ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

January

10,

1985

IN THE MATTER

OF:

DEFINITION OF

LIQUID HAZARDOUS

)

R83-28B

WASTE

(Temporary

Rules)

)

FINAL ORDER.

ADOPTED TEMPORARY

RULES

FINAL

OPINION OF

THE BOARD

(by

J. Marlin):

On November

18, 1983 the

Board

opened this Docket for

the

purpose of

promulgating a definition of “liquid hazardous

waste”

in order to

facilitate the implementation of Section

22.6 of

the Environmental

Protection

Act (Act), which prohibits the

landfilling of

liquid hazardous waste after July

1,

1984.

The

Board solicited

proposals from the public.

On January

5,

1984,

P.A.

83-1078

was signed into law,

On February

9,

1984 the

Board

authorized

hearings on three proposals,

prepared by the

Board staff,

Citizens for a Better

Environment

(CBE)

and

the

Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency (Agency),

Public

hearings were

held on April

13 and 23,

1984.

CBE was repre-

sented at

the hearings by Howard

Learner and Timothy

Wright

of Business and

Profesional

People for the Public Interest

(BPI).

CBE and

the Agency

entered a joint

proposal as

Exhibit

4.

Waste

Management of

Illinois,

Inc.

(Waste

Management)

entered

an alternative proposal as Exhibit

12.

The Hearing

Officer set a comment period to

end May 23,

1984.

However,

the Board accepted late comments because of

delays in the filing of the

April 23 transcript.

The Board

received the following

comments

during and after the April

hearings:

*

Chem-Clear,

Inc., May

9,

1984

*

Granite

City Steel, Division of National Steel

Corpora

-

tion;

Interlake,

Inc.; Keystone Steel and Wire Company;

Northwestern Steel and Wire Company; Republic Steel

Corporation and United States Steel Corporation; May 24,

1984

*

Cecos

International, May 30, 1984

*

Citizens

for a Better Environment, June

6, 1984

*

Illinois

EnvirOnmental Protection Agency, June 18,

1984

The Board

appreciates the assistance of Morton F.

Dorothy

in drafting

the rules and conducting the hearings.

62~319

---

—2—

On June

29,

1984

the Board

adopted

35

Ill, Adm. Code

709

and

729

as emergency

rules in

R83-28A,

and proposed the

same Parts

as regular

rules

in R83—28B.

The emergency rules

were filed

with the

Secretary of State

and became effective

on July

5,

1984.

The emergency and

proposed rules appeared

in

8

Ill.

Reg.

11997,

12000,

12668 and

12678, July 13,

1984,

Pursuant to

the request

of participants,

an additional

hearing was

held prior

to preparation

of an economic

impact

study

(R,376),

The Board

held the

third public

hearing in Urbana on

August

30,

1984.

Because

the transcripts

are not numbered

sequentially,

references to

the August

30 transcript will

be

prefaced with a “C”.

For example,

(C-70) will mean page

70

in the August

30

transcript.

The Board

received testimony

from CBE suggesting deletion of the

labpack and related

exclusions,

addition

of permeability

and leachability

criteria

for determining

whether

a waste has

been solidified and

restriction

of the use

of

biodegradable

absorbents.

The

Board also heard testimony in favor

of the labpack exclusion

and comment

concerning

confusion

over the phase—in rules.

Prior to and following the third public

hearing the Board

received the

following

public comment:

*

Illinois

Energy

Resources Commission,

August 24,

1984

*

Chemical Waste Management, October

1,

1984

*

Agency,

October

1,

1984

*

Granite City Steel,

et

al.,

September 28, 1984

*

Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, November 5,

1984

The Board

has modified

the

proposal in response to

the

testimony

and written public comment, and in response to

comments

from the staff of the Joint Committee on Administra-

tive Rules.

The full text

is

contained in an Order adopted

on

December 20,

1984,

The record in R83-28A

is

incorporated into this Docket

R83-28B.

On November

8,

1984

the Board opened Docket R83-

28C for

the purpose of

addressing

economic impact.

The

records

in R83—28A and

R83—28B

were

incorporated into R83-

28C.

The Board

intends

to open a new

docket to address

miscellaneous

issues

which have arisen

in this docket and

RSl-25, and

to promulgate

rules

implementing Section

39(h)

of the

Act.

62~32O

---

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Section

22.6 of the

Act was

added by H,B,

1054, which

became P,A.

83-1078

effective January

5,

1984.

It reads

follows:

a.

Commencing

July 1,

1984,

no person shall cause,

thre~tenor

allow the disposal

in any landfill

of

any

liquid

hazardous waste

unless specific

authori-

zation is

obtained from the

Agency by the

generator

and

the

landfill owner and

operator for the

land

disposal

of that specific

waste stream.

b.

The

Board shall

have the

authority to adopt

regula-

tions 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 economi-

cally reasonable

alternatives

to land disposal,

c.

The

Agency may

grant specific

authorization for

the land

disposal of liquid

hazardous wastes

only

after the

generator has

reasonably

demonstrated

that,

considering current

technological feasi-

bility and

economic reasonableness,

the hazardous

waste cannot

be reasonably

solidified, stabilized,

or

recycled

for reuse, nor

incinerated or chemi-

cally,

physically or biologically

treated so

as to

neutralize the

hazardous

waste and render it

nonhazardous,

and that

land disposal is not prohibi-

ted or limited

by Board

regulations.

In granting

authorization

under this

Section, the Agency

may

impose such

conditions

as may be necessary to

accomplish the

purposes

of this Act and which are

consistent with

Board

regulations.

If the Agency

refuses to grant

authorization

under this Section,

the applicant

may appeal

as

if the Agency refused

to grant a permit

pursuant

to the provisions of

subsection

(a)

of Section

40 of this Act.

d.

For purposes of

this

Section, the term ~landfill~

means a disposal

facility

or part of a facility

where hazardous

waste

is placed in or on land

and

which

is not

a land treatment

facility,

a surface

impoundment

or an underground

injection well.

Section

22.6 is

related to two

other provisions:

Section 22(g)

authorizes

the Board to

prohibit landfilling

of hazardous

waste in

general; and,

Section 39(h)

requires

specific

authorization

from the

Agency for each hazardous

wastestream

after

January 1,

1987,

The Board has adopted

rules to

prohibit

halogenated solvent

wastes pursuant to

62~321

---

*4—

Section 22(g) (R8l-25, Opinion and

Order of October 25,

1984),

In

addition,

Section 22.4(b)

of the Act provides

that

the Board

is to

follow its usual

Title VII and

Administrative

Procedure Act

(APA)

procedures when

it adopts regulations

which are

not

inconsistent with and

are at least as

stringent

as the federal Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act

and

regulations

(42

USC

Section 6901 et

seq.

and 40 CFR 260

et

seq.).

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER

LANDFILLING RESTRICTIONS

In addition

to

the halogenated

solvent ban pursuant

to

Section 22(g)

of the Act, there is

a

presently existing

limitation on liquids adopted in Parts

724 and 725

pursuant

to the “identical in substance” provisions

of Section

22.4(a)

of the Act

(R8l—22,

6

Ill. Reg.

4828,

April

23, 1982;

R82—

18,

7 Iii, Reg.

2518, March

4,

1983;

and, R82—l9,

7 Ill.

Reg.

14015,

October 28, 1983).

Section

724,414 applies

to

hazardous waste

landfills

with RCRA

permits, while

Section

725,414 applies

to

interim status

landfills.

These

Sections

allow the landfilling of bulk liquids

only in landfills

with

liners and a

leachate

collection

arid

removal system

meeting

the requirements

of

Section 724,401(a),

Alternatively

bulk

liquids may

be

mixed with absorbent

and placed in

a landfill

meeting the

interim

status standards

of Part 725, or the

final standards of

Part

724.

with three

exceptions,

discussed

below in connection with Section 729.301,

containerized

liquids are restricted from all RCRA

landfills unless

“free-

standing liquid”

has

been removed or

mixed

with absorbent

(R.340).

This proposal

does not

address the 1984 amendments

to the federal

RCRA

act.

The Agency

cannot

authorize the

landfilling, of

liquid

hazardous

wastes pursuant to

Section

22.6(c)

if the

land-

filling is prohibited

or

limited by

Board regulations.

Thus, the Agency can authorize liquids

to be landfilled

only

in conformance

with

the

RCRA

requirements

of Parts

724

and

725.

Bans

adopted

pursuant to Section

22(g)

of the Act

also limit the

Agency~s

discretion

in authorizing waste-

streams

pursuant to

TESTIMONY

Witnesses

at the

hearings who

testified on technical

and economic

issues

included the

following:

1.

Larry Eastep, from the

Agency, concerning the

overall rationale of the ban

and the Agency’s

procedures

for implementation

(R,l2).

2,

Dale

Helmers,

from the

Agency, concerning method-

ology

of

the paint filter

test (R,7l)

62-322

---

—5—

3.

Michael Nechvatai~from the

Agency, concerning

the

quantities of waste involved

(R,ll.2)

4.

Eugene Theios,

from the

Agency, concerning

treat-

ment and recycling capacity

and implementation

of

the emergency rules

R.l36,

C-l2)

5.

Wiiltam Webster,

from the

Hazardous Waste

Treat-

ment Council, concerning

the definition of

fication

(R,156)

6.

Dr.

Robert Ginsburg1 from CBE,

concerning

potential

problems associated

wJ.~t

addition of

absorbents~~

the definition of solidification,

Iabpacks

and

other matters

(iL210,

C-58)

7.

Jeffrey Diver and Edward Fochtman,

from

Waste

Managerrient., conoer~ingthe

penetrometer

(R.271)

8.

Peter Ashbrook, concerning

labpack waste

(C-115)

WHY PROHIBIT

LI~QtJID

HAZARDOUS

WASTE?

Liquid hazardous

wastes

bave been

restricted by

legis-

lative action.

The reasons ~aretwofold:

first,

liquid

hazardous wastes

tend

to

migrate

within a

landfill,

creatir~g

a potential for contamination :~fgroundwater;

and,

seconds

they make ~ai1y operations ~re

difficult,

and create

subsi-

W~~S~AFFECTED

Th~reis no complete estimate of

the volume of

waste

affected by the liquid restriction

The Age~’c~

oresented an

estimate based on waste ~escriptions

taken from

supp1ez~entai

permit applications.

However,, the

liquid

restriction

also

applies to on—site disposal and small

quantity

generators,

which are not subject to the supplemental

permit or

manifest

system.

A supplemental permit application

descrthes waste

in

terms of whether it is sol~4.,semi-solid,

liquid, powder

or

gas

(R,123).

The Agency has estimated

the amounts of

solid.!

semi-solid and liquid wastes which

are subject to the

ban

(Ex.8)

In 1983 commercial hazardous

waste disposal facilities

accepted 1.6 million gallons of waste

desc~~oed

as

“liquid”,

which is assumed to fail the paint

filter test

(R.l23),

in

1983 these facilities accepted 4.8

and 14.5 million

gallons

of “semi-solid” and “solid” wastes,

respectively

(Ex,8).

~62-323

---

—6—

The Agency has conducted a

sampling prog

a

~stimate

what

percentage of these wastes will

fail the ~u’

~

filter

test,

A relationship has been

established betw*~’tna percent

of

samples failing and the percent

solids reps ~c~iin the

application.

Based on this,

around

3

a~c

mi~1lion

gallons of “semi—solid” and

“solid” wa~u~c

I

fail

the

paint filter

test.

Thus,

a

total of a~’~u

o~liion

gallons

of waste disposed off-site will

fail

‘F F

Following adoption of the

emergency tuLc~,the

Agency

sent out 900 notices to

generators of

~.

~

i

met

with

b~peratorsof landfills receiving

hazardou~’

iFs

As

pf

August

29, 1984 the

Agency had receives

~

~‘

I

applications

for wastestream authorizciFions

(C13),

TREATMENT

I

GD RECYCLING

iFP~,

TI

Much of the waste af~Jected

by the ~n

un~csts

of

aqueous wastes and solvent wastes,

The I

~

believes

there is an existing capacity

of 84 mi11:~o~gaiFons

per year

for aqueous waste treatment facilities

and

7 million

gallons

per year for solvent wastes.

Of

this caqa

ity,

the

unused

portion amounts to some 57 million

gall~’n ‘~r ear

for

aqueous waste and

5 million gallons

for

~i

~.

~i

~astes

(R,140),

The solvent

reclaimers do not icc

a very

high

percentage of the waste which would

be go~r.

~andf

ills

(R,l43),

Other options for avoiding

th~

iFFling

of

liquids include process changes,

substit~

~f

riaterials,

incineration and solidification

(R,l43)

~

~g~ncy

esti-

mates

that 90

of affected waste cou ~ bc~

F by

some

sort of treatment or recovery

(R,

146).

~gears

to

leave about

1 million gallons per

year ci

u~e

waste

which may require authorization

pursuant

uction

22,6(c)

showing.

DISCUSSION OF ~RULE

The following is a

detailed discu~~

~

rules

proposed

for

second notice,

Part ~729,

the

sub”

stance of the

liquid restriction, will

i

~d

before

the wastestream

authorization requiremer

~‘

709.

PART 729:

PROHIBITED HAZARDOU:

-

Section

729.100

Purpose,

Scope and i~pi

~ity

This Section

was adopted as a regria.

-mis ~n

R8l-25

(Order of October 25,

1984),

Paragrapi

-,

~neates

th~

scope

of the Part as adopted in P.81-25

r

~o

Section

22(g)

of the Act,

This includes a oroa~-

s~ciuion

of

“landfill” than utilized in

Subpart C.

3~ P~.~d is

amending

the Section to add a cross reference

t~

ttestreant

authorization requirement

of

Part

709

62~324

---

Section 729.205

Renumbered

This Section was

adopted

in R8l-~2S.

It.

provided that the

Agency is to deny a wastestream

auttiorization

for any waste

prohibited by the halogenated

solvent

ban, and

declared

supplemental

permits

for

halogenated

solvents

to be void,

The related Sections in Part

709

have been

amended

in

this

Docket to state this result

(Sections

Section 729.301

“Labwaste”

The RCRA rules prohibit containers hoLding free liquids

with

three excepticos

(Sections

724.414(h)

and

725.414(b)),

Ampules are very sriFl containers,

holding only

a few grams

of waste.

Labpacks are containerized

liquid

wastes

in “over—

packed 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 storage1

such as

batteries or

capacitors

(Sections

724,414(b) (3)

and

725,414(b)

(3)).

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

(R81—22, R82—i8

and

R82-l9)

.

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 mate-

rials, particularly 45 Fed.

Reg.

33215

(May

19,

1980)

and

46

Fed.

Reg.

56592—56596

(November

:L7,

1981)

.

The

Board notes,

however,

that

the

rationale

of

USEPAin

adopting

these rules

in

no

way

controls

the Board’s action in

Iriiplementing

Sec-

tions

5(b),

22(b),

22~4(b)

and

22.6(h),

Ampules

and

containers

such as batteries

were excluded

from the federal

RCRA regulations when

their

were

originally

adopted

(45 Fed,

Reg.

33066,

?3?SQ,I4ay 19,

1980),

USEPA

stated that:

These types of

containers

are

not

likely

to

contribute

substantial

volumes

of

liquid

tomosti

landfills,

and

the

difficulty

of

opening

and

emptilno

them

appears to

outweigh

the

small

benefit

gained.

(46 Fed,

Reg.

33215,

May

19,

1980)

Labpacks were excluded by a

lates’

amendment

(46 Fed.

Reg.

56592,

November

17,

1981).

USEPA

stated

that

disposal

of

hazardous

wastes

in

labpacks

was

a

cocoon

practice

for

---

many small

volume

generato~e

(r

t

generators).

These

include

g

vet

t

e.

school

laboratories.

Disposal

i

dumping ‘these

wastes

into

sewer’,

L

small quantity

generators

urder

~

-

preferred

to

dispose

of

their

,as

c~

mitted

hazardous

waste

landfIll.

Laboratories

generate

a

larg

quantities, often thousands of difr~

in quantities less thin o~ega

redydling or inciner~ on typi ci

si’zed lots

of

well—c.

‘~acterized

scot

terize lab wastes

is

-~ten proribill

~

USEPA believes U no disposal

is an environmentally

~ound practm

sufficient

absorbent

to

coupists

prevent labpacks

from

contributir

liquid to landfill leachate

(46 Fcd

The Board has defined a catego

laboratories

engaged

in

teaching,

t

type of waste,

“labwast&’, may ~e 0

tainers pursuant to Section 729,31

Labwaste typically cons ste of

different

wastes

produced

by

many

118,

123,

125,

136,

138)

TIe

U

example,

has

many

buidings

w

roOm

wh’ere

hazardous

chemll’a

s

arc

In 1983

it

generated

2100

cI cm

c

~

around

two-thirds

of

tie

and

Although

there

aco

a

arge

-

produced

in

quantities

no

ie~

the

University of Illtr

no gennoaiF

drums of labpacks, each

gallons of liquid

(CiF22

1

6

comp~ise

less

than

one

pa

cci

Labwaste

does

not

in

u

e

v

100

kg

per

month

from

one

0

ii

was.testream

would

be

subieno

to

-

The

generator

would

have

t

k

showing to

the

Agency

to

dzs~c

labpacks.

Incineration

or

rec

c

cr

because of the

variety

and

sr no

A waste must be

identified

betci.-.

or recycled.

The

cos

of

sasno

;

there are a

large

nuroer

of

dii

~

ties

(C—ll7,

130).

a

ty

small quantity

i~..nercial

and

e preferable to

cools

which are

—

~al

RCRA

rules

-

.inpacks

in per—

~eg.

56592)

us wastes in small

t

iastes

per month

~

treatment,

~.

-~nly

reasonably

the

cost

to charac—

i

Fed,

Reg.

56593).

~a’as

in

landfills

a requirement of

all

liquids will

cant

volumes

of

“no

56593).

f

raste

produced by

~ no research.

This

i

labpack

con—

no

quantities

of many

iF activities (C-

b

)f

Illinois,

for

a

J

aboratory

or a

cr

stored

(C-125),

I

i-rtures,

including

a

721)

(C—123),

~t

astes,

most are

123)

.

In 1983

i-

~00

55—gallon

o

~ maximum of

15

e

thought to

~ois

waste

(C—117),

~d

in

excess of

iF

-‘‘~‘

Such a

large

.tion

requirement,

ti

cci

and

economic

no

~stream

in

s- difficult

c~

of

waste involved.

o

safely

incinerated

-

.

prohibitive

when

a:

in

small quanti-

---

public, and absorb a

disproportic

a

limited

enforcement

resources

i

environmental

benefit

as

eguia

c

Including

labwaste

in

the

.q

would force generators to make

is

demonstration to the Agency.

Fur

they would

almost

always

be

s

c

iF

they would have to hire attorra

the individual demonstration.~.ll

to be an unreasonable

burden

to

ols..-~.

the

State,

especially

the

hid

that an

estimate

of

the

sc”-~ I

be presented

at

an

economic

iL

2

The

wastestream

auth

riz~

a

each

process

or

activi

y

o

iF

separate

authorization

(~ecnoo.

choke

on

paper

if

tJris

wer

no

in

the

absence

of

detcilel

re~

streams, the

Agency

would

tav

I.

wastestream

authorization

ta~

recycling or

treatment.

“Ampules’

are

also

£X~i’

tions,

Ampules

which

ar-

1~

a’

The other

RCRA

exc~’pt’

than

storage,

such

as

batiFt

forward

with

additional

faciF

s

third

hearing,

The

Board

a

o

mount

of

the Agency’s

odicing

as much

o

an

waste.

~a’~te

restriction

~cal

and

economic

coons

noted

above,

s

this,

However,

nsuitants

to

make

y”rcy.

This appears

or

the

laboratories in

Tie

Board

requests

a demonstrations

-

r

ontemplates that

should

have a

rhe

system would

‘~-ste,

Moreover~

-mibsidiary

waste—

iF applying the

-:

to

encourage

RCRA

liquid r-estric-

us disposed in labpacks.

s

for

use other

t.ors,

No one came

a

~.hese

wastes at the

continue

the

The Univerity of

Illino

a

no

-

—

‘he

largest generators

of labwaste in the

nation

(C-~

2

1

ys

about

$175 per

drum for labwaste

disposal

C’

~

ecycles,

incinerates

and treats

as

much

waste

as

pono~

-‘

128).

Because of

its size these

alternatives

ar

ci

f

r

it

than they

would be for smaller schools

(C

32

)

~aI1er

schools,

including high schools

qor~

n.c

F

~

unit

costs because

of small quantities

(C~l29,

131

.

-

‘c

mg

their waste to

the regulatory

program

requir

ncr

‘our

Ic

analysis of many

containers of such

small

amount’

iF

caiFe

would

be prohibi-r

tively expensive.

This

woull.

~

.esclt

in

an.

increase

in disposal by less

eruironmerta

methods

than

labpacks, including 0;

~posa1

wit

-

nopal

waste and dumping

into sewers

(C-l35),

The

Board

-alno

~

teves

that the

associated increase

in

costs

w

uli

noJ

to

a

decline

in. the

teaching of laboratory courses

in

.ora ~try

and

other scien.c~s,

Bringing labwaste into

thc.

.juiFt

ry program would

vastly increase the

size of the

-

~“g.

r

od

community, yet

could only

restrict

less

than

r

0

no.

t

no

the

waste being

generated.

This

would increa..~e t

a-’ coiF to

the

regulated

---

exclusion On the basis of t e

o ~cad federal

materials.

The Board has dropped this exciusior.

Such

containers

therefore may

be

landfil.ed

ily

at t~r

an

individual technical

and economic

showing

to

the

Agency

There are three statutory bases

for

adoption of the

categorization of labwaste, anl non—periodic

waste, which

appears below,

First, Section 5(b~of the

Act provides that

the Board “shall determine, define and implement”

environmental

control standards.

Second,

under Section 22(b),

the Board

is to adopt

standards

‘for the

“h’

is. ii

storing,

processing,

transporting and disp ‘~a1of hazardous waste,”

Thirdly,

under Section

22,6(b~

cc Board is to adopt

regulations

which “prohibit

or

sea

limitationo

or

the

type,

amount and

form of liquid

hazarcF

wastes tiat r~ay

be

disposed of in

landfills based

on

the

availability

of

technically

feasible

and economically

reas.

able

a1~er ataves

to

land

disposal.”

Section 729.301

“Landfil...

This definition is taken fror

dection 22,6(d)

of the Act.

The definition in the Act def~nes andiill as

“a disposal

facility or part of a facility

this seems

to allow the

possibility that two trenches

t

a

a

no

could

each be a

landfill.

The Board has changed the

erm

“disposal facility”

to “disposal unit”

to

agree

w~th the

terminology

in Parts

720-725.

The

primary

effect

of.

this

interpretation

is to

allow nonhazardous liquids into nonhazardous

trenches at

facilities with a hazardocs

a~tetrench

(Section

729.311).

The definition

in 5cc ‘no

2

(0

of the

Act, and that

adopted

in Section

720

3

1

~itfe

I’

r

Part

720 in the

exclusion of

surface

n

o~ revt,,

tarded for

waste disposal

and land

treatment

ia

-

t.

,

1

a

.~.c’

id

hazardous waste

prohibitions will app

t

tue

a

1. ills

and.

waste piles

intended

for

waste

d-

pos

3.

R

275

352),

Section 729,301

a

rJ ate”

A “liquid hazardous

.as e

i

razardous

waste” which

yields

fluid

when

subjec

ed

the

pa n

filter

test (Section

729.320).

Section 729,301

A “non—periodic waste

i

iutd hazardous

waste”

in

a quantity of

less

than

10

kg

ivb’ch

a

not

expected to be

generated

again by the genaro or

1

produced

the waste,

A

generator

will

make

this

howi

p

t

iF

Agency

based on his

reasonable

expectations.

A

no.

por ocric waste

in a labpack

is not

subject

to

the

liquid

ban

noction

729,312).

---

The

definition conterLplates a single mass

of waste:

if

the waste is

produced

at

a

2ate

per

iFme

it

is clearly a

periodic waste.

Such a masts would be subject

to the waste-

stream authorization recruirement

a.,d the

liquid restriction.

Labpacks are cominorly

-

t~lnonono2

only

for disposal of

labwaste, but also by small

qoartity generators

(C—1l7).

The Board intends to at

c

iF pa

0

..posal

only for small

quantities of

unique

waste

liquid

iFzardous

waste produced

periodically even by a snall quantity generator

is subject

to the liquid

restricti n, and must be kept

out of landfills

unless

the technical ar

‘

econonic dnoorstration

is made to

the Agency.

Section 729.301

The original

gene~.

r

is a person who

generates hazardous

waste through a product

u

cess,

c-s

opposed

to a treatment

process.

Subsequent ha~1ersof the hazardous

waste

may

also be “generators”, b

not “original

generators”.

Section 729,301

A “residual”

is a material whacn remains

after treatment

of hazardous waste.

~Residuals” nay be

landfilled if they

have been treated or solidified as

judged

under Section 729.310(b)

(R,277)

Section 729.301

A “t~eater”is

a pe ‘on wh

encrages in

treatment of

hazardous

waste,

Eithe

fl

tnocr”-r

or the

“original

generator” must

obtain

q~r~~5f~

ur

authorization.

Section

729.301

“Treatment’

is

as

person who treats haza

permit under Section 2~

Addition

of

abc-o”b

rtc-

to

iF

the

time the waste

is first

placed

in

a

-or

c-i

r

i

exe,F2ed

from the RCRA

treatment permit requ.reme

I a

P

t

724

standards

(Sections

703,123(h)

and 724,lOl’g)

10)

3.

definition

specifically

includes addition of

abc-a. ne

‘

-

o~

ae of

application

of

this Part

(R 276,

2-’i

‘~5

Ti.

~ca-ult

of additiqn of

absorbents

is

a

“resid

al’

ii.-.

i

:

eet

Section 729.310(b) (3),

or Section

709,401(a), Le~orc-it

ca.

ne

landfilled.

CBE requested that

to include

adsorbents

a’

adsorbent

clearly falls

in Part 720;

but,

there

d ~n Pa

20

(R,276, 299).

A

note

is required

to have a

RCRA

a

be

sed in

the definition

well a~obbm.bents.

Addition of

..thin ti’s

is irition

of ~rtreatment~~

-

no exc~

‘~

on from

the treatment

---

permit requirement for

addition of

adsorbents.

There is

therefore no possibility

of confusion,

and no need to change

“absorbents” to the less

familiar

term

“sorbents”.

Section 729,302

Waste

Analysis

Plan

The

landfill

operator must develop a

waste analysis

plan.

This should

describe

the frequency

and methods of

sampling

and

analysis

which

the

operator

will follow to

insure that

prohibited wastes are not placed

in the land-

fill.

The operator

will, initially be required

to submit

a

copy of the plan to the Agency and

to

follow the

plan

(R.278,

317,

359)

In the July

19,

lOll’:

Opinion

the Board

solicited com~nent

as to whether and how

those

plans should be incorporated

into

RCBA

permits,

intenom status waste

analysis plans and

Part 807 permits.

At the final hearing

Waste Management

indicated that it is

testing

every

load

to determine compli-

ance with the liquid

bans,

On

the

other

hand, CBE indicated

that it did not

envision

testing

of every

truckload

(C—82).

It appears that

there

needs

to

be a

better definition

of what constitutes

an

approvabie waste

analysis plan before

a rule is adopted

incorporating such

plans into permits.

The Board solicits

comment in

the new docket

and the economic

impact hearings on the

following outline

of such a rule:

~.

The rule should differentiate the testing to be

done

to obtain

an

initial

authorization from the

testing

to

determine

that

a

wastestream

continues

to

conform

to

the

authorization

(C—82).

2.

The

rule

shculd set a standard

in

the

form

of a

percentage

of

non~’-conforming

waste

which

is

accep-

table

so

that

random sampling

plans can be designed

to detect

non~---ccnformityin

excess

of the standard.

The standard

should

be

based

on

the following

considerations

A.

The

quantity

o:i liquid below

which no adverse

impact

on landfill operations

or liner

performance

is expected.

B.

The

cost.

of

samolia-i~ versus

benefits derived

from

eliminating any

greater

quantity

of

liquid excluded.

3,

The rule

should require

rejection

of non—conforming

quantities

actually detected

through random sampling,

and require

increased

sampling

following detection

of non-conforming

quantities in

excess of acceptable

quantities,

62~330

---

4.

The

sampling plan

should

be

systematic,

but with

enough random

variability

to

assure that the

samples

are representative

of

the

total

quantity.

5.

The person

who

is

loading

and

transporting

the

waste must

not

be able

to

Section 729.310

Liquid Hazardous Waste Prohibitions

Paragraph

(a)

prohibits landfilling of liquid hazardous

wastes which fail the

paint

filter test; paragraph

prohibits landfilling of certain treatment residuals..

Paragraph

(a)

prohibits the landfilling of liquid

hazardous waste without a demonstration pursuant to Section

22.6(c) of the Act that, considering current technological

feasibility and economic reasonableness, the waste cannot be

reasonably solidified, stabilized,

recycled,

incinerated or

treated

(R.277,

348).

The prohibition

of

paragraph

(b)

involves two acts:

first,

the treatment

of a

liquid hazardous waste;

and,,

second,

causing, threatening

or

allowing a

residual from

such treatment to be landfilled,

Both

of these must be

shown to establish

a violation

(R,279,

348).

A

disposer

would

not

be in

violation

of

paragraph

(b)

unless he were

involved in the treatment of the

waste,

Paragraphs

(b)

(1),

(b)

(2)

and

(b)

(3)

contain standards

which residuals must

meet to be landfilled:

that the residual

is nonhazardous;

that

liquids

have

been

extracted;

or, that

the residual has

been

solid:Lfied,

The first standard

applies

when

materials are added to

the waste.

The

residual

may be iandfi.Lled

if it is no

longer a hazardous

waste

(R,27,

226,

229.,

234,

25-8,

280,

305).

An example

would

he

the addition

of

alkali to neutral-

ize an acidic waste,

Note,

however,

that

the nonh~zardous

liquid

residual

could

not

be placed in a

trench permitted to

receive

hazardous

waste

(Section 729,311,

The second

standard

applies when the

liquid is extracted,

evaporated or

otherwise

removed from

the

waste without th~

addition of

material,

such as absorbents.

The residue c-an

be landfilled

if it

passes

the

paint

filter

test (R.32,

48,

184,

225,

280),

An

example

would

be

removal of liquids from

a sludge by

centrifugation

or

filtration,

The sludge could

be landfilled

if it

passed the paint

filter

test.

The third standard,

like the first,

applies when material

is added to the

waste.

If

the residue

is still hazardous,

it can be landfilled

if it meets the

paint

filter test and

52-321

---

—14

possesses

a

load-bearing capacity

of

at

least two tons per

square

foot

(R.282).

For purposes

of this discussion,

a

waste

which meets

the paint filter and load-bearing

capacity

tests is said to

be “solidified”,

as

opposed to

“absorbed”.

These terms are

not used

in the rule,

Solidified wastes

may be landfilled,

as non-liquids,

pursuant to a wastestream

authorization, while

absorbed wastes may be iandfiiled only pursuant to the

technical feasibility

and economic

reasonableness showing of

Section 22.6(c)

of

the Act

and Section 709.401(a).

Section 22.6(a)

~

the Act

prohibits the landfill

disposal of liquid

hazardous

wastes~

Section 22.6(c)

allows

them to be landfilied ona

showing,

inter alia, that they

cannot be “solidified”.

The

paragraph

(b) (3) test for

residuals is the

obverse:

a residual can be landfilled if

it has been solidified.,

Absorption of a

liquid is not the same

as solidification.

Absorption is a

temporary

state

which,

when reversed, would

indirectly place free

liquid

into

the

landfill in violation

of Section 22.6 of the

Act.

On

the other

hand,

solidification

is a process which

involves chemical

reaction between the

waste constituents and

the

fixing material, and/or entrap-

ment of constituents

in a permanent matrix

(R.

159,

167,

174, 216).

The main issue

in

this

rulemaking is how to tell

the difference between

absorption and

solidification.

Examples of

common

absorbents

include

municipal refuse,

sawdust, shredded

paper and clay

materials

(R.216,

242).

On

the other hand,

soiid:Lficat±onprocesses are chemical

reactions comparable

to the

setting of

portland cement

(R,l60,

216).

However,

it is

not

possible

to differentiate

absorbents from

solidifying

agents

by

listing them because

what is be an absorbent

then used with

one

waste could be an

ingredient in a

solidificiation

or

other

treatment operation.

For example,

lime

is commonly used to

neutralize acidic

wastes with no intent

-i-c

solidify the

waste,

It could also

be used

in a cement-like

reaction to

solidify a

waste, yet

the solidification

reactitcn could

fail

because of the presence

of interfering

waste

constituents

(R.244).

What is needed

is

a standard to

evaluate the residual

without reference

to

the materials which

go into the process

(R,l67).

Many of the

commonly used

absorbents

are expected to

degrade faster than

the hazardous

constituents in the waste,

This would result

in

release

of the liquid

(R.159,

174,

216)

.

Section 729,313

prohibits

the

use

of absorbents which

are expected to degrade

more quickly

than

the waste.

One difference

between absorbed and

solidified waste is

the load—bearing

capacity

of

the

residual,

A solidified

62-332

---

—15—

waste should have load-bearing strength,

If the residue

loses

volume as a result of compression, the

result could be

that liquid would be squeezed out

(R.217,

238).

Further-

more,

the load-bearing capacity is an indication that a

chemical reaction has taken place

in

the

solidification

process

(R.297).

A residual from a solidification process

should show a load-bearing capacity in excess of 25 pounds

per square inch or approximately two tons per square foot

(R.l62,

170).

The load-bearing

capacity

of the waste is also important

to landfill operations-

and

maintenance of cover,

Operations

are

simplified if

wastes

can withstand the pressures of

equipment moving over

them

when the next lift is filled.

Waste Management

testified

that equipment typically exerts

pressures of less

than

one ton per square foot or 14 pounds

per square inch (R.282~

293,

296,

:328).

After the landfill

is closed,

wastes

support the cover;

excessive shifting

causes subsidence,

resulting

in entry of water through the

cover and generation of

leachate

(R,350).

The ideal test of load-bearing capacity is a compression

test:

a -sample of the residual is molded into a block which

is crushed in a press, with the pressure recorded directly.

This

is the way concrete

is tested

(R,l87).

A simpler test is

a soil penetrometer, which consists

Qf

a steel shaft mounted on a spring with a slip

ring

to

record the maximum compression of the spring.

The

shaft is

pushed

into

soil

a

certain

depth,

and

the

pressure

on

the

shaft

read

from

the slip

ring.

The

soil

penetrorneter does not actually

measure

the

load—bearing

strength

of the

material,

However, it is

related

to

load—bearing

capacity

(R,294,

297).

Two

other

tests

tot

solidification

are leachability and

permeability.

These

are

related to the

amount of contami-

nants which would

be yielded

if

water

percolated through the

waste

(R.l62).

Leachability

is measured by the EP

toxicity test

speci-

fied in 40 CFR 261

and

35

111, Adm. Code

721.124 or by ASTM

D-3987

(R.l63,

187).

These measure the

concentrations of

contaminants in

water which result when a

sample of the

waste is shaken

with water. Recommended

ranges are

0-ne to

100 times drinking

water standards

(R.163,

191).

Permeability

is

measured

by the Corps of

Engineers

falling head test

(R.163,,

170).

It measures

the rate at

which liquid passes

through a unit area

of a material.

The

---

—16

recommended standard is

SxlO

6 cm/sec

(R,l64).

However,

so1idifie~materials

exhibit

permeabilities

which go as

high

as lOxlO

cm/sec

(R,199),

The maximum acceptable Leachability and permeability

are related,

If

a material

is not very permeable,

accept a higher leachability, and vice-versa

(R.164,

189,

198;

C—63,

113).

Solidified wastes require

three

to four weeks to set

before these properties are measured

(R.193,

299).

Testing

plans should allow

fcc:

this time,

The Board has

decided to utilize

the penetrometer test

at two tons per square foot as a criterion for solidification,

As

noted,

it

bears

a

relation to the

compression test which

is

more

reliable.

The

residual

from

common absorbents fails

the

penetrometer

test

at

one

ton

per

square

foot

(R.298),

The

test

appears

to

be

simple

and

inexpensive,

with readily

available

equipment.

At the third hearing CBE

proposed

to add leachability

and permeability tests

to

the

criteria of

Section 729.310(b) (3).

CBE proposed as a leachability test

the

EP toxicity te~tof

Section 721.124,

and a maximum permeability of

5 x 10

cm

per second as measured by the Corps of Engineers falling

head test.

The Board declines to adopt these tests at this

time for the reasons set out below.

The EP toxicity test

is

a defining criterion for hazardous

waste,

and,

as such,

would be

more

appropriately addressed in

rulemaking

implementing

Section

39(h)

of

the Act.

Under the

CBE proposal, if

EP

toxicity

were

the

only

hazardous

charac-

teristic and the

residual passed the EP

toxicity test, but

failed

the

penetrometer

or permeability

test,

the residual

could not be

landfilied even though

it

was

non-hazardous

(C—

76,

84),

The Board

believes,

as

is

reflected

in Section

729.310(b) (1), that

Section

22,6

is

intended

to address

hazardous waste,

The permeability

test proposed is

designed for use on

compacted soil—like

materials.

A residual

with small units

with a low permeability

per unit,

such

as

marbles, would

give a high permeability

under the test

protocol since the

units could not be

compacted.

in

such

a case it would be

the permeability of

the units,

rather

than the bulk material,

which would be related

to

the

landfiiling hazard

(C—64,

90,

94,

96,

98,

101,

110).

The CEE proposal does not recognize the interrelation-

ship between permeability

and leachability

(C-63).

Yet, as

noted above, the Board has received expert testimony from

William Webster suggesting that

a

rule

should allow some

trade-off between

these

62-334

---

—17--

The Board continues to

request comment and additional

information at the economic impact hearing and in the docket

to be opened concerning the need for additional criteria for

solidification.

In particular, the Board wants to know if

any wastes are found which meet the penetrometer test without

having be-en “solidified” as the

term is

intuitively understood.

To summarize, the proposal

contains

two tests:

the

paint filter test and load-bearing capacity test..

The paint

filter test is used as an initial screen to determine whether

a waste from an original generator is

a liquid hazardous

waste

(R.172,

180,

183.

347).

If

treatment is per’formed~,

other than removal of liquid, the hazardous residual can be

l~ndfilledif it passes the

paint

filter test and the load-

bearing capacity test

-~

It should be noted that the latter

test

does

not apply to wastes from original generators who

perform no treatment,

If such waste passes the paint filter

test,

it can be landfilled even

though

it might fail the

penetrometer test.

However, one cannot add absorbents to

get the waste to pass the paint

filter

test without becoming

subject to the load test

(R,l83),

The criteria of Section 729.310(b)

all involve treatment

of hazardous ‘waste:

any person conducting these operations

must have a RCRA permit or interim status,

The Agency will

monitor the success of treatment through the RCRA permit

program as well as the wastestream authorization.

On the

other hand,

the addition of absorbents by the original

generator, although it is a “treatment”,

is specifically

excluded from the RCRA permit requirement

(Sections 703.123(h)

and 724.101(g) (10)).

The Agency

will

monitor the process

only through the wastestream authorization process.

it is

possible that a generator could

attempt

to evade the liquid

restriction by adding a

large

amount

of

absorbent and claiming

to have -solidified

the waste,

There

are

two barriers to

this.

First, the

Board believes that

it is not physically

possible to produce a

residue

in

this

manner which meets the

penetrometer test.

Second, by claiming to have solidified

the waste, the generator

would subject

himself to the RCRA

treatment permit requirement.

Section 729.311

Prohibition

of Liquids

in Hazardous

Waste Landfills

The

‘RCRA

rules appear to

allow

the

placement of non-

hazardous

liquid wastes

in hazardous waste

trenches.

The-se

liquids would be expected

to come into

contact with hazardous

wastes in the trench and become

liquid

hazardous wastes

after disposal.

This would

have the

same effect as disposal

of the liquid ~iazardouswaste,

The Board

has therefore

prohibited landfilling of any liquids in hazardous waste

landfills.

Note that

the

definition

of

“landfill”

in Section

729.301 allows for

the ~ossibi1ity

of hazardous and nonhazardous

landfills,

or trenches,

on the

facility

(R.42,

351).

62-335

---

—18--

Landfilling of nonhazardous

liquids

in

hazardous

waste

landfills cannot be authorized

‘pursuant

to the technical and

economic showing of Section 22,6(c)

of

the Act and Section

709.401(a).

At first sight this

seems

to regulate nonhazardous

liquids more strictly than hazardous liquids.

However,

there is no shortage of landfills permitted to receive

nonhazardous wastes.

It will

always be

technically feasible

and economically reasonable to

put

these

nonhazardous liquids

in

Section 729.312

Labpacks

“Labwaste”

and

“non—periodic

waste”

can be landfilled

in labpack drums without the

technical

and economic showing.

The requirements

of

a labpack

have been

reproduced from

Section 724.416.

In summary,

a

labpack

is a drum containing

smaller non-leaking containers of

waste

and an excess quantity

of absorbent which completely

fills the

drum,

The inside

containers and absorbent must not

react

with the waste.

Reactive wastes, other than

sulfide

and

cyanide wastes, must

be treated or rendered non-reactive

before

being placed in

labpacks.

The presence of excess

absorbents, and the

requirement

that the

drum

be completely filled, make this form of disposal

environmentally acceptable for these wastes which are only a

tiny fraction of all hazardous waste.

As noted above,

it is

usually r~ottechnically feasible or economically reasonable

to treat, incinerate or recycle

these

wastes.

The cost of

the individual demonstration

would tend

to encourage disposal

of these wastes in sewers and

nonhazardous

waste landfills.

with more adverse environmental

impact

than landfilling in

labpacks.

Section 729.313

Biodegradable

Absorbents

At the third hearing CBE

proposed

‘that the Board prohibit

the use of biodegradable

absorbents, which it

defined to

include municipal refuse,

sawdust

and

shredded paper.

Dr. Ginsburg testified

that,

under landfill

conditions,

these materials would degrade

faster than

the

absorbed

wastes,

allowing the liquids

to

flow

or

be

leached out of

the waste

(C—60,

70,

99),

The

Board

has

adopted this concept.

However,

instead of listing

biodegradable

materials,

the

Board has prohibited the use

of any

absorbent materials

which will degrade faster than

the waste

being absorbed.

This would allow the use of a

biodegradable

absorbent if the

generator can demonstrate that the

waste

is more biodegradable.

The Board recognizes that in some

situations

it may actually be

desirable

to

have a biodegradable

absorbent

to provide a sub—

strate for microbial action,

62-336

---

—19—

This

Section

is

a

limitation

on the

Agency’s approval

of

wastestreams

pursuant

to

the technical

and economic

showing.

The

limitation

does

not

apply

to

ingredients

going

into

a

solidification

Section

729.320

Test

for

Liquids

The

test

for

liquids

is

the

paint

filter

test.

A

similar

test

has

been

proposed

by

USEPA

for

the

landfilling

bans

in

40

CFR

264

and

265

(47

FR

8311,

February

25,

1982)

(R.76).

The

test

is

widely

employed

although

it

has

appar-

ently

never

been

stated

in

rule

form,

Paint

filters

are

available

in

most

paint

stores.

They

are

used,

for

examp1e,~

ho filter paints before

spray painting.

A

paint

filter

is

made

of

light

card

stock

cut

and

glued

to

form

a

cone

with

a

diameter

of

about

six

inches

across

the

top.

There

are

two

holes

near

the bottom,

or

point,

of

the

cone.

These

are

roughly

triangular,

with

the

points

and

top

side

rounded.

The holes are about

2

:L/2 inches wide and

1

3/4

inches

high.

There

is

a

hole

at

the

point

about

1/2

inch

diameter.

A cloth gauze mesh has been glued across the

holes.

The

m~shis

a

nominal

400

microns,

although it is

very

irregular

(Ex.5),

Irregularities

are

not

thought

to

be

important

to

the

test

(R,87,

116,

128),

The card

stock

has

a

hard

surface which appears to be

designed to resist’ wetting.

This appears to be essential

for a filter to work without being supported by a funnel.

It is essential to the test that

the

filter not absorb much

liquid from the waste sample

(R,127),

The filter is to

be

mounted in

a

ring stand without a

funnel, which could

impede

movement

of

fluids through the

mesh.

Fluids could

also be trapped

by

capillary action

between the filter

and

the

funnel,

It is possible

that

certain wastes

could attack the

mesh

in

the

filter.

Such action

in

the

time frame of the

test would be expected

only

where

free

liquids are present

(R.89,

133).

The test is based on

a

100 ml representative sample

which

is

brought

to

room

temperature, thorQughly

mixed and

poured into the filter

(R,76),

The sample

is

covered

with

a watch glass of an

appropriate size,

The

sample “fails”

the test if one drbp,

or more, of

fluid

drops from the

bottom of the filter

within

five minutes,

Wastes which are liquid at

high

temperatures,

such

as

metal,

slag, glass and distillation residues, are to be

tested at room temperature.

The fact that the waste may in

fact have been a liquid at high temperature does not render

62-337

---

Some wastes may

include

finely

divided

solid material

which would move through

the mesh,

The

waste “passes” the

test if no fluid moves

through

(P.76),

Section 729.321

Load-bearing

Capacity

Test

This test is conducted

with a

soil

penetrometer with

a

range of

0 to 4.5 tons per square

foot.

The shaft of the

penetrometer

is pushed into the

sample

to the line scribed

in the point.

The pressure is

read on

the low side of a

slip ring on the shaft.

The shaft should be pushed

into

the sample

at a constant

rate over a period of

-o~roto three seconds.

The instrument

would give an erroneous reading

if

it

were struck against

the sample or pounded in with a

hammer.

Granular samples should be

compacted

to densities

typically found in landfills

(100

lbs.

per

cubic foot)

to testing

(R.343).

PART 709:

Section 709.102

“Wastestream”

Section 22.6(a)

of the Act requires an authorization

for a

“specific waste

streamt’.

The definition of “waste-

stream is critical to the scope

of the

wastestream authori-

zation

requirement:

wastes which

are

not “wastes?reams” do

not require an authorization,

but

they

must comply with the

substantive prohibitions

of

Part

‘729,

A “wastestream” is:

1,

A waste as

defined in

Part

721,

2.

Which

is

routinely

or

periodically

produced,

3.

By a certain

generator

4,

As a result

of a

certain

activity,

production

process

or

treatment

process.

A

wastestream

is

a

waste

which

is

periodically

produced.

This

could

be

a

barrel

per

minute

or a

barrel

per

decade.

However,

it

does

not

include

a

waste

which

is

produced

only

one

time

(R.372).

Examples

of

wastes

which

are not waste—

streams

would

include

single

loads

of

wastes

produced

from

construction,

non—routine

maintenance

or

dismantling

of

equipment

or

buildings,

However,

there is

no site-specificity:

if

a

contractor

moved

from

site

to

site

rebuilding

equipment,

his waste could be a

wastestream.

Another

example of a

waste which might not

be a

wastestream

would

be a waste

produced by an unusual accident

&r

unusual

spill.

82-338

---

—21—

A wastestream

is

produced by a

certain

generator.

If

two persons produce

an identical waste,

there are two waste-

streams.

A wastestream

results from a

certain

production or

treatment

process.

Waste constituents may

be mixed as a

result of the process,

However,

wastes

from multiple proc-

esses which are mixed

simply for convenience

constitute

multiple wa-stestreams.

The Agency

may

allow such combination

if the combination does not limit

the

possibilities for

treatment, recycling or disposal

of the

wastes.

For

example,

one could not

mix

a

non’-incinerable

wastestream with an

incinerable wastestream,

and then

get

authorization to

landfill the waste

pursuant

to

Section

22,6(c) becauSe the

mixture could not be

incinerated,

A wastestream

could also be

defined

in terms of the

disposer of the waste.

The

result

of this

would be to

require separate

authorizations

for each

waste

recipient

from a generator.

The definition has been

written to allow

this,

but also to allow a

list

or

classification

of disposers.

This is possible since

the wastestream

authorization

is

centered on the

generator of the waste,

unlike the supple-

mental permits

under

Section 807,210, which

are addenda to

the disposer1-s permit.

Increasing the

generator’s

disposal

options

should

tend

to

hold

disposal costs

down.

The

Act

has

recently

been amended

to-

allow the Agency to

issue

‘multiple

generator permits

(Section

22,9 of the Act,

P,A, 83—1443, effective

September

16,

1984),

The wastestream

authorization, provisions

and the amendments

to the supple-

mental permit requirements

are consistent with

this

new

provision.

The Agency

will

be

allowed

to

issue a wastestream

authorization to a

generator

allowing

disposal

at several

landfills,

and

to

issue

supplemental

permits

to disposers to

accept a category of

waste from several

generators.

This

scheme

should

require a

lot

less

paperwork

than a separate

permit for each

generator/disposer pair.

Section 709.103

Deemed-issued

Wastestream

Authorizations

Generators of

treatment residuals are

deemed to have a

wastestre-am authorization

if there is

a supplemental waste—

stream permit for the

wastestream

and the

generator submitted

an application by September

7,

1984,

The

residual will also

have to meet one of the

standards of Section

729,310(b):

it

will have to be non—hazardous,

or be the

result of liquid

removal or solidification.

Wastestream

authorizations are

not deemed issued for

residuals which result

from addition

of absorbents, or for

direct

landfilling

of

liquid hazardous

wastes.

62-339

---

There was

considerable confusion at the

third hearing

concerning the transition

rules

(C’-l2,

45),

Part of this

is

resolved when one

recognizes that the wastestream

authoriza-

tion is a new

generator-centered permit,

while the supple-

mental wastestream

permit

is

an existing

disposer-centered

permit,

The authorization

was

deemed

issued for 60 days

after the emergency rules if

the

wastestream

was subject to

an

outstanding

supplemental

permit,

If

an

application is

filed in this time,

the

deemed-issued

authorization dontinues

until the Agency acts,

The supplemental

permits, ~on the

other hand, were voided

immediately if they

authorized

disposal

•of a restricted

waste,

The

dates

for receipt of

applications for

authorization

have

no

impact on the~supple-

mental permits.

Section 709.104

Supplemental

Permits

Supplemental

wastestream

permits

which

have been issued

for prohibited wastestreams

are

void

immediately.

The

Agency is authorized to

review

outstanding permits

which

appear to authorize ~isposal of prohibited wastes,

The

Agency should give notice

to the permittee and the

opportunity

to file a new application

showing

compliance

with-the new

rules

(R.20,

28,

44),

The

Agency may

modify

or deny the

supplemental permits

as a result

of

its

review.

The Agency’s

actions may be appealed

to the

Board

pursuant

to Part 105,

Supplemental permits

which

authorize

disposal of

restrIcted liquids

are voided

to

prevent

an argument that

the

previously—issued

permit

can

be used as a

defense by a

disposer who accepts

liquid hazardous waste,

However,

the

validity of the permit

might not be decided

until an enforce-

ment action reached

the Board.

Paragraph

(c) requires the

Agency to review

existing permits to identify

those which it

believes permit

disposal of prohibited waste,

The Agency is

to give each

permittee the opportunity to

demonstrate compli-

ance before modifying

or denying a new supplemental

permit.

A sentence has been

added to make it clear that

this includes

the permits the

Agency believes are void,

Paragraph

(b)

has been added to apply the

same

rule to

wastes prohibited

by the halogenated solvent ban

(R8l-25).

This has been

renumbered from Section 729,205.

Section 709.201

Liquid Hazardous Waste

Authorization

Paragraph

(a)

states the

requirement

of

a wastestream

authorization for

landfilling

a

wastestream

which is still a

liquid, or which is a

liquid

to which absorbents

have been

added.

This requires

the

economic and technical

showing in

Section 22.6(c) of the

Act

and Section

709,401(a)(R,344).

---

—23—

Paragraph

(b)

states

the

requirement

for residuals,

This requires a showing

that

the

residual

is non-hazardous,

or results from removal

of

liquids

or

a solidification

process, as set forth in

Sections

709,401(b)

and 729.310(b).

Section 22,6(a)

imposes a

wastestream

authorization

requirement on generators who

landfill

liquid

hazardous

waste,

The Board has

construed

this

to include those who

are successfully treating the liquid,

as

well as

those who

are

landfilling the liquid directly or absorbed.

However,

the generator of a

residual

has

the option

of making the

simpler showing that

the treatment is successful,

rather

than the difficult

technical and economic

showing of Section

22,6(c),

It could be

argued

that

the

Legislature

intended

only to require the

authorization

for

the

direct landfilling

of

liquids and absorbed

liquids,

However,

the distinction

between successful

treatment,

or

solidification,

and

addition

of absorbent is a

subtle

one

which

requires

prior review by

the Agency on a

case-by-case basis,

rather

than

after the

fact review by the

Board

in

an

enforcement

action.

In the older permit

programs

in

air

and

water a permit

is required when a person

discharges or emits

a contaminant,

or engages in treatment

to prevent air or

water pollution.

(For example,

see Sections

9 (a),

9 (b),

12

(a),

12 (b)

and

12(f)

of the Act,)

A

person cannot avoid

the permit require—

ment by successfully treating

the emission

or discharge so

as to bring the emission

or discharge into

compliance with

standards.

Pripr- approval through

the

permit

process

is

required to assure that

the

treatment

process

will work,

Reporting pursuant

to the permit is required to

assure that

it continues to work,

The

Legislature

obviously intended to

establish a similar

program

of

prior

approval

for

treatment

or solidification of

liquid

hazardous

waste

prior

to landfilling,

It should be

noted

also

that

the

Legislature

has

estab-

lished a wastestream

authorization

requirement

for all

hazardous

wastes

after

January

1,

1987

(Section

39(h)

of the

Act),

Section

709.301

Application

This Section contains minimal information which the

generator must provide for the Agency to issue a wastestream

authorization,

The Agency

may

promulgate

standard

forms

which will supersede

this

Section,

The

Board

has

modified the

minimum application requirements

in

response

to

Agency

comments

(C-Si),

Paragraph

(f)

requires a

detailed

analysis

of a

sample

of

the

waste; paragraph

(h)

requires

a

plan

for

sampling

by

the generator or

treater

to assure that the

wastestream

continues to conform to

the anal~sisin the application.

62-341

---

—24—

Note that this is not the same as the waste analysis plan to

be filed by the disposer

pursuant

to

Section

729,302.

However,

this Section is not to be construed as prohibiting the

transporter or disposer from implementing the generator’s or

treater’s analysis plan,

Paragraph

(k)

requires

the

applicant

to

identify

one

or

more

facilities

to

which

it

proposes

to

send

the

waste,

The

Agency

may

identify

specific

facilities

in

the

authorization,

or

issue

it

with

a

generic authorization.

Section

709,302

Signatures

The

original

generator or treater of the waste

must

actually sign the

application.

However,

a permitted

trans-

porter or disposer of

the waste can act as a broker, preparing

the application for

the

generator.

This

will

allow the

wastestream

authorization

to

function

more

like

the

supple-

mental permit system,

in which the disposer had to complete

the application,

However, giving the generator the

right to

act

alone may

give generators more choice as to disposal

sites,

putting

downward pressure

on

costs,

Section 709,401

Standard

for

Issuance

Paragraph

(a)

requires the Agency to issue a wastestream

authorization for liquid hazardous wastes after the generator

makes the technical and

economic

showing

of Section 729,310 (a)

and 22,6(c) of the Act,

The final sentence refers to prohi-

bitions or

limitations under Board regulations,

This could

include prohibitions

in

the

RCRA rules adopted

pursuant

to

Section 22,4 of the Act,

or

prohibitions

adopted

pursuant to

Section

22(g)

of the

Act,

as

well

as

prohibitions

or

limita-

tions specifically

directed

at

liquid

hazardous

waste

pursuant

to Section 22,6(b),

Paragraph

(b)

requires issuance of an authorization for

a residual which

meets

one

of

the

standards

of

Section

729,310(b):

that the residual is not hazardous;

that

liquid

has been

removed;

or,

that

it

has

been

solidified.

The

Board

has added

a

requirement

that

the

residual

not

be

prohibited

or

limited by other Board regulations.

This is

renumbered

from

Section 729,205, where it was adopted with the halogenated

solvent ban,

Paragraph

(c)

allows

the

Agency

to

issue

authorizations

in other situations

in

which

it

determines

that

a

wastestream

is

not

subject to prohibition.

For example,

if there is

doubt as to

whether a waste

is a liquid,

a generator can

request an

authorization,

If the Agency determines that

the

waste is not a

liquid, it should issue an authorization

to

that effect,

rather than denying the authorization on

the

grounds that

the waste

is

not

subject

to

the

ban,

62-342

---

—25—

This mechanism could also

be

used

to

determine whether

a wastestream is

in fact hazardous,

This would provide a

more direct determination of waste classification than the

variance denial or dismissal mechanism employed in Safety-

Xleen

v. IEPA

(PCB 80—12,

37 PCB

363,

February

7,

Section 709.501

Duration

Wastestream authorization wil,i last for one to three

years.

The upper limit of three years will assure expiration

of early authorizations during 1987,

after which review

pursuant to Section

39(h)

of the

Act

will be required,

Section 709.510

General

Conditions

This Section implements

the

second sentence of Section

22.6(c) of the Act which contains

general

conditions

in authorizations.

Section 709.520

Authorized

Methods of Disposal

The authorized methods of disposal are the heart of the

wastestream authorization,

The Agency may list specific

landfills,

or authorize landfilling by category of landfills.

The Agency may also prohibit methods

of

treatment or disposal

which

it finds would result in violation of the Act or

rules.

Paragraph

(c)

provides that

the Agency

may allow or

require the addition of absorbent materials to liquid wastes

authorized pursuant to

the technical and economic

showing of

Section 709.401(a).

This is to negate any inference that,

by banning the use of

absorbents

to make a waste

non—liquid,

the

Board

intends

to

ban them in a situation in

which

a

liquid must

be landfiiled,

Parts

724 and 725 would often

require the use

of absorbents,

Section 729,313 prohibits

the use of absorbents

which are more

biodegradable than the

absorbed waste.

Section 709.601

Modification

The generator

may request modification of the

authori-

zation at any time by filing

a new application.

On its

own

initiative the Agency can modify

an

authorization prior to

its expiration date only to make it

consistent with

newly

adopted provisions of the Act or

Board

rules,

The Agency

must give notice to the generator

that it

is reviewing an

authorization so that

it

will

have the opportunity to file

an application demonstrating

compliance

with

the new provi-

sions.

This

Opinion

supports the Board’s Order of

December 20,

1984.

62-343

---

—26—

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

of the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that

the

above Opinion was

adopted on the

/fr~z~ day of

~

1985

by

a

vote of

-5--O

/

/1

~

orothy MT~’unn?Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

82-344