| - Second Notice Order:
- (Section 729.100).
- 4. Definitions of terms have been added (S729,220)~,
- Legislative History
- ments, in Subchapter c of Chapter 1, Subtitle G,
- 59-462
- solvent.
- CATEGORIZATION OF WASTES
- ORTHODICHLOROBEN ZENE
- 1,1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
- TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE
- 59-467
- 2. Solvent phases:
- bottoms;
- b. Direct landfilling;
- c. Landflhling after fixation or treatment with
- Incineration in a liquid injection or other
- type of incineration;e. Coincineration;
- f. Other treatment and disposal listed foraqueous wastes.
- 3. Aqueous phases:
- a. Incineration in a liquid injection or other
- type of incinerator;
- b. Direct landfilling;
- c. Landfilling after fixation or treatment withabsorbent;
- 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.
- disposal
- Cost Per55 gal. drum Ex. 2
- Lanclfilling $30 to $40 p. 36
- Coincineration $23 to $600 p. 13
- Deep well injection $4.40 to $7.70 p. 16
-
- 59-484
- PROPOSED ACTION
- Section 729.100 Purpose, Scope and Applicability
- 59-485
- 59-486
- 59-487
- --36—
- —37-,
|
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
defined in Part 721
(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
prohibited (~729.201)~
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
809..
Legislative History
Section 22(g)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
allows
the
Board
to
adopt requirements to prohibit the
disposal of certain hazardous wastes in sanitary landfills.
This was added by P,A. 81~1484,effective September 18,
1980,
and renumbered by P.A, 83~425.
Section
39(h) of the Act provides that after January
1,
1987 a hazardous wastestream may
not be
deposited in a
permitted hazardous waste site unless specific authorization
is obtained from the Agency by the generator and disposal
site owner.
This was added as Section
39(f)
of P,A, 82~572,
effective July 1,
1983.
Section 22.6 of the Act provides that no person shall
dispose of any liquid hazardous waste
in any landfill without
specific authorization by the Agency,
and authorizes Board
regulations
which
prohibit
or set limitations on the type,
amount
and
form
of
liquid
hazardous
wastes
which
may
be
disposed
of
in
landfills,
This
was
added
by
P.A,
83-1078,
effective
January
5,
1984.
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
operating require-
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
non-aqueous liquid phase which is a halogenated
solvent.
CATEGORIZATION OF WASTES
In
adopting
Sections
22(g),
22,6
and
39(h),
the
General
Assembly
has
made
the
landfill
prohibitions
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,
lD).
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,
1067),
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
—25—
2.
Solvent phases:
a.
Recovery of solvents through distillation,
with separate treatment or disposal of still
bottoms;
b.
Direct landfilling;
c.
Landflhling 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
sound
the following costs
associated with techniques for recycling, treatment and
disposal
59-483
-26—
Cost Per
55 gal. drum
Ex.
2
Lanclfilling
$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 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
economic impact study may be close to reality.
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,
189).
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
rules, which appear in a separate Order:
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;
Sections 724.210(b) (2), 724.328(a) (1) and 724.358(a).
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
the halogenated solvent ban also.
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
for
the
nights
of
the
compounds
present.
It
would
be
to
the
generator’ s
advantage
to
do
this
if
the
waste
contained
a
halogenated
compound
with
more
than
70
halogen,
or
if
the
waste
included
halogenated
compounds
not
listed
in
Section
729.221.
An
alternative
would
be
to
move
to
generic
regulation
of
halogenated
compounds
without
reference
to
specific
compounds
CR.
349, 411, 426, 746,
799,
Ex.
14,
App.
IX,
p.
7).
The
Board
declines
to
so
expand
the
scope
of
this
59.492
-~
35—
ruiemaking~
However,
the present structure
of the proposal
would make
it
easy to amend the rules to move to generic
regulation.
Section
729,224
Partition Presumption
It
is
assumed
that
the
concentration
of halogenated
compounds
in
any non—aqueous phase exceeds the concentration
in the entire system and in any aqueous phase,
Therefore,
proof that the total organic halogen concentration in a
non-
aqueous phase
is less than 1
is sufficient to show that the
concentration
in any aqueous phase is less than 1.
Also,
proof that
the
total organic halogen concentration in an
aqueous phase exceeds 1
is sufficient to show that the non-
aqueous phase exceeds 1,
The partition presumption is based on the fact that
halogenated
solvents will preferentially migrate into the
non—aqueous phase
(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
CR. 789,
792,
800).
Section 729.240
Non-aqueous Liquid
Phases
which
are
Halogenated Solvents
This Section
prohibits
landfilling
of
wastes
which
contain
a
non—aqueous
liquid
phase
which
is
an
halogenated
solvent,
Sections
729,222
and
729.223
define
these
phases
essentially as those with more than 1
total organic halogen.
This Section prohibits wastes which are
pure
solvent
with
1
halogen content,
and wastes which are mostly water or solids,
but with an halogenated solvent phase, and wastes lying
between these extremes,
As has been discussed in connection with the impact on
liners above,
this prohibition utilizes the presence of a
non-aqueous liquid phase as the primary
indicator,
Such
phases present a threat to
liners
regardless
of
the
concen-
tration
of chlorinated compounds.
The
1
halogen content
rule has been set at the
practical
level
of
detection
in
order to differentiate the phase from other organic
solvents
(H.
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
58-493
--36—
waste
R.
902)
it also avoids
difficulties
in obtaining
representative
samples
of
multiphase
wastes
(R,
800).
And,
it encourages
separation, and
discourages creation,
of
muitiphese
wastes
which
pose
more
problems
for
disposal
or
recycling
(H.
410,
738,
769,
773)
As han been
discussed
above,
there
is
adequate
existing
capacity
to
recycle
or
incinerate
the
halogenated
solvent
phases produced
in
the
State,
Waste Management~s
final
comment
reflects
a
major
mis—
unders-tand:Lng
of
the
Second
First
Notice
Proposal
(PC2O),
These
prohibitions apply only to “hazardous waste”.
Indeed,
the
entire
Part
applies
only
to
“hazardous
waste”
(Section
729,100(a)).
This
is
consistent
with
the
Section
22(g)
directive to
adopt
requirements
to
prohibit
the
disposal
of
~‘hazardouswaste”.
Therefore
all
waste subject to prohibi-
tion,
other
than that
produced
by
small
quantity
generators,
should arrive
pursuant
to
the
Parts
722
and
809
manifest
system.
Section
807.310
has
required
a
supplemental
waste—
stream permit
for all hazardous waste since 1973; and, the
wastestream authorization requirements of Sections 22.6 and
39(h)
of
the
Act
include
no
small
quantity
exemptions.
The
Board
recognizes
that disposers may face difficulties in
complying with
these requirements and the prohibitions with
respect to
unmanifested waste.
It
is
conceivable that a waste may legitimately not
meet the definition
of “hazardous waste” in Part 721, and
yet contain
halogenated solvents in excess of the 1
level
in the bans.
Such a waste would not be prohibited.
The
generator
is
primarily responsible for
determining
whether
a
waste
is
hazardous
(Section 722.111).
However,
Section 21(f)
of
the Act
and
Section 703,121 prohibit hazardous
waste
disposal
without
a
RCRA
permit, and the Part 724 and
Part
725
standards
apply to
all
facilities which dispose of
hasardous
waste~
whether the waste
is
manifested or not,
Any person who
accepts unmanifested waste for disposal must
develop
procedures to protect himself from liability for a
mischaracterization
by the generator,
If the disposer
discovers that
an
unmanifested
waste
is
indeed
hazardous,
he
should go on to determine
whether
it
is
prohibited.
However,
the proposal
does not necessitate halogen content analysis
cr1~nonhazardous
waste.
Section
72~c2~4l
Aqueous
Solutions
of
Halogenated
Compounds
This
Section
prohibits landfilling wastes which contain
aqueous liquid phases
with
more
than
about
1
total
organic
haiocjen.
As
defined
in Section 729.220, “aqueous liquid
59-494
—37-,
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 1iners~and aqueous solutions
which
are more
than 1
halogenated compounds may cause
failure
of
synthetic
liners
(R. 482,
512, 514,
521,
525,
533,
535, 875,
899
and 901).
The Board has set the limita-
tion
on
halogenated compounds in aqueous solution at about
1,
based
on
the
impact
on
synthetic
liners,
This
number
corresponds
with
what appears also
to
be the practical level
of
detection by
oxidation methods,
Section 729,241(b)
creates a presumptive
conversion
factor of 1.4
halogenated compounds equals 1
total organic
halogen,
r$hjs
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
beinq that the polar solvents are miscible
with water,
while
the
non~~poiar
solvents are not
(R.
871).
One problem with
this terminology
is that some polar compounds, when not
mixed
with
water, need
to
be treated the same as the non~
polar compounds;
that
is,
one would apply one rule to
non-polar
solvents and undiluted polar solvents, and a
second
rule
to polar solvents dissolved in water
(R.
874,
890,
902w
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,
59-495
—38—
other
crganics dissolved in
water
can
increase
their
solubility
(R.
1lS4~
As
is discussed above, the aqueous phases may be
incin-
erated or treated in other ways,
although
some generators
may
have di:Eliculty 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
iiqu:Lds
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 haloger:sted
solvent when
the waste
is mixed with water,
The first guestion 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 §729.240,
such
non--aqueous
liquid
phases
pose
a
threat
to
liners
regardless
of the concentration of
halogenated compounds.
The first
proposed
Order also included tests based on
the
halogenated
compounds in the bulk waste and in any free
liquid
which
might be present in
the waste,
The latter test
has been
dropped.
It
is
now
clear that any free
liquid
would
render
the
waste
not a
solid and hence
subject to the
preceding
sections,
The
testing
of the bulk
waste
has
been
dropped based on
the difficulties
in
obtaining
a
representa-
tive sample, and
on
assurances
that
halogenated
compounds
which would not be extractable as
a
separate phase would not
pose a threat to liners
CR.
800,
887,
903)
As
is
discussed
above,
wastes
containing solids
can
be
incinerated, although some generators may
have difficulty in
immediately finding existing capacity.
If
so, petitions for
variances or site specific relief may he submitted,
Section
729.261
Dry
Cleaning Wastes
Typical dry
cleaners
conduct
recycling
activities
on
the
premises.
Wastes include
distillation
residues
and
filters
from which
all recoverable solvent has been stripped.
These
are
usually
landfilled
with
general refuse
(R.
287,
294,
302,
PC
5).
Dry cleaners indicated at the hearings
that
they
had been ~reparinc to comply with
the manifest
require!nents of Part 809
where
more than
100 kg/mo, was
generated
~R. 292,
297,
299),
59-496
There are about 1400 dry cleaners at scattered
locations
in the State
(R,
295).
A small dry cleaner handles
about
1500 pounds of cleaning per week
(R.
289),
With
good recycling
equipment, this will generate just under 100
kg
per month of
residues
(H,
303).
The dry cleaners expect
incineration of
this residue to cost about $15,000 per year
(R.
290),
However,
the
economic
impact study found incineration
to
cost less than $200 per drum
(Ex.
2,
p.
42).
Assuming that
the 100 kg per month would amount to less than
one drum, the
cost
should
be
only about $2,400
per
year,
The difference
may
result
from
transportation costs since dry cleaners are
scattered
all
over the State,
and
there are only two incin-
erators.
In
its
First Notice Orders the Board proposed to defer
the
ban
for
dry
cleaners producing less than 100 kg/mo.
The
Board
has
changed the small quantity rule in the
Second
Notice
Order,
dropping the ban altogether for these small
quantity
generators.
Section
729,262
Recycling Residues
This
Section defers the prohibition
as applied to
recycling
residues
until
July
1,
1986,
As
is
noted
above,
incineration
of wastes with solids requires more elaborate
equipment
than
liquids, although both operating incinerators
in
Illinois
are capable of handling solids and appear to
have
adequate
capacity
for
the
existing
and
foreseen
recycling
residues,
Howaver, any regulation which would
prevent
or
raise
the
cost
of
recycling would tend to defeat
the purpose
of
Section
22(h)
of the Act,
The Board will therefore post-
pone
the
ban
on these wastes to allow time for development
of
additional
capacity,
or
for
recyclers
to
propose
a
rule
to
the
Board
addressing their particular problems.
After
July
1,
1986
the
recycling
residues
rule
will
have
no
effect,
and whether the waste can be landfilled will
depend
on
the
general provisions.
This rule applies
only to
Subpart
B
of
Part 729,
and is not an exemption to
the other
prohibitions,
Therefore, residues which contain
free
liquids
will
be
subject
to the other prohibitions,
The
rule requires recycling of at least 30
of the
solvent
to
qualify as a recycling reside,
This is
to prevent
token
recycling.
Section
729,263
Small Quantity Generators
At
hearing
CBE requested a small quantity rule
of
1 kg
per
landfill
per month.
Although this would
be easier to
enforce
against
landfills than a generator—centered
number,
it
could
be
too restrictive in terms of the amount
of
halogen-
ated
solvents
which
could be safely handled,
Furthermore it
59-497
—40—
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.
in
the
first
and
second First
Notice
Orders the Board
proposed
a
small
quantity
rule
of
1
kg/mo,
of
halogenated
compounds
per
generator.
The
Board
has
received
no direct
comment
adverse
to
the
I
kg/mo.
level,
although
Waste Manage-
ment
did
comment
on
the
moving
average
and
the
difficulty
in
policing
a
generator-centered
small
quantity
rule,
The
I
kg/mo.
per
generator
exclusion
was not directly
addressed
at
any
hearing.
However,
as
noted
above, the
economic
impact
study
was
based
in
part
on
quantities of
waste
estimated
from
supplemental
permit
and
manifest data
pursuant
to
Parts
807
and 809,
The
latter
includes a 100
kg/mo.
of waste per generator small quantity rule,
The supplemental
permit
system
is
keyed into the manifest
system,
so
it also
has
a
100
kg/mo.
exclusion,
Because
it
relied
on this data,
the
economic
impact
study
probably
did
not
take
into
account
the
potential
impact
on
generators
producing
less
than
100
kg/mo.
As
noted
above,
such
deficiencies
in
a
study
do
not
control
the
Board~sdecision
in
rulemaking.
As
noted
above,
the
record in
this
case is sufficient
to
reject
the
1
kg/mo, per landfill suggestion.
However,
there
is
little
evidence pointing toward the
1 kg/mo, per
generator
rule,
or
toward
any
number,
As
noted,
Parts
807
and
809
have
a
100
kg/mo. of waste
per
generator
exclusion,
In
the
more
recent
RCRA
rules,
Part
721
has
a
1000
kg/mo, exclusion, along with n
I kg/mo.
exclusion
for
acute
hazardous
waste,
These
provisions are
reconciled
in
Section
700.304.
The
result
is
that
waste
produced
by
generators
of
iess
than
100
kg/mo.
of hazardous
waste
is
usually
outside
the
scope
of
the
hazardous
waste
program.
Section
22(g)
of
the
Act
authorizes
regulations to
prohibit
the
disposal
of
“hazardous
waste”,
Rather
than
attempt
to
redefine
the quantity
limits
in
this
rulemaking,
the
Board will
defer to the decisions which have been made
in
adopting
Parts
721
and
809.
The
landfilling
prohibition
of
halogenated
solvents
will
apply
only
to those wastes
which
are
r~quired to
have a manifest under Parts
722 or
809.
This
should
ease
administration
of
the
program,
This
Third
Proposed Opinion supports the Board~sSecond
Notice
Order
of this same date,
and supersedes the Second
Proposed
Opinion
and
Order of March
8,
1984,
Because of
their
length
the
Third
Proposed
Opinion
and Second Notice
59-498
—41—
Order
will
not
be published in the Opinion volumes,
but will
be
distributed
to participants
and made available
to
the
public.
A second notice will be prepared and
forwarded to
the
Joint
Committee
on
Administrative
Rules,
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
Board Member Bill Forcade
abstained,
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board, hereby c~rtifythat the above Opinion
was
adopted
on
the
~~~day
of
,
1984
by
a
vote
of
~hy~~.unn,1er~
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
59-499