ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 25, 1984

In

the matter of:

)

PROHIBITION oN L~NDFILLING

)

R81-25

OF

HALOGENATED SOLVENTS

(CBE)

FINAL ORDER.

ADOPTED RULE

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by 5. Anderson):

On September 23, 1981 Citizens for a Better Environment

(CBE)

an Illinois not-for-profit corporation,

filed a pro-

posal for adoption of a rule prohibiting disposal of chlori-

nated solvents at landfill sites.

The proposal was authorized

for hearing and appeared in the Environmental Register on

November

6,

1981.

On February

3, 1982 CBE amended the

proposal to conform with codification requirements and to

state the relationship with the newly adopted RCRA rules.

The amended proposal was for adoption of 35 Iii.

Adm. Code

729,~ a separate Part prohibiting landfilling of hazardous

wastes

in RCRA or any other facilities.

The Board held two merit hearings on the proposal as

follows:

1.

February 23,

1982

Springfield

2.

March

8,

1982

Chicago

Following the second hearing the matter was referred to

the Department of Energy and Natural Resources

(DENR)

for

preparation of an economic impact study:

“The Economic

Impact of Proposed Regulation R81-25:

Prohibition of Chlori-

nated Solvents

in Sanitary Landfills,”

DENR Doc. No.

83/08

(Exhibit 2).

Two

economic impact hearings were held:

3.

March 31, 1983

Urbana

4,

April 15,

1983

Chicago

The Board received six public comments during and after

the merit and economic impact hearings:

PCi

Monsanto Chemical Intermediates, February 19, 1982

PC2

Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, March

8, 1982

PC3

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, March

26,

1982

The Board wishes to express its appreciation to Morton F.

Dorothy for his great assistance in developing this regula-

tion and for acting as Hearing Officer.

The Board also

remembers with appreciation and a sense of loss the late

Board Member Donald B. Anderson, who acted as coordinating

Board Member during

a major portion of these proceedings.

60-381

---

—2—

PC4

Caterpillar Tractor Company, April 21,

1983

PC5

Illinois

State

Fabricare Association, Azril 28, 1983

PC6

Citizens for a Better Environment, May 2,

1983

On May 3, 1983 the Board adopted a first notice Order

and ~ Proposed Opinion.

The proposal appeared at 7 Iii.

Reg.

6276, May 20,

1983.

The comment period was extended on

July 14,

1983.

Following the First Notice, the Board received

the

following

public

comments:

PC7

Halogenated Cleaning Solvents Association

PC8

E.

I. Dupont de Nemours and Company

PC9

National Solid Wastes Management Association

PC1O

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

PCI1

Caterpillar Tractor Company

PCI2

Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.

PC13

Citizens for a Better Environment

PC14

National Solid Wastes Management Association

PC1S

Illinois Manufacturers’ Association

PC16

National Solid Wastes Management Association

PC17

Waste Management of Illinois

PC18

Administrative Code Unit

pC19

Waste Management,

Inc.

On July 5,

1983 Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.,

(Waste Management)

filed

a motion to reopen for the purpose

of presenting testimony concerning trace levels and concen-

tration exemptions.

On August 18,

1983 the Board granted

Waste Management~smotion.

Four hearings were held as

follows:

5,

October

7,

1983

Chicago

6.

October

13,

1983

Chicago

7.

October

14,

1983

Chicago

8.

October 24,

1983

Chicago

At the conclusion of the hearings CBE and Waste Manage-

ment waived their right to comment under Section 102.163,

with the understanding that the Board would enter some form

of revised proposal and allow comment prior to Second Notice.

Accordingly, the Board supplanted the Proposed Opinion and

Order of May

3, 1983 by adopting, on March

8,

1984,

a

Second Proposed Opinion and a Second First Notice Order.

The March

8 proposal appeared at

8 Ill.

Reg.

4425, April

6,

1984.

On May

21,

1984 the Board received a comment from

Waste Management of Illinois Inc.

(PC2O).

The Board has

received no other comment,

and the public comment period has

expired.

On June 29,

1984 the Board adopted emergency rules

implementing the ban on landfilling of liquid hazardous

waste (R83—28A).

Those rules overlap some of the issues

in

60-382

---

this Docket.

The Board incorporates the record in R83—28A

into this proceeding.

The second notice period expired on October

18, 1984,

with no objection.

The Board has modified the proposal in

this Docket in response to public comment and JCAR staff

comment, and in order to make this proposal consistent with

the emergency rules adopted in R83-28A.

The Board notes that

it has received no comments from the Small Business Office of

the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs.

The

second notice Opinion and Order of August 22,

1984 are

superseded by this Opinion and Order.

Summary of Major Changes

The following is a brief summary of the major differences

between the first First Notice Order and the Final Order:

1.

The applicability of the entire Part has been

restricted to hazardous waste as defined in Part 721

(Section 729.100)

2.

Procedural Sections have been dropped in favor of

the Part 709 procedures adopted in R83-28

(Section

729.205).

3.

The prohibition on landfilling diluted materials

has been deleted, although the dilution itself

would still be prohibited (S729.201).

4.

Definitions

of terms have been added (S729.220).

5.

Halogenated “compounds” have been distinguished

from halogenated “solvents”, with the latter term

reserved for non—aqueous liquid phases containing

halogenated compounds

(SS729.22l and 729.222).

6.

Total organic halogen content has been introduced

as the primary method for judging the presence of

halogenated compounds

(S729.222).

7.

Halogenated compounds are presumed to reside

preferentially in organic phases

(S729.224).

8.

The threshold level for halogenated compounds in

organic phases has been changed from

1 ppm to

about 1

(S729.240).

9.

The threshold level for aqueous solutions has been

increased from 100 ppm to about 1.

10.

Measurement of concentrations in solids has been

shifted from the bulk waste to any organic phase,

and the ban has been deferred to July 1,

1986.

60-383

---

—4—

11.

The

small quantity rule has been changed from

1 kg/mo. of halogenated compounds to the level

which

would trigger the preparation of a manifest

pursuant to Part 722 or Part 809.

Legislative History

Section 22(g)

of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

allows

the Board to adopt requirements to prohibit the

disposal

of

certain hazardous wastes in sanitary landfills.

This was added by P.A.

81—1484, effective September 18,

1980,

and renumbered by P.A.

83-425.

Section 39(h)

of the Act provides that after January

1,

1987 a hazardous wastestream may not be deposited in a

permitted hazardous waste

site unless specific authorization

is obtained

from

the Agency by the generator and disposal

site

owner,

This

was added as Section 39(f)

of P.A.

82—572,

effective July

1,

1983.

Section 22,6 of the Act provides that no person shall

dispose of any liquid hazardous waste in any landfill without

specific authorization by the Agency,

and authorizes Board

regulations which prohibit or set limitations on the type,

amount and form of liquid hazardous wastes which may be

disposed of in landfills.

This was added by P.A.

83-1078,

effective January

5,

1984.

On June 29,

1984 the Board

adopted emergency rules

in R83—28A, effective July

5,

1984.

RCPA

On February 4,

1982 the Board adopted regulations to

allow Illinois to be delegated Phase

I

RCRA authority under

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(42 U.S.C.

§6901)

(RSl—22,

6 111.

Reg.

4828, April 23,

1982).

Phase

I autho-

rization was received on May

17, 1982

(47 Fed. Reg.

21043).

The Phase

I rules were amended on January 13,

1983

(R82-18,

7 Iii.

Reg,

2518, March

4,

1983).

On July 26,

1983 the

Board adopted rules to allow Illinois to obtain final autho-

rization

(R82—19,

7 Ill,

Reg.

14015, October 28,

1983).

These were amended in R83-24 and R83-39, December 15,

1983.

Part

729 deals primarily with hazardous waste disposal.

it has therefore been placed, with the

RCRA

operating require-

ments,

in

Subchapter

c

of

Chapter

I,

Subtitle

G.

Section 22.4(b)

of the Act allows the Board to adopt

regulations relating to a State hazardous waste management

program

that

are not inconsistent with and at least as

stringent as the

RCRA

Act and regulations,

in accordance

with

the

procedures

of

Title

VII

of

the

Act

and

Section

5

of

60-384

---

—5—

the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA).

The Board has

followed and will follow these procedures in this rule-

making.

The

Board finds that Part 729

is not inconsistent

with and at

least

as stringent as the

RCRA

Act and rules.

Section 22,4(b) will be added to the main authority note in

the

proposed

rules,

RELATIONSHIP

TO OTHER LANDFILLING RESTRICTIONS

Sections 724,414 and 725.414 contain special require-

ments for placement of liquid waste or waste containing free

liquid in a landfill.

The wording is identical, but Section

724,414 applies to permitted landfills, while Section 725.414

applies to interim status

landfills,

These Sections allow

the

landfilling of bulk liquids in landfills with liners and

a leachate collection and removal system meeting the require-

ments 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.

Containerized

liquids

are

prohibited

from all

RCRA

landfills unless “free-standing liquid” has

been

removed

or

mixed

with

an

absorbent.

The

chlorinated solvent ban differs from the RCRA

restrictions in the following areas:

1,

Solids which form a non-aqueous liquid phase which

is a halogenated solvent are banned.

2,

Placement of bulk halogenated liquids in a land-

fill

with a liner and leachate collection and

removal

system is banned.

Section 22.6(a)

of the Act,

as amended in 1983 by

11.3,

1054,

prohibits the landfilling of “liquid hazardous

waste” after July

1,

1984, except with specific authori-

zation from the Agency.

In R83-28

the Board has adopted emergency rules imple-

menting the restrictions on liquid hazardous waste effective

July

5,

1984,

The emergency rules interact with this proposal

in the following

areas:

1.

The liquid restriction applies only to strict

landfills and disposal piles, while the haloqenated

solvent ban also applies

to disposal lagoons.

2.

Most

of

the banned halogenated solvent wastes are

also liquid hazardous wastes now subject to detailed

review pursuant to the wastestream authorization

procedures of Part 709.

60-385

---

—6—

3.

The technical feasibility and economic reasonable-

ness showing of Section 22.6(c)

of the Act cannot

he

made

for a wastestream banned pursuant to

Section 22(g)

authority.

4,

The Board now has

a detailed definition of “liquid”

which can be applied to this rulemaking.

5.

Addition of absorbents

is prohibited in Part 729.

6.

There

are

procedures

in

Part

709 for review of

existing

supplemental

wastestream

permits.

The proposed ban on chlorinated solvents is pursuant to

Section 22(g)

of the Act.

It addresses the following types

of

waste:

1.

Wastes containing

a non—aqueous liquid phase which

is

a halogenated solvent.

2.

Aqueous wastes containing more than 1

halogenated

solvents

in dissolved form.

3~

Solid wastes which, when mixed with water,

form a

non-aqueous liquid phase which is a halogenated

solvent,

CATEGORIZATION OF WASTES

In adopting Sections 22(g),

22.6 and 39(h), the General

Assembly

has

made

the

landfill

prohibitions

and

restrictions

a centerpiece

of

the

State’s

solution

to

the

perceived

threat of hazardous waste.

As the Board proceeds to implement

these provisions, the question will become primarily how it

will define waste categories,

the order in which it will

address them and the exemptions from the statutory restrictions

which it will allow,

The Board has broad discretion as to

the categorization of hazardous wastes and the order

in

which

it

addresses

the

categories

of

waste.

Some of the comments and testimony suggest that the

landfilling

of hazardous waste

is acceptable.

This has

been addressed by the legislature.

Other comments and testimony suggest that improved

landfill designs, such as synthetic liners and leachate

collection

and

removal

systems,

have

resolved

the

perceived

problem

with landfilling hazardous waste

(R.

431,

542, 1109,

1122).

However, the legislature adopted new landfill prohi-

bition requirements during the last session without drawing

this

distinction,

Indeed,

there

is

no

language

in

Section

60-386

---

22(g),

22.6 or

39(h) which establishes the type or design of

the landfill as a basis for consideration.

The Board there-

fore rejects as contrary to the legislative intent any broad

exemption

based

on

landfill

design.

However,

the

Board

may

establish

different

phase—in

schedules

or

concentration

rules

depending

on

the

type

of

landfill.

The order in which categories of waste are addressed

depends on several factors:

1.

Ease with which the waste category can be defined;

2.

Availability of information concerning the waste

category;

3.

Quantity of waste being generated;

4.

Quantity of

waste

being

recycled

in

the

absence

of

regulations;

5.

Whether a

proposal

has

been

filed

with

the

Board;

6.

The

ultimate

risk

to

public

health

or the environ-

ment

if

the

waste

or

degradation

products

were

released;

7,

The

probability

that

the

waste

or

degradation

products will be released into the environment as

a result of landfilling;

8.

The persistence of any resulting contamination and

the ease with which any resulting contamination

can he cleaned up.

9.

The availability of recycling, treatment or alter-

native disposal technology.

At the time the decision is taken whether to proceed to

hearings on a proposal,

this information is necessarily

limited.

In the present matter, chlorinated solvents

is an

easily-defined category.

California has regulated halo-

genated solvents as

a category

(R.

324,

342,

346,

351,

355,

365,

388).

At least some information on the category was

available.

Most importantly,

a proposal had been filed with

the Board.

As is discussed below, chlorinated solvents are gen-

erally recognized as toxic and very persistent.

They are

organic solvents which pose

a threat to synthetic liners as

a class,

although it is possible that a liner may be found

which is resistant to any given solvent.

As organic solvents,

they also pose a threat to clay liners.

They have appeared

in monitoring wells around hazardous waste landfills.

60-387

---

—8-

The

best

reason

for

delaying

action

on

chlorinated

so1vents.~and proceeding with other categories first,

is

that there is

a recycling industry already in

place

and

that

the waste is widely recycled

on

economic

grounds.

However,

this is certainly

no

reason

not

to

take

action

on

the

category;

indeed,

it is

a

part

of the finding which the Board must

make

to

ban

the

waste.

TOXICITY

The

chlorinated

compounds

involved

in

this

rulemaking

are,

as

a

class,

toxic

compounds.

Depending

on

the

nature

of

the

exposura

and

the

particular

compound, their toxic

effects

are

th~ following:

1.

Cardiovascular,

including changes

in the pulse

rate,

arrhythmias

and

changes

in

blood

pressure

CR.

10,

1013,

1030,

Ex.

lA,

1C,

10,

1E);

2.

Bronchopulmonary,

including

irritation,

broncho—

constriction, pulmonary congestion and respiratory

depression

(R.

10,

1030,

Ex.

lA,

1C,

10,

1E,

iF);

3,

Organ

damage,

especially

to

the

liver

and

kidneys,

including swelling of the liver, fatty deposits

and

liver

dysfunction

CR.

10,

12,

1013,

1023,

1030,

1040,

Ex.

lA,

1E,

lG);

4.

Gastrointestinal,

including

nausea,

vomiting

and

diarrhea

CR.

12, Ex.

1E,

1?);

5,

Central nervous system, including central nervous

system depression,

headache, dizziness and stag-

gering gait

(R.

10,

30,

1030,

Ex.

1A,

IB,

1E, 1G);

6.

Skin,

including chloracne,

dermatitis, cracking

and irritation

(R. 12,

90, 1036,

Ex.

IF,

1G);

7.

Accumulation

of

carboxyhemoglobin,

equivalent

to

carbon monoxide poisoning

CR.

11,

90,

119,

1036,

1048,

1081,

1096,

Ex.

13)

8.

Fetotoxicity and teratogenicity

(R.

14,

105,

1014,

1017,

1037,

Ex.

IA,

13,

Ex.

33,

p.

7(a));

9.

Mutagenicity

(R.

105,

1014,

1037,

Ex.

lA);

10.

Carcinogenicity

(R.

13,

101,

105,

1014,

1031,

1043,

Ex.

lA,

iF,

3A).

The toxic effects shown by the individual halogenated

compounds

involved

in

this

rulemaking

are

summarized

in

the

sections which follow.

60-388

---

—9-.

CHLOROBENZENE

Chiorobenzene

damages

the

liver

and

kidney

of

test

animals

(Ex,

lA,

Ex,

2,

p.

27),

A

recent

bioassay

test

provided some indication of carcinogenicity, but was not

conclusive

CR.

209,

Ex,

3A).

ORTHODICHLOROBENZENE

Orthodichlorobenzene damages the liver and kidneys

CR.

12,

14, Ex.

IA,

IF and lG,

Ex,

2,

p.

28).

It causes

irritation to the lungs, vomiting and dermatitis in occupa-

tional exposure

CR.

13,

Ex.

iF).

It

is mutagenic and a

suspected carcinogen

CR.

209,

Ex.

lA,

Ex.

3A).

CHLORINATED FLUOROCARBONS

This

is a generic listing; there are two other specific

chlorinated fluorocarbons also listed.

As a class they are

highly volatile and relatively nontoxic

(Ex,

2,

p.

28).

Some do induce cardiac arrhythmias and sensitize the heart

to

epinephrine-induced arrhythmias

CR.

11, Ex,

IA,

10).

1,1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANE

Data exists concerning the effect of methyl chloroform

on animals and humans

in occupational exposure

(R.

12,

102,

Ex,

IA,

IE,

Ex.

2,

p.

27).

Among the effects are central

nervous system depression,

liver damage, nausea, hypotension

and decrease in heart rate

CR.

12,

1013).

It is

a confirmed

animal carcinogen

CR.

209,

1031,

Ex.

3A).

It is weakly

mutagenic in some assays

CR.

1014).

TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE

Trichiorotrifluoroethane

causes

cardiovascular

effects

similar to

those

described

under

the

generic

description

of

chlorinated fluorocarbons above

CR.

139, Ex,

1A,

lC,

10,

Ex.

2,

p.

28).

TETRACHLOROETHENE

Perchioroethylene damages the liver, kidneys

and

central

nervous system

(R,

1013, Ex.

lA, Ex.

2,

p.

23).

It is

fetotoxic,

teratogenic, mutagenic and a confirmed animal

carcinogen

CR.

14,

101,

1014,

1031,

1050, Ex.

IA).

However,

widespread use in dry cleaning,

as an industrial chemical

and in drugs indicates that some level of exposure may be

acceptable

(R,

1005,

1067).

60-389

---

—10—

TRICULOROETHENE

Trichloroethylene

causes central nervous system depres-

sion and some liver

and

kidney

damage

(R.

14,

Ex.

1A,

Ex.

2,

p

26).

it

~

mutagenic and a confirmed animal carcinogen

CR.

14,

101, 209,

1031,

1050,

Ex.

1A, Ex,

3A).

However, its

widespread use in drugs,

foods and industrial operations

indicates that some level of exposure may be acceptable

(R.

1005,

1012,

1031,

1050 and 1067)

-

It was once allowed

in decaffeinated coffee at levels of up to 10 ppm, although

the

more volatile methylene chloride has now been substituted

CR.

1006)

DICHLOROMETHANE

Methylene chloride is a central nervous system depressant

which damages the lungs and pulmonary system

CR.

11,

88,

106,

117,

1038,

1094,

Ex,

1A,

1B, Ex.

2,

p.

26).

It

is

reported to cause chloracne

CR.

90,

1036).

It is metabolized

to

carbon monoxide, resulting in an increase in carboxy—

hemoglobin levels

CR.

90,

1036,

1081,

1095, Ex.

IB).

It is

fetotoxic, teratogenic, mutagenic and a confirmed animal

carcinogen

(R.

14, 102,

209,

1014,

Ex.

3A)

TETRACHLOROMETHANE

Carbon tetrachioride damages the liver, kidneys

and

central nervous system

(Ex,

1A, Ex,

2,

p.

27).

It

is

muta—

genic and a confirmed animal carcinogen

CR.

14,

101,

1013,

1023,

1031,

Ex.

lA).

However,

its past widespread

use

in

drugs and as a pesticide and solvent may indicate that there

is an acceptable level of exposure

CR.

1004,

1067,

1071,

1073).

Some of these uses have been prohibited

CR.

1075).

There is evidence that it is metabolized and not bioaccumulated,

although it is usually detected in body fat

(R.

1048,

1081).

TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE

Trichiorofluoromethane is

a volatile chlorinated fluoro-

carbon, referred to as

“F—il”

CR.

119,

Ex.

1C).

It

is

relatively

nontoxic,

but

does

induce changes in heart rate

and respiratory depression

CR.

11,

Ex.

lA,

1C).

CRITICISM OF TOXICITY

Dr. Raymond D. Harbison testified for Waste Management

on the question of toxicity

(R.

999).

In summary, he

testified that the chlorinated compounds are widely distri-

buted such that we are continuously exposed to low levels,

and that they have a long history of industrial and com-

mercial use, without any evidence of adverse impact.

He

60-390

---

—11—

testified that there is

a threshold below which there are no

toxic effects.

The levels to which the public could be

exposed as a result of landfilling at trace levels are less

than the background and below the threshold for toxicity,

such that the landfill prohibition would result in no benefits.

In

the mid-1970s about

2 billion pounds of five common

chlorinated solvents were produced yearly in the United

States

CR.

1003).

Most of this was lost into the environ-

ment as a result of use of the compounds

CR.

1008).

Ambient

air concentrations of individual chlorinated compounds range

up to

38 micrograms per cubic meter

(R.

1007).

Some of

these compounds may be produced by natural processes

CR.

1008).

In

addition to industrial production,

chlorination of

water supplies and wastewater results in production of

chlorinated compounds.

Drinking water chlorination has been

known to produce trihalomethane levels as high as 100 mg/i,

although the Board has adopted a standard of 0.1 mg/i in

drinking water supplies in Illinois,

Drinking water chlori-

nation results in exposure of the population,

and both

drinking and wastewater chlorination result in entry of

chlorinated compounds into the environment

(R.

14,

105,

109,

121,

210,

190,

1032,

1035,

1039,

1047,

1062, 1069,

1073).

At one time chlorinated compounds were widely used in

medicines and foods,

although many of these uses have been

eliminated

(R.

1005,

1035,

1075),

Traces are commonly found

in foods

CR. 1035).

Human consumption of carbon tetra-

chloride is estimated at 600 to 900 mg per year

CR.

1011).

This exposure results in traces of chlorinated compounds

in human body fat

CR.

1012,

1048).

Levels as high as

68

parts per billion have been reported

CR.

1012).

The ubiquity of chlorinated compounds has been asserted

as proof that low levels are not harmful.

However, because

these compounds are so widespread,

it appears to be impossible

to find a control group to really establish that there are

no harmful effects,

Their widespread occurrence can be

cited as proof of the need to limit their emission into the

environment,

The background occurrence of chlorinated compounds also

poses a limitation on the possible benefits of elimination

of sources of exposure.

Elimination of

sources

which

are

at

a concentration lower than the background,

and which are not

contributing significantly to the background, cannot produce

any benefit

(R.

1027).

It is arguable that even a severe

leak in a properly sited landfill could not result in chlori-

nated compounds in water supplies at levels above that

already there

(R.

570,

1010).

Furthermore, it seems to be

60-391

---

—12--

evaporative losses during use of solvents which is the

major

contributor to the background, rather than overt disposal

CR.

1008)

Dr.

Uarbison

contends

that

there

is

a

long

record

of

safe

cc

cupational

exposure

to

low

levels

of

chlorinated

conpounds

(R,

1012,

1043,

1067)

.

Although many of the toxic

effects discussed above were discovered through occupational

excosure,

they

are

based

on high levels of exposure.

Animal studies were also

based

on

high

levels

of

exposure.

Dr. harbison is

convinced

that

some

of

these compounds have

a

t±u:eshold

below which there are no effects

(R.

1016,

1018,

1037,~

L043)

Dr.

Ginsburg on

the

other

hand testified that low

levels of exposure for

a long period of time could produce

toxic effectsF

especially carcinogenic effects

CR.

90, 109,

210)

Dr.

Harbison testified that there were two mechanisms

by

which

chemicals can induce cancer or mutations:

genotoxic

carcinogens cause direct damage to the genetic mechanisms;

while epigenetic carcinogens induce cancer indirectly by

causing recurrent injury to tissues

CR.

1020,

1024,

1031,

1049).

Although there may be no safe level for exposure to

genotoxins,

there is a threshold for epigenetic carcinogens.

Dr. Harhison testified that the aliphatic chlorinated com-

pounds under consideration

were

not

genotoxins

CR.

1021,

1031.,

1049).

Apparently

this

does

not

necessarily

hold

for

the aromatic chlorinated compounds such as chlorobenzene and

or~hodich1orobenzene CR.

1021,

1031,

1049).

Dr. Harbison also testified that some of the low molecu-

lar weight aliphatic chlorinated hydrocarbons are metabolized

and excreted with a reasonably short half life,

They are

not accumulated in fat, although the body’s current burden

is found there

(R.

1036, 1048,

1095)

In summary,

it appears that the chlorinated compounds

are without doubt toxic,

although, for some of them the

toxicity at low levels

and

tendency to bioaccumulate is

doubtful.

Based on toxicity alone,

they should be given a

lower priority

in

order of banning

than

other

wastes

such as cyanide

(R,

1080).

However, they clearly are not

desirable constituents of potential sources of potable

groundwater.

They

clearly

pose

a

sufficient risk to warrant

limitations on landfilling based on toxicity alone,

Dr.

Harbison stated his opposition to the landfilling

of

1iquids~

and

recommended

establishment

of

concentration

levels of

1 to

5

chlorinated

compounds

CR.

1058,

1068,

1071,

1081,

1090).

The

1

levels

proposed

by the Board are

within this range.

60-392

---

—13--

EFFECT ON LINERS

In addition to their ultimate toxic effects if they

enter groundwater, chlorinated compounds pose a threat to

landfill liners,

Should the liner fail, toxic materials in

leachate could escape,

the halogenated compounds as well as

any other materials

CR.

501).

Landfill liners have traditionally been made of com-

pacted clay;

at hearing it

was

asserted

that

the RCRA rules

now essentially require a synthetic liner, since they prohibit

entry of waste into the liner during the active life of the

cell.

Waste would be expected to penetrate at least a small

distance into clay during the active life

CR.

441) Section

724~401(a)(1).

The RCRA rules allow leakage of the liner

after closure.

Groundwater is to be protected by:

construc-

tion and maintenance of a cap and run—on controls to prevent

entry of water into the closed landfill; by operation of a

leachate collection and removal system to prevent development

of

a sufficient head to force leachate through the liner;

and, groundwater monitoring or monitoring of a leak detection

system

CR.

442,

1108,

1118,

1120,

1139,

1142).

Although future hazardous waste landfills will place

primary reliance on synthetic liners, many will continue to

rely on clay for secondary protection against leaks,

Land-

fills will usually be constructed on a clay bed

CR.

445),

it is possible that the RCRA rules may be construed to allow

use of clay as the bottom liner in a double lined landfill

CR.

445).

Furthermore, although synthetic liners are less

permeable than clay,

it is

likely

that

their

service

life

is

Limited to a few decades

CR.

442,

484,

489,

1152)

,

After

the synthetic liner fails,

clay will he necessary to attenu-

ate any leachate movement

(R.

445).

As is explained in greater detail below,

the Board has

categorized wastes for purposes of this rulemaking as follows:

1.

Organic solvent phases,

a liquid phase with

500 g/kg or less water.

2.

Aqueous

phases,

a

liquid

phase with more than

500 g/kg water.

3.

Solids,

as judged by the paint filter test.

The primary threat to either clay or synthetic liners

comes from organic solvents present as a non-aqueous liquid

phase

CR.

470,

517,

526,

867,

882,

890,

902)

-

Such phases

may

include,

or be composed entirely of, organic

solvents.

The

relative proportions of water and organic phase present

is irrelevant,

since the phase will either float or sink in

the

aqueous

environment

of

the

landfill,

and

come

into

60-393

---

—14—

contact

with

the liner either on

the

bottom or side of the

landfill

CR.

76,

94,

871,

877,

884,

899,

:L153).

Organic solvents can cause a change

in

the structure of

c3.ay,

through desiccation and shrinkage, which results in

cracks through which liquids can flow.

Permeability increases

by several orders of magnitude

CR.

866,

890).

Some clays

show a reduction in permeability when they are

rehydrated,

although they never regain their original degree of imperme-

ability

(R.

873)

-

Organic solvents also degrade synthetic liners

through

a variety

of

mechanisms,

including actual dissolution of the

liner, swelling,

and

reduction

in

tensile

strength,

which

makes

the liner

more

susceptible

to

failure

due

to

stresses

CR.

470).

The

experts

who

testified

were

in

agreement

that

solvents

should not

he

placed

into

landfills, both because of

the

impact

on

liners and because they are

liquids

CR.

517,

526,

882,

888,

.090)

.

Sections 729.240 and 729,242 prohibit

wastes containing non—aqueous liquid phases which are halo-

genated solvents.

Halogenated compounds may also be present dissolved in

an aqueous phase.

Most

of

them

are

soluble

in pure

water at

levels

of

around

100

to

1000

mg/l,

with

methyl

chloroform

soluble at

around

4400

mg/i,

and

dichioromethane

at

20,000

mg,/i

(Ex.

1,

2;

R.

524).

However,

they

could be far

more

soluble

in an aqueous phase containing other

organic

sol-

vents,

such as methyl alcohol

CR.

1154).

Dr.

Kirk W, Brown testified that phases which are more

than 50

water have no impact on clay liners

CR.

899,

901),

Since this corresponded with the proposed definition of

“aqueous phase”, he saw no need to establish any concentration

levels for halogenated solvents

in aqueous phases

CR.

902).

Mr. Phillip E. Antornmarie testified concerning tests

run with actual and simulated leachates using triaxial stands,

which more closely approximate conditions of an in—place

clay liner

CR.

1111,

1153).

The actual leachates were on

the order of

3 rag/i organics,

and the simulated 1000 mg/i

trichiorcethylene and trichioroethane

CR.

1115,

1153).

These

produced no changes in permeability

CR.

1113),

Mr. Antommarie

stated that there was no problem with landfilling wastes

which are 1

to

2

solvent in existing landfills

(R.

1145).

Mr.

John C. Petura testified that halogenated solvents

present in aqueous phases at levels of more than

1,

or

10,000 mg/i,

posed a threat to synthetic liners

CR.

482,

512,

514,

521,

525,

533, 535).

This level was based on his

experience with the use of synthetic liners in treating

wastewater from chemical plants

CR.

533,

535).

In Section

729.241 the Board has established a concentration limit of

---

—15—

about 1

halogenated compounds in aqueous phases, based in

part on this testimony.

OTHER ADVERSE IMPACTS OF LANDFILLING LIQUIDS

Many wastes containing halogenated compounds are liquids

or contain free liquids.

The proposed bans center on the

potential for forming an organic liquid phase,

and to a

lesser degree on aqueous liquid phases;

solids which do not

form an organic liquid phase may be landfilied under this

proposal.

There are considerations supporting the ban on

the liquid wastes besides the threat of liner deterioration.

Liquid wastes may become mobile

in a landfill; they may

be able to dissolve toxic substances from solid wastes

through which they pass

CR.

132,

1082).

If the liquid is a

non--aqueousphase,

it would be expected to dissolve a range

of toxic materials very different from the water, the presence

of which may be unavoidable during the active life.

Success of the RCRA landfill design depends largely on

establishment of a cap which is less permeable than the

bottom liner and on leachate collection and removal

CR.

337,

442,

1118,

1120,

1139,

1142).

The idea is to establish dry

conditions inside the completed landfill.

Landfilling

liquids would cause two problems.

First, movement of the

liquids could create voids, resulting

in a subsidence,

possibly damaging the liner in the cap, and thus allowing

surface water to enter

CR.

1133,

1156),

Second,

all of the

liquids are expected to eventually move into the leachate

collection system,

from which they will be pumped to the

surface for treatment,

It seems

as if it would be a lot

cheaper in the long run to treat them before landfilling

(R.

1090).

These considerations have been addressed through

the RCRA limitations,

and

through

the Illinois statutory

restriction on landfilling

liquid

hazardous waste,

PERSISTENCE

In

a

completed

landfill

the

liner and wastes are

buried

and not accessible to

direct

inspection.

As

is noted else--

where,

the RC~ landfill design provides for

a

cap, leachate

collection and removal and groundwater monitoring,

The

strategy is to dewater the contents of the landfill and

protect against entry by other water.

Groundwater monitoring

is to be conducted to provide early detection against leaks

(R.

557)

The RCRA. design

is new and yet untested,

In Illinois,

chlorinated compounds have been found in monitoring wells

at

two older landfills,

Wilsonville

and Sheffield

CR.

85,

212,

Ex,

3,

4).

Chlorinated solvents leaking from lagoons at

the

Amoco facility in Wood River have also been detected in

groundwater

(R.

1105,

1151).

60-395

---

If leaks are detected it

is

possible to carry

out

various operations

to repair the liner

CR.

492,

509).

However, this would not

be

as

good as an original

installa-

tion

CR.

510).

It

certainly

would

increase the cost of

disposal

greatly.

Chlorinated compounds are

generally

very resistant to

decomposition;

indeed,

this

is

one

of their

desirable

properties

as

industrial

solvents,

However, there

is

some

indication that

they

decompose

due

to

bacterial

action

under

anaerobic

conditions,

especially

when

in contact

with

soil

and

general

refuse

(R.

1116,

1121,

1125,

1127,

1129,

1136,

1140).

Such

decomposition

is

not

thought

to take place in

containers

of

solvents

CR.

1131,

1140).

These results may

not prove applicable

to

the

RCRA

landfill

with its

segrega-

tion

of wastes and dry

conditions

CR.

1130).

Even with these reassurances,

it seems likely that

olacement of wastes containing chlorinated compounds

in

landfills poses

a threat of groundwater

contamination,

not

only from

chlorinated

compounds, but

also

from any other

wastes present should the liner be

breached

CR.

501).

If

these

contaminants

enter groundwater,

expensive repair of

the liner will he required.

There will

have

to

be

more

expensive

groundwater

monitoring

and

possible

active

cleanup

if

dilution

and dispersion are insufficient

to

protect

aquifers

CR.

570)

Recycling

and

treatment

operations also may

pose

a

threat

of

groundwater

contamination:

storas

and

transfer

operations can result in solvent spills

CR.

547,

562).

However,

these activities

are

subject to inspection under

the RCEA permit program.

It should be possible to detect

such

poor

operating practices more quickly

than

a

leaking,

buried liner.

Cleanup costs for a surface spill should be

far less,

ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL OR

RECYCLING

The

alternatives to landfilling of

wastes

containing

halogenated compounds depend on what combination of the

following the waste

includes:

a

non--aqueous

halogenated

solvent phase; an

aqueous phase;

or,

a

solid phase.

The

phases can be separated

by

settling, filtration or centrifu—

gation

CR.

194,

205,

410,

737,

769,

773,

983, Ex,

2,

p.

3,

7,

22,

39),

If a halogenated solvent phase can be separated from

the waste, recovery of the solvent is attractive.

It may be

60-396

---

—17—

possible to recover a useful solvent after just sedimentation

or filtration;

distillation may be required

if the solvent

components must

he separated

before

reuse.

However, separa-

tion

by

distillation may not be feasible

if

boiling

points

are too close

together

(Ex.

2,

p.

8,

R.

194,

205,

718, 778).

Distillation

produces “still bottoms”,

a

residue

which

requires

further treatment or disposal

CEx.

2,

p.

39, R.

765).

As is noted below,

there is an established

solvent recycling

industry in Illinois

which

has

abundant

excess capacity to

recycle all of the halogenated solvents which

are

capable

of

being recycled.

Incineration of

solvent phases depends

on the amount

of

halogen present in the

solvent.

Generally, the more halogen

present

in

a given compound, the less heat produced by

combustion.

Of the halogenated compounds listed

in Section

729,221, only chlorobenzene and orthodichlorobenzene would

be able to sustain combustion if burned alone

CR.

723, 746,

Ex,

IA).

The rest would require the use of expensive

auxiliary

fuel to achieve combustion

CR.

726,

735;

PC 8).

However,

if the halogenated solvent

were present at low

concentrations in another solvent,

the

SOiUtlOfl

would be

easy

to

incinerate,

and

possibly

be

usable

as

a

fuel

CR,

768).

There

are

several

drawbacks

to incineration.

Tempera’-

tures must be maintained at above 2200°F to obtain the

99.99

destruction removal efficiency

for

halogenated

compounds

as principal organic hazardous constituents

required

by

Section 724.443

CR.

729, 735).

The halogenated compounds

are converted to hydrogen chloride, which must he removed by

a scrubber

if emitted in excessive quantities

(Section

724.443)

-

Improper

combustion

can

also

produce

dioxins, especially

combustion of chlorinated aromatic solvents

CR.

730, 740,

742).

Dioxin

formation

may

be

caused

by

improper

temperature

or mixing during combustion

CR.

742).

Dioxins are expected

to adhere to particulates and be removable by scrubbers

CR.

83,

99,

267).

Wastes

may

contain

metals,

such

as

mercury

or nickel.

Mercury

is

gaseous

at

incinerator

temperatures,

and

both

mercury and nickel are

capable

of

forming

gaseous compounds.

These

would

be

converted to particulates under conditions in

the

incinerator

or

scrubber,

and would be removed by the

scrubber as particulates

CR.

36,

72,

134,

184,

230),

Scrubbers produce sludges which may

themselves

be

hazardous

wastes.

Incineration

also

produces

ash,

which

also could be hazardous.

Incineration

is

not

a

disposal

of

60-397

---

—18—

the waste, but is a treatment which reduces the waste

in

volume and possibly makes

it less hazardous

(R.

83,

99, 178,

267,

728,

758,

Ex,

2,

p.

12).

The

principal

problem

cited

with

scrubber

sludges is their calcium or

sodium

chloride

content,

which

is very leachable

CR.

728).

Use of waste solvents

as

fuels is referred to as

~‘coincineratiOfl”CR.

177, Ex.

2,

p.

12,

57).

The

halogen

content of a solvent waste limits

its use as

a fuel because

of factors other than the reduction in caloric content.

The

hydrogen chloride from combustion of chlorinated solvents

forms hydrochloric acid in

water.

Because this can attack

boiler tubes,

only solvents with low halogen content are

useful in boiler fuels

CR,

723,

765).

Cement kilns can burn

fuels up to 3

halogen,

but

beyond that excessive calcium

chloride is formed in the product

CR.

24,

760,

763, Ex.

1).

Halogenated compounds in solvent phase may also be

absorbed into a solid or

fixed

into a solid matrix

(Ex,

2,

p.

16),

The Board has restricted the use of absorbent

materials prior to landfilling(R83--28,Order of June 29, 1984).

Incineration of solvent phases requires

a liquid injec--

tion incinerator.

Both the Waste Management incinerator at

Sauget and the SCA incinerator near Chicago appear to be

able to handle these wastes

CR.

732, Ex,

2,

p.

40).

There

are also incinerators in Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, Georgia

and Kentucky

CR. 754).

There

appears

to be adequate capacity

to incinerate all solvent wastes which are not suitable for

recycling or use as fuel

CR. 735,

953).

Mr. Richard

P.

Ross, testifying for Waste Management

concerning incinerators,

stated his support for prohibition

of landfilling of pure halogenated materials,

and indicated

that dilute solutions in solvent phases were easier to

incinerate and more suitable as fuels than pure halogenated

solvents

CR.

716,

735,

768)

-

Alternative

treatment

or

disposal of aqueous wastes

poses different problems.

It is not likely that halogenated

compounds would be present in an aqueous phase in sufficient

quantities to allow recovery of the solvents through distil--

lation

CR.

718).

The aqueous solutions will require some

sort of treatment prior to disposal,

The difficulty with incineration is the presence of

water in the aqueous wastes,

As

defined in Section 729.220,

an “aqueous

phase”

has

water

as

the solvent, comprising more

than 50

of the phase.

A large amount of auxiliary heat

is

required

to vaporize the water to achieve combustion of the

60-398

---

—19—

halogenated solvents

CR. 720,

726,

737).

As noted e1sewhere~

the halogenated compounds to be regulated are soluble in

pure water to an extent of less than

2,

so that almost all

of the phase would likely be

water

and

polar solvents,

Any

polar solvents could contribute as fuel to support combustion,

but the 50

maximum in aqueous phases would be below the

level required for easy incineration

CR.

770).

The necessity for auxiliary fuel to evaporate water

increases the cost of incineration to above that for ~he

same mass of halogenated compounds in the absence of water,

It also requires more incinerator capacity,

since incinerators

are limited more by thermal capacity rather than the mass

put through them to be destroyed

CR.

719,

733,

745).

Mr.

Ross estimated that up to four times the capacity would

be required to incinerate aqueous wastes in excess of one

part. per million than would be required to incinerate those

in excess of 1

(R,

748).

He recommended the 1

level as a

reasonable cut--offin terms of the amount which would have

to be incinerated

CR.

736,

748).

This happens to be the

level chosen by the Board in Section 729.241, based on the

impact on synthetic liners.

Aqueous solutions

are

useless

as

fuels.

Cement kilns

cannot burn

aqueous

solutions

CR.

762),

Deep well

injection

is

available

for disposal of dilute

aqueous solutions

of

chlorinated

solvents

(Ex.

2,

p.

15).

The Board has

adopted

regulations

which

have allowed Illinois

to obtain primacy

for

its

underground

injection control

program

(49 Fed. Reg.

3991).

Availability of permits should

remove a major obstacle to use of this alternative, while

assuring a complete review of dangers associated with injec-

tion.

Cost of

operation

of

injection

wells is very low

(Ex.

2,

p.

16),

There

is

one

existing

well in Illinois

which injects

pesticide

residues,

but

not chlorinated solvents

(Ex.

2,

p.

41).

Other possibilities include wet oxidation and super--

critical water

reforming

(Ex.

2,

p.

14, Ex,

12,

13,

R.

177,

359),

These do not appear to be available.

Dilute solutions of halogenated compounds are dealt

with in wastewater treatment through air stripping and

carbon adsorption

CEx.

2,

p,

13;

Ex,

14,

p.

22, App. VIII,

p.

103, PC 7),

The former technique involves aeration of the

wastewater with the halogenated compounds escaping in the

atmosphere.

There is some degradation of the environment

associated with this technique.

Carbon adsorption is a

recognized technique both for treating wastewater and drinking

60-399

---

—20—

water.

The record is insufficient to form definite conclu-

sions concerning the practicality of these methods

as applied

to

aqueous wastes,

The final category of wastes

is solids, which for

purposes of this discussion includes “liquids”,

as defined

in Section 729.220, with solid phases which limit the recy--

cling or incineration of the waste.

Such wastes identified

in this rulemaking include filter cartridges from dry cleaners,

still bottoms from

solvent

recycling

and

spill residues

(R.

177,

Ex,

2,

p.

8).

It may be possible to separate the

liquid phases from such wastes for recycling,

treatment or

disposal as discussed above.

it is unlikely that any solvent

could be recovered for recycling apart from that which could

he physically separated from the waste.

Incineration of solid hazardous wastes requires different

equipment than liquid injection incineration.

The two

incinerators in Illinois have this equipment.

The Waste

Management incinerator at Sauget is suitable for “fairly dry

solid materials”,

but

not

for

certain

types of sludges

(R.

733, Ex,

2,

p.

40).

it is “very small”

(R.

753),

The

SCA incinerator could

handle

about

4

to

6 tons per hour of

solid waste

(R.

734, Ex,

2,

p.

40).

The combined capacity

could not handle contaminated soil from a large

spill or the

clean-up of any major abandoned site

(R.

744).

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Determination of the economic impact of the proposal

involves a comparison of its costs and benefits.

Most of

the discussion has centered on estimating the direct costs

to the persons subject to the proposal.

Estimation

of

these

costs depends on the following factors:

I,

Definition of the waste to be prohibited;

2.

Determination of the quantity

of

waste

generated;

3.

Identification of the waste

generators;

4.

Identification of the present

methods

of

recycling,

treatment or disposal;

5.

Identification of the current

disposal

methods

which would be prohibited,

and

the

quantities

and

costs associated with the prohibited

disposal

methods;

60-400

---

—21—

6,

Identification

of

alternative recycling, treatment

and disposal techniques;

7,

Determination

of the costs

associated with the

alternative

techniques;

8.

Determination

of

the

quantities

amenable to

alternative

techniques;

9.

Comparison

of

the

current

costs with the projected

costs

under

the proposal.

Dames and

Moore

prepared an

economic impact study of

the proposal for the

Department of

Energy and Natural Resources

(Ex,

2).

Two hearings

were

held on

the economic impact as

required by Section

27(b)

of the Act~ A

number of questions

were raised concerning the way the projected costs were

addressed in the study.

At the hearings following the first

notice Order, Waste Management presented additional testimony

concerning a number of these points

(R,

923).

Waste Management

contends in

part that the rulemaking

is defective because of a deficient economic impact study

(R,

955,

971,

981),

This is a misreading of Section

27(b)

of the Act, which requires that the Board conduct hearings

on the study, receive public comments on it, consider the

elements

detailed

in it and make a determination “based upon

the”... (Departmentvs)...~~studyand other evidence in the

public

hearing

record,

as to

whether the proposed regulation

has any adverse economic

impact...”

There

is no lanquaqe

authorizing the Board to dismiss a rulemaking proposal from

the public

because

of the deficiency of a study.

The purpose

of the

hearing

is

for the affected industries to bring any

deficiencies

to

the

Board~sattention,

Waste Management

should

have

made

its

complaints

known

at the economic impact

hearings.

The

Board

has furthermore

provided additional

hearings

in

which

Waste Management

has been allowed to

present testimony on the

economic

impact.

Waste Management also contends that the Board increased

the scope of

the

rulemaking beyond

the GEE proposal at the

time of the first

notice order by

specifying one part per

million as

a definition of trace

levels.

On the contrary,

the original CBE

proposal

was

for a more sweepinc ban, which

the Board pruned back

in its first

notice Order

(R.

957),

Although Waste

Management

may

have

understood the FOOl and

F002 wastes defined in Part 721 to have an implied 1

concen—

tration rule, it made

no attempt

to

introduce this fact at

the first series of

merit and economic

impact hearings at

which the concentration

levels were

discussed

(R.l99,

201,

278,

981).

60-401

---

—22—

Section 27(b)

of the

Act

allows the Board to modify and

subsequently adopt any

proposed

regulations without any

additional economic

study by the

Department of Energy and

Natural Resources provided such amendment does not signifi-

cantly alter the intent and purpose of the proposed regula-

tion which was the subject of the study.

The definition of the wastes to be prohibited has been

subject to some confusion.

The CBE proposal was couched in

terms of generic wastes

FOOl

and

F002,

The first notice

proposal dropped the

reference

to

FOOl and F002,

but listed

the compounds comprising those wastes, and set a definite

limit on trace levels of one part per million.

Although many

experts agreed that it was desirable to set some definite

de minimis limit

CR.

736,

808,

944),

this

created

problems

in two areas:

first,

it is conceivable

that a waste con—

taming an halogenated compound at

1 ppm might not be a

hazardous waste

(R.

940,

968,

975);

and, second, generic

wastes FOOl and F002,

as applied, seem

to have an understood

1

limit

(R.

199,

201,

943,

957,

979)

.

The Board has modified

the proposal by restricting Part 729 to hazardous wastes,

and has changed the

concentration rules

to 1,

so that the

definition of the wastes to

be

prohibited is closer to that

apparently used in the

economic

impact study and other

studies quoted by Waste

Management.

The proposal

regulates waste according to whether it

includes a non-aqueous

liquid phase,

or whether it is an

aqueous phase or a

solid,

The economic

impact study, empha--

sizing recycling potential,

classified waste as “liquid—high

solvent content,

liquid-aqueous solution and sludge/high

solids solvent content”

(R.

185,

196,

Ex,

2,

p.

22)

.

This

classification

is

related to the terms used

in the proposal,

but

the

terms

cannot be equated.

Determination

of the quantity of waste generated is

also subject to difficulties.

The estimates are derived

from Agency

data

which must be interpreted to relate to this

proposal.

The following

problems have

been pointed out:

I.

The definition of “hazardous waste” has changed

since

data collection started.

2.

As noted, the definition of generic wastes FOOl

and F002 may be subject to varying interpretations

with respect to a de minimis quantity of halogen-

ated compounds

CR.

199,

201,

943,

957,

979),

3.

Agency data was collected with respect to special

waste,

a broader

category than hazardous waste

CR.

931,

934)

60-402

---

~23—

4,

Agency data is

based

on

definitions of wastes used

in supplemental wastestream permits which

utilized

a

1

criterion for halogenated waste

(R.

977,

959)

5.

Agency data

is

derived

from

manifests and may not

include unmanifested waste movements,

such as on-

site disposal or illegal movements

(R.

927,

932,

935,

974),

6.

Quantities of waste imported into the State may

not be adequately counted

CR.

935).

7,

The data shows

a. 71

reduction in chlorinated

wastes over a three year period, which may be

unbelievably large

CR.

176,

200,

940,

Ex.

2,

p.

18).

8.

The data must be corrected for changes

in the

level of economic activity which is directly

related to the quantity of

waste

produced

(R.

200,

932,

Ex.

2,

p.

52).

The economic impact study did not directly address the

quantity of waste generated, but based its cost estimates

only on the quantity landfilled

(Ex,

2,

p.

52).

Mr. Michael

P. Mauzy, testifying for Waste Management, estimated that

about 2,9 million gallons per year of chlorinated wastes

were generated in Illinois for off—site disposal

(R.

940,

Ex.

32, Table IV).

His estimate may be too high because of

his broader definition of chlorinated wastes, which includes

pesticide residues, and because of his broad interpretations

of the first notice proposal.

The estimates would be lowered

now because of changes since the first first notice.

Generators of chlorinated solvent wastes include persons

using the solvents and persons engaged in recycling of the

spent solvents,

Solvents are widely used in dry cleaning

and in industry for metal degreasing

(Ex.

2,

p.

7,

52),

The

economic impact study estimated that there are about 930

generators

CR. 95l~Ex.

2,

p.

20,

53)

There are about 1400 dry cleaners in the State

CR.295).

The above generator total obviously does not include all of

the dry cleaners.

As noted above, the study relied on Agency

data,

which was based on manifests and supplemental permits.

The dry cleaners may be inadequately represented in this data

since

in the past much dry cleaning waste has been transported

without manifests to landfills which do not have specific

authorization to receive the waste

(R.292),

Dry cleaners

which generate more than 100 kg/mo.

of waste are required to

initiate a Part 809 manifest; landfills are prohibited from

receiving hazardous waste

except pursuant to a supplemental

permit pursuant to Section 807.310.

60-403

---

—24—

Determination of the

number

of generators affected also

depends on

whether on—site disposal is

included in the ban,

and whether other forms of disposal amounting to landfilling

are included.

On-site storage and disposal units have long

been exempt ~rom the State permit requirement now in Sec-

tion

21(d)

of

the Act, and may not he adequately addressed

in the Agency data,

Mr. Mauzy testified that about 73

of

the volume of special waste produced in the State is

disposed

of on the site of generation

CR.

932).

If this percentage

holds for the chlorinated solvents, the quantity of waste

affected could be

quadrupled by inclusion of on-site disposal.

Mr. Mauzy was of the opinion that the quantities in the

economic impact study did not include on—site disposal,

which is not included

in the Agency data

CR.

927,

933).

Another

problem relates to the inclusion in the ban of

surface impoundments and

waste piles

if waste residues are

expected to remain after closure.

Mr. Mauzy testified that

over 7000

impoundments at over

5000 facilities were inven-

toried by the Agency in

1978

and 1979

CR.

949). Although

there

is no indication of what fraction of these involve

chlorinated solvents,

the number of generators impacted, and

the

quantity

of

waste produced, could be

far

larger

than

estimated in the

study.

The

CBE

proposal

to the Board used the term “sanitary

landfill” to effectuate the ban.

As defined in Section

3 of

the Act this includes

RCRA

facilities.

The RCRA rules

contain no exemption for on—site disposal,

and treat surface

impoundments and waste piles

as landfills if waste residues

are expected to remain after closure

(Sections 724.328 and

724.358).

As

noted

above,

the traditional methods for recycling,

treatment or disposal of chlorinated solvent wastes include

the following:

1.

Mixed wastes:

a,

Direct landfilling;

b.

Landfilling after

fixation;

c.

Landfilling

after treatment with absorbent;

d.

Thermal

treatment in a rotary kiln incinerator;

e.

Mechanical

separation

with

different

recycling,

treatment

or

disposal for each phase,

as

is

discussed

below.

60-404

---

2.

Solvent phases:

a,

Recovery of solvents through distillation,

with separate treatment or disposal of still

bottoms;

b.

Direct landfilling;

c,

Landfilling

after fixation or treatment with

absorbent;

~.

Incineration in a liquid injection or other

type

of incineration;

e,

Coincineration;

f.

Other treatment and disposal listed for

aqueous wastes.

3.

Aqueous

phases:

a,

Incineration in a liquid injection or other

type

of

incinerator;

b.

Direct landfilling;

c.

Landfilling

after

fixation

or treatment with

absorbent;

d.

Deep well injection;

e,

Wet oxidation or supercritical water reforming;

f.

Air stripping;

g,

Carbon adsorption.

4.

Solid wastes:

a.

Direct landfilling;

b.

The economic

impact

study found the following costs

associated with techniques

for recycling, treatment and

disposal:

60-405

---

—26—

Cost Per

55 gal. drum

Ex.

2

Landfiliing

$30

to

$40

p.

36

Incineration

$40 to $194

p.

42

Coincineration

$23 to $600

p.

13

Deep well injection

$4.40 to $7.70

p.

16

Pecycling

(savings)

($27)

to

($30.50)

p.

42,

57

Wet oxidation

$77

p.

14

Supercritical

Water

Reforming

$5.50

to

$16

p.

15

The

existing

prohibitions

in the RCRA rules and the

restrictions

on

landfilling

liquid

hazardous

wastes

have

curtailed the direct landfilling of the liquid wastes and

the mixed wastes

containing

free

liquid,

and the use of

absorbents.

Therefore

these

should

be

removed

from

the

list

of disposal methods to arrive at the allowable methods prior

to

implementation

of

the

proposal.

As

is

noted

elsewhere,

the

impact

of

the

proposal

in

addition to the

existing RCRA and liquid restrictions

is

limited,

The costs associated with prohibition of direct

iandfiliing

of

liquid

hazardous

wastes

are

now

more

properly

attributable

to

the

RCRA

rules

and

the

statutory

restrictions.

These

broader

restrictions

have

greatly

reduced

the

impact

of the proposal

from

that which was perceived when

the

CBE

proposal

was

filed

with

the

Board,

and

when

the

earlier hearings were held.

It

is impossible to determine

from this record exactly what quantities of additional

wastes

will

be banned.

Caterpillar Tractor Co. has indicated

that

its

wastewater treatment sludge

is

a solid which may

release

a

non—aqueous

liquid

phase

when

mixed

with

water

(PC 11).

Such sludge may be banned under this proposal, but

not

the

other

restrictions.

Because

of

the factors noted above~ the number of

generators

and

the

quantity

of

chlorinated

solvent

waste

produced in the State may have been greatly underestimated

in the economic impact

study.

On the other hand,

the

impact

in excess

of

impact of the RCRA and statutory restrictions

may

be

much

less.

It

is

not

possible to arrive at specific

dollar

amounts

that

take

into

consideration

these

factors.

Since

they tend

to

cancel out, the cost estimates from the

economic impact study may be close to reality.

60-406

---

—27—

The study estimated that iandfiliing

of

124,000 to

410,000

gallons

of

wastes would be prohibited,

depending on

whether 1982 or 1980 is chosen as the base year.

The present

cost of landfiiling

at

$40 per

drum

is between $90,000 and

$300,000

per

year.

Based on recycling 20

of this volume

and incinerating the rest,

at a cost of $194 per drum, the

cost

would

be

$340,000

to

$1,130,000, allowing for savings

from

the recycling and incinerating recycling residues

(Ex.

2, p.

58).

The cost in excess of landfilling is between

$250,000 and $830,000.

Benefits

include

protection of the public from ground-

water contamination.

The recycling and incinerator industries

will benefit from increased utilization of their existing

capacity.

Generators

may benefit indirectly from reduced

liability

for

clean—ups

should

liners

fail.

State government

may

benefit

from not having to monitor chlorinated solvents

and having a simpler rule to enforce.

The bene’fits

to the public from improved water quality,

and the potential costs to generators of a cleanup,

are too

speculative for estimation.

The increased disposal costs to

generators,

and lost revenues to landfills,

are simply

increased revenues to the recyclers and incinerators.

In

addition, transporters will gain some $1,500 to $5,000 from

increased waste movements.

State agencies may save some

$48,000 per year, which will be partially offset by some

$1,240 in lost landfill hazardous waste fees

CR.

180,

PROPOSED ACTION

The Board has modified the proposal in response to the

comment and to conform with the regulations adopted

in

R8:3-

28.

The following is

a discussion of the adopted rules,

Section 729.100

Purpose, Scope and Applicability

This Section was

adopted as an emergency rule in R83-

28.

Paragraphs

(a)

through

(e)

follow the CBE proposal

almost verbatim,

A second sentence has been added to para-

graph

(b)

to make it clear that “landfills” includes hazard-

ous waste landfills with

RCRA

permits

(R.

242).

“Landfills”

also includes surface impoundments and waste piles in which

waste

residues

are

expected to

remain

after

closure.

The

rule

prohibits

disposal

in landfills.

This is

to

be taken as equivalent to “land disposal” in

35 Iii.

Adm.

Code 724, under which lagoons and waste piles

in which

wastes will remain after closure are to be treated as

landfills

R82—19,

7

Ill.

Reg. 14015,

October 28,

1983;

Sections 724.210(b) (2),

60-407

---

—28—

The

other “disposal” methods are considered to be

treatment or storage under the

RCRA

rules.

The Board intends

to promote thermal treatment such as incineration.

Bona

fide treatment or storage in lagoons or,

to the extent

possible, in piles is not prohibited.

The Board has added

land treatment to the scope of the Part,

recognizing that

it is “disposal” under the RCRA rules and a “sanitary landfill”

within the meaning of the Act.

However, the Agency will be

allowed to issue permits on a showing that the halogenated

constituents have been “degraded, transformed or immobilized”

(ss729,204 and 724.372).

Underground injection pursuant to

urc

permit

will

also be allowed

(35 Ill. Adm. Code 704 and

730,

6 Iii. Reg.

12479).

Paragraphs

Cc)

and

Cd) elaborate on the relationship to

the RCRA rules:

landfill prohibitions do apply even to RCRA

small quantity generators, but do not apply to residues in

containers or empty liners which would not be hazardous

wastes under the RCRA rules

CR.

152,

158,

262).

As

is dis-

cussed below, the Board has made the halogenated compounds

small quantity rule agree with the small quantity rules of

Parts 721 and 809.

However,

the introduction to the Part will

continue to provide that the small quantity rule does not

in general apply to correctly state the scope of the rules

on liquid hazardous wastes.

Paragraph

(e)

states the intent to supplement Parts

807,

809 and the

RCRA

disposal rules

in Parts 724

and 725.

Regulations in those Parts which could be construed as

authorizing prohibited landfilling are superseded.

Paragraph

(f)

has been added to the CBE proposal.

This

makes

it clear that the Board intends that the landfill ban

be applicable not only to landfill operators, but also to

the generators and transporters of the waste

CR.

247),

Section 22(g)

authorizes:

“requirements to prohibit

the disposal of certain hazardous wastes in sanitary landfills.”

Taking the words

in their ordinary meaning,

the generator

and transporter are disposing of the waste by sending

it

to

a landfill,

From a practical standpoint it is necessary to regulate

generators and transporters directly.

It would not be

economically feasible for landfill operators to inspect

every load coming into the landfill.

There would be no

incentive for generators and transporters to keep prohibited

wastes out of landfills

if the only penalty were rejection

of an occasional load which was detected.

On the other hand,

the generator has actual control over his disposal practices,

and the transporter has the opportunity to inspect every item

60-408

---

—29—

Sections 729.120-729.140 have been dropped from the

proposal.

These standards are

not necessary now

that

Part

709 has

been

adopted in R83-28.

Waste Management objected

to many aspects of these Sections in its final comment

(PC2O)

Most of the waste subject

to the halogenated solvent

ban will

he liquid hazardous waste subject to the R83-28

restriction,

Section 22.6(a) of the Act and Section 709.201

prohibit disposal in

any landfill without a wastestream

authorization issued

by the Agency.

Therefore, most of the

halogenated.

solvent waste will have to be reviewed by the

Agency pursuant to the Part 709 procedures.

Section 709.401(c)

allows the

Agency to issue wastestream authorizations for

wastes which

are not liquids.

Generators and disposers can

avail

themselves

of the voluntary procedures to obtain prior

Agency

review

in

doubtful cases.

The existence of these

procedures eliminates the necessity for proposed Sections

729.120—729.140.

Section 22~6(c)of

the Act and Section 709.401(a)

allow

issuance

of

a wastestream authorization for a liquid hazardous

waste on a showing involving technological feasibility and

economic reasonableness, and a showing that the landfilling

is not prohibited by Board regulations.

The halogenated

solvent ban will be such a prohibition.

A generator will

have

to show compliance with the halogenated solvent ban to

obtain

an

authorization pursuant to Section 709.401(a).

As

adopted in R83—28A, Section 709,401(b)

allows the

landfilling of residuals from the treatment of liquid hazardous

waste on a showing that the waste

has been rendered non—

hazardous, or that liquids have been removed, or that the

waste has been solidified.

This would appear

to allow

issuance of

an authorization for a residual which might

violate the halogenated solvent ban.

To avoid this the

Board

will

add Section 729.205 requiring the Agency to deny

wastestream authorizations for wastes which are prohibited

in Subpart B,

Section

39(h)

of the Act

will require individual autho-

rization of

all

hazardous wastes by the Agency after Janu-

ary

l~ 1987.

The Board

will need to amend Part 709 to

establish

standards

for

this approval in a future rule-

making.

The Board

has

also

provided in Section 729.205 that

supplemental wastestream

permits for wastes prohibited by

Subpart B are void.

60-409

—30—

Section

709.301(h)

will require generators to submit a

waste

analysis plan with liquid hazardous waste applications.

These should

address

the halogenated solvent ban where

appropriate.

Section 729.302 requires the landfill operator

to develop

and

follow a written waste analysis plan to

assure that the landfill

complies with the liquid ban.

The

Board will adopt

a similar rule as Section 729.203.

Section 729,200

Purpose, Scope and

Applicability

This Section

introduces the Subpart dealing with the

halogenated solvent ban.

Provisions which are expected to

be equally applicable to future bans have been placed in

Subpart

A,

while

those applicable only to halogenated solvents

have

been

placed

in

Subpart

B.

Section 729.201

No

Circumvention

Paragraph

(a)

prohibits the mixing of wastes, or the

dilution of

a waste with another material, in order to evade

the landfilling prohibitions of this Part.

Thus it would be

unlawful to mix a concentrated solvent waste with a dilute

waste

to

lower the

concentration to meet concentration

limits,

This paragraph is not intended to prevent mixing which

is a necessary part of a process.

What is prohibited is

unnecessary mixing or intentional mixing to avoid application

of this Subpart.

These rules

are intended to apply both to

the mixing of

waste

with waste and to the addition of other

material to waste

CR.

255,

265).

The first

proposal included a paragraph providing for

recomputation of concentrations to correct for improper

mixing or dilution,

This has been dropped.

It will therefore

be legal

to landfill

a waste resulting from a

violation of

paragraph

(a), although the mixing or dilution itself could

form the basis of an enforcement action.

The

Board has prohibited the use of absorbents in

Section 729.310(b),

as adopted in R83—28.

on absorbents

in proposed Section 729.201(b)

has been dropped.

Paragraph

(b)

attributes transferred waste to the “last

person who used the solvent.”

A straw party who holds

another’s waste cannot take advantage of a separate small

quantity exemption.

Because such transfers could be for

bona fide purposes,

there is no direct proscription.

However,

the generator could be charged with a violation for exceeding

60-410

---

—31—

Section

729. 202

Incorporations by Reference

The Board has

incorporated

two

ASTM

methods for deter-

mining

total organic

halogen.

Section

729.22:L

Definition of Halogenated Compound

Halogenated

compounds

include

the

chlorinated

compounds

in

generic

hazardous

wastes FOOl and F002 in

35

Ill.

Mm.

Code 721.133W:

carbon

tetrachloride,

chlorinated

fluoro-

carbons, chlorobenzene,

I,

2—dichlorobenzene, methylene

chloride, perchioroethylene,

1,1,l-trichloroethane, trichloro-

ethylene, trichiorofluoromethane

and l,l,2—trichloro-1,2,2—

trifluoroethane,

Alternative

names for many of these chemicals have been

listed.

Some

chlorinated fluorocarbons have been specifi-

cally listed

(R.

114).

Physical properties and alternate

names are

summarized

in Table

I.

The CBE proposal

was framed in

terms

of generic wastes

FOOl and F002.

The first

is solvents used in degreasing,

including

still

bottoms from recovery of these solvents.

The second is

other

chlorinated solvents in general,

At the

hearings it became apparent that F002

is

a catch-all which

would include wastes containing solvent residues from any

source.

Accordingly,

the proposal has been rephrased without

special reference

to solvents used in degreasing apart from

other solvents,

This also

makes it clear that the result of

any

treatment

process

is

to be tested against the same

standard as any other

waste to determine whether it contains

halogenated compounds

CR.

76,

99,

243,

267,

274,

957,

979)

Note, however,

that

the entire Part is limited to “hazardous

waste”

(Section 729,100),

and

the prohibitions refer only

to

“hazardous waste”

(Sections 729.240—729.242) (PC2O)

The listings are

“halogenated compounds”:

if they are

present in an organic solvent above a

certain level, the

solvent will be an “halogenated

solvent”

(S729,222)

subject

to prohibition (S~729.240and 729.242);

if they are present

in an aqueous phase,

the waste is subject to prohibition

under ~729,241,

Use of the

word “compound” with the listings

allows one to define

“halogenated solvent”

in terms of its

properties as

a solvent and

the presence of halogenated

“compounds”, without

having to introduce unnecessary confu-

sion

from previous use of

the word “solvent”

in the listing.

It also avoids using

the word “solvent”

to

refer

to trace

levels in

water,

Although this

waste could result from use

of a halogenated solvent, the halogenated compound is now a

solute.

60-411

---

—32—

TABLE

I

2~Solubility

1’2~b.p.

mg/kg in water

________

BOlO

benzene, chioro-

~henyl chloride

500

131

C

~.-

H

—

Ci

B020

benzene,

1,2-dichioro—

orthodichlorobenzene

100

179

C

6H~Cl~

B030

chlorinated fluoro-

carbons

B040

ethane,

1,1,1—trichloro—

methyl

chloroform

4,400

74

CC13CH3

650

B050

ethane,

l,l,2—trichloro—

1,2,2—trifluoro—

48

CC12FCC1F2

B060

ethene, tetrachloro-

perchloroethylene

tetrachioroethylene

150

121

2~

2

B070

ethene,

trichloro—

2)

1.10

87

ethinyl trichioride

trichloroethy

lene

CHC1

: Cd2

B080

methane,

dichioro-

methylene chloride

20,000

40

B090

methane,

tetrachloro—

carbon tetrachioride

800

77

Cd4

B100

methane,

trichlorofluoro-

trichloromonofluoro—

1,100

24

methane

CC13F

1)

A

to Ex.

1

3~Ex. 2,

p.

24

PC

7

60-412

---

—33-,

Section

729,222

Halogenated

Solvent-—Definition

The tarm “halogenated solvent” has been defined

as a

non-aqueous liquid

phase containing more than 1.4

of the

halogenated compounds listed in Section 729.221.

The concen-

tration is to he determined from the aggregation of

the

weights of

the compounds present and

the weight of the

sample.

The

tern is

used in the prohibitions of Sections 729.240

and

729,242:

wastes

are prohibited if they contain non-

aqueous

liquid

phases

which

are

halogenated

solvents,

or if

they

form

such

phases

on

mixing

with

water,

As has been discussed above, non—aqueous liquid phases

are a threat to liner integrity,

whether they contain halo-

genated

compounds

or

not.

The concentration level has been

specified.

so

as

to

distinguish halogenated solvent phases

from

other

organic

solvent

phases.

Although

such

phases

pose

a

similar

threat

to liner integrity,

the Board will not

expand

the

scope

of this rulemaking to include other organic

solvents.

The

1.4

has been set to correspond roughly with

1

total

organic

halogen, which appears to be the limit of

detection

using combustion

methods which is discussed below.

Solvent phases which contain less halogen will be addressed

in a future rulemaking,

Section 729.223

Halogen Content Presumption

This Section

creates a presumption that, in a non—

aqueous phase,

1

total organic halogen equals 1.4

of the

halogenated compounds.

This allows the use of total

organic

halogen

instead

of

actual

weights

of

compounds.

The

presump-

tion could

be overcome

if someone wanted to do an actual

analysis.

Dr. James S.

Smith testified that actual analysis of

the

compounds

would

require

chromatography

with

mass spec-’

trometry,

a very

time-consuming and expensive analysis

CR.

792,

812),

At the hearing, he testified that total

organic

halogen

would

be

a

less

expensive

method,

but in a

post—hearing submittal, backed off his recommendation

(R.

799,

809,

811,

Ex~, 26,

27).

However, the Board will allow it, on

the

assumption

that sufficient test protocols will be

developed.

The limit of

the ASTM methods appears to be around 1

of

the

sample,

which

the

Board

has

chosen

as

the

threshold

dividing halogenated solvents from other organic solvents

(R.

799,

810,

Ex.

27),

The Board assumes that test methods

can be developed which will have a detection limit comparable

to

the

ASTM

methods.

60-413

---

—34-,

Section

724,443(b)

contains an HC1 emission standard

for

hazardous waste

incinerators.

Section 724.440 “exempts”

the operator from

this standard if the waste contains

insignificant concentrations of hazardous constituents.

In

adopting

the

equivalent rule, USEPA indicated that the HC.

standard would not apply

if the waste feed was less than

0.5

organically bound chlorine

(47 Fed, Reg.

27516,

27526,

June 24,

1932) CR.

747,

799,

Ex.

2,

p.

8)

.

The level of

analysis

reauired

for

this rule is approximately the same as

that

required

for

this

proposal.

One problem

with

using total organic halogen is that

the

conversion

factor to the weight of the compounds depends

on

the

percent

of

halogen

present

in the various compounds.

In

the

compounds

listed in Section 729,221, only chlorine

would.

show up in

the total organic halogen test, since

fluorine

is

not

oxidized under its conditions

(Ex,

27(c)),

The

compounds range

from 31.3

to 90.9

chlorine.

The

conversion

factor of 1.4

is based on 70

chlorine, which

would

be

the

chlorine

content of a mixture of equal weights

of the halogenated

compounds of Section 729.221.

The

extreme

examples of the divergence of halogen

percentages from

actual quantities are chlorobenzene and

carbon

tetrachloride.

The impact of prohibition at 1

total

organic

halogen is

to ban chlorobenzene at around 3

and

carbon

tetrachioride

at 0.9.

It should be noted that this

may be

the reverse

of the order of relative toxicity

(R.

1031,

1049,

Ex,

1).

However, the ban levels are not directly

related

to

toxicity

considerations,

but include the effect

on liners,

Section

729.223 applies only to non—aqueous

phases, where the

other 99

may be just as toxic as the

chlorinated

compound,

Moreover, the prohibition is based on

the impact

of

non—aqueous phases on liners regardless of

chlorinated

solvent content.

The concentration level is set

at the

level of convenient

detection so as to distinguish

such phases

from

other solvents, which will be the subject

of future ruiemakings.

The

conversion factor from total organic halogen to

actual weights is a

presumption which could be overcome if

someone

actually

analyzed for the weights of the compounds

present.

it would be

to the generator’s advantage to do

this

if the waste contained a

halogenated compound with

more than 70

halogen,

or if the waste included halogenated

compounds not listed in Section 729.221.

An

alternative

would be to move to generic regulation

of halogenated compounds without reference to specific

compounds

CR.

349,

411,

426,

746,

799,

Ex.

14, App.

IX,

p.

7).

The

60-414

---

—35—

rulemaking.

However, the present structure of the

proposal

would make it easy to amend

the rules to move to generic

regulation.

Section 729.224

Partition Presumption

It is assumed

that

the concentration of halogenated

compounds

in

any

non—aqueous phase exceeds the concentration

in the entire system and in

any aqueous phase.

Therefore,

proof that the

total

organic halogen

concentration

in

a

non—

aqueous

phase

is Less than 1

is sufficient to show that

the

concentration

in

any

aqueous phase is less than 1.

Also,

proof that the

total

organic

halogen

concentration

in

an

aqueous phase

exceeds

1

is sufficient

to show that the non—

aqueous phase exceeds

1.

The partition presumption is based on the fact that

halogenated solvents will

preferentially migrate into the

non—aqueous phase

CR.

904,

906).

Its primary use is

to

allow

sampling of

the non-aqueous phase to establish an

upper

limit on

concentrations in other phases, thereby

avoiding excessive

sampling

(R.

789,

792,

800)

Section

729,240

Non-aqueous Liquid Phases which are

Halogenated Solvents

This

Section

prohibits landfilling of wastes which

contain a

non-aqueous

liquid phase which

is an halogenated

solvent.

Sections

729,222 and 729.223 define these phases

essentially

as

those

with more than

1

total organic halogen.

This

Section

prohibits

wastes which are pure solvent with 1

halogen

content,

and

wastes which are mostly water or solids,

but

with

an

halogenated

solvent phase, and wastes lying

between

these

extremes.

As

has

been

discussed in connection with the impact on

liners

above,

this

prohibition utilizes the presence of a

non-aqueous

liquid

phase

as

the

primary

indicator.

Such

phases

present

a

threat

to

liners regardless of the concen-

tration

of chlorinated

compounds.

The

1

halogen content

rule has been set at the practical level of

detection in

order to differentiate

the phase from other organic solvents

CR.

795,

797,

810,

812,

836,

882,

884; Ex.

26, Addendum;

Ex.

27).

The California

regulations are written in terms of

concentrations of halogen in the

bulk waste, while this

proposal

measures

the

concentration in the solvent phase

(or

in the aqueous phase

under the next section) (Ex.

14).

This

focuses attention on the

60-415

---

—36—

waste

CR.

902),

it

also

avoids difficulties in obtaining

representative

samples of

multiphase wastes

CR.

800).

And,

it encourages separation,

and discourages creation, of

muitiphase

wastes which

pose more problems for disposal or

recycling

CR.

410,

738,

769,

773)

As has been

discussed

above,

there is adequate existing

capacity

to recycle

or

incinerate the halogenated solvent

chases produced in the

State.

Waste Mann ement~s final comment reflects

a

major

mis-

understanding

of

the Second First Notice Proposal

(PC2O).

These proiuLblt’ions

apply

only to “hazardous waste”.

Indeed,

the

entire

Part applies only to “hazardous waste”

(Section

729,100(a)).

This

is

consistent with the Section 22(g)

directive to adopt

requirements to prohibit the disposal of

“hazardous

waste~. Therefore all waste subject to prohibi-

tion

should

arrive pursuant to

the Parts 722 and 809 mani-

fest

system.

it is conceivable that a waste may legitimately not

meet

the definition

of

“hazardous waste” in Part 721, and

yet

contain halogenated

solvents

in excess of the

1

level

in the bans.

Such

a

waste

would

not

be

prohibited.

The generator is primarily

responsible

for

determining

whether a waste

is

hazardous

(Section

722.111).

However,

Section 21(f)

of the Act

and Section 703.121 prohibit hazardous

waste disposal

without

a

RCRA

permit, and the Part 724 and

Part

725

standards

apply to all facilities which dispose of

hazardous waste, whether the waste is manifested or not,

Any

person

who

accepts

unmanifested waste for disposal must

develop procedures to protect himself from liability for a

mischaracterization

by

the generator.

If

the disposer

discovers

that an

unmanifested waste is indeed hazardous, he

should go

on

to

determine

whether it is prohibited.

However,

the proposal

does

not

necessitate halogen content analysis

of nonhazardous waste,

Section 729~24i

Aqueous Solutions of Halogenated

Compounds

This

Section prohibits landfilling wastes which contain

aqueous liquid

phases

with more than about 1

total organic

halogen.

As

defined

in

Section 729.220,

“aqueous liquid

phases~’are

“phases” in which water

is the solvent with more

than 500 g of water per kilogram.

If the phase is less than

50

water, it is

a non-aqueous

liquid phase which may be

prohibited under Section

60-416

---

—37—

As was discussed above in connection with the

impact on

liners,

solutions which

are

more

than

50

organic solvents

may

cause

cracking in clay liners,

and

aqueous

solutions

which

are more than 1

halogenated compounds may cause

failure

of synthetic

liners

(R.

482,

512,

514,

521,

525,

533,

535,

875,

899 and

901).

The Board has set the limita-

tion on halogenated compounds in aqueous solution at about

1,

based on the impact on synthetic liners.

This number

corresponds with what

appears

also to be the practical level

of detection by oxidation methods,

Section 729.241(b)

creates

a

presumptive

conversion

factor of 1.4

halogenated compounds equals

1

total organic

halogen.

This is

identical

to the conversion used in Section

729,223.

The partition presumption

of Section 729.224 can

be used to set an upper bound on the halogenated compound

concentration in the

aqueous phase based on

analysis of a

non~-aqueousphase.

It should be noted that 1

has been used both to define

the halogen level at which a solvent is treated as “halo-

genated”,

and to set

the

ban on aqueous solutions.

These

numbers

happen to

be

the

same,

but in principle there is no

reason

why

they

have

to

be,

At

the hearings,

Dr.

Smith

suggested

a

terminology

based

on

“polar”

and

“non-polar” solvents, the distinction

being

that

the polar solvents are miscible with water, while

the non-polar solvents

are not

(R.

871).

One problem with

this terminology is that some polar compounds, when not

mixed with water, need to be treated the same as the non--

polar compounds;

that is,

one would apply one rule to

non—polar solvents and undiluted polar solvents, and a

second rule to polar solvents dissolved in water

(R.

874,

890,

902,

909).

Therefore, the

polar/non-polar

distinction,

although relevant, does not divide the wastes along the

desired boundary.

The Board has

instead

emphasized the

water concentration in phases to determine whether Section

729,240 or 729.241 applies,

Only the polar solvents are

capable of dissolving

in water sufficiently to approach 50

to form a non~-aqueousphase,

Trace organic halogens will be

regulated under the one rule or the other depending on the

relative concentration of water and polar

solvents,

As noted in Table

I, only one of the halogenated compounds

is soluble in pure water at a level

of more than 1,

However,

other organics dissolved in

water can increase their solu—

bility

CR.

1154),

60-417

---

—38—

As

is discussed

above,

the

aqueous phases may be incin-

erated or ‘treated in other ways, although some generators

may have difficulty i~ediate1yfinding existing capacity.

If so, petitions for

variances

or

site

specific

relief may

be submitted.

It should be noted that these wastes are

probably

liquids subject to the statutory restriction under

Section 22,6 of the Act,

Section 729.242

Solids

Containing

Halogenated Compounds

This Section prohibits solid wastes which form a

non-

aqueous liquid phase

which’is

a

halogenated

solvent

when

the waste is mixed with water,

The first question

is

whether

a non—aqueous phase forms on mixing with water,

Then the

phase is tested for organic halogen content to

determine

whether it is an halogenated solvent

(R.

887,

903).

This

prohibition is directed at the potential for formation of a

non’~aqueousliquid phase

if the waste comes into contact

with water after

it is landfilled.

As has been noted in

connection with the discussion on liners and on §729.240,

such non-~aqueous liquid phases pose a threat to liners

regardless of the concentration of halogenated

compounds.

The first proposed Order

also included tests based on

the halogenated compounds in the bulk waste and in any free

1i~uidwhich might be present in the waste.

The

latter

test

has been dropped.

It

is now clear that any free

liquid

would render the waste not a solid and hence subject to the

preceding sections,

The testing of the bulk waste has been

dropped based on the difficulties in obtaining a representa-

tive sample,

and on assurances that halogenated compounds

which would not be extractable as a separate phase would

not

pose a threat to liners

CR.

800,

887,

903).

As

is discussed above, wastes containing solids

can be

incinerated, although some generators may have difficulty in

immediately finding existing capacity.

The ban has been

deferred to July 1,

1986 to allow ample time for development

of additional capacity.

Section 729.261

Dry Cleaning Wastes

Typical dry cleaners conduct recycling activities

on

the premises.

Wastes include distillation residues and

filters from which all recoverable solvent has

been

stripped.

These are usually landfilled with general refuse

(R.

287,

294,

302, PC 5).

Dry cleaners indicated at the hearings

that they had been preparing to comply with the

manifest

requirements of Part 809 where more than 100 kg/mo. was

generated

CR.

292,

297,

299).

60-418

---

—39—

There are about 1400 dry cleaners at scattered locations

in the State

(R,

295).

A

small

dry cleaner handles about

1500 pounds of cleaning per

week

(R.

289).

With good recycling

equipment,

this will generate just under 100 kg per month of

residues

(R,

303).

The

dry

cleaners expect incineration of

this

residue

to cost

about

$15,000 per

year

(R.

290).

However,

the economic

impact study found incineration to

cost

less

than $200 per drum

(Ex.

2,

p.

42).

Assuming that

the 100 kg per month would amount to less than one drum, the

cost should be only

about $2,400 per year.

The difference

may result from

transportation costs since

dry

cleaners are

scattered all over the State,

and there are only two incin-

erators.

In

its

First

Notice

Orders the Board proposed to defer

the ban for dry

cleaners

producing less than 100 kg/mo.

The

Board has changed the small quantity rule in the Second

Notice Order, dropping the ban altogether for these small

quantity generators.

With this change there is no necessity

for Section 729.261, so the Board has dropped

it from the

proposal.

Section 729,262

Recycling Residues

This

Section

defers

the prohibition as applied to

recycling

residues

until

July

1,

1986.

As

is noted above,

incineration

of

wastes

with

solids

requires

more

elaborate

equipment

than liquids,

although both operating incinerators

in Illinois are capable

of handling solids and appear to

have adequate capacity for the existing and foreseen recycling

residues,

However, any

regulation which would prevent or

raise the cost of recycling would tend to defeat the

purpose

of Section

22(h)

of the Act,

The Board will therefore

post-

pone the ban on these wastes

to allow time for development

of additional capacity,

or for recyclers to propose a rule

to the Board addressing their particular problems.

After July

1, 1986 the recycling residues rule will

have no effect,

and whether

the waste can be landfilled will

depend on the general provisions.

This rule applies only to

Subpart B of Part 729, and is not an exemption to the other

prohibitions.

Therefore,

residues which contain free liquids

will be subject to the other

restrictions.

The rule requires recycling

of at least 30

of the

solvent to qualify as

a

recycling reside.

This is to prevent

token recycling.

Section 729,263

Small

Quantity Generators

At hearing CBE requested a small quantity rule of

1 kg

per landfill per month,

60-419

---

—40—

enforce against landfills

than

a generator—centered number,

it could be too restrictive in terms of the amount of

halogen-

ated solvents which could be safely handled.

Furthermore it

fails

to

differentiate landfills on the basis of size

(R.

245,

249,

259).

It

would

also

be

difficult

to

enforce

against

generators

and

transporters

who

would

not know the

quantity

the landfill

had

received.

In

the

first

and

second

First

Notice Orders the

Board

proposed

a

small quantity

rule

of

1

kg/mo,

of

halogenated

compounds

per generator.

The

Board

has

received

no direct

comment adverse to the

I kg/mo.

level,

although

Waste Manage-

ment

did comment on the moving average and the difficulty

in

policing a generator’-centered small quantity rule,

The I kg/mo.

per generator exclusion was not directly

addressed at any hearing.

However,

as noted above,

the

economic impact study was based

in part on quantities

of

waste estimated from supplemental permit and manifest data

pursuant to Parts

807 and 809.

The latter includes

a 100 kg/mo.

of

waste

per

generator small quantity rule.

The supplemental

permit system is keyed into the manifest system,

so it

also

has a 100 kg/mo,

exclusion.

Because

it relied on this data,

the economic impact study probably did not

take into account

the potential impact on generators producing less than

100 kg/mo. As noted above,

such deficiencies in a study do

not control

‘the Board~sdecision in rulemaking.

As noted above,

the record in this case

is sufficient

to reject the

1 kg/mo.

per landfill suggestion.

However,

there is little evidence pointing toward the 1

kg/mo. per

generator rule, or toward any number,

As noted, Parts

807 and 809 have a 100 kg/mo,

of waste

per generator exclusion,

In the more recent RCRA rules,

Part 721 has

a 1000 kg/mo. exclusion, along with a

1 kg/mo.

exclusion for acute hazardous waste,

These

provisions are

reconciled in Section 700,304,

The result is that waste

produced by generators of less than 100 kg/mo. of hazardous

waste is usually outside the scope of the hazardous waste

program.

Section 22(g) of the Act authorizes regulations to

prohibit the disposal of

“hazardous waste”,

Rather than

attempt to redefine the quantity limits in this

rulemaking,

the Board will defer to the decisions which have been made

in adopting Parts 721 and 809.

The landfilling

prohibition

of halogenated solvents will apply only to those wastes

which would be required to have a manifest under Parts

722

or 809

if the waste were shipped off the site.

This

should

ease administration of the program.

60-420

---

—41—

This Final Opinion supports the Board’s Final Order,

Adopted Rule

of this same date.

IT

IS SO ORDERED,

Board

Member

Bill

Forcade abstained,

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby

certify that the above Opinion was

adopted on

the

~‘5~

day of

~CZ~f~tv

,

of

4’~-O

Illinois P~1lutionControl Board

60-421