply more stringent law to Cabot than is warranted under the
circumstances .
10
.
The Board's consideration of Cabot's Petition is not a decision deadline proceeding
requiring waiver of any decision deadline .
11 .
Based on its communication with U .S
. EPA representatives, Cabot expects that U
.S. EPA
will review the U .S
. EPA Petition and publish final notice of its determination in the Federal
Register no later than September 30, 2007 .
Printed on Recycled Paper
2
CHI 11200203 .1
WHEREFORE, Cabot Corporation respectfully requests that the Board stay its
consideration of the Petition for Reissuance of Adjusted Standard until U
.S
. EPA reaches a
decision on Cabot's 2007 Petition for Renewal of Exemption from the Land Disposal
Restrictions .
DATED: April 12, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
CABOT CORPORATION
Eric E. Boyd (6194309)
Geoffrey B . Tichenor (6284135)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
131 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel. (312) 460-5000
Fax : (312) 460-7000
CHI 11200203 .1
B y : One
F
of Its
eAttorn9s
Printed on Recycled Paper
3
CHI 11200141 . 1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
AS 07-
O
PETITION OF CABOT CORPORATION
(Adjusted Standard)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 738, Subpart B
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FILING REOUIREMENTS
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot"), through its attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and
pursuant to 35 Ill . Admin. Code § 101 .500, moves for relief from the filing requirements
of 35 Ill. Admin Code § 101 .302(h) . In support of this motion, Cabot states as follows
:
I
.
On April 10, 2007, Cabot filed a Petition for Reissuance of Adjusted Standard
("Petition") from 35 Ill
. Admin Code, Part 738, Subpart B for underground injection
control ("UIC") Wells Nos. 2 and 3 at its Tuscola, Illinois facility ("Facility")
.
2.
The Board previously granted Cabot an adjusted standard from the requirements
of 35 Ill. Admin Code Part 738, Subpart B on February 17, 1994 under Docket AS 92-8
.
3.
Subsequently, on March 7, 1996, the Board accepted Cabot's petition to modify
and reissue the adjusted standard under Docket AS 96-3 .
4.
In support of its Petition, Cabot wishes to rely solely upon the document entitled
"2007 Petition for Renewal of Exemption from the Land Disposal Restrictions" it filed
with U .S
. EPA (the "U .S . EPA Petition") on March 8, 2006 and the Quality Assurance
Quality Control Plan ("Plan") it filed with the U .S . EPA Petition . The U.S
. EPA Petition
seeks to extend the Facility's no-migration exemption from the federal hazardous waste
disposal injection regulations (set forth at 40 C
.F.R. Part 148) until December 31, 2027
.
5 .
Through the U .S
. EPA Petition, Cabot demonstrates that continued injection of
Printed on Recycled Paper
RER Eo'Ve lD
APR
12 2007
PO
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Control Board
waste into Wells Nos
. 2 and 3 will be protective of human health and the environment for
as long
as the waste remains hazardous.
6.
The U .S
. EPA Petition and the Plan, however, are voluminous and consist of five
binders of information, much of which includes over-sized documents and color
illustrations .
7.
In AS 92-8 and AS 96-3, the Board granted Cabot leave to file one copy of the
petition Cabot filed with U .S . EPA .
See
Board's August 13, 1992 Order in AS 92-8
(attached as
ExhibitA and
Board's November 2, 1995 Order in AS 96-3 (attached
Exhibit B) .
8.
Cabot submitted one copy of the U
.S
. EPA Petition and the Plan to the Board as
ExhibitC and Exhibit D
to its Petition.
9.
In addition, Cabot provided one copy of the U.S
. EPA Petition and the Plan to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with 35 Ill
. Admin. Code §
104.402.
10.
For the above-stated reasons, Cabot seeks relief from the Board's requirement that
all filings include a signed original and nine duplicate copies
.
See 35 111. Admin. Code §
101 .302(h) .
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHI 11200141 . 1
WHEREFORE, Cabot Corporation respectfully requests that the, Board grant it
leave to file one copy of the U .S
. EPA Petition and Plan with the Board as
Exhibit C, and
Exhibit D to its Petition, and relief from the requirement to file nine (9) duplicate copies
of the U .S
. EPA Petition and the Plan .
DATED:
April 12, 2007
Eric E. Boyd (6194309)
Geoffrey B . Tichenor (6284135)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
131 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel. (312) 460-5000
Fax
: (312) 460-7000
Printed on Recycled Paper
CHI 11200141 .1
Respectfully submitted,
CABOT CORPORATION
One of Its Attoni;\
EXHIBIT A
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 13, 1992
IN THE MATTER OF
:
)
PETITION OF CABOT
)
AS 92-8
CORPORATION FOR AN ADJUSTED )
(Adjusted Standard)
STANDARD FROM 35 ILL
. ADM .
)
(Also see R92-16)
CODE 738
.SUBPART B
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J . Anderson) :
On August -3, 1992, Cabot Corporation (Cabot), requested a
site-specific
injection control
"no
(UIC)
migration
land
exemption"
disposal prohibitions
from the undergroundin
35 111 .
Adm. Code 738 .Subpart B
. USEPA has granted an exemption from the
federal
State exemption
UIC rulesby .
way
Cabot
of
asks
adopting
that
a
the
site-specific
Board either
identical
grant a
in
alternatively,
substance rule pursuant
by granting
to section
an adjusted
13(c)
standard
Of the Act,
pursuant
or,
to
Section 28 .1 of the Act . The Board initially docketed the
petition as a regulatory petition, R92-16, which was dismissed
this same day
. For the reasons set forth in that dismissal
order, this matter will proceed as an adjusted standard
.
40 CFR 148 and 35 Ill . Adm
. Code 738 prohibit the disposal
of certain hazardous waste in UIC wells . 40 CFR 148 .20 et seq
.
establishes a procedure for obtaining a "no migration exemption"
in
from
substance
the prohibition
rules in
on
R89-2injection
. 35 Ill
. The
. AdmBoardadopted
. Code 738.120
identicalet
seq .
provides for the use of "adjusted standards" pursuant to Section
28
.1 of the Act for granting "exemptions" at the State level
.
This matter concerns two UIC wells owned by Cab-O-Sil
Division, Cabot Corporation, located at Tuscola, in Douglas
County
. These are described as Wells No . 1 and 2 .
USEPA proposed exemptions for these wells at 55 Fed
. Reg .
34739, August 24, 1990 . USEPA published a notice of exemption
for Well No . 2 at 55 Fed . Reg
. 49340, November 27, 1990, and for
Well No
. 1 at 56 Fed . Reg . 5826, February 13, 1991 .
The Board accepts the petition as an adjusted standard
petition, but asks for more information . Will Cabot clarify the
USEPA exemption language, which appears to be ambiguous in at
least
USEPA
which may
notice
three
be
respects?
injected
of proposed
pursuant
First,
exemption
although
to the
identifies
exemptions,
the discussion
the
the
wastestreamsin
exemptionsthe
exemptions
themselves are
are
not
conditioned
specific
on
. Second,
concentrations
although
found
the USEPAin
"Table 8-6
in the petition document", that Table is not reproduced in any of
the material before the Board
. Third, the exemption for Well No .
OI35-0403
EXHIBIT
A
2
1 is
specifically conditioned on testing which was to have been
done in 1991, subject to approval by USEPA, Region V
. Has this
testing been done?
In addition, the petition generally references the
voluminous petition filed with USEPA
. The amended petition
should specifically address the information requested in 35 111 .
Adm
. Code 106 .Subpart G and 738
.Subpart B, the latter of which is
nearly identical to the USEPA petition contents
. The petitioner
is granted leave to give summary responses, with references to
the appropriate portions of the USEPA petition, only one copy of
which needs to be filed with the Clerk .
Within 45 days after the date of this order, Cabot is
directed
curing the
to
above
file an
deficiencies,
amended petition
or this
for
petition
adjusted
will
standard,be
subject
to dismissal
. We note that the amended petition must be
accompanied by the filing fee
.
IT IS SO ORDERED .
I, Dorothy M
. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Boar
7J.
day
,
hereby
of certif
that the
y above
,
1992,
order
by
was
a vote
adopted
ofon
7-,)the
Dorothy M
./ < inn, Clerk
Illinois Ptp4lution Control Board
0135-0404
EXHIBIT B
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 2, 1995
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
CABOT CORPORATION PETITION
)
AS 96-3
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
(Adjusted Standard - UIC)
35 ILL . ADM
. CODE 738
.SUBPART B
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R .C . Flemal) :
This matter is before the Board on a Motion for Relief From
desires
filed
Filing
by
Requirements
to
Cabot
incorporate
Corporation
of
into
35 111(Cabot)
the
. Adminstant
.
on
Code
October
record
106.708
19,
materials
and
1995101
.
.106,Cabotfrom
an
earlier docket, AS 92-8 . Pursuant to the Board's procedural
rules at 35 111 . Adm . Code 106 .708 and 101 .106, Cabot is required
to file four copies of such materials .
The only document from the AS 92-8 proceeding upon which
Cabot
States
exemption
intends
Environmental
from
to
the
rely
land
Protection
is
disposal
a document
Agency
prohibitionsubmitted
(USEPA)
.
to
This
requesting
the
documentUnitedan
to
consists
file one
of
copy
four
in
binders
the AS
of
92-8
informationproceeding
. Cabot
.
was only required
Board
In
will
light
waive
of
it's
the length
requirement
of the
that
document
Cabot
in
file
question,
four copiesthe .
However,
of the USEPA
the Board
petitiondoes
.
require Cabot to file at least one copy
for stay
The Board
until
will
the petition
not rule
is
on
completeCabot's .
August 17, 1995 Motion
IT IS SO ORDERED .
I, Dorothy M . Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
--9-'`cday
of 1995, by a vote of7`0
Dorothy
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois, ollution control Board
EXHIBIT
B
