ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 17,
1992
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
)
RCRA UPDATE,
USEPA REGUL~ATIONS)
)
R92-1
(7/1/91
—
12/31/91~
)
(Identical in Substance
)
~t1TèSJ
Adopted Rule.
Final Order.
OPINION OF THE
BOARD
(by J
*
Anderson):
By a separate Order, pursuant to Section 7.2 and 22.4(a)
of
the Environmental Protection Act (Act),
the Board is amending the
RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
The amendments involve 35 Iii.
Adin.
Code 720,
721,
722,
724 and 725.
The Board will not file
the adopted rules with the Administrative Code Division until
after October
16,
1992, to allow time for post—adoption comments
from the agencies involved in the authorization process.
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. Rec~
Description
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
4117.6
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
September 5,
1991
43877
BIF Corrections (R91—13)
OI36~OLO3
2
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-ll.
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.
It includes two
minor amendments concerning liability insurance, new addresses
for hazardous waste export notices and a new procedure for
modifying the locations of monitoring wells at interim status
facilities.
In addition, the Board is responding to comment
received in R91-13 concerning applicability of the corrosivity
test to non-liquid wastes.
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.
PUBLIC
CONNENT
The Board adopted a proposal for public comment on May 7,
1992.
The proposed rules appeared on June 19,
1992,
at 16
Iii.
Reg.
9301.
The Board has received the following public comment:
PC
1
United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), June 17,
1992
PC 2
Administrative Code Division, July 23, 1992.
PC
3
National Ground Water Association
(NGWA), August
11,
1992.
PC
1 is a general comment from USEPA to the effect that the
proposed rules meet USEPA standards.
The Board appreciates
USEPA’s attention and prompt response.
PC 2
is a comment from the Code Division addressing format
problems with the rules.
PC
3 relates to the definition of “qualified groundwater
scientist”
in Section 720.110, discussed below.
OI36-O1O~4
3
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 “e~ensi~ttim~QrderThe
earliest USEPA action in the Docket was July 1,
1991.
The Board
entered an “extension of time order” in this matter on June 23,
1992.
The order anticipated adoption of a final order on
September 3,
1992.
At its September 3,
1992 meeting, the Board postponed final
adoption until its September 17,
1992 meeting.
The Board had
concluded that it needed time to revisit the question as to
whether the USEPA’s rule regarding the corrosivity characteristic
was to apply only to liquid wastes, rather than to both liquid
and non—liquid wastes.
As discussed later in this Opinion, we
were able to verify that the USEPA intended that the rule apply
only to liquid waste and the rule was amended accordingly.
REGULATORY
HISTORY
The complete history of the RCRA,
UST and UIC rules appears
at the end of this opinion.
While a short form of reference to
the adopting opinions will be used in the body of this opinion,
complete citations are included in the history.
AGENCY OR BOARD ACTION?
The USEPA RCRA rules contain decisions which, as worded, are
to be made by the USEPA Regional Administrator.
These generally
pose a question as to who is supposed to make the decision at the
State level:
USEPA, the Board,
the Agency or some other entity?
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.
In effectuating this requirement, the Board has almost
always changed “Regional Administrator” to “Agency”.
However, in
some situations “Regional Administrator” has been changed to
“USEPA”
or “Board”.
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.
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:
0136-0
105
4
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 “waive” a Board
regulation.
For example, the Agency clearly has
authority to apply a regulation_which says “If A,
dô~X; 1f riOt~A, ~ Y”~~On~the
othe~hand,
regulations which say “If not A, the state shah
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 pre-
existing 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.
Decisions involving
interim status are often more ambiguous as to
whether they are permit actions.
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
three are methods by which a regulation can be temporarily
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.
Adin. Code 104.
The
Agency files
a recommendation as to what action the Board should
0136-0106
5
take.
The Board may conduct 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
i~1àiiithè~e~ ~fáöt&i, ~
±1äfi~è
is á~i
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 grant a site specific
regulation or an adjusted standard pursuant to Sections 27 or
28.1 of the Act, and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 102 or 106.
EDITORIAL CONVENTIONS
As
a final note, the rules have been edited to establish a
uniform usage with respect to “shall”,
“must”, “will”, 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 “Agency” 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-BY-SECTION DISCUSSION
Section 720.110
This Section is drawn from 40 CFR 260.10, which was amended
at 56 Fed.
Reg.
66365,
in connection with changes to the interim
status groundwater monitoring rules,
adding the following
definition:
“Qualified Ground—Water Scientist” means a scientist or
engineer who has received a baccalaureate or post-
graduate degree in the natural sciences or engineering,
and has sufficient training and experience in ground-
water hydrology and related fields as may be
demonstrated by state registration, professional
certifications,
or completion of accredited university
courses that enable that individual to make Sound
professional judgments regarding ground—water
monitoring and contaminant fate and transport.
The Board has deleted the “may be”.
As the term is used
above, this would seem to mean “may or may not be”, which is
0136-0
107
6
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
~
note~xeferencIng~iii.
~a
non—exclusive way, the engineering licensing regulations in Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
ill, par. 5201 and 68 Ill.
Adm.
Code
1380.
PC
3 asks that the Board include a note recognizing
professional certification under the Certified Ground Water
Professional Program of NGWA.
NGWA is a non-profit trade and
professional society representing more than 24,000 groundwater
professionals.
Certification is bestowed on individuals who
demonstrate competence in the application of scientific or
engineering principles and methods to execution of work involving
groundwater.
The Board has added a specific reference to this
certification to the note following the definition.
This will
again be non-exclusive, so that other certification programs
meeting the general requirement will also suffice.
The Board has worded the definition as follows:
“Qualified groundwater scientist” means a scientist or
engineer who has received a baccalaureate or post-
graduate 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. Ada. Code
1380.
“Professional certification” includes, but is not
limited to, certification under the certified groundwater
professional program of the National Ground Water
Association.
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
0136-0108
7
as amended by Update I
(April,
1984)
and Update II (April,
1985))
(Document number PB 87—120291)
From the Board’s research into Section 721.122, below,
it
appears that the current Edition is the Third Edition, Revisiort
I. The Board ~pr
qposed
to
add
this
refer
ence~
and
solicited
comment on the correct document numbers for the several updates,
whether they were current, and whether the above reference to the
Second Edition ought to be removed.
The Board received no
response.
The Board has retained both references.
The new
reference is as follows:
“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 PB89-l48076)).
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 is to 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.
Ada.
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.
Ada.
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 55°C(130°F)as determined by
the test method specified in NACE (National
Association of Corrosion Engineers)
Standard TM—
01-69
as standardized in “Test Methods for the
Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods”, incorporated by reference in 35 Ill.
Ada. Code 720.111, or an equivalent test method
36-0
109
8
(35 Ill. Ada. 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
X1~1uticri
1yo1
the ~
~i1th~
water, ~ñ~éf.he
pH of the solution or slurry.
The comment asked that the Board
modify the Section to establish a uniform practice for Illinois.
In the proposed opinion, the Board requested comment on a
suggested standardized test involving EPA Test Method 9045 for
noncalcareous soils requiring blending with ASTM D1193
Type
II
water to form an aqueous solution prior to pH measurement.
The
Board also requested comment as to whether the USEPA rule was
being misread,
in that it could be read as applying the
corrosivity characteristic only to liquid wastes.
Although no
comment was received,
we, on further review,
found that the
applicability of the corrosivity test to non-liquids was
discussed twice by USEPA, and in each instance it was clear that
the corrosivity characteristic applied only to liquid waste in
the rule.
The USEPA preamble to the original adoption of Part
261 states:
A few comments were received on the need for including
corrosive solids in the corrosivity characteristic.
All advocated including solids in the corrosivity
characteristic but none described situations where the
improper disposal of such wastes would be likely to
cause damage.
EPA has concluded that,
inasmuch as the great majority
of wastes are presumed to be in liquid or semi-liquid
form, there is no demonstrated need to address
corrosive solids at this time.
EPA will, however,
continue to seek information on the dangers presented
by these wastes and will consider specific regulatory
measures if the need for more control becomes apparent.
(45 Fed.
Reg. 33109, May 19,
1980.)
USEPA revisited the corrosivity characteristic in connection
with the “third third” land disposal bans, which were adopted
bythe Board in R90-ll.
In the preamble to the third third rules,
USEPA reaffirmed this interpretation, stating that:
‘Non—liquid wastes
are often called “solid wastes”.
“Solid
waste”
is,
however,
a term of art defined
by the RCRA Act
and
Section 721.102.
As defined,
“solid waste” includes wastes which
are liquids.
In order to avoid confusion,
the Board has avoided
using this term in such circumstances.
0136-0110
9
The Agency received many comments regarding non-liquid
wastes which are corrosive and the applicability of
treatment technologies for aqueous and liquid corrosive
wastes to treat non-liquid corrosive wastes.
The
proposal did not specifically address corrosive solids
~ec~u~se~
in S 261.22 at this time.
Until the Agency amends
S
261.22 to include a definition for corrosive solids and
promulgates a treatment technology, generators must
prudently handle wastes with regard to known hazards.
Although not required under current regulations, many
generators of corrosive solids prefer to classify these
wastes as D002 corrosives and choose management and
disposal protocols accordingly in an effort to protect
the environment.
(55 Fed. Reg.
22549, June 1,
1990.)
The Board will therefore withdraw the test,
and will add an
explanatory note to the rule,
as quoted below.
As was also discussed by the Board in the proposed opinion,
the SW-846 test methods cited in the current Board and USEPA rule
appear to be incorrect.
The reference to Method 5.2 in Section
721.122 (a) (1)
appears to 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 proposed to reference these methods,
specifically requested comment, and received none.
The Board
will adopt the rule substantially as proposed, with respect to
correction of these methods.
The amended text of Section 721.122(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.
Ada.
Code
720.121). The EPA test method~for pH 4e
~
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. Ada. 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 55°C (130°F)
as determined
010111
10
by the test method specified in NACE (National
Association of Corrosion Engineers) Standard TM-
01-69 as standardized in “Test Methods for the
Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods”, incorporated by reference in 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 720.111, oran equivalent test method
(35 Ill.
Ada.
Code 720.121).
BOARD NOTE:
The corrosivitv characteristic
determination currently does not aDply to
non-liquid wastes,
as discussed bY USEPA at
45
Fed. Rea.
33109. Nay 19.
1980 and at 55
Fed. Req.
22549, June
1,
1990.
Section 722.153 and 722.156
These Sections are drawn from 40
CFR
262.53 and 262.56,
which were amended at 56 Fed.
Reg. 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
R89-1 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 referred to “miscellaneous disposal
units”.
The Board has changed this to “disposal miscellaneous
units”, USEPA’s current terminology, which is more correct2.
2”Miscellaneous unit”
is
a defined term in Section 720.110.
Although “miscellaneous disposal unit” sounds better than “disposal
miscellaneous
unit”,
it
is
preferable
to
place
the
modifier
(“disposal”)
outside
the defined
term.
Indeed,
“miscellaneous
disposal unit” could be construed to be a
“disposal unit”
of the
miscellaneous
type,
a
totally
different
concept
than
a
“miscellaneous unit”
of the disposal type.
0136-0112
11
Section 725.191
This Section is drawn from 40 CFR 265.91, which was amended
at 56
Fed.
Reg.
66365, December 23,
1991.
This involves the
location of monitoring wells at interim status facilities.
The U~EPAamendment adds Section 265.9~i(ajç~):
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:
1)
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
iii) The location ensures detection that,
given the
alternate location,
is 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.
iv)
Lateral expansion, new, or replacement units are
not eligible for an alternate 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 groundwater 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 solicited comment on this change, but received no
specific response.
The adopted language of Section 725.191(a) (3)
is as follows:
0136-0113
12
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
damonstr~tionmuatbecertifiedby~a_qua1ified
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
uppermost aquifer.
D)
Lateral expansion,
new, or replacement units
are not eligible for an alternate
downgradient location under this subsection.
Section 725.247
This Section was drawn from 40 CFR 265.147, which was
amended at 56 Fed.
Reg.
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 265.147(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 “disposal miscellaneous 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
265.147(a) (2) (i) and
(ii)
(725.247(a)(2)(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.
0136-Of
I1~
13
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 t~hefollowing:
~Iu2
RCRA and UIC Permit Programs
703
RCRA Permit Program
704
UIC Permit Program
705
Procedures for Permit Issuance
709
Wastestream Authorizations
720
General
721
Identification and Listing
722
Generator Standards
723
Transporter Standards
724
Final TSD Standards
725
Interim Status TSD Standards
726
Specific Wastes and Management 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 interim authorization on May 17,
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 amended in R82-18, which is
referenced above.
The UIC regulations were also amended in R83-
39:
R83—39
55 PCB 319, December 15,
1983;
7 Ill. Reg.
17338,
December 20,
1983.
0136-0115
14
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
~
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).
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.
11948, July 20,
1990,
effective July 9, 1990.
(1/1/89 through
11/30/89).
R90—5
Dismissed March 22,
1990
(12/1/89 through
12/31/89)
R90—14
Adopted May 23,
1991;
15 Ill.
Reg.
11425,
effective July 24,
1991
(1/1/90 through 6/30/90)
R91—4
Dismissed February 28,
1991
(7/1 through 12/31/90)
R9l—16
Dismissed December 6,
1991
(1/1 through 6/30/91)
R92—4
Dismissed April
9,
1992 (7/1/91 through 12/31/91)
R92-13
Next UIC Docket
(1/1/92 through 6/30/92)
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 Ill. Reg. 13999,
October 28,
1983.
R83—24
55 PCB 31, December 15,
1983,
8 Ill. Reg.
200,
January
6,
1984.
On September 6, 1984, the Third District Appellate Court
0136-0116
15
upheld the Board’s actions
in adopting R82-l9 and R83—24.
(Commonwealth Edison et
p1.
v.
IPCB,
127 Ill. App.
3d 446; 468
NE
2d 1339
(Third Dist.
1984).)
The Board updated the RCRA regulations to correspond with
~
the USEPA
regulations covered by the update is indicated in parentheses:
R84—9
64 PCB 427, June 13, 1985;
9 Ill. Reg.
11964,
effective July 24,
1985.
(through 4/24/84)
R85—22
67 PCB 175,
479, December 20,
1985 and January
9,
1986;
10 111.
Reg. 968,
effective January
2,
1986.
(4/25/84
——
6/30/85)
R86—1
71 PCB 110, July 11,
1986;
10 Ill.
Reg.
13998,
August 22,
1986.
(7/1/85
——
1/31/86)
R86—19
73
PCB
467,
October
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
Ill.
Reg.
6017,
April
3,
1987.
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)
R87—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.
R87—39
Adopted June 14,
1988;
12 Ill. Reg.
12999,
August 12,
1988.
(7/1/87
——
12/31/87)
R88—16
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. Reg.
6225, effective April
16,
1990
(1/1/89 through 6/30/89)
R90-2
July 3 and August
9,
1990;
14 Ill. Reg.
14401,
0136-0117
16
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 3/31/9O~
R90—11
April 11, May 23, ~~1;
15 Ill. Reg.
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. Reg.
14446,
effective
September 30,
1991
(Wood Preserving)
(7/1/90
through 12/30/90)
R91—l3
April
9, 1992; Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
(BIFa)
(1/1/91 through 6/30/91)
R9l-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)
R92—10
Next RCRA Docket (1/1/92 through 6/30/92)
Illinois received final authorization for the RCRA program
effective January 31,
1986.
The Underground Storage Tank rules were adopted in R86-1 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, effective 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)
01360118
17
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
Dismissed June 4,
1992
(7/1/91 through 12/31/91)
~R~2
~j
Djsmi~ August13T19W2 (i~I7~2~through
6J~0J92)
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 USX:
R85—2
69 PCB 314, April 24,
1986;
10 Ill. Reg.
8112,
effective May 2,
1986.
R87—30
June 30,
1988;
12 Ill. Reg. 12070, effective July
12,
1988.
R9l—12
December 19,
1991;
16 Ill. Reg. 2155, Effective
January 27,
1992
(USX)
The Board has modified the delisting procedures to allow the
use of adjusted standards in lieu of site—specific rulemakings:
R90—17
February 28,
1991;
15 Ill. Reg. 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. Reg.
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 R85-
22 and amended in R86-46, listed above.
0136-0119
18
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. Reg.
24124,
TDecember
4,
19~ff4~
R83-28
February 26,
1986; 10 Ill. Reg. 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 R86-
9 was reversed (CBE and IEPA v. IPCB et al., First District,
January 26,
1987).
CONCLUSION
This Opinion supports the Board’s Order of this same date.
The Board will not file the adopted rules with the Administrative
Code Division until after October 16,
1992,
to allow time for
post—adoption comments from the agencies involved in the
authorization process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board
hereby cert
y
t the above opinion was adopted on the
_______day of
_____________,
1992, by a vote of 70
Dorothy N. G~n, Clerk~
Illinois Pol~utionControl Board
0136-0120
