ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

15,

1989

IN THE MATTER OF:

IDENR SPECIAL WASTE

)

R89—13

(A)

CATEGORIZATION STUDY

)

(Rulemaking)

PROPOSED RULE

SECOND NOTICE.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

J. Anderson):

Status of Rulemaking

The Board

today

is adopting

a Proposed Second Notice Opinion

and Order

in this matter.

On August

10,

1989,

the Board had

adopted a First Notice Opinion and Order.

In response

to

testimony and exhibits introduced at hearings and sixteen public

comments,

the Board on October

18,

1989,

then adopted proposed

changes in an Opinion and Order titled Interim Request for Public

Comment

(Interim Request).

The Interim Request afforded another

opportunity

to comment

on the proposed changes prior

to going

to

Second Notice.

This Second Notice Opinion and Order contains further

clarification and changes primarily

in response

to these latest

comments

(P.C.

#14—21)

and to

the preliminary review questions

of

the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

(JCAR)

Because the latter comment period was short,

and because

certain cornmenters

state that they received the document late,

some were filed after

the deadline.

Under

the circumstances all

comments have been accepted.

Comments were received from the

Department of Energy and Natural Resources and its Hazardous

Waste Research and Information Center

(DENR/HWRIC), P.C.

#19 and

21;

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency), P.C.

#20;

and

the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group (ERG),

P.C.

#17.

Also,

the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

fiied preliminary review questions

at our request, and the

Illinois Department

of Commerce and Community Affairs,

Small

Business Assistance Bureau filed

its review,

P.C.

#18.

We also

note that the motion to substitute comments from the :llinois

Steel Group

(P.C.

#22,

substituted

for P.C.

#10 and

14)

were

accepted by the Board by Order

of November

2,

1989.

In certain

respects the comments contain information or arguments already

considered

by the Board and addressed

in

its October

18,

1989

Opinion and order.

The Board~sresponses contained later

in this

opinion concentrote on

those portions

of

the

comments not

previously addressed as well

as explain

the basis

for the changes

made

to the Proposed Order.

~r~5—7r~

---

—2—

INTRODUCTION

This proposal creates

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 808 and modifies

35

Ill. Adm. Code

809.

Part 809 was adopted as “Chapter

IX”

in R76—

10,

33 PCB 131,

March 15,

1979.

We note that Part 807

is the

subject of a proposal in R88-7, which

is pending.

The proposal

in this Docket does not assume that certain

features of the

proposal in R88—7 will be adopted, but attempts

to avoid

incompatibility with such features should they be adopted.

OF DOCKET R8527

By separate Order,

the Board concurrently with the First

Notion Opinion and Order closed Docket R85-27.

After

approximately four years of exhibits, hearings and finally the

draft regulatory proposal by STS

(and including the record from

Docket R84—43),

R85—27 was no longer the appropriate vehicle for

consideration of the Board’s proposal.

However,

the consolidated

record of R85—27

is expressly included

in this docket.

STATUTORY

FRAMEWORK

This rulemaking implements Sections 22.01 and 22.9

of

the

Act, which were adopted at different times.

Section 22.01 of the Act requires the Board to review and

consider the repeal

of the manifesting requirement

for non—

hazardous special waste by December

1,

1989,

(35 Ill. Mm.

Code

809).

However, the Board

is to adopt an annual report

requirement for non—hazardous special waste.

Section 22.9(a)

of

the Act requires the Department

of Energy

~nd Notural Resources

(DENR)

to conple:e

a sLu~yo~the heneii.o

and feasibility of establishing a system

of

classifying and

regulating special wastes according

to their degree of

hazard by

July

1,

1985.

Section

22.9(b)

requires the Board

to adopt

regulations that establish standards and criteria for classifying

special wastes according

to degree of hazard or an alternative

method following completion of the DENR study, but

no later

than

December

1,

1989.

Section

22.9(c)

requires

the Board to adopt regulations

establishing standards and criteria by which the Agency may

determine that

a waste

or class of waste

is not a

special

waste.

Section 22.9(d)

contains a temporary statutory standard

by which the Agency makes

this decision pending adoption of Board

regulations.

Section

22.9(e) provides that,

if

the Agency fails

to act on

a determination within

60 days,

the requestor may seek

review before

the Board as

if the Agency had denied

a permit.

Section 22.9(f) provides

that the determination that

a waste

is

not a special waste does not apply to hazardous waste.

This

precludes

the declassification of special wastes which are

hazardous wastes

(i.e., wastes which are hazardous under RCRA

---

—3—

(per

Section 22.4(a))

or under

independent State law and

regulations which are at

least

as stringent

as, and not

inconsistent with,

RCRA

(per Section 22.4(b)

and

(c)).

HISTORY

The protracted history of developments regarding special

wastes

reflects the interconnection between the perceived need

for relief from regulatory requirements

(e.g., manifesting)

for a

potentially significant proportion of the universe of

“special

waste”

as defined by Section

3.45

of

the Act,

the desire

to

classify special wastes

to assure that their

handling

is

appropriate to their characteristics,

the obligation

to maintain

a State system which

is consistent

with federal

law,

including

RCRA

(see Section 20(a)(7)—(9)),

and efforts

to update all solid

waste rules

in R84—17/R88—7.

Sections

22.01 and 22.9

of the Act reflect these diverse

concerns.

Section

22.01 was added by Public Act 83—1461,

effective September

17,

1984.

That law was the culmination of

compromises which altered

the original proposal

(HB 3042),

which

would have

immediately required the Board

to drop all manifest

requirements for non—hazardous special wastes.

As enacted,

the

Board was only required

to “review and consider”

such action

by

January

1,

1986.

Section

22.9 traces

its

roots

to a different enactment,

Public Act 83—1268, effective January

1,

1985 which required DENR

to complete

a study of

the “benefits and feasibility”

of

establishing

a degree of hazard classification system for special

wastes regulation by July

1,

1985

(subsection

(a)) and required

the Board to promulgate

regulations for classifying (subsection

(b))

and

declassifying

(subsection

(C))

waste by September

1,

1988.

This

deadline

was

subsequently

moved

back

to

December

1,

1989

(Public Act 85—1327,

eff.

August

31,

1988).

In response

to the mandate of Section

22.01,

the Board

opened Docket R84—43

(December

20,

1984),

for review and

consideration of

the manifest requirement.

The Board held two

inquiry hearings

in March of

1985.

From the beginning,

the Board

noted the DENR mandate imposed by

22.9, observing that

the DENR

study due July

1,

1985 would be the subject

of other Board

hearings and that

this study

“will

undoubtedly provide a useful

data base

for consideration

in this docket and will be made

a

part

of

the

record

in

this

proceeding”

(Bd.

Order,

R84—43,

December

20,

1984,

page

2).

The

DENR

report

was

received

by

the

Board

on

November

21,

l985.*

By Order

of

the same date,

the Board established Docket

R85-27.

One nooth

later

(December

20,

1985),

the Board, having

*

“Special Waste Categorization Study”, HWRIC RROO5

(Reddy,

October

1985).

ifl5—2~3

---

—4—

considered

the

testimony

and

exhibits

submitted

in

R84—43,

entered

an

order

in

which

it

found

that

“it

would

be

imprudent

to

repeal

the

manifest

requirement

at

this

time

and

that

further

deliberation

should

proceed

under

a

consolidated

R84—43/R85—27

Docket”

(p.

1).

It

also

proposed

for

First

Notice

a

rule

to

require,

effective

July

1,

1987,

annual

reports

from

all

facilities

accepting

non—hazardous

special

wastes,

without

attempting

to

define

the

affected

universe

of

facilities.

Ironically,

on

the

same

day,

Public

Act

84—1108

became

effective.

This

law

directed

DENR

to

prepare

another

report

for

the

completion

of

a

study

on the degree

of hazard of industrial

wastes.

This

second

DENR

report

was

received

by

the Board on

January

22,

l987.*

Upon receipt of this report,

the Board

scheduled and held two hearings

in May,

1987.

After considering

the testimony and comments produced

in the consolidated R84—

43/R85—27 docket, the Board dismissed its proposal on December

17,

1987, and further

formally dismissed and closed Docket R84—

43.

On April

7,

1988,

the Board entered

an Interim Order

directing

the Board’s Scientific and Technical

Section

(STS)

to

prepare a regulatory proposal.

It was contemplated

in the Order

that the STS efforts would be aided by the final installment of

the DENR “degree of hazard” studies undertaken pursuant

to Public

Acts 83—1268 and 84—1108, which

the Order noted was expected to

be delivered to the Board “shortly”.

To serve

as an

independent

proponent, the Order established

an “exterior

to the Board”

arrangement consistent with RES 86—1, whereby the STS was for

this purpose created a separate entity and subjected

to customary

ex parte restrictions as such a proponent.

The DEY~’s third

installment ~‘as rece ived

by

the

3o~.rd

on

October

27,

l988.**

By

its cover letter,

the DENR’s Hazardous

Waste

Research

and

Information

Center

(HWRIC)

indicated

that

one

additional

report,

“The

Characterization

of

Non—RCRA

Special

Waste”

by

William

W.

Frerichs,

would

likely

be

submitted

within

two

weeks.

The

Frerichs

report

was

published

in

January

of

1989,

but

has

not

been

submitted

to

the

Board

for

filing

in Docket R85—27.

The

Board’s

staff

obtained

a

copy

of

that

report

on

April

28,

1989.

The

cover

letter

accompanying

the

report

and

responding

to

the

Board

staff

inquiry

indicated

that

the

Frerichs report was a

product

of

DENR’s

continuing

research

mission

and

was

not

intended

to

be

filed

with

the

Board

as

an

exhibit

in

the

R85—27

proceeding.

*

Assigning

a

Degree

of

Hazard

Ranking

to

Illinois

~‘Iaste

Streams”,

(Plewa

et

al,

1986).

**

“Refining

the

Degree

of

Hazard

Ranking

Methodology

for

Illinois

Industrial

Waste

Streams”.

(Plewa

et al,

1988).

---

—5—

Working on the basis

of selected preliminary drafts,

STS

staff member Morton Dorothy prepared a rough draft

regulatory

proposal and “supporting document”.

A second draft of

the STS

rule proposal was prepared on June

28, 1989,

and a third draft

submittal was filed with the Board on July

24,

1989.

An

accompanying

“Supporting Document” was filed on July

26,

1989.

Noting

the press of

the statutory deadline and that an effort was

already underway to develop this Board proposal,

Dr. Harish Rao,

Chief

of the STS, on July 31,

1989,

filed a Statement Of The

Scientific and Technical Section Regarding Submission of

Documents.

Dr. Rao indicated that additional

efforts

to develop

a formal

STS proposal appear

to be unnecessary

in R85—27,

since

that Docket will be closed.

In submitting and perfecting this proposal, DENR provided

technical testimony and support

for the proposed categorization/—

ranking

methodology.

The First Notice Opinion gives further

explanation

regarding

the

creation

of

separate

Docket

A

and

B,

and

the

STS

draft.

The

Docket

A

proposal

does

not

address

all

the

potential

ramifications

of

a

waste

classification

system,

particularly

those thorny issues related

to creation of

a “high

hazard”

non—RCRA

special

waste

category

(i.e.,

those

special

wastes

assigned

a

score

of

3

pursuant

to Section 808.245).

That

will be

considered

in Docket

B.

Consideration

of

refinements

to

the

hazard

ranking

system

and the possible use of that

system

to prescribe

requirements

specific

to

special waste classes, including those non—RCRA

special wastes assigned the highest hazard ranking, will be the

subject of Docket

B.

POST FIRST NOTICE ACTIVITIES

Upon adoption of the proposal for First Notice,

the Board

scheduled and held two public hearings,

the first

in Springfield

on September

1,

1989,

and the second

in Chicago on September

14;

a third hearing, scheduled

for September

15, was canceled after

no one appeared to present testimony or examine witnesses.

Testimony was presented at the hearings on behalf

of the

Department

of Energy and Natural Resources

(DENR),

including

its

Hazardous Waste Resource and Information Center

(HWR:C)

.

Also

presenting testimony were the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency),

Mr. John Andrae of

the DuPage County Health

Department,

the Board’s Hearing Officer

(in his capacity as

a

principal draftsman of the Board’s pr•ooosal)

and Dr. Harish Rao,

head of the Board’s Scientific,’Technical Section

(STS).

Prefiled

comments and questions were

received from the National Renderer’s

Association and ~1asteManagement

of Illinois.

Prefiled testimony

was provided by DENR and HWRIC

representatives.

The Hazard Ranking System

Testimony provided by DENR and HWRIC focused on the

three

scientific studies and proposals

for creating

a system to rank

105

295

---

—6—

special

wastes

according

to

their

relative

degree

of

hazard

to

human

health

and

the

environment.

Witnesses

for

DENR

and

HWRIC

were

generally

supportive

of

the

Board’s

proposal

(see,

e.g.,

testimony

of

Dr.

David

Miller,

R.

19—21).

These

witnesses

also

defended

the

HWRIC

studies’

choice

of

methodology,

“break

points”

for

hazard

ranking

chosen

by

HWRIC,

and

the

toxicological

data

and

reference

compound

(i.e.,

copper

sulfate

LD5O)

selected

by

HWRIC

and

proposed

by

the

Board

(see,

e.g.,

testimony

of

Dr.

Michael

Plewa,

R.

21—27).

The

witnesses

for

HWRIC

and

DENR

stated

that

the

computerized

system

is

presently

“up and running”

and

could

be

used

on

all

wastes,

providing

that

adequate

information on the waste components were provided

to the Agency

by

the

applicant

or

were

already

in

the

data

base

(R.

42—44)

The

witnesses

felt

that

the

system

was

conservative

enough

to avoid error

for declassification purposes.

In contrast,

concerning

its

use

for

classifying

at

the

high

toxicity

level,

DENR/HWRIC

stated that, since

the system is conservative,

there

is

a

chance

that

a

waste’s

high-hazard

ranking would be lower

if

they

had

more

specific

information

on constituents and toxicities

(P.

C.

#4).

The witnesses also made clear that the degree of hazard

system

should

be

viewed

as

a

potential

degree

of hazard system;

it should be but one element within the overall evaluation by

which

the

Agency

would

rñake

a

determination,

and

that

the

ranking

could

be

adjusted

up

or

down,

depending

on

the

appropriate

modes

of

treatment

or

disposal

of

special wastes

(e.g.,

R.

57—59).

The

witnesses

also

acknowledged

that

a number of their

rankings

were

not

based on the scientific rationale they

developed.

Rather,

they utilized a “legal” rationale;

they

a

regulatory

standard

applicable

to

cone

pntential

characteristic of waste from an unrelated federal

or state

regulatory

program,

for

instance

the

federal

RCRA

standard

for

pH,

and

established

a “break point” without use of refinement

or

incremental adjustment

based upon the degree

of

hazard

system

(R.

61,

68,

71—73).

The witnesses also testified that the system’s database and

application program has utility as

a planning device, whereby

members of

the regulated community could calculate the effects of

process

substitutions

and

system

changes

on

the

waste

stream’s

degree of hazard

(R.

40-52).

They noted

that the system could be

applied manually.

In any event, DENR/HWRIC argues for

a state

universal data base system (presumably maintained

by the Agency),

thus letting all know what the ground rules are

(R.

47 and 52,

P.

C.

~4).

They also noted

that new data should be screened by

experts,

so as

to maintain

a standardized system and thus avoid

delisting evaluations

by those lacking

the expertise

or access

to

literature

(P.

C.

#4).

Dr. David Miller, Assistant Director and Research Program

Manager

of HWRIC,

estimated that

a computer and software

105—2~)(~

---

—7—

appropriate

for

the

purpose

would

cost the Agency about $3000.00

(R.

31).

Several questions arose

at hearing concerning

the HWRIC

ranking methodology and proposal.

In response

to the questions

of Mr. James O’Brien, Manager

of the Agency’s Office of Chemical

Safety

(OCS), concerning

the use solely of

equivalent

oral doses

when the inhalation

or

derrnal exposure route might

be more

appropriate,

DENR/HWRIC stated that the toxicity weighting table

on Page

11

in the Plewa

1988

report takes this into account.

Regarding

Mr.

O’Brien’s concerns about lack of consideration of

sub—acute or systemic chronic toxicity,

DENR/HWRIC

responded that

relatively little data exists and,

because the system

is

conservative,

such values ~ould

have little effect anyway.

Regarding Mr. O’Brien’s comments

on test method appropriateness,

DENR/HWRIC responded that those parameters are difficult

to

measure,

such as pH for solid samples;

these could

be left blank

or

a

slurry

with

water

could

be

analyzed.

In

any

event,

DENR/HWRIC asserted,

the Agency needs

to consider

the use

of

these values

in its final determination of the waste stream’s

status

(R.

112—119,

Exh.

4).

Mr. Andrae of DuPage County took particular

note

of the fact

that toxicity appears

to increase with volume using the

DENR/HWRIC toxic hazard methodology

(Appendix

B,

subpar.

(B)),

and asserted that

this might

render the methodology suspect

as

a

means of classifying or declassifying certain wastestreams.

(R.

391—395).

DENR/HWRIC

responded

that

the

system

focused

on

landfills,

rather than effluent going into water and,

as such,

seeks

to avoid

a large volume of toxins where total mass may

present

a threat.

(P.

C.

#4).

In

a somewhat

related vein,

IERG

also noted some problems posed by

a volume-dependent measure of

toxicity,

including examples of how the system could yield absurd

results

(P.C.

#11,

pp.

6—8).

Mr. Andrae also stated the county’s

concern regarding the exemption from the manifesting requirements

for septic pumpi.ngs and grease

trap pumpings

(R.

398—401).

Comments

And

Questions

The National Renderers Association argued

in its pre—filed

questions

that

licensed

renderers,

who

are

exempted

currently

from

the

manifest

system

pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Mm.

Code 809.331,

should

be

similarly

exempted from the “Unmanifested Waste Report”

requirements

of

proposed

Section

809.502

(R.

256—257).

The

Agency

generally

indicated

that the proposed system was

overly

complicated,

time

consuming

and

unnecessary

(R.

220,

237).

The

Agency

proposed

in its stead

(R.

220)

that the Board

adopt

a

system

of

classification

derived

from

the

Agency’s

present guidance document

(Exh.

7).

Several commenters endorsed

this view

(P.C. #~s10,11 and

14).

The Agency also acknowledged

that

it

rarely,

and

then only informally, utilizes the Office of

Chemical

Safety

to

assist

in

the

toxicity

evaluation

components

of its guidance document

(R.

102,

147,

163 and 169—170).

105—297

---

—8—

One

questioner,

and

two

commenters

representing

the

Illinois

Steel Group and the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

(IERG)

(P.C.

#

10,

11

and

14),

suggested

that

DENR

had

failed

to

provide,

on

request,

a

copy

of

the

computer

program

developed

by

DENR/HWRIC, and that this refusal had denied them access to data

in

order

to

meaningfully

testify

on

or

evaluate

that

system;

they

accordingly

urged

the

Board

to

take

no

action

based

on

the

DENR

system.

DENR/HWRIC

responded

that

they

offered

those

with

specifics

on

their

waste

stream

“to

come

to

our

offices”

to

run

the

degree

of

hazard

(P.C.

#4,

p.

5);

they

had

not

released

the

system because they didn’t want others modifying

the program,

especially during its development phase,

and that

it now can be

downloaded

to

a

diskette.

They want

to assure that there

is only

one state system and thus need to assure that

it

is secure

(R.

215—216,

P.C.

#4).

Comment was received after

the hearings, and prior

to the

Board’s Interim Request Opinion and Order,

from the Metropolitan

Water Reclamation District

of Greater Chicago

(P.C.

#3),

DENR

(#4),

the National Slag Association

(P.C.

#5),

International Mill

Service

Inc.

(P.C.

#6),

the St.

Louis Slag Products Company

(P.C.

#7),

the Steel Manufacturer’s Association

(P.C.

#8),

SF1 Waste

Systems

(P.C.

#9),

the Illinois Steel Group

(P.C.

#10 and 14),

the IERG

(P.C.

#11),

the Edward

C.

Levy Co.,

Inc.

(P.C.

#12),

the

U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Mines

(P.C.

#13),

Dr.

David

J.

Schaeffer,

Department of Veterinary Biosciences,

University of Illinois

(P.C.

#15)

and the Agency

(P.C.

#16).*

Comments

#4 and #16 were

in the form of responses

to two

sets of questions propounded

in Orders

issued by the Hearing

Officer

(“Further Questions

for DENR/HWRIC Witnesses”,

September

12,

1989,

and “Additional Questions

for IEPA and DENR/HWRIC

~Titnesses”,

september

13,

19E9)

.

The

Hearinq

Officer

hts

hee~

advised

that

the

Agency

and

DENR

are

coordinating

their

activities

to

provide

the

Board

with

at

least

a

partial

response

to the fourth question

raised by

the Hearing Officer

in his

September

12,

1989 order,

namely,

that DENR run its degree of

hazard

(DOH)

analysis on the requests which the Agency has

already received and handled under

its interim guidance policies

over the past 2~years.

Such a “cross check” will serve

to

either confirm or counter claims regarding whether

the system is

practicable,

and will provide a comparison of results from use of

the DENR system alone with

results from use of the Agency’s

policy guidance alone.

Mr.

Frank

E.

Dalton,

General Superintendent

of the

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

(P.C.

#3) suggested that

a pro~osedSection 808.247 be added to the

*

Comments

of

a technical

nature

relating

to

the

form

of

the

rules

for purposes

of

publication

in

the Illinois Register

were

also

received

from Mimi Griffiths,

Administrative Code Division,

Office

of the Secretary of State

(P.C.

#2).

11)5

2’~3

---

—9—

rules

to continue

to exempt municipal wastewater treatment plant

sludge from classification as a special waste.

He also urged

that proposed amended Section 809.255

be revised

to make clear

that washings from

a special waste hauling vehicle may not be

discharged

to

a POTW except

in compliance with all applicable

local limits on discharges

to that POTW.

A somewhat similar

suggestion was made

by BFI Waste Systems

(P.C.

#9,

third and

fourth pages)

and Waste Management

of Illinois

(WMI)

(P.C.

#1,

p.

13).

In

addition

to

faulting various aspects of the DENR,’HWRIC

proposal

and

the Board’s draft

rules, the Agency proposed that

all special non-RCRA waste be manifested by using

a four—part

manifest augmented by an annual

reporting requirement

(R.

92—97,

218—219;

P.C.

#16),

in lieu of the currently—required six—part

manifest which

the Agency characterized as imposing an

unreasonable “paperwork burden” upon both the Agency and the

regulated community without commensurate benefit

in terms of

increased Agency oversight

(id.).

Other commenters agreed with

the Agency on this point

(P.C.

#8,

9 and 11).

The Agency

quantified

this burden upon the Agency as growing

rapidly and

consisting of approximately 350,000 pieces

of paper

annually

(R.

92-93).

The Agency also suggested that

the Board’s

rules should

set forth minimum requirements

for

the annual

reports which

it

suggests to augment

a four—part manifest requirement.

By far

the greatest number

of comments and questions

regarding the proposal were

received from WMI before the hearings

(P.C.

#1).

Many of these questions and comments related

to

typographical errors and omissions,

all of which have been duly

noted.

On a substantive plane, WMI suggested that,

in light of

their obvious stake

in classification determinations

as well as

their knowledge

of actual conditions, waste treaters and

disposers

should have

a role

as

of right

in

the

classification

process

(P.C.

#1,

pp.

1—2).

WMI recommended

that notice of

pending classification requests

be provided

to such receiving

sites, and that such sites

be entitled to participate

in Agency

classification proceedings

(see,

e.g.,

R.

259—260 and P.C.

#1,

p.

5).

WMI also noted

that numerous sections of the proposal

(e.g.,

proposed section 808.l21(c)(1))

reference concepts embodied

in

sections or Parts

not yet

in existence, notably Part 811

(see

R.

264—266,

326,

329—330, and 345—348).

As noted by the Hearing

Officer

at hearing

(R.

264—266),

these sections,

as well

as those

proposed sections

of Part

809 establishing substantive

requirements

for waste haulers,

including haulers

of wastes other

than special wastes

(e.g.,

Sections

809.221—809.227) were drafted

in

the expectation

of prior adoption of proposed rules

in Board

Docket R88—7; such prior adoption has not occurred.

Finally, WMI

noted several problems with the Infectious Hospital Waste

rules

as transported over

to proposed rule 803.601

from Subpart

I

of

Part

809 (R.322—329)

and with

the several substantive new

requirements

in Part 809 for waste haulers,

including

requirements for overnight parking and covers on waste trucks.

105

---

—10—

The

largest

number

of

post—hearing

comments

were

received

from persons concerned

that

the proposal would somehow have the

effect of expanding the universe of materials considered

to be

“wastes” particularly with respect

to slags generated

in the

production of iron and steel

(P.C.

#‘s 5,6,7,8,l0~l2,l3 and

14).

All these commenters stated that such slags are fully

utilized as products such as railroad ballast, concrete aggregate

or as

raw material in the manufacture of glass and mineral wool.

The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group and the Agency

expressed concern lest

the new rules overturn prior Agency

determinations under

Section

22.9(d)

of the Act

or otherwise

create needless confusion

(P.C.

#‘s 11 and 16).

Some commenters

also observed that the DOH methodology may not always be

applicable or

practicable

(P.C.

#11,

15 and 16);

they urged the

Board

to introduce sufficient flexibility in the rules

to allow

use of alternative modes of determining the nominal toxicity

hazard posed by

a given waste—stream,

(P.C.

#15 and 16).

Dr.

Schaeffer

recommended

a

bioassay—based

approach,

which

he

has

developed

in a study undertaken

for DENR and which he asserts can

be easily

implemented and made capable of gauging

the

synergistic and/or antagonistic effects

of

individual

constituents

in a waste stream so as to assess the toxicity of

complex mixtures

(P.C.

#15).

SF1 Waste Systems

(SF1)

joined

in WMI’s criticisms

of the

substantive

requirements proposed in Part 809

to regulate waste

haulers,

including proposed requirements

for overnight parking,

maintenance and odor control.

(P.C.

#9).

BFI suggested

that

“cover”

be defined although at hearing two participants suggested

that covers might be impractical, unnecessary or even detrimental

in some cases

(R.

345—353 and 388—389).

BOARD CONCLUSIONS AND RESPONSES TO TESTIMONY

AND

COMMENTS

IN

ITS OCTOBER 18 INTERIM REQUEST

Both

the Interim Request as well as

this draft Opinion and

Order contains a number of modifications based on the testimony

at hearing and public comments received

to date.

Generally,

the

draft

as

now

crafted

a)

clarifies

that

the

toxicity

ranking

methodology developed by DENR/HWRIC

is meant

to supplement

the

present Agency system of evaluation

as

a first screening,

not

replace

it,

b)

includes other considerations

as derived

from the

Agency’s present policy paPer,

c) utilizes the DENR/HWRIC degree

of hazard categories

for which they have developed

a scientific

rationale

(i.e.,

toxicity),

but

rely

on

the

existing

Agency

evaluation system rather

than those DENR/HWRIC rankings based

on

a

“legal”

rationale

(e.c.,

pH),

d)

provides

for

a four—part

manifest system plus quarterly or annual reports,

e)

removes

amendatory language not directly

related to the DENR/HWRIC

classification

system,

including leaving intact the Board’s now—

existing

hazardous

(infectious)

hospital

waste

regulations,

and

f) provides for

a re—evaluation within two years for

those wastes

that

the

Agency

earlier

determined

not

to

be

special

wastes.

105

301)

---

—11—

For continuity,

the Board is restating below its Interim

Request conclusions and comments.

The Board emphasizes that the

purpose and effect

of this proposed rulemaking does not include

expansion of the universe of wastes.

“Wastes” and

“Industrial

Process Wastes” are defined by the Act;

judging

frtm the

several

comments received regarding steel slags

(e.g.,

P.C.

#7),

it would

appear that such slags are properly defined

as products unless

abandoned or discarded,

and

to that extent are unaffected by this

proposal.

In

light of the several comments which suggests that

some

persons

misunderstand

this

fact,

the

Board

will

insert

a

clarifying

sentence

in

Section

808.100(a).

Upon

consideration

of

the

several

comments and questions and

testimony

at

hearing,

the

Board

made

several

substantive

changes

in

the

proposed

rule.

It

is

clear,

as

many

participants

have

noted,

that

references

to

certain

provisions and concepts must be

dropped

from

this

rulemaking

in

view

of

the

fact

that

rulemaking

in

R88—7

will

not

be

completed

in

time

for

this

proceeding.

In

consequence

of

this

reality,

all

present

references

to

Part

811

are

proposed

to

be

eliminated

from

proposed

Part

808

and

proposed

amendments

to

Part

809,

as

are

all

substantive

requirements

in

proposed

amendments

to

Part

809

(e.g.,

proposed

Sections 809.221—

809.227)

not

relating

directly

to special waste classification.

In like manner,

the proposed relocation of

the hazardous

(infectious)

hospital waste rules

from Part 809 to Part

808,

together with the attendant changes

to

the text

of those

rules,

must be deferred for the present.

These wastes were not newly

evaluated by DENR’s methodology.

Also,

this change will

accommodate

the need

to have separate reconsideration of the

hazardous (infectious)

hospital waste

rules themselves.

The

Board

is aware of

ongoing “medical waste” legislative initiatives

regarding infectious wastes generally,

and believes that this

also augurs against taking any new actions

in

this proceeding.

As

for the DENR/HWP.IC classification system,

the Board

concludes that

it

can and should serve as

a component of

a system

for classification of special waste wastestreams.

It

is clearly

not intended to be

a means of classifying wastestrearns

in and of

itself.

It

is also clearly a system which

is

to some extent

volume—dependent.

Moreover,

the Board will not utilize that part

of the HWRIC ranking system which

is

not justified by its

science—based methodology, but rather relies upon other standards

(statutory or

regulatory)

adopted and

in place

for other

wastestreams.

The trouble with using

such standards,

such as the

pH standard of RCRA,

for example,

is that such standards are not

necessarily appropriate

for

or germane

to the toxicity—based

ranking

in this rulemaking.

Accordingly, Appendices

C and D of

Part 808 proposed at First notice will be discarded for the time

being.

Although we await

the results of

a spot check

of DENR’s

methodology on wastestreams which have been submitted previously

to the Agency for declassification under Section

22.9(d)

of the

Act, we are not persuaded by the concerns about adopting the

rules before the comrnenters could test the degree of hazard

105- 301

---

—12—

computerized

system

on

their

own

computers

on

wastes

of

their

choosing.

DENR/HWRIC have tested the computer system

extensively;

the

DENR/HWRIC

approach

has

been

available

for

testing

at

HWRIC’s

offices

for

some

time.

In

any

case,

the

commenters could have tested the system manually.

In any event,

the

Board

does

not

believe

that

rules,

including

these

rules

and

certainly

as

presently

crafted,

should

be

held

in

abeyance

for

these

reasons.

Moreover,

the

Board

finds

that

the

concepts

embodied

in

the

Agency’s current policy guidance document provide some basis

for

a comprehensive system,

but lack

the discipline

imposed by use of

a formal ranking system such as proposed by the DENR/HWRIC

toxic

hazard ranking

system.

The testimony of Agency witnesses makes

clear that the present system for determining declassification

requests

lacks

a

consistent approach for determining toxicity and

utilizing

the

resources

of

its own OCS; absent

regular use of

a

central body

of

information such as OCS there can be little

assurance

that determinations will be consistent or based upon

current data.

We do not find persuasive

the Agency’s assertion

that the inclusion of the proposed formal system of evaluation

is

unnecessary or that the computerized system envisioned

by HWRIC

would be too onerous

to use.

On the other hand,

as

for the

concerns over the applicability and volume—dependent measure of

toxicityprovided

by Appendix

B,

newly proposed language

in

Section 808.245 intends to make clear that an applicant may show

that the system is inapplicable, and use another equivalent or

comparable

approach.

No

regulatory

procedure

or

standard

works

in

every

conceivable

circumstance;

the

same

remedies

are

available

here

as

are

available

without

an

articulated

degree

of

hazard system,

except that a

system

provides

a

benchmark

for

evaluating disputes.

Further, where volume

is a factor

in a

lo’~eredtoxic

snore or

classification1

new subsection

(f)

of

rule

Section 808.245 requires that such factor be specified

in the

Agency’s determination

(see also new language

in subsection

(b)

of Appendix B).

The

Board

is

not

convinced

of

the

propriety

of

requiring

that waste treaters or disposers

be brought

into the

classification process

as active participants.

The proper role

of operators

of such facilities,

in our view,

is

to assure that

wastes received are as described,

not

to participate at the

Agency level

in the classification process.

Moreover,

practical

considerations make involving

the entire universe of potential

destinations of

a given wastestream unfeasible.

The Board partially agrees with

the comments from the

Metropolitan

Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago; while

we

do not agree

that all water or wastewater

treatment sludges

should be exempt from the definition of

“special wastes”, we

do

agree

that such sLudges already

regulated by the Agency under

an

approved

sludge

management

plan

should

be

exempt

from

the

special

waste manufacturing and hauling

requirements.

Section

808.l21(b)(4)

has

been

added

to

this

effect.

11)5

31)2

---

—13—

The Four Part Manifest

The Board

is persuaded that the Agency

is correct

in

asserting

that the gathering of

information by way

of

required

reports based on

a four-part manifest,

rather than keeping

the

Agency

in the six—part manifest loop,

is warranted

for non—RCRA

special

wastes.

It

is

illuminating

in

this

regard

that

USEPA

requires

only

a

four—part

manifest

even

for

RCRA

hazardous

wastes.

It

is certainly worth noting that,

in the record of this

docket as well

as its predecessor dockets, R84—43 and R85—27,

neither the Agency nor any member

of the regulated community has

ever suggested that

there

is

a necessary function served by

burying

the

Agency

under

an

avalanche

of

manifest

forms

which

ultimately are seldom,

if

ever,

timely used owing

to their

sheer

bulk.

In

so saying,

the Board agrees with the concerns

of DENR

and others

that,

if the Agency is taken out

of the loop,

the

required

reports should include

the same type of information,

albeit

reported

on

a

less

frequent

basis.

To

this

end,

the

Board

has

added

subsections

(h)

and

(i)

to

rule

Section

809.501.

However,

the

Board

does

not

believe

that

annual

reporting

provides

an

adequate

measure

of

control

over

those wastes which

are ranked as having a high degree of potential hazard.

Hence,

quarterly

reporting

will

be

required

for

Class

A

wastes;

annual

reporting will be required

for all Class

B wastes.

Consequently,

the Board will continue

to distinguish between special wastes

which pose

a high degree of hazard and those which do not.

Note

that

one

related

change

the

Board

is

making

in

its

proposal

is

that

wastes

posing

a

“moderate”

degree

of

hazard

(i.e.,

those

which

achieve

a

score

of

2

under

the

system)

will

be

grouped

together with wastes posing

a low degree of hazard as Class B

special wastes rather than as class

A special wastes,

as

previously proposed.

Incorporation of Agency Policy

The language of Part 808 has been altered

in an effort to

“marry”

the breadth and flexibility of

the Agency’s policy

guidance memorandum with the HWRIC system for ranking

relative

toxic hazards.

The casual reader, however, will have difficulty

finding the Agency’s existing guidance policy

in this revised

proposal because

the Board has attempted

to distill

that policy

into basic elements before blending

it into the rules.

The Agency’s guidance policy

is set forth

in the November

1986 Memorandum To solid waste generators entitled “Special Waste

Determinations,

Criteria and Procedures”

(Exh.

7,

Attachment

“A”).

That requires applicants

for declassifying special wastes

to provide information

on:

A.

Aspects

of

the waste or

waste stream;

B.

Health and Environmental Aspects; and

C.

Disposal Site Aspects.

105—303

---

—14—

On

close

examination,

it

may

be

seen

that

several

of

the

subcategories

of

these

major

divisions

are

either

unrelated

to

the

major

division

(e.g.,

item

A.l

relates

to

the

identity

of

the

applicant, not to the aspects of the waste or waste stream)

or

overlap

with

other

subcategories,

including

subcategories

of

other major divisions

(e.g.,

item A.5 which requires

a “physical

description and analysis,

including contaminant components of

the

waste”,

appears

to

replicate

item

B.1.c.,

which

requires

a

“physical

description

and

components

of

the

waste”).

The

Board

has thus attempted to more clearly

“sort

out” the concerns which

the Agency’s policy addresses.

Procedural matters aside,

it

appears that the Agency’s concerns are as follows:

A.

Wastes whose physical form renders

them difficult

to

manage in

a landfill or

in storage or

transit, such as

wastes

containing

free

liquids

or

consisting

of

finely

divided particles.

Items A.3,

A.4, A.5,

B.l.c.,

C.l,

C.2.a and C.2.b. appear

to be directed wholly or

in part

to

this

concern.

The

Board’s

proposal embodies

this

concern

in

Section

808.245(C)(l).

B.

Wastes

whose

chemical

properties

render

them

difficult

to manage

in a landfill or

in storage or

transit

in the

event

of

a

leak

or

spill.

Items

A.4,

A.5,

B.7.a,

B.1.b.,

C.l, and C.2.b appear

to be directed wholly or

in part

to this concern.

The Board’s proposal embodies

this

concern

in

Section

808.245(c)(2).

C.

Wastes

whose

chemical

properties

threaten

the

integrity

of containment devices and structures.

Items A.5,

B.1.b.,

B.1.d.,

B.l.e and C.2.b appear

to

be directed

wholly

or

in

part

to

this

concern.

The Board’s proposal

emhod~.es this

concern

in

Section

808.245(c~(3).

All three

items are somewhat

interrelated,

particularly

items

B and C.

For purposes

of this proposal,

the chemical

properties

of

concern

in

item

B

are

those

which

would

pose

a

problem in the event of

a

loss of containment,

such as a spill,

leak

or

rupture.

The chemical properties

of concern

in item C

are those properties which promote the creation of

a spill,

leak

or rupture due

to

the unstable nature of the waste.

The same

chemical property may exhibit both characteristics

(e.g.,

a

wastestream containing

a high concentration of

hydrochloric acid

may tend

both

to

threaten

the

integrity

of

containment

due

to

its

corrosivity

and

to

make

difficult

the

management

of

the

waste

in

the event of

a leak or spill due

to its creation of

toxic

fumes

arid its mobility.

As

for the specific manner

of

incorporating the Agency’s

policies,

the

Board

has

reasoned

that

the

potential

toxicity

o~ a

waste,

represented by

its “toxic score”

as determined according

to Appendix

B or an equivalent means,

should represent the

“first

cut” means of classifying

a waste.

Hence,

a waste stream’s toxic

score will determine

its classification unless

(in

the case of

105-304

---

—15—

wastes receiving

a toxic

score of

1 or

2)

its physical, chemical

or “unstable” properties dictate the higher

classification,

or

(in the use of wastes

receiving

a score of

1,

2 or

3)

its mode of

containment

or treatment warrants assigning the waste

to

a lower

classification (including declassification)

in the form of

a

conditioned wastestream classification determination.

Under this

provision,

finely divided waste dusts

or powders might

be

expected

to qualify for

a reduced classification or

for

declassification based on the

requirement

that

they be delivered

for transport

or disposal

in bags,

barrels or other

containment

which precludes air dispersal.

Wastes whose

“toxic score”

is

zero would normally be

expected

to be declassified.

However,

the Board has retained the

concept

of

“special

handling wastes”

to address

those situations

where the waste presents

a hazard

to persons handling

it

in the

course of transport,

storage or disposal operations

notwithstanding

its relative lack of toxicity.

At hearing,

discussions concerning

talcum powder and similar types of non—

toxic “fines”

which

nevertheless can present

a potent threat

to

handlers

if

inhaled

well

illustrated

the

need

for

this

type

of

mechanism

to allow the Agency

to keep tabs on shipment and

disposal

of such wastes.

One final

note:

the rules proposed in this Interim Request

do

not

define

the “dangerous characteristics” alluded

to

in

Section

808.245(e),

nor

do

they

itemize

which

characteristics

are

applicable

to

“special

handling

wastes”

as

defined

in

Section

808.110 and used

in Section 808.242.

It may

be

assumed

that

characteristics

in the nature

of those listed under

808.245(c)(l),(2),

and

(3)

would tend to constitute “dangerous

characteristics” and

to render an otherwise declassifiable waste

a

“special handling waste”.

However,

the Board will refrain from

explicitly

limiting

the

Agency

in

this

regard,

so

as

to

afford

the

Agency

opportunity

to

consider

other

types

of

“dangerous

properties”

or

other

types

of

circumstances

which

might

warrant

labelling

a waste as

a

“special handling waste”.

Board Conclusions and Responses to Comments Following

its Post—Interim Request Opinion and Order

As noted on page one

of

this

Opinion,

the

Board received

post—Interim Request comments and

JCAR

questions,

which

the

Board

is responding

to below.

In

a number

of

instances the Board

is

making

certain

changes

to

its

Interim

Request

Order;

however,

the

elements

of

that

Order,

as

outlined

on

p.

12

of

this

Opinion

remain

basically

unchanged.

DENR/HWRIC

supports

the

proposal,

but

expressed

concern

in

the following areas:

DENR/HWRIC believes

that the pH

arid

flashpoint criteria should be used in evaluating waste hazard.

The

Board

believes

that

these

criteria

will

be

evaluated

by

the

Agency pursuant

to

Section 808.410, Physical and Chemical

Analysis

as well as Section

808.245, Classification of Wastes.

105—305

---

—16—

In essence,

the Board intends

that such parameters

be evaluated

as

an

addition

to

DENR/HWRIC’s

toxicological

hazard

based

system.

DENR also believed that IERG’s “absurd results” example

in

an

earlier

comment

(P.C.#ll)

overlooked

the

definition

of

innocuous substances;

DENR/HWRIC

suggested,

for clarity, that a

reference to this definition be included in Appendix

B.

We have

included

a

paraphrase

of

DENR/HWRIC’s

recommended

language

(see

Section 808 Appendix B.

a.

(6)).

DENR/HWRIC

then

summarized

the

status

of

its

degree

of

hazard

analysis

of

wastes reviewed by the Agency under

its

interim guidance policies.

Of

the 14 wastestream records sent as

samples by the Agency

to

DENR/HWRIC,

DENR/HWRIC

noted they can

make

a determination on eight of them.

Five wastestreams cannot

be

evaluated

by

DENR/HWRIC: one

because

the

Agency

deemed

it not

to be

a waste, one because the Agency deemed it not

to be a

special

waste,

two

(which

were

also

not

declassified

by

the

Agency)

because

of

insufficient information, and one

(which was

declassified by the Agency) because the information provided to

DENR/HWRIC by the Agency lacks identification of the waste

components.

In the latter case

DENR/HWRIC

notes

that

“Essentially no data on the waste were provided in the letter of

application for delisting

to

IEPA.

Only a sample was provided.

The Agency reviewed the special waste stream application

in

making

its determination but without specific criteria or

standards.

If the Agency would have had the use

of

the

deqree

ot

hazard system when

(sic)

then they could have had

a

scientifically defensible basis

for making their determination..”

The waste at issue was thermosetting plastic.

(

P.C.

#21,

p.2.)

Also,

HWRIC,

in

a supplemental filing

(P.C.

#l9)* performed

preliminary degree of hazard evaluations,

based on the

infornation available,

for two of the eight delisting

applications noted

in

their, earlier comments.

The

first,

evaluation,

of

a molding

sand,

supported the Agency’s decision to

declassify.

The second evaluation,

of one of

80 items

listed,

called “Resolve”,

also poses

a negligible degree

of hazard.

The

Agency did not make

a final determination on the latter

application.

IERG

(P.C.

#17),

asked a series of questions aimed at

showing that the

regulations will

place a greater burden on the

generator

than

is

presently

required by the Agency, and asks if

anyone has complained about

the present system using Agency

guidelines.

In

response,

the

Board

notes

that a scientifically

based system for ranking

the toxicology hazard component of

course places a greater burden on the generator wishing

to get

relief;

it does not follow however,

that

burden

is therefore

lacking

in merit.

While we are uncertain

as

to what “complaints’

IERG might

be

referring

to,

we do note

that

the Board

a)

has

*

The P.C. numbers are out of sequence because of inadvertent

delay

in giving

a number

to P.C.

#21.

105-306

---

—17-

crafted regulatory language

that meshes the Agency’s guidelines

and DENR/HWRIC’s

system,

based on the merits of

the information

contained in the record;

and b)

in any event has provided

a

considerably firmer

footing for Board review

on appeal of an

Agency decision.

IERG also asserts

its belief that, while

recognizing that

the system

is voluntary,

the system will

be seldom used because

of the increased costs

of the information requirements

as

compared

to that required by the Agency pursuant

to its

guidelines.

As

an example,

IERG used as

an

example scrap

polystyrene plastic, which the Agency “delisted”

based upon an

application

to “delist”,

a copy of the supplemental permit, and a

sample of the special waste.

We note that this waste appears

to

be the same as,

or

in

a similar

situation

to,

the thermosetting

plastic wastestream which as noted

in this Opinion, DENR/HWRIC

complained

of

for having informational deficiencies.

We believe

that this record

in this proceeding supports the need for a

methodc•logy,

including the underlying information,

to assess the

potential degree of toxicological hazard,

and that DENR/HWRIC has

justified

the

use

of

its

system.

The Agency

in its comments strongly opposes the transitional

requirement that it re—review the wastestreams

it has already

acted upon, asserting that

this will strain its resources and has

no environmental benefit.

The Board disagrees.

It

is hardly

unreasonable

to require compliance with

a

regulation requiring a

systematized toxicological review, and we also note that the

manifesting relief provided

in these regulations

frees

up

sizeable Agency resources. The Board also suggests that the

Agency’s stated intent not

to utilize its authority in the

transitional rules

to phase—in

at the most 58 applications would

seem to aggravate the straining of the resources that the Agency

complains

of.

The

Board

also

questions

the

basis

for

the

Agency’s

assertion

that

its

decisions

are

appropriately

based

on

the fact that “the material did not pose an environmental or

public

health

threat

greater

than

that

proposed

by

normal

municipal

waste”

(P.C.

#20,

p.

2).

The Agency also disagrees

with the dual special waste classes

(Classes A and B), asserting

that

the

quarterly

vs.

annual

reporting

system

for

Class

A

and

Class

B,

respectively,

will

cause

confusion

among

generators,

haulers and receiving facilities and

is

of

little

environmental

benefit.

The

Board

disagrees.

The

four

part

manifest

will

continue

and

we

find

it difficult

to believe that

a generator

able

to

receive

a

Class

B

will

be

confused

about

having

only

to

file an annual

report.

The

Agency

next questions

the use of terms like negligible,

low or moderate degree of hazard in Section 808.240(a)

and

(b),

which

the Agency suggests implies that refuse or municipal waste

poses

a negligible degree of hazard.

We note that

these

regulations relate

to special waste and do not address

the

municipal waste

issue.

However,

Section 808.240(a)

has been

simplified to state simply that there are Class A, Class B

11)5 307

---

—18—

special wastes and declassified wastes.

We believe that the use

of low or moderate degree of hazard

in Section 808.240(b)

is

appropriate

to the ranking system.

The Board has added

subsection

(C)

to Section 808.100

to make clear that declassified

wastes remain subject to Board regulations governing non—special

wastes.

In response to other Agency concerns,

we do not see how

Section 808.302(b)(5) orders

the release of confidential or

trade—secret material any more than would be the case

in,

say,

a

permit setting.

Also, maintaining

a publicly available list of

data sources required in Section 808.302

is now clarified as

intending that the list include sources of data and bioassay

procedures previously utilized by the Agency,

thus removing the

implication that these are of a rulemaking

nature.

In response

to Agency’s recommendation that generators be required to submit

discrepancy,

reports on an annual basis and requiring annual

reports

in all cases,

shifting such an analyses requirement would

be a new burden on the regulated community beyond what

is

presently required

in

the

manifest

regulations,

and

thus

is

a

subject matter that should be addressed in another proceeding.

We also note that the quarterly reports will enable the Agency

to

more timely oversee compliance

for potentially high hazard

special wastes.

We also do not believe that the Interim Request

Opinion ~nd Order was unclear about

the fact that the toxic score

is intended

to be the first declassification screen which the

waste must pass through

to be eligible for ultimate

declassification, based on the Board’s determination that

DENR/HWRIC system potential

is

a component of

first concern.

Also,

the DENR/HWRIC system does indeed anticipate the

availability of more information than is now available in

wastestream requests,

a point DENR/HWRIC made in

its

own

corLTents.

The Agency also recommended definitional language for

“Carcinogen” and

“Mutagen”.

The

Board does not feel

that this

is

necessary

in this particular

regulation, and notes

that

the

Agency stated that there are many and various definitions for

these

terms.

We also note that,

if

a definition

is

to be used

there

is merit

to explicitly utilizing the same definition as

that used by USEPA.

In deference

to the Agency’s stated concern,

the Board will insert the proffered definitions

in Section

808.110.

The Board

is also including

in

Section 808.4l0(b)(2)

and

(b)(3)

the Agency’s recommended definitions

for

pH and

flashpoint

so as

to be consistent with the clarification

in the

Board’s October

18,

1989 Opinion.

In

response

to the Agency’s

proposed changes regarding the oral vs.

inhalation

rat

issue,

the

Board

declines

to

make

the

changes

for

reasons

expressed

by

DENR/HWRIC and noted earlier

in this Opinion.

Also, while

there

was dispute over which test methodology should take precedence,

the rules do provide

for

flexibility;

in addition, paragraph

(i)

of Appendix B provides conversion factors for moving

to an

equivalent oral toxicity from other measures of toxicity based on

exposure route,

including inhalation

and dermal

routes.

The

105

31)3

---

—19—

Board has also made the changes

recommended for Section 808.402,

which would require

the generator

to describe

the current

disposal

practices

of

a

currently

produced

waste;

808.520

which

now deletes

the

30 day “more

information” limit as unnecessary,

and 808.521 which adds

“if any” after the words “expiration

date”

in subsection

(f).

The Board has changed the annual Class B reporting date

to

October

first

rather than the March first date

in Subsection

809.501(g)

as the

Agency

requests.

Regarding Section 808.541,

the

Agency

is correct that

it had been earlier acknowledged

that

the rules should not contain any language referring

to motions

for reconsideration before the Agency;

the failure

to correct

this section was

inadvertent and the correction has been made.

Regarding Agency-recommended changes

to Section 808.430,

the

clarification has been made

in Section 808.402.

Subsection

808.430(a) has added language to clarify

that the underlying

information or data used

in the degree of hazard calculation

is

to be submitted by the applicant.

Section 808.123 has corrected

the “190 days” to 180 days,

a typographical error.

As

a final

note,

the Agency did express strong support

for the Board’s

proposal to shift from the six part

to a four part manifest, and

affirmed that their policy paper

is

reflected accurately

in the

Board’s

regulatory format.

There were a number

of changes made in the proposal by the

Board or~

its own initiative.

Most of

these were

in the nature of

corrections of

typographical errors;

some were made to promote

internal parallelism

in sentence structure

or

to eliminate

redundancies

(e.g.,

deletion of Sections 808.246 and 808.503).

One change was made to delete

a

reference

to the non—existent

Part 810

(i.e.,

the former definition

of

“waste”

in

Section

808.110),

consistent with the Board’s First Notice Opinion, page

7.

Changes of note include the following:

1.

Addition of subsection 808.240(e)

to include a specific

reference

to Subpart

H;

2.

Amendment

of

the

definition

of

“special

handling

waste”

in Section 808.110 and the provisions

of Section 808.242

to

make

clear

that the

Agency can impose conditions on

wastes

in storage as well as

in transport;

3.

Amendment

of the title and text of Sections

808.243 and

808.244

for

clarity;

4.

Amendment

of Section 808.245(a)

to clarify the standards

for determining whether

a test methodology

is

“equivalent or comparable”

(and eliminating the use of

these terms, which were negatively commented upon

by the

Agency and

IERG)

,

and

to provide

for

a binary

alternative means

of showing entitlement

to

a toxic

score

of

0

(zero) where Appendix B or

its equivalent

under 808.431

is

inapplicable or unavailable

(e.g.,

11)5

.39Q

---

—20--

waste

for

which

there

is

no

toxicological

data

or

testing

protocol);

5.

Expansion

of

the

“reasonably

reliable”

factors

set

forth

in

Section

808.302

to

include

bioassay

procedures

(necessitated

by

the

previously—described

amendments

to

Section

808.245);

and

6.

Restoration

of

Subsection

(b)

of

Appendix

B

to

its

correct

text

as

set

forth

in

the

Board’s

First

Notice

proposal.

The text

r~f

the Board’s order

of October

18,

1989,

erroneously omitted the introductory portion of

this subsection,

rendering it meaningless,

and further

erroneously included text as

a subparagraph (b)(l)

which

related

to off—specification, surplus or

spoiled food

products.

This text was among several alternatives

considered and rejected as overbroad by the Board and

was never intended

to be inserted in the proposal.

Since

no commenter made note either of this subsection’s

garbled text or

its incongruous reference to food

products,

the Board assumes that no harm or prejudice

occurred as

a result of

this error.

7.

Changing of

the reporting deadlines

in Subsections

809.501(f)

and

(g)

to “as mailed”

rather than “as

received”, because of the relatively short time frame

particularly for the quarterly reports.

Also,

certain changes have been made in response

to JCAR’s

preliminary questions filed October

3,

1989.

1.

In Section 808.123,

a sentence been added to articulate

that

small

quantity

~nerators

can reco.d and mainta.~

quantities

arid

rates

of waste

generated

and

accumulated

to establish compliance with the time limit on

accumulation.

2.

In Section 808.402(b),

the second sentence has been

deleted.

Appendix B is always used

if

a

toxic

score

is

to

be calculated;

Section 808.245(a)

is the controlling

language

for

alternative

toxicity

test

methods.

(see

JCAR ques.

#10).

3.

Subpart

H

,

Section 808.600

was created primarily

to

mesh the Board’s Hazardous

(infectious)

Hospital Waste

regulations

from Part 809

into Part

808.

We believe

the

Subpart should be preserved.

However,

the language of

subsections 808.600(a)

and

(b)

have been modified

for

greater clarity.

(JCAR ques.

422).

4.

In

Section 808.110,

the definition of

“special waste”

makes clear

that the terms are derived

from the Act.

(JCAR ques.

#4).

11)5

311)

---

—21—

5.

In Section 808.412,

a phrase from the Board Note has

been added

to clarify when common names are

to be used.

(see JCAR ques.

#16).

6.

In

Section 808.520,

the statutory phrase

in 22.9(e)

regarding Agency denial of a request was inadvertently

omitted.

(see JCAR ques.

#19).

7.

In Section 808.545,

the

requirement was not intended

as

a

Board

Note,

and

has

been

corrected.

There were other JCAR questions that required only non—

substantive

edits, which were done.

The rest

of JCAR’s questions

will be responded to

at Second Notice.

We also note that DCCA deferred to the “Illinois

Environmental Group”

for

its comments.

As a final observation,

the Board notes

that some of the

concerns

regarding potential problems with using the degree of

hazard system are by and large speculative.

We also note that,

at hearing, DENR/HWRIC offered

to supply diskettes for testing

the system or for other purposes

to anyone who requested them;

however,

this record’ ‘since that time contains no challenges

to

the system.

In any •event, we are persuaded that further

problems,

if any, will

not be identified until

the regulations

are effective, and the generators have submitted data on which

the system depends.

If difficulties arise,

they can then be

demonstrated

in another ‘proceeding.

1fl5--311

---

—22—

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

G:

WASTE

DISPOSAL

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

SUBCHAPTER

i:

SOLID

WASTE

AND

SPECIAL

WASTE

HAULING

PART

808

SPECIAL

WASTE

CLASSIFICATIONS

SUBPART A:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

808.100

Purpose, Scope and Applicability

808.101

Transitional Rule

808.110

Definitions

808.111

Incorporations by Reference

808.121

Generator Obligations

808.122

Manifests

808.123

Small Quantity Generators

SUBPART

B:

CLASSES OF SPECIAL WASTE

Section

808.240

Special Waste Classes

808.241

Default

Classification

of Special Wastes

808.242

Special Handling Waste

808.243

Categorical

Wastes

808.244

Characteristic

Wastes

808.245

Classification

of

Wastes

SUBPART

C:

CRITERIA

AND

DATA

REQUIREMENTS

Section

808.300

Introduction

306.301

Degree of Hazard Determination by Conputl-r

808.302

Data

Base

SUBPART D:

REQUEST FOR WASTE CLASSIFICATION

Section

808.400

Introduction

808.401

Application Forms

808.402

Application

for Waste Classification

808.410

Physical and Chemical Analysis

808.411

Significant Trace Constituents

808.412

Common Names

808.413

Wastestream Description

808.420

Quality Assurance Plan

808.430

Degree

of Hazard Data

808.431

Toxicological Testing

SUBPART

E:

REVIEW OF CLASSIFICATION REQUESTS

Section

808.501

Order of Requesting Information

808.502

Completeness

1”S-312

---

—23—

SUBPART

F:

WASTESTREAM CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATIONS

Section

808.520

Time for Agency Action

808.521

Conditions

of Wastestream Classification

808.522

Final Agency Action

SUBPART G:

MODIFICATION, APPEAL AND ENFORCEMENT

Section

808.541

Request

for Modification

808.542

Appeal

808.543

Effect of Classification

808.544

Enforcement

808.545

Modification

SUBPART H:

CATEGORICAL AND CHARACTERISTIC WASTES

Section

808.600

Introduction

808.601

Reserved

Appendix A

Assignment

of Special Waste

to Classes

Appendix

B

Toxicity Hazard

AUTHORITY:

Implementing Sections

21,

22,

22.01 and 22.9,

and

authorized by Title VII

of the Environmental Protection Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1987,

ch.

111 1/2, pars.

1021,

1022,

1022.01,

1022.9

and 1027.)

SOURCE:

Adopted

in R89—13A at

Ill.

Reg.

effective

SUBPART A:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 808.100

Purpose,

Scope and Applicability

a)

This Part provides

a means by which persons may obtain

a

declassification or classification

of special

(non—RCRA)

waste as defined

in Section 808.110 based on the degree

of hazard of

the waste or other characteristics

to

assure that

the waste receives appropriate handling.

This Part does not apply to materials which are not

special wastes as defined by the Act.

b)

This Part allows any person generating such special

waste

to request waste classification and prescribes

procedures by

which applicants may supply detailed

information

in order

to establish

the appropriate waste

classification.

For purposes of

this Part,

the term

“classification”

includes declassification.

Waste which

has been declassified shall not be deemed

to be special

195--313

---

—24--

waste until

further action to the contrary by the Agency

pursuant

to this Part.

c)

Special wastes that are declassified pursuant

to this

Part are not subject

to any of the special waste

hauling, disposal and reporting requirements but are

still subject

to other applicable Board regulations

governing

the

transport,

treatment,

storage

and

hauling

of nonspecial wastes.

Section

808.101

Transitional

Rule

Wastestreams which have been declassified by the Agency pursuant

to Section 22.9(c)

of the Act prior to the effective date of

these

rules

shall

remain

declassified

for

a

period

of

not

more

than two years following the effective date of these rules,

unless extended by the Board

in a variance proceeding.

In order

to accommodate its workload,

the Agency may by not less than 180

days’

prior written notice require generators

to make

reapplication by a date certain within this two year time period;

the Agency may extend its reapplication deadline

for

a period of

not

more

than

an

additional

180

days

but

in

no

event

may

the

Agency extend the deadline to a date more than two years

following the effective date of

these

rules.

Upon timely

application, such wastestreams shall remain declassified during

the

pendency

of

any

Agency

determination

or

any

appeal

to

the

Board of such determination pursuant

to Section 22.9(e)

of

the

Act.

As provided

in Section 808.241,

all special

(non—RCRA)

wastes shall

be deemed

to be Class A special wastes unless

a

contrary determination has been made pursuant to this Part.

Section 808.110

Definitions

“Act”

means

the Environmental Protection Act,

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1987,

ch.

111

1/2,

pars.

1001

et

seq.

“Agency” me’~nsthe

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

“Board” means

the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

“Carcinogen” means

a chemical,

or complex mixture of closely

related chemicals, which has been determined

in accordance

with USEPA Guidelines

for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment

(51

Fed.

Reg.

33992—34003

(September

21,

1986)

to have either

sufficient

or

limited human evidence or sufficient animal

evidence supporting

a causal association between exposure

to

the chemical and an

increase

in incidence of benign or

malignant neoplasms

or substantial decrease

in the latency

period between exposure and onset

of neoplasms.

“Declassified waste” means

a waste which has been determined

pursuant

to Section 808.245 to not

be

a special waste.

11)5-311~

---

—25—

“Degree

of

hazard”

is

determined

as

provided

in

Section

808.247.

“Hazardous waste”

is as defined

in

35 Ill. Adm. Code 721.

“Mutagen” means

a chemical,

or complex mixture of closely

related chemicals

or

ionizing radiation which has been

determined

in accordance with USEPA Guidelines

for Mutagenic

Risk Assessment

(51 Fed. Reg. 34006—34012

(September

24,

1986))

to have sufficient evidence supporting

a causal

association between exposure to the

chemical

and. point

mutations

(i.e., submicroscopic changes

in the base sequence

of

DNA)

or structural or numerical chromosome aberrations.

Structural aberrations include deficiencies, duplications,

insertions,

inversions, and translocations, whereas numerical

aberrations are gains or losses of whole chromosomes

(e.g.,

trisomy, monosomy) or

sets of chromosomes

(haploidy,

polyploidy).

“Special handling waste”

is a declassified waste which,

due

to

its

form or mode of containment

in

transport or

storage,

presents a danger

to a person handling the waste such that

the person needs

information about

the waste

to safely

transport or store

the waste.

“Special handling waste”

includes any such waste which would pose

a danger

if handled

in

a manner

similar

to household waste.

“Dangers”

include,

but are not limited to,

the following:

fire,

explosion,

and

emission of toxic or carcinogenic gas or dust.

“Special

handling waste”

also includes any special waste which,

because of appearance or packaging,

resembles waste which

would’be a special handling wa-ste.

Such waste

includes, but

is not limited

to,

any special waste contained

in a sealed

drum.

Irrespective of its degree of hazard ranking under

Section 808.245, a special handling waste

is a special waste.

BOARD NOTE:

Section 808.244 provides that special handling

waste which would otherwise be declassified

is

at least a

Type B special waste.

“Special

(non—RCRA)

Waste”

is any special waste

not defined

as

a hazardous waste pursuant

to Board RCRA regulations

at

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 721.

“Special waste” means any hazardous waste,

and any industrial

process waste or pollution control waste as defined

in

Section 3.45 of the Act which has not been declassified

pursuant to Section 808.245.

Section

808.111

Incorporations by Reference

a)

The Board incorporates the following materials by

reference:

11)5—3

15

---

—26—

ANSI.

Available

from

the

American

National

Standards Institute,

1430 Broadway, New York, New

York

10018,

(212)

354—3300:

ANSI/ASQC Cl—l985, “Specification of General

Requirements

for

a Quality Program”, approved

November,

1985.

ANSI/ASQC Sl—1987,

“An Attribute Skip—Lot Sampling

Program”, approved March

6,

1987.

ANSI/ASQC

Q94—1987,

“Quality

Management

and

Quality

System Elements

——

Guidelines”, Approved June

15,

1987.

ANSI/ASQC Zl.4—l98l,

“Sampling Procedures and

Tables for Inspection

by Attributes”, Approved

1981.

ANSI/ASQC

Zl.9—l980,

“Sampling

Procedures

and

Tables

for Inspection

by Variables

for Percent

Nonconforming”, Approved March

6,

1980.

ASTM.

Available

from

American

Society

for

Testing

and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia,

PA

19103,

(215)

299—5400:

ASTM

Standard

D

3828—87

“Standard

Test

Methods

for

Flash

Point

of

Liquids

by

Setaflash

Closed

Tester”,

approved

December

14,

1987.

ASTM Standard

E 896—87

“Standard Test Method for

Cond~ctinyAcjueous Direct Phctclysis

Tests”,

approved September 25,

1987.

ASTM Standard

E 1147—87

“Standard Test Method for

Partition Coefficient

(n—Octanol/Water)

Estimation

by

Liquid

Chromatography”,

approved

February

27,

1987.

ASTM

Standard

E

1148—87

“Standard

Test

Method

for

Measurements of Aqueous Solubility”,

approved April

3,

1987

NTIS.

Available

from the National Technical

Information Service,

5285 Port Royal

Road,

Springfield,

VA

22161,

(703)

487—4600:

“Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and

Wastes”, Third Edition, March,

1983.

(Document

number PB 84—128677)

“Test Methods for Evaluating

Solid Waste,

Physical,’Chemical Methods,”

EPA Publication number

11)5 3I~’

---

-27-

SW—846

“United States Environmental Protection

Agency

(Third Edition, November, 1986).”

b)

This Section incorporates no future amendments

or

editions

Section 808.121

Generator Obligations

a)

Each person who generates waste

shall determine whether

the waste is

a special waste.

BOARD NOTE:

35

Ill. Adm. Code 722 requires

the person

to also determine

if the waste

is a hazardous waste.

b)

No person shall deliver special waste

to

a hauler unless

the waste

is accompanied by

a manifest as

specified

in

Section 808.122 and the hauler has a special waste

hauling permit

issued pursuant to

35 ill. Adm.

Code

809.

The following are exceptions

to this prohibition:

1)

The person

is subject

to the small quantity

generator

exemption

of

Section

808.123.

2)

The hauler and waste are subject

to a hauler

exemption under

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 809.211.

3)

The

Agency

has

determined

pursuant

to

this

Part

that

the

waste

is

not

a

special

waste.

4)

The waste consists of municipal water

or wastewater

treatment plant sludge regulated under

a sludge

management

plan

approved

by the Agency pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 309.208.

c)

No person shall

cause, threaten or allow the treatment,

storage

or

disposal

of

special

waste

in

Illinois

except:

1)

At

a facility permitted or otherwise authorized

to

manage the special waste pursuant

to

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 703 or

807;

or

2)

At

a facility owned and operated by such person and

subject

to the on—site th~posal exemption of

Section 21(d)

of the Act.

d)

No person shall deliver special waste to a hauler

or

a

permitted facility without

a supplemental wastestream

permit.

e)

No person shall deliver

to a hauler

or permitted

facility waste which has been classified

or declassified

by the Agency pursuant

to this Part unless

the waste

conforms with

the description and characteristics

in the

wastestream classif ication determination.

11)5- 317

---

Section 808.122

Manifests

If

required

by

Section

808.121(b),

the

generator

of

any

special

waste

shall

prepare

a

manifest

as

prescribed

by

35

Ill. Adm. Code

809.501 prior

to shipment.

Section

808.123

Small

Quantity

Generators

Any

person

who

generates

a

total

quantity

of

a

special

waste

of

100 kilograms

(220 pounds)

or less

in any calendar month is not

required to

initiate a manifest when delivering such special

waste to

a hauler providing that such waste shall not be

accumulated

for

more

than

180

days

prior

to shipment.

In any

action

to

enforce

the

terms

of

this

Section,

the

burden

of

proof

shall

be

on

the

generator

to

establish

compliance with the

time

limit

on

accumulation.

The

generator

shall

record

and

maintain

the quantities and rates of waste generated and accumulated to

establish compliance with such time

limit.

SUBPART

B:

CLASSES OF SPECIAL WASTE

Section 808.240

Special Waste Classes

a)

This Subpart contains rules

for the classification and

declassifiction

of

special

(non—RCRA)

wastes.

There

are

two classes of such special waste,

“Class A”

and

!‘Class

B”.

Wastes

which

are

declassified pursuant

to Section

808.245

of

this

Part

shall

no

longer

be

considered

special wastes.

b)

“Class

A”

special

wastes

are

those

special

wastes

which

the

Agency

has

not

determined

pursuant

to

this

Part

to

b~a Ciaso

B special waste.

“Class

B”

special ;;as~rs

are those wastes which the Agency determines pursuant to

Section 808.245

of this Part pose

a low or moderate

degree of hazard

to the environment

or the public health

in the course

of their transportation,

storage,

treatment

or

disposal.

c)

This Subpart should be read

in conjunction with the

flowchart

in Appendix A.

The Sections of this Subpart

are arranged such that

the

first Section which assigns

a

waste classification to the waste controls.

d)

Subpart

D contains procedures by which a person requests

that the Agency assign special wastestreams

to classes.

e)

Subpart H contains waste classifications based on source

or

characteristics

to which specific wastestreams have

been

assigned.

11)5 -313

---

—29—

Section

808.241

Default Classification of Special Wastes

Any special

(non—RCRA)

is

a Class A special waste unless and

until demonstrated otherwise to the Agency pursuant

to this Part.

Section 808.242

Special Handling Waste

The Agency may determine

that, notwithstanding

its degree of

hazard,

a declassifiable waste is

a special handling waste.

Any

such waste shall be so identified by the Agency,

together with

appropriate conditions on its form and mode of containment

in

transport or storage.

A declassifiable waste which

is determined

to be

a special handling waste

is a Class B special waste.

BOARD NOTE:

This rule sets the special handling flag.

A special

handling waste will require manifesting regardless of the

predicted degree of hazard score under Section 808.245,

to

protect the waste hauler,

the treatment or disposal operator and

their employees.

Section 808.243

Wastes Categorized by Source

a)

Subpart H identifies certain categories of wastes based

on the type of source or generator and assigns them to

classes.

b)

A

waste

which

meets

the criteria for inclusion within a

category

is a special waste of the class specified for

the

category.

Section 808.244

Wastes Categorized by Characteristics

a)

Subpart H identifies certain categories of waste based

on their characteristics and assigns such wastes

to

classes.

b)

A

waste

which

exhibits

the characteristic of

a category

is

a

special waste of the class specified for such

characteristics.

Section 808.245

Classification of Wastes

Special wastes which are subject

to this Subpart shall be

classified or declassified as follows:

a)

Compute

the

toxic

score

for

the wastestream pursuant

to

Appendix

B or, where applicable,

Section 808.431,

utilizing

a data base which meets the standards of

Section 808.302; however

if use of

Appendix

B or Section

806.431

is demonstrated

to the Agency

to be

inapplicable

or unavailable

for

the wastestream,

the generator may

employ a bioassay procedure approved by the Agency

pursuant

to Section 808.302 solely

for the purpose

of

determining

if the waste

in

its undiluted form results

1fl5—319

---

—30—

in no behavioral

response from the exposed test

organism, and thus warrants

a toxic score of

0

(zero).

Where applicable,

the toxic

score shall

include the

maximum volume of waste

to which such score applies.

b)

Except as authorized under subsection

(e),

a wastestream

receiving a toxic score of

3 shall

be deemed to be a

Class A special waste.

c)

Except as authorized under subsection

(e), a wastestream

receiving a toxic score of

1 or

2 shall

be deemed

to be

a Class

B special waste;

however,

such waste

shall be

deemed to be a Class A special waste

if the Agency

determines

that

it exhibits any of the

following

characteristics:

1)

The physical form of the waste renders

it difficult

to manage

in transport,

storage

or handling prior

to final disposition,

or

in

a

landfill.

Examples

of

wastes

possessing such form are wastes

containing free liquids, and wastes

in finely

divided form which are conducive to airborne

dispersal.

2)

The chemical properties of the waste,

if exposed

to

the atmosphere or

to an aqueous environment,

render

it difficult to manage

in

the event of a

leak,

spill or other inadvertent loss of containment

during transport,

storage or handling prior

to

final disposition,

or

in a landfill.

Examples of

wastes possessing such properties are wastes which

produce noxious

or toxic

fumes

or gases

in

sufficient

~‘oncentration and 3uant~ty to pose

a

threat to the public health

or

the environment,

wastes which are ignitable or flammable,

wastes

which are readily soluble

in water,

and wastes

which are highly mobile

in an aqueous environment,

including groundwater.

3)

The unstable nature of

the waste renders

it

difficult

to

contain

during

transport,

storage

or

handling prior

to final disposition,

or

in

a

landfill.

Examples

of wastes possessing such

unstable

nature

are

wastes

which

are

corrosive

or

reactive,

and any other wastes which,

under

foreseeable conditions, may cause

the premature

failure of containment devices and structures.

d)

A wastestream receiving

a toxic score of

0 shall be

declassified, except that such waste determined

by the

Agency td be a

special handling waste shall be deemed to

be

Class

B

special

waste.

105--32fl

---

-31-

e)

Notwithstanding

a wastestream’s toxic score,

the Agency

may condition

a

lowered classification or

a

declassification of

a special waste under this

Section.

Such conditions shall be limited

to measures

by which

the generator shall by particular modes

or

forms

of containment or

treatment assure that the

dangerous characteristics

of the wastes

are avoided

-or

reduced; however, under

no circumstances shall

a

wastestream with a toxic

score of

3

be declassified

based solely upon its mode of containment.

Examples

of

such

measures

are

neutralization

of acidic wastes prior

to shipment,

containment

or encapsulation

of

finely

divided wastes,

and treatment of

ignitable wastes so as

to preclude ignition.

f)

All conditions

or limitations related to

the toxic score

(including,

where

applicable,

maximum

wastestream

volume)

and classification

or declassification of

a

wastestream shall

be specified

in the Agency’s

determination.

SUBPART

C:

CRITERIA AND DATA REQUIREMENTS

Section 808.300

Introduction

This Subpart governs criteria and data requirements used

to

predict

the

degree

of

hazard

pursuant

to

Section

808.245.

Section 808.301

Degree of Hazard Determination by Computer

a)

The Agency may employ electronic data processing

equipment and programs

to accomplish

the purposes

of

this Subpart.

Any such program must assign

a degree of

hazard according

to the method specified

in Section

808.245.

b)

The program must display all data used

in each degree of

hazard prediction,

together with the source of the data.

Section 808.302

Data Base and Bioassay Procedures

a)

This Section governs

the data base and

bioassay

procedures which may be employed

to assess

the physical,

chemical and toxicological properties of waste

constituents.

b)

The data base,

and any bioassay procedure utilized

pursuant

to subsection

(a)

of

Section 808.245,

shall

consist

of and use data and procedures

which

the Agency

determines

are

reasonably reliable as

a basis

for

decision.

Reasonable

reliability

of

a

source

of

data

and procedures shall be assessed by

reference to factors

including,

but

not

limited

to,

scientific

validity,

consistency with directly observable data,

including

11)5-321

---

—32—

monitoring data,

and the consistency of results of

repeated applications of data, procedures and

formulae.

Such sources include, but are not limited to

the following:

1)

Standard reference sources;

2)

Material published or incorporated by reference by

a federal

regulation or by a regulation adopted by

an agency of the State of Illinois;

3)

The application under consideration and any written

communications between the applicant and the Agency

or their

representatives with respect

to the

application;

4)

Data and procedures previously used by the Agency

in other wastestream categorization determinations;

5)

Agency inspection,

permitting and enforcement files

relating

to the generator

or

the wastestream,

excluding complaint forms except where

the

complainant will be available voluntarily

for

deposition and examination under oath at any

hearing on appeal pursuant

to Subpart G.

c)

The

Agency shall make available for inspection and

copying by the public

a

list of

the sources

of data and

bioassay procedures which

it has previously utilized for

purposes of this Section, excluding any data described

in subsection

(b)(3) of this Section.

SUEP.~’R2 U:

REQ~ST FOR WA$TT CL~SSIFICATiOii

Section 808.400

Introduction

a)

This Subpart specifies the procedures used

to obtain

a

waste classification from the Agency.

b)

~

classification may be requested by generators

of

special waste as specified in Subpart

A.

Section 808.401

Application Forms

Persons applying

for waste classification shall

use application

forms provided or approved by

the Agency.

Section 808.402

Apolicatior. for Waste Classification

An application

for waste classification shall,

at

a minimum,

include the

follor..~ing information:

a)

Basic information.

11)5- -32 2

---

—33—

1)

The name, address and phone number of

the original

generator.

2)

The

original

generator’s

United

States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA)

identification number

(35 Ill.

Adm. Code 722.122)

and the Agency identification number,

if the

original generator has already obtained either.

3)

The name and address of any treater

of the waste.

4)

Any treater’s USEPA identification number and

Agency site number.

5)

Whether any treater has

a RCRA permit

or interim

status.

6)

A chemical and physical analysis as specified

in

Section 808.410.

7)

A wastestream description as specified in Section

808.413.

8)

A quality assurance plan as specified in Section

808.420.

9)

A description of any current ~.wastestorage,

treatment

and disposal processes applicable to the

wastestream.

10)

Identification of the disposal site

or sites

to

which the applicant proposes

to send the waste and

the

proposed

modes of transportation.

BOARD NOTE:

This information

is requested to

assist

the

Agency

in

reviewing

the

application.

These rules do not preclude use of a disposal site

which is not

identified

in the application

for

classification.

11)

Wastestream number of any supplemental wastestream

permit issued for the waste pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 807.210, and the expiration date of any

such permit.

b)

The rationale for

requesting classification,

including

all relevant calculations and other

bases

for

conclusions.

If

Appendix

B of this Part has not been

utilized

for purposes

of calculating the toxic

score,

such rationale shall indicate the reasons

for using an

alternative means

of determining the toxic

score,

including an explanation as

to whether the alternative

means chosen

is equivalent

to Appendix B.

11)5-323

---

—34—

c)

Data

establishing

that

the

waste

is

not

a

hazardous

waste pursuant

to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 721.

BOARD NOTE:

Wastestream categorization is not

applicable

to

RCRA

hazardous waste.

If the generator

anticipates that this will

be an issue,

the generator

should include documentation supporting

the claim that

the

waste

is

not

a

hazardous

waste

pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Mm. Code 721.

d)

Data bearing on

whether

the

waste

ic

a special handling

waste,

including

the

physical

form

of

the

waste

and

the

mode

of

containment,

if

any,

during

transport.

e)

Whether

the

waste

can

be categorized by source pursuant

to

Section

808.243

or

by

characteristic

pursuant

to

Section 808.244.

f)

Sufficient physical, chemical

and. toxicological data to

assign

a

degree

of

hazard pursuant

to Section 808.430.

g)

If

necessary,

results

of

toxicological

testing

as

specified in Section 808.431.

h)

Such additional information as the generator believes

is

appropriate to show that the waste should be classified

as the generator requests.

i)

Such additional information as

the Agency determines

is

necessary for

it

to assign the waste to a class.

The

Agency may specify additional information by

a

requesc

directed

to the individual applicant.

Section 808.410

Physical and Chemical Analysis

Physical and chemical analysis of wastes for

purposes of this

Subpart shall

be

as follows:

a)

Samples shall be representative of the wastestream and

shall:

1)

include all waste phases;

2)

be taken from areas distributed spatially within

the waste bulk;

and

3)

be taken at

suitable time intervals and over

sufficient period of time

to account

for variation

in the wastestream through work shifts,

seasons,

etc.

b)

The following properties shall

be determined and

reported:

11)5-324

---

—35—

1)

The physical description of the wastestreamn,

including,

but

not limited

to,

its temperature,

color,

phase and flowrate;

2)

The pH of aqueous phases of the waste

or the pH of

a

1:1 volume dilution of

solid phases of the waste

with distilled and buffered water;

3)

The flashpoint of liquid phases by the Pennsky—

Martens Closed Cup test method specified

in ASTM

Standard D—93—79 of D—93—B0,

or

by

a Setaflash

Closed Cup tester, using

the test method specified

in ASTM standard D—3278—78;

4)

Results

of an EP toxicity test

as specified

in

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 721.124;

and

5)

Density.

c)

The waste shall be analyzed

for its constituents

as

follows;

1)

The analysis must include all ‘materials introduced

into each process generating the wastestream, and

all materials which come into contact with products

and materials produced by the process or

in storage

including end products and impurities;

2)

The analysis must include all constituents which

will react with each other under

the process

conditions;

3)

If available,

the analysis must use the Chemical

Abstracts

Service

(CAS)

name

and

number

for

each

constituent,

or

a name from the list of common

names pursuant

to Section 803.412.

Otherwise, the

person requesting classification shall provide a

name

and

complete

description

of

the

constituent;

4)

‘The analysis shall

include

a

list of major

constituents and

concentrations which accounts

for

at least

99

of

the mass

of the waste.

The list

may include an entry

for “other” or “unknown”,

if

the significant

trace constituents have been

identified as provided for

in subsection (c)(5)

of

this Section.

The analysis shall

list major

constituents of

the waste rounded to the nearest

tenth of

a percent,

and shall be supported

by

a

mass balance;

5)

Significant trace constituents.

The generator

shall include

a list and the concentration of all

significant

trace constituents as defined

in

Section 808.411; and

105-375

---

—36—

6)

The

analysis

shall

identify

all

major

constituents

and

significant

trace constituents as are listed

in

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

721.Appendix

H.

d)

The

analysis

must

report

the

average

concentration

or

percentage

mass

value

and

the

expected

range

of

each

major constituent

and

significant trace constituent.

The expected range must predict

the interval within

which

95

of

analyses

for

the

constituent

are

expected

to

fall.

The error analysis must take into account the

following:

1)

Temporal variation in the wastestream properties;

2)

Uncertainties

arising

from

sampling

the

waste;

and

3)

Uncertainties

arising

from

the

method

of

analysis.

Section 808.411

Significant Trace Constituents

A significant

trace constituent

is

a constituent revealed by

analysis:

a)

Which is present at

a concentration percentage mass less

than

1;

and,

b)

Which has a toxicity,

BiTi,

as determined

in Appendix B,

less than 500 mg/l.

Section 808.412

Common Names

The Agency shall utilize common names,

together with

a

:fescri~ri~nof

ench,

for cr~nsLi:uentsno~

n:reneble

nomenclature.

BOARD NOTE:

The purpose

•of this provision

is

to promote greater

consistency

in the naming of constituents.

The Agency may use

this mechanism

to assign common names

to constituents.

Suggested

names include:

Sand,

water, wood,

foodstuff.

In addition,

this

mechanism can be used to assign

a name and toxicological

properties

to complex mixtures after

these have been determined

for

a wastestream or

a type of waste—generating process.

Section 808.413

Wastestream Description

a)

The wastestream description must include

the following:

1)

The name of

the generator

if other

than the

original generator identified

in Section

808.402(a) (1);

2)

The

name

of

the

wastestream

as

assigned

by

the

Agency

under

Section

808.412,

or

as

assigned

by

the

105 -326

---

—37-

generator if no name has been assigned

by the

Agency;

3)

A general description of the activity, production

process or

treatment process which gives

rise to

the waste;

4)

A general description of

the physical and chemical

properties of the wastestream including anticipated

annual volume.

BOARD

NOTE:

This

description

may

be

summary

and

narrative; detailed description of physical and

chemical properties

of the

wastestream

is

governed

by Section 808.410.

b)

The wastestream description may include

a description

of

a

range

of

physical

and

chemical properties of the

wastestream based on physical and chemical analysis

pursuant

to Section 808.410, associated with periodic,

occasional or anticipated changes

in the process which

produces the waste

(e.g.,

changes

in materials used

as

coatings, bonding agent

or solvents).

BOARD

NOTE:

The

wastestream

description

differs

from

the

waste

analysis

discussed

above.

The

wastestream

description should describe the waste which

the

applicant wishes

to have classified, which may not be

exactly what the applicant presently produces.

The

waste which

is subjected

to analysis must

fit within the

wastestream

description,

but

need

not

be

identical

to

all permutations

of

it.

To avoid having

to necessarily

repeat

the waste classification process,

the applicant

should request classification of

a broadly—defined and

characterized wastestrearn so

as

to cover any periodic,

occasional

or anticipated modification

to the waste

properties.

However, this will tend to increase the

degree of hazard ranking of

the wastestream.

Section 808.420

Quality Assurance Plan

A quality assurance plan shall detail

steps which the generator

will take to ensure that waste conforms with the wastestream

description.

a)

The plan must include employee orientation measures,

such as the following:

1)

Assignment of

responsibility

for assuring

compliance;

2)

Employee training;

3)

Work

rules;

1fl5 327

---

—38—

4)

Posting of signs;

5)

Positioning of waste receptacles.

b)

The

plan

must

include

periodic

and

random

inspection,

sampling and analysis of

the wastestream to ensure that

it conforms with the wastestream description.

The plan

must be designed so that there

is at least

a

95

probability that loads meet the wastestream description.

The

plan

may

specify measures

to be taken to account for

variables

in

the

properties by the wastestream so as

to

prevent

false

negatives.

BOARD NOTE:

The applicant should use statistical

quality control

to devise

a plan with an inspection

schedule which meets the above standard based on the

properties and variability of

the wastestream.

c)

The

plan

may

provide

for

inspection,

sampling

and

analysis by the permitted facility which receives the

waste.

If

so,

the plan must include a written agreement

by the receiving facility detailing what

it will do.

BOARD NOTE:

The permitted facility is required by

permit and by 35 Ill. Mm. Code 811

to inspect,

sample

and analyze wastes

it receives.-

This

is distinct from

similar

activities undertaken by contract on behalf of

the generator pursuant

to this Section.

Section 808.430

Degree of Hazard Data

a)

The applicant shall include

its degree of hazard

prec~cticn, including

tha

usri:rat-td toxic ecor~,a~

as the information or data used

to calculate

the

prediction with the application.

BOARD NOTE:

The applicant may include

the results

of

a

degree of hazard prediction performed by

a computer

program.

b)

The Agency may request additional data

if necessary

to

assign the

waste to

a class

and the application contains

inadequate information

to determine

the degree of hazard

of the waste.

BOARD

NOTE:

If

the

Agency

requests

data,

the

request

may

include

a

computer—generated

result

of

an

attempt

to

perform

the degree of hazard prediction,

with

a specific

request

for needed data.

c)

Degree of hazard data shall include sufficient

information

to

classify

the

waste

pursuant

to

Section

808.245.

The

data

includes,

but

is

not

limited

to,

the

following with respect

to each constituent,

in addition

135

323

---

—39—

to the information normally present

in the physical and

chemical analysis above:

1)

Toxicity;

2)

n—Octanol/water partition coefficient;

3)

Persistence, measured as

the half—life

in days;

and

4)

Solubility

in water

in parts per million on a

weight basis.

Section 80R.43l

Toxicological Testing

a)

The applicant shall elect

to include the

results

of

toxicological testing of either the components

of

the

waste or

the waste

itself.

b)

Except as otherwise authorized by subsection

(a)

of

Section

808.245,

the

Agency

shall

request

that

the

applicant perform toxicological testing of components

or

of the waste pursuant

to Appendix

B of this Part if a

toxic score determination

is necessary

to assign the

waste to classes

and the Agency concludes that there

is

not adequate information

in

its data base

to determine

the toxic score.

c)

Testing required under subsection

(b)

of

this Section

shall be to determine an LD5O

—

oral

rat.

The Agency

shall approve alternative toxicological testing

if the

applicant demonstrates why an LD5O

-

oral

rat cannot be

measured or

is inapplicable.

The applicant shall

document the relation of the chosen parameter to an LD5O

-

oral

rat.

SUBPART

E:

REVIEW OF CLASSIFICATION REQUESTS

Section 808.501

Order

of Requesting Information

a)

If

possible,

the

Agency

shall

categorize

the

wastestream

without

requesting or using degree

of hazard data

pursuant

to Section 808.430.

Nothing herein shall

preclude the Agency

from requesting

or using degree of

hazard data

to confirm the characteristics of

the waste.

BOARD NOTE:

For example,

if

the waste

is

a

categorical

waste,

it

should be assigned

to the type for that

category without resort

to degree

of

hazard data.

b)

If after

requesting and receiving degree of hazard data

pursuant

to Section

808.430,

the Agency still cannot

determine the degree of hazard,

the Agency shall request

toxicological testing pursuant

to Section

808.431.

11)5—32fl

---

—40—

Section 808.502

Completeness

a)

An incomplete application is one which has insufficient

information to classify the waste,

including the lack of

degree of hazard data or toxicological testing,

if

necessary.

b)

If the Agency determines

that an application

is

incomplete,

it

shall

classify

the

waste as

a Class A

special waste unless

the Agency determines,

based on

such information as may be available,

that the waste

is

a

RCRA

hazardous

waste

pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

721.

However,

if the applicant waives the decision

period specified by Section 808.520,

the Agency may hold

an application pending receipt of additional

information.

SUBPART

F:

WASTESTREAM CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATIONS

Section 808.520

Time

for Agency Action

a)

The Agency shall issue a wastestream classification

determination within 60 days after

the date

of receipt

of a complete application.

b)

The applicant may waive

the time for Agency action.

c)

As provided in Section 22.9(e)

of

the Act,

IF THE AGENCY

DENIES A REQUEST OR FAILS TO ACT WITHIN

60 DAYS AFTER

RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT MAY SEEK REVIEW

BEFORE THE BOARD PURSUANT TO SECTION

40 OF THE ACT AS

IF

THE AGENCY HAD DENIED

AN

APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT.

Section 808.521

Conditions

of Wastestreamn Classification

The Agency shall include

the following conditions

in each

wastestreamu classification determination:

a)

Wastestream description.

b)

Wastestream identification number assigned

to the

specific determination.

c)

Classification of the special waste.

d)

Limitations on

the management of

the waste consistent

with this Part,

and

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 809.

e)

Quality assurance plan.

f)

Expiration date,

if

any.

105

330

---

—41—

g)

Such additional conditions as the Agency determines are

necessary to assure

that waste managed pursuant

to the

classification determination

is of the class specified.

Section

808.522

Final

Agency

Action

Final Agency

action shall consist of

a

final determination of

a

wastestream classification

request.

The Agency takes final

action on the date the wastestream classification determination

is

mailed

to

the

applicant.

SUBPART

G:

MODIFICATION,

APPEAL

AND

ENFORCEMENT

Section 808.541

Request

for Modification

If the application

is

a

request

for modification

of a previous

final wastestream determination,

the new determination is

stayed

and

the

applicant

shall

continue

to-

manage waste pursuant to the

old determination.

Section

808.542

Appeal

a)

Within

35 days after the Agency’s final action,

the

applicant

may

appeal

a

wastestream

classification

determination

to the Board: Appeals under this section

shall

be subject to the requirements applicable

to

permit appeals pursuant

to 35

Ill.

Admn. Code 105.

b)

The record before the Board consists of the data base

which was considered by the Agency at

the time the

Agency took final action.

The applicant may supplement

the

record

before

the

Board

only

under

one

or

more

of

the following conditions:

1)

If the applicant attempted

to place the information

into the data base before the Agency.

BOARD

NOTE:

This

provision

is

intended

to

prevent

the

use

of

appeals

to challenge the validity of

degree of hazard data through the introduction

of

new

information

without

the Agency having the

opportunity

to

reconsider.

2)

If the data base filed by

the Agency

is not

complete

with

respect

to

materials identified

in

subsection

(b)(3)

of

Section 808.302.

Section 808.543

Effect of Classification

A wastestream classification provides the generator with

a

determination necessary to obtain a wastestrearn identification

number

or

to obtain a modification

to

a supplemental wastestream

permit,

which

in

turn

is

necessary

for completion of manifests

and

reports

required

by

this

Part,

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

809

and

105—33 1

---

—42—

807.

The

wastestream

classification

authorizes the generator,

hauler and permitted facility to transport and manage waste

meeting the wastestrearn description

in accordance with

regulations governing the transportation and management of

special waste of

the class provided in the classification

determination.

Section 808.544

Enforcement

Any person may bring an enforcement action pursuant

to Title VIII

of

the

Act

and

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 103.

Penalties are as provided

in Title XII of

the

Act.

Sanctions

include

revocation

of

a

wastestrearn classification determination.

Section 808.545

Modification

a)

A generator who has

received

a wastestream

classification may request modification at any time by

filing

a new application.

The generator shall

file a

new

application

at

the

time

the waste the generator

produces no longer meets the wastestream description.

b)

The

Agency

shall

modify

a wastestream classification to

reflect changes

in the Act or Board regulations.

The

Agency shall give the generator at least

30 days prior

written notice before

it modifies the wastestream

classification.

SUBPART

H:

CATEGORICAL AND CHARACTERISTIC WASTES

Section 808.600

Introduction

a)

This 5’--~ir:

defines

“categ:

ties

of wastes”

by

t’tE~

:vp~

of source or generator producing

the waste, by the

process

from which

the waste arises

or

by

name.

This

Subpart also defines categories of wastes based on

its

“characteristics wastes”

based on physical or chemical

properties

of the waste.

b)

Categorical and characteristic Special

(non—RCRA) wastes

are

assigned

to

a

category

defined under

this Subpart

special waste classification based

on the similarity

of

the physical,

chemical or biological properties of

the

wastes

to those properties

representative of that

category

their

general

properties,

regardless

of

the

degree of hazard of

individual wastes or wastestreamns.

Section 808.601

(Reserved)

1~5--332

---

-43-

bequest

To

Classify

complete?

~‘

(Section 808.502)

~

~N9~

Waste

Categorized~ (Section 808.243)

~by Source?

~

‘,

L~

~

~1asteCategorized

(Section 808.244r

~JyCharacteristic?~

~--)

Assign

to Classification based

V

Classify Waste According

to Degree

-of Hazard (Section 808.245)

Section 808.Appendix

A:

Assignment

of Special Waste

to Classes

(Section 808.402)

j

Class

A

Assign to Classification

based

on Source

(Subpart

H)

on Characteristic

(Subpart H)

Class A

Class

B

Declassifiable?

‘I-

ESpecial Handling Waste?

(Section 808.242)

Declassified

11)5—333

---

—44—

Section 808.Appendix B

Toxicity Hazard

a)

The

wastestream

equivalent

toxic

concentration

is

calculated as

follows:

Ceq

A SUM(Ci

/

BiTi)

where:

1)

SUM means the sum of

the results of

the calculation

in parentheses

for each componcnt of the

wastest

ream.

2)

Ci

is

the

concentration

of

component

i as

a percent

of

the

waste

by

weight.

3)

Ti

is

a

measure

of

the

toxicity

of

component

i,

as

provided

in

paragraph

(h).

4)

A is a constant equal

to

300.

BOARD NOTE:

A is a constant used

to allow the

entry

of

percent

values

for

Ci,

and

to

adjust

the

results

so

that

a

reference

material,

100

copper

sulfate,

with

an oral toxicity of 300 mg/kg,

achieves an equivalent toxicity of

100.

Under

the

following

paragraphs,

100

kg/month

of

the

reference

material has

a “toxic amount”

of 10,000, defining

the borderline between a “toxic score” of

2

or

3

for a small quantity generator.

5)

81

is

a conversion factor

used to convert

to:-:i -;itl~s(i)

to ecuivulen~: cral

to~i-i~

tILS

is

determined

from

paragraph

(i).

6)

Innocuous substances

as defined

at subsection

considered

(j)(l)

of

this

Appendix

shall

be

in

calculating Ceq.

b)

The

toxic

amount,

M,

is calculated as

follows:

M

=

S Ceq

where:

1

5

is the maximum size

of a wastestream shipment

in

kg/month.

Such maximum size shall

be

specified as

a condition of

the wastestream classification.

2)

Ceq

is the equivalent concentration

from

paragraph

(a).

c)

The toxic score

is calculated

as follows:

105

334

---

—45—

1)

If the toxic amount

is less than

100,

the toxic

score is

0.

2)

If the toxic amount

is greater

than or equal

to 100

and less than 1000,

the toxic

score is

1.

3)

If the toxic amount

is greater

than or

equal

to

1000 and less than 10,000,

the toxic score

is

2.

4)

If the toxic amount

is greater

than

or equal

to

10,000,

the toxic score

is

3.

d)

The toxic score shall

be used as

follows:

1)

If

the toxic score

is

0

or

3,

the toxic score shall

be used in Section 808.245 without adjustment.

2)

If the toxic score

is

1 or

2,

the toxic score shall

be adjusted based on environmental fate pursuant

to

paragraphs

(e),(f) and

(g)

of this Appendix.

e)

The environmental fate score

(F)

is calculated as

follows:

F

=

SUM(CiLi)

whe re:

1)

SUM means the sum ef the results of the calculation

in parentheses

for each component of the

wastestream.

2)

Ci

is the concentration of

component

i as a percent

of the waste by weight.

3)

Li

is

the

environmental level

of

the component as

determined by paragraph

(j)

f)

The toxic score

is adjusted as follows:

1)

If the environm~ntal fate score

(F)

is less than

100,

subtract

I

from the toxic score.

2)

If the environmental fate score

is greater

than

or

equal

to 100 and less than

200,

the toxic score

is

not modified.

3)

If

the environmental fate score

is greater than or

equal

to

200,

add

I

to the toxic score.

g)

Return to Section 808.245 with the toxic

score or

adjusted toxic

score.

h)

Sources

of toxicity data.

11)5--335

---

—46—

1)

The

generator

is required

to provide information

to

substantiate that any waste

is other than a type A

waste.

2)

Carcinogens and mutagens.

If available, use a TD5O

oral

rat.

Otherwise:

A)

Carcinogens are assigned

a Ti of 0.1 mg/kg;

and

C)

Mutagens are assigned

a Ti

of 0.6 mg/kg.

3)

The

best

toxicity

value

is selected according

to

the following criteria.

A)

Toxicities are converted

to equivalent oral

toxicities

as specified in paragraph

(i).

B)

Toxicity

values

are ranked by source according

to the following priorities,

with the better

sources listed first.

i)

Oral

rat;

inhalation

rat;

dermal

rabbit;

or, aquatic toxicity.

ii)

Other mammalian toxicity values.

C)

If there

is more

than one value

for

the

toxicity

from the best available source,

the

lowest

(most

toxic)

equivalent oral toxicity

value

is used.

i)

Conversion

Factors

For equiva~enL or

toxicities

~UY

Toxicity measure

Units

Bi

Oral

—

LD5O

mg/kg

1.

Carcinogen/mutagen

——

TD5O

mg/kg

1.

Aquatic

-

48 or

96 hour LC5O

ppm

5.

Inhalation

-

LC5O

mg/l

25.

Dermal

-

LD5O

mg/kg

0.25

1)

If

a carcinogen

or mutagen

is assigned

a

value

for

Ti

in the absence of

a TD5O,

Di

is assigned

a value

of

1.

j)

Environmental

levels

(Li).

If the component

is

innocuous,

Li

is equal

to

0.

Otherwise,

Li for

a

component

is the highest level

for that component

in the

following

table, based on bioaccumulation,

persistence

1 05

-

---

—47—

and solubility.

If

a value

is on the boundary between

ranges,

the higher value of

Li

is used.

Bioaccumulation

Persistence

Solubility

Li

Mm.

Max.

Mm.

Max.

Mm.

Max.

5

365

———

10,000

———

3

4

5

30

365

1000

10,000

2

0

4

0

30

0

1000

1

1)

“Innocuous”

components

are

those

for which BiTi,

as

determined

in paragraph

(a),

is greater than

5000mg/kg.

2)

Bioaccurnulation is measured as the logarithm to the

base

10

of the n-octanol/water partition

coefficient

for

the constituent, measured according

to ASTM E 1147,

incorporated by reference

in

Section 808.111.

3)

Persistence

is determined as provided

in paragraph

(k).

4)

Solubility

is measured as parts per million on a

weight basis.

Solubility may be measured according

to the method described in ASTM E 1148,

incorporated

by reference

in Section 808.111.

k)

Persistence.

If available,

a value

for persistence

measured as provided

in

subsection

(k)

(1) must be

used.

Otherwise,

the table of subsection

(k)(2) must be

used.

1)

Persistence must be measured according

to the

method described

in ASTM E

896,

incorporated by

reference

in

Section

808.111.

2)

Persistence may be estimated using

the following

table.

Constituents which

fit into more than one

category

have

the

longest

half

life

indicated.

Type of Compound or Material

Half

Life