59-1~O8

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 19,

1984

 THE MATTER OF:

)

DEFINITION OF LIQUID

)

HAZARDOUS

WASTE

 (Emergency

)

 R83-28A

Rule)

ORDER

 THE BOARD

(by

3.

Marlin):

On July

6,

 1984 Citizens for a Better Environment

(CBE)

filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration,

a

supporting memorandum

 and motion for stay of the Board~s

June 29,

 1984 Order adopting emergency rules.

July

17,

1984 CBE filed a motion to present oral argument.

CJ3E

proponent in this rulemaking.

 The emergency

rules

prohibited

the land disposal of

 liquid hazardous waste,

 and allowed

land disposal

 of residuals from treatment of liquid hazardous

waste if the residual was non—hazardous, resulted from

removal

 of liquid or resulted in solidification,

 as opposed

to absorption, of the liquid.

CBE~smotions address the following areas:

1.

 §729.301:

 suggested addition of the

words

‘~adsorbent

or other materia1s~to the definition of treatment.

 §729.310(b):

 suggested addition of a prohibition

on

the

use

biodegradable

materials

 soiidifi~

cation

processes.

 §729.310(b):

 suggested addition of leachability

and permeability criteria to the solidification

test.

4.

 §729.301(b):

 suggested deletion of the exclusion

from the definition of liquid hazardous waste of

labpacks, ampules and containers designed

 hold

free

liquids

for

use

 other than storage,

 such as

batteries and capacitors.

The motion to stay relates to item four only:

CBE

wants

the

 exclusions stayed,

 so that ampules,

labpacks

and

containers would be prohibited immediately by the emergency

rules.

With respect to item

one,

 the adopted definition of

“treatment” incorporates the Part 720 definition

 reference

and specifically includes addition of absorbent.

 CBE wants

the words “adsorbent

 other materials” added to the specific

59.407

inclusion.

 This is not necessary.

 The Part 720 definition is

 clearly broad enough to cover

 the addition of adsorbents

 or other

materials:

“Treatment”

 means any method, technique or

 process,

including

 neutralization, designed to change

 the physical,

chemical

 or biological character or composition

 of any

hazardous waste so as to

 neutralize such

 waste, or so as to

recover energy or material resources from the waste

 or so as

to

 render such waste nonhazardous or less

 hazardous;

 safer

to

 transport, store or dispose of; or amenable

 for recovery,

amenable for storage or reduced in volume.

The

 definition includes addition of absorbents,

 also.

 These

are

 specifically mentioned, however, because of

 possible

confusion

 since addition of absorbents

 is specifically

 excluded

in two

 instances in which the word “treatment”

 is used in the

RCRA rules:

 S703.12l(a) and S703.123(h); and,

 §724,101(b)

and

§724,101(g)

 (10).

With

 respect to item two, CBE did not propose

 inclusion

of

a

biodegradability test in the rules prior to or

 at the public

hearings.

 The language now suggested by CBE is

 too vague

enforceable,

 and the testimony is inadequate to

 allow

the

Board

to

 write

 an enforceable

 rule.

Dr.

 Ginsburg suggested at the hearings that

 the problem with

biodegradable absorbents is that they may decompose

 more quickly

than the

 absorbed waste

 (R.216).

 The Board takes

 notice

testimony

 in R81—25, which was subjected to

 cross—examination by

CBE,

 suggesting that even chlorinated solvents are

 biodegradable

(R81—25

 transcript at pages

 1116,

 1121, 1125,

 1127,

 1129, 1136

and 1140).

 To accomplish the intended purpose it may

he

necessary

 to write a rule comparing the biodegradability

of

the

waste

 that of the absorbent.

The

 Board’s reasons for not including leachability

and

permeability

 tests in the emergency rules are discussed

 at length

the

 Opinion of July 19, 1984.

 In order to comply

 with

§6.~2

of

the

 Administrative Procedure act,

 the Board needs

 actual

copies of

 the referenced testing protocols.

 Furthermore~

William

webster,

 testifying for CBE, stated that the

 leachability and

permeability

 criteria were interrelated (R.164,

 189, 198).

The

language

 CBE now suggests does not take this

 interrelationship

into account.

The

 major portion of CBE’s motion addressee

 item

four~

whether to

 delete the exclusion of labpacks,

 ampules and

containers

 such as batteries from the definition

of

liquid

hazardous

 waste.

 This

 is discussed at length

 in the

Opinion

of July 19,

 1984. The discussion will be repeated

 here,,

59-1~O8

The exclusions are identical to the exclusions

 in the

landfilling bans in Parts 724 and 725,

 The RCRA rules prohibit

containers holding free liquids with three exceptions

 (Sections

724.414(b)

 and 725.414(b),

 Ampules are very small containers,

holding only a few grams of waste,

 Labpacks are containerized

liquid wastes in “overpacked drums”:

 drums to which sufficient

absorbent material has been added to completely absorb all

 of the

liquid contents of the inside containers

 (Sections 724.416 and

725.416.

 The third exception is containers designed to hold

free

 liquids for use other than storage,

 such as batteries or

capacitors

 (Sections 724,414(b)(3) and 725,4l4(b)(3),

The inclusion of the exceptions was proposed by Waste

Management.

 If liquids

 in containers such as batteries were

prohibited,

 equipment would be required to shred or puncture the

containers prior to disposal.

 Waste Management presently has

such an operation in Kansas, but not Illinois

 (R.290,

 366).

There appears to be no such operation in Illinois,

 Capacitors

and transformers containing polychiorinated biphenyls are

prohibited by regulations pursuant to the Toxic Substances

Control Act and could not be landfilled regardless of this

proposal

 (R,289),

Ampules and labpacks tend to be produced by research and

analytical laboratories,

 The existence and efficient operation

of

 laboratories to characterize hazardous wastes and monitor

compliance is necessary for the success of this and related

hazardous waste regulatory proposals.

 These laboratories produce

small quantities of hazardous waste,

 There is presently no

capacity to treat these wastes, and immediate prohibition would

result

 in severe hardship for Illinois laboratories

 (R.337).

Waste Management has asked the Board to consider the

rationale of the federal RCRA regulations on which the exclusions

were based:

 40 CFR 264.314,

 264,316, 265.314 and 265.316.

Section 22,4(a)

 of the Act required the Board to adopt these

provisions as State rules, which

 it did in the Sections quoted

above

 (R8l-22, R82-l8 and R82-19),

 The Board was required to

accept the rationale of the federal rules

 in adopting regulations

pursuant to Section 22.4(a).

 The Board takes official notice of

USEPA’S supporting materials, particularly 45 Fed, Reg.

33215

(May 19,

 1980) and 46 Fed. Reg. 56592—56596

 (November

17,

 1981).

The rationale of USEPA in adopting these rules in no way controls

the Board’s action in implementing SS22(b) and 22,6(b),

 However,

the Board takes notice of the rationale.

Ampules and containers such as batteries were excluded from

the federal RCRA regulations when they were originally adopted

(45 Fed.

 Reg.

 33066,

 33250, May

19,

 1980),

 USEPA stated that:

These types of containers are not likely to contribute

substantial volumes of liquid to most landfills, and the

59-109

difficulty of opening and emptying them appears to outweigh

the small benefit gained.

(46 Fed~Reg. 33215, May

 19, 1980)

Labpacks were excluded by a later amendment

 (46 Fed.

 Reg.

56592,

 November 17,

 1981).

 USEPA stated that disposal

of

hazardous wastes in labpacks was a common practice for many

 small

volume generators

 (not necessarily small quantity generators).

These include government, commercial and school laboratories.

Disposal in labpacks is preferable to dumping these wastes into

sewers.

 Even schools which are small quantity generators under

the federal RCRA rules preferred to dispose of their wastes in

labpacks

 in permitted hazardous waste landfills

 (46 Fed.

 Reg.

56592).

 The Illinois ban would prohibit disposal

 in all

landfills even by small quantity generators.

Laboratories generate

 a large number of wastes

 in small

quantities, often thousands of wastes per month in quantities

less than one gallon,

 Commercial

 treatment, recycling or

incineration operations typically accept only reasonably sized

 lots of well—characterized wastes.

 The cost to characterize lab

wastes is often prohibitive

 (46 Fed,

 Reg.

 56593).

TJSEPA believes that disposal

 of labpacks in landfills is an

environmentally sound practice,

 The requirement of sufficient

absorbent to completely absorb all liquids will prevent labpacks

from contributing significant volumes of liquid to landfill

leachate (46 Fed. Reg.

 56593).

Dropping the labpack, container

 and ampule exemptions

appears to involve bringing a large number of generators,

 and an

even larger number of wastestreams, into the landfill prohibition

system; yet, this would involve only a small quantity of waste.

The statutory ban was signed into law on January

5,

 1984, and the

implementing procedures finalized on June

29,

 1984.

 The Agency

will face a formidable challenge in administering the ban in a

timely manner even with the labpacks, containers and ampules

excluded

 (R.20,

 28).

 Exclusion will allow the Agency to

initially concentrate on fewer generators producing a larger

volume of waste.

There are three statutory bases for adoption of these

exclusions.

 First, Section 5(b)

 of the Act provides that the

Board ~sha1l determine, define and implement” environmental

control standards.

 Second, under Section 22(b), the BoardS

 is to

adopt standards for the “handling,

 storing, processing,

transporting and disposal

 of hazardous waste.”

 Thirdly, under

Section 22.6(b)

 the Board is to adopt regulations which “prohibit

or set limitations on the type,

 amount and form of liquid

hazardous wastes that may be disposed of in landfills based on

the availability of technically feasible and economically

reasonable alternatives to land disposal.”

59-110

Based on limited, but unrebutted evidence,

 sufficiently

persuasive to include the exclusion in the emergency rules,

the

Board has exercised its authority to exclude these wastes

 from

the definition of liquid hazardous waste for purposes of

the

emergency rules.

 This action will ease administration of the

emergency rules,

 preserve the status quo and allow further

inquiry into the legislative

 intent.

The Board solicits additional

 comment, both in support of

and in opposition to the retention of the exclusions.

The Board does not view adoption of these exclusions

in

the

emergency rules as

 a precedent or as a bar to their subsequent

modification or deletion in the temporary or permanent rules.

The motion for clarification and reconsideration,

the

motion for stay and the motion to present oral argument are

denied.

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

 day of

____

 1984 by a vote of

 ~‘O,

Dorothy

 M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

59-111