ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 10,
1989
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
IDENR SPECIAL WASTE
)
R89—13
(A)
CATEGORIZATION STUDY
)
DISSENTING OPINION (by B. Forcade,
J.D. Dumelle
& M. Nardulli):
We disagree with
a primary concept
of
the majority
in this
proceeding.
We believe that the proposal should say that certain
special wastes may
be treated less stringently
and certain
special wastes must be treated more stringently.
The proposal
says only that certain special wastes should
be treated less
stringently;
the more stringent concept has been deleted.
The
scientific
and technical section (STS)
drafts of July 12,
1989
and earlier,
all had this more stringent concept articulated in
the regulatory language.
This rulemaking implements Section 22.9 of the Act.
That
Section requires the DENR to study,
and requires this Board to
consider adopting regulations,
“classifying and regulating
special wastes according
to their degree of hazard.
Such study
shall include,
at
a minimum,
an assessment of the degree
of
hazard
of the special waste streams produced
in the State,
alternative systems for classifying
these wastes according
to
their degree of hazard and
an evaluation of
the benefits
of
assessing hazardous waste
fees and developing storage,
treatment
and disposal standards based
on such classes of wastes.
Clearly,
the General Assembly contemplated that under Section 22.9 certain
special wastes could
be subject
to statutory controls AS
A
HAZARDOUS WASTE.
This concept has been lost from the majority
proposal.
We would include this concept.
The Department of Energy and Natural Resources
(“DENR”)
prepared
a study of
the degree
of hazard
of special wastes.
That
September,
1988 report shows at pp.
4—5 that 24.4
of the
Illinois non—PCPA special waste has
a “high hazard” equivalent
to
the “high hazard” of a RCRA hazardous waste.
The DENR report
makes
it clear
that some special waste
is
as hazardous as
hazardous waste.
The majority proposal totally eliminates any
reference to the idea that something can be
as hazardous
as
hazardous waste;
regardless
of how
it would
be treated,
stored
or
disposed.
We would retain
the concept.
We
also have significant difficulty with the
0,
1,
2,
3
ranking system.
The statute commands
us
to evaluate “the degree
of hazard”.
In their report,
the DENR report followed common
sense and said there were four degrees
of hazard:
“high”,
“moderate”,
“low”,
and “none”.
The proposal uses
a numerical
102—181
—2—
ranking that does not convey ANY
information about the degree of
hazard.
We believe the public
is entitled
to know the degree of
hazard.
We would revert to the “high hazard”,
“moderate hazard”,
“low hazard”, and “no hazardt’ descriptive titles for
the wastes.
The IEPA has previously proposed that non—PCRA wastes must
be “disposed of”
at a fully permitted RCRA hazardous waste
facility.
In P84—33 the Agency proposed modifications to the air
regulations
that would require non—RCRA wastes
to be burned at
RCBA incinerators.
The Agency support document said,
“Table
6
very clearly shows
that some components of wastes burned
in the
non—PCRA regulated incinerators may produce emissions that have
similar
impacts on human health
and welfare
as do hazardous
substances defined by PCPA.
Therefore,
it
is logical to propose
that substances with such similar potential to affect public
health would be treated with the same degree
of destruction when
incinerated.”
The Agency clearly felt it was legally acceptable
to require that certain non—PCRA wastes must go to
a fully
permitted RCRA hazardous waste facility;
and,
they felt it was
appropriate
to impose such an obligation without modifying
the
RCRA regulations.
They also felt that certain Illinois special
wastes had sufficient threat of harm to factually justify such
a
decision.
We would suggest that the same theory should apply
here.
The DENR report has very clearly shown that some special
wastes
have
components
that
have
the
same
degree
of
hazard
to
human
health
as
hazardous
wastes,
and
it
is
logical
to
propose
that they be subject
to
the same treatment,
storage or disposal
as
a
hazardous
waste.
The
majority’s proposal would eliminate
this
concept.
We
would
retain
it.
In
addition,
these
concepts
should
be
voted
out
now,
not
in
in
some
other
docket.
This
proceeding focuses
on degree
of
hazard.
To
open
another
docket
to
focus
on
the
same concept
is
a
duplication
of
effort;
participants would
be required
to follow
and
attend
two
proceedings
to address one subject.
Also,
questions
or
decisions from one proceeding
could affect
the
other,
but
would
be
difficult
to
address.
Suppose,
for
example,
in
the
“high
hazard” docket we decide
that the wastestream
equivalent toxic concentration formula
(Section 808.Appendix
B(a)
is not accurate because it fails
to include a “frambus
factor”.
Do we then go back
into the recently finalized “low
hazard”
regulations and modify that same equation
?
Isn’t
it
a
waste of
time to make these decisions twice
?
We think
that the ideas listed above
are
at least good
enough to go
to first notice with
the rest of
the proposal.
If
the world at
large does not support
those
ideas, we can choose to
delete them prior
to second notice and
no harm
is done.
If we do
not put them in at first notice,
it will be nearly impossible
to
include them for the first time at second
notice,
no matter who
asks us
to do so.
Our usual practice has always been
to include
it up front.
102—182
—3—
Bil~?&dMe~~N
.
.
Dumelle, Board Member
~
/~
LI~
M cheel L
Nardulli,
Board Member
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that
the a3ove Djssenting Opinion was
submitted on
the
/5~Z~day
of44T~1~-t.J
________,
1989.
~
~.
~
Dorothy M.~~unn,Clerk
Illinois r~6llutionControl Board
102—183