ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 10,
    1980
    SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 80—12
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    D.
    Satchel?):
    On March 10,
    1980 the Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    filed, pursuant to Procedural Rule 333,
    a motion seeking recon-
    sideration of the Board’s Order of February
    7, 1980 in which the
    Board dismissed as inadequate the petition of Safety-Kleen Corp-
    oration
    (Safety-Kleen) which requested a variance from the mani-
    fest requirements of Chapter
    9:
    Special Waste Hauling Regula-
    tions.
    On May 16 Safety—Kleen filed a response and on
    May
    22,
    1980 the Agency filed a motion for leave to reply.
    On June
    9
    the Agency filed a memorandum of law and facts in further support
    of its motion for reconsideration.
    On June 27,
    1980 Safety-Kleen
    filed a reply.
    The Agency contends that the Board violated the provisions
    of Section 37 of the Environmental Protection Act by acting before
    the Agency filed a recommendation.
    However, the Board’s Order of
    February
    7, 1980 was not an adjudication on the merits of Safety-
    Kleen’s claims.
    It was rather a dismissal based on the inadequacy
    of the petition.
    The Board often dismisses inadequate variance
    petitions without awaiting a recommendation from the Agency.
    The Agency points to the specific inclusion of “equipment
    cleanings”
    in the definition of “industrial process waste.”
    How-
    ever, prior to determining whether a material falls into one of
    the categories of special waste,
    it is necessary to determine
    whether it is “waste.”
    Under the facts
    alleged in the petition,
    the spent solvent is not waste.
    The issue of whether, if it were
    waste,
    it would be industrial process waste
    is moot.
    Although the transportation of flammable solvent may pose
    a
    threat to the public, this is not the problem which Chapter
    9
    addresses.
    Hazards to the public associated with the transporta-
    tion of hazardous materials are within the jurisdiction of the
    Department of Transportation.
    The Board intends to regulate this
    transportation only after the materials become waste.
    —2—
    The decision of the Board is not based on a finding that
    the solvent in question is recyclable.
    Under the facts alleged
    in the petition, Safety—Kleen maintains control over the solvent
    at all stages.
    It is able to state that the solvent is
    in fact
    recycled.
    This situation is clearly distinguishable from the
    case
    in which a generator delivers material to
    a third person
    with no knowledge or control over its subsequent disposition.
    The motion for leave to reply
    is granted;
    the motion for
    reconsideration
    is denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Boa4rd,
    hereby
    certify
    that
    the
    above
    Order
    wa
    adopted
    on
    the
    /~
    day
    of
    __________,
    1980
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    -O
    Illinois Polluti

    Back to top