ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 5, 1983
In the matter of:
PROHIBITION ON LANDFILLING OF
)
R81—25
HALOGENATED SOLVENTS
(CBE)
PROPOSED RULE.
FIRST NOTICE
PROPOSED OPINION OF
THE
BOARD
(by D. Anderson):
On September 23, 1981 Citizens for a Better Environment
(CBE),
an Illinois not-for--profit corporation,
filed a proposal
for adoption of a rule prohibiting disposal of chlorinated
solvents at landfill sites.
The proposal was authorized for
hearing and appeared in the Environmental Register on Novem-
ber 6,
1981.
On February
3, 1982 CBE amended the proposal to
conform with codification requirements and state the relationship
with the newly adopted RCRA rules
(R8l-22,
5 Iii.
Reg.
9781,
October 2,
1981;
6 Ill, Reg.
4828, April 23,
1982).
The amended
proposal was for adoption of
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 729,
a separate
Part prohibiting landfilling of hazardous wastes in RCRA or
any other facilities.
The Board held two merit hearings and two economic impact
hearings on the proposal as follows:
1.
February 23,
1982
Springfield
2.
March
8,
1982
Chicago
3.
March 31,
1983
Urbana
4.
April 15,
1983
Chicago
Following the second hearing the matter was referred to
the Department of Energy and Natural Resources
(DENR)
for
preparation of an economic impact study:
“The Economic Impact
of Proposed Regulation R8l-25:
Prohibition of Chlorinated
Solvents in Sanitary Landfills,1’ DENR Doc.
No.
83/08
(Exhibit 2).
Members of the public and the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
participated in the hearings.
CBE’s evidence in support of the proposal came from the
testimony of Dr. Robert E. Ginsburg who received a Ph.D.
in
inorganic chemistry from the University of Wisconsin in 1978.
His experience
is summarized in Exhibit No.
1
(R.
6).
The Board received six public comments during
and
after
the hearings:
PCi
Monsanto Chemical Intermediates, February
19,
1982
PC2
Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, March
8, 1982
PC3
Agency, March 26,
1982
52-191
—2—
PC4
Caterpillar Tractor Company, April 21,
1983
PC5
Illinois State Fabricare Association, April 28,
1983
PC6
CBE, May 2, 1983
Although it presented no testimony,
the Agency supports
the proposal
(PC3).
HAZARDS
OF
CHLORINATED
SOLVENTS1
The
health hazards of chlorinated solvents are not seri-
ously disputed,
Hazards include the following
(R.
90,
101, 117,
209, Pc5; Ex.
1):
1.
Direct toxicity to specific organs:
liver, kidney,
central nervous system, cardiovascular system and
the lungs/pulmonary
system.
2.
Fetoxicity~
3.
Mutagenicity and teratogenicity.
4.
Carcinogenicity and suspected carcinogenicity in
animals.
Chlorinated solvents are capable of bioaccumulation
in the
food chain and
in
mans.
PROBLEMS WITH
L~NDFILLING
CBE
asserted
that
the
basic
problem
with
landfilling
is
the
danger
that
the
chlorinated
solvents
will
penetrate
the
liner
and
contaminate groundwater~ Bulk organic solvents are able to
degrade synthetic liners
(Ex.
2,
p.
35).
Recent laboratory
studies have shown that such solvents are able to penetrate clay
liners far faster than would be predicted from permeability
studies with water.
This may take place through
a mechanism
whereby the solvent desicates the clay, resulting in cracks
and bulk flow, not only of
the
solvent, but also of any aqueous
leachate
(R.
18,
31,
77,
90,
93,
122, 189, 202,
233).
Organic solvents, including chlorinated solvents, have been
detected in groundwater near several landfills.
In Illinois,
it
has been
shown
that chlorinated solvents have migrated from dis-
posal trenches at Wilsonville and Sheffield, although the causes
have not necessarily been determined
(Ex.
3,4; R.85,
212).
11n the proposed rules the Board has replaced the term
“chlorinated”
with
the more general “halogenated”.
All of the
halogenated solvents involved in this rulemaking are chlorinated,
so for present purposes the terms are equivalent.
Use of the
more general term in the rules will make
it easier to expand
the list should it be found necessary to regulate the similar
non-chlorinated halogenated solvents.
—3—
The State of California has prohibited landfilling of
chlorinated solvents after January 1,
1985, and sludges and
solids after July 1,
1985
(22 California Administrative Code
66905)
ALTERNATIVE
DISPOSAL
Spent
solvents
can
be
recovered
by
distillation
and by
sedimentation and filtration.
Still bottoms and sludges
produced
by
these
operations
can
be
incinerated.
Alternatively,
the entire bulk of the spent solvent can be incinerated.
Incineration of chlorinated solvents will require a RCRA
permit
as thermal treatment of hazardous waste.
Incineration
also poses environmental risks, including:
emission of hydrogen
chloride
(hydrochloric acid), emission of unburned hazardous
wastes and formation of hazardous compounds
(Ex.
1).
Hydrogen chloride is an end product of complete combustion
of chlorinated compounds.
It may be controlled with a scrubber
similar to those designed for sulfur dioxide removal from coal
combustion products.
Incineration in cement kilns has also
been effective in controlling hydrogen chloride, which reacts
with the lime present in the cement manufacturing process
(Ex.
1,
R.
24).
Chlorinated wastes require high temperatures, long resi-
dence times and carefully controlled air supply to achieve
complete destruction.
The RCRA rules require 99.99
destruction
removal efficiency for principal organic hazardous constituents
from these incinerators
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 724.443).
The chlorinated solvents may form dioxins under incinerator
conditions, and some wastes may be contaminated with dioxins.
The problem of dioxin formation in hazardous waste incinerators
may not be as severe, however,
as dioxin formation in coal
furnaces or municipal incinerators.
The dioxins are expected
to adhere to particulates and be removable by scrubbers
CR.
83,
99,
267).
In addition to the chlorinated solvents, the wastes may
contain metals,
such as mercury or nickel.
Mercury is gaseous
at incinerator temperatures, and both mercury and nickel are
capable of forming gaseous compounds.
These would be converted
to particulates under conditions in the incinerator or scrubber,
and would be removed by the scrubber as particulates
CR.
36,
72, 134,
184, 230).
Incinerators will produce ash and scrubber sludges which
will require further treatment or disposal.
Whether these can
be landfilled will be judged by the same standards as the
original wastes.
Incinerators may be best thought of as
a
52-193
—4—
treatment which reduces the volume of the waste andrmakes it
less hazardous, ratherthan
as
a disposal technique
(R.
83,
99,
267).
In addition to an abstract comparison of ultimate risks,
incinerators are more easily monitored than landfills:
poor
operation should be immediately obvious.
If detected, stricter
operating controls would be imposed or the incinerator shut
down.
On the other hand,
a problem such as
a leaking liner
in
a landfill could go undetected for decades, and it could be
impossible to completely clean up groundwater contamination
(R.
39)
CBE has weighed the relative merits and believes that
direct incineration, or recycling with incineration of residues,
are the preferable alternatives for ultimate disposal
CR.
38,
111, 260).
The Board agrees.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The economic impact study found that recycling of ch.lori-
nated solvents
is already widespread even in the absence of a
regulation.
The quantity disposed in landfills decreased from
410,000 gallons in 1980 to 124,000 gallons in 1982,
although
part of this may have been due to the recession.
There is
abundant excess capacity in the solvent recycling industry,
and there are incinerators in operation which can accept the
solvents, sludges and distillation residues
(EcIS, Ex.
2,
R.
8,
176,
200, 226,
230, 232).
The proposal is expected to increase solvent disposal
costs to generators.
Current costs are estimated at about
$40 per barrel.
Where the solvents can be recycled, the pro-
posal will actually save money.
Where wastes are incinerated,
the cost could be as high as $194 per barrel.
Based on 20
recycling, overall costs would be $340,000 per year based on
1982 volume
(R.
179,
194, 205, EcIS 58).
Benefits include protection of the public from groundwater
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, trans-
porters will gain some $1,500 to $5,000 from increased waste
52-194
—5—
movements.
State agencies may save some $48,000 per year,
which will be partially offset by some $1,240 in lost landfill
hazardous waste
fees
(R. 180,
189)
In summary, the costs of the proposal are minimal and
partially offset by immediate benefits.
If
a major landfill
clean-up is avoided, a large benefit will accrue.
PROPOSED ACTION
The Board has proposed to adopt
the ~BE proposal, with
certain additions in response to comments received during and
after the hearings.
The following is
a discussion of the
proposed
rules:
Section 729.101
Purpose, Scope and Applicability
Paragraphs
(a)
through
(e)
follow the CBE proposal almost
verbatim.
A second sentence has been added to paragraph
(b)
to make it clear that “landfills” includes hazardous 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.
Paragraphs
(c)
arid
(d) elaborate on the relationship to the
RCRA rules:
landfill prohibitions do apply even to RCRA small
quantity generators, but do not apply to residues in containers
or empty liners which would not be hazardous wastes under the
RCRA rules
CR.
152,
158,
262)
There is no need for elaborate definition of waste or
hazardous waste in this proposal.
The proposal presently covers
only certain named chemicals, all of which are hazardous under
the RCRA definition, and which the Board finds to be hazardous
in this rulemaking.
Since the proposal bans only landfilling,
there is no need to differentiate waste solvent from non—waste
solvent:
if it is to be landfilled, it is obviously waste.
Paragraph
(e)
states the intent to supplement Chapter
7
and the RCRA disposal rules in Parts 724 and 725.
Regulations
in those Parts which could be construed as
authorizing prohib-
ited landfilling are superseded.
The relationship to Chapter
7
is elaborated on in Section 729.104.
Paragraph
(f) has been added to the CBE proposal.
This
makes it clear that the Board intends that the landfill ban be
applicable not only to landfill operators,
but also to the
generators and transporters of the waste
CR.
247).
Section 22(h)
authorizes:
“requirements to prohibit the
disposal of certain hazardous wastes in sanitary landfills.”
Taking
the
words
in
their ordinary meaning, the generator and
52-195
—6—
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 economi-
cally 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,
Paragraph
(f)
leads into the next two related Sections
which deal with a complete and partial defense which could be
used by the transporter and disposer.
Section 729.102
Generators Assertion of Exemption
The transporter and disposer may insist on a written
statement of compliance from a generator.
Section 729,102
allows introduction of such a complete defense in an enforcement
action,
except
where
knowledge
is
shown.
Such
a
written
state-
ment
would
be
used
as
documentary
evidence
against
the
generator,
and could be evidence of intentional violation.
The generator exemptions are keyed to the quantity of
waste generated rather than the quantity landfilled.
The
transporter cannot simply weigh the monthly loads to satisfy
himself that the generator is in fact in compliance, since the
generator could be utilizing another means to dispose of part
0±
the waste.
Section 729.102 allows the transporter to rely
on a written statement asserting exemption or exception.
Of
course, if the transporter were actually transporting waste in
excess of the exempted quantity allowed the generator, he would
be held to have known that the waste’s disposal was prohibited.
Section 729.103
Mitigation
This establishes
a partial defense under Section 33(c)
of the Act.
A person who conducts employee training, posts
signs and conducts random sampling of wastes should not have
a substan,tial penalty levied against him in the absence of
other aggravating circumstances.
Section 729,104
Wastestream Permits
The Board notes that Section
39(h) was added to the Act
by different legislation than Section 22(h).
It requires,
after 1986, individual authorization of hazardous wastestreams
by the Agency
(R. 146).
It is beyond question that the Agency
could not approve
a wastestream which has been banned by the Board.
52-196
—7—
Paragraph
(d)
deals with the details of Agency review of
wastestreams.
The Agency may require the applicant to demon-
strate that halogenated solvents are present at less than trace
levels or that an exemption applies.
The Agency is expected
to reach
a decision on the applicability of Part 729:
it is
not to issue the wastestream authorization with a caveat that
Part 729 may apply.
The Agency’s review of wastestreams which~are routinely
generated is to focus on the average quantities and properties
of the waste.
It may establish conditions necessary to assure
continued approval under Part 729.
However, conditions which
would allow landfilling some months and prohibit it in others
are to be avoided.
These would frustrate long-term planning.
For example,
a waste which averages 0.9 mg/kg halogenated
solvents, with a range of 0.4 to 1.4 mg/kg, could be landfilled
even when in the upper range of variability.
A wastestream authorization should identify the waste by
composition with a range of acceptable variation.
Once the
wastestream has been authorized for landfilling, Part 729 will
be superseded by the conditions of the authorization.
The main
limitation on t~iisis the description of the wastestream.
If
this gets outside the parameters which identify it,
a new
authorization will be needed
CR. 246).
Section 729.121
Landfilling Prohibited
This Section prohibits landfilling of wastes containing
more
than
traces
of
halogenated
solvents,
which
are
defined
in
the next sections.
Violation of this Section can be the basis
of an enforcement action.
The rule prohibits disposal in landfills.
This
is to be
taken as equivalent to “land disposal” in proposed 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 724, under which lagoons and waste piles in which wastes
will remain after closure are to be treated as landfills
R82-19,
7 Ill. Reg.
4520, April 15,
1983; Sections 724.210(b) (2),
724.328(a) (1)
and 724.358(a).
The other “disposal” methods are considered to be treatment
or storage under the RCRA rules.
The Board intends to promote
thermal treatment such as incineration.
Bona fide treatment or
storage in lagoons
or, to the extent possible, in piles is not
prohibited.
Land treatment is likewise not prohibited,
although
the operator would have to demonstrate that the hazardous constit-
uents would be “degraded,
transformed or immobilized”, which
seems unlikely in the case of chlorinated solvents
(35 Ill.
Adm. Code 724.372)e
Underground injection pursuant to UIC
permit will also be allowed
(35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 704 and 730,
6 Ill. Reg.
12,479).
52-197
—8—
Section 729.122
Definition of Halogenated Solvent
Halogenated solvents include the chlorinated compounds in
generic hazardous wastes FOOl and F002 in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
721.133(f):
carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated fluorocarbons,
chlorobenzene,
1,2-dichlorobenzene, methylene chloride,
perchloroethylene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
trichlorofluoromethane and l,l,2—trichloro—1,2,2-trifluoroethane.
Alternative names for many of these chemicals have been
listed.
Some chlorinated fluorocarbons have been specifically
listed
CR.
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 ar~ytreatment process
is to be tested against the same standard as any other waste to
determine whether it contains halogenated solvents
CR.
76,
99,
243, 267, 274).
Section 729.123
Definition of
Trace
Levels
This Section defines trace levels
as
1 mg/kg.
Tapwater
usually contains traces of trihalomethanes.
These can be as
high as 0.5 mg/l, although the Board has recently adopted a
standard of 0.1 mg/i as the maximum level in public water
distribution systems.
Trihalomethanes include chloroform,
which is
a chlorinated solvent similar to the halogenated
solvents which are the subject of this rulemaking.
In that
similar chemicals are accepted in drinking water, it is apparent
that there exists
a de minimus concentration below which wastes
can be accepted for landfilling
(R.
15, 199,
285).
Section 729.131
Burden of Proving Trace Levels
Most of the remainder of the Subpart contains exemptions for
types of generators, quantity generated and concentration of
halogenated solvents
in the waste.
These were not contained in
the original proposal.
CBE indicated concerns about enforce-
ability if such necessarily complex rules were included.
Because the Board has found it necessary to add exemptions,
rules on burden of proof and circumvention are necessary.
Section 729.131 provides that a person seeking enforcement
need show only trace levels of halogenated solvents in the waste.
52-198
—9—
TABLE
I
2~So1ubi1ity
1’2~b.p.
mg/kg in water
____
BOlO
benzene, chloro-
phenyl chloride
500
131
C6H5C1
B020
benzene, l,2—dichloro—
100
179
orthodichlorobenzene
C6H4C12
B030
chlorinated
fluorocarbons
B040
ethane,
l,l,l-trichloro—
methyl chloroform
4,400
74
CC13CH3
B050
ethane,
l,1,2-trichloro—
1,2,2—trifluoro—
48
CC12FCClF2
B060
ethene, tetrachioro-
perchloroethylene
150
121
tetrachloroethylene
Cd2:Cd2
B070
ethene, trichioro-
~
87
ethinyl trichloride
~~OOO
trichloroethylene
CHC1:CC12
B080
methane, dichloro-
20,000
40
methylerte
chloride
xnethylene dichloride
dli2~2
8090
methane, tetrachloro-
800
77
carbon tetrachioride
Cd4
B100
methane, trichlorofluoro—
1,100
24
tn ch.oromonofluoro-
methane
CC13F
1)
Ex. A to Ex.
1
2)
Ex.
2,
p. 24
3)
Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics,
44th
Edition.
52-199
—10—
The burden then shifts to the respondent to show that he
falls
within an exemption.
It will be incumbent on persons landfill-
ing
these
wastes
to
maintain
adequate
records to support these
claims.
In
an
enforcement
action
the
complainant will not have
to take a representative sample of the waste or average all
samples taken:
a violation can be found if any sample from
the waste exceeds trace levels.
For example, it would be
sufficient to sample a layer present in a poorly mixed waste.
Traces present in the layer would establish a prima facie
case.
It will then be up to the respondent to take a representative
sample and establish compliance with a concentration exemption.
However, in the case of a permit application, the applicant
will be required to establish less than trace amounts with
representative samples.
“Representative
sample”
refers
to
sampling
rather
than
analytical procedures.
If the result is close to 1 mg/kg it
may
be
necessary
to
repeat
the
analysis enough times to estab-
lish the concentration with sufficient confidence to establish
a violation.
Section 729.132
No Circumvention
Paragraph
(a)
prohibits mixing; paragraph
(b) provides
for recomputation of concentrations.
Paragraph
(a) may be
alleged
in
an
enforcement
action.
These paragraphs are 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
(R.
255,
265).
The RCRA rules contain express provisions authorizing
addition of absorbent material to liquid wastes and disposal
of
“lab
packs”
in
drums
of
absorbent.
The
Board’s
intent
is
to prohibit such practices in the case of halogenated solvents
if
the
waste
is
to
be
landfilled
in
Illinois
(R.
95,
123,
261).
Pa±~agraph
Cc)
attributes transferred waste to the “last
person who used the solvent.”
A straw party who holds another’s
waste
cannot
take advantage of
a
separate
small
quantity
exemption.
Because
such
transfers
could
be
for
bona
fide
purposes,
there
is no direct proscription.
However, the generator could be
charged
with
a
violation
for
exceeding
quantity
limits.
52-200
—11—
Section 729.141
Small Quantity Generators’ Exemption
This authorizes landfilling by persons who generate less
than
1 kg/mo. of solvent waste.
As used in this Section
the
mass of solvent in the waste is the determining factor
(R.
251).
The
1
kg
is
determined
by
a
12
month
moving
average.
To
determine applicability,
a generator adds up the preceding 11
months.
The amount which can, be landfilled in the current
month
is
the difference between that sum and 12 kg.
The idea
is
to
look
to
long
term
performance
rather
than
having
generators
subject
to
the prohibition during some months but not others.
Like the RCRA and Chapter 9 small quantity rules, the
exemption depends on the quantity generated rather than the.
quantity landfilled.
The alternative approach would allow
even
very
large
generators
with
recycling
capacity
to
landfill
1
kg
per
month.
It
should
be
more
economical
for
large
genera-
tors
to
adopt
more
sophisticated
disposal
or recycling techniques.
At
the
final
hearing
CBE
requested
a
small
quantity
rule
of
1
kg
per
landfill
per
month.
Although
this
would
be
easier
to
enforce,
it
could
be
too
restrictive in terms
of the amount of
halogenated
solvents
which
could
be
safely
handled.
Furthermore
it fails to differentiate landfills on the basis of size
CR. 245,
249,
259).
It
would
also
be
difficult to enforce against
generators and transporters who would not know the quantity
the landfill had received.
Section
729.142
Residential
Waste
The Board has expressly exempted residential waste
(R.
237,
292)..
Section
729.143
Dry
Cleaners’
Temporary
Exemption
This section exempts dry cleaners who generate less than
100 kg/mo.
of contaminated waste.
As used in this Section, the
mass
of
the
waste
is
determinative,
regardless
of
the
actual
quantity of halogenated solvents.
Dry cleaners appeared at the last hearing and indicated
that
recycling
activities
are
conducted
at
typical
dry cleaners.
Wastes include distillation residues and
filters
which
are
contaminated, but from which all recoverable solvent has
already
been
stripped.
These
are
usually
landfilled
(R.
287,
294,
302, PC5).
Dry
cleaners
indicated
that
they
had
been
prepared
to
comply with Chapter 9 where more than
100 kg/mo.
is generated
(R.
292,
297,
299).
Recognizing
that
dry cleaners have faced
52-201
—12—
expenses
in
complying
with
air
pollution rules, and that
recycling is in a more advanced state in this industry,
the
Board will exempt for two years dry cleaners who, generate less
than 100 kg/mo.
Thereafter incineration or other treatment
will be required of those who generate more than
1 kg/mo.
The dry cleaners who will have to come into immediate compli-
ance are the ones who are already subject to Chapter
9.
Section 729.144
Recycling Wastes
This Section contains
a general exemption for two years
for recycling wastes such as still bottoms and sludges.
This
has been added to avoid placing any unnecessary burden on the
recycling industry, since recycling is preferable to incineration
of the bulk solvents.
Two years should give adequate time for
establishment of incinerators by the recyclers (Pd,
4).
Section 729
•
151
Concentration Exemptions
Wastes are divided into three categories for application
of concentration limits
CR.
185,, 189, 278):
1.
Solid wastes;
2.
Aqueous liquid wastes;
and
3.
Non-aqueous liquid wastes.
The basic thrust of the proposal is to prohibit the dis-
posal of spent chlorinated solvents in barrels or bulk
CR.
18,
31,
77,
93,
122,
132, 233, 275,
283).
However, the solvents
may come to the landfill in other forms, mixed with other
solids or liquids.
The purpose of the concentration limits
is
to establish lines of demarcation between a barrel of puro
chlorinated solvent on the one hand,
and traces of solvent in
a solid or solution on the other hand.
Table II summarizes
the trace level and
concentration
exemption
rules.
Solid wastes include spill residues.*
Distillation residues
could be solid.
The result of fixation processes would be solid;
however, simple mixing of chlorinated solvents to avoid the
concentration limits
is prohibited
(R.
42,
71,
74,
123, 125,
130,
157).
Solid
wastes less than
10,000
mg/kg
(1)
may be landfilled,
provided
they
contain
no
free
liquid
and
do
not
form
an
oily
layer
when
mixed
with
water,
Free
liquid
would
be
apparent
*The Board solicits comments on whether a special exemption
should be established for spill residues.
52-202
Table II
Are
halogenated
solvents
present
in
any
sample
in
excess
of
trace
levels?
no
landfill
~
no
Is
the
waste
a
solid?
4,yes
_______
Is there free flowing liquid?
~
prohibit
Does
a non-aqueous liquid phase form
yes~prohibit
when the waste is mixed with water?
Is
a representative sample of the waste
~~prohibit
10,000 mg/kg or more halogenated solvents?
landfill
)The
waste
is
a
liquid.
___
4,
no
Is the waste
a solution?
4,yes
Is the waste
50
or less water?
yes
prohibit
no
_____
The waste is
a suspension or
emulsion.
Is the waste 50
or less water and solids? yes
prohibit
170
_____
Is
there
a
non-aqueous
liquid
phase
yes
prohibit
present?
Is a representative sample of the waste
100mg/kg or more halogertated solvents?
yes
prohibit
~ landfill
52-203
—14—
from observation of a large quantity of the waste,
The other
limitation
is to ensure that the halogenated solvent is bound
to the solid tightly enough that it will not be removed by
water which could come into contact with the buried waste.
If a non—aqueous phase separates from the waste/water mixture,
it is prohibited as though it were pure chlorinated solvent
(R.
94, 126,
129, 283).
As an example of the application of paragraph
(a), consider
a spill residue containing 9,000 mg of methylene chloride and
50,000 mg of hexane in 0.941 kg of soil.
The potential appli-
cability of the Subpart would be established by the presence of
traces of chlorinated solvent.
The generator
(or disposer)
could then establish an exemption by demonstrating that chlori-
nated solvents were less than 10,000 mg/kg,
the absence of
free liquid and the absence of a non—aqueous phase when the
waste is mixed with water.
Note that the concentration of
chlorinated solvents in any non-aqueous phase is irrelevant.
Solid wastes correspond most closely with the “sludge
high-solids solvent category” identified in the EcIS
(p.
22,
R.
185, 199).
Solid wastes include spill residues which
apparently were not classified in the EcIS.
The degreasing
sludges and still bottoms given as examples in the EcIS could
fail to meet the test for solid wastes in Section 729.151(a)
if they either contain free liquid or form a non—aqueous phase
with water.
In this case they would be classified as non—
aqueous liquid wastes rather than solid wastes.
Aqueous wastes include liquids which are more than 50
water and solids,
This includes both solutions and suspensions.
Note that a “solution”
is different than a mixture,
suspension
or emulsion.
A solution is homogeneous and cannot be separated
except by means involving chemical change or change of state,
such as distillation
(R.
186, 197),
Aqueous wastes may be landfilled if they contain less than
100 mg/kg of chlorinated solvents, provided that there is no
non-aqueous liquid phase present.
This would be similar to the
layer formed in the test for solids above.
If such a phase is
present, the mixture
is prohibited as though it were pure
chlorinated solvent
(R.
284),
As
an example of the application of paragraph
(b), consider
a mixture of 90 mg of methylene chloride in 0.4 kg of methyl
alcohol mixed with 0.4 kg of water and
0.2 kg of soil,
The
waste could be landfilled if there is no non-aqueous liquid
phase present.
As a second example, consider 90 mg of methylene
chloride in 0.6 kg of methyl alcohol and 0.4 kg of water.
This
could not be landfilled even if it were a one-phase system
because the phase would be only 40
water.
52-204
—15—
Aqueous wastes correspond most closely to the liquid-
aqueous solution category identified in the EcIS
(p.
22,
R.
185,
199).
Note that “solution” has a different meaning than in the
rule
(R.
197).
If the waste contained a separate non—aqueous
phase, or if it were less than 50
water, it would be a
non-aqueous liquid waste.
Liquid-aqueous solution may be
produced by washing parts with water after
solvent
washing.
Non—aqueous
liquid
wastes
include
any wastes which are not
solid
wastes
or
aqueous
liquid
wastes
as
defined
in
Section
729.151(a)
and
(b).
Paragraph
Cc)
includes
a positive statement
of what this residuum includes:
solutions which are 50
water
or less; liquid mixtures which include any non-aqueous phase;
and, solid wastes containing free liquid or which form a liquid
phase on mixture with water.
Non—aqueous liquid wastes may not
be
landfilled
if chlorinated solvents are present at more
than
trace levels.
These wastes are the ones which pose
a special
threat to liner integrity.
Non-aqueous liquid wastes correspond most closely to the
liquid-high solvent content category in the EcIS, although,
as noted above, many wastes from the other EcIS categories
would fall into the Board’s non-aqueous liquid wastes category.
Typical liquid-high solvent content wastes would include
0 to 13
solids,
0 to 9
oil and grease,
1
inorganic salts
and up to 100 mg/i lead or zinc
(EcIS, p. 22,
R.
185,
199).
This Opinion supports the Board’s Proposed Order of this
date.
The Clerk is directed to file a first notice for publica-
tion in the Illinois Register.
The record will remain open for
45 days for public comment following publication in the Illinois
Register.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereb~çertifythat the above Proposed Opinion
w~sadopted on the
.~‘
day of
_____,
1983 by a vote of
Q~4~
Christan L. Mofféi~1Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
52-205
