ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

August

22,

1984

In thc rr~atterof:

PRO ,FI~IO~ON LANLFILLING

)

R8l~2

OF

ALOGE~I~TED

SOLVENTS

(CBE)

)

PROPOSED

RULE

SECOND

NOTICE

THPO

P~OPOSEDOPrN1ON

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

J~

Anderson):

On September 23,

1981

Citizens

for

a

Better

Environment

(CBE’~, an Illinois not~for~prof

it corporation,

filed a pro-

posa)

for adoption of a rule prohibiting disposal of ch1ori~~

n~ted~o1v~nts at landfill sites,

The

proposal

was authorized

~or heari:~gand appeared in the Environmental Register on

November

6

198L

On

February

3, 1982 CBE amended the

propc~alto conform

with

codification requirements and to

state the relationship with the newly adopted PCRA rules,

The arended 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

Snringfield

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

Im~’ace

of ?roposed

Regulation

R8l-25:

Prohibition

of

Chiori-

r.ateJ Solvents in

Sanitary

Landfills,”

DENR

Doe

No,

83/08

(Exhibit

2)

~o

economic impact hearings were held:

,,~

March

31,

1983

Urbana

L

Ap~i.

15,

1983

Chicago

The Board received

six

public comments during and after

to me~itand economic impact hearings:

PCI

Monsanto Chemical Intermediates, February 19,

1982

P02

Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, March

8,

1982

P03

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, March 26, 198?

9~heBoard wishes

to

express its appreciation to Morton F~

Dorothy fet his great assistance in developing this regula-

~ion and f~’acting as Hearing Officer,

The Board also

remeititers with appreciation

and

a sense of loss the late

Boa’~dMamber Donald

B. Anderson, who acted as coordinating

3oa~:dMomber during a

major

portion of these proceedings~

---

P04

Caterpillar

Tractor

Company,

April

21,

1983

P05

Illinois State Fabricare Association, April

28,

1983

P06

Citizens

for

a

Better Environment, May 2,

1983

On

May

3,

1983 the Board adopted a first notice Order

and a

Proposed

Opinions

The proposal appeared at

7 Ill,

Reg~

6276,

May 20, l983~ The comment period was extended on

July

14,

1983.

Following

the

First Notice, the Board received

the

following

public

comments:

P07

Halogenated Cleaning Solvents Association

P08

E.

I,

Dupont

de

Nemours and Company

P09

National Solid Wastes Management Association

PC1O

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

POll

Caterpillar Tractor Company

PCI2

Waste Management of Illinois, mc,

P013

Citizens for

a Better Environment

P014

National Solid Wastes Management Association

PC15

Illinois Manufacturers~Association

P016

National Solid Wastes Management Association

P017

Waste Management of Illinois

P018

Administrative Code Unit

P019

Waste

Management,

Inc.

On

July

5,

1983

Waste

Management

of

Illinois,

mc,,

(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

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

B

Ill,

Reg,

4425,

April

6,

1984,

On

May

21,

1984

the

Board

received

a

comment

from

Waste

Management

of

Illinois

mc,

(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

59~46O

---

this

Docket,

The Board incorporates the record in R83~-28A

:Lnto

this proceeding~

The Board has modified the proposal in this Docket

in

response

to

the public comment and

in order to make this

proposal consistent ~iith

the

emergency rules adopted in R83-

28,

The

Second

Proposed

Opinion and Second

First

Notice

Order

of

March

8,

1984

are superseded by this Third Proposed

Opinion

and

Second

Notice

Order.

Summary of Major

Changes

The

following

is

a

brief

summary

of

the major differences

between

the

first

and

second

First

Notice

Orders,

and

the

Second

Notice

Order:

1.

The

applicability

of

the

entire

Part

has

been

restricted to

hazardous

waste

as

(Section 729.100).

2..

Procedural Sections have been dropped in favor of

the Part 709 procedures adopted in R83—28,

3.

The prohibition on landfilling diluted materials

has been deleted, although the dilution itself

would

still

be

4.

Definitions of terms have been added

(S729,220)~,

5~

Halogenated

~compounds” have been distinguished

from halogenated ~‘so1vents”,with the latter

term

reserved for non~aqueous

liquid

phases containing

halogenated compounds

(SS729,221 and 729,222)~,

6~

Total organic halogen content has been substituted

as an alternative method for judging

the

presence

of halogenated compounds

(S729.222).

7.

Halogenated compounds are presumed

to reside

preferentially

in

organic phases

‘3729.224),

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.

59~4~

1

---

ii.

The small quantity rule has been changed from

I

kg/mo, of halogenated compounds to the level

which

would trigger the preparation of a manifest

pursuant to Part 722 or Part

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.

The

Board

has

adapted

emergency

rules

in

R83-~28, effective

July

5,

1984.

RCRA

On February

4,

1982 the Board adopted regulations

to

allow Illinois to he delegated Phase

I

RCRA

authority

under

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(42 U.S.C.

§6901)

(R81—22,

6 Iii.

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

Iii.

Req.

2518,

March

4,

1983),

On

July 26,

1983 the

Board

adapted

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

ments,

in Subchapter c of Chapter

1, 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

59-462

---

—5—

the AlirJnistr:tive Procedure Act

(REA).

The Board

has

followed

and

will

follow

these

procedures

in

this

rule-

making.

The

Board

finds

that

Part

729

is

not

inconsistent

with

and

~t

least

as

stringent

as

the

RCP~Act

and

rules,

Secticn 22,4 ~b) will he

added

to

the

main

authority

note

in

the proposed rules.

RELATIONSHIP

TO

OTHER

LANDFILLING

RESTRICTIONS

Sections

724.414

and

725,4:14

contain

special

require-

ments

fcr

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

landfiliing

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 1iquid~has

been removed or mixed with an absorbent,

The chlorinated solvent

ban differs

from the RCRA

prohi-

bitions

in

the

following

areas:

i,

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

HJ3,

1054,

prohibits

the

iandfiiiinq

of

~1iquid

hazardous

waste”

after

JtLiy

1,

1984,

except

with specific authori-

zation

from

the

Agency.

In R83—28 the

Board

has

adopted

emergency

rules imp1e~-

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 halogenated

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.

59-463

---

—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(q)

authority.

4.

The

Board.

now

has

a

detailed

definition

of

uiiquid~

which

can

be

applied

to

this

rulemaking.

S.

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

CATEGORIZATION OF WASTES

In

adopting

Sections

22(g),

22,6

and

39(h),

the

General

Assembly

has

made

the

landfill

prohibitions

a

centerpiece

of

the

Stat&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

categoriza—

tion

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

iandfiiling

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

59-464

---

22(g),

22.6 or 39(h) which establishes the type or

design of

th’

~ipdf

ii

~

1c~~

~or

cor1s_ueLat~on

The Board

there-

fore

rejects

as

contrary

to the

:Legislative

intent

any

broad

exempcion

based

on

landfill

design,

However,

the Board may

ost~.bUsI~i(t

L

rd

ent

ph~ce—irL scb~Ju±eo

or concentration

rules

depending

on

the

type

of

landfill,

The

order

in

which

categories

of

waste

are

addressed

depends

on

several

factors:

I.

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~

inent

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

landfiiling;

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

1iinited~

In

the

present

matter,

chlorinated

solvents

is

an

easiiy’~defined

category,

California

has

regulated

halo-

~Tenated

solvents

as

a

category

(R.

324,

342,

346,

351,

355,

365,

388),

At

least

some

information

on

the

category

was

avai1able.~

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

mon:ftoring wells around hazardous waste

landfills,

59~-465

---

U

——

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

ba:i

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

CR.

10,

1013,

1030,

Ex,

1A,

1C,

lD,

lE);

2.

l3ronchopulmonary,

including

irritation,

broncho—

constriction, pulmonary congestion and respiratory

depression

CR.

10,

1030,

Ex,

1A,

IC,

1D,

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.

1A,

1E,

IG)

4,

Gastrointestinal,

including nausea, vomiting and

diarrhea

(R.

12,

Ex.

IE,

iF);

5,

Central

nervous

system,

including

central

nervous

system depression,

headache,

dizziness and

stag-

gering gait

CR.

10,

30,

1030,

Ex,

1A,

1B,

1E,

1G)

;

6~

Skin,

including chioracne,

dermatitis,

cracking

and

irritation

(R,

12,

90,

1036,

Ex,

iF,

1G);

7.

Accumu:Lation

of

carboxyhemoglobin,

equivalent

to

carbon

monoxide

poisoning

CR.

11,

90,

119,

1036,

1048,

1081,

1096,

Ex.

1B);

8.

Fetotoxicity

and

teratogenicity

(B.

14,

105,

1014,

1017,

1037,

Ex,

1A,

IB,

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.

59-466

---

—9—

CHLOROBENZENE

Chlorohenzene damages the liver and

kidney of test

animals

(Ex.

).A,

Ex.

2,

p.

27).

A

recent

bioassay

test

provided

some indication

of

carcinogenicity,

but

was

not

conclusive

(R~

209,.

Ex,

3M

ORTHODICHLOROBEN ZENE

Orthodichiorobenzene

damages

the

liver

and

kidneys

(B.

12,

14,

Ex,

IA,

IF

and

IG,

Ex.

2,

p.

28).

It

causes

irritation

to

the

lungs,

vomiting

and

dermatitis

in

occupa-

tional

exposure

(R,

13,

Ex.

iF).

It

is

mutagenic and

a

suspected

carcinogen

(B.

209,

Ex.

1A,

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 epinephririe-induced arrhythmias

(B.

11,

Ex,

lA,

1,1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE

Data exists concerning the effect of methyl chloroform

on animals and humans in occupational exposure

(B. 12~lO2~

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

(B.

209,

1031,

Ex.

3A).

It

is weakly

mutagenic in some assays

(B.

1014).

TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE

Trichiorotrifluoroethane causes cardiovascular effects

similar

to

those described under the generic description

of

chlorinated fluorocarbons above

(B.

139, Ex.

IA,

IC,

1D,

Ex,

2,

p.

28),

TETRACHLOROETHENE

Perchioroethylene

damages

the

liver,

kidneys

and

central

nervous system

CR.

1013,

Ex.,

1A,

Ex,

2,

p.

23).

It

is

fetotoxic,

teratogenic, mutagenic and a confirmed animal

carcinogen

CR.

14, 101,

1014,

1031,

1050,

Ex,

1A).

However,

widespread

use

in dry cleaning,

as

an industrial chemical

and in

drugs indicates

that some level of exposure may be

acceptable

(B.

1005,

59-467

---

—10—

Trichioroethylene

causes

central

nervous

system depres-

sion

and

some

liver

and

kidney

damage

CR.

14,

Ex,

1A,

Ex.

2,

p.

26).

it

is

mutagenic

and

a

confirmed

animal

carcinogen

(R~

14,

101,

209,

1031,

1050,

Ex,

IA,

Ex,

3A).

However,

its

widespread

use

in

drugs,

foods

and industrial operations

indicates

that

some

level

of

exposure

may

be

acceptable

(B,

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

(B.

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

(B,

90,

1036).

It

is metabolized

to carbon monoxide, resulting in a decrease in carboxy—

hemoglobin levels

CR,

90,

1036,

1081,

1095,

Ex,

1B).

It

is

fetotoxic, teracogenic, mutagenic and a confirmed animal

carcinogen

(B,

14, 102,

209,

1014, Ex,

3A)

TETRACHLOROMETHANE

Carbon tetrachloride damages the liver, kidneys and

central nervous system

(Ex.

IA, 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

(B.

1048,

1081),

TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE

Trichlorofluoromethane

is

a

volatile

chlorinated flüoro-

carbon,

referred

to

as

“F—Il”

(B,

119,

Ex,

1C),

It

is

relatively nontoxic,

but

does

induce

changes

in

heart rate

and

respiratory

depression

(B.

11,

Ex,

lA,

1C).

CRITICISM

OF

TOXICITY

Dr.

Raymond

D, Harbison testified

for

Waste Management

on

the

question

of

toxicity

(B.

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

59-468

---

—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

landfiiling

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

(B,

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

CR. 1007).

Some

of

these

compounds

may

be produced by natural processes

(B,

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

(B.

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

CR,

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

(B.

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

(B.

570,

1010).

Furthermore,

it seems to be

59~489

---

evaporat

re

osses during use of solvents which is the major

contrilutci

to

the

background,

rather

than

overt

disposal

CR.

1008).

Dr

Harbison

contends

that

there

is

a

long

record of

safe

oc

upational

exposure

to

low

levels

of

chlorinated

compoands

CR

1012,

1043,

1067),

Although many of the toxic

effeots

di~cussed above

were

discovered through occupational

exposure,

they

are

based

on

high

levels of

exposure.

Animal

studies

were

also

based

on

high

levels

of

exposure.

Dr.

H~rbison is

convinced

that

some

of

these

compounds

have

a

thras~o~ below

which

there

are

no

effects

(B.

1016,

1018,

1037,

104).

r~.

G~nsburgon the

other

hand

testified

that

low

levels

of

exposure

for a long

period

of

time

could

produce

toxic

effects,

especially

carcinogenic

effects

(B,

90,

109,

210).

Dr

Harbison

testified

that

there

were

two

mechanisms

by which chemicals can induce

cancer

or

mutations:

genotoxic

carcinogers cause direct damage to the genetic mechanisms;

while e~igeneticcarcinogens induce cancer indirectly by

causing recurrent injury to tissues

(B,

1020,

1024,

1031

1049).

~:though

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

(R,

1021,

1031,

1049

.

Apparently this does not nec~essarilyhold for

the

aronatic

chlorinated

compounds

such

as

chlorobenzene

and

orthodi~h1orobenzene CR.

1021,

1031

049).

Di, Harbison also testified that some of the low molecu-

lar weight aliphatic chlorinated hydrocarbons are metabolized

and exc~etedwith a reasonably short half life.

They are

not accurtulated in fat, although the body~scurrent burden

is found there

(B, 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

CR.

1080).

However, they clearly are not

desirable constituents of potential sources of potable

groundwat’r.

They clearly pose a sufficient risk to warrant

1imitation~on landfilling based on toxicity alone,

B’

Earbison

stated

his opposition to the landfilling

of liquIds

and recommended establishment of concentration

levels of

i

to 5

chlorinated compounds

(B.

1058, 1068,

1071,

lOdi,

1090),

The

1

levels proposed by the Board are

within thi~range,

59-470

---

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

(B,

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

(B.

441) (Section

724.401(a)(l),

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

(B.

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

(B.

445).

Furthermore, although synthetic liners are less

permeable

than

clay,

it

is

likely

that

their

service life is

limited to a few decades

(B.

442,

484,

489,

1152),

After

the

synthetic

liner

fails,

clay

will

be necessary to attenu-

ate

any

leachate

movement

(B.

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

(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

59.471

---

—14—

contact

~t.h

the

liner

either

on

the

bottom

or

side

of

the

1andfi~l

(F,

76,

94,

871,

971,

884,

899,

1153),

Org~rlc

solvents

can

cause

a

change

in

the

structure

of

clay,

tbrcuch 4esiccation and shrinkage, which results in

cracks

th”ough which liquids can flow,

Permeability increases

by

sevci~ orders of magnitude

(R.

866,

890).

Some clays

show

a

reduction in permeability when they are

rehydrated,

althoogh

tl~Cy never

regain

their

original

degree

of imperme-

ahilrtj

(P.

873)

Orçu’ni~solvents also degrade synthetic liners through

a va’~6Lyof mechanisms,

including actual dissolution of the

liner,

~wciling and reduction in tensile strength, making

the Liner more susceptible

to failure due to stresses

(B, 470).

The expwr~who testified were in agreemenL that solvents

should not be placed into landfills, both because of the

impact on l3ners and because they are liquids

(B.

517, 526,

882,

888,

10)0).

Sections 729.240 and 729 242 prohibit

wastes cortaining non-aqueous liquid phases which are halo-

genated

solvents,

H0logenated compounds may also be present dissolved in

an aqueo is phase.

Most of them are soluble in pure water at

levels of around 100 to 1000 mg/I, with methyl chloroform

soluble

a

around

4400 mg/l,

and dichloromethane at 20,000

mg/I

(Ex,

1,

2;

B,

524),

However,

they could be far more

soluble in an aqueous phase containing other organic sol-

vents,

such as methyl alcohol

(B.

1154).

Dr. Kirk W,

Brown testified that phases which are more

than ~0

water have no impact or clay liners

(B.

899,

901)

Since this corresponds with the definition of “aqueous

phase”

he saw no need to establish any concentration levels

for ha ~ogenated solvents in aqueous phases

(B.

902),

Mr

Phillip E. Antoinmarie testified concerning tests

run

with

actual

and simulated leachates using triaxial stands,

which

sore closely approximate conditions of an in—place

clay

irer

‘B

1111,

1153).

The

actual

leachates

were

on

the order of

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

trichtoroethylene and trichloroethane

(B,

1115,

1153),

These

produced no changes in permeability

(R.

1113),

Mr. Anto~narie

stated that there was no problem with landfilling wastes

which

are 1

to 2

solvent in existing landfills

CR.

1145).

Mr

John C. Petura testified that halogenated solvents

present

in

aqueous

phases

at

levels

of

more

than

1,

or

10,000 ‘ng/~ mosed a threat to synthetic liners

(B.

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

(B.

533,

535),

In Section

729.241 the Board has established a

concentration

limit

of

59-472

---

—15—

about

1

halogeriated

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 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

(R.

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 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 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

(B.

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

(B,

85, 212,

Ex,

3,

4).

Chlorinated solvents leaking from lagoons at the

Amoco

facility

in

Wood

River

have

also

been

detected

in

groundwater

(B.

1105,

1151).

59-473

---

16—

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. (R~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

RCR& 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

(B,

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

(B.

570),

Recycling and treatment operations also may pose a

threat of groundwater contamination:

storage and transfer

operations can result in solvent spills

CR.

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

(B.

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

59-474

---

—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,

)~owever,

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,

B.

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

solution

would

be

easy to incinerate,

and

possibly

be usable as a fuel

(B.

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

(R.

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

(B,

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

(B,

36,

72,

134,

184,

230),

Scrubbers produce sludges which may themselves be

hazardous wastes,

Incineration also produces ash, which

also could he hazardous,

Incineration is not a

disposal

of

59-475

---

—18—

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

volurn~arc possibly makes

it less hazardous

CR.

83,

99,

178,

267,

728,

~58, Ex,

2,

p.

12),

The principal problem cited

with

~cruhn r sludges

is their calcium or sodium chloride

conten4

‘~i~A’

is very leachable

CR

728).

U~,c

0

waste solvents as fuels

is referred to as

“coincineration”

(B.

177, Ex.

2,

p.

12,

57),

The halogen

contert or

i

solvent waste limits

its use as a fuel because

of fact~nsother than the reduction in caloric content,

The

hydroç~c

e

oride from combustion of chlorinated solvents

forms

‘dvoohloric acid in water.

Because this can attack

boile

ubc~,only solvents with low halogen content are

usefu1

r boiler fuels

(B.

723,

/65).

Cement kilns can burn

fuels

u’~to 3

halogen, but beyond that

excessive

calcium

chloriu~

~ormed in the product

(R.24,

760,

763, Ex.

1).

Hrlogerated compounds in solvent phase may also be

absorb~d

nto

a

solid

or

fixed

into a solid matrix

(Ex,

2,

p.

l6’~

the Board has prohibited the use of absorbent

materials

~R83—28,

Order

of

June

29,

1984).

Ir

iteration

of

solvent

phases

requires

a

liquid

injec-

tion

ircinerator,

Both the Waste Management incinerator at

Sauget

and the SCA incinerator near Chicago

appear

to

be

able ~‘cLand’e

these

wastes

(B.

732,

Ex.

2,

p.

40),

There

are

also

incinerators

in Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, Georgia

and

Kertucky

(B.

754),

There appears to be adequate capacity

to inc nerate all solvent wastes which are not suitable for

recyc

‘rc or use as fuel

(B.

735,

953),

I

rd

P.

BOSS,

testifying for Waste Management

conce

ng incinerators,

stated his support for prohibition

of laidfil1~ngof pure halogenated materials, and indicated

that 31~utesolutions in solvent phases were easier to

incir crate and more suitable as fuels than pure halogenated

solyefts

(B.

716,

735,

768),

Ilternat’ve treatment or disposal of aqueous wastes

noses irfterert problems,

It is not likely that halogenated

componids would be present in an aqueous phase

in sufficient

quant~e~to allow recovery of the solvents through distil-

jatior

‘B

/18).

The aqueous solotions will require some

~

atsient

prior

to

disposal.

~tI-

difficulty

with

incineration

is

the

presence

of

‘~ate~.n

ie aqueous wastes.

As defined ir Section 729.220,

an

“i~i

‘i

phase” has water as the solvent, comprising more

than

0~’

f

the phase.

A large amount of auxiliary heat is

require

“

aporize the water to achieve combustion of the

59-476

---

—19”

halogenated solvents

(B,

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 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 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

(B.

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

(R,

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. Beg.

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

CEx,

2,

p.

14, Ex,

12,

13,

B.

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

59-477

---

—20--

water.

The record is insufficient to form definite conclu-

sions

cinccrrlrig the practicality of these methods as applied

to

acteous wastes~.

rho ~inal category of

wastes

is

solids,

which

for

purposes

cf this discussion

includes

“liquids”,

as

defined

in Sect or

~.).220,with solid phases which limit the

recy-

cling

or

~rcineration of the waste,

Such wastes identified

in this

z t~emakinginclude filter cartridges from dry cleaners,

still

ott us from solvent recycling and

spill

residues

(B.

177,

Lx.

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.

73’~,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

(B.

734, Ex.

2,

p.

40).

The

combined capacity

could

not nandle contaminated soil from a

large spill or

the

clean-tP

of any major abandoned site

CR.

744),

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Letermination of the economic impact of the proposal

involu

a comparison of its costs and benefits,

Most of

the

a

‘iron has centered on estimating the direct costs

to

the

per~o.is subject

to

the

proposal,

Estimation

of these

costs

depends

on the following factors:

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;

Identification of the current disposal methods

which

would

be

prohibited,

and the quantities and

‘oats associated with

the

prohibited

disposal

nethods;

59-478

---

—21--

6.

~dentification

of alternative recycling, treatment

~rd disposal techniques;

jetermination of the costs associated with the

aternative techniques;

S

Dntermination

of

the

quantities

amenable to

nlternative

techniques;

3,

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,

9)

Two hearings were held on the economic impact as required

by Seetic 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

concerniig

a

number

of

these

points

(B.

923),

~‘asteManagement contends in part that the rulemaking

is defective because

of

a

deficient

economic

impact

study

(B.

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 piblic 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

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 ef 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

(R.

957).

Although Waste Management may have understood the FOOl and

F002 wastes defined in Part 721 to have an implied 1

concen—

f

ration rule,

it made no attempt to

introduce

this

fact

at

the

first

series

of merit and economic impact hearings

at

which th~concentration levels

were

discussed

(R.199,

201,

2’8,

981).

59-479

---

—22—

5~c~n27(h)

of the Act allows the Board to modify and

subsequentLy adopt any proposed regulations without

any

additional e’ionomic sttdy by the Department of

Energy and

Natura

ResoLrces provided such amendment does not signifi—

cant~a1’~e~the intent

and

purpose

of the proposed regula-

tion which was the subject of the study.

The

,fThition of the wastes to be prohibited

has

been

subject to ~ome confusion,

The CBE proposal was couched in

terms

~

gereric

wastes

FOOl

and

F002.

The first notice

proposa~dropped the reference to FOOl and F002,

but listed

the compounds comprising those

wastes,

and set a definite

limit

oi

tr~ce

levels

of one part per million.

Although many

experts agreed that it was desirable to set some definite

de minimis limit

(B,

736,

808,

944),

this created problems

in two area~:

first,

it is conceivable that a waste con-

taining an halogenated. compound at I ppm might not be a

hazardous

waste

CR,

940,

968,

975);

and, second, generic

wastes FOOr and F002, as applied,

seem to have an understood

1

unit

(B,

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

definit_on of the wastes to be prohibited is closer to that

apparently used in the economic impact study and

other

studies quoted by Waste Management.

Tie proposal regulates waste according to whether it

includes a non—aqueous liquid phase, or whether it

is

an

aqueous ohase or a solid.

The economic impact study, empha—

sizinc’

recycling potential, classified waste as “liquid-high

sorver.

content, liquid—aqueous solution and sludge/high

solId’

01. ent content”

(R.

185,

196, Ex,

2,

p.

22).

This

classr. canion is related

to

the terms used in the proposal,

but

th~terns

cannot

be equated.

Deteim~natronof 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:

The definition

of

“hazardous

waste” has changed

since

data

collection

started,

2,

As nuted, 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

(B.

199,

201,

943, 957,

979),

3.

Agency data was collected with respect

to

special

vaste,

a broader category than hazardous waste

(P

931,

934),

59-480

---

—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

(B.

927,

932,

935,

974),

6.

Quantities of waste imported into the State may

not

be

adequately

counted

(B.

935).

7.

The data shows a 71

reduction in chlorinated

wastes

over a three year period, which may be

unbelievably

large

(B.

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

(B.

951, Ex,

2,

p.

20,

53),

There are about 1400 dry cleaners in the State

(R.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.

59-481

---

Determination of the number of generators affected also

depends

or

whether on-site disposal

is

included

in

the

ban,

and wheth~rother forms of disposal amounting to landfilling

are included.

On--sitestorage and disposal units have long

been e~rnp 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

(R.

932).

If this percentage

holds for the chlorinated solvents, the quantity of

waste

affected could be quadrupled by inclusion of on—site disposal,

Mr. Mauiy 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

(B.

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’-

toned

by the Agency in 1978 and 1979

CR.

949).

Although

there ~s 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,

‘ihe 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 notea above,

the

traditional

methods for recycling,

treatment or disposal of chlorinated solvent wastes include

the following:

I,

Mixed wastes:

a,

Direct

landfilling;

b

Landfilling after fixation or treatment with

absorbent;

c.

Thermal

treatment

in a rotary kiln

incinerator;

d,

Mechanical separation with different recycling,

treatment or

disposal

for

each phase,

as is

discussed

below.

59-482

---

2.

Solvent phases:

a.

Recovery of solvents through distillation,

b.

c.

Landflhling after fixation or treatment with

absorbent;

type of incineration;

e.

f.

Other treatment and disposal listed for

3.

a.

b.

c.

Landfilling after fixation or treatment with

d.

e,

f.

g.

4,

a.

b~.

Incineration in rotary kiln incinerator.

The economic impact study

sound

the following costs

disposal

59-483

---

Cost Per

55 gal. drum

Ex.

Lanclfilling

$30 to $40

p.

36

Incineration

$40 to $194

p.

Coincineration

$23 to $600

p.

Deep well injection

$4.40

to $7.70

p.

16

Recycling

(savings)

($27)

to

($30.50)

p.

42,

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.

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

landfiliing 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 Ii).

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 outs the cost estimates from the

59-484

---

—27—

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 landfihling 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

(B.

180,

PROPOSED ACTION

The Board here has modified the proposal

in response to

the comment and to conform with the regulations adopted in

R83-28.

The following is a discussion of the proposed

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—

gramh

(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 Ill. Mm,

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. Beg. 14015, October 28,

1983;

59-485

---

—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

if

ide 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

~disposa1” under the

RCRA

rules and a “sanitary landfillt’

within

the

meaning

of the Act,

However, the Agency will be

allowed to

issue permits on a showing that the halogenated

coristituent.s

have

been “degraded,

transformed or immobilized”

(S~729.204

and

724,372),

Underground injection pursuant to

uic

permit

will also be allowed

(35 Iii. Adm. Code 704 and

730,

6

Ill,

Beg.

12,479).

Paragraphs

Cc) and

Cd) elaborate on the relationship to

the

RCR~rules:

landfill prohibitions do apply even to RCP~

small

quantity generators,

but do not apply to residues

in

containers or empty liners which would not be hazardous

wastes under the RCRA rules

(R.

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.

The

relationship to Part 807

is elaborated on in Section 729.122,

Paragraph

(if)

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

(B.

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

before

loading

it.

59-486

---

Sections

729.120-729.140

have

been

dropped

from

the

proposal~ These standards are

not necessary now that Part

709

has been

adopted

:Ln 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

be 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

wastestrearn

au~h~ri~Hnn

issued by the Agency.

Therefore, most of the

halogena-ted

solvent waste will have to be reviewed by the

Agency

pursuant

to

the

Part

709

procedures.

Section

709.401

Cc)

allows

the

Agency

to

issue

wastestream

anfh~r~~.~ns

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

F

hnr~1ngii~’.~~

feasibility

and

economic reasonableness, and a showing that the landfilling

is

not prohibited by Board regulations.

The halogenated

solvent ban will be such a

prOhihifi~n.

A generator will

have to show compliance with the halogenated solvent ban to

obtain an

au1-h~ri7~1-irbrl

pursuant to Section 709.401(a).

As

adopted in R83—28, Section 709.401(b)

allows the

iandfilling 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

~iio1atethe

halogenated solvent ban,

To avoid this the

Board will amend Section 709.401(b)

to add a clause prohibiting

the

residual if it is prohibited under other Board rules.

Section

39(h)

of the Act will require individual authoriza-

tion

of

all

hazardous wastes by the Agency after January

1,

1987,

The

Board will need to amend Part 709 to establish

standards

for this approval in a future rulemaking.

As

adopted in R83—28, Section 709.104 voids supplemental

permits

which

are

in~ngigt~nF

with the liquid hazardous waste

ban,

and

authorizes

Agency review of permits which it suspects

liquids,

The

Board will

amend

Section

709.104

to

make

it

applicable

to

59-487

---

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

(B.

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,

Therefore the ban

on absorbents in prbposed 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~swaste cannot take advantage of a separate small

quantity exemption.

Because such transfers could be for

bona

ifide purposes, there is no direct proscription.

However,

the generator could be charged with a violation for exceeding

quantity limits,

59-488

---

—3l~

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

paint

filter

test

has

been

adopted

in

R83-28,

Section 729.221

Definition of Halogenated Compound

Halogenated

compounds include the chlorinated compounds

in generic hazardous wastes FOOl and F002

in 35

Ill. Mm,

Code 721,133(f):

carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated

ifluoro—

carbons, chlorobenzene,

1, 2—dichlorobenzene, methylene

chloride, perchioroethylene,

1,1,l-trichloroethane, trichloro-

ethylene, trichlorofluoromethane and

1, l,2-trichloro-l, 2,2-

trifluoroethane.

Alternative names for many of these chemicals have been

listed.

Some

chlorinated

fluorocarbons

have

been

specif i—

cally

listed

(B.

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

(R.

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

a.

“halogenated solvent”

(S729.222)

subject

to

prohibition

(SS729.240 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

solute,

59-489

---

—32

TABLE

I

2~Solubility

mg/kg in water

________

13010

ben~ene, chioro—

phenyl

chloride

500

131

C

.JirCi

13020

henzene,

l,2-’diehloro-

orthodichiorobenzene

100

179

?~‘

U

¼~

—

—

64

~

13030

chlorinated

if

luoro-’

carbons

13040

ethane,

i,i,1—trichloro-

methyl

chloroform

4,400

74

CC13CH,

650

13050

ethane,

1,1,2-~trichloro-

1,2,2—trifluoro—

48

CC12FCC1F2

13060

ethene,

tetrachloro-

perch

loroethylene

tetrachloroethylene

150

121

13070

ethene,

trichloro—

2)

1.10

87

ethinyl

trichioroide

trichloroethy

lene

CHC1

CC?2

13080

methane,

dichioro

methylene chloride—

20,000

40

methylene

dichioride

CH2C12

:B090

methane, tetrachioro-

carbon

tetrachioride

800

77

B100

methane,

trichiorofluoro—

trichloromonofluoro

1,100

24

methane

ccl3F

Ex.

A

to

Ex,

1

~Ex~

2,

p.

24

~,jPC7

59-490

---

—33—

Section 729.222

Halogenated

Solvent—-Definition

The

term

“halogenated

solvent”

has

been

defined

as

a

non~-aqueousliquid 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.

The

term

is

used

in

the

prohibitions

of

Sections

729,240

and

729,242~

wastes

are

prohibited

if

they

contain

nor:-’

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

Ha1d~enContent

Presumption

This

Section

creates

a

presumption

that,

in

a

non-

aqueous phase,

1

total

organic

halogen

equals

1.4

of

the

hát~genated

compounds.~~Thi~

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—

trornetry,

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

(B.

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

dividinq halogenated

solvents from other organic solvents

(R. 799~ 810,

Ex,

27),

The

Board

assumes

that

test

methods

~an

he developed

which

will

have

a detection limit comparable

to th’~2~STMmethods,

59-491

---

—34—

Section 724.443(b)

contains an Rd

emission

standard

for

hazardous

waste incinerators.

Section 724.440

“exempts”

the

operator

from

this

standard

if

the

waste

contains

ins igrtificant

concentrations

of

hazardous

constituents.

In

adopting

the

equivalent

rule,

USEPA

indicated

that

the

Edt

standard

would

not

apply

if

the

waste

feed

was

less

than

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

tetrachloride.

The

impact

of

prohibition

at

1

total

organic

halogen

is

to

ban

chlorobenzene

at

around

3

and

carbon

tetrachloride

at

0.9.

Xt

should

be

noted that

this

may

be

the

reverse

of

the

order

of

relative

toxicity

CR. 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

rulenakings.

The

conversion

factor

from

total

organic

halogen

to

actual

weights

is

a

presumption

which

could

be

overcome

if

someone

actually

analyzed