ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
21, 1984
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
)
DEFINITION
OF LIQUID HAZARDOUS
)
R83-28B
WASTE (Temporary and Permanent
)
Rules)
)
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND NOTICE
PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by J. Marlin):
On November 18, 1983 the Board opened this Docket for the
purpose of promulgating a definition of “liquid hazardous waste”
in order to facilitate the implementation of Section 22.6 of
the Environmental Protection Act (Act), which prohibits the
landfilling of liquid hazardous waste after July 1,
1984.
The
Board solicited proposals from the public.
On January
5,
1984,
P.A.
83-1078 was signed into law.
On February 9, 1984 the Board
authorized hearings on three proposals,
prepared by the
Board staff, Citizens for a Better Environment
(CBE)
and the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
Public
hearings were held on April
13 and 23,
1984.
CBE was repre-
sented at the hearings by Howard Learner and Timothy
Wright
of Business and Profesional People for the Public Interest
(BPI).
CBE and the Agency entered a joint proposal
as
Exhibit
4.
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.
(Waste
Management)
entered an alternative proposal as Exhibit 12.
The Hearing Officer set a comment period to end May 23,
1984.
However,
the Board accepted late comments because of
delays
in the filing of the April 23 transcript.
The Board
received the following comments during and after the April
hearings:
*
Chem-Clear,
Inc., May 9,
1984
*
Granite City Steel, Division of National Steel Corpora-
tion;
Interlake,
Inc.;
Keystone Steel and Wire Company;
Northwestern Steel and Wire Company; Republic Steel
Corporation and United States Steel Corporation; May
24,
1984
*
Cecos
International,
May 30,
1984
*
Citizens for a Better Environment, June 6,
1984
*
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, June 18,
1984
61-219
—2—
On
June
29,
1984
the
Board
adopted
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
709 and 729 as emergency rules in R83-28A, and proposed the
same Parts as regular rules
in R83-28B.
The emergency rules
were filed with the Secretary of State and became effective
on July
5,
1984.
The emergency and proposed rules appeared
in
8
Iii.
Reg.
11997,
12000,
12668 and 12678, July
13,
1984.
Pursuant to the request of participants, an additional
hearing
was held prior to preparation of an economic impact
study
(R.376).
The Board held the third public hearing
in Urbana on
August 30,
1984.
Because the transcripts are not numbered
sequentially, references to the August 30 transcript will be
prefaced with a “C”.
For example,
(C-70)
will mean page 70
in
the
August 30 transcript.
The Board received testimony
from CBE suggesting deletion of the labpack and related
exclusions, addition of permeability and leachability criteria
for determining whether
a waste has been solidified and
restriction of the use of biodegradable absorbents.
The
Board also heard testimony in favor of the labpack exclusion
and comment concerning confusion over the phase-in rules.
Prior to and following the third public hearing the Board
received the following public comment:
*
Illinois Energy Resources Commission, August 24,
1984
*
Chemical Waste Management, October 1,
1984
*
Agency, October 1,
1984
*
Granite City Steel, et al., September 28,
1984
*
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, November 5, 1984
The Board has modified the proposal in response to the
testimony and written public comment.
The full text of the
proposal is contained in an Order adopted for second notice
on November
8,
1984.
The record in R83-28A is incorporated into this Docket
R83-28B.
The Board opens Docket R83-28C for the purpose of
addressing economic impact.
The records in R83-28A and R83-28B are
incorporated into R83-28C.
The Board intends to open a new docket to address
miscellaneous issues which have arisen in this docket and
R81-25, and to promulgate rules implementing Section 39(h)
of the Act.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Section 22.6 of the Act was added by H.B.
1054, which
became P.A.
83—1078 effective January
5,
1984.
It reads as
follows:
61-220
—3—
a.
Commencing July 1,
1984, no person shall cause,
threaten or allow the disposal in any landfill of
any liquid hazardous waste unless specific authori-
zation is obtained from the Agency by the generator
and the landfill owner and operator for the land
disposal of that specific waste stream.
b.
The Board shall have the authority to adopt regula—
tions which prohibit or set limitations on the
type,
amount and form of liquid hazardous wastes
that may be disposed of in landfills based on the
availability of technically feasible and economi-
cally reasonable alternatives to land disposal.
c.
The Agency may grant specific authorization for
the land disposal of liquid hazardous wastes only
after the generator has reasonably demonstrated
that, considering current technological feasi-
bility and economic reasonableness, the hazardous
waste cannot be reasonably solidified, stabilized,
or recycled for reuse, nor incinerated or chemi-
cally,
physically or biologically treated so as to
neutralize the hazardous waste and render it
nonhazardous, and that land disposal
is not prohibi-
ted or limited by Board regulations.
In granting
authorization under this Section, the Agency may
impose such conditions as may be necessary to
accomplish the purposes of this Act and which are
consistent with Board regulations.
If the Agency
refuses to grant authorization under this Section,
the applicant may appeal
as if the Agency refused
to grant a permit pursuant to the provisions of
subsection
(a)
of Section 40 of this Act.
d.
For purposes of this Section, the term “landfill”
means
a disposal facility or part of
a facility
where hazardous waste is placed in or on land and
which is not a land treatment facility, a surface
impoundment or an underground injection well.
Section 22.6 is related to two other provisions:
Section 22(g)
authorizes the Board to prohibit landfilling
of hazardous waste in general;
and, Section 39(h)
requires
specific authorization from the Agency for each hazardous
wastestream after January
1,
1987.
The Board has adopted
rules to prohibit halogenated solvent wastes pursuant to
Section 22(g) (R81-25, Opinion and Order of October 25,
1984).
In addition, Section 22.4(b)
of the Act provides that
the Board is to follow its usual Title VII and Administrative
Procedure Act
(APA)
procedures when it adopts regulations
which are not inconsistent with and are at least as stringent
~1
~
—4—
as the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and
regulations
(42 USC Section 6901 et seq.
and 40 CFR 260 et
seq.).
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LANDFILLING RESTRICTIONS
rn addition to the halogenated solvent ban pursuant to
Section 22(g) of the Act, there is a presently existing
limitation on liquids adopted in Parts
724 and 725 pursuant
to the “identical in substance” provisions of Section 22.4(a)
of the Act
(R81—22,
6 Ill.
Reg.
4828, April
23, 1982;
R82—
18,
7 Ill.
Reg.
2518, March 4,
1983; and, R82—l9,
7 Ill.
Reg.
14015, October 28,
1983).
Section 724.414 applies to
hazardous waste landfills with RCRA permits, while Section
725.414 applies to interim status landfills.
These Sections
allow tne landfilling of bulk liquids only in landfills with
liners and a leachate collection and removal system meeting
the
requirements of Section 724.401(a).
Alternatively bulk
liquids may be mixed with absorbent and placed in a landfill
meeting the interim status standards of Part 725, or the
final standards of Part 724.
With three exceptions, discussed
below in connection with Section 729.301, containerized
liquids are restricted from all RCRA landfills unless “free-
standing liquid” has been removed or mixed with absorbent
(R.340)
The Agency cannot authorize the landfilling of liquid
hazardous wastes pursuant to Section
22.6(c)
if the land-
filling is prohibited or limited by Board regulations.
Thus,
the Agency can authorize liquids to be landfilled only
in conformance with the
RCRA
requirements of Parts 724 and
725.
Bans adopted pursuant to Section 22(g) of the Act
also limit the Agency’s discretion in authorizing waste-
streams pursuant to Section 22.6(c).
TESTIMONY
Witnesses at the hearings who testified on technical
and economic issues included the following:
1.
Larry Eastep,
from the Agency, concerning the
overall rationale of the ban and the Agency’s
procedures for implementation
(R.l2).
2.
Dale Helmers,
from the Agency, concerning method-
ology of the paint filter test
(R.71)
3.
Michael Nechvatal, from the Agency, concerning the
quantities of waste involved
(R.1l2)
4.
Eugene Theios,
from the Agency, concerning treat-
ment and recycling capacity and implementation of
the emergency rules
(R.136, C-l2)
61-222
—5—
5.
William Webster,
from the Hazardous Waste Treat-
inent Council, concerning the definition of solidi-
fication
(R.156)
6.
Dr. Robert Ginsburg, from CBE, concerning potential
problems associated with addition of absorbents,
the definition of solidification, labpacks and
other matters
(R.210,
C-58)
7.
Jeffrey Diver and Edward Fochtman, from Waste
Management,
concerning the penetrometer test
(R.271)
8.
Peter Ashbrook, concerning labpack waste
(C-l15)
WHY PROLUBIT LIQUID HAZARDOUS WASTE?
Liquid hazardous wastes have been restricted by legis-
lative action.
The reasons are twofold:
first, liquid
hazardous wastes tend to migrate within a landfill, creating
a potential for contamination of groundwater; and, second,
they make daily operations more difficult,
and create subsi-
dence problems after closure (R.l6).
WASTES AFFECTED
There is no complete estimate of the volume of waste
affected by the liquid restriction.
The Agency presented an
estimate based on waste descriptions taken from supplemental
permit applications.
However, the liquid restriction also
applies to on-site disposal and small quantity generators,
which are not subject to the supplemental permit or manifest
system.
A supplemental permit application describes waste in
terms of whether it is solid, semi-solid,
liquid, powder or
gas (R.l23).
The Agency has estimated the amounts of solid,
semi-solid and liquid wastes which are subject to the ban
(Ex.8).
In 1983 commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities
accepted 1.6 million gallons of waste described as “liquid”,
which is assumed to fail the paint filter test
(R.l23).
In
1983 these facilities accepted 4.8 and 14.5 million gallons
of “semi-solid” and “solid” wastes, respectively
(Ex.8).
The Agency has conducted a sampling program to estimate what
percentage of these wastes will fail the paint filter test.
A relationship has been established between the percent of
samples failing and the percent solids reported in the
application.
Based on this,
around 3.4 and 4.9 million
gallons of “semi-solid” and “solid” wastes will fail the
paint filter test.
Thus,
a total of about 10 million gallons
of
waste disposed off-site will fail
(R.l25).
61-223
—6--
Following adoption of the emergency rules,
the Agency
sent out 900 notices to generators of waste, and met with
operators of landfills receiving hazardous waste.
As of
August
29,
1984 the Agency had received only
27 applications
for wastestream authorizations
(C-13).
TREATMENT
AND
RECYCLING CAPACITY
Much of the waste affected by the ban consists of
aqueous wastes and solvent wastes.
The Agency believes
there
is an existing capacity of
84 million gallons per year
for aqueous waste treatment facilities and
7 million gallons
per year for solvent wastes.
Of this capacity, the unused
portion amounts to some 57 million gallons per year for
aqueous waste and
5 million gallons for solvent wastes
(R. 140).
The solvent reclaimers do not receive a very high
percentage of the waste which would be going ~o landfills
(R. 143).
Other options for avoiding the landfilling of
liquids include process changes, substitution of materials,
incineration and solidification
(P.143).
The Agency esti-
mates that 90
of affected waste could be handled by some
sort of treatment or recovery
(R.
146).
This appears to
leave about
I million gallons per year of off-site waste
which may require authorization pursuant to the Section
22.6(c)
showing.
DISCUSSION OF RULES
The following is a detailed discussion of the rules
proposed for
second notice.
Part 729,
containing
the
sub-
stance of the liquid restriction, will be discussed before
the
wastestream authorization requirements of Part 709.
PART 729:
PROHIBITED HAZARDOUS WASTES
Section
729.100
Purpose,
Scope
and
Applicability
This Section was adopted
as a regular rule in P81-25
(Order
of October 25,
1984).
Paragraph
(b) delineates the
scope of the Part as adopted in P81-25 pursuant to Section
22(g)
of
the
Act.
This
includes
a
broader
definition
of
“landfill” than utilized in Subpart C.
The Board is amending
the
Section
to
add
a
cross
reference
to
the
wastestream
authorization
requirement
of
Part
709.
Section 729.205
Renumbered
This Section was adopted in R8l-25.
It provided that the
Agency is to deny a wastestream authorization for any waste
prohibited
by
the
halogenated
solvent
ban,
and
declared
supplemental permits for halogenated solvents to be
void.
The related Sections in Part 709 have been amended in this
Docket to state this result
(Sections 709.104 and 709.401).
61-224
Section 729.301
“Labwaste”
The RCRA
rules
prohibit
containers
holding
free
liquids
with
three
exceptions
(Sections
724.414(b)
and
725.414(b)).
Ampules
are
very
small
containers,
holding
only
a
few
grams
of
waste,
Labpacks
are
containerized
liquid
wastes
in
“over-
packed drums”:
drums to which sufficient absorbent material
has
been added
to completely absorb all of the liquid contents
of the inside containers
(Sections 724.416 and 725.416).
The third
exception
is containers designed to hold free
liquids for use other than storage, such as batteries or
capacitors
(Sections
724.414(b)
(3)
and 725.414(b) (3)).
Waste Management has asked the Board to consider the
rationale of the federal RCRA regulations on which the
exclusions
were
based:
40
CFR
264.314,
264.316,
265.314
and
265,316.
Section 22.4(a) of the Act required the Board to
adopt these provisions
as State rules, which it did in the
Sections quoted above
(P81—22,
R82-l8 and P82-19).
The
Board was required to accept
the
rationale of the federal
rules
in adopting regulations pursuant to Section 22.4(a).
The Board
takes official notice of USEPA’s supporting materials,
particularly 45 Fed. Reg.
33215
(May 19,
1980)
and 46 Fed.
Reg.
56592-56596
(November
17,
1981).
The
Board
notes,
however,
that the rationale of USEPA in adopting these
rules
in
no
way controls the Board’s action in implementing Sections
5(b),
22(b)
and
22.6(b).
Ampules and containers such
as batteries were excluded
from the federal
RCRA
regulations when they were originally
adopted
(45 Fed.
Reg. 33066,
33250, May
19, 1980).
USEPA
stated
that:
These
types
of
containers
are
not
likely
to
contribute
substantial volumes of liquid to most landfills,
and
the difficulty of
opening and emptying them appears to
outweigh the small benefit gained.
(46 Fed.
Reg.
33215,
May
19,
1980)
Labpacks were excluded by a later
amendment
(46 Fed.
Reg.
56592, November 17,
1981).
IJSEPA stated that disposal
of hazardous wastes in labpacks
was a common practice for
many small volume generators
(not necessarily small quantity
generators).
These include government, commercial and
school laboratories.
Disposal in labpacks
is preferable to
dumping these
wastes into sewers.
Even schools which are
small quantity generators under the federal
RCRA
rules
preferred to dispose of their wastes in labpacks in per-
mitted hazardous waste landfills
(46 Fed.
Reg..
56592).
Laboratories generate a large number of wastes
in small
quantities, often
thousands of different wastes per month
£~t_OO~
—8—
in quantities less than one gallon.
Commercial treatment,
recycling or incineration typically accept only reasonably
sized lots of well-characterized wastes.
The cost to charac-
terize lab wastes is often prohibitive
(46 Fed.
Peg.
56593).
USEPA believes that disposal of labpacks in landfills
is
an
environmentally sound practice.
The requirement of
sufficient absorbent to completely absorb all liquids will
prevent labpacks from contributing significant volumes of
liquid to landfill leachate
(46 Fed.
Reg.
56593).
The Board has defined a category of waste produced by
laboratories engaged in teaching, testing or research.
This
type of waste,
“labwaste”, may be disposed in labpack con-
tainers pursuant to Section 729.312.
Labwaste typically consists of small quantities of many
different
wastes
produced
by many different activities
(C-
118,
123,
125,
136, 138).
The University of Illinois,
for
example,
has many buildings which have a laboratory or
a
room where hazardous chemicals are used or stored (C-l25).
In 1983 it generated 2100 chemicals and mixtures,
including
around two-thirds of the U and P lists
(Part 721) (C-123).
Although there are a large number of wastes, most are
produced in quantities of less than 100 g
(C-l23).
In 1983
the University of Illinois generated about 100 55-gallon
drums of
labpacks,
each
of
which
contained
a
maximum
of
15
gallons of liquid (C-l22,
136).
Labpacks are
thought
to
comprise less than one percent of all hazardous waste
(C-1l7).
LabWaSte does not include wastes produced
in excess of
100 kg per month from one definable activity.
Such a large
wastestream would be subject to the authorization requirement.
The generator would have to make the technical and economic
showing to the Agency to dispose of the wastestream in
labpacks.
Incineration or recycling of labwaste is difficult
because of the variety and small quantities of waste involved.
A waste must be identified before it can be safely incinerated
or recycled.
The cost of sampling becomes prohibitive when
there are a large number of different wastes in small quanti-
ties
(C—l17,
130).
The
Univerity
of
Illinois is one of the largest generators
of
labwaste
in
the
nation
(C—l29).
It
pays
about
$175
per
drum for labwaste disposal
(C-l32).
It recycles, incinerates
and treats as much waste as possible (C-l28).
Because of
its size these alternatives are cheaper for it than they
would be for smaller schools
(C-129).
Smaller schools,
including high schools, would face greater unit costs because
of small quantities
(C—l29,
131).
Subjecting their waste to
81-226
the regulatory program requiring detailed analysis of many
containers of such small amounts of waste would be prohibi-
tively expensive.
This would probably result in an increase
in disposal by less environmentally sound methods than
labpacks, including disposal with municipal waste and dumping
into sewers
(C—135).
The Board also believes that the
associated increase in costs would lead to a decline in the
teaching of laboratory courses in chemistry and other sciences.
Bringing labwaste into the regulatory program would
vastly increase the size of theregulated community,
yet
could only restrict less than one percent of the waste being
generated.
This would increase the cost to the regulated
public, and absorb a disproportionate amount of the Agency’s
limited enforcement resources, without producing as much
environmental
benefit
as
regulating
non-lab
waste.
Including labwaste in the liquid waste restriction
would force generators to make the technical and economic
demonstration to the Agency.
For the reasons noted above,
they would almost always be successful
in this.
However,
they would have to hire attorneys and consultants to make
the individual demonstrations to the Agency.
This appears
to be an unreasonable burden to place on the laboratories in
the State, especially the high schools.
The Board requests
that
an
estimate
of
the
actual
cost
of
such
demonstrations
be presented at an economic impact hearing.
The wastestream authorization program contemplates that
each process or activity producing a waste should have a
separate authorization (Section 709.102).
The system would
choke on paper if this were applied to labwaste.
Moreover,
in the absence of detailed review of the subsidiary waste-
streams,
the Agency would have difficulty in applying the
wastestream
authorization
requirement
so
as
to
encourage
recycling or treatment.
“Ampules” are also excluded from the RCRA liquid restric—
tions.
Ampules which are labwaste may be disposed in labpacks.
The other RCRA exception
is containers for use other
than storage, such as batteries and capacitors.
No one came
forward with additional facts concerning these wastes at the
third hearing.
The Board is reluctant to continue the
exclusion on the basis of the noticed federal materials.
The Board has dropped this exclusion.
Such containers
therefore may be landfilled only after an individual technical
and economic showing to the Agency.
There are three statutory bases for adoption of the
categorization of labwaste, and non—periodic waste, which
appears below.
First, Section 5(b) of the Act provides that
the Board
“shall determine,
define and implement” environmental
61-227
-10—
control standards.
Second, under Section 22(b), the Board
is to adopt standards for the “handling, storing, processing,
transporting and disposal of hazardous waste.”
Thirdly,
under Section 22.6(b) the Board is to adopt regulations
which “prohibit or set limitations on the type,
amount and
form of liquid hazardous wastes that may be disposed of in
landfills based on the availability of technically feasible
and economically reasonable alternatives to land disposal.”
Section 729.301
“Landfill”
This definition is taken from Section 22.6(d) of the Act.
The definition
in the Act defines landfill as “a disposal
facility or part of a facility...”
This seems to allow the
possibility that two trenches at a site could each be a
landfill.
The Board has changed the term “disposal facility”
to “disposal unit” to agree with the terminology in Parts
720-725.
The primary effect of this interpretation is to
allow nonhazardous liquids into nonhazardous trenches at
facilities with a hazardous waste trench (Section 729.311).
The definition in Se.ction 22.6(d)
of the Act, and that
adopted in Section 729.301, differ from Part 720 in the
exclusion of surface impoundments intended for waste disposal
and land treatment facilities.
The liquid hazardous waste
prohibitions will apply to true landfills and waste piles
intended for waste disposal (R.275,
352).
Section 729.301
“Liquid Hazardous Waste”
A “liquid hazardous waste”
is
a “hazardous waste” which
yields fluid when subjected to the paint filter test (Section
729.320).
Section 729,301
“Non—periodic Waste”
A “non—periodic waste” is a “liquid hazardous waste”
in
a quantity of less than 100 kg which is not expected to be
generated again by the generator who produced the waste.
A
generator will make this showing to the Agency based on his
reasonable expectations.
A non—periodic waste in a labpack
is not subject to the liquid ban
(Section 729.312).
The
definition contemplates
a single mass of waste:
if
the waste is produced at a rate per time it is clearly a
periodic waste.
Such a waste would be subject to the waste-
stream authorization requirement and the liquid restriction.
Labpacks are commonly utilized not only for disposal of
labwaste, but also by small quantity generators
(C-ll7).
The Board intends to allow labpack disposal only for small
quantities of unique waste.
Liquid hazardous waste produced
periodically even by a small quantity generator is subject
61-228
—11—
to the liquid restriction,
and must be kept out of landfills
unless the technical and economic demonstration is made to
the Agency.
Section 729.301
“Original Generator”
The original generator is a person who generates hazardous
waste through a production process, as opposed to a treatment
process.
Subsequent handlers of the hazardous waste may
also
be
“generators”, but not “original generators”.
Section
729.301
“Residual”
A “residual”
is a material which remains after treatment
of
hazardous
waste.
“Residuals”
may
be
landfilled
if
they
have been treated or solidified as judged under Section 729.310(b)
(P.277)
Section 729.301
“Treater”
A “treater”
is a person who engages in treatment of
hazardous waste.
Either the “treater” or the “original
generator” must obtain a wastestream authorization.
Section 729.301
“Treatment”
“Treatment”
is as defined in Part 720
(P.276,
299).
A
person who treats hazardous waste
is required to have
a
RCRA
permit under Section 21(f)
of the Act.
Addition of absorbents to waste at the time the waste
is first placed in a container is exempted from the RCRA
treatment permit requirement and Part 724 standards
(Sections
703.123(h)
and 724.lOl(g)(lO).
This definition specifically
includes addition of absorbents for purpose of application
of this Part (R.276,
291,
354).
The result of addition of
absorbents is a “residual” which must meet Section 729.310(b) (3),
or Section 709.401(a), before it can be landfilled.
CBE requested that “sorbents” be used in the definition
to include adsorbents as well as absorbents.
Addition of
adsorbent clearly falls within the definition of “treatment”
in Part 720; but, there is no exclusion from the treatment
permit requirement for addition of adsorbents.
There is
therefore no possibility of confusion, and no need to change
“absorbents”
to the less familiar term “sorbents”.
Section 729.302
Waste Analysis Plan
The landfill operator must develop a waste analysis
plan.
This should describe the frequency and methods of
sampling
and
analysis
which
the
operator
will
follow
to
61-229
—12—
insure that prohibited wastes are not placed in the land-
fill.
The operator will initially be required to submit a
copy of the plan to the Agency and to follow the plan (R.278,
317,
359).
In the July 19,
1984 Opinion the Board solicited comment
as to whether and how these plans should be incorporated
into
RCRA
permits,
interim
status
waste analysis plans and
Part. 807 permits.
At the final hearing Waste Management
indicated that it is testing every load to determine compli-
ance with the liquid bans.
On the other hand, CBE indicated
that it did not envision testing of every truckload
(C-82).
It appears that there needs
to be a better definition
of
what
constitutes an approvable waste analysis plan before
a
rule
is adopted incorporating such plans into permits.
The Board solicits comment in the new docket and the economic
impact hearings on the following outline of such a rule:
1.
The rule should differentiate the testing to be
done to obtain an initial authorization from the
testing to determine that a wastestream continues
to conform to the authorization
(C-82).
2.
The rule should set a standard in the
form
of a
percentage of non—conforming waste which is accep-
table so that random sampling plans can be designed
to
detect non—conformity in excess of the standard.
The standard should be based on the following
considerations:
A.
The quantity of liquid below which no adverse
impact on landfill operations or liner
performance is expected.
B.
The cost of sampling versus benefits derived
from eliminating any greater quantity of
liquid excluded.
3.
The rule should require rejection of non—conforming
quantities actually detected through random sampling,
and require increased sampling following detection
of non—conforming quantities in excess of acceptable
quantities.
4.
The sampling plan should be systematic, but
with
enough random variability to assure that the
samples are representative of the total quantity.
5.
The
person
who
is
loading
and
transporting
the
waste must not be able to frustrate the sampling
plan.
61-230
—13—
Section 729.310
Liquid Hazardous Waste Prohibitions
Paragraph
(a)
prohibits landfilling of liquid hazardous
wastes which fail the paint filter test; paragraph
(b)
prohibits landfilling of certain treatment residuals.
Paragraph
(a) prohibits the landfilling of liquid
hazardous waste without a wastestrearn authorization issued
by the Agency pursuant to Section 22.6(c)
of the Act and
Section 709.401(a),
This authorization is based on a showing
that, considering current technological feasibility and
economic reasonableness,
the waste cannot be reasonably
solidified,
stabilized, recycled, incinerated or treated
(P.277,
348).
The prohibition of paragraph
(b) involves two acts:
first, the treatment of a liquid hazardous waste;
and,
second,
causing, threatening or allowing
a residual from
such treatment to be landfilled.
Both of these must be
shown to establish a violation
(R.279,
348).
A disposer
would not be in violation of paragraph
(b) unless he were
involved in the treatment of the waste.
Paragraphs
(b) (1),
(b) (2)
and
(b) (3)
contain standards
which residuals must meet to be landfilled:
that the residual
is nonhazardous; that liquids have been extracted;
or,
that
the
residual has been solidified.
The first standard applies when materials are added to
the waste.
The residual may be landfilled if it is no
longer a hazardous waste
(P.27,
226,
229,
234,
258,
280,
305).
An
example
would
be the addition of alkali to neutral-
ize an acidic waste.
Note, however,
that the nonhazardous
liquid residual could not be placed in a trench permitted to
receive hazardous waste
(Section 729.311).
The
second
standard
applies
when the liquid is extracted,
evaporated or otherwise removed from the waste without the
addition of material, such as absorbents.
The residue can
be landfilled if it passes the paint filter test
(R.32,
48,
184,
225,
280).
An
example
would
be
removal
of
liquids
from
a sludge by centrifugation or filtration.
The sludge could
be
laridfilled if it passed the paint filter test.
The third standard,
like the first, applies when material
is added to the waste.
If
the
residue
is
still
hazardous,
it can be landfilled if it meets the paint filter test and
possesses a load—bearing capacity of at least two tons per
square foot (P.282).
For purposes of this discussion,
a waste which meets
the paint filter and load-bearing capacity tests
is said to
be “solidified”, as opposed to “absorbed”.
These terms are
61-231
—14—
not used in the rule.
Solidified wastes may be landfilled,
as non—liquids, pursuant to a wastestream authorization, while
absorbed wastes may be landfilled only pursuant to the
technical feasibility and economic reasonableness showing of
Section 22.6(c) of the Act and Section 709,401(a).
Section 22.6(a)
of the Act prohibits the landfill
disposal of liquid hazardous wastes.
Section 22.6(c)
allows
them to be landfilled on a showing, inter alia,
that they
cannot be “solidified”.
The paragraph
(b) (3)
test for
residuals is the obverse:
a residual can be landfilled if
it has been solidified.
Absorption of a liquid is not the same as solidification.
Absorption is
a temporary state which, when reversed, would
indirectly place free liquid into the landfill in violation
of Section 22.6 of the Act.
On the other hand, solidification
is a process which involves chemical reaction between the
waste constituents and the fixing material, and/or entrap-
ment of constituents in a permanent matrix
(P.
159,
167,
174, 216).
The main issue in this rulemaking is how to tell
the difference between absorption and solidification,
Examples of common absorbents include municipal refuse,
sawdust, shredded paper and clay materials
(P.216,
242).
On
the other hand, solidification processes are chemical
reactions comparable to the setting of portland cement
(P.160,
216).
However, it is not possible to differentiate
absorbents from solidifying agents by listing them because
what is be an absorbent when used with one waste could be an
ingredient in a solidification or other treatment operation.
For example, lime is commonly used to neutralize acidic
wastes with no intent to solidify the waste.
It could also
be used in a cement-like reaction to solidify a waste, yet
the solidification reaction could fail because of the presence
of interfering waste constituents
(R.244).
What is needed
is a standard to evaluate the residual without reference to
the materials which go into the process
(R.l67).
Many of the commonly used absorbents are expected to
degrade faster than the hazardous constituents in the waste.
This would result in release of the liquid (R.159,
174,
216).
Section 729.313 prohibits the use of absorbents which
are expected to degrade more quickly than the waste.
One difference between absorbed and solidified waste is
the load-bearing capacity of the residual.
A solidified
waste should have load—bearing strength.
If the residue
loses volume as a result of compression,
the result could be
that liquid would be squeezed out (P.217, 238).
Further-
more, the load-bearing capacity is an indication that a
chemical reaction has taken place in the solidification
process
(P.297).
A residual from a solidification process
61-232
should show a load-bearing capacity in excess of 25 pounds
per square inch or approximately two tons per square foot
(P.162,
170),
The load—bearing capacity of the waste
is also important
to landfill operations and maintenance of cover.
Operations
are simplified if wastes can withstand the pressures of
equipment moving over them when the next lift is filled,
Waste Management testified that equipment typically exerts
pressures of less than one ton per square foot or
14 pounds
per square inch (P.282,
293,
296,
328).
After the landfill
is closed, wastes support the cover; excessive shifting
causes subsidence, resulting in entry of water through the
cover and generation of leachate
(P.350).
The ideal test of load-bearing capacity is
a compression
test:
a sample of the residual is molded into
a block which
is crushed in a press, with the pressure recorded directly.
This
is the way concrete is tested
(P.187).
A simpler test is a soil penetrometer, which consists
of
a steel shaft mounted on a spring with a slip ring to
record the maximum compression of the spring.
The shaft is
pushed into soil a certain depth, and the pressure on the
shaft read from the slip ring.
The soil penetrometer does not actually measure the
load-bearing strength of the material.
However, it is
related to load-bearing capacity
(P.294,
297).
Two other tests
for solidification are leachability and
permeability.
These are related to the amount of contami-
nants which would be yielded if water percolated through the
waste
(P.162).
Leachability is measured by the EP toxicity test speci-
fied in 40 CFR 261 and
35 Ill. Adm. Code 721,124 or by ASTM
D-3987
(P.163,
187).
These measure the concentrations of
contaminants in water which result when a sample of the
waste is shaken with water, Recommended ranges are one to
100 times drinking water standards
(P.163,
191).
Permeability is measured by the Corps of Engineers
falling head test
(P.163,
170).
It measures the rate at
which liquid passes through a6unit area of
a material.
The
recommended standard is 5xlO
cm/sec
(P.164).
However,
solidifie~materials exhibit permeabilities which go as high
as lOxlO
cm/sec
(P.199).
The maximum acceptable leachability and permeability
are related.
If a material is not very permeable,
one could
accept a higher Ieachability, and vice—versa
(P.164,
189,
198; C—63,
113).
61-233
—16—
Solidified wastes require three to four weeks to set
before these properties are measured
(P.193,
299)..
Testing
plans should allow for this time,
The Board has decided to utilize the penetrometer test
at two tons per square foot as a criterion for solidification.
As noted,
it bears a relation to the compression test which
is more reliable.
The residual from common absorbents fails
the penetrometer test at one ton per square foot
(R.298).
The test appears
to be simple and inexpensive, with readily
available equipment..
At the third hearing CBE proposed to add leachability
and permeability tests to the criteria of Section 729.310(b) (3).
CBE proposed as a leachability test the EP toxicity te~tof
Section 721.124,
and a maximum permeability of
5 x 10
cm
per second as measured by the Corps of Engineers falling
head test.
The Board declines to adopt these tests at this
time for the reasons set out below,
The EP toxicity test is
a defining criterion for hazardous
waste,
and,
as such, would be more appropriately addressed in
rulemaking implementing Section 39(h)
of the Act.
Under the
CBE proposal,
if EP toxicity were the only hazardous charac-
teristic and the residual passed the EP toxicity test,
but
failed the penetrometer or permeability test,
the residual
could not be landfilled even though it was non-hazardous
(C-
76,
84).
The Board believes,
as
is reflected in Section
729,310(b) (1), that Section 22.6
is intended to address
hazardous waste,
The permeability test proposed is designed for use on
compacted soil-like materials.
A residual with small units
with a low permeability per unit,
such as marbles, would
give a high permeability under the test protocol since the
units could not be compacted.
In such a case it would be
the permeability of the units,
rather than the bulk material,
which would be related to the landfilling hazard
(C-64,
90,
94,
96,
98, 101, 110).
The CBE proposal does not recognize the interrelation-
ship between permeability and leachability
(C-63).
Yet,
as
noted above,
the Board has received expert testimony from
William Webster suggesting that a rule should allow some
trade-off between these variables.
The Board continues to request comment and additional
information at the economic impact hearing and in the docket
to be opened concerning the need for additional criteria for
solidification..
In particular,
the Board wants to know if
any wastes are found which meet the penetrometer test without
having been “solidified” as the term is intuitively understood.
61-234
—17—
~O
summarize, the proposal contains two tests:
the
paint tilter test and load-bearing capacity test.
The paint
filter test is used as an initial screen to determine whether
a waste
from an original generator is a liquid hazardous
waste
(i~,i72, 180,
183,
347).
if treatment. is performed,
other than removal of liquid,
the hazardous residual can be
landfi.led
if it passes the paint filter test and the load-
hearthg capacity test.
It should be noted that the latter
test does
not
apply to wastes from original generators who
perform no treatment.
If such waste passes the paint filter
test,~
it
can be landfilled even though it might fail the
~enetrornetertest.
However, one cannot add absorbents to
get
the
waste
to pass the paint filter test without becoming
subject
to
the load test
(R.183).
The
criteria of Section 729.310(b)
all involve treatment
of hazardous waste:
any person conducting these operations
must
have
a RCR~permit or interim status.
The Agency will
monitor the
success of treatment through the
RCRA
permit
program as well as the wastestream authorization.
On the
other hand,
the addition of absorbents by the original
generators although it is a “treatment”,
is specifically
excluded
from the RCRP~permit requirement
(Sections 703.123(h)
and 724,iOl(g)(10)).
The Agency will monitor the process
only through
the wastestream authorization process..
It
is
possible that
a generator could attempt to evade the liquid
restriction
by adding a large amount of absorbent and claiming
to have
solidified the waste.
There are two barriers to
this.
First, the Board believes that it is not physically
possible to produce a residue in this manner which meets the
penetrometer test.
Second, by claiming to have solidified
the waste, the generator would subject himself to the
RCRA
treatment
permit requirement.
Section
729.311
Prohibition of Liquids in Hazardous
Waste Landfills
The RCRA
rules appear to allow the placement of non--
hazardous liquid wastes in hazardous waste trenches.
These
liquids would be expected to come into contact with hazardous
wastes
in the trench and become liquid hazardous wastes
after disposal.
This would have the same effect as disposal
of the liquid hazardous waste.
The Board has therefore
prohibited landfilling of any liquids in hazardous waste
landfills.
Note that the definition of “landfill” in Section
729.301 allows for the possibility of hazardous and nonhazardous
landfills,
or trenches, on the facility
(P.42,
351).
Landfilling of nonhazardous liquids in hazardous waste
landfills
cannot be authorized pursuant to the technical and
economic showinq of Section 22.6(c)
of the Act and Section
709,401(a).
At first sight this seems
to regulate nonhazardous
61-235
—18—
liquids more strictly than hazardous liquids.
However,
there is no shortage of landfills permitted to receive
nonhazardous wastes.
It
will always be technically feasible
and
economically reasonable to put these nonhazardous liquids
in a non—hazardous waste landfill,
Section 729,312
Labpacks
“Lahwaste”
and “non—periodic waste”
can be landfilled
in labpack
drums without the technical and economic showing.
The
requirements of a labpack have been reproduced from
Section
724.416.
In summary,
a labpack is a drum containing
smaller non—leaking containers of waste and an excess quantity
of absorbent which completely fills the drum.
The inside
containers and absorbent must not react with the waste.
Reactive wastes, other than sulfide and cyanide wastes, must
be treated or rendered non—reactive before being placed in
labpacks
The presence of excess absorbents, and the requirement
that
the
drum be completely filled, make this form of disposal
environmentally acceptable for these wastes which are only
a
tiny fraction of all hazardous waste.
As noted above,
it is
usually not technically feasible or economically reasonable
to treat,
incinerate or recycle these wastes.
The cost of
the individual demonstration would tend to encourage disposal
of these wastes in sewers and nonhazardous waste landfills,
with
more adverse environmental impact than landfilling
in
lahpacks.
Section 729.313
Biodegradable Absorbents
At the third hearing CBE proposed that the Board prohibit
the use of biodegradable absorbents, which it defined to
include municipal refuse, sawdust and shredded paper.
Dr. Ginsburg testified that,
under landfill conditions,
these materials would degrade faster than the absorbed
wastes,
allowing the liquids to flow or be leached out of
the waste
(C-60,
70,
99).
The Board has adopted this concept.
However,
instead of listing biodegradable materials,
the
Board has prohibited the use of any absorbent materials
which will degrade faster than the waste being absorbed.
This would allow the use of a biodegradable absorbent if the
generator can demonstrate that the waste is more biodegradable.
The Board recognizes that in some situations
it may actually be
desirable to have a biodegradable absorbent to provide a sub-
strate for microbial action.
This Section is a limitation on the Agency’s approval
of wastestreams pursuant to the technical and economic
showing.
The limitation does not apply to ingredients going
into a solidification process.
61-236
—19—
Section 729.320
Test for Liquids
The test for liquids is the paint filter test.
A
similar test has been proposed by USEPA for the landfilling
bans in
40 CFR 264 and 265
(47 FR 8311,
February 25,
1982)
(R,76),
The test is widely employed although it has appar-
ently never been stated in rule form.
Paint filters are available in most paint stores.
They
are used,
for example,
to filter paints before spray painting.
A paint filter is made of light card stock cut and glued to
form a cone with a diameter of about six inches across the
top.
There are two holes near the bottom, or point,
of the
cone.
These are roughly triangular, with the points and top
side rounded.
The holes are about
2 1/2 inches wide and 1
3/4 inches high.
There is a hole at the point about 1/2
inch diameter.
A cloth gauze mesh has been glued across the
holes.
The mesh is a nominal 400 microns, although it
is
very irregular
(Ex.5).
Irregularities are not thought to be
important to the test (P.87,
116,
128).
The card stock has a hard surface which appears to be
designed to resist wetting.
This appears to be essential
for
a filter to work without being supported by a funnel.
It
is essential to the test that the filter not absorb much
liquid from the waste sample
(P.127).
The filter is to be mounted in a ring stand without a
funnel, which could impede movement of fluids through the
mesh..
Fluids could also be trapped by capillary action
between the filter and the funnel.
It
is possible that certain wastes could attack the
mesh in the filter.
Such action in the time frame of the
test would be expected only where free liquids are present
(P.89,
133).
The test is based on a 100 ml representative sample
which is brought to room temperature, thoroughly mixed and
poured into the filter
(P.76).
The sample is covered with
a watch glass of an appropriate
size.
The sample “fails”
the test if one drop, or more,
of fluid drops from the
bottom of the filter within five minutes.
Wastes which are liquid at high temperatures, such as
metal,
slag,
glass and distillation residues, are to be
tested at room temperature.
The fact that the waste may in
fact have been a liquid at high temperature does not render
it subject to the program.
Some wastes may include finely divided solid material
which would move through the mesh..
The waste “passes”
the
test if no fluid moves through
(P.76).
61-237
—20—
Section 729.321
Load-bearing Capacity Test
This test is conducted with a soil penetrometer with
a
range of
0 to 4.5 tons per square
foot..
The shaft of the
penetrometer is pushed into the sample
to the line scribed
in the point.
The pressure
is read on the low side of a
slip ring
on
the shaft..
The shaft should be pushed into the sample at a constant
rate over a period of two to three seconds.
The instrument
would give an erroneous reading if it were struck against
the
sample or pounded in with a hammer.
Granular samples should be compacted to densities
typically found in landfills
(100 lbs. per cubic
foot)
prior
to testing
(P.343).
PART 709:
WASTESTREAM AUTHORIZATIONS
Section 709.102
“Wastestream”
SectiOn 22.6(a) of the Act requires an authorization
for a “specific waste
stream”..
The definition of “waste-
stream is critical
to the scope of the wastestream authori-
zation requirement:
wastes which are not “wastestreams” do
not require an authorization, but they must comply with the
substantive prohibitions of Part 729.
A “wastestreain” is:
1,
A waste as defined in Part 721,
2.
Which is routinely or periodically produced,
3.
By a certain generator
4.
As
a result of a certain activity, production
process or treatment process.
A wastestream is a waste which is periodically produced.
This could be a barrel per minute or a barrel per decade.
However,
it does not include a waste which
is produced only
one time
(P.372).
Examples of wastes which are not waste--
streams would include single loads of wastes produced from
construction, non-routine maintenance or dismantling of
equipment or buildings.
However, there is no site—specificity:
if a contractor moved from site to site rebuilding equipment,
his
waste could be a wastestream.
Another example of a
waste which might not be a wastestream would be a waste
produced by an unusual accident or unusual spill.
A wastestream is produced by a certain generator.
If
two persons produce an identical waste, there are two waste—
streams.
61-238
—21—
A wastestream results from a certain production or
treatment process.
Waste constituents may be mixed as a
result oi the process.
However, wastes from multiple proc-
esses which are mixed simply for convenience constitute
multiple wastestreams.
The Agency may allow such combination
if the combination does not limit the possibilities for
treatment, recycling or disposal of the wastes.
For example,
one could not mix a non-incinerable wastestream with an
incinerabie wastestream, and then get authorization to
landfill the waste pursuant to Section 22.6(c) because the
mixture could not be incinerated.
A wastestream could also be defined in terms of the
disposer of the waste,
The result of this would be to
require separate authorizations
for each waste recipient
from a generator.
The definition has been written to allow
this, hut also to allow
a list or classification of disposers.
This is possible since the wastestream authorization
is
centered on the generator of the waste, unlike the supple-
mental permits under Section 807.210, which are addenda to
the disposer’s permit.
Increasing the generator’s disposal
options should tend to hold disposal costs down.
The Act has recently been amended to allow the Agency
to
issue multiple generator permits
(Section 22.9 of the Act,
P.A,
83-1443, effective September 16,
1984).
The wastestream
authorization, provisions and the amendments
to
the supple-
mental permit requirements are consistent with this new
provision,
The Agency will be allowed to issue
a wastestream
authorization to a generator allowing disposal at several
landfills,
and to issue supplemental permits to disposers to
accept a category of waste from several generators.
This
scheme
should require a lot less paperwork than a separate
permit
for each generator/disposer pair.
Section 709.103
Deemed—issued Wastestream Authorizations
Generators of treatment residuals are deemed to have a
wastestream authorization if there is
a supplemental waste—
stream permit for the wastestream and the generator submitted
an application by September 7, 1984.
The residual will also
have to meet one of the standards of Section 729.310(b):
it
will have
to be non-hazardous, or be the result of liquid
removal or solidification.
Wastestrearn authorizations are
not deemed issued for residuals which result from addition
of absorbents,
or for direct landfilling of liquid hazardous
wastes.
There was considerable confusion at the third hearing
concerning the transition rules
(C-l2,
45).
Part of this
is
resolved when one recognizes that the wastestream authoriza-
tion is
a new generator-centered permit, while the supple-
mental wastestream permit is an existing disposer—centered
61-239
—22—
permit..
The authorization was deemed issued for 60 days
after the emergency rules
if the wastestream was subject to
an outstanding supplemental permit.
If an application
is
filed
in
this time, the deemed-issued authorization continues
until the Agency acts.
The supplemental permits, on the
other hand, were voided immediately if they authorized
disposal of a restricted waste,
The dates
for receipt of
applications for authorization have no impact on the supple-
mental permits.
Section 709.104
Supplemental Permits
Supplemental wastestream permits which have been issued
for prohibited wastestreams are void immediately.
The
Agency
is authorized to review outstanding permits which
appear to authorize disposal of prohibited wastes.
The
Agency should give notice to the permittee and the opportunity
to
file a
new application showing compliance with the new
rules
(P.20,
28,
44).
The Agency may modify or deny the
supplemental permits as a result of its review.
The Agency’s
actions may
be appealed to the Board pursuant to Part 105.
Supplemental permits which authorize disposal of
restricted liquids are voided to prevent an argument that
the previously—issued permit can be used as a defense by
a
disposer who accepts liquid hazardous waste,
However,
the
validity of the permit might not be decided until an enforce-
ment action reached the Board..
Paragraph
(c)
requires the
Agency
to review existing permits to identify those which
it
believes permit disposal of prohibited waste.
The Agency is
to give each permittee the opportunity to demonstrate compli-
ance before modifying or denying a new supplemental permit.
A sentence has been added to make it clear that this includes
the permits the Agency believes are void.
Paragraph
(b)
has been added to apply the same rule to
wastes prohibited by the halogenated solvent ban
(P81-25)..
This has been renumbered from Section 729.205.
Section
709.201
Liquid Hazardous Waste Authorization
Paragraph
(a)
states the requirement of a wastestream
authorization for landfilling a wastestream which is still
a
liquid,
or which is a liquid to which absorbents have been
added.
This requires the economic and technical showing in
Section 22.6(c)
of the Act and Section 709.40l(a)(R.344)..
Paragraph
(b)
states the requirement for residuals.
This requires
a showing that the residual is non—hazardous,
or results from removal of liquids or a solidification
process, as set forth in Sections 709.401(b)
and 729.310(b).
61-240
—23--
Section 22.6(a)
imposes a wastestream authorization
requirement on generators
who
landfill liquid hazardous
waste.
The Board has construed this to include those who
are successfully treating the liquid,
as well
as those who
are landfilling the liquid directly or absorbed.
However,
the generator of a residual has the option of making the
simpler showing that the treatment is successful,
rather
than the
difficult technical and economic showing of Section
22.6(c).
It could be argued that the Legislature intended
only to
require the authorization for the direct landfilling
of liquids
and absorbed liquids,
However, the distinction
between successful
treatment, or solidification,
and addition
of absorbent
is a subtle one which requires prior review by
the Agency
on a case—by-case basis, rather than after the
fact review
by the Board in an enforcement action.
tn
the older permit programs in air and water
a permit
is required
when a person discharges or emits
a contaminant,
or
engages
in
treatment to prevent air or water pollution.
(For example,
see Sections 9(a),
9(b)
,
12(a),
12(b)
and
12(f)
of
the Act.)
A person cannot avoid the permit require-
rnent
by
successfully treating the emission or discharge so
as
to bring
the emission or discharge into compliance with
standards..
Prior approval through the permit process is
required to assure that the treatment process will work.
Reporting
pursuant to the permit is required to assure that
it
continues
to work.
The Legislature obviously intended to
establish a
similar program of prior approval for treatment
or solidification of liquid hazardous waste prior to landfilling.
It
should be noted also that the Legislature has estab-
lished a
wastestream authorization requirement for all
hazardous wastes after January
1,
1987
(Section 39(h)
of the
Act).
Section
709.301
Application
This Section contains minimal information which the
generator
must provide for the Agency to issue a wastestream
authorization.
The Agency may promulgate standard forms
which
will
supersede this Section.
The Board has modified the
minimum application requirements
in response to Agency
comments
(C—51).
Paragraph
(f)
requires a detailed analysis of
a sample
of the waste; paragraph
(h)
requires a plan for sampling by
the
generator or treater to assure that the wastestream
continues to conform to the description in the application.
Note that this is not the same as the waste analysis plan to
be filed by the disposer pursuant to Section 729.302.
However,
this Section is not to be construed as prohibiting the
transporter or disposer from implementing the generator’s or
treater’s analysis plan.
6 1-241
—24—
Paragraph
(k)
requires the applicant
to
identify one or
more facilities to which it proposes to send the waste.
The
Agency may identify specific facilities
in
the authorization,
or issue
it with a generic authorization.
Section 709.302
Signatures
The
original generator or treater of the waste must
actually sign the application.
However,
a permitted traris-
porter
or
disposer of the waste can act as a broker, preparing
the
application for the generator..
This will allow the
wastestream authorization to function more like the supple-
mental permit system,
in which the disposer had to complete
the application.
However,
giving the generator the right to
act alone may
give
generators
more choice as to disposal
sites,
putting downward pressure on costs.
Section 709.401
Standard for Issuance
Paragraph
(a)
repeats the language of Section 22.6(c),
which sets forth the technical and economic showing the
generator must make to landfill a liquid hazardous waste, or
an absorbed liquid.
The final sentence refers to prohibitions
or limitations under Board regulations.
This could include
prohibitions in the RCRA rules adopted pursuant to Section
22.4 of the Act,
or prohibitions adopted pursuant to Section
22(g)
of
the Act, as well as prohibitions or limitations
specifically directed at liquid hazardous waste pursuant
to
Section 22.6 (b).
Paragraph
(b) requires issuance of an authorization for
a residual which meets one of the standards of Section
729,310(b):
that the residual is not hazardous;
that liquid
has been removed; or, that it has been solidified.
The Board
has added a requirement that the residual not be prohibited or
limited by other Board regulations.
This is renumbered from
Section 729.205, where it was adopted with the halogenated
solvent ban.
Paragraph
(c)
allows the Agency to issue authorizations
in other situations in which it determines that a wastestream
is not subject to prohibition.
For example, if there is
doubt as to whether a waste is a liquid,
a generator can
request an authorization.
If the Agency determines that the
waste is not
a liquid,
it should issUe an authorization to
that effect,
rather than denying the authorization on the
grounds that the
waste
is
not
subject
to
the
ban.
This mechanism could also be used to determine whether
a wastestream is in fact hazardous.
This would provide
a
more direct determination of waste classification than the
variance denial or dismissal mechanism employed in
_______
Kleen v.
IEPA (PCB 80—12,
37 PCB 363, February 7, 1980).
6 1-242
—25—
Section 709.501
Duration
Wastestream authorization will last for one to three
years.
The upper limit of three years will assure expiration
of
early
authorizations during 1987, after which review
pursuant to Section 39(h)
of the Act will be required.
Section
709.510
General Conditions
This Section implements the second sentence of Section
22.6(c) of the
Act
which
contains
general
authority
for
conditions
in authorizations.
Section 709.520
Authorized Methods of Disposal
The authorized methods of disposal are the heart of the
wastestream authorization.
The Agency may list specific
1andfllis~or authorize landfilling by category of landfills.
The Agency may also prohibit methods of treatment or disposal
which it finds would result in violation of the Act or
rules.
Paragraph
(c) provides that the Agency may allow or
require the addition of absorbent materials to liquid wastes
authorized pursuant to the technical and economic showing of
Section 709.401(a).
This is to negate any inference that,
by banning the
use
of
absorbents
to
make
a
waste
non—liquid,
the
Board
intends to ban them in a situation in which a
liquid must be landfilled.
Parts
724 and 725 would often
require the use of absorbents.
Section 729.313 prohibits
the
use
of absorbents which are more biodegradable than the
absorbed waste.
Section 709.601
Modification
The generator may request modification of the authori-
zation at any time by filing a new application.
On its own
initiative the
Agency
can
modify an authorization prior to
its expiration date only to make it consistent with newly
adopted provisions of the Act or Board rules.
The Agency
must give notice to the generator that it is reviewing an
authorization so that it will have the opportunity to file
an application demonstrating compliance with the new provi-
sions,
CONCLUSION
This Opinion supports the Board’s Second Notice Order
of November
8,
1984.
Because of its length this second
notice Opinion will not be published in the Opinion volumes,
but will be made available to participants.
61-243
—26—
Board Member B. Forcade concurred..
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion was adopted on the
,,~‘/a4-
day of
____________,
1984 by a vote of
__________
~
,~.
Dorothy M. Gunn7 Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
61-244
