ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 7,
1992
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
RCRA UPDATE, USEPA REGULATIONS)
)
R92-1
(7/1/91
—
12/31/91)
)
(Identical
in Substance
)
Rules)
Proposal For Public Comment
PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by
3.
Anderson):
By a separate Order,
pursuant to Section 7.2 and 22.4(a)
of
the Envirorniental Protection Act
(Act), the Board is proposing to
amend the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
The amendments
involve 35 Ill.
Adni.
Code 720,
721, 722,
724 and 725.
The
Board will receive public comment for 45 days after the date of
publication of the proposed rules
in the Illinois Register.
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 review 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 through December 31,
1991.
The USEPA actions during this period are as follows:
Date
56 Fed.
Description
Reg.
July
1,
1991
30195
Wood
preserving
corrections
(R90—11)
July 1,
1991
30200
Liability insurance
July 17,
1991
32688
BIF Corrections
(R91—13)
August 19,
1991
41176
K061 Electric Arc Furnace
Dust, high zinc subcategory,
treatment standard (R91—13)
August
27,
1991
42511
BIF Corrections
(R91—13)
September
4,
1991
43705
Hazardous waste exports
133—34 5
2
September 5,
1991
43877
BIF Corrections
(R91—13)
September 23,
1991
47912
Corrections
to
July
1,
1991,
liability insurance
amendment
December 23,
1991
66365
Interim status monitoring
well locations
Almost all of these have been addressed in prior Dockets.
The July 1,
1991, wood preserving corrections were addressed in
R90—11.
The July 17, August 27 and September 5,
1991 BIF
corrections were in R91-13.
The August
19,
1991, K061 electric
Arc furnace dust correction was also in R91—13.
What remains is probably the smallest RCRA Update Docket
ever.
The USEPA amendments include several site—specific
delistings.
As provided in 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 720.122(p),
as
amended in R90-17, the Board will not adopt site-specific
delistings as determined by the USEPA unless and until someone
files a proposal showing that the waste will be generated or
managed in Illinois.
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.
The
earliest USEPA action in the Docket was July 1,
1991.
HISTORY OF RCRA, UST and UIC ADOPTION
The Illinois RCRA,
UST (Underground Storage Tanks)
and UIC
(Underground Injection Control) regulations, together with more
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
Identifipation and Listing
722
Generator Standards
723
Transporter Standards
724
Final TSD Standards
725
Interim Status TSD Standards
726
Specific Wastes and Management
13:3
—346
3
Facilities
728
USEPA Land Disposal Restrictions
729
Landfills: Prohibited Wastes
730
UIC 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 interin authorization on May 11,
1982
(47 Fed.
Reg. 21043).
The UIC regulations were adopted as follows:
R81—32
47 PCB 93, May 13,
1982;
October
15,
1982,
6 Ill.
Reg.
12479.
The UIC regulations were an6nded in R82-18, which is
referenced above.
The UIC regulations were also amended in R8339:
R83—39
55 PCB 319, December 15,
1983;
7 Ill.
Reg.
17339,
December 20,
1983.
Illinois received UIC authorization February 1,
1984.
The
Board has updated the UIC regulations:
R85—23
70 PCB 311, June 20, 1986;
10
Ill. Reg.
13274,
August
8,
1986.
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).
133—347
4
R89—2
January 25,
1990;
14
Ill. Reg.
3059, effective
February 20,
1990 (7/1/88 through 12/31/88).
R89—11
May 24,
1990;
14
Ill. Reg. 1i~48,July 20,.1990,
effective July 9,
1990.
(1/1/1B~9through 11/30/89).
R90—5
Dismissed March 22,
1990
(12/3I~S9through 12/31/89)
R90—14
Proposed November 8,
1990; No~weinber26,
1990;
14
Ill.
Reg.
18681
(1/1/90 throu.~a6/30/90)
R91—4
Dismissed February 28,
1991 (7/1 through 12/31/90)
R91—16
Dismissed December
6,
1991
(1/1 through 6/30/91)
R92—4
Next UIC Docket (7/1/91 throuqE 12/31/91)
The Phase II 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—19
53 PCB 131, July 26,
1983,
7
111.
Reg.
13999,
October 28,
1983.
R83—24
55 PCB 31, December 15,
1983, B 111. 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
111. 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.
Reg. 968, effective January
2,
1986.
(4/25/84
——
6/30/85)
R86—1
71 PCB 110, July 11,
1986; l0~Ill.
Reg.
13998,
August 22,
1986.
(7/1/85
——
1./31/86)
R86—19
73 PCB 467, Qctober 23,
1986;
10 Ill.
Reg.
20630,
December 12,
1986.
(2/1/86
——‘
3/31/86)
R86—28
75 PCB 306, February 5,
1987; and 76 PCB 195, March
5,
1987;
11 Iii.
Reg.
6017, April
3,
1987.
I33—348
5
Correction at 77 PCB 235, April
16,
1987;
11 Ill.
Reg.
8684, May
1,
1987.
(4/1/86
——
6/30/86)
R86—46
July 16,
1987; August 14,
1987;
11 Ill. Reg.
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)
87—26
December 3,
1987;
12 Ill.
Reg. 2450, January 29,
1988.
(1/1/87
——
6/30/87)
R87—32
Correction to R86—1;
September 4,
1987;
11 Ill.
Reg.
16698, October 16,
1987.
Adopted June
14,1988;
12
Ill. Reg.
12999, August 12,
1988.
(7/1/87
——
12/31/87)
R88—l6
November 17,
1988;
13
Ill. Reg.
447, effective
December 28,
1988
(1/1/88
——
7/31/88).
R89—1
September 13, October 18 and November 16,
1989;
13
Ill. Reg.
18278, effective November
13,
1989
(8/1/88
——
12/31/88)
R89—9
March
8,
1990;
14 Ill. Req.
6225,
effective April
16, 1990
(1/1/89 through 6/30/89)
R90—2
July
3 and August
9,
1990;
14
Ill. Reg.
14401,
effective August 22,
1990
(7/1/89 through 12/31/89)
R90—10
August 30 and September 13,
1990;
14 Ill.
Reg.
16450,
effective September 25,
1990
(TCLP Test)
(1/1/90 through 3/31/90)
R90—11
April
11, May 23,
1991;
15
Ill. Req.
9323,
effective June 17,
1991
(Third Third)
(4/1/90
through 6/30/90); Corrected August 8,
1991;
Uncorrected August 22,
1991.
R90-l7
Delisting Procedures
(See below)
R91—1
August
8,
1991;
15 Ill. Req.
14446, effective
Septezaber 30, 1991
(Wood Preserving)
(7/1/90
through 12/30/90)
R91—13
April
9,
1992; Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
(BIFs)
(1/1/91 through 6/30/91)
R91-26
Wood Preserving Compliance Dates; January
9,
1992;
16 Ill.
Reg. 2600,
effective February 3,
1992.
R92—1
This Docket
(7/1/91 through 12/31/91)
133 —349
6
Illinois received final authorization for the RCRA program
effective January 31,
1986.
The Underground Storage Tank rules were adopted in R86—l and
R86-28, which were RCRA update Dockets discussed above.
They are
currently being handled in their own Dockets:
R88—27
April 27,
1989;
13
Ill. Reg.
9519, effective
June 12,
1989
(Technical standards,
September
23,
1989)
R89—4
July 27,
1989;
13
Ill. Reg.
15010, effective
September
12,
1989
(Financial assurance,
October 26,
1989)
R89—10
February 22,
1990;
14 Ill. Reg.
5797,
effective April 10,
1990 (Initial update,
through 6/30/89)
R89—19
April 26,
1990;
14
Ill. Reg.
9454, ef fective
June 4,
1990 (UST State Fund)
R90—3
June 7,
1990;
(7/1/89
—
12/31/89)
R90—12
February 28,
1991
(1/1/90
—
6/30/90)
R91—2
July 25,
1991
(7/1 through 12/31/90)
R91—14
April
9,
1992
(1/1/91 through 6/30/91)
R92—2
Next UST Docket
(7/1/91 through 12/31/91)
The Board added to the federal listings of hazardous waste by
listing dioxins pursuant to Section 22.4(d) of the Act:
R84—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, Envirite and
r.JSX:
R85—2
69 PCB 314, April 24,
1986;
10
Ill.
Reg. 8112,
effective May
2,
1286.
R87—30
June 30,
1988;
12
Ill. Req.
12070, effective July
12, 1988.
133—35()
7
P91—12
December
19,
1991;
16 Ill.
Req. 2155,
Effective
January 27,
1992
(USX)
The Board has modified the delistinq procedures to-allow the
use of adjusted standards in lieu of site—specific rulemakings:
R90—17
February 28,
1991;
15
Ill. Peg.
7934,
effective May
9, 1991
The Board has granted a delisting by way of adjusted
standard:
AS91—1
Keystone, February
6, 1992
The Board has procedures to be followed in cases before it
involving the RCRA regulations:
R84-10
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 R8522
and amended in R86-46, 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:
R81—25
60 PCB
381,
October
25,
1984;
8
Ill.
Peg.
24124,
December 4,
1984;
R83—28
February
26,
1986;
10
Ill.
Peg.
4875,
effective
March 7,
1986.
R86-9
Emergency regulations adopted at 73 PCB 427,
October
23,
1986;
10
Ill.
Reg.
19787,
effective
November 5,
1986.
The Board’s action in adopting emergency regulations in P869
was reversed (CBE and IEPA v.
IPCB et al., First District, January
26,
1987).
AGENCY OR BOARD ACTION?
The Board has almost always changed “Regional Administrator”
to “Agency”.
However,
in some situations “Regional Administrator”
has been changed to “USEPAII 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.
133—351
8
In situations
in which the Board has determined that USEPA
will retain decision-making authority,
the Board has replaced
“Regional Administrator” with “USEPA”,
so as to avoid specifying
which office within USEPA is to make a decision.
The regulations will eventually require a RCRA 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
“waivell 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 generally
appealable to the Board.
4.
Does this action concern a person who is required to have a
permit anyway?
If so there is a preexisting permit
relationship which can easily be used as a context for Agency
decision.
If the action concerns
a person who does not have
a permit,
it is more difficult to place the decision into a
procedural context which would be within the Agency’s
jurisdiction.
5.
Does the action result in exemption from the permit
requirement itself? If so, Board action
is generally
required.
6.
Does the decision amount to “determining, defining or
implementing environmental control standards” within the
meaning of Section 5(b)
of the Act? If so,
it must be made by
the Board.
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
133—352
9
three are methods by which a re lation can be temporarily .gu
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 conducts 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 goard 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 graht a site specific
regulation or an adjusted standard pursuant to Sections 27 or
28.1 of the Act, and 35
Iii.
Adm.
Code 102 or 106.
As a final note, the rules have been edited to establish a
uniform usage with respect to “shall”. folnustf1 o,
“willog, 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 obliges itself to do something.
“May” is used when
a provision is optional.
Some of the USEPA rules appear to say
something other than what was intended.
Others do not read
correctly when “Board” or “Agencyll
is substituted into the
federal rule.
The Board does not intend to make any substantive
change in the rules by way of these edits.
Section 720.110
This Section is drawn from 40 CFR 260.10, which was amended
at 56 Fed.
Req.
66365,
in connection with changes to the interim
status groundwater monitoring rules, adding the following
definition:
“Qualified groundwater scientist” means
a scientist or
engineer who has received a baccalaureate or postgraduate
degree
in the natural sciences or engineering,
and has
sufficient training and experience in groundwater hydrology
and related fields as may be demonstrated by state
3
1
3—353
10
registration, professional certifications or completion of
accredited university courses that enable the individual to
make sound professional judgments regarding ground—water
monitoring and contaminant fate and transport.
The Board has proposed to delete the “may be”.
As the term
is used above, this would seem to mean “may or may not be”, which
is probably not what USEPA means.
“State” registration could mean either “registration in the
State in which the facility
is located”, or it could mean
“registration in some state”.
The Board suggests that the latter
is intended.
However, the Board has proposed to add a Board note
referencing the engineering licensing regulations in Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111, par. 5201 and 68
Ill.
Adm.
Code 1380.
The Board has proposed to word this as follows:
“Qualified groundwater scientist” means a scientist or
engineer who has received a baccalaureate or postgraduate
degree in the natural sciences or engineering, and has
sufficient training and experience in groundwater hydrology
and related fields,
as demonstrated by state registration,
professional certifications or completion of accredited
university courses that enable the individual to make sound
professional judgments regarding groundwater monitoring and
contaminant fate and transport.
BOARD NOTE: “State registration” includes, but is not limited
to, registration as a professional engineer with the
Department of Professional Regulation, pursuant to Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111, par.
5201 and 68
Ill.
Adm.
Code 1380.
Section 720.111
This is the incorporations by reference Section.
The current
incorporation by reference of SW-846, under the heading NTIS is
as follows:
“Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods,” EPA Publication number SW—846
(Second Edition 1982
as amended by Update
I
(April,
1984)
and Update II
(April,
1985))
(Document number PB87-12029l).
From the Board’s research into Section 721.122, below,
it
appears that the current Edition is the Third Edition, Revision I.
The Board has proposed to add this reference,
and solicits comment
on the correct document numbers for the several updates, whether
it
is current, and whether the above reference to the Second
Edition ought to be removed.
The new reference as proposed by the
Board adds the Third Edition as
follows:
1 33
3 54
11
“Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical
Methods,” EPA Publication number SW-846 (Third Edition,
September 1986
(Document number PB88-239223)
as amended by
Revision
I
(December 1987)
and First Update, January,
1988)
(Document Number PB89148076)).
Section 721.122
As was discussed in the R91—13 Opinion, page
3, the Board
received a public comment in that Docket, relating to an apparent
controversy as to whether the corrosivity characteristic can be
applied to a waste which is not a liquid.
The Board stated that
it would address this language in this Docket.
The text of Section 721.122(a)
(261.22(a))
is as follows:
A solid waste exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity if a
representative sample of the waste has either of the
following properties:
1)
It is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to
2 or
greater than or equal to 12.5, as determined by a pH
meter using either an EPA test method or an equivalent
test method
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 720.121).
The EPA
test method for pH is specified as Method 5.2
in “Test
Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods”
,
incorporated by reference
in 35
Ill.
Atha.
Code 720.111.
2)
It is a liquid and corrodes steel
(SAE 1020)
at a rate
greater than 6.35 mm (0.250
inch)
per year at a test
temperature of 550C (1300F)
as determined by the test
method specified in MACE (National Association of
Corrosion Engineers)
Standard TMO1-69 as standardized in
“Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods”
,
incorporated by reference
in 35
Ill.
Adni.
Code 720.111,
or an equivalent test
method
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 720.121).
The question concerns wastes which are not liquids.
According to the comment, there
is no method specified in the
references to measure corrosivity for non-liquids.
The comment
indicates that the “customary practice”,
in Illinois is to make a
10
solution or slurry of the waste with water, and measure the pH
of the solution or slurry.
The comment asked that the Board
modify the Section to establish
a, uniform practice for Illinois.
133—355
12
pH
is defined as the base ten logarithm of the reciprocal of
the hydrogen ion concentration’
(pH -logH”))
of an aqueous
solution at a specified temperature and is a measure of the
intensity of the acidic or basic nature of the solution.
If the
concept is to be used as a measure of the “corrosivity” of a
solid,
an aqueous solution has to be made.
The pH of the solution made from a given waste will depend on
at least three factors: the ratio of waste to water; the starting
pH of the water used;
and, the buffer capacity of the water.
None
of these factors are specified in the USEPA rule,
or, according to
the comment,
in the cited documents.
A pH of less than 7
is considered “acidic”. and a pH greater
than
7
is considered “basic” or “alkaline”.
The presence of
impurities,
including dissolved gasses, can affect the pH.
If a
liquid waste
is too acidic
(i.e.,
a pH less than or equal to 2)
or
too basic
(i.e.,
a pH greater than or equal to 12.5),
it is
considered to exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity.
According to the comment,
some labs use tap water for the
“customary” test.
Tap water usually has a pH greater than 7.0,
depending on the treatment which has been given the water.
Moreover, tap water usually has a buffer capacity, which may vary
greatly between systems.
Therefore, one would not expect uniform
results between labs using different local tap water.
If one were designing a test to measure the “corrosivity” of
a solid waste in this way, one would need to specify the reagents
and
a standard buffer with which to mix the waste as well as the
procedures for sample collection, preparation and measurement of
pH. Interferences and limitations would also have to be specified.
This type of measurement procedure would be meaningful and provide
reproducible results.
For example,
SW 846 specifies a method
(9045)
for the pH of a soil sample in which the soil sample is
mixed either with Type II
(ASTM D 1193)
water,
for noncalcareous
soils, or a 0.1 N calcium chloride solution for calcareous soils,
prior to measurement of the pH.
The Board solicits comment as to
this or any other standardized method which might be used for this
purpose.
As an alternative to proposing a specific .test,
the Board
seeks comment on whether the USEPA rule is being misread.
In the
‘More precisely,
the “hydrated hydrogen ion activity”,
since
the hydrogen ion is generally present in aqueous soutions in the
hydrated form as a hydronioum ion (H3O~) or with additional
molecules of water and the molar concentration is approximately
equal
to the activity only in very dilute solutions (ionic
strength less than 0.1).
I 33—356
13
context of Section 721.122, the Board views “aqueous solid waste”
to mean wastes that either contains water or
is dissolved in water
so as to be able to measure pH.
The Board could not discern any
rationale for why solid waste would be excluded from a test to
determine the characteristic—of corrosivity.
The comment should
address the question of whether the intent of the USEPA rule at 40
CFR 261.22(a) (1) ~as to limit pH measurements to liquid phase
wastes and not sLbject solid phase wastes to pH—based corrosivity
testing at all, particularly since USEPA has not clearly specified
a test method for pH measurement that would apply to “solid
wastes”.
In addition, the reference to Method 5.2 in Section 721.122
(a) (1) may be wrong.
The pH measurement methods in SW-846 that we
can find are: Method 9040 (electrometric method for aqueous wastes
and those multiphase wastes where the aqueous phase constitutes at
least 20
of the total volume of waste); Method 9041
(pH paper
method); and Method 9045
(soil pH)
all in Chapter
6.
The Board
has proposed to reference these methods, but solicits comment.
The complete text of Section 720.122(a),
as proposed by the
Board,
is as follows:
A solid waste exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity
if a
representative sample of the waste has either of the
following properties:
1)
It
is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or
greater than or equal to 12.5,
as determined by a pH
meter using either an EPA test method or an equivalent
test method
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 720.121). The EPA test
method~for pH 4e are specified as Method 5.2 Methods
9040,
9041 or 9045 in “Test Methods for the Evaluation
of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods”, incorporated
by reference in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 720.111.
EPA Test
Method 9045 for noncalcareous soils requiring blending
with ASTM Type
II water to form an aqueous solution
prior to ~H measurement shall be applicable to the pH
measurement of solid phase wastes and the results shall
be reported as “solid waste PH measured in water”.
2)
It is a liquid and corrodes steel
(SAE 1020)
at a rate
greater than 6.35 mm
(0.250 inch)
per year at a test
temperature of 550C
(1300F)
as determined by the test
method specified in NACE (National Association of
Corrosion Engineers)
Standard TMO1-69 as standardized in
“Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methoas”, incorporated by reference in
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 720.111, or an equivalent test
method
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 720.121).
33—357
14
Section 722.153 and 722.156
These Sections are drawn from 40 CFR 262.53 and 262.56,
which
were amended at 56 Fed.
Peg.
43705,
September 4,
1991.
This
changes addresses at USEPA for receipt of notification and reports
of hazardous waste exports.
Since the Board incorporated these
provisions by reference, this involves only an update of the
references.
Section 724.247
This Section is drawn from 40 CFR 264.147, which was amended
at 56 Fed.
Reg.
30200.
This deals with liability insurance.
The amendment to Section 724.247(a) (2)
adds a cross reference
to subsection
(g).
The amendment to 40 CFR 264.147(b)
extends the liability
insurance requirement for nonsudden occurrences to “disposal
miscellaneous units”, in addition to surface impoundments,
landfills and land treatment facilities.
As was discussed in the
P89-i Opinion, at p.
27, USEPA added this language when it adopted
the regulations applicable to “miscellaneous units”, but then
inadvertently repealed it in another rulemaking.
The Board noted
the error,
and retained the language.
However, as adopted by the
Board, the provision includes “miscellaneous disposal units”.
The
Board has not proposed to change this to “disposal miscellaneous
units”, which is more correct.
Section 725.191
This Section is drawn from 40 CFR 265.191, which was amended
at 56 Fed.
Peg.
66365, December 23,
1991.
This involves the
location of monitoring wells at interim status facilities.
The USEPA amendment adds Section 265.191(a) (3):
3)
The facility owner or operator may demonstrate that an
alternate hydraulically downgradient monitoring well location
will meet the criteria outlined below.
The.demonstration
must be in writing and kept at the facility.
The
demonstration must be certified by a qualified ground-water
scientist and establish that:
i)
An existing physical obstacle prevents monitoring well
installation at the hydraulically downgradient limit of the
waste management area;
and
ii)
The selected alternate downgradient location is as
close to the limit of the waste management area as practical;
and
133—’3c8
15
iii) The location ensures detection that, given the alternate
location,
is an early as possible of any statistically
significant amounts of hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents that migrate from the waste management area to
the uppermost aguifer.
iv)
Lateral expansion,
new,
or replacement units are
not eligible for an alterflate downgradient location, under
this paragraph.
Subsection
(a) (3)
provides that the “operator may
demonstrate...
“
This is a true option with the operator, for
which “may”
is clearly appropriate.
The term “qualified ground-water scientist”
is defined in
Section 720.110,
above.
Subsection
(a) (3) (iii)
(a)
(3) (C)
is worded awkwardly.
It
can be improved,
as follows:
The alternate location ensures detection as early as
possible,
of any statistically significant amounts of
hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents that migrate
from the waste management area to the uppermost aquifer.
The Board.solicits comment on this change.
The proposed
language of Section 725.191(a)
(3)
is as follows:
3)
The facility owner or operator may demonstrate that an
alternate hydraulically downgradient monitoring well
location will meet the criteria outlined below.
The
demonstration must be in writing and kept at the
facility.
The demonstration must be certified by a
qualified groundwater scientist and establish that:
A)
An existing physical obstacle prevents monitoring
well installation at the hydraulically downgradient
limit of the waste management area; and
B)
The selected alternate downgradient location is as
close to the limit of the waste management area as
practical; and
C)
The alternate location ensures detection as early
as possible, of any statistically significant
amounts of hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents that migrate from the waste management
area to the uppermbst aquifer.
D)
Lateral expansion,
new,
or replacement units are
not eligible for an alternate downgradient location
under this subsection.
I
33—359
16
Section 725.247
This Section was drawn from 40 CFR 265.147, which was amended
at 56 Fed.
Peg.
30200, July
1,
1991, and corrected at 56 Fed.
Reg. 47912,
September 23,
1991.
The Section deals with liability
insurance for interim status facilities.
The amendment is to Section 265.l47(a)(2)
725.247(a)(2).
This involves addition of a reference to the financial test of
subsection
(f).
The similar amendment to Section 724.247, above,
included a
reference to “miscellaneous disposal units”.
This is not present
in the interim status rule,
apparently because these units must
have permits under Section 724.Subpart
X.
The correction reprinted the text of Section 625.147(a) (z) (1)
and
(ii)
725.247(a)(z)(A)
and
(B),
which were omitted from the
July
1,
1991,
Federal Register (and from the 1991 Edition of the
CFR).
There are apparently no changes to the text of these
subsections.
The wording differences result from adaptation,
in
prior Dockets,
of the federal rule to Illinois law.
This Opinion supports the Board’s Order of this same date.
The Board will receive public comment for 45 days after the date
of publication of the proposed rules in the Illinois Register.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereb~ycertify that~the above proposed opinion was adopted
on the
7
~-
day of
~77’s
‘~-.j--
,
1992, by a vote of
7
~‘
~
4/
~Dorothy
M. dunn,
~lerk
Illinois Po~llutionControl Board
133—36 ()
