ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September
    6,
    1979
    THE EUREKA COMPANY,
    )
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB 79—117
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Young):
    On June
    1,
    1979,
    The Eureka Company filed
    a Petition for
    Variance for relief from Rule 201 of Chapter
    9:
    Special Waste
    Hauling Regulations
    to permit the Petitioner
    to transport
    special waste across a public highway from one plant to another
    without
    a special waste hauling permit or need for a manifest.
    The Environmental Protection Agency submitted no recommendation.
    No hearing was held
    in this matter; Petitioner properly waived
    hearing
    in its petition and extended the 90-day statutory
    decision period until September
    7,
    1979.
    The Eureka Company owns and operates a vacuum cleaner
    manufacturing facility on
    24 acres near the City of Bloomington,
    Illinois.
    The manufacturing site
    is divided by a public road-
    way known as Hannah Etreet or U.S.
    150.
    During daily operations,
    Petitioner transports special waste from certain manufacturing
    processes across Hannah Street to a storage area also located
    on Petitioner’s premises.
    The
    special waste
    types include
    paint
    filters, alkali sludge, water reduced paint, chlorinated solvent,
    paint reducing solvent, chromium sludge, cadmium and nickel
    sludge,
    tramp oil and alkali and paint pigments in alkali.
    The
    special waste travels
    in drums or containers ranging from five
    gallons
    to one barrel on forklift trucks across Hannah Street
    at a guarded crossing operated by uniformed security personnel.
    Periodically, the special waste
    is removed by permitted special
    waste hauling vehicles for disposal at the sanitary landfill
    site as specified by supplemental permit.
    (Pet.
    1-3.)
    Without the requested relief from the special waste hauling
    regulations, Petitioner claims that each forklift would require
    a special waste hauling permit and number and the estimated
    60
    to
    80 loads per month must carry
    a manifest.
    On the manifest,
    The Eureka Company would be listed as generator,
    hauler and the
    receiver of the special waste.
    (Pet.
    3.)
    35—325
    —2—
    In the R76-lO Board Opinion accompanying the Special Waste
    Hauling Regulations,
    the Board specifically stated that the
    requirements of Rule 201 would not apply to on-site transportation
    or movement of special waste.
    In Re:
    Special Waste Hauling
    Regulations, R76—l0,
    33 PCB 131, 151
    (March 15,
    1978).
    Pursuant
    to Section 3001,
    3002 and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and
    Recovery Act of
    1976,
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    published proposed guidelines
    in the Federal Register on
    December 18,
    1978.
    In regulating generators
    of hazardous waste
    under Section 3002
    of RCRA,
    the USEPA drafted in Proposed Rule
    250.21(18),
    a definition
    of “on-site” which stipulated that,
    “Two or more pieces of property which are geographically con-
    tiguous and are divided by a public or private right(s)—of-way
    are considered
    a single site.”
    43 Federal Register 58946,
    58971,
    58976.
    The Board
    finds that the ultimate disposal of Petitioner1s
    special waste is currently
    in compliance with the Special Waste
    Hauling Regulations.
    The Rules as proposed and adopted were
    not intended to control the internal movements of special waste
    within a single site,
    even when the site is dissected by a
    public way.
    In view of the foregoing,
    the Board finds that no variance
    is necessary.
    Petitioner~s internal movement of special waste
    as described
    in the variance petition
    is exempt from the manifest
    and the special waste hauling permit requirements of Chapter
    9
    for its Bloomington facility.
    The Petition for Variance sub-
    mitted by The Eureka Company is hereby dismissed.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
    fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    The Petition for Variance from Rule 201 of Chapter
    9:
    Special Waste Hauling Regulations
    is hereby dismissed on the
    basis that the requested relief is unnecessary.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of
    the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, he
    certify the above 0
    nion and Order were
    adopted on
    he
    ____________
    day of
    _________________,
    1979,
    by
    a vote of
    ..~
    Illinois Pollutio
    trol Board
    35—326

    Back to top