ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 3, 1998
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF RECYCLE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR ADJUSTED
STANDARD UNDER 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
720.131(c)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AS 97-9
(Adjusted Standard - RCRA)
ROBERT G. RIFFNER OF PANCRATZ, RIFFNER, & SCOTT APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF PETITIONER; and
DONALD L. GIMBEL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by K.M. Hennessey):
Recycle Technologies, Inc. (RTI) is an automotive antifreeze recycler whose customers
include car dealerships and auto repair shops. RTI recycles used antifreeze by filtering it and
placing additives in the filtered material. Currently, RTI does all of its recycling at its
customers’ facilities.
RTI would like to continue to filter used antifreeze at its customers’ facilities, but it
wishes to begin taking the filtered material to a centralized location where it would undergo
additional processing before being returned to customers. RTI has filed a petition under a
provision of the Board’s regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c), that allows the Board to
determine that certain materials are not solid wastes if they meet certain criteria. RTI asserts
that the filtered used antifreeze meets these criteria and therefore asks that the Board determine
that the filtered used antifreeze is not a solid waste. The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) has commented on RTI’s petition, but has not recommended that the Board
grant or deny the petition.
The Board finds that RTI has established that the filtered used antifreeze is not a solid
waste. The Board therefore grants RTI’s petition for an adjusted standard.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Overview
The petition before the Board is RTI’s amended petition, which RTI filed on September
11, 1997. On September 18, 1997, the Board accepted this matter for hearing and on October
16, 1997, IEPA filed a response to the amended petition. In that response, IEPA comments
on the petition, but does not recommend that the Board grant or deny RTI’s request for an
adjusted standard.
2
Hearing Officer Amy L. Jackson held a hearing on the adjusted standard petition on
April 1, 1998. RTI presented four witnesses, and 21 exhibits were entered into the record for
RTI. IEPA participated at hearing but offered no testimony or exhibits.
1
RTI filed a
posthearing brief on May 15, 1997, and IEPA filed a response brief on May 28, 1997.
Other Matters
On May 11, 1998, Mr. Bert Grout, President of On-Site Coolant Antifreeze Recycling,
filed a letter with the Board. Mr. Grout explains that he is a competitor of RTI and asserts
that Mr. Gary Gunderson, owner of RTI, presented false testimony in this matter. Mr. Grout
alleges that RTI’s centralized recycling process is not merely proposed, but has been in
operation for at least six months and that RTI has conducted this operation without proper
permitting or siting.
On June 18, 1998, RTI filed a motion to file
instanter
a response to Mr. Grout’s letter.
Attached to the motion is a sworn affidavit of Mr. Gunderson. No one filed an objection to
the motion. The motion is granted.
In his affidavit, Mr. Gunderson disputes Mr. Grout’s allegations and asserts that RTI is
not accepting waste antifreeze at its centralized facility. In addition, Mr. Gunderson states that
RTI does not own all of the equipment necessary to fully operate the centralized recycling
system. Mr. Grout filed another letter on July 27, 1998, in which he questions and disputes
Mr. Gunderson’s affidavit.
The Board first notes that Mr. Grout’s allegations do not affect the question presently
before the Board—that is, whether the filtered used antifreeze should not be considered a solid
waste. Whether RTI may be violating the law is an enforcement question for IEPA and the
Office of the Illinois Attorney General or the State’s Attorney. The Board also notes that
citizens may bring enforcement actions before the Board. See 415 ILCS 5/31(d) (1996); 35
Ill. Adm. Code 103.120.
In addition, while the Board may consider written public comments in an adjusted
standard proceeding, it cannot find, on the basis of Mr. Grout’s allegations, that Mr.
Gunderson testified falsely. Mr. Gunderson testified under oath and was subject to cross-
examination. He also provided a sworn affidavit disputing Mr. Grout’s allegations. In
addition, the hearing officer present to observe Mr. Gunderson’s testimony found him to be a
credible witness. For these reasons, the Board has considered Mr. Gunderson’s testimony in
determining whether to grant RTI an adjusted standard.
1
The transcript of the hearing is cited as “Tr. at _.” Hearing exhibits are cited as “Exh. _.”
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
RTI’s Current Operations
RTI recycles automotive antifreeze. RTI presently serves the Chicago area, with
customers as far north as Waukegan, as far south as [South] Holland, and as far west as St.
Charles. Its 514 active customers include car dealerships and auto repair shops. Tr. at 50-54,
69-70; Exh. 9, 10.
RTI’s customers collect used antifreeze from vehicles in tanks or drums. Tr. at 45-46,
48-49, 89-90. RTI’s customers fill out a registration statement in which they agree to store
their used antifreeze “in a clean, safe manner” and to “take reasonable care in keeping
recycled storage drums free of contamination (oil, rain water, etc.).” Tr. at 50-51; Exh. 8.
RTI uses a truck to transport its recycling equipment to its customers’ facilities and
does all of its work at its customers’ facilities. Tr. 35-36, 55-60; Exh. 2A-C. RTI uses a
pump and suction hose to transfer used antifreeze from the customer’s receptacle to its
recycling equipment. Tr. at 57. RTI handles used antifreeze carefully; one customer testified
that RTI “never makes a mess.” Tr. at 88.
Used antifreeze may contain contaminants such as rust sediment and oil. Tr. at 23, 59,
72-73; Exh. 2A. RTI removes these contaminants through a filtering process. RTI first puts
the unfiltered used antifreeze through a 20 micron filter to remove larger particles and avoid
clogging the smaller filter. RTI then puts that material through a filter no larger than 5
microns; it usually uses a one micron filter. Through this process, RTI removes many of the
contaminants in the used antifreeze. Tr. at 23-24, 27, 35-36, 38, 55-57, 59-60, 68-69, 72-73;
Exh. 2B-C, 11.
RTI then places additives (dyes and inhibitors) in the filtered material to create the
recycled antifreeze product for the customer. Inhibitors are chemicals that prevent corrosion
within vehicles. Tr. 16, 23, 35-36, 41, 55-60; Exh. 2A-C, 7.
RTI’s customers use or sell the recycled antifreeze as a substitute for new antifreeze.
Tr. at 47-48, 94-95. Because antifreeze is lost from leaks and spills, the typical customer
generates enough used antifreeze to replace approximately 50% of their new antifreeze
purchases. Most of RTI’s customers want more recycled used antifreeze; however, RTI can
only provide customers quantities of product equal to the quantities of filtered used antifreeze
that RTI collects at their sites. Tr. at 79-80. It costs $0.50 to $1.00 per gallon to properly
dispose of used antifreeze. Tr. at 62-63.
RTI’s Proposed Operations
RTI would like to continue to filter used antifreeze at its customers’ facilities. In lieu
of completing the recycling process at its customers’ facilities, however, RTI now proposes
4
trucking the filtered material to a centralized location. The centralized facility is in Wood
Dale, Illinois. RTI would further process the filtered material at its centralized location before
returning it to customers. Tr. at 60-61, 70, 72, 74-75.
RTI proposes having two lines of three tanks each at its centralized location. The tanks
are made of stainless steel and each has a capacity of 1,500 gallons. The first tank in the line
would receive the filtered used antifreeze from RTI’s truck. Tr. at 82-83.
From there, RTI would pump the material into the second tank, which would contain a
reverse osmosis machine to process the filtered used antifreeze. Tr. at 82-83. Reverse
osmosis is a process that uses pressure, ionic charge, and a membrane to remove remaining
contaminants and residual additives. The filtration that RTI puts the used antifreeze through
before it enters the reverse osmosis system will enhance the reverse osmosis process. Tr. at
28-30, 60-62, 70, 81; Exh. 3A-B, 7. The material that has been through reverse osmosis is a
clear mixture of ethylene glycol and water, which the third tank receives. Tr. at 28-30, 61-62,
81, 83-84; Exh. 3B.
In the third tank, RTI would add dyes and inhibitors based on customer specifications.
The third tank would contain a blade that more thoroughly mixes the new additives than does
RTI’s current process. Tr. at 61-62, 71, 83-84; Exh. 3C. The final product cannot be
differentiated from a mixture of new antifreeze and water and is preferable to RTI’s current
recycled product. Tr. at 28-30, 61-62, 66-69, 81; Exh. 2C, 3C, 7, 15, 16.
Initially, RTI would have only one reverse osmosis machine,
i.e.
, only one of the two
lines will be fully operational. The second line of three tanks will be empty and used as a
backup to receive antifreeze if necessary. Eventually, RTI would like to acquire a second
reverse osmosis machine. Tr. at 82-83. RTI’s facility would have secondary containment to
contain any spills. Tr. at 83.
Under the proposed process, the customer would not necessarily receive its own
recycled used antifreeze. RTI would deliver recycled antifreeze to a customer each time it
picked up that customer’s used antifreeze for processing. The quantity of recycled antifreeze
that the customer receives would equal the quantity of filtered used antifreeze that RTI
collected from that customer on RTI’s prior visit. Tr. at 71, 79-80, 84-85.
RTI wants to use reverse osmosis to make its product more cosmetically appealing and
to allow it to create more types of antifreeze (
e.g.
, not only the traditional green colored
antifreeze with its inorganic inhibitors, but also orange colored antifreeze with organic
inhibitors, which is becoming more popular in the market). Tr. at 16-18, 61-62, 70.
Factors Affecting the End Market for Filtered Used Antifreeze
5
Mr. Edward Eaton, who is a chemical engineer with extensive experience in the
antifreeze recycling industry,
2
confirmed that there is a large market for used antifreeze that
has been filtered but not processed further. Filtered used antifreeze sells for $1.50 to $2.50
per gallon. Tr. at 31-32, 38-42.
Filtered used antifreeze is chemically similar to new antifreeze; it consists primarily of
ethylene glycol (the base substance of antifreeze) and water in approximately equal
percentages. It also contains residual dyes and inhibitors. Tr. at 18, 27, 41, 59-60, 68-69;
Exh. 2B, 7. Typically, there are enough residual inhibitors in the filtered used antifreeze for it
to function properly. Tr. at 41 (majority of inhibitors do not deplete and are functional for
100,000 miles or five years, whichever comes first). One advantage of this product is that,
unlike new antifreeze, it need not be mixed with water before it is used (
i.e.
, it is ready to
use).
3
Tr. 18, 27, 38-42.
In addition, RTI’s filtration process is similar to a filtration system that has been
approved by General Motors for some of its vehicles and that meets American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards when supplemental inhibitors are added. Tr. 13-14,
26, 35-38, 55-57, 78; Exh. 4, 11. RTI has its current recycled product tested by different
laboratories periodically to ensure that it meets specifications. Tr. at 75-76. RTI introduced
copies of some of these laboratory test results from the past several years. Exh. 18. RTI has
had 30 to 40 tests conducted and none of the test results showed the product to be
unacceptable. Tr. at 75-76, 78; Exh. 20.
In addition, as noted above, the proposed additional processing (
i.e.
, reverse osmosis)
should make RTI’s product more attractive to customers (
i.e.
, it is clearer and RTI can offer
customers more types of antifreeze, including the organic orange variety that is becoming
more popular in the market) than it is at present. Also as discussed above, the final product
that has been through reverse osmosis will be indistinguishable from a mixture of new
antifreeze and water. Many antifreeze recycling companies across the country that “wanted to
become larger and have the best product” have switched from the filtration method to reverse
osmosis. Tr. at 77; Exh. 19. The demand for recycled antifreeze that has undergone reverse
osmosis will, in turn, ensure a market for filtered used antifreeze. Furthermore, as noted
above, RTI will return recycled product to each customer in a quantity equal to the quantity of
filtered used antifreeze that RTI collected from the customer.
Two of RTI’s customers confirmed the demand for final product that has undergone
reverse osmosis. Mr. Ronald Rabinowitz, a professional automotive mechanic since 1978 and
the owner of an auto repair shop in Itasca, Illinois, has been a customer of RTI’s since 1995.
Tr. at 44-46. Mr. Rabinowitz sees vehicles that are out of or low on antifreeze or need their
antifreeze replaced on a daily basis. Tr. at 45-46. New antifreeze costs Mr. Rabinowitz
$4.50 per gallon; RTI’s recycled product costs approximately half that amount. Mr.
Rabinowitz would like to purchase more recycled antifreeze from RTI because it would lower
2
See
Tr. at 8-14; Exh. 7.
3
Pure ethylene glycol freezes at nine degrees above zero Fahrenheit, while filtered used
antifreeze has a freezing point of minus 34 degrees Fahrenheit. Tr. 40-41.
6
his costs. Tr. at 47-48. Mr. Rabinowitz preferred a sample of used antifreeze that had been
through reverse osmosis to RTI’s current recycled product because it looked cleaner and was
more presentable to his customers. Tr. at 48; Exh. 2C, 3C.
Another RTI customer, Mr. Edward Stahl, owns two Goodyear dealerships. Tr. at 86.
He has owned a facility in Carol Stream, Illinois, for 13 years and a facility in Algonquin,
Illinois, for six years. Tr. at 87. RTI has been recycling used antifreeze at both of Mr.
Stahl’s locations for two to three years. Tr. at 87-88. Automotive cooling system problems
and general maintenance requiring antifreeze are a major part of Mr. Stahl’s business. Tr. at
88-89.
Before RTI began recycling Mr. Stahl’s used antifreeze, he had it hauled away for
disposal. It is more economical for him to recycle his antifreeze than to dispose of it off-site.
Tr. at 89-90. New antifreeze costs Mr. Stahl $2.89 to $4.79 per gallon and he pays less than
$2 per gallon for RTI’s recycled antifreeze. Tr. at 90-91. Mr. Stahl would like to buy more
recycled antifreeze because it is cheaper. Mr. Stahl also found the sample of antifreeze treated
by reverse osmosis more attractive than RTI’s current recycled product. Tr. at 94-96.
RTI is aware of at least six competitors in the Chicago area who recycle antifreeze at
customer sites. None of them use reverse osmosis. Tr. at 73-74. The reverse osmosis
machine will be an additional cost to RTI, but RTI believes these costs will be offset. For
example, RTI’s drivers will spend less time at customers’ sites because they will not be adding
dyes and inhibitors and testing to ensure the proper levels of chemicals are present. This will
enable RTI to do more pickups and take advantage of economies of scale. Tr. at 70-71.
DISCUSSION
Legal Framework
This proceeding concerns the used antifreeze after RTI has filtered it at the customer’s
site. RTI asks the Board to determine that the filtered used antifreeze is not a “solid waste.”
RTI seeks this determination under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c). That provision provides
standards and criteria for the Board to use in determining whether certain materials that would
otherwise be considered solid wastes are not solid wastes. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.130(c).
Initially, we note that before this case, the Board had issued only one final opinion and
order interpreting the solid waste determination provision of Section 720.131(c). See Petition
of Chemetco, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(a) and (c)
(March 19, 1998), AS 97-2. We also note that the Board regulations at issue are substantively
identical to regulations that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
promulgated under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901
et seq.
(RCRA). Accordingly, the
Board has referred to USEPA preamble language interpreting the federal counterpart to the
Board regulations at issue.
7
Section 720.131(c) reads in part as follows:
c) The Board will determine that those materials that have been reclaimed
but must be reclaimed further before recovery is completed are not solid
wastes if, after initial reclamation, the resulting material is commodity-
like (even though it is not yet a commercial product, and has to be
reclaimed further). . . . 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c).
Certain materials become “solid wastes” if they are to be “recycled.” As USEPA
states, to “determine if a secondary material is a RCRA solid waste when recycled, one must
examine both the material and the recycling activity involved.” 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 619 (Jan.
4, 1985). Generally, the Board considers three factors: the category of the secondary
material (
e.g.
, “by-product,” “sludge,” or “spent material”); whether the material is an
unlisted “characteristic” hazardous waste or a “listed” hazardous waste; and which recycling
activity is involved. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 721.102(c) and 721.Appendix Z. These factors,
when considered together, determine whether and how a material becomes a solid waste.
As noted, one of the categories of secondary materials is “spent material.” A “spent
material” is:
any material that has been used and as a result of contamination can no longer
serve the purpose for which it was produced without processing. 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 721.101(c)(1).
Generally, a solid waste is a hazardous waste if it exhibits a “characteristic” of
hazardous waste (
i.e.
, it is toxic, corrosive, ignitable, or reactive) or if it is “listed” as
hazardous waste (
e.g.
, it comes from a specific type of process, such as electroplating). See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 721.103, 721, Subparts C and D. The definition of “solid waste” applies
only to materials that are also “hazardous waste” for purposes of the regulations implementing
Subtitle C of RCRA. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 721.101(b)(1). As USEPA explains, “[a]lthough
hazardous wastes are a subset of solid wastes under RCRA, [USEPA’s] regulatory authority
under Subtitle C applies only to hazardous wastes. Since the present regulations apply only to
Subtitle C, we have chosen to make the definition of solid waste applicable to those materials
that also are hazardous wastes.” 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 616, n. 3 (Jan. 4, 1985).
The Board notes that used automotive antifreeze is not a listed hazardous waste. The
Board also notes that it is not in a position to determine if the used antifreeze generated by
RTI’s many customers exhibits any characteristics of hazardous waste. However, if spent
materials are listed or characteristic, they are solid wastes if they are to be recycled by
reclamation.
A material is “reclaimed” if it is:
8
processed to recover a usable product, or if it is regenerated. Examples are
recovery of lead values from spent batteries and regeneration of spent solvents.
35 Ill. Adm. Code 721.101(c)(4).
USEPA explains that materials are reclaimed if “material values . . . are recovered as an end-
product of a process” or if they are “processed to remove contaminants in a way that restores
them to their usable original condition.” 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 633 (Jan. 4, 1985).
The Board finds that the used automotive antifreeze to be filtered by RTI, if a
characteristic hazardous waste, is a “solid waste” because it is a “spent material” being
“reclaimed.” See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 721.102(c)(3) and 721.Appendix Z.
Availability of Section 720.131(c)
To be eligible for a nonsolid waste determination under Section 720.131(c), the
material must have been initially reclaimed but require further reclaiming before recovery is
completed. A waste being reclaimed remains a waste until reclamation is completed. A
nonsolid waste determination under Section 720.131(c) applies only
to wastes after they have
been initially reclaimed. See 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 620, 633-634, 655 (Jan. 4, 1985). In
discussing the federal counterpart to Section 720.131(c), USEPA explains that the provision is
designed to address those situations where “the initial reclamation step is so substantial that the
resulting material is more commodity-like than waste-like even though no end-product has
been recovered.” 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 655 (Jan. 4, 1985).
The Board finds that Section 720.131(c) is available in this case because once the used
antifreeze has gone through RTI’s two-step filtration, it has been initially reclaimed. Below,
the Board will address the evidence on the Section 720.131(c) factors to determine if the
initially reclaimed material (
i.e.
, the filtered used antifreeze) is commodity-like and thus not a
solid waste.
Section 720.131(c) Factors
The Board must determine whether the initially reclaimed material (
i.e.
, the filtered
used antifreeze) is commodity-like based on the Section 720.131(c) factors. Those factors read
as follows:
1) The degree of processing the material has undergone and the degree of
further processing that is required;
2) The value of the material after it has been reclaimed;
3) The degree to which the reclaimed material is like an analogous raw
material;
9
4) The extent to which an end market for the reclaimed material is
guaranteed;
5) The extent to which the reclaimed material is handled to minimize loss;
and
6) Other relevant factors. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c).
The Board finds that the filtered used antifreeze is commodity-like based on these factors. The
Board addresses these factors in turn.
The Degree of Processing the Material has Undergone and the Degree of Further Processing
That is Required
As USEPA states, the “more substantial the initial processing, the more likely the
resulting material is to be commodity-like.” 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 655 (Jan. 4, 1985). By using
two filters, RTI removes many of the contaminants in used antifreeze. RTI’s filtration process
is similar to a filtration system that has been approved by General Motors and ASTM.
Chemically, the filtered used antifreeze is similar to new antifreeze. It contains
residual inhibitors and may be used as antifreeze without any further processing. As Mr.
Eaton explained, filtered used antifreeze is not merely commodity-like, but a commodity. In
fact, there is a large market for filtered used antifreeze.
The filtration that RTI puts used antifreeze through before the used antifreeze enters the
reverse osmosis system will enhance the reverse osmosis process. The additional processing
by reverse osmosis will remove remaining contaminants and residual additives from the
filtered used antifreeze. Reverse osmosis will allow RTI to make a more cosmetically
appealing final product than RTI’s current recycled product. It will also give RTI greater
flexibility to create other types of antifreeze to take advantage of market trends.
The Board finds that while the proposed processing of the used antifreeze after it has
been filtered is important, the filtration is a substantial processing step.
The Value of the Material After It Has Been Reclaimed
USEPA states that “the more valuable a material is after initial processing, the more
likely it is to be commodity-like.” 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 655 (Jan. 4, 1985). As noted above,
there is a large market for filtered used antifreeze without further processing. It sells for
$1.50 to $2.50 per gallon. These prices are comparable to the prices paid by Mr. Rabinowitz
and Mr. Stahl for RTI’s current recycled product (
i.e.
, the filtered use antifreeze with dyes
and inhibitors added by RTI). The Board finds that the initially reclaimed material has
significant value.
The Degree To Which the Reclaimed Material is Like an Analogous Raw Material
10
According to USEPA, “[i]f the initially-reclaimed material can substitute for a virgin
material, . . . it is more likely to be commodity-like.” 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 655 (Jan. 4, 1985).
The raw material in antifreeze is ethylene glycol. To make new antifreeze, dyes and inhibitors
are added to ethylene glycol. Filtered used antifreeze contains ethylene glycol, water, and
residual dyes and inhibitors. Filtered used antifreeze can be used as antifreeze without any
further processing.
The Board finds that the filtered used antifreeze contains the same raw material as new
antifreeze, and can be substituted for new antifreeze.
The Extent To Which an End Market for the Reclaimed Material is Guaranteed
In discussing this factor, USEPA states:
If the [petitioner] can show that there is an existing and guaranteed end market
for the initially-reclaimed material (for instance, value, traditional usage or
contractual arrangements), the material is more likely to be commodity-like. 50
Fed. Reg. 614, 655 (Jan. 4, 1985).
As stated above, there is a large market for filtered used antifreeze that has not
undergone any further processing. Moreover, RTI will return recycled product to each
customer in a quantity equal to the quantity of filtered used antifreeze that RTI collected from
the customer.
In addition, as discussed, RTI’s filtration process is similar to a filtration system that
General Motors and ASTM have approved. RTI’s current recycled product has been tested
numerous times and shown to be within acceptable parameters for use as antifreeze. Reverse
osmosis should make RTI’s product more attractive to customers. RTI will be able to make a
clearer product and create more types of antifreeze, including the variety with organic
inhibitors that is becoming more popular in the market. The product will be indistinguishable
from a mixture of new antifreeze and water. Companies in the antifreeze recycling industry
elsewhere in the country have switched from filtration to reverse osmosis so they can become
larger and improve their final product.
RTI currently has 514 active customers, two of whom testified. They confirmed that
there is a constant need for antifreeze in their auto repair and maintenance businesses. They
want more recycled antifreeze because it would reduce their costs, and most of RTI’s
customers want more recycled used antifreeze. The RTI customers who testified also
preferred the appearance of used antifreeze that had been through reverse osmosis to RTI’s
current recycled product. RTI’s competitors in the Chicago area use filtration, not reverse
osmosis.
The Board finds that there is an end market for the filtered used antifreeze.
11
The Extent To Which the Reclaimed Material is Handled to Minimize Loss
USEPA states that the “more carefully a material is handled, the more it is commodity-
like.” 50 Fed. Reg. 614, 655 (Jan. 4, 1985). Currently, only RTI handles the filtered used
antifreeze. This will not change under RTI’s proposal. RTI uses a pump and suction hose to
remove used antifreeze from the customer’s receptacle to RTI’s filters. RTI handles used
antifreeze so that it does not spill.
Once filtered at the customer’s site, the material would be trucked by RTI to its
centralized location. Once at this facility, RTI would pump the filtered used antifreeze into the
stainless steel receiving tank. The tank lines will have secondary containment. Inactive tanks
may be used to accept material if necessary.
The Board finds that RTI handles the initially reclaimed material so as to minimize loss
and will continue to do so under its proposal. The Board notes that RTI has a financial
incentive not to lose the filtered used antifreeze: if it loses material, it has less to sell back to
customers.
Other Relevant Factors
RTI’s clients fill out a registration statement in which they agree to store their used
antifreeze so as to avoid contaminating it. The Board finds that this factor also militates
toward finding that the filtered used antifreeze is commodity-like.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that RTI has established, under Section 720.131(c), that the filtered
used antifreeze is commodity-like. Accordingly, the Board finds that the material is not a
solid waste and grants RTI’s petition for an adjusted standard.
The Board emphasizes that this nonsolid waste determination applies only to used
antifreeze once it has been initially reclaimed by RTI at the customer’s site,
i.e.
, it applies
only after the material has been through RTI’s two-step filtration process of at least one 20
micron filter and a five micron or less filter. In addition, this nonsolid waste determination
applies only to the filtered used antifreeze that is to be further processed by RTI through
reverse osmosis at its centralized facility for return to a customer in a quantity equal to the
quantity of filtered used automotive antifreeze that RTI collected at the customer’s facility.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in this
matter.
ORDER
1.
The Board finds that the filtered used automotive antifreeze is not a solid waste
and grants RTI an adjusted standard under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c).
12
2. The adjusted standard applies only to used automotive antifreeze after RTI has
initially reclaimed it through RTI’s two-step filtration process of at least one 20
micron filter and a five micron or less filter at the customer’s site where the
used automotive antifreeze was generated. In addition, the adjusted standard
applies only to such filtered used automotive antifreeze that is to be further
processed by RTI through reverse osmosis at its Wood Dale, Illinois facility for
return to a customer in a quantity equal to the quantity of filtered used
automotive antifreeze that RTI collected at the customer’s facility.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/41 (1996)) provides for
the appeal of final Board orders to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days of service of this
order. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes such filing requirements. See 172 Ill. 2d
R. 335; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
the above opinion and order was adopted on the 3rd day of September 1998 by a vote of 7-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
