ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 14,
1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
RCRA UPDATE,
USEPA REGULATIONS
)
R87—5
(10—1—86 THROUGH 12—31—86)
)
PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
By
a separate Order, pursuant to Section 22.4(a)
of the
Environmental Protection Act (Act), the Board
is proposing to
amend the RCRA regulations.
In accordance with the RCRA
procedural
rules
(Section 102.202), the Board invites public
comment for
45 days after publication of the proposal
in the
Illinois Register.
On March 19,
1987 the Board opened
this docket for
the
purpose of updating the RCRA rules
to agree with recent USEPA
amendments.
Section 22.4 of the Act governs adoption
of regulations
establishing the RCRA program
in Illinois.
Section 22.4(a)
provides for quick adoption of regulations which are “identical
in substance”
to federal regulations;
Section 22.4(a) provides
that Title VII of the Act and Section
5 of the Administrative
Procedure Act shall not apply.
Because this rulemaking
is not
subject to Section 5
of the Administrative Procedure Act,
it
is
not subject to first notice
or
to second notice review by the
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR).
The federal RCRA
regulations
are found
at
40 CFR 260 through 270,
and 280.
This
rulemaking updates Illinois’
RCRA rules to correspond with
federal amendments during the period October
1 through December
31,
1986.
The Federal Registers utilized are as follows:
51
Fed.
Reg.
35190
October
1, 1986
51
Fed.
Reg.
37725
October
24,
1986
51
Fed.
Reg.
40636
November
7, 1986
During this period
the Federal Register
also included
a
large number
of delistings.
As provided by Section 720.122, the
Board will not adopt site—specific delistings unless and until
someone proposes that the Board
adopt
the delisting and
demonstrates why the delisting
is necessary in Illinois.
HISTORY OF RCRA and UIC ADOPTION
The Illinois RCRA and UIC (Underground Injection Control)
rules,
together with more stringent
state rules particularly
applicable
to hazardous waste, include the following:
78-104
—2—
702
RCRA and UIC Permit Programs
703
RCRA Permit Program
704
UIC Permit Program
705
Procedures for Permit Issuance
709
Wastestream Authorizations
720
General
721
Identification and Listing
722
Generator Standards
723
Transporter Standards
724
Final TSD Standards
725
Interim Status TSD Standards
726
Specific Wastes and Management Facilities
729
Landfills:
Prohibited Wastes
730
UIC Operating Requirements
731
Underground Storage Tanks
Special procedures
for RCRA cases are included
in Parts
102,
103,
104 and 106.
Adoption of these rules has proceeded in several stages.
The Phase
I RCRA rules were adopted and amended as follows:
R81—22
45 PCB 317, February 4,
1982,
6 Ill.
Reg.
4828,
April
23,
1982.
R82—l8
51 PCB 31, January 13,
1983,
7 Ill.
Reg.
2518,
March
4,
1983.
Illinois received Phase
I interim authorization on May 17,
1982
(47 Fed.
Reg.
21043).
The UIC rules were adopted as follows:
R8l—32
47 PCB 93, May 13, 1982;
October
15,
1982,
6
Ill.
Reg.
12479.
The UIC rules were amended
in R82—l8, which
is referenced
above.
The UIC rules were also amended
in R83—39:
R83—39
55 PCB 319, December
15, 1983;
7 Ill. Reg.
17338,
December 20,
1983.
Illinois received UIC authorization February 1, 1984.
The
Board
has updated the UIC rules:
R85—23
June
19,
1986;
10
111. Reg. 13274, August
8,
1986.
R86—27
Dismissed April
16, 1987
(No USEPA amendments
through 12/31/86).
The
Phase II RCRA rules included adoption
of Parts
703 and
724, which established the permit program and final TSD
standards.
The Phase
II rules were adopted and amended
as
follows:
78.105
—3—
R82—19
53 PCB 131,
July 26, 1983,
7 Ill.
Reg.
13999,
October
28,
1983.
R83—24
55 PCB 31, December
15,
1983,
8
Ill. Reg.
200,
January 6,
1984.
On September
6,
1984,
the Third District Appellate Court
upheld
the Board’s actions
in adopting R82—19 and R83—24.
(Commonwealth Edison et al.
v.
IPCB,
127
Ill.
App. 3d 446;
468 NE
2d 1339 (Third Dist.
1984).)
The Board updated the RCRA rules
to correspond with USEPA
amendments
in several dockets.
The period of the USEPA rules
covered by the update
is indicated in parentheses:
R84—9
64 PCB 427, June
13,
1985;
9 Ill.
Reg.
11964,
effective July 24,
1985.
(through 4/24/84)
R85—22
67 PCB 175,
479, December 20, 1985 and January
9,
1986;
10
Ill. Reg.
968, effective January
2,
1986.
(4/25/84
——
6/30/85)
R86—l
July 11,
1986;
10
Ill. Reg.
13998, August
22,
1986.
(7/1/85
——
1/31/86)
R86—19
October 23, 1986;
10
Ill. Reg.
20630,
December 12,
1986.
(2/1/86
——
3/31/86)
R86—28
February 5 and March
5,
1987;
11
Ill.
Reg. 6017,
April
3,
1987.
Correction April 16,
1987;
11
Ill.
Reg.
8684, May 1,
1987.
(4/1/86
——
6/30/86)
R86—46
Proposed March 19, 1987;
11
Ill.
Reg.
7145, April
17,
1987.
(7/1/86
——
9/30/86)
R87—5
This Docket.
(10/1/86
——
12/31/86)
Illinois
received final authorization for the RCRA program
effective January 31, 1986.
The Board
added to the
federal listings of hazardous waste
by listing dioxins pursuant to Section 22.4(d)
of the Act:
R84—34
61 PCB 247, November 21, 1984;
8
Ill.
Reg.
24562,
effective December
11,
1984.
This was effectively repealed by R85—22, which included
adoption of USEPA’s dioxin listings.
The Board has adopted a
USEPA delisting at the request of Amoco:
R85—2
April 24,
1986;
10
Ill. Reg.
8112,
effective May
2,
1986.
78-106
—4—
The Board has procedures
to be followed
in cases before it
involving the RCRA rules:
R84—lO
62 PCB
87, 349,
December
20, 1984 and January 10,
1985;
9 1)1.
Reg.
1383, effective January
16,
1985.
The Board also adopted
in Part 106 special procedures to be
followed
in certain determinations.
Part 106 was adopted
in R85—
22, which
is
listed above.
Part 106
is proposed for amendment in
R86—46, also listed
above.
The Board has also adopted requirements limiting and
restricting
the landfilling of liquid hazardous waste,
hazardous
wastes containing halogenated compounds and hazardous wastes
generally:
R81—25
60
PCB 381, October
25,
1984;
8 Ill.
Reg.
24124,
December
4,
1984;
R83—28
February 26,
1986;
10
Ill. Reg. 4875,
effective
March
7, 1986.
R86—9
Emergency rules adopted October 23,
1986;
10
Ill.
Reg. 19787, effective November
5, 1986.
The Board’s action
in adopting emergency rules
in R86—9 was
reversed
(CBE and IEPA v.
IPCB et
al., First District, January
26,
1987).
DETAILED DISCUSSION
The USEPA amendments involved
in this update are summarized
as follows:
51 FR
1986
35190
October
1
Waste minimization certification
37725
October
24
Listing of ethylenebisdithiocarbauiic
acid
40636
November
7
Land disposal restrictions
Almost all
of the amendments result from the November
7 land
disposal restrictions.
Section 721.132 and two appendices are
amended
as
a result
of the October
24 listings.
The waste
minimization certification affects only the manifest form, which
the Agency promulgates without
a specific Board
regulation.
Because the proposal would amend
the still—pending R86—46,
part of
the verbatim amendments must await
final adoption of R86—
46.
Therefore,
the Proposed Order
includes only a summary of the
amendments
to Parts
702 through 725.
New Part 728
is set out
in
full.
78-107
—5—
Section 702.187
This Section
is drawn from 40 CFR 270.42(o), which was added
at 51 Fed.
Reg.
40636.
The amendments add
a new type of “minor
modification” of
a RCRA permit which the Agency can grant without
following the full Part 705 procedures.
The Agency can so modify
a permit to allow treatment of restricted wastes
in accordance
with Part 728 treatment standards or
an adjusted standard
approved by the Board.
However, the minor modification route
cannot be used
to approve changes
in processes or physical
equipment.
Incorrect references
in the USEPA rule to
40 CFR 268 have
been corrected.
In addition, 40 CFR 270.42(o)(4) has been
reworded for clarity.
Section 703.183
This Section
is subject
to amendment
in R86—46.
This
Section
is drawn from 40 CFR 270.l4(b)(2),
which was added at
51
Fed. Reg. 40636.
The applicant has
to include copies of any
extensions
or adjusted standards from Part 728 with the permit
application.
Section 703.241
This Section
is drawn from 40 CFR 270.32(b)(l), which was
amended
at
51 Fed.
Reg.
40636
to add references to Part 268.
Section 720.101 through 721.130
Several Sections have been amended
to add references
to new
Part 728.
Several of
these Sections
are subject
to amendment in
R86—46.
These are drawn from 51 Fed. Reg. 40636.
40 CFR 260.l(b)(l)
and (b)(4)
have no counterparts
in
Section 720.101.
The references at
51 Fed. Reg.
40636
to
40 CFR
261.7(a)(l)(ii)
and (a)(2)(ii)
appear
to be
incorrect.
The Board
has interpreted
these
as the equivalents of Section 721.107(a)(1)
and
(2).
Section 721.132
This Section is subject
to amendment
in R86—46.
This
Section
is drawn from 40 CFR 261.32, which was amended at 51 Fed.
Reg.
37725,
to add listings K123 through K126.
These are related
to production of ethylenebisdithiocarbamic
acid,
a pesticide
precurser.
Section 721, Appendices
C and G
The incorporation by reference of the test methods has been
updated
to include testing
for ethylenebisdithiocarbamic
acid.
The basis
for listings K123 through Kl26 has been identified as
the presence of ethylene thiourea.
78-108
—6—
Section 722.111
This,
and all the following Sections, are drawn from 40 CFR
262.11(d),
which was added at 51 Fed.
Reg.
40636
to reference new
40 CFR 268.
This has been reworded
for clarity.
Section 722, Appendix
This Section
is subject to amendment
in R86—46.
40 CFR 262,
Appendix
is the uniform hazardous waste manifest form.
In
Illinois, as provided by Section 722.120, the Agency promulgates
manifest forms based on the USEPA form.
The Agency will include
the generator certification of waste minimization
in the
form
without a specific Board
rule.
Section 723.112
This Section has been amended
to include references
to Part
728.
Section 724.113
Sections 724.113(a)(1) and
(b)(6) have been amended
to
include references
to new Part 728.
Section 724.113(b)(7)
has
been added
to include analyses required by Section 728.104 for
lagoons exempt from land disposal
restrictions.
40 CFR 264.13
(a)(l)
includes an apparent typographical error which the Board
has corrected:
“...
this part of Part 268...” has been
interpreted as “this Part or
35 Ill. Mm. Code 728.”
Section 724.173
This Section is subject to amendment in R86—46.
Section
724.173(b)(lO) through
(14) have been added.
These require that
various notices required under Part 728 be placed
in the TSD
facility’s operating record.
40 CFR 264.73,
and 265.73,
contain what appears
to be
a
consistent error.
They make repeated reference
to “the notice
required by the generator”
under various provisions of
40 CFR
268.
However,
these provisions require
that the generator
prepare
a notice
to send with the waste
to the TSD facility.
Accordingly,
the Board has rendered these as “the notice required
of the generator.”
Section 725.113
This Section
is subject to amendment in R86—46.
This
is the
same as Section 724.113, only
it applies
to interim status
facilities.
Section 725.173
78-109
—7—
This Section
is subject to amendment
in R86—46.
This is the
same as Section 724.173.
The added Sections are numbered
(b)(8)
through
(12).
Section 728.101
The following Sections are drawn from 40 CFR 268.
They were
added at
51
Fed. Reg.
40636, November
7,
1986.
This
is USEPA’s
land disposal ban.
40 CFR 268, Subpart B was adopted by USEPA at 51 Fed.
Reg.
19305, May 28,
1986.
Subpart B is the schedule USEPA intends
to
follow in promulgating its land disposal bans.
The Board
declined
to adopt the schedule
in R86—28.
Section 728.101 defines the purpose, scope
and applicability
of the USEPA land disposal bans.
Subsection
(d)(3)
exempts
CERCLA and RCRA corrective action wastes until November, 1988.
The Board
has defined ‘CERCLA”
and “RCRA corrective action”
below.
The Board
has land disposal restrictions which were adopted
in R81—25 and in R83—28.
35 Ill. Adm. Code 709, and Sections
22.6 and 39(h)
of the Act, require wastestream authorizations,
while 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 729 includes
standards under which
halogenated
solvents and liquids can be disposed.
The Board has
added subsection
(d)
to state
the relationship to Parts
709 and
729.
Parts 728 and 729 are cumulative:
a waste must meet the
requirements of both
Parts before the Agency can issue
a
wastestream authorization.
Section 728.102
This Section includes specialized definitions.
The Board
has added definitions of
“Agency,” “Board,”
“CERCLA” and “USEPA,”
abbreviated names which are used
in the
text.
The Board has also defined
“RCRA
corrective action,”
a term
which
is used
in Section 728.l01(c)(3) and
in other places
in
reference
to the temporary exemption for clean—up waste.
The
definition references the Board’s corrective action provisions
in
35 Ill. Adm. Code
724 and 725 and the comparable USEPA rules.
In
addition,
the definition includes wastes produced under
RCRA
corrective action pursuant
to authorized RCRA programs
in other
States.
Section 728.103
This Section prohibits dilution
as
a substitute
for
treatment.
78-110
—8—
Section 728.104
This Section exempts treatment in surface impoundments from
the land disposal ban.
The operator has to demonstrate that
treatment occurs
in the lagoon,
and has
to analyze both the
supernatent and sludge to show that they meet any treatment
standards.
The lagoon exemption applies only to surface impoundments
which have double liners,
or which are exempted under one of
three other provisions (Section 728.104(c)(1)
—
(3)).
The first
is one of the exemptions from the double liner requirement for
new impoundments found
in Sections 724.321
or 725.321.
The
second
is for
an unleaking, lined lagoon with groundwater
monitoring which is located more than a quarter mile from an
“underground source of drinking water.”
The third requires
a
demonstration of “no migration of any hazardous constituent into
groundwater
or surface water at any future time.”
These exemptions
raise questions
as
to whether Board
or
Agency action is required.
With respect to the first,
the
determination will be made as provided in Part 724 or 725.
Some
of these are to be made by the Board,
and others by the Agency.
The Board has not proposed
to disturb these provisions, which
were
last
amended
in
R86—l.
With
respect
to
the
second,
the
Board
has
provided
that
the
determination
is
to
be
made
by
the
Agency
by
way
of
permit
action
(Section 728.104(c)(2)).
The
rule includes standards which
the
Agency can apply
in the context of permit issuance, subject
to
review by the Board.
As proposed,
interim status facilities will
have
to make a Part B application
to obtain this exemption.
The third exemption
is the demonstration of no migration at
any future
time.
This
is similar
to Section 724.32l(e)(2)(B),
with respect to lagoons
in general, which
is
to be made by the
Board.
The Board will make this determination also.
The similarity of Section 724.321(e)(2)(B)
to Section
728.104(c)(3) raises another possible question of
interpretation.
As worded, these seem to
be different, but
similar determinations.
The
former demonstration, which would be
made to the Board
in
a site—specific rulemaking, would allow
construction of
an unlined monofill
surface impoundment.
The
latter, which would be made through
an adjusted standard, would
allow placement of specific wastes
in any impoundment.
This
is
the interpretation the Board gives the USEPA rules.
An
alternative
interpretation is that these provisions
are
intended
to be linked,
so that the Section 728.l04(c)(3) adjusted standard
would be available only to the monofills exempted under Section
724.32l(e)(2)(B).
The Board solicits comment on this.
Section 728.104 has a number of editorial problems.
First,
40 CFR 268.4 has
a subsection
(a), but no subsection
(b).
This
78-111
—9—
is not allowed under Illinois codification rules.
Therefore,
it
is necessary to promote each level of subdivision
in forming the
Illinois rule,
so that 40 CFR 268.4(a)(l)
corresponds with 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 728.104(a).
This violates the simple
correspondence rule which exists within virtually all of Parts
720
—
726,
and complicates
cross referencing this Section.
Second,
the introductory language of
40 CFR 268.4(a)(3)
seems to be missing
an essential verb.
The Board has repeated
“must”
to make
it clear
that
the impoundment “must be
in
compliance with applicable groundwater monitoring
requirements.”
The USEPA rule seems to say
:
“regardless that
the unit may not
...
be
in compliance with applicable groundwater
monitoring requirements,” an unlikely, but grammatically correct,
interpretation.
Third,
the introductory language also repeats
a reference to
40 CFR 264, where
265
is probably intended the second time.
Fourth,
40 CFR 268.4(c) (1) needs a verb which the Board has
supplied.
Section 728.105
Rather
than adopt an equivalent to the text of 40 CFR 268.5,
the Board has referenced
the USEPA procedure
for extensions of
the effective date,
and provided that any extensions granted by
USEPA will be deemed extensions of any dates specified by Board
rule.
This appears to
be what USEPA intended
in the discussion
at
51 Fed.
Reg.
40618, although
it would be helpful
if USEPA had
specified what Sections
it was talking about and had been
consistent within the the rules and discussion
as
to the names
of
the procedures.
It
is conceivable that there exists a class of
site—specific extensions which USEPA intends the Board to grant,
and that there may be other
types of exemptions in 40 CFR 268
which USEPA intended
to retain.
The Board solicits comment on
this.
The Board has concluded that USEPA intended that the States
not adopt
the procedures
of 40 CFR 268.5 which allow extensions
of compliance dates.
USEPA is specific as
to
the need
for
national uniformity on extensions.
The Board concludes that
USEPA intended
to preempt the States should they adopt a date
which
is
subsequently
extended.
The
Board
has
therefore
provided
that USEPA extensions will automatically preempt any derivative
Board rule.
The Board will adopt the extension when it updates
the rules
in the ordinary course of events.
However, the
extension will have already become automatically effective.
Section 728.106
This Section allows a site—specific exemption from the land
disposal bans of Subpart C on a demonstration of “no migration of
hazardous constituents
...
for
as long
as the wastes remain
hazardous.”
This
is similar to the demonstration of Section
78-112
—10—
724.321(b), which must be made by the Board.
The Board
has
proposed
to utilize the adjusted standards procedures of Part
106,
adopted
in R86—46,
as the mechanism for making this
decision.
This exemption will be dealt with as an adjustment
of
the treatment standard set
in Subpart
C.
40 CFR 268.6(b)(2) and
(4)
require USEPA to approve sampling
and quality assurance plans for demonstrations.
There are two
ways
to interpret these.
First, this might mean that the
sampling and quality assurance plans have
to meet USEPA rules and
guidance documents
for
the exemption
to be granted.
Second,
this
could mean that USEPA is
to approve the specific plans prior
to
submission of the petition.
The Board has construed this rule
in
the latter manner.
Because the Board lacks
a mechanism for
giving informal approval,
the Board has modified the procedure to
provide specifically,
in Section 728.106(a)(l), that the adjusted
standards procedure is initiated by the filing of
a petition for
approval of the sampling and quality assurance plans.
This
should
be done before the generator undertakes
the sampling
required for the demonstration ~inthe main petition.
The Agency
will have the opportunity to review the plans and raise
objections
prior
to approval.
The main petition will be rejected
if the generator does not follow the approved plans.
There
is
a basic question as to whether the above
interpretation is correct.
If USEPA intended
the former
interpretation,
that the sampling and quality assurance plans
just have
to meet its rules
or guidance documents, the rule will
have
to be made more specific.
The Board solicits comment on
this.
This exemption could
be compared
to
the “economically
reasonable and technically feasible” (“ERTF”) demonstration to
the Agency under
the liquids and general hazardous waste bans
in
Illinois.
The “no migration” standard
of the USEPA rule does not
fit into the ERTF showing; rather,
they are independent
exemptions.
Note that under Section 728.101 the “no migration”
exemption would apply only to the ~JSEPAbans, and the ERTF
showing would apply only to the Illinois Part 729 and statutory
bans.
Section 728.107
The generator has to determine whether
a waste
is
restricted.
If he determines that he
is managing
a restricted
waste, he has to attach various certifications to the manifest
before shipping.
The introductory language to 40 CFR 268.7(a) appears
to have
a typographical error.
The USEPA language reads
as follows:
The generator
shall test his waste or an extract developed
using
the test method described in Appendix
I of this part,
or using knowledge of the waste
to determine if the waste
is
78-113
—11—
restricted
This appears to say that the generator tests either an
extract developed as described
in Appendix
I or developed using
his knowledge of the waste.
This
is probably not what USEPA
intended, since
it would be very easy,
using knowledge of a
waste,
to develop an extract which would meet the standards.
The
Board assumes that USEPA meant for the generator
to either test
the extract developed under Appendix
I or to use his knowledge of
the waste to determine if
it is restricted.
In other words,
the
generator doesn’t have to test the waste
if he knows
the waste
will fail the test.
The Board has therefore edited the
introductory language of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 728.107(a)
to
read as
follows:
The generator shall test the generator’s waste or
an extract
developed using
the test method described in Appendix A or
shall
use knowledge of the waste
to determine
if the waste
is
restricted from land disposal under
this Part.
40 CFR 268.7(b) appears to have a typographical error which
has been corrected to read
“...
to assure that the treatment
residue extracts meet
...“
Equally plausible is the alternative
correction:
“...
to assure that the treatment residue extract
meets
...“
The Board solicits comment as
to which was intended.
Section 728.130
Subpart C contains the USEPA prohibitions on land
disposal.
Section 728.130
is the prohibition of solvent
wastes.
This
is comparable to
the
35
Ill. Adm. Code 729 rules on
halogenated
solvents which were adopted by the Board
in R8l—25.
40 CFR 268.30(b) contains an apparent typographical
error
which the Board has corrected.
The USEPA rule includes
a
temporary rule which appears to apply only if three conditions
are met.
“Or”
is probably intended,
since some of the conditions
are mutually exclusive.
Section 728.131
This is USEPA’s restriction on land disposal of dioxin
containing wastes.
Section 728.140
Subpart D includes treatment standards.
Residuals from the
treatment of restricted wastes can be land disposed
if they meet
a treatment standard.
Treatment standards are either expressed
as a concentration of constituents
in the waste extract,
or by
specification of a treatment method.
Section 728.141
78-114
—12—
40 CFR 268, Appendix
I specifies an extraction procedure for
treatment residuals.
A residual
from treatment of
a restricted
waste may be land disposed
if its extract meets these
standards.
The constituents for which standards are
included are
solvents
and
dioxin—related
compounds.
It
would
be
difficult
to place the USEPA table
in the Board
rule
and
comply
with
codification
requirements.
The
Board
has
therefore
made
the
table
a
“Table,”
a
type
of
Appendix,
which
will
be
referenced
in
the
rule.
Section
728.142
This Section will specify certain treatment technologies,
the residuals of which can
be land disposed.
No technologies are
presently specified.
Subsection
(b) allows
the Agency to approve alternative
treatment technologies
if they “achieve a level of performance
equivalent
to that achieved by methods specified.”
This appears
to be an objective standard which the Agency can apply in the
context of permit issuance, subject to review by the Board.
The
Board solicits comment as
to whether there
is a need of
a
mechanism for persons who might not fall within the permit
requirement,
for example persons with interim status
or exempt
units.
Section
728.144
40 CFR 268.44 provides for “variances”
from treatment
standards where the petitioner demonstrates that “because the
physical
or chemical properties of the waste differ significantly
from wastes analyzed
in developing the treatment standard, the
waste cannot be treated
to specified levels or by the specified
methods.”
This differs from Section 728.142(b)
in that the
former
is available even
if the operator can use the specified
treatment, while the latter does not require treatment
to the
specified
level.
The Board’s variance procedures are not appropriate for this
determination.
Board variances require a showing of individual
hardship as well
as a compliance plan, and grant only temporary
relief.
The Board has deleted the word “variance”
to avoid
confusion with the
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104 variance procedures.
This procedure
is adjustment of an environmental control
standard set by Board
rule.
The Board will utilize the Part 106
adjusted standards procedures adopted
in R86—46 to grant these
“variances.
K
Section 728.150
This Section prohibits storage of restricted wastes except
incident
to transportation or
for accumulation of sufficient
78-115
—13—
quantities as necessary to facilitate proper recovery, treatment
or disposal.
There
is a presumption that storage for over one
year
is not necessary.
Table A
This
is the table of maximum concentrations of solvents and
dioxins
in the waste extract.
Because of possible codification
problems,
it has been removed from Section 728.141 and made a
separate
table.
Appendices
The Board will incorporate
the Appendices by reference
instead of setting them out
in full.
Appendix A references the
method
for
testing the waste extract.
Appendix B references the
treatment methods used to achieve the treatment standards.
This Proposed Opinion supports the Board’s Proposed Order
for public comment of this same day.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify th~tthe above Proposed Opinion was adopted
on the
~
day of
_____________,
1987, by a vote of
C0
Dorothy
M.
unn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
78-116
