ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

July

19, 1984

IN

THE MATTER

OF:

)

)

DEFINITION OF LIQUID HAZARDOUS

)

R83—28A

WASTE

(Emergency

Rule)

)

IN

TEE

MATTER

OF:

)

)

DEFINITION

OF

LIQUID

HAZARDOUS

)

R83”28B

WASTE

(Temporary

and

Permanent

)

Rules)

)

FINAL

ORDER.

ADOPTED

~(ERGENCTRULE

(R83-28A)

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST

NOTICE

(R83—28B)

OPINION OF TEE BOARD (R83-28A)

PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD

(R83-28B)

(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 direct 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.

CUE was represented at the

hearings by Howard Learner and Timothy

Wright of Business and

Profesional People for the Public Interest (Un).

CUE 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

cr.ents

because

of

delays

in

the

filing

of

the

April

23

transcript.

The

Board

received

the

following

comments:

PC.

1

them—Clear, Inc., May

9,

1984

2

Granite

City

Steel,

Division

of

National

Steel

Corporation;

Interlake,

Inc.;

Keystone

Steel

and

Wire

Company;

North-

western

Steel

and

Wire

Company;

Republic

Steel

Corporation

and

United

States

Steel

Corporation;

May

24,

1984

3

CECOS

International,

May

30,

1984

59-118

---

4

Citizens

for

~

netter

Environment?

June

6,

1984

5

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

June

18,

1984

On

June

29,

1984

the

Board

adopted

35

Iii.

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

B

Ill.

3leg.

11997,

12000,

12668

and

12678,

July

13,

1984.

Pursuant

to

the

request

of

participants,

an additional

hearing

will

he

held

prior

to

preparation

of

an

economic

impact

study

(R~376)~

STATUTORY

AUTHORITY

Section

22~6

of the Act was

added

by

FLB.

i054,~

which

became

P~A~

83~1078 effective

January

5,

19B4~

it

reads

as

follows

a~

Commencing Ju.y

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

landfii I

owner

and

operator

for

the

land

disposal

of

that

specific

waste

stream,

b.

The Board shal

I

have

the

authority

to

adopt

regula—

~iv~s

~-‘~

orohih~tor

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~

bili.ty and economic

reasonableness, the hazardous

waste

cannot be reasonably

solidified,

stabilized,

or recycled for

reuse,

nor

incinerated

or

chemi—

cal1y~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

regu1atione~

In

granting

authorization under this

Section,

the agency may

tmpose such conditions

as

may

be

necessary

to

accomplish the purposes

of

this

Act

and which are

consistent with Board regu1ations~

If the Agency

refuses

to

grant

authorization

under

this

Section,

~

114

---

c ap~Iiantmay appeal

as

if

the

Agency

refused

~o

giant a permit pursuant to the provisions of

ib~’eetion(a)

of Section 40 of

this

Act0

~.

For purpo~esof this

Section,

the term ~landfill~’

mear~sa disposal facility or part of a facility

where 1~azardouswaste is placed in or on land and

wh~ehis not a land treatment facility,

a surface

impoundwent or an underground injection well0

~$ection22.6 is related to two other provisions:

Section 221g) authorizes the Board to prohibit

landfilling

of hazardous waste in general;

and, Section 39(h)

requires

specific authorization from the Agency for each

hazardous

w3stest~samaf.er

anuary

I, l~87. The Board has pending a

proposa

to prohibit halogenated. solvent wastes pursuant to

Secti)ri.

22(g)(R8l~25,

First Notice Order and Second Proposed

Opinior

of March

8,

1984).

In addition,

Section

22.4(b)

of

the Act allows the Board to adopt

regulations

which

are

not

inconsistent with and at least as

stringent

as

the

federal

Pesource Conservation and Recovery

Act

and

regulations

(42

USC §6901 et seq~and 40 CFR 260 et

seq.).

RELATIONSHP

TO

OTHER

LANDFILLING

BANS

In addition to proposed ban pursuant to Section 22(g)

of the Act, there is

a presently existing prohibition on

1ioud~’adopted

fri Part~s724 and 725

pursuant

to

the

“identi~

cal

i

substa~ce~provisions of Section

22.4(a)

of

the

Act

(R8l~2~ 6

II

.

Reg

4828, April

23,

1982;

R82~l8,

7

Ill,

Reg

2S~3 Ma~ch

i

~983; and, R82~l9, 7

Ill. Reg.

14015,

Octob.~..

28

1

83

Section

24.414 applies to hazardous

waste landfills with RCRA permits, while Section 725.414

applies to inter~mstatus landfills,

These Sections allow

t~’e lardfillina of bulk liquids only in landfills with

liners ann a 1ea”~atecollection and removal

system

meeting

the requirements of §724,401(a).

Alternatively bulk liquids

~ay b

mixed with absorbent and placed in a landfill meeting

Lie

iter~nststus standards of Part 725, or the final

.~tarid~ds of Parr 724.

With three exceptions discussed

~e)o’~ n connecti~nwith Section 729.301 containerized

iquid~ are prof’bited from all RCRA landfills unless ~‘free~

~tandinq liquid~has been removed or mixed with absorbent

P. 340)

LIe Agency can authorize wastes pursuant to Section 22.6(c)

only

if the landfilling is not prohibited or limited by

?oard reguation~.

Thus,

the Agency can authorize liquids

to b~lsndti~1~d

only in conformance with the RCRA requirements

~f

P~rts724 and 725.

Bans adopted pursuant to §22(g) of

tha Lct will also lrmit the Agency s discretion in authorizing

~,~rt~enme

pursuant to §22,6(c),

---

PROPOS ~LS

3~no~eo~bove at the time of decision there were two

docuirent

~it:~p~co~senlanguage before

the

Board:

Exhibit

4,

sulirL ted hI

~

A~ncyand CT3E; and

Exhibit

12, sub~

mitte~ov ;;aste Minageaertt.

Exhibit 4 was ambiguous on the

follo~irg

POtflLS~

which

‘jill be discussed with the relevant

element3 of

tht

fi;st notice proposal:

1r.~cedure~

oy which

trie Agency was

to

issue

a

waste—

.~trez~inouttorization,

ihe difference between authorization of a liquid

urd

a residual from the treatment of a liquid.

.,,

~

~finitions

of ~absorbed~ and ‘~solidifie&.

~‘hodistinction between addition of absorbents or

solilification and treatment through addition of

cater~ii~hich renders waste nonhazardous,

r

The disti~ctionbetween solidification and removal

f liquids.

?

The distin~tionbetween the duty of

the

generator

o

treat~’r

f the waste to solidify the liquid

and

the duty of the disposer to prevent the landfilling

of

I qu~d~

I

ra

ip to the

andfilling bans in Parts

8

The durat~onof the authorization,

The first ntice proposal was based on Exhibit 12,

although it was rearranged

aria modified in many ways.

Develepmenr o~ ~e fi”st notice proposal proceeded

from

Exhibit

1

to Exhitits

2 and

3, to Exhibit 4, to Exhibit 12

and to the iir~tnotice Order,

The practice of comment and

~ount~

~proposrl p~od’~ed a regulation in a very efficient

ma~ne~.The~e~x~ihrI

iere ~ll necessary steps in development

cf the rule

litnesses at t.a~~iearingswho testified on technical

arid ~onom

~

LSSU~iS

included the following:

---

I.

La..~ryEas:ep,

from the Agency, concerning the

overall

rationaie of the ban and the Agency~sprocedures

for

~mple~ientation

(R,

12).

2

Daie he mets

from the Agency, concerning

r~ietnodlogyof the paint filter test (R071)

3,

tlicl”ael Nechvatal,

from the Agency,

concerning the

quantities of waste involved (R,112)

I,

Eugene fteros,

from the Agency, concerning treatment

and recycling capacity

(R.l36)

5,

William Webster,

from the Hazardous Waste Treat-

ment Council, concerning the definition of solidi-

fication

(R,l56)

6

U~.Robert Ginsburg,

from CBE, concerning potential

prolle

e associated with addition of absorbents

(It.

210)

1.

Jeffrey Diver and Edward Fochtman, from Waste

Management

concerning the

peneLLuI~te~

test

(R. 271

WH~PROHIBIT

LIQUID

HAZARDOUS WASTE?

Liquid hazardous wastes have been prohibited by legis~

lative act~on

Fo~ever, it is useful to set forth the

reasors for thi

rer

Liquid hazardous wastes pose two

basic probl~nc,’

first

they tend to migrate within a landfill,

creating a petential

for contamination of groundwater; and,

second,

they make daily operations more difficult, and

create subsiderce problems after closure

(R.16).

SUMMARY OF EMERGENCY AND PROPOSED RULES

The emerjency

arid proposed rules are discussed in

letai, below,

The following is a short summary intended. to

ai.d the reader,

D~’tarishave been omitted and particulars

simplified for clarity.

Section 22.6 of the Act prohibits landfilling of liquid

hazardcus waste after July

1,

1984.

The

r

,1~F4r~ns

define

‘~liqu~dhazardous waste~, set criteria used to determine

~Aat is acceptable treatment, or

~14Fir’~firrn~,

of

the

liquid hazerdous waste and provide procedures by which

wastestrear

fh~r~finn~

are to be issued by the Agency.

59~

117

---

Part

~ contains ~he actual prohibition; while

Part

709

contal

i~

the procedures by which wastestrea.m

authorizations

are ieaued.

~

c~uir~i~c’rs utilize the paint filter test to deter-

mine ~hc~her someL~ingis a “liquid~ in the first place.

Landf

i~

U

rig

f

a

quid

hazardous

waste,

as such,

may be

autho

‘ed by the Agency only after a showing involving

techni”aI

teasibal -~tyand economic reasonableness pursuant

to Seetior

‘2

6 o~ ~teAct and Section 709.401(a)0

P

iduols from

Ic treatment of liquid hazardous waste

may La ~

~friled

ey meet one of three standards:

r.

~he resi~uaI

is

no

longer a hazardous waste;

or

7

II toe tiratoent involves removal

of liquids,

such

~s

by

fi~trrr n

the residual meets the paint

ilter teat

0’

If the treatment involves addition of solidifying

materials

the residual meets the paint filter

test and e~Libitsa load~bearingcapacity of at

least two

ons per square foot as judged by a soil

perish

r.~me“e

“he third standard is intended to distinguish residuals

~,hiclre~~.ult~

froo a

hiolidificationu process, as opposed to

acidit~.n of “aasorben~s~,although the rules do not use

eithe

f

hese her

s

“So1idification~is allowed,

while

d

as~’e~’

I be landfilled only after the economic

ard

cc

i

~i’

~h~w

a pursuant to Section 22,6(c) of the Act

and. Sectio,

709 40l(aL

~i.

~:

‘~

~a~d

allows

laridfillrng

of

residuals

whi~uc~re iot oaza d,is,

However, Section 729.311 prohibits

u1a~’em~it

of non—ha ardous liquids in hazardous waste trenches.

“itner the orig~~nalgenerator or a treater

of

a

liquid

~azar o

s

aste wi

3 have to obtain a wastestream authori~

~ation

ram the Agen~y (8709

201)

The authorization will

~e is ued for a liq~tidpursuant to the technical and economic

ahow4nj

r fcr a residual pursuant to one of the standards

istea abo’e

(‘5709

401),

Wustestream authorizations will be deemed issued for

~sidials which m

t. one of the above standards and for

i.

.uoplemer al permit exists.

The generator will have

U

an applrcat~.~unfor an authorization

by

September

3,

984 ‘~ocontinue the deemed issued authorization.

59418

---

WASTES AFFECTED

~

~‘e

ib

riO

comolete estimate of the

volume of waste

affeu’

d by t~aI’ quid ban.

The Agency presented

an estimate

~

I

nis ‘~e Uucr~nians

taken from supplemental permit

ap~Ir~a~

Eo~’ze~er~

the liquid ban also

applies to on-

~‘aJ

wnich is not subject to the

supplemental

pe~ro ~r manifest system.

ot~ntw

Uti

pormit application describes

waste

in

uoetoie: it iS solid, semi~solid, liquid, powder

or

par

2~)

The Agency has estimated the amounts of solid,

sci~

~‘

~

and lrg~~d wastes which are subject

to the ban

(Ex, 8).

~o 1983 commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities

aece~t~~I

r,b million gallons of waste described

as

‘~liquid”,

whic

a ~uumed

to fail

the paint filter test (R,123).

In

1)83 ~hc.e facilities accepted 4.8 and

14.5 million gallons

of “scmi~’soIid~and “solid” wastes, respectively

(Ex.8).

The A’ency has conducted a sampling program to estimate what

percoitage of these wastes will fail the paint filter test.

A

i’s

ationship has been established between the percent of

samp ~e

failing ani the percent solids reported in the

apU

/ition

Lasea on this, around 3.4 and

4.9

million

s of ~semi—so1id~ and “solid” wastes will fail the

pain

tUber tes~.

ihus,

a total of about 10 million gallons

o

w’

~“

d:sposU

f’~’sitewill fail

(R.125).

TIIUr’eL’NT

AND

RECYCLING

CAPACITY

~cr

~t

Ito

wcsce

affected

by

the

ban consists of

aqueou.

wastes

and

solvent

wastes,

The Agency

believes

s

n

exr~’rng

i~apacity

of 84 million gallons per year

u~u~35wabte

~reatmert

facilities and

7 million gallons

jCC

e~r for

solrent

wastes,

Of this capacity, the unused

~ri

amounts

to

some

57 million gallons

per

year for

s

waste

and

5

million

gallons for solvent wastes

P

i/i).

Ihe

solvent

reclaimers do not receive a very high

-~r~z

n-age

cf

the

wa’te

which

would

be going to landfills

p

ib~U

Other

optrons

for

avoiding the landfilling of

I

quicie

include

process

changes, substitution

of

materials,

‘Cr

era”io;

ard

solidification

(R.l43).

The Agency esti~

~ter

tha,

90

of

affected

waste could

be

handled by some

U

t~~’,tmentor

recovery

(R.

146).

This appears to

~v

rbout

3

million

gallons

per year of off~sitewaste

n

~eqirre

authorization

pursuant to the Section

a

59419

---

-8—

.a ..o

‘u

10.

OF

EMERGENCY

AND

PROPOSED RULES

-

e

føllowi

tg

is

a

detailed

discussion

of

the

emergency

az~

‘c-’,x

scd

rtlcs

Part

729,

containing

the

substance

of

t.t

v’

tall

ce

ascussed

before

the

proc.edural

require—

U:

of

prt

709

PAR!

729k

PROHIBITED

HAZARDOUS

WASTES

-

2

i

turoors

Scope

and

Applicability

~t”eO

n

proposed

in

R81—25

(Order

of

March 8,

‘a’

t

JaG

,.c

e

citopted

an

this

Docket

mostly to

state

hi..

e

it

to

~.

ppltsaent

and

supercede

the

landfilling

r?~u

e.e

ts

s7t9

100

e)1J.

Note

that

paragraph

(b)

states

‘-

“

w

-~a

..t

as

proposed

in

R8l—25

pursuant

to

S2

c

U.

A

t

Its

includes

a

broader

definition

of

1

r

‘

.:1ic

an5ubpartC.

as,

~

-

o

La

t ‘.me

constraints

on

the

emergency

rules

the

a

a~

i

t

lifted

the

provisions

of

Parts

724,

725

ani

‘

‘rck.

tnn

‘onsistent

with

the

liquid

ban

(Er.

14).

Th~

t

:.

‘1

.c.ts c

nme’tts

itemizing

the

needed

amendments.

-

Laidfill”

.

i.

u~

is

taken

from

522.6(d)

of

the

Act.

The

1

1

1..

seC~

defines

landfill

as ‘a

disposal

facility

o.

..

.a

:•

.‘

This

seems

to

allow

the

possibility

~

a

site

could

each

be

a

landfill.

The

c

c

c

t

vu

‘disposal

facility’

to

‘disposal

t

,t~.

a

‘a

erninosogy in

Parts

720—725.

The

~

‘f

ct

)f

U

ss

interpretation is to

allow

nonhasardous

L1.’

-

t

notn~

a.

ua trenches at

facilities

with

a

&

.~

~.

-

~.

~

9

311)

he

sa~tutory def nation

and

that

adopted

differ

from

• .i

•

t

t e

.x

-

asson of surface

impoundments intended

-

‘t

i

-pos

il

d

land

treatment

facilities

•

The

.i~edo*.

wcscit.

yrohabitions

will

apply

to

true

ar

‘

*

I

wa.”t~iace

artended

for

waste

disposal

‘

.54)

7

:

30

iqzid

Hazardous

Waste’

a~

waste as a hazardous waste

which

‘1sa(

n-.

1~4 th~cugh a

paint

filter

in five minutes

z’

tcs ‘s~

~:ed

three

types

of

liquid

hazardous

-

~str

•

.

ti-a

tieflnt’icn:

labpacks,

ampules

and waste

in

69420

---

c~j~

tutu

auch

as hatteries~

These

are

identical to the

excluuio~sin the landfilling

bans

in

Parts

724

and 725.

s~

RCrA

rules prohibit

containers

holding free liquids

with

tirru

~x options

L000tlOflS

724,414(b)

and

725.414(b).

Ampules

are very small containers,

holding

only

a

few grams of waste.

Lab rcis are containerized

liquid

wastes

in “overpacked drums”:

drait~. to which sufficient

absorbent

material

has

been added

to

comclstel~absorb all of the

liquid

contents

of

the

inside

ccn~aera Sections

724~4l6

and

725.416.

The third exception

is

cur t~rinersdesignud to hold

free

liquids

for use other than

storap~ such as batteries

or

capacitors

Sections

724,414(b)(3)

and

725 ~4

b)(3).

Thu irclusiur

of the exceptions

was proposed by

Waste

Managemcnt~

if liquids

in

containers

such as batteries were

prolda ted

equipment would be required to

shred or puncture the

corr~e acre p~iorto disposal.

Waste

Management

presently

has

sa~i ~rep~rationin Kansas,

but

not

Illinois

(R.290,

366).

Thor

appears

to cc

lAo such

operation

in

Illinois.

Capacitors

and

it

uf

rncr~

cntaining

polychlorinated

biphenyls

are

prr

ian

wi

cy regulations pursuant

to

the

Toxic

Substances

Contr

I. L~tand could not

be

landfilled

regardless

of

this

prpa~l

R

259).

npule:

and

La

packs

tend

to

be

produced

by

research

and

~nal~t~are

lsbrratories,

The existence and

efficient

operation

of.

i~cr~cur~e:t

characterize

hazardous

wastes and

monitor

con~idtr~.

i’

necessary for

the

success

of

this and

related

hat

~ras waste regulatory

proposals.

These

laboratories

produce

smal

~uari~iti

ic

ci

iaz~rdous

waste,

There

is

presently

no

cap

t

y

trea~‘he~ewastes,

and

immediate prohibition would

result in severe hardship for

Illinois

laboratories

(R.337).

W~c~te

I1aruge’l1en~has asked the Board to

consider

the

ra’ai

tale

of. the

~deral RCRA regulations on which the exclusions

were based:

40 C~R264.314,

264.316,

265.314

and 265,316.

9ec-~

ci

22

4(a)

of

the Act required the

Board to adopt these

prov

cicns

a~ St~at

rules,

which

it

did

in

the

Sections

quoted

aixve 1d8i~22, li32~l8and R82-l9).

The

Board

was required

to

ac e~tthe ratrunaic of the

federal

rules

in

adopting

regulations

p~ruan~~

to Scott

r 22.4(a)~

The

Board

takes

official

notice

of

U9flP~ supporting materials,

particularly

45 Fed, Reg.

33215

~May I)

1958)

arA3

16 Fed.

Reg. 56592~56596 (November

17,

1981).

~e

r~5~caale f

lSt’A

in

adopting

these

rules

in

no way

cc;rY~rolsthe lla

~s

action

in

implementing

Sections

5(b)~ 22(b)

~nd ~?A

b

owefe~, the

Board

takes

notice

of

this

rationale.

t~pu1es

d~AC

rontainers

such

as

batteries

were

excluded

from

t~

Lderal

~C~A regulations

when

they

were

originally

adopted

(4C

~

Reg~ 3306?

33250,

May

19,

1980),

USEPA

stated that:

59-121

---

subs

~c~T

uLif~c ‘I

thu

I

Labp~”~

5659~,

Nov~

riazardou

voline

~

Thes?.

i.

~

Dis~~.

)

I

sew~s

E

the

feder

I

labpaoks

i

56392)~

1andf~J1c

I an

ra

quantit1~

less

than

inc ineration

~U

cIai~

is

en

)X(

ow

~

ab~’obert

Crom

ccrt.

1

Dro

L

appear

to

1

7

c~”

sy~~’~cm;

ye

rho

8

atutc

y

imperen’i

g

~

~ae

iu

l~ manne~

xcluocd

(R

2,~

~

its~ly

con

‘olume

of

a

i!~c~u

i~i

EOrCJ’

S1OflS~

rca~d

~fI~~l

d

ccnt~cl

stc~rd~

JO)

~t

tr

ep

r

ir~ç~

~n

~utic

22

t

cr

t

~

~ai~iers

a~e ~ot

likely

to

contribute

~a

of

liquid

to

most

landfills,

and

the

t

~eiirg

and

emptying

them

appears

to

outweigh

gained

c~

~x~J

dud

by

a

later

amendment

(46

Feds

Reg.

tJSEPA

stated

that

disposal

of

wa~a

common

practice

for

many

small

~

~rily

smail

quantity

generators).

cur

~ietcial

and

school

laboratories.

orefarab

e

to

dumping

these

wastes

into

i

ch

are

small

quantity generators under

p

ef erred

to

dispose

of their wastes in

~ta~a

dou”

waste

landfills

(46 Feth Reg~

~n

would

prohibit

disposal

in

all

1

an~tty

generators~

~

c

a

larcie

nuiiber

of

wastes

in

small

~ar~a

of

wastes

per

month

in

quantities

on iercial

treatment,

recycling

or

~

opt

only

reasonably

sized

lots

of

the

cost

to

characterize

lab

wastes

~eo

Reg~ 56593;.

i~sposal

of

labpacks

in

landfills

is

an

a

i

e

The

requirement

of

sufficient

.0

o~b all

liquids

will

prevent

labpacks

c

~rt

volores

of

liquid

to

landfill

ack,

container

and

ampule

exemptions

J

“ig

S

largu

nunber

of

generators,

and

an

~

~~eams

ir

c

the

landfill

proh~bition

iuvolie

only

a

small

quantity

of

waste.

~igned

into

la~ on

January

5,

1984,

arid

the

c

Clnalized

on

June

29,

1984.

The

Agency

0

cballenge

in

administering

the

ban

in

a

rhe

labpacks,

containers

and

ampules

~

I’ sion

will

allow

the

Agency

to

c~.

uwur

generators

producing

a

larger

~,

base~ for

adoption

of

these

on

5(b)

of

the

Act

provides

that

the

~.

t~ne a~d imp~ement~environmental

~d

urder

Section

22(b),

the

Board

is

to

U~o

ha~dling,

storing,

processing,

~,

of

hazardous

waste~

Thirdly,

under

u.

i.

Lo

adopt

regulations

which

~prohibit

~e

~ypu

amount

and

form

of

liquid

hazardou~

---

~1l~

wastes that may be disposed of

in landfills based

on the

availability

of

technically

feasible

and economically reasonable

alternatives

to

land

disposal.”

Based on limited, but unrebutted evidence, sufficiently

persuasive to include the exclusion in the

emergency rules, the

Board has exercised its authority to exclude

these wastes from

the definition of liquid hazardous waste for

purposes

of the

emergency rules,

This action will ease

administration of

the

emergency rules, preserve the status quo and

allow further

inquiry into the legislative

intent,

The Board solicits additional comment, both

in

support

of

and in opposition to the retention of the exclusions.

The Board does not view adoption of these exclusions

in

the

emergency rules as a precedent or as a bar

to

their subsequent

modification or deletion in the temporary or permanent rules.

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 5729,310(b)

(R.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

(R,276,

299).

A

person

who

treats

hazardous

waste

is

required

to

have

a

RCRA

permit

under §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

permit

requirement

and

Part

724

standards

(S703,123(h)

and

5724,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 5729.310(b)

(3), or 5709.410(a),

before it can be landfilled,

59423

---

Sectior

729.3C2

Waste

Arziysic

Plan

The

landfall

oyerator

must

develop

a

waste

analysis

plan.

This

shc~uiddescribe

the

frequency

and

methods

of

samping

oral

ana:iye:s

thich

tte

operator

will

follow

to

insure

that

ptchiFt~td v~cce~

~tae not

placed

in

the

landfill.

The

cperatcr

w

.~

‘n~t~siy

he

required

to

submit

a

copy

of

the

psan

to

the

Agency

arc

~o follow

the

plan

(R.278,

317,

359),

The

Bosad

solicit.

c)rrment

on

whether

and

how

the

plan

chould

be

moo/v

~

~

~r~o

RCRA

permits,

interim

statu:

wautc.

cta~ysth pit:

r.

-~

iart

807

permits.

Sect~rn “29~YC

~c:

~YdldOus

Waste

Prohibitions

Paragraph

ia)

prohibits

landfilling

of

liquid

hazardous

wastes

wh~h fail

the

pa

i~.

Uiter

test;

paragraph

(b)

prohibits

l;rdtiiling

of

cactcAin

treatment

residuals.

t-~ragrsph

a)

prc hat:

a

the

landfilling

of

liquid

hazardous

waste

without

a

wastestream

authorization

issued

by

the

Agency

pursiant

to

522,6(c)

of

the

Act

and

5709,401(a).

This

authorization

is

based

on

a

showing

that,

considering

current

technological

feasabality

and

economic

reasonableness,

the

waste

cannot

be

reasor4nbly

solidified,

stabilized,

recycled,

incinerathd

or

~reated

(R.2”,

348).

She

rohabiti:n

of

pacagraph

(b)

involves

two

acts:

first,

the

treatment

of

a

nquid

hazardous

waste;

and,

second,

ca’asing,

t~,reatertn’

or

allowing

a

residual

from

such

treatirent

th

be

‘an.

~l1ed.

Both

of

these

must

be

showr

to

e°t~bi’.sha

violation

(R,279,

348),

A

disposer

would

not

be

in

violation

of

paragraph

(b)

unless

he

were

Irvoived

in

the

treatment

of

tho

waste.

Paragraphs

b)(

),

°b)12)

and

(h)(3)

contain

standards

qhich

residuals

must

meet

to

be

iandfil~ed:

that

the

residual

i~

nonhazardous,

that

liquids

have

been

extracted;

or,

that

the

residual

has

been

soiioi±’ied,

The

firsc

standari

applies

when

materials

are

added

to

the

waste.

The

residual

may

be

landfiiled

if

it

is

no

longer

a

hazardous

waste

(R

27,

226,

229,

234,

258,

280,

305).

An

example

would

he

the

addition

of

alkali

to

neutralize

an

acidic

waste,

Note?

ho,c~ver, that

the

nonhazardous

liquid

residual

could

not

be

ploced

in

a

trench

permitted

to

receive

hazardous

waste

(5729

311),

The

seconi

eta 4ard

applies

when

the

liquid

is

extracted,

evaporated

or

otherwise

removed

from

the

waste.

The

residue

can

he

tandfilled

if

it

pa~ses the

paint

filter

test

(R..32,

48,

184,

225,

280,.

An

example

would

be

removal

of

liquids

t9~i24

---

from a sludge by centrifugation or

filtration,

The

sludge

could be landfilled 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

landfilied

if

it meets the paint filter

test

and

possesses a load-bearing capacity of at least two

tons per

square foot

(R,282).

For purposes of this discussion,

a waste which

meets

the paint filter and load~bearingcapacity tests

is said

to

be

“solidified”, as opposed to “absorbed”.

These

terms

are

not used in

the

rule,

Solidified wastes may

be

landfilled,

pursuant to a wastestream authorization, as non—liquids,

while absorbed wastes may be landfilled

only pursuant to

the technical feasibility

arid economic reasonableness

showing

of §22,6(c)

of the Act and §709,401(a),

Section 22.6(a)

of the Act prohibits

liquid hazardous

wastes and allows them to be landfilled on a showing,

in

part, that they cannot be “solidified”,

The paragraph

(b)(3)

test for residuals is the other side of

this:

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 may be reversed,

indirectly placing 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

(R.

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

(R.2l6,

242),

On

the other hand,

solidification processes are chemical

reactions comparable to the setting

of

portland

cement

(R.160,

216),

However,

it is not possible to differentiate

absorbents from solidifying agents by listing:

what

could

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).

~thatis 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,l59,

174,

216).

59425

---

One difference betwe~nabsoibed and solidified

waste is

the load—bearing capacity of tee residue,

A solidified

waste should have load-bearing strength,

It the residue

losec

~7olumeas a result of ~offpiession,the

result

could

be

that

liquid would be squeezed out (R.2l7,

238).

Further—

pore,

the

lad-bearing

capacity is an

indication

that

a

chemi~alreaction has taken place in the solidification

proce

s

(R.297).

A

residual

from

a

solidification

process

should shou a load—bearing capacity in excess of 25 pounds

per ~auare inch or approx~matelytwo tons per square foot

¶th’~ ioad~bearingcap cIty ~f tee waste is

also

important

to lrr&dfUl operations ard ma~rtenanceof cover,

Operations

are ~im~lifted

if wastes can ~ithstsr~~the pressures of

equipment moving over them

i’hen the ~ext lift is filled.

Waste Management testified that equ~pmenttypically

exerts

pressures of less than one t

per ~q’are foot or

14 pounds

per

square

inch

(R.282,

293,

296,

328).

After

the

landfill

is closed,

wastes support the cover;

excessive shifting

causes subsidence, resulting ‘~nentry of

water

through

the

cover

and generation of

leachite

(R.350

The ideal test of load-bearirg capacity is

a

compression

test’

a

sample

of

the residLa

~s r~oldedinto a block

which

is crushed in a press, with the pressure recorded directly.

This

is

the

way

concrete

is tested

(R.l87).

A

simpler test is a soil penetroneter,

which

consists

of

a steel shaft mounted on a spr ng with a slip ring to

~ec rd

tre

maximum compression of the spring.

The shaft is

pLsh d

zrto soil a certain depth

and the

pressure

on

the

shaft read from the slip ring,

Ifs

oil penetrometer does

riot actually measure the

ioad-ear~ngstrength of the material

However,

it is

related to load-bearing capacity

(R.294,

297j.

The

t~ier two

tests

for

~

reification are

leachability

?nd permeability,

These are related to the amount of contami—

sante wh~chwould be yielded if water percolated through the

waste

P~

162)

Leach~bility~e measured ~y the EP toxicity test

speci~-

tied ~n

/~‘

CFR 261 and

35

III. Adm, Code 721 124 or by

ASTM

~-~987

(R.l63,

187).

These

mer~sure the

concentrations

of

rentemin rite in water which result when a sample of the

ws~Le

‘~.

shaken with water, Recommended ranges are one to

0

mc~Irinking water standards

(R,163,

191).

Frimeahility is measured by the Corps of Engineers

heic. test ~R 153,

170).

It measures the

rate

at

---

which liquid passes through

unit area of a material,

The

recommended standard

is 5x10

cm/sec

(R.l64).

However,

solidified materials exhibit permeabilities which go

as high

as lOxiOb cm/sec

(R.l99),

The Board must actually have copies of these

procedures

in order to incorporate them by reference into

regulations

(56.02 of the Administrative Procedure Act).

The maximum acceptable leachability and permeability

are related,

If a material

is riot very permeable,

one could

accept a higher leachability,

arid vice—versa

(R.l64,

189,

198).

Indeed, it appears that the mass of contaminants

released per unit time should be proportional

to the product

of the leachability times the permeability.

This suggests

that one could express the leachability/permeability

criterion

as a graph on log-log paper of permeability versus leach—

ability.

The graph suggested by this record cou~dbe a

straight line connecting a permeability of lOxlO

and one

6

times the drinking water standard to a permeability of SxlO

and 100 times the drinking water standard (R,200).

The

Board solicits comment on this,

Solidified wastes require three to four weeks to set

before these properties are measured (R.l93,

299),

Testing

plans

should allow this time,

The Board has decided for purposes of the emergency

rules 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 sufficiently reliable for application

pending completion of this rulemaking, yet

it appears to be

simple and inexpensive, with readily available equipment.

The Board solicits comment on whether any residuals are

found under the emergency rules which pass the penetrometer

test, but which would fail the more detailed test outlined

above,

For

purposes

of

the

final rules, the Board also solicits

the following information:

1,

Copies of testing protocols for compressive

strength,

leachability

and permeability.

2.

Estimates of the costs and availability of equipment

to perform these tests,

3.

Suggested language recognizing the interrelation-

ship between permeability and

leachability.

---

—16—

To

5

‘mmarize,

the

proposal

conti 4ns

two

tests

$

the

paint

filter

test

and

load-bearing capacity test.

The

paint

filter

test

is

used

as

an

initsal

screen

to

determine

tether

a

waste from an

original

generator is a

liquid hazardous

waste

~R.172,

.80,

183,

347).

If

treatment is

performed,

other

than

removal of liquid,

Utc. hazardous residual can be

landilied if it passes

the

saint

filter

test and the load—

bearing

capacity test.

It should

be

noted that the

latter

test

does

not

apply

to wastes from

original

generators

to

pcrform

no treatment.

If

src,h waste

passes

the

paint

filter

test,

~

t

can

be

landfal led

e’rev tho-gh

it

has

no

load—

bearing

capacity.

However, one car

not

add

absorbents

to

get

the n°te

to

pass

the

paint

filter

Lest

without

becoming

subject to

the

load

test

(R.183).

Sectiot

729.311

Prohibition

of

Liquids

in

Hazardous

Waste

Landfills

The

present

state

of

the

law

appears

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

pronibited

landlilling

of

any

liquids

in

hazardous

waste

landfills.

Note

that

the

definition

of

landfill

in

5729.301

allows

for

the

possibility

of

hazardous

and

nonhazardous

landfills,

or

trenches,

on

the

facility

(R.42

351).

rdfillsng

of

nonhazaz iou

13 piids

in

hazardous

waste

Iandtala

annot

be

authorized

putsua

it

to

the

technical

and

economic

showing

of

522.6(c)

of

the

Act and

5709.401(a).

At

first

s.

ght

this

seems

to

regulate

nonhazardous

liquids

more

3tri

‘ly

than

hazardois

liquido.

dovever,

there

is

no

shortage

of

landfills

permitted

to

receive nonhazardous

estee.

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

n~is ir

40

CIa

264

and

265

(47

FR

8311,

February

25,

1982)

R

76).

The test

is

widely

employed although

it

has

apparently

vnsr

been

stated

in

rule

form.

Paint

filters

are

available

in

~st

paint

stores.

They

itt

aed

to

filter

paints

before

spray

painting.

A

paint

£

Ilter

is

made of

light

card

stock

cut

and

glued

to

form

a

“one

with

a

diameter

of

about

six

inches

across

the

top.

There

are

two

holes

near

the

bottom,

or

point,

of

the

cone.

“frsse

are

roughly

triangular,

with

the

points

and

top

side

59428

---

rounded.

The

holes

are

about

2 1/2 inches wide

and

1

3/4

inches

highs

There

is

a

hole

at the point about 1/2

inch

diameters

A cloth gauze

mesh

has

been

glued

across the

ho1es~

The mesh is a nominal

400 microns, although it is

very

irregular

(Ex~5)~

Irregularities

are

not

thought

to

be important to the test (R~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 (R~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

(R~89,l33)~

The test

is

based

on a

100 ml representative

sample

which

is

brought

to

room

temperature, thoroughly mixed and

poured into

the

filter

(R~76).

The sample

is

covered

with

a watch glass of an appropriate size.

The sample ~fails~

the test if one drop, or ~aore,of fluid drops from the

bottom of the filter within five minutes.

Some wastes may include finely divided

solid

material

which would move through the mesh.

The waste

~passes~ the

test if no fluid moves through

(R.76).

Section 729.321

Load~bearingCapacity 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

~ou1d 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 (R.343),

The Board solicits comments as to

whether a maximum compaction pressure should be

specified.

---

PART

709:

WASTESTREAM AUTHORIZATIONS

Section

709~I02

“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,

1,

A waste as defined in Part 721,

2.

V~ich 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

decade0

However,

it does not include a waste which

is

produced

only

one time

(R.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 spills

A wastestream is produced by a certain generator.

If

two persons ~produce an identical waste,

there are two waste—

streams.

A wastestream results from m certain production or

treatment process.

Waste constituents may be mixed as a

result of the process.

However, wastes from multiple processes

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

incinerable

wastestream, and then get authorization to

landfill. the

waste pursuant to §22,6(c) because the mixture could not be

incinerated,

j~

wastestream could also be defined in terms of the

disposer of the waste.

The result of this would be to

---

—19—

require separate

authorizations

for each waste recipient

from a generator.

The definition has

been written to allow

this,

but 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~spermit.

Increasing the generator~sdisposal

options should tend to

hold

disposal

costs

down.

Section 709,103

Continuation of Existing Authorizations

Generators of treatment residuals are deemed to have a

wastestrearn authorization if there is a supplemental waste—

stream

permit for the wastestream and the generator submits

an application within 60 days after the effective date of

the emergency rules.

The residual will also have to meet

one of the standards of §729.310(b):

it will have to be

non-hazardous, or the result of liquid removal or solidifi-

cation.

Wastestream authorizations are not deemed issued

for residuals which result from addition of absorbents, or

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

(R,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.

The Board solicits

comment

as

to

whether

the

supplemental

permit

requirement of SS807.210 and 807.310 should be modified

to allow generic approval of wastestreams for disposers.

The Board also

solicits

comment on the need for similar

procedures to

be

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

§22.6(c)

of

the

Act and §709.401(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

59-131

---

—20—

Section

22.6(a)

imposes

a

wastestrearn 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 §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

&oaorbent

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,

In

the

older

permit

programs

in

air and

water a pert~it

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

12ff) of the

Act.)

A person cannot

avoid

the

permit

require-

ment

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;

and,

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

(S39(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,

Paragraph

(f)

requires a detailed

analysis

of

a

sample

of

the

wastes

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

he filed by the

disposer pursuant to

Section

72~.302.

However,

this Section is

not

to be construed

as

prohibiting

the

transporter or

disposer

from implementing

the

generator~sor

treater~s

analysis

plan.

59-132

---

—21—

Pard~rarn

ar)

requires the applicant to

identify

one

or

more

facili~s to which it proposes to send the waste.

The

Agency ua~’idantifl specific facilities in

the

authorization,

or 13s1e

~t w~.~

a generic authorization.

I

Signatures

mhe 3t17 ~nalgenerator or treater of the

waste

must

actually ~igit~e

aoplication,

However, a

permitted

trans-

porter or di~po~er

of the waste can act as a

broker,

preparing

the appliat on for

the

generator.

This will allow the

wasteatream authorization to function more like the

supple-

mental oerriit syc.tem,

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,

put’~ingdownward pressure on costs,

Standard for Issuance

Paragraph

(a)

repeats the language of Section 22,6(c),

which sets forth the technical and economic showing the

generator nust make to

landfill

a

liquid

hazardous

waste,

or

an absorbed liquid,

The final

sentence

refers

to

prohibitions

or

limitatiors

under

Board

regulations.

This

could

include

prohibitions

in the RCRA

rules

adopted

pursuant

to

Section

22.4

of t~eAct,

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

Sectioi

22

6 b).

Para~r~p~h) requires issuance of an

authorization

for

a resil al

.

rests one of the standardF of §729,310(b):

that the te~iciual is not hazardous; that liquid has been

removed, o~,that it has been

solidified,

~aragra~n (c) allows the Agency to issue authorizations

in o~thersituations in which it

determines

that a wastestream

is not subjec.t

to prohibition.

For example,

if there is

doubf as

o whether a waste is a liquid,

a generator can

reque~taT aithorization,

If the Agency determines that the

waste is not a liquid,

it should

issue

an authorization to

that effect, re~therthan 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

ir fact hazardous.

This would provide a

more direct det~rminationof waste classification than the

variarce denied or dismissal mechanism employed in Safety—

kleen

v, IEPA

PCB 80—12,

37 PCB 363, February 7,

1980).

59-~133

---

—22—

Section 7O9.~Ol

Duration

Wastestream authorization will last for

one to three

years.

r~

upper

limit of three years will assure

expiration

of ea~Lyauth~rizationsduring

1987, after

which

review

pursuant to Secti.on 39(h)

of the Act will be required.

General Conditions

e

‘ion ~rplements the second sentence of

Section

22.6(c)

~:

t~.c1~ctwhich contains general authority for

coriditi~ons

i~

a~

horizations.

Section

709 520

Authorized Methods of Disposal

The authorized methods of disposal are the heart of

the wastestream authorization.

The Agency may list

specific

landfills,

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

§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.

The Board solicits

comment

on what additonal situations the Agency should require the

use o~a~s

run ~

Modification

The genorator 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 s~that

it

will have the

opportunity

to

file

an applicati~ndemonstrating compliance with the

new

provi—

ci

on~

CONCLUS ION

This Opinion supports the Board~sOrder of June 29,

1984.

It

erves as a Final Opinion for the

emergency

rules

in H83

281, and as a Proposed Opinion for the

first

notice

propo~d~’in R83~283,

Additional hearings will be held, and

the r3cord will remain open for written

comments

on

the

proposal for 45 days after publication in the Illinois

Register.

59434

---

—23—

I,

Dorothy

ri,

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Opinion was

adopted on

the

~

day of

1984 by a

vote

of

_______

Illinois Pollution Control Board

58-135