ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

March

8,

1984

In the matter of:

)

)

PROHIBITION ON LANDFILLING

)

R8.-25

OF

HAIJOGENATED

SOLVENTS

(CBE)

)

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE

SECOND PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by D.

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 Ill. 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:

Pd

Monsanto Chemical Intermediates, February 19, 1982

PC2

Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, March

8, 1982

PC3

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, March 26,

1982

PC4

Caterpillar Tractor Company, April 21, 1983

PC5

Illinois State Fabricare Association, April 28,

1983

PC6

Citizens for a Better Environment, May 2,

1983

57-87

---

—2—

On May

5,

1982 the Board adopted a first notice Order

and a Proposed Opinion.

The proposal appeared at

7 Ill.

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:

PCi

Halogenated Cleaning Solvents Association

PC8

E.

I. Dupont de Nemours and Company

PC9

National Solid Wastes Management Association

PC1O

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

PCi.

Caterpillar Tractor Company

PC12

Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.

PC13

Citizens for a Better Environment

PC14

National Solid Wastes Management Association

PC15

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’s motion.

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 will withdraw the Proposed Opinion

and Order of May

5,

1983 and adopt a Second Proposed Opinion

and a Second First Notice Order.

Changes from First First Notice Order

The following is a brief summary of the major differences

between the first and second First Notice Orders:

1.

The applicability of the entire Part has been

restricted to hazardous waste as defined in Part 721

(Section 729.100).

57-88

---

—3—

2.

A Section has been added to avoid the interpretation

that the Board is proposing to require certain

methods of analysis of waste on receipt by landfills

(S729.123).

3.

Variance and site specific procedures have been

referenced (S729.140).

4.

The prohibition on landfilling diluted materials

has been deleted, although the dilution itself

would still be prohibited (S729.20l).

5.

Definitions of terms have been added (S729.220).

6.

Halogenated “compounds” have been distinguished

from halogenated “solvents”, with the latter term

reserved for non—aqueous liquid phases containing

halogenated compounds

(SS729.221 and 729.222).

7.

Total organic halogen content has been substituted

as an alternative method for judging the presence

of halogenated compounds

(S729.222).

8.

Halogenated compounds are presumed to reside

preferentially in organic phases

(S729.224).

9.

The threshold level for halogenated compounds in

organic phases has been changed from

1 ppm to

about 1

(S729.240).

10.

The threshold level for aqueous solutions has

been

increased from 100 ppm to about 1.

11.

Measurement of concentrations in solids has been

shifted from the bulk waste to any organic phase,

and the ban has been deferred to 1986.

Legislative History

Section 22(h)

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.

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.

57-89

---

—4—

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 H.B. 1054

during 1983.

The Illinois Manufacturers’ Association asked the Board

to defer action on the CBE proposal until H.B. 1054 was

finalized

(PC 15).

The Board declined to do so, noting that

its authority under Section 22(h)

is broader, extending,

for

example, to solid as well as liquid hazardous wastes.

The

Board intends to review Part 729 in a later rulemaking to

determine whether any changes should be made with respect to

H.B.

1054.

RCRA

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)

(R8l—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-l8,

7

Ill. 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

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 BANS

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

57-90

---

—5—

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.

Section 22.6(a) of the Act, as amended in 1983 by

H.B. 1054, prohibits the landfilling of “liquid hazardous

waste” after July 1,

1984, except with specific authorization

from the Agency.

The proposed prohibition on chlorinated solvents is

pursuant to Section 22(h) of the Act.

It addresses the

following types of waste:

1.

Wastes containing a non-aqueous liquid phase which

is an halogenated solvent.

2.

Aqueous wastes containing more than 1

halogenated

solvents in dissolved form.

3.

Solid wastes which contain a free liquid which is

an ha.ogenated

solvent.

4.

Solid wastes which, when mixed with water, form

0

non-aqueous liquid phase which is an halogenated

solvent.

This proposal bans wastes which are also banned under

the RCRA provisions or Section 22(h) of the Act:

wastes 1,

2 and

3 either are liquids or contain free liquid.

The

proposal differs from the existing bans in the following

respects:

1.

Solids which form a non-aqueous liquid phase which

is an halogenated solvent are also banned.

2.

Addition of absorbents to non-aqueous liquid

phases

is prohibited.

3.

The proposal could become effective before July 1,

1984.

4.

Placement of bulk liquids in a landfill with a

liner and leachate collection and removal system

is prohibited.

57-91

---

—6—

5.

The small quantity rule is set at 1 kg of halo—

genated compounds per month, which may be more

stringent than the 100 kg per month of waste for

applicability of the RCRA rules under Part 721.

CATEGORIZATION OF WASTES

The General Assembly has made the landfill prohibitions

a centerpiece of the State’s solution to the perceived

threat of hazardous waste.

As it moves into Section 22.6

rulemaking, the question before the Board will become prima-

rily how it will define waste categories, the order in which

it will address them and the exemptions from the statutory

bans which it will allow.

Although Section 22(h)

is not

self—implementing,

it too leaves the Board with complete

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

22(h)

or in the new Section 22.6 which establishes the type

or design of the landfill as a basis for consideration.

The

Board therefore rejects as contrary to the legislative

intent any broad exemption based on landfill design.

However, the Board may establish different phase-in sched-

ules 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;

57-92

---

—7—

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 be 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 resistent 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.

The best reason for delaying action on chlorinated

solvents, 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 exposure and the particular compound, their toxic

effects are the following:

1.

Cardiovascular,

including changes in the pulse

rate, arrhythmias and changes in blood pressure

(R.

10,

1013, 1030, Ex.

lA,

lC,

lD,

lE);

57-93

---

—8—

2.

Bronchopulmonary, including irritation, broncho—

constriction, pulmonary congestion and respiratory

depression

CR.

10, 1030, Ex.

lA,

1C,

lD,

1E,

lF);

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

(R.

12, Ex.

1E,

lF);

5.

Central nervous system,

including central nervous

system depression, headache, dizziness and stag-

gering gait

CR.

10,

30, 1030, Ex.

lA,

1B,

lE,

1G);

6.

Skin,

including chloracne, dermititis,

cracking

and irritation

(R.

12,

90,

1036,

Ex.

iF,

lG);

7.

Accumulation of carboxyhemoglobin, equivalent to

carbon monoxide poisoning

(R.

11,

90,

119,

1036,

1048, 1081,

1096,

Ex.

1B);

8.

Fetotoxicity and teratogenicity

(R.

14,

105, 1014,

1017, 1037, Ex.

lA,

1B, Ex.

33, p.

7(a));

9.

Mutagenicity

CR.

105,

1014, 1037, Ex.

1A);

10.

Carcinogenicity

CR.

13,

101, 105,

1014, 1031,

1043, Ex.

1A,

iF,

3A).

The toxic effects shown by the individual halogenated

compounds involved in this rulemaking are summarized in the

sections which follow.

CHLOROBENZENE

Chlorobenzene damages the liver and kidney of test

animals

(Ex.

1A,

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.

1A,

lF and IG,

Ex.

2,

p.

28).

It causes

irritation to the lungs, vomiting and dermititis in occupa-

tional exposure

CR.

13,

Ex.

iF).

It is mutagenic and a

suspected carcinogen

CR.

209, Ex.

lA, Ex.

3A).

57-94

---

—9—

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

(R.

11, Ex.

lA,

1D).

1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE

Data exists concerning the effect of methyl chloroform

on animals and humans in occupational exposure

CR.

12, 102,

Ex.

1A,

1E,

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

Trichlorotrifluoroethane causes cardiovascular effects

similar to those described under the generic description of

chlorinated fluorocarbons above

(R.

139, Ex.

1A,

1C,

lD,

Ex.

2,

p.

28).

TETRACHLOROETHENE

Perchloroethylene damages the liver, kidneys and central

nervous system

(R.

1013,

Ex.

1A, Ex.

2,

p.

23).

It is

fetotoxic,

teratogenic, inutagenic and a confirmed animal

carcinogen

CR.

14,

101,

1014,

1031, 1050, Ex. 1AY~ 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).

TRICHLOROETHENE

Trichloroethyiene causes central nervous system depres-

sion and some liver and kidney damage

(R.

14, Ex.

1A,

Ex.

2,

p.

26).

It is mutagenic and a confirmed animal carcinogen

CR.

14,

101, 209,

1031,

1050,

Ex.

1A, Ex. 3M.

However, its

widespread use in drugs,

foods and industrial operations

indicates that some level of exposure may be acceptable

CR.

1005,

1012,

1031,

1050 and 1067).

It was once allowed

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

the more volatile methyiene chloride has now been substituted

(R.

1006).

57-95

---

—:10--

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 a decrease in carboxy—

hemoglobin

levels

(R.

90,

1036,

1081,

1095,

Ex.

lB).

It

is

fetotoxic,

teratogenic,

mutagenic

and

a confirmed animal

carcinogen

CR.

14,

102,

209, 1014, Ex.

3A).

TETRACHLORONETHANE

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

(R.

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

CR.

1048, 1081).

TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE

Trichlorofluoromethane is a volatile chlorinated fluoro-

carbon, referred to as

“F—li”

(R. 119, Ex.

1C).

It is

relatively nontoxic, but does induce changes in heart rate

and respiratory depression

(R.

11,

Ex.

1A,

IC).

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

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

(R.

1003).

Most of this was lost into the environ-

ment as a result of use of the compounds

(R.

1008).

Ambient

air concentrations of individual chlorinated compounds range

57-96

---

—ii—

up to 38 micrograms per cubic meter

CR.

1007).

Some of

these compounds may be produced by natural processes

(R.

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 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

CR.

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

(R.

1035).

Human consumption of carbon tetra—

chloride is estimated at 600 to 900 mg per year

(R.

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

CR. 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

CR.

570,

1010).

Furthermore,

it seems to be

evaporative losses during use of solvents which is the major

contributor to the background,

rather than overt disposal

(R.

1008).

Dr. Harbison contends

that

there

is

a

iong

record of

safe occupational exposure

to

low

levels

of

chlorinated

compounds

CR. 1012,

1043,

1067).

Although many of the toxic

effects discussed above were discovered through occupational

exposure, they are based on hiqh levels of exposure.

57-97

---

—12—

Animal studies were also based on high levels of exposure.

Dr. Harbison is convinced that some of these compounds have

a threshold below which there are no effects

CR.

1016, 1018,

1037, 1043).

Dr. Ginsburg on the other hand testified that low

levels of exposure for a long period of time could produce

toxic effects, 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. Harbison 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

orthodichlorobenzene (R~1021,

1031,

1049).

Dr. Harbison also testified that some of the low mo.ecu-

lar weigh 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

CR.

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 groundwater.

They clearly pose a sufficient risk to warrant limitations

on landfilling based on toxicity alone.

Dr.

Ilarbison stated his opposition to the landfilling

of liquids, 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.

57-98

---

—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

(R.

501).

Landfill liners have traditionally been made of com-

pacted clay; the RCRA rules now essentially require a syn-

thetic 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.

Ground-

water is to be protected by:

construction 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

(R.

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 be necessary to attenu-

ate any leachate movement

(R.

445),

The primary threat to either clay or synthetic liners

comes from organic solvents present as a non—aqueous liquid

phase

(R.

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

contact with the liner either on the bottom or side of the

landfill

(R,

76,

94,

871,

877, 884,

899,

1153).

Organic solvents can cause a change in the structure of

clay,

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,

57-99

---

—14—

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, making

the liner more susceptible to failure due to stresses

CR.

470).

The experts who testified were in agreement that solvents

should not be placed into landfills, both because of the

impact on liners and because they are liquids

CR.

517,

526,

882,

888,

1090).

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/i, with methyl chloroform

soluble at around 4400 mg/l, 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

(R.

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 corresponds with the definition of “aqueous

phase”, he saw no need to establish any concentration levels

for halogenated solvents in aqueous phases

CR.

902).

Mr. Phillip E. Antommarie testified concerning tests

run with actual and simulated leachates using triaxial

stands, which more closely approximate conditions of an in—

place clay liner

(R.

1111,

1153).

The actual leachates were

on the order of

3 mg/i organics, and the simulated 1000 mg/l

trichloroethyiene and trichloroethane

(R.

1115, 1153).

These produced no changes in permeability

(R.

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 halogeriated 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

about 1

halogenated compounds in aqueous phases, based in

part on this testimony.

57-100

---

-15—

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 landfilled 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

(R. 132,

1082).

If the liquid is a

non—aqueous phase,

it would be expected to dissolve a range

of toxic materials very different from the water, 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

(R. 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

CR.

1090).

These considerations have been addressed through

the RCRA ban, and through the Illinois statutory ban 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 RCRA 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, Wilsonvilie 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

CR.

1105,

1151).

57-101

---

—16—

If leaks are detected it is possible to carry out

various operations to repair the liner

(R.

492,

509).

However,

this would not be as good as an original installa-

tion

(R.

510).

It certainly would increase the cost of

disposal greatly.

Chlorinated compounds are generally very resistent 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

CR.

1116,

1121,

1125,

1127,

1129, 1136,

1140).

~Suchdecomposition is not thought to take place in

containers of solvents

(R.

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

placement 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 be required.

There will have to be more

expensive groundwater monitoring and possible active cleanup

if dilution and dispersion are insufficient to protect

aquifers

(R.

570).

Recycling and treatment operations also may pose a

threat of groundwater contamination:

storage and transfer

operations can result in solvent spills

(R.

547,

562).

However, these activities are subject to inspection under

the RCRA 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

(R.

194,

205,

410,

737,

769,

773,

983, Ex.

2,

p.

3,

7,

22,

39).

If an halogenated solvent phase can be separated from

the waste, recovery of the solvent is attractive.

It may be

57-102

---

—17—

possible to recover a useful solvent after just sedimentation

or filtration;

distillation may be required if the solvent

components must be 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

(Ex.

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 halogeriated 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.

1A).

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 solution 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 be 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

(R.

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

57-103

---

—18—

the waste, but is a treatment which reduces the waste in

volume and possibly makes

it less hazardous

CR.

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

(R. 728).

Use of waste solvents as fuels

is referred to as

“coincineration”

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 a~~cidin water.

Because this can attack

boiler tubes,

only solvents with low halogen content are

useful in boiler fuels

(R.

723,

765).

Cement kilns can burn

fuels up to 3

halogen, but beyond that excess calcium

chloride is formed in the product

(R.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).

As is discussed elsewhere, the Board is proposing

to prohibit the use of absorbent materials to comply with

the halogenated solvents ban.

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

(R.

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

(R.

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

57-104

---

—19—

halogenated solvents

(R.

720, 726,

737).

As noted elsewhere,

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 would contribute as fuel to support combustion,

but the 50

maximum in aqueous phases would be below the

level required for easy incineration

(R.

770).

The necessity for auxiliary fuel to evaporate water

increases the cost of incineration to above that for the

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

CR.

748).

He recommended the 1

level as a

reasonable cut-off in 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

(_

Fed.

Reg.

___).

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

(Ex.

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

57-105

---

—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

CR.

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

be 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

CR.

733, Ex.

2,

p.

40).

It is “very small”

CR.

753).

The

SCA incinerator could handle about

4 to

6 tons per hour of

solid waste

CR.

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

CR.

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:

1.

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;

57-106

---

—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 27Cb)

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

CR.

923).

Waste Management contends in part that the rulemaking

is defective because of a deficient economic impact study

CR.

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”... (Department’ s)

.

*

.

“study and other evidence in the

public hearing record, as to whether the proposed regulation

has any adverse economic impact...”

There

is no language

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’s attention.

Waste Management

should have made its complaints known at the economic impact

hearing.

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 CBE 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 sweeping ban, which

the Board pruned back in its first notice Order

CR.

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).

57-107

---

—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-

taining an halogenated compound at 1 ppm might not be a

hazardous waste

CR.

940,

968, 975);

and, second, generic

wastes FOOl and F002,

as applied, seem to have an understood

1

limit

CR.

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:

1.

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 minirnis 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

(R.

931,

934).

57-108

---

—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 uninanifested waste movements, such as on—

site disposal or illegal movements

CR.

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

CR.

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.

951,

Ex.

2,

p.

20,

53).

The generator totals do not include all dry cleaners

since there are about 1400 in the State

CR.

295).

Dry

cleaners may be inadequately represented in the Agency data

because they often operate outside the manifest and supple-

mental permit systems

(R.

292).

They do not appear to be

subject to any exemptions to the rules requiring manifests

and supplemental permits.

57-109

---

—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 from the State permit requirement now in Sec-

tion 21(d)

of the Act, and may not be 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.

a.

b.

Landfilling after fixation or treatment with

absorbent;

c.

Thermal treatment in a rotary kiln incinerator;

d.

Mechanical separation with different recycling,

discussed below.

57-110

—25—

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;

d.

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.

Incineration in rotary kiln incinerator.

The economic impact study found the following costs

associated with techniques for recycling, treatment and

disposal:

57-111

---

—26—

Cost Per

55 gal. drum

Ex.

2

Landfilling

$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

Recycling

(savings)

($27)

to

($30.50)

p.

42,

57

Wet oxidation

$77

p.

14

Supercritical

Water Reforming

$5.50

to $16

p.

15

The existing bans

in the RCRA rules and the coming

statutory bans on landfilling liquid hazardous wastes have

or will curtail the direct landfilling of the liquid wastes

and the mixed wastes containing free liquid.

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 pending statutory bans

will be to prohibit the addition of absorbents to solvent

phases and to prohibit the landfilling of solid wastes which

form a non-aqueous liquid phase when mixed with water.

The

costs associated with prohibition of direct landfilling of

liquid hazardous wastes are now more properly attributable

to the RCRA rules and the statutory ban.

These broader bans 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).

Because of the factors noted above,

the number of

generators

arid 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

bans may be

57-112

---

—27—

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.

The study estimated that landfilling 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 landfilling 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 benefits 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

(R.

180,

189).

PROPOSED ACTION

The Board has modified the proposal in response to

comments and the public hearings.

The following

is a dis-

cussion of the proposed rules, which appear in a separate

Order:

Section 729.100

Purpose, Scope and Applicability

Paragraphs

(a)

through

Ce)

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

CR.

242).

“Landfills”

also includes surface impoundments and waste piles

in which

waste residues are expected to remain after closure.

57-113

---

—28—

The rule prohibits disposal in landfills.

This is to

be taken as equivalent to “land disposal” in 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 724, under which lagoons and waste piles in which

wastes will remain after closure are to be treated as

landfills

R82—l9,

7

Ill. Reg.

14015, October 28, 1983;

Sections 724.210(b) (2),

724.328(a) (1) and 724.358(a)1.

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.

Land treatment is

likewise not prohibited, although the operator would have to

demonstrate that the hazardous constituents would be “degraded.

transformed or immobilized”

(35 Ill. Adm. Code 724.372).

Underground injection pursuant to UIC permit will also be

allowed

(35 Ill. Adm. Code 704 and 730,

6 Ill. Reg. 12,479).

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).

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.

The

relationship to Part 807

is elaborated on in Section 729.122.

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(h)

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 before loading it.

57-114

---

—29—

Paragraph

(f)

leads into the next two related Sections

which deal with a complete and partial defense which could

be

used

by the transporter and disposer.

Section 729.120

Generators Assertion of Exemption

The transporter and disposer may insist on a written

statement of compliance from a generator.

Section 729.120

allows introduction of such a complete defense in an enforce-

ment action, except where knowledge is shown.

Such a written

statement would be used as documentary evidence against the

generator,

and could be evidence of intentional violation.

The generator exemptions are keyed to the quantity of

waste generated rather than the quantity landfilled.

The

transporter cannot simply weigh the monthly loads to satisfy

himself that the generator is

in fact in compliance, since

the generator could be utilizing another means to dispose of

part of the waste.

Section 729.120 allows the transporter

to rely on a written statement asserting exemption.

Of

course,

if the transporter were actually transporting waste

in excess of the exempted quantity allowed the generator, he

would be held to have known that the waste’s disposal was

prohibited.

Section 729.121

Mitigation

This establishes a partial defense under Section 33(c)

of the Act.

A person who conducts employee training, posts

signs and conducts random sampling of wastes should not have

a substantial penalty levied against him in the absence of

other aggravating circumstances.

Section 729.122

Relationship to Wastestream Permits

The Board notes that Section

39(h) was added to the Act

by different legislation than Section 22(h).

It requires,

after 1986,

individual authorization of hazardous waste-

streams by the Agency

(R. 146).

It is beyond question that

the Agency could not approve a wastestream which has been

banned by the Board.

Paragraph

(c)

deals with the details of Agency review

of wastestreams.

The Agency may require the applicant to

demonstrate that halogenated compounds are present at less

than specified levels or that an exemption applies.

The

Agency is expected to reach a decision on the applicability

of Part 729:

it is not to issue the wastestream authorization

with a caveat that Part 729 may apply.

57-115

---

—30—

The Agency’s review of wastestreams which are routinely

generated is to focus on the average quantities and properties

of the waste.

It may establish conditions necessary to

assure continued approval under Part 729.

However, conditions

which would allow landfilling some months and prohibit it in

others are to be avoided,

These would frustrate long-term

planning.

A wastestream authorization should identify the waste

by composition with a range of acceptable variation.

Once

the wastestream has been authorized for landfilling, Part

729 will be superseded by the conditions of the authorization.

The main limitation on this

is the description of the waste-

stream.

If this gets outside the parameters which identify

it,

a new authorization will be needed

(R.

246).

Section 729.123

Waste Analysis

The Board does not intend to specify analytical techniques

to be used to identify wastes coming into landfills.

For

wastes which are routinely generated, what is intended is

rules which the Agency is to apply in issuing supplemental

wastestream permits or authorizations.

Whether an applicant

has demonstrated that a waste has certain characteristics is

a question of fact to be determined from all the evidence

presented with the application.

Tests and frequency of

testing for individual waste loads are to be specified in

the supplemental wastestream authorizations and the waste

analysis plan for a RCRA facility

(Section 724.113).

The

operator may use any techniques which he demonstrates to

have a reasonable relationship to the property to be measured

CR.

789,

792,

800,

842).

Section 729.140

Variances and Site Specific Regulations

The provisions of the Act and Procedural Rules governing

variances and site specific regulations apply to all Board

rules.

However, the Board has added a specific reference to

the proposal since applicability of these procedures seems

to have caused confusion

CR.

367,

395,

423).

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.

57-118

---

—31—

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 first proposal included concentration limits on

halogenated organics in solids.

Since these have been

dropped,

the dilution rule of paragraph

(a) would no longer

operate to prohibit addition of absorbent material.

The

Board has therefore added

a specific prohibition on addition

of absorbents.

The RCRA rules contain express provisions authorizing

addition of absorbent material to

liquid

wastes and disposal

of “lab packs” in drums of absorbent.

The Board’s intent is

to prohibit such practices in the case of halogenated solvents

if the waste is to be laridfilled in Illinois

(R,

95,

123,

261).

Paragraph

Cc)

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

quantity limits.

Section

729.202

Incorporations

by

Reference

The

Board

has incorporated two ASTM methods for deter-

mining total organic halogen, and the proposed paint filter

test to determine whether free liquids are present.

The

latter will be used pending completion of R83-28.

57-117

---

—32—

Section 729.221

Definition of Halogenated Compound

Halogenated

compounds

include

the

chlorinated

compounds

in

generic

hazardous

wastes

FOOl

and

F002

in

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 721.133(f):

carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated fluoro-

carbons, chlorobenzene,

1,2-dichlorobenzene, methylene

,

perchioroethylene,

1,1,1—trichloroethane, trichloro—

ethylene, trichiorofluoromethane and 1,1,2—trichloro-l,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).

The

listings

are

“halogenated

compounds”:

if

they

are

present

in

an

organic

solvent

above

a

certain

level,

the

solvent

will

be

an

“halogenated

solvent”

(5729.222)

subject

to

prohibition

(55729.240

and

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

which,

although they often result from use

of

a

solvent,

are

now

a

solute0

Section

729. 222

Halogenated

Solvent-—Definition

The

term

“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

be

determined

from the aggregation of the

weights

of

the compounds present and the weight of the

sample.

57-118

---

TABLE

I

‘~Solubility

1’2~b.p.

mg/k~inwater

°C

BOlO

benzene, chioro—

phenyl

chloride

500

131

C6H5C1

B020

benzene,

1,2—dichloro-

orthodichlorobenzene

100

179

C6H4C12

B030

chlorinated

fluoro-

carbons

B040

ethane,

1,1,1—trichioro—

methyl

chloroform

4,400

74

CC13CH3

650

B050

ethane,

1,1,2—trichioro—

1,2,

2—trifluoro—

48

CC12FCC1F2

B060

ethene,

tetrachioro-

perchioroethylene

tetrachioroethylene

150

121

Cd2

:CC12

B070

ethene,

trichloro—

1,10

87

ethinyl

trichioride

/

1000

trichioroethylene

CHC1 : Cd2

B080

methane,

dichloro-

methylene

chloride—

20,000

40

methylene

dichioride

CH2C12

B090

methane,

tetrachioro—

carbon tetrachioride

800

77

CC14

B100

methane, trichlorofluoro—

trichloromonofluoro-

1,100

24

methane

CC13F

1)

2’~’

A

to

Ex.

I

3~Ex, 2,

p.

24

4~Handbook of

Chemistry

and

Physics,

44th

Edition.

PC

7

57-119

---

—34—

The

term

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,

l~ 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

(R.

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,

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 HC1

standard would not apply if the waste feed was less than

57-120

---

—35—

0.5

organically bound chlorine

(47 Fed, Reg.

27516, 27526,

June 24,

1982) CR. 747,

799,

Ex.

2,

p.

8)

.

The

level

of

analysis required 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 tetrachioride.

The impact of prohibition at

1

total

organic

halogen

is

to

ban chlorobenzene at around 3

and

carbon tetrachloride at O~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 rather to the effect

on

liners.

Section

729.223

applies

only

to

non-aqueous

phases,

where

the

other

99

may

he

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 rulemakings.

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 an halogenated compound with

more than 70

halogen, o~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

(R.

349,

411,

426,

746,

799,

Ex~ 14,

App.

IX,

p•

7).

The

Board

declines

to

so

expand the scope of this

rulemaking.

However,

the

present

structure

of

the

proposal

would

make

it

easy

to

amend

the

rules

to

move

to

generic

regulation.

57-121

---

—36—

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

(R. 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.

Solid wastes are subject to a proviso referencing

Section 729.243.

This is worded as

a proviso to place the

burden of showing that the waste

is a solid on the person

seeking to avoid the prohibition.

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

(R.

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 most

troubling

component of the

57-122

---

—37—

waste

(R.

902).

It also avoids difficulties

in obtaining

representative samples of muitiphase wastes

(R.

800).

And,

it encourages separation, and discourages creation, of

multiphase

wastes

which

pose

more

problems for disposal or

recycling

(R.

410,

738,

769,

773).

As

has

been discussed above,

there is adequate

existing

capacity

to

recycle

or

incinerate

the halogenated solvent

phases

produced

in

the State.

Section 729.241

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

729.240.

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

CR.

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(h)

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-aqueous phase.

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

CR.

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

57-123

---

—38—

non-polar solvents and undiluted polar solvents, and a

second rule to polar solvents dissolved in water

CR.

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-aqueous phase.

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 solubi.ity

CR.

1154).

As

is discussed above,

the aqueous phases may be incin-

erated or treated in other ways,

although some generators

may have difficulty immediately finding 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 prohibition 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 an 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—aqueous liquid 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 S729.240,

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

liquid which might be present in the waste.

The latter test

has been dropped in favor of language making

it

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 representative 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).

57-124

---

—39—

As

is discussed above, wastes containing solids can be

incinerated, although some generators may have difficulty in

immediately finding existing capacity.

If so, petitions for

variances or site specific relief may be submitted.

Section 729.261

Dry Cleaning Wastes

This Section defers the ban for dry cleaners which

generate

less

than

100

kg/mo.

of

contaminated

wastes

for

two

years.

This

will

give

them

time

to

develop

existing

capacity,

or

to

seek

a

rule

related

more closely to conditions

in their industry.

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

iandfilled

with

general

refuse

CR.

287,

294,

302,

PC

5).

The

100

kg/mo~ corresponds

with

the

level

at

which

manifests are required under Parts 723 and 809, which the

Board assumes apply to dry cleaning wastes.

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).

It should

be noted that the 100 kg/mo. exemption applies only to the

manifest requirement, not the supplemental wastestream

requirement of Section 807,211, although that rule

is difficult

to enforce without the manifest requirement.

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

CR.

289),

With good recycling

equipment, this will generate just under 100 kg per month of

residues

CR.

303).

Incineration of this residue is expected

to cost about $15,000 per year for the dry cleaner

(R.

290).

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

1 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

incinerators.

Economical

incineration

of

these

wastes

at

this

time

may

be

more

difficult.

The

Board

has

therefore

postponed the ban

for

dry

cleaners

presently

outside

the

manifest

system.

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

57-125

---

—40—

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 landfllled will

depend

on

the

general

provisions.

This rule applies only to

Subpart

B

of

Part

729,

and

is

not

an

exemption

to

the

other

bans.

Therefore,

residues

which

contain free liquids will

be

subject

to

the

other

bans.

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

This authorizes landfilling by persons who generate

less

than

1

kg/mo.

of

solvent

waste.

As used in this Section

the

mass

of

solvent

in

the

waste

is

the

determining

factor

CR.

251)

The

1

kg

is

determined by a

12

month

moving

average.

To

determine

applicability,

a

generator

adds

up

the

preceding

11

months.

The

amount

which

can

be

landfilled

in

the

current

month

is

the

difference

between

that

sum

and

12

kg.

The

idea

is

to

look

to

long

term

performance

rather

than

having

generators

subject

to

the

prohibition

during

some

months

but

not others.

Like the RCRA and Part 809 small quantity rules, the

exemption depends on the quantity generated rather than the

quantity landfilled.

The alternative approach would allow

even

very

large

generators

with

recycling capacity to

landfill

1

kg

per

month.

It

should

be

more

economical

for

large generators to adopt more

sophisticated

disposal

or

recycling techniques.

At the final hearing CBE requested a small quantity

rule

of

1

kg

per

landfill

per

month..

Although

this

would

be

easier

to

enforce,

it

could

be

too

restrictive

in

terms

of

the amount of halogenated solvents which could be safely

handled.

Furthermore it fails

to differentiate landfills on

the basis of size

CR. 245,

249,

259),

It would also be

difficult to enforce against generators and transporters who

would not know the quantity the landfill had received.

57-126

---

—41—

The 1 kg quantity may be determined by several methods,

including mass balance analysis of the processes responsible

for generation of the waste

CR. 801,

822, 837).

This second first notice Opinion supports the Board’s second

first notice Order of this same date,

The first notice Opinion

and Order of May

5,

1983 are withdrawn,

Because of their

length, the second first notice Opinion and Order will not

be published in the Opinion volumes,

but will be distributed

to participants.

The proposal will be published

for

first

notice in the Illinois Register; the record will remain open

for a period of 45 days for public comment following publi-

cation in the Illinois Register.

Board

Member Bill Forcade abstained.

Board Member J.

Theodore Meyer dissented.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above second fir t

notice Opinion was adopted on the

81~

day of

#~?)

1984 by a vote of

~/-/

Christan L. Mo

t,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

57-127