ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

February

25,

1988

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

DEVELOPMENT,

OPERATING

AND

)

R88-7

REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS

FOR

)

(see

R84-17)

NON-HAZARDOUS

WASTE

LANDFILLS

PROPOSED

RULE.

FIRST

NOTICE.

PROPOSED

OPINION

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

J.

Anderson):

SUMMARY

OF

TODAY’S

ACTIONS*

This

Proposed

Opinion

articulates

the

rationale

for

actions

taken

by

the

Board

in

four

separate

Orders

in

various

regulatory

dockets.

The

purpose

of

all

of

these

related

actions

is

modernization

of

the

state’s

regulations

for

the

management

of

non—hazardous

wastes.

1)

Opening

of

Docket

R88—7

2)

Dismissal

of

R84—17,

Dockets

A,

B,

C,

D.

In

Docket

R88—7,

the

Board

has

adopted

a

set

of

proposed

regulations

for

first

notice

publication

in

the

Illinois

Register.

These

proposed

regulations

contain

development,

operating

and

reporting

requirements

applicable

to

new

and

existing

landfills

which

dispose

of

non—hazardous

waste.

In

*

At

the

outset,

the

Board

wishes

to

commend

the

Board’s

Scientific/Technical

Section

(STS)

for

the

quality

of

its

participation

in

this

proceeding.

A

special

acknowledgment

is

due

to

Richard

A.

DiMambro,

both

as

coordinator

of

the

various

consultants

and

other

experts

whose

testimony

has

been

sponsored

by

the

Board’s

STS

during

the

course

of

this

proceeding,

and

as

principal

author

of

the

STS

Recommendations.

The

Board

also

acknowledges

the

contributions

made

to

the

STS

Recommendations

by

STS

environmental

scientist

Dr.

Harish

Rao,

Dr.

Gilbert

Zemansky

(during

the

course

of

his

former

employment

as

STS

Chief),

and

Karen

Mystrik

(during

the

course

of

her

former

employment

as

STS

librarian).

The

Board

also

wishes

to

acknowledge

the

special

contribution

made

by

attorney

assistant

Kathleen

M.

Crowley,

who

has

served

as

Hearing

Officer

throughout

these

proceedings,

and

who

has

participated

in

the

drafting

of

the

Board’s

Opinion

and

Order

in

this

and

related

matters.

86—649

---

—2—

adopting

this

proposal,

the

Board

has

considered

the

extensive

record

developed

in

R84—17,

Dockets

A,

B,

C

and

D.

The

Board’s

proposal

is

largely

based

on

the

proposal

submitted

by

the

Board’s

Scientific/Technical

Section

(STS)

which

was

the

subject

of

hearings

in

R84—l7,

Docket

D.

This

Opinion

must

be

read

in

conjunction

with

the

STS

“Recommendations

For

a

Non—Hazardous

Waste

Disposal

Program

In

Illinois

and

A

Background

Report

To

Accompany

Proposed

Regulations

For

Solid

Waste

Disposal

Facilities,

Part

A:

Landfills”

(Final,

March

7,

1988)

which

is

entered

as

Exhibit

1

in

Docket

R88—7;

as

explained

in

more

detail

later,

this

Opinion

does

not

reiterate

much

of

the

analysis

of

the

proposals

submitted

in

Dockets

A,

B,

and

C.

R84—17,

Dockets

A,

B,

C,

and

D

are

being

dismissed

by

the

Board

to

make

quite

clear

that

the

Board

does

not

intend

to

adopt

as

its

own

any

of

these

proposals

in

their

entirety,

although

elements

of

each

proposal

are

included

in

the

Board’s

R88—7

proposal.

The

Board

will

accept

written

comments

concerning

its

R88—7

proposal

for

45

days

following

the

publication

of

the

proposal

in

the

Illinois

Register.

Decision

on

the

number

and

scope

of

any

additional

hearings

in

this

docket

will

be

deferred

until

after

expiration

of

the

comment

period.

3)

Dismissal

of

Docket

R84—22(D)

The

R84—22(D)

docket

was

initiated

to

make

technical

corrections

to

the

Board’s

existing

regulations

for

financial

assurance

for

closure

and

post

closure

care

of

waste

disposal

sites.

The

docket

is

being

dismissed

because

1)

the

technical

corrections

are

being

addressed

in

the

R88—7

proposal,

and

2)

the

interrelationship

between

matters

of

financial

assurance

requirements

for

closure

and

post

closure

care,

and

the

design

and

operating

standards

being

proposed

in

R88—7

are

such

that

it

is

no

longer

necessary

or

advisable

to

treat

them

in

separate

dockets.

4)

Opening

of

Docket

R88—8

The

records

developed

in

the

R84—17

and

R84—22

dockets

highlights,

in

the

absence

of

reporting

requirements,

the

lack

of

data

concerning

the

location

of

permit

exempt

waste

generators

who

treat,

store

or

dispose

of

waste

generated

by

their

own

activities

on

that

site,

let

alone

the

types

and

quantities

of

waste

treated,

stored,

or

disposed

at

such

sites.

The

Board

has

opened

Docket

R88—8

for

the

purpose

of

considering

proposal

of

regulations

requiring

a

“census”

of

such

facilities,

and

has

directed

staff

to

prepare

a

regulatory

proposal

designed

to

elicit

basic

information.

Finally,

the

Board

notes

that

it

is

currently

investigating

new

regulations

to

address

other

facilities

that

handle

solid

waste,

temporary

waste

storage

areas,

solid

waste

treatment

86—650

---

—3—

operations,

surface

impoundments,

and

recycling

operations.

Regulations

are

under

consideration

for

haulers

and

generators

of

solid

waste.

A

separate

Board

proceeding,

R85—27,

will

address

the

issues

surrounding

special

waste

evaluation

and

handling.

PROCEDURAL

HISTORY

The

Board

adopted

its

“Chapter

7”

regulations

covering

operations

of

sanitary

landfills

in

1973.

These

regulations,

since

codified

as

37

Ill.

Adm.

Code

Part

807,

have

remained

virtually

unchanged

since

that

time,

save

for

the

addition

of

regulations

concerning

financial

assurance

for

closure

and

post—

closure

care.

In

1976,

the

Board

adopted

its

“Chapter

9”

regulations

concerning

the

hauling

of

special

waste.

These

regulations,

since

codified

as

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

Part

809,

have

also

existed

virtually

without

change,

except

for

the

addition

of

regulations

concerning

hauling

and

disposal

of

hazardous

hospital

waste.

Abortive

attempts

to

modernize

these

rules

commenced

in

the

1980.

Docket

R80—20

was

initiated

by

a

proposal

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(Agency)

to

update

Chapter

7,

and

Docket

R8l—31

was

initiated

by

a

Board

proposal

to

update

Chapter

9.

These

proposals

were

consolidated

and

dismissed

by

Order

of

the

Board

on

October

5,

1982,

after

hearings

indicated

that

extensive

revision

of

the

proposals

was

necessary.

In

that

Order,

the

Board

noted

that:

The

Agency

and

the

Illinois

State

Chamber

of

Commerce

[ISCC]

indicated

that

they

were

working

together

on

a

substitute

proposal

which

would

replace

both

Chapters

7

and

9.

During

[the

hearing]

process

it

has

become

clear

first

that

the

subject

matters

of

Chapters

7

and

9

require

coordination

to

insure

consistency

and,

second,

that

it

will

be

difficult

to

relate

the

testimony

on

the

former

proposals

to

the

evolving

combined

proposal.

The

Board

therefore

hereby

consolidates

R80—20

and

R81—31,

and

at

the

same

time

dismisses

both.

In

that

same

Order,

Docket

R82—2l

was

opened

to

consider

the

anticipated

Agency/ISCC

proposal

for

permits

for

waste

management

and

hauling,

and

Docket

R82—22

was

opened

to

consider

the

antici

pated

proposal

for

landfill

operating

criteria.

The

Agency

filed

a

proposal

in

the

R82—21

docket

only,

which

proposal

was

the

subjebt

of

hearings.

Both

dockets

were

closed

by

Order

of

June

16,

1983,

as

a

result

of

Agency

withdrawal

of

its

R82—2l

proposal.

The

proposal

was

withdrawn

as

the

Agency

believed

that

86--651

---

—4—

the best

solution

to

various problems

identified

at

hearing

was

submission

of

an

amended

and

expanded

proposal.

This docket, R84—l7,

was initiated

to

consider

a

draft

proposal filed

by the

Agency on May

31, 1984.

Two inquiry

hearings

were

held

at which participants

identified

concerns

with

the

proposal

and questioned

the Agency

concerning

its intent.

At

the last hearing

the

Agency indicated

its

intention of filing

a

revised proposal.

As

the Board noted

in its

Resolution of

December

6, 1984 announcing

its

intention

of committing

some of

the resources

of the

Scientific

Technical

Section

(STS)

to

this

proceeding,

no revised

proposal

had been submitted.

Although the

Agency has

been

a very

active

and helpful

participant

in

subsequent

phases

of

this

proceeding,

it has

not filed

a new

proposal or

presented

evidence

in

support

of the existing

draft

proposal.

OnApril 4,

1985, the ISSC

filed

an alternate

proposal.

By

Order

of April

18, 1985,

the

Board established

Docket

B for

consideration

of this

proposal.

Four hearings

were

held in

Docket

B concerning

this

proposal.

On August

15, 1986, Waste

Management

of

Illinois

filed

another

alternate

proposal,

which the

Board designated

as R84—l7

Docket C. This

proposal

was the subject

of nine hearings.

Concurrently

with the

hearings held

in

Dockets

B and

C, the

Board held additional

hearings in Docket

A.

The purpose of

these

hearings

was

presentation

of testimony

by

various

consultants

and

other scientific

experts

whose

appearance

was arranged

by the

STS. These

consultants

and other

experts

did not critique

the

various

proposals pending

before

the Board,

but instead

provided

testimony

concerning their

research

and

experience concerning

subjects

integral

to analysis

and/or development

of

comprehensive

regulations

for

the management

of waste.

By

its

Order

of February

19,

1987,

the Board

determined

that

only

one

additional

hearing

would be held

in

Dockets

A, B, and

C.

One basis for

this

determination

was that:

“The record

to

date

in

R84—l7

is

sufficient

to

enable

the Board

to determine that,

while

each

proposal

has

meritorious

components, no

single

proposal

pending

before it

is

sufficiently

refined

or

comprehensive

to be adopted

by the

Board

as the

Board’s own

proposal

for

the

purposes

of

first

notice

publication

pursuant

to

the Illinois

Administrative

Procedure

Act,

and

resulting

additional

hearings.

It

is

clear

to the

Board that

the Board

itself,

with

the

assistance

of its

scientific/technical

and

legal

staff,

must

craft

a proposal

to

address

86—652

---

—5--

the

sum

of

the

various

concerns

which

have

been

brought

to

the

Board’s

attention.”

The

Order

went

on

to

establish

the

form

and

procedures

for

the

filing

of

a

proposal

by

the

STS,

including

required

filing

of

documents

for

public

inspection

contemporaneously

with

distribution

of

copies

to

the

Board

Members,

consistent

with

ex

parte

restrictions

articulated

in

the

Board’s

“Protocols

of

Operation

For

the

Scientific/Technical

Section”,

RES

86—1,

January

26,

1986

and

the

Board’s

Procedural

Rules,

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

101.121.

By

Order

of

March

5,

1987,

the

Board

established

that

the

final

hearing

in

Dockets

A,

B,

and

C

would

be

held

on

April

28,

1987,

that

the

public

comment

period

would

close

on

May

20,

and

that

the

Board

would

commence

deliberations

on

May

28,

1987.

Consistent

with

the

directives

in

the

Board’s

Orders

of

February

19

and

March

5,

1987,

on

May

22

and

May

26,

1987,

the

STS

filed

an

initial

set

of

proposed

regulations

consisting

of

new

Parts

810,

811

and

812

with

its

supporting

“Recommendations

for

Non—Hazardous

Waste

Disposal

Program

in

Illinois

and

A

Background

Report

To

Accompanying

Proposed

Regulations

For

Solid

Waste

Disposal

Facilities”

(Background

Report).

On

June

12

and

June

21,

1987,

the

STS

filed

another

set

of

proposed

regulations,

consisting

of

Parts

813

and

814

and

a

supporting

Background

Report.

By

Orders

of

May

28

and

June

22,

1987,

the

Board

authorized

the

STS

proposal

for

hearing.

The

May

28

Order

established

a

Docket

D

for

consideration

of

the

STS

proposal.

The

Board

expressly

noted

that

it

was

taking

no

action

at

that

time

on

the

proposals

in

Dockets

A,

B,

C.

The

STS

proposal

was

the

subject

of

ten

hearings.

To

expedite

the

proceedings,

participants

were

required

to

file

written

questions

and

comments

concerning

the

STS

proposal,

to

which

the

STS

provided

written

responses

to

be

discussed

at

hearing.

The

comment

period

was

closed

in

Docket

D

on

December

30,

l987.*

*

Post—hearing

comments

will

sometimes

be

referred

to

herein

by

Public

Comment

(P.C.)

number

without

identification

of

submitter.

The

following

is

a

listing

of

post—hearing

public

comments

by

number

and

submitter:

P.C.

42,

Wagner

Casting

Company

by

James

Mason,

Vice

President

Manufacturing

Services;

P.C.

43,

Andrews

Environmental

Engineering,

Inc.

by

J.

Douglas

Andrews,

P.

E.,

President;

P.C.

44,

Northeastern

Illinois

Planning

Commission

by

Lawrence

B.

Christmas,

Executive

Director;

P.C.

45,

Environmental

Reclamation

Company

by

Carl

Ball,

President;

P.C.

46,

McHenry

County

Defenders

by

Gerald

A.

(continued)

86—653

---

—6—

At

hearing,

the

STS

had

committed

to

redrafting

various

portions

of

the

proposal

in

response

to

testimony

and

to

consider

redrafting

in

response

to

any

subsequent

written

comment

received.

Accordingly,

the

STS

filed

revised

versions

of

various

portions

of

its

proposed

rules

and

Background

Report

on

January

15,

February

4

and

18.

Consistent

with

prior

practice

in

this

docket,

the

STS

dealt

with

the

Agency’s

untimely

comment,

filed

January

5,

1988,

as

a

matter

of

discretion

and

to

the

extent

that

time

permitted.

By

Order

of

February

4,

1988,

the

Board

adopted

an

Order

which

realigned

its

relationship

with

the

STS.

The

Board’s

Order

stated:

The

Board

has

been

deliberating

the

STS

revised

proposal,

as

well

as

the

records

in

Docket

A,

B,

&

C

since

January

21,

1988.

The

Board

has

limited

its

discussions

with

the

STS

consistent

with

the

February

19,

1987,

Order

and

the

Board’s

Protocols.

The

Board

has

found

that

in

order

to

fully

and

expeditiously

deliberate

these

matters

it

is

necessary

to

informally

consult

with

STS

staff

concerning

the

technical

details

in

the

voluminous

R84—17

record.

As

the

bases

for

and

comments

concerning

the

STS

proposal

are

a

matter

of

public

record,

the

Board

now

feels

that

it

may,

without

prejudice

to

the

integrity

of

its

process,

terminate

its

“arm’s

length”

dealing

with

STS

staff.

Accordingly,

as

of

this

date,

the

STS

staff

will

no

longer

be

considered

“exterior”

to

the

Board

within

the

meaning

of

the

Protocols.

STS

staff

is

directed

to

resume

communications

with

the

Board

in

the

usual

Board/staff

relationship.

The

ex

parte

constraints

of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

101.121(b)

shall

apply

to

STS

communications

with

persons

other

than

Board

Members

and

staff.

Paulson;

P.C.

47,

National

Soild

Wastes

Management

Association

Final

Comments

by

Fred

C.

Prillaman,

Esq.;

P.C.

48,

Pioneer

Processing,

Inc.

by

William

A.

Speary,

Jr.,

General

Counsel;

P.C.

49,

Land

and

Lakes

Co.

by

James

T.

Ambroso,

Environmental

Manager;

P.C.

50,

Illinois

Environmental

Regulatory

Group

by

James

T.

Harrington,

Esq.;

P.C.

51,

Waste

Management

of

Illinois,

Inc.

by

Percy

L.

Angelo,

Esq.;

P.C.

52,

Illinois

Department

of

Energy

and

Natural

Resources

by

Fred

Zalcrnan,

Esq.;

P.C.

53,

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

by

Phillip

R.

Van

Ness,

Esq.

86—654

---

—7.-

Deliberations

continued

on

February

5,

1988.

On

February

11,

1988,

the

Board

adopted

an

Order

directing

its

staff

to

develop

a

revised

proposal

for

its

consideration

on

February

25,

1988

finding

that:

The

Board

is

in

full

agreement

with

the

essential

elements

of

the

proposal.

However,

the

Board

wishes

to

see

regulatory

language

embodying

certain

concepts

which

either

are

not

contained

in

the

existing

proposal,

are

not

clearly

expressed,

or

are

alternative

to

those

presently

proposed.

By

its

Order

today,

the

Board

adopts

its

own

proposal

for

first

notice

publication

in

the

Illinois

Register.

MAJOR

PARTICIPANTS

The

record

in

this

matter

is

too

voluminous

for

the

Board

to

synopsize

all

testimony

presented.

The

following

individuals

and

organizations

have

made

contributions

to

this

proceeding

as

noted.

The

Agency

(Proponent

in

Docket

A)

Questions

concerning

the

Agency’s

Docket

A

informal

proposal

were

received

by:

Lawrence

Eastep,

P.

E.

Permit

Manager,

Division

of

Land

Pollution

Control

(DLPC)

Harry

Chappel,

P.

E.

Manager,

Compliance

Section,

DLPC

Monte

Nienkirk

Manager,

State

Site

Mangement

Unit,

Remedial

Project

Management

Section,

DLPC

Linda

J.

Kissinger

Environmental

Protection

Specialist,

DLPC

Scott

0.

Phillips,

Esg.

Enforcement

Programs

Virginia

Yang,

Esg.

Enforcement

Programs

Gary

King,

Esg.

Enforcement

Programs

86—655

---

—8—

Of

this

group,

Mr.

Eastep

and

Mr.

Chappel

have

continued

involvement

on

the

part

of

the

Agency,

which

is

currently

also

represented

by:

Edwin

C.

Bakowski

Manager,

Solid

Waste/UIC

Unit,

DLPC

Phillip

Van

Ness,

Esg.

Enforcement

Programs

ISCC

(Proponent

in

Docket

B)

Illinois

Environmental

Regulatory

Group.

The

Docket

B

proposal

was

prepared

by

the

Illinois

Waste

Regulatory

Committee

of

the

ISCC.

Testimony

concerning

the

language

of

the

Docket

B

proposal

was

presented

by:

Sidney

M.

Marder

Environmental

Consultant

Jeffrey

C.

Fort,

Esq.

Martin,

Craig,

Chester

and

Sonnenschein

The

Illinois

Environmental

Regulatory

Group

(IERG),

formed

in

1986,

is

an

affiliate

of

the

ISCC

which

currently

represents

some

34

Illinois

Industries

interested

in

the

development

of

the

state’s

environmental

regulations

(P.C.

50,

p.

1).

Since

formation

of

IERG,

ISCC

has

not

participated

in

the

R84—17

docket

as

a

separate

entity.

IERG

is

currently

represented

in

this

proceeding

by:

Sidney

M.

Marder

Executive

Director,

IERG

Katherine

D.

Hodge,

Esq.

General

Counsel,

IERG

James

T.

Harrington,

Esq.

Ross

&

Hardies

In

addition

to

presentation

of

testimony

by

Mr.

Marder,

both

ISCC

and

IERG

have

sponsored

technical

testimony

in

Dockets

B

&

D

concerning

the

properties

of

wastes

generated

by

certain

industries

and

the

state

of

the

research

concerning

disposal

of

such

wastes.

These

industries,

and

their

representatives

have

been:

86—656

---

—9—

Illinois

Steel

Group:

David

H.

Miller

Consulting

Engineer

Thomas

M.

Barnes,

Venture

Manager

Outokumpu,

Oy(sic)

Utility

Industry:

Thomas

Hemminger

Director

of

Water

Quality,

Commonwealth

Edison

Foundry

Industry:

Michael

Slattery

President,

Illinois

Cast

Metals

Association

Thomas

Kunes:

Executive

Vice

President,

RMT,

Inc.

Chairman,

American

Foundryman’s

Society

Committee

1OF

on

Water

Quality

&

Solid

Wastes

Waste

Management

of

Illinois,

Inc.

(Proponent

in

Docket

C)

Various

representatives

of

Waste

Management

of

Illinois

(WMI),

its

parent

corporation

Waste

Management,

Inc.

(WM,

Inc.),

and

Waste

Management

of

North

America

(WMNA),

another

WM,

Inc.

subsidiary,

presented

testimony

in

support

of

WMI’s

Docket

C

proposal,

as

well

as

considerable

comment

concerning

the

STS

Docket

D

proposal.

The

representatives

for

Waste

Management

have

been:

Peter

Vardi

Vice

President

For

Environmental

Management,

WM,

Inc.

Gary

Williams

Director,

Environmental

Compliance

WM,

Inc.

Ronald

Poland

Director,

Environmental

Engineering,

WM,

Inc.

John

Baker

Manager,

Environmental

Monitoring

Programs,

WM,

Inc.

Henry

L.

Martin

Manager,

Gas

Recovery,

WMNA

Tom

Tomaszewski

General

Manager,

CID

Processing,

WMI

Dale

Hoekstra

General

Manager,

Midway

Landfill,

WMI

86—657

---

—10—

Dr.

Jay

Lehr

Professor

of

Groundwater

Hydrology,

Ohio

State

University;

Executive

Director,

National

Water

Well

Association

E.

Clark

Boli

President,

Meredith/Boli

and

Associates

Carolyn

Lown,

Esq.

WM,

Inc.

Percy

Angelo,

Esq.

Mayer,

Brown

&

Platt

STS

(Proponent

in

Docket

D)

The

STS

sponsored

the

testimony

of

various

witnesses

in

Docket

A,

which

testimony

served

as

the

basis

for

some

components

of

the

STS

proposal

supported

by

further

testimony

in

Docket

D.

The

STS

witnesses

and

consultants,

and

the

subjects

of

their

testimonies

were:

Richard

DiMambro

Environmental

Engineer,

STS

Dr.

Richard

C.

Berg,

Thomas

M.

Johnson,

Dr.

William

R.

Roy,

Dr.

Robert

A.

Griffin

Illinois

State

Geological

Survey

Dr.

David

E.

Daniel,

Assistant

Professor

University

of

Texas

Dr.

Robert

K.

Ham,

Professor

of

Civil

&

Environmental

Engineering

University

of

Wisconsin

Dr.

Cecil

Lue—Hing,

Director

of

Research

and

Development

Metropolitan

Sanitary

District

of

Greater

Chicago

Dr.

Aaron

A.

Jennings,

Associate

Professor

of

Civil

Engineering

University

of

Toledo

(Ohio)

STS

Proposal

Various

geological

consid

erations

regarding

landfill

siting

and

potential

for

groundwater

contamination

Landfill/Liners

and

other

earthen

barriers

Generation

and

character

istics

of

landfill

leachate

and

gas

A

case

history

of

landfill

leachate

treatment

at

a

publicly

owned

treatment

works

(MSGDC

Calumet

Sewage

Treatment

Works)

Groundwater

contamination

modeling

86—658

---

—11—

Department

of

Energy

and

Natural

Resources

The

Division

of

Energy

and

Environmental

Affairs

of

the

Department

of

Energy

and

Natural

Resources

(DENR)

has

participated

throughout

these

proceedings

for

the

purpose

of

determining

whether

DENR

would

prepare

an

economic

impact

study

concerning

the

various

proposals

and

the

scope

of

any

such

study.

DENR

employees

present

for

these

purposes

have

included:

Bonnie

Eynon

Meyer

Coordinator,

EcIS

AnalysIs

Program

Elliott

Zimmerman

Resource

Planner

Stanley

Yonkauski,

Esq.

Fred

Zalcman,

Esq.

Technical

testimony

concerning

special

waste

disposal

issues

was

presented

by

a

representative

of

another

division

of

DENR:

David

Thomas

Director,

Hazardous

Waste

Research

and

Information

Center

The

Board

further

notes

that

the

Illinois

State

Geological

Survey

is

also

a

division

of

DENR.

Illinois

Chapter,

National

Solid

Waste

Management

Association,

and

Various

Landfill

Operators

The

Illinois

Chapter

of

the

National

Solid

Waste

Management

Association

(NSWMA)

has

sponsored

testimony

and

comments

on

behalf

of

the

Illinois

Chapter

and

its

various

member

disposal

facilities.

As

the

Illinois

Chapter

has

not

provided

the

Board

with

a

membership

list,

the

Board

is

unsure

of

how

many

of

the

individual

waste

management

companies

who

have

participated

in

this

proceeding

are

NSWMA

members.

In

listing

these

companies

in

this

section

for

convenience,

the

Board

is

not

implying

that

these

companies

are

necessarily

affiliated

with

NSWMA.

These

participants

have

been:

Joseph

R.

Benedict

Chairman,

Illinois

Chapter,

NSWMA

Director

of

Regulatory

Affairs,

Sexton

Companies

86—659

---

—12—

Dr.

Charles

A.

Johnson

Technical

Director,

NSWMA

Dr.

Edward

Repa

Institute

of

Solid

Waste

Disposal,

NSWMA

Bob

Peters

State

Program

Manager,

NSWMA

Fred

A.

Prillaman,

Esq.

Mohan,

Alewelt,

&

Prillaman

James

Ambroso

Environmental

Manager,

Land

&

Lakes,

Co.

Carl

Ball

President,

Environmental

Reclamation

Co.

Paul

DeGroot

President,

States

Land

Improvement

Co.

Leo

Lentz

Modern

Landfill

Co.

Francis

J.

O’Brien

Environmental

Control

Manager,

Browning

Ferris

Industries

of

Illinois,

Inc.

William

A.

Speary,

Jr.,

Esq.

General

Counsel,

Pioneer

Processing,

Inc.

Environmental

Groups

Various

environmental

groups

have

participated

in

these

proceedings

through

their

directors,

as

well

as

through

counsel

representing

a

coalition

of

groups.

(Individual

members

of

these

groups

are

too

numerous

to

list).

These

have

been:

Patricia

A.

Sharkey,

Esg.,

representing

Citizens

for

a

Better

Environment

(CBE),

Great

Lakes

Sierra

Club,

McHenry

County

Defenders

(MCD),

Center

for

Neighborhood

Technology,

Coalition

For

Appropriate

Waste

Disposal,

South

Chicago

Development

Commission

CBE:

Kevin

Greene

Research

Director

Dr.

Robert

Ginsberg

Midwest

Research

Director

86—660

---

—13—

MCD:

Gerald

Paulson

Executive

Director

Grey

Lindsay

Environmental

Consultant

Environmental

Consultants

In

addition

to

those

previously

listed,

various

environmental

consulting

firms

have

participated,

particularly

in

Docket

D,

on

behalf

of

themselves

or

their

clients.

These

include:

James

Douglas

Andrews,

P.

E.

Andrews

Environmental

Engineering

Darryl

Bauer

Baxter

and

Woodman,

Inc.

Daniel

P.

Dietzler,

P.E.

Patrick

Engineering,

Inc.

Richard

W.

Eldredge,

P.E.

Eldredge

Engineering

Associates,

Inc.

Roberta

L.

Jennings

Consultant

Hydrologist

WMI

Objection

to

February

4,

Order

On

February

10,

1988,

WMI

filed

an

objection

to

the

February

4

Order

realigning

the

relationship

of

the

Board

and

the

STS.

The

essence

of

WMI’s

objection

is

that:

While

fully

recognizing

the

good

faith

of

the

STS

staff

WMI

notes

that

the

process

of

first

creating

a

separate

staff

proposal

supported

by

informal

contacts

and

then

attempting

to

reestablish

the

usual

Board/staff

relationship

inescapably

presents

serious

conflicts

of

interest.

.

WMI

assumes

that

it

is

improper

for

an

advocate

of

a

certain

proposal

to

have

direct

access

to

the

Board

to

support

its

views

no

matter

how

much

it

believes

they

may

be

meritorious.

Certain

Board

Members

have

commented

that

in

agencies

it

is

sometimes

necessary

to

“wear

two

hats.”

If

that

means

that

agency

86—661

---

—14—

personnel

are

on

occasion

called

upon

to

be

both

advocates

and

decisionmakers,

we

respectfully

suggest

that

it

is

not

proper

for

such

personnel

to

assume

both

roles

in

the

same

case.

Once

a

“Chinese

Wall”

is

constructed

to

deal

with

a

potential

conflict

situation

it

is

not

possible

to

dismantle

it

when

it

becomes

inconvenient.

The

Board

notes

that,

while

WMI

has

lodged

an

objection

for

the

record,

that

it

has

not

either

generally

or

specifically

requested

that

the

Board

take

action

on

its

objection.

The

Board

accordingly

will

offer

only

three

comments

in

response

to

the

objection.

First,

as

a

matter

of

policy,

the

Board

is

now,

and

has

been

throughout

the

course

of

this

proceeding,

highly

cognizant

of

its

obligation

to

base

its

decision

on

information

contained

in

the

record.

Second,

the

Board

did

not

issue

its

February

4

Order

for

the

purpose

of

giving

the

STS

an

opportunity

to

“lobby”

the

Board

in

support

of

its

proposal;

the

Board

did

so

to

allow

it

to

ask

clarifying

questions

of

the

one

member

of

its

STS

staff

able

to

provide

timely

clarification

of

some

aspects

of

this

record.

The

STS

staff

currently

consists

of

three

members,

one

of

whom

has

been

assigned

to

this

R84—l7

docket

since

the

STS

was

staffed

in

1985

and

who

prepared

the

Docket

D

proposal

and

background

report

at

the

behest

of

the

Board.

Neither

of

the

other

two

STS

staff

members

is

familiar

with

the

voluminous

record

in

R84—l7,

and

neither

is

particularly

suited

by

way

of

scientific

training

or

recent

prior

experience

to

quickly

assimilate

this

record

and

respond

to

questions

by

the

Board.

One

member’s

primary

area

of

concentration

has

been

in

the

area

of

air

quality,

and

the

other’s

in

the

area

of

promulgation

of

state

rules

implementing

the

federal

NPDES

and

RCRA

hazardous

waste

programs.

Third,

the

Opinion

and

Order

adopted

by

the

Board

today

reflect

the

collective

judgment

of

this

seven

Member

Board

based

on

the

record

developed

to

date,

a

judgment

which

is

markedly

different

from

that

of

the

STS

in

a

number

of

areas.

INTER-RELATION

WITH

STS

BACKGROUND

REPORT

While

the

Board

has

not

adopted

the

STS

proposed

rules

without

change,

the

Board

does

endorse

the

technical

analysis

and

rationale

behind

the

major

components

of

the

proposal.

Areas

in

which

the

Board’s

first

notice

proposal

diverges

from

the

STS

Recommendations

will

be

discussed

in

some

detail

in

this

Opinion*;

in

areas

which

the

Board’s

thinking

is

similar

to

that

86—662

---

—15—

of the

STS,

this

Opinion

will

provide

only supplementary

comments.

This

Opinion

should

be

read

together

with

the

STS

Background

Report,

as,

for

the purposes

of this

first

notice

proposed

Opinion,

the

Board

has not

engaged

in

the

mechanical

task

of

selective

incorporation

of

portions

of the

Background

Report.

As

earlier

noted,

the

STS

Background

Report,

as

filed

on

March

7,

1988

with

final

edits

pursuant

to leave

of

the

Board

granted

in

its

Order

in R88—7,

will

be

introduced

as

Exhibit

1

in R88—7.

The

references

listed

at

pages 114—131

of the

Background

Report

will be

introduced

as Group

Exhibit

2.

DISMISSAL

OF

DOCKETS

A,B,C,

AND

D

AND

CREATION

OF

DOCKET

R88-7

At

several

earlier

points in

this

proceeding,

the

Board

has

indicated

that

the proposals

in

Docket

A, B, and

C would

not

be

adopted

by

the Board

for

first notice

publication,

and

indicated

in

its

February

11 Order

that neither

would

the

Docket

D

proposal.

In

its

December

30, 1987

public

comment

(P.C.

52),

DENR

raised

many

concerns

concerning

the

economic

impact

statement

(EcIS)

process

in this

proceeding.

One of

these is,

in

essence,

that

the continued

pendancy

in

this docket

of

proposals

other

than that

adopted

by

the Board

raises

questions

as

to

whether

an EcIS

must

compare

and

contrast

the

economic

effects

of

each

proposal.

In reviewing

this

record,

the

Board has

found

that

it is

virtually

impossible

to

compare

the

proposals

on

a point

by

point

basis,

as

the Docket

A,B,C

and

D

proposals

differ

so markedly

in

their

structure,

in their

proposed

scope

of

facilities

to

be

covered,

and in

their approaches

to a

variety

of

issues

such as

that

of

location

standards.

To remove

any

questions

concerning

the

Board’s

view

of the

status

of

these

proposals,

and of

the

scope

of

DENR’s

statutory

obligations,

the

Board

has, by

separate

Order,

dismissed

the

proposals

in Dockets

A,B,C

and

D and

two

established

a

new

Docket,

R88—7,

for

its

own

proposal.

The

record

in Dockets

A,B,C

and

D

are

incorporated

into the

record

in Docket

R88—7.

The

caption

in

this

proceeding,

which

was

drawn from

the

Agency’s

May,

1984

proposal,

will

also

be amended

to

reflect

the

fact that

the

R88—7 proposal

establishes

requirements

for

all

landfills,

*

In

areas

where

the

Board

has

declined

to accept

specific

STS

Recommendations,

the

STS recommendations

will continue

to appear

in

the

Background

Report,

but

will

be

discussed

without

a

prefatory

rule

number

heading.

The

purpose

in

so doing

is

to

provide

a clear

record

of

the

evolution

of this

proposal.

86—663

---

—16—

but

does

not

impose

requirements

for

generators

and

haulers

of

special

waste.

In

dismissing

the

Dockets

A,B,C,

and

D

proposals,

the

Board

wishes

to

note,

as

has

the

STS

in

its

Background

Report

at

p.

2—

3,

that

elements

of

each

of

the

proposals

have

been

incorporated

into

the

STS

Docket

D

proposal;

many

of

these

have

accordingly

been

adopted

by

the

Board

in

the

R88—7

proposal.

While

some

provisions

of

the

proposals

will

be

discussed

in

conjunction

with

various

provisions

of

the

Board’s

R88—7

proposal,

some

general

comments

about

these

proposals

in

Dockets

A,B

and

C

are

in

order.

Each

of

these

three

proposals

suggests

some

changes,

whether

small

or

large,

in

35

Ill.

Mm.

Code,

Part

809,

which

establishes

requirements

for

hauling,

delivery,

and

acceptance

of

special

waste.

The

Board’s

proposal

does

not

reach

to

Part

809.

Dismissal

of

the

proposals

to

amend

Part

809

should

not

be

construed

as

a

determination

by

the

Board

that

no

changes

are

needed

in

Part

809

specifically,

or

in

the

state’s

special

waste

system

generally.

Parallel

to

and

contemporaneously

with

the

R84—17

proceeding,

the

Board

has

been

considering

special

waste

issues

in

two

proceedings,

Docket

R84—43

and

Docket

R85—27,

into

which

R84—43

has

been

subsumed.

These

dockets

were

initiated,

respectively,

in

response

to

legislative

mandates

codified

as

Sections

22.01

and

22.9

of

the

Act.

Throughout

the

course

of

these

proceedings,

the

inter—relationship

of

landfill

design

and

operating

issues

with

special

waste

issues

has

been

a

subject

of

discussion

at

hearings,

and

the

question

has

arisen

as

to

whether

one

docket

could

proceed

in

advance

of

another.

The

Board

has

concluded

that

this

proposal

for

design

and

operation

of

landfills

can

appropriately

proceed

while

work

progresses

on

specific

special

waste

issues.

The

design

standards

contained

in

this

proposal

do

not,

by

their

terms,

depend

for

applicability

upon

whether

a

landfill

receives

waste

which

is

currently

classified

as

a

special

waste

or

which

may

be

so

classified

in

future.

Instead,

they

depend

upon

the

chemical

and

biological

properties

of

the

waste.

As

to

operating

standards,

this

proposal

does

contain

some

general

procedures

for

identification

and

handling

of

special

wastes

which

are

intended

to

supplement

Part

809.

It

is

clear

from

the

records

in

these

proceedings

that

there

may

well

be

specific

waste

streams

for

which

specific

more

stringent

disposal

standards

should

be

developed,

such

as

bulk

liquids,

as

WMI

suggests

in

its

Docket

C

proposal,

or

automobile

tires

and

incinderator

ash

which

are

recognized

in

the

popular

press

as

well

as

the

scientific

literature

as

posing

peculiar

public

health

and

disposal

hazards.

However,

at

this

time,

none

of

the

records

in

any

of

the

proceedings

before

the

Board

are

86—664

---

—17—

sufficiently

developed

to

allow

the

Board

to

propose

regulations

on

a

wastestream

by

wastestream

basis.

The

Board

believes

that

the

operating

standards

of

this

proposal

are

so

structured

as

to

permit

the

later

addition

of

more

specific

procedures,

and

that

proposal

of

the

general

rules

should

not

be

delayed

pending

development

of

rules

for

exceptions.

SUMMARY

OF

PROPOSAL

The

following

is

a

“broadbrush”

overview

of

the

major

elements

of

this

proposal.

It

must

be

read

in

conjunction

with

the

Board

proposal

and

STS

Background

Report.

Type

and

Number

of

Facilities

Affected

At

the

risk

of

oversimplification,

the

type

of

waste

which

has

been

the

target

of

this

regulatory

docket

can

generally

be

characterized

as

solid

waste

which

is

not

regulated

as

a

hazardous

waste

pursuant

to

Subtitle

C

of

the

federal

Resource

Conservation

and

Recovery

Act

of

1976

(RCRA)

as

amended

by

the

1984

Hazardous

and

Solid

Waste

Amendments

(HSWA),

42

USC

Section

6901

et

seq.

The

Board

has

adopted

rules

“identical

in

substance”

to

the

RCRA

rules

adopted

by

the

United

States

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(USEPA);

the

Board’s

rules

are

codified

at

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

Parts

700—750.

For

the

purposes

of

this

discussion,

“solid

waste

management”

is

a

term

which

commonly

includes

a

variety

of

waste

handling

methods.

These

include

1)

the

permanent

deposit

of

solid

waste

in

landfills

which

meet

all

regulatory

requirements,

as

well

as

such

deposit

in

non—complying

facilities

which

are

categorized

as

“open

dumps”;

2)

the

combustion

of

solid

waste

in

incinerators

which

meet

all

regulatory

requirements,

as

well

as

such

combustion

in

non—complying

facilities

which

is

categorized

as

“open

burning”;

3)

the

treatment,

storage

and/or

disposal

of

solid

waste

in

waste

piles;

4)

the

treatment,

storage,

and/or

disposal

of

solid

waste

in

surface

impoundments

(also

known

as

pits,

ponds,

and

lagoons);

5)

application

of

solid

waste

onto

or

into

the

soil

(also

known

as

land

farming

and

land

spreading);

6)

temporary

storage

of

waste

at

transfer

stations

pending

its

transportation

to

another

solid

waste

management

facility;

and

7)

the

recycling

and

reclaiming

of

solid

waste

for

beneficial

re

use.

Today’s

proposal

does

not

cover

the

entire

universe

of

solid

waste

management

practices

and

facilities;

it

is

confined

to

facilities

here

defined

as

“landfills”:

areas

of

land

or

an

excavation

in

which

wastes

are

placed

for

permanent

disposal.

Excluded

are

facilities

whose

emissions

are

regulated

under

other

federal

or

state

programs

for

protection

of

land

application

units,

surface

impoundments,

and

injection

wells.

Included

for

8

6-6

65

---

—18—

the

present

purposes

are

waste

disposal

piles.

(See

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

700.102(b)).

These

regulations

do

not

cover

facilities

which

haul,

treat,

store

or

recycle

solid

waste.

Such

activities

are

not

presently

governed

by

detailed

regulations

at

either

the

state

or

federal

level;

these

activities

will

be

addressed

in

future

regulatory

proceedings.

Today’s

proposed

rules

would

establish

minimum

standards

for

the

design

and

operation

of

all

new

landfills

whether

they

are

required

to

have

a

permit

or

are

exempt

from

permitting,

and

in

general

would

establish

requirements

for

the

upgrading

of

existing

landfills.

Landfills

which

are

exempt

from

permit

requirements

which,

by

way

of

example,

are

those

where

an

industry

disposes

of

its

own

wastes

on

its

own

property,

will

be

required

to

submit

to

the

Agency

essentially

the

same

type

of

data

which

is

required

of

permitted

facilities.

As

explained

later

in

some

detail,

the

Agency

reports

that

there

are

146

existing

landfills

with

permits.

No

data

is

presented

on

either

reported

or

calculated

remaining

lives

for

13

of

these

sites.

Of

the

remaining,

the

Board

calculates

that

some

64

expect

to

close

within

0—5

years,

25

within

6—10

years,

and

44

within

11—234

years.

Little

hard

data

is

available

concerning

the

number

of

currently

existing

landfills

which

are

operating

pursuant

to

the

permit

exemption.

Since

existing

rules

have

not

required

even

that

such

landfills

file

reports

concerning

their

operations,

their

existence

comes

to

the

attention

of

the

Agency

only

where,

in

the

course

of

other

business,

for

instance,

an

air

permit

inspector

notices

a

landfill

operation,

or

it

receives

complaints

of

environmental

problems.

Agency

personnel

testified

that

as

a

“ballpark

figure”,

the

Agency

knows

of

some

40—50

landfills

in

this

category.

New

Landfill

Design

and

Operation

Three

new

categories

of

non—hazardous

solid

waste

are

defined:

inert,

putrescible

and

chemical.

These

wastes

must

be

placed

in

disposal

facilities

best

equipped

to

prevent

the

escape

of

pollutants

into

the

environment,

with

the

“worst”

type

of

wastes

requiring

the

most

stringent

controls.

Inert

waste

will

not

burn,

biodegrade,

cause

an

odor,

serve

as

food

for

birds

and

animals,

form

a

gas,

or

form

a

contaminated

leachate.

The

requirements

for

disposal

of

inert

waste

are

minimal

and

mainly

deal

with

surface

water

pollution,

and

windblown

dust

and

debris.

Putrescible

waste

includes

household

refuse,

garbage,

commercial

waste,

and

any

other

material

that

can

biodegrade

at

a

rapid

rate

to

form

landfill

gas

and

a

contaminated

leachate.

86—666

---

—19—

Putrescible wastes must be placed in disposal

facilities

equipped

with

a

liner and

a

leachate collection

system to prevent the

discharge of leachate

to

groundwater.

Systems to monitor the

buildup and migration of landfill

gas must

be

placed around the

landfill and

groundwater monitoring wells must

be sampled on a

monthly

basis.

Chemical wastes are, generally, industrial

solid wastes that

are not hazardous but,

nevertheless, must be placed in

a facility

that controls and monitors the discharge of leachate.

Chemical

wastes are usually placed in

a dedicated disposal facility

on the

site

at

which they

are generated.

For new landfills, minimum

design requirements include

a

compacted three—foot earthen liner,

a leachate collection system,

and

a

series of

monitoring wells. Each new facility must

investigate the hydrogeology beneath

and around the site in

a

three—phase program

to determine potential groundwater

contamination

pathways. A groundwater impact

assessment is

specified so

that the adequacy of the liner design can be tested

at

the site.

The landfill owner

must determine the quality of the

groundwater

at

the proposed site,

including the background

concentrations of

certain indicator constituents. The

proposed

site design

must demonstrate that it will comply with the

performance standard: that

any contaminant emissions from

the

facility will

not cause an increase in the levels

of

the

background constituents within

100 years at a measuring point

100

feet from the

edge of the landfill’s disposal

area or at the

property boundary, whichever is

closer. (This measuring point

is

called the zone of attenuation.)

Additional, more stringent

design requirements will

be required if a site cannot

demonstrate

that it will

comply with this goal.

This

proposal

does not, with some exceptions

mandated by

statute, specifically pinpoint areas of the

state in which

landfills should or should

not be located.

In

cooperation

with the Board, the Illinois

Geological

Survey is conducting

a

computer

modeling project to

quantitatively assess the potential

for contaminant migration

through

15 sequences

of geologic

materials typical in Illinois

using two landfill design scenarios

and six contaminants.

(See

Background Report,

pp.

78—91)

One of the landfill designs is

that proposed here,

a three foot clay liner

and leachate

collection

system; the other, representing

current

design

practice, is a

10 foot

liner

and no leachate collection system.

The Survey’s

preliminary results indicate that using the Board’s

minimum proposed

liner/leachate collection system design, the

proposed “no increase in

background concentration” standard

could

be

met with various geological settings

which comprise

47.0% of

86—667

---

—20—

the

state’s

land

surface.

Of

the

remaining

areas,

it

is

possible

that

some

could

be

made

suitable

by

adding

to

the

minimum

design

standards

or

could

be

suitable

for

industrial

uses

producing

a

leachate

less

contaminated

than

that

produced

by,

for

instance,

a

municipal

waste

landfill.

Under

these

circumstances,

it

would

appear

that

the

economics

of

complying

with

more

stringent

design

requirements

would

naturally

motivate

a

landfill

operator

to

choose

a

more

geologically

preferable

site.

On

the

other

hand,

in

cases

where

use

of

a

less

preferable

site

is

imperative

for

reasons

of

industrial

or

economic

development,

the

opportunity

to

“design

up

to

standard”

is

available.

To

insure

that

predicted

performance

of

an

otherwise

suitable

design

is

not

undermined

by

shoddy

construction

techniques,

a

construction

quality

assurance

(CQA)

program

must

be

implemented

during

the

construction

of

each

structure.

The

regulations

are

intended

to

insure

that

the

facilities

are

constructed

to

meet

all

of

the

design

and

performance

requirements.

The

CQA

officer

must

be

a

person

other

than

the

operator

and

must

be

a

professional

engineer

registered

with

the

State

of

Illinois.

The

CQA

officer

must

be

present

at

various

stages

of,

and

certify

to

the

construction

including

installation

of

the

liner,

the

leachate

drainage

and

collection

system,

the

gas

control

systems,

and

the

final

cover.

Other

duties

include

sampling

the

quality

of

material

and

procedures

used,

supervising

all

inspectors

and

preparing

a

summary

report

for

each

day

of

construction

activity.

During

the

time

a

landfill

is

accepting

waste,

it

must

comply

with

general

standards

for

site

security,

surface

water

control,

daily

and

intermediate

cover,

maintenance,

fire

protection

and

flood

protection.

The

landfill

operator

must

monitor

the

environment

for

effects

produced

by

waste

disposal.

Groundwater

monitoring

effects

must

be

concentrated

in

an

inner

zone

defined

as

being

halfway

to

the

edge

of

the

zone

of

attenuation.

Any

unanticipated

seepage

of

leachate

will,

therefore,

be

detected

before

reachingthe

edge

of

the

zone

of

attenuation.

An

assessment

and

a

remedial

action

procedure

if

indicated,

must

be

implemented

if

a

statistically

significant

increase

in

the

concentration

of

any

contaminant

is

detected

by

the

monitoring

network.

Monitoring

must

continue

for

a

minimum

of

five

years

after

closure,

until

contaminated

leachate

is

no

longer

generated

at

the

facility.

Landfill

gases

are

also

extensively

regulated.

Methane

and

carbon

dioxide

are

the

primary

gases

produced

by

disposal

sites.

A

network

of

gas

monitoring

devices

must

be

placed

around

the

landfill

and

a

gas

collection

and

disposal

system

must

be

86—668

---

—21—

installed

if

excessive

gas

migration

is

observed.

Monitoring

must

continue

until

gas

is

no

longer

generated

in

significant

quantities.

Once

a

portion

of the

facility

ceases

to accept

waste,

that

portion

must

be

covered

with

a composite

cover

system

consisting

of

two

layers.

The

bottom

layer

is

intended

to

prevent

precipitation

infiltration

into

the waste

and

will

be

a

relatively

impermeable

compacted

earth

layer

or

synthetic

sheet.

The

upper,

protective

layer

is

intended

to

offer

protection

to

the

relatively

impermeable

layer

and

support

vegetation to

minimize

erosion

and

dust.

This

top

layer

will

consist

of at

least

three

feet

of

good

quality

topsoil

capable

of

supporting

vegetation.

The

facility

is

required

to

provide

proof

of

its

financial

ability

to

comply

with

all

required

closure

and

post—closure

requirements.

Permitting of

New

Landfills

In

the

existing

regulations,

facilities

are

required

to

obtain

development

permits,

operating

permits,

and,

if

accepting

special

waste,

supplemental

waste

stream

permits.

Except

for

the

latter

in

some

cases,

all

of these

permits

have

been

“life

of

site”

permits.

Under

this

proposal,

permits

would

be

renewable

every

five

years,

as

is

currently

the

case

for

air

and

water

permits.

In

the

usual

case,

an

owner

will

submit

an

application

to

develop

a

tract

of

land

for

landfill

use;

for

a number

of

economic

and

other

reasons,

this

proposal

fosters

subdivision

of

the

tract

into

planned

disposal

units.

That

is,

it

is

anticipated

that,

for

instance,

an

owner

would

plan

to

seek

authorization

to

develop

a

100

acre

site

by

sequentially

opening

and

closing

10

units

of

10

acres

each,

rather

than

digging

1

trench

of

100

acres.

To

avoid

controversy

as

to

what

permit(s)

are

renewable

at

the

end

of

five

years,

this

proposal

does

away

with

the

concept

of

separate

operating

permits.

The

facility

will

be

issued

one

permit,

the

development

permit,

and

authorization

to

operate

will

be

granted

by

way

of

modification

of the

facility’s

single

permit.

Regardless

of

what

year

during

a

five

year

permit

term

a

unit

is

authorized

to

begin

operations, the

time

for

permit

renewal

“relates

back”

to

the

issue

date

of

the

development

permit.

The

proposal

specifies

which

of

various

changes

which

can

occur

at.a

site

are

“significant”,

requiring

the

filing

of

an

application

for

permit

modification.

86—669

---

—22--

Existing

Landfills’

Design

and

Operation

As

a

practical

matter,

all

existing

facilities

cannot

be

expected

to

comply

with all

requirements applicable

to

new

facilities.

For instance,

retrofitting

of such

existing

sites

with

leachate

collection

systems

of

the

design

required

for

new

facilities

is clearly

impractical;

performance

of the

detailed

hydrogeological

site

investigation

may

also

be

impractical.

The

proposal

therefore

sets

intermediate

standards

against

which the

facility

must

assess

its

operations

to

determine

when

it must

begin closure.

Units

which

have

not

accepted

waste

prior

to the effective

date

of these

regulations

are

required

to

meet

all standards

for

new

facilities.

The

primary

yardstick

for

gauging

performance

is the

“no

increase

in background

concentration”

groundwater

standard.

Existing

units

which meet

the

standard,

are

equipped

with

some

type

of

leachate

collection

system

and

upgrade

their

financial

assurance

instruments

are

exempt

from

certain

location

and site

analysis

and

investigation

requirements;

these may

remain

open

for

a

period

greater

than

seven years.

Existing

units

which

cannot

meet

the

no—increase

standard,

but

which

can

meet

the drinking

water

standards

at a point

measured

at

the edge

of

the

unit

rather

than

at

the zone

of

attenuation,

may

remain

open for

up to

seven

years with

the

same

exemptions

and

upgrading

requirements

as for

facilities

above.

Facilities

which cannot

meet

either

of these

sets

of

requirements

must

initiate

closure

within

two

years.

Re—Permitting

of

Existing

Landfills

The

proposal

requires

existing

facilities

which

do not

intend

to close

within

two years

to

apply

for modification

of

their

existing

permits

no

later

than

48

months

after

the

effective

date

of the

rules,

or

one

year

after

the Agency

“calls

in”

the permit

for

review,

whichever

first

occurs.

Facilities

which

timely

file

applications

for

modification

may continue

to

operate

pursuant

to

the terms

of their

original

permit

pending

Agency

decision

on the

application

and

any subsequent

appeals

of

that

decision.

Reporting

Requirements

For

Non—Permitted

Landfills

Non—permitted

landfills

are

required

to

file

three

types

of

reports.

The

facility’s

initial

report,

to

be

filed

within

two

years,

must

contain

much

of

the

same

information

as

required

in

a

permit

application.

Annual

reports

must

be

filed containing

a

summary

of the

year’s

waste

disposal

activities,

modifications

made

to

the facility,

results

of

monitoring

data

concerning

86—

670

---

—23--

leachate,

gas

and

groundwater,

and

projected

activities

for

the

coming

year.

Quarterly

ground

water

modeling

reports

are

also

required.

Information

developed

pursuant

to

the

rules,

including

that

not

yet

submitted

to

the

Agency,

must

be

retained

on

site

for

Agency

inspection.

OVERVIEW:

THE

WASTE

DISPOSAL

SYSTEM

IN

ILLINOIS

Deliberations

in

this

docket

have

been

more

than

usually

complex

and

problematic

due

to

the

large

number

of

sources

potentially

regulated

and

the

lack

of

data

concerning

many

of

these

sources;

the

complexity

of

the

technical

issues

in

the

area

of

waste

disposal,

which

concern

effects

on

the

quality

of

air,

land,

surface

waters

and

ground

waters;

and

the

legislative

and

regulatory

initiatives

and

constraints

which

may

direct

as

well

as

circumscribe

the

Board’s

actions

in

this

area.

Some

prefatory

discussion

of

these

subjects

is

a

necessary

aid

to

understanding

the

Board’s

decision

to

proceed

with

regulations

at

this

time

and

the

form

these

regulations

take.

The

Statutory

Framework

Over

the

past

two

decades,

the

legislative

policy

at

both

the

state

and

federal

levels

has

been

to

impose

increasingly

more

stringent

controls

on

the

disposal

of

waste.

In

its

creation

of

the

modern

day

Illinois

environmental

system

through

adoption

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Act

(Act),

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

ch.

111

1/2,

par.

1001

et

seq.,

the

General

Assembly

specifically

noted

in

Section

20

that:

“economic

and

population

growth

and

new

methods

of

manufacture,

packaging

and

marketing,

without

the

parallel

growth

of

facilities

enabling

and

ensuring

the

re

cycling,

re—use

and

conservation

of

natural

resources

and

solid

waste,

have

resulted

in

a

rising

tide

of

scrap

and

waste

materials

of

all

kinds;

that

excessive

quantities

of

refuse

and

inefficient

and

improper

methods

of

refuse

disposal

result

in

scenic

blight,

cause

serious

hazards

to

public

health

and

safety,

create

public

nuisances,

divert

land

from

more

productive

uses,

depress

the

value

of

nearby

property,

offend

the

senses,

and

otherwise

interfere

with

community

life

and

development;

that

the

failure

to

salvage

and

reuse

scrap

and

refuse

results

in

the

waste

and

depletion

of

our

natural

resources

and

contributes

to

the

degradation

of

our

environment”.

86—67

1

---

—24—

As

part

of

its

intended

purpose

in

1970

of “upgrading

waste

collection

and

disposal

practices”,

in

Section

21

the

General

Assembly

banned

the

disposal

of

waste

in

sites

which

failed

to

meet

the

requirements

of

the

Act,

and

required

a

permit

for

waste

disposal

operations

with

one

significant

exception:

what

is

commonly

referred

to

as

the

Section

21(d)

on—site

exemption.

As

it

currently

exists,

the

exemption

provides

that:

“no

permit

shall

be

required

for

any

person

conducting

a

waste—storage,

waste—treatment,

or

waste—disposal

operation

for

wastes

generated

by

such

person’s

own

activities

which

are

stored,

treated,

or

disposed

within

the

site

where

such

wastes

are

generated”

The

Section

21(d)

on—site

exemption

does

not

apply

to hazardous

waste.

(This

exemption

will

be

further

addressed

in

later

portions

of

this

Opinion).

The

Board’s

existing

non—hazardous

waste

regulations

were,

when

adopted

in

1973,

“state

of

the

art”

regulations

proposed

by

the

Agency

and

designed

to

foster

abandonment

of

waste

disposal

in

“town

dumps”

in

favor

of

disposal

in

modern,

permitted

“sanitary

landfills.”

Examination

of

the

regulations

makes

clear

that

the

primary

operational

concerns

were

that

wastes

be

adequately

covered

and

litter

collected.

While

the

rules

contain

general

prohibitions

against

air

pollution

and

water

pollution,

as

the

STS

Background

Report

notes

at

p.

2

“they

barely

recognize

the

problems

of

landfill

gas

monitoring

and

collection,

groundwater

monitoring

and

liners

and

leachate

collection

systems.”

The

regulations

do

not

contain

specific

standards

for

facilities

other

than

“sanitary

landfills”,

and

none

have

been

proposed

to

the

Board

since

adoption

of Part

807.

In

1974,

USEPA

adopted

guidelines

for

the

thermal

processing

of

solid

wastes,

and

for

the

land

disposal

of

solid

wastes

(40

CFR

Part

243).

These

guidelines

are,

viewed

today,

no

more

sophisticated

than

the

Board’s

Part

807.

Congress’

adoption

in

1976

of

the

Resource

Reclamation

and

Recovery

Act

has

had

a

profound

impact

on

the path

that

the

state’s

regulatory

program

for

solid

waste

management has

taken.

While

Subtitle

D

of RCRA

addresses

disposal

of

non—

hazardous

solid

waste,

until

recently

Subtitle

D—related

activities

took

a

back

seat

to

activities

relative

to

the

Subtitle

C

hazardous waste

program.

The

Code

of

Federal

Regulations

contains

only

one

nine—page

Part,

Part

257 adopted

in

1979,

containing

criteria

for

non—hazardous

solid

waste

disposal

facilities

and

practices

pursuant

to

Subtitle

D

of

RCRA.

By

contrast,

since

1980

Subtitle

C

regulatory

activities

have

generated

over

40

new

parts

to

the

Code

of

Federal

Regulations

totalling

some

500

pages.

86—672

---

—25—

In

1981,

in

adopting

P.A.

82—380,

the

General

Assembly

amended

Section

20

of

the

Act

to

direct

the

Board

and

the

Agency

to

take

all

steps

necessary

to

secure

federal

approval

of

an

Illinois

hazardous

waste

managemeit

program

pursuant

to

Subtitle

C

of

RCRA

and

resulting

funding

of

such

program.

The

Board

and

the

Agency

have

done

so,

and

have

secured

the

necessary

federal

approval.

However,

one

of

the

inevitable

results

of

receipt

of

such

funding

is

that

the

state’s

regulatory

program

and

priorities

are

driven

by

those

of

its

federal

paymaster.

As

aforementioned,

while

the

Agency

has

made

abortive

attempts

to

develop

and

present

non—hazardous

waste

regulations

for

the

Board’s

consideration,

these

attempts

have

been

abandoned

in

favor

of

meeting

federal

requirements

of

the

Subtitle

C

program.

The

Board,

however,

which

has

not

heretofore

been

dependent

on

federal

funding,

has

devoted

considerable

resources

to

development

of

a

modern

non—hazardous

waste

program

while

at

the

same

time

fulfilling

its

obligations

under

the

Subtitle

D

program.

The

Board’s

efforts

have

been

particularly

aided

by

its

receipt

of

the

general

revenue

funding

which

created

the

Board’s

Scientific/Technical

Section,

which

become

operational

in

early

1985.

The

lack

of

modern

regulations

for

the

disposal

of

non—

hazardous

waste

has

prompted

both

Congress

and

the

General

Assembly

to

mandate

focus

on

this

area

by

regulatory

authorities.

The

1984

Hazardous

and

Solid

Waste

Amendments

(HSWA)

to

RCRA

require

USEPA

to

study

the

adequacy

of

the

Subtitle

D

criteria

and

its

efficacy

in

protecting

groundwater

and

to

recommend

whether

additional

authorities

are

needed

to

enforce

them.

USEPA

was

directed

to

promulgate

revisions

to

the

Subtitle

D

criteria

by

March,

1988.

While

the

record

in

R84—17

is

replete

with

references

to

federal

activity

concerning

Subtitle

D

regulations,

most

of

this

information

is

anecdotal.

USEPA

has

not

formally

published

draft

regulations

in

the

Federal

Register,

and

has

not,

to

the

Board’s

knowledge,

formally

announced

a

schedule

for

promulgation

of

Subtitle

D

rules.

The

General

Assembly,

for

its

part,

has

passed

several

bills

directing

regulatory

and

other

activity

by

state

agencies

in

the

solid

waste

area.

Section

21.1

of

the

Act,

adopted

in