ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March
    1,
    1990
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    )
    DEVELOPMENT, OPERATING
    AND
    )
    R88-7
    REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR
    )
    (Rulemaking)
    NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS
    )
    CONCURRING OPINION
    (by
    B. Forcade and J.
    D.
    Dumelle):
    We agree generally with the regulatory approach embodied in
    the majority Opinion and Order. However, that approach sets up
    quite stringent controls over landfills accepting generalized
    waste,
    and virtually no protective controls are required for
    landfills accepting only inert waste.
    We believe the present
    approach allows great potential for abuse and for environmental
    harm as it pertains to these inert waste landfills.
    Accordingly
    we concur, urging consideration of more stringent controls for
    inert waste landfills.
    Our concerns relate to inadequate controls on the siting,
    operation,
    and design of inert landfills and on the inadequate
    test protocol used to define inert waste.
    The first set of
    concerns is best defined by the following three examples of
    possible misuse of the system.
    The X industrial company produces hazardous waste,
    special
    waste that is not inert,
    and inert waste.
    They are located on
    relatively porous soil above an aquifer that is used for both
    private and public water supplies.
    Because of the Board’s new
    regulations they decide to build an on-site landfill to handle
    the inert waste they generate. Joe, the Assistant Engineer,
    is
    given responsibility to operate the inert landfill.
    One day Joe innocently picks up the wasteload on the “east”
    side of building 66 instead of on the “west” side.
    By mistake Joe
    has picked up the hazardous waste
    (or the non—inert special
    waste).
    Thinking he has the inert waste, Joe fills out any
    necessary paperwork as though he was dumping inert waste into the
    landfill.
    Because there are no restrictions on where the
    landfill can be located, and because there are no liner
    requirements, and because there is no monitoring,
    this situation
    is not detected until the aquifer contaminatiOn has already
    occurred.
    The private wells’
    users dO~notdetect the
    contamination,
    they just drink it.
    The public water supply
    officials detect the contamination, but they have to pay tax
    dollars to purify the water.
    l~9—22S
    2
    Second situation:
    One day Joe is sick.
    Harry knows that
    Joe always takes “this here waste stuff” to the landfill out
    back,
    so Harry will take it and tell Joe later.
    Harry forgets to
    tell Joe. Same result as above.
    Third situation:
    Joe has to fill out the hazardous waste
    paperwork for the company, but he has been behind in his work.
    Now he has two drums of hazardous waste that are already past the
    90 day storage limit.
    If Joe tells his boss then the Company will
    have to ask for provisional variances and all that junk, which
    will just make his boss mad at Joe for being behind in his
    paperwork.
    “Just this once”, Joe decides to “misplace” the
    material into the landfill out back, without documentation.
    After all, who will know
    7
    Our difficulty with the existing proposal
    is that once an
    improper substance gets
    into the “inert” landfill for whatever
    reason, all environmental protection mechanisms are missing.
    1.
    There are no
    “location”
    standards such as
    Section 811.302 to keep the landfills away from
    water supply sources.
    2.
    There
    are
    no
    liner
    and
    soil
    foundation
    standards such as Sections 811.304
    to
    306 to
    reduce the leakage from the landfill into the
    aquifer.
    3.
    There
    are
    no
    groundwater
    detection
    monitoring
    requirements
    or
    standards
    of any
    kind.
    See 811.318
    —
    320.
    No amount of “random load checking”
    or “additional manifest
    requirements” would detect or prevent the three scenarios
    described above.
    There must be some method of detecting material
    that has been improperly placed into an inert landfill or some
    method to prevent such landfills from being located near drinking
    water supplies,
    or both.
    We am not suggesting elimination
    of, the inert waste concept,
    just some protection
    for mistakes.
    The concept of unpermitted
    wastes being deposited
    in an inert type landfill is more than
    hypothetical
    in Illinois.
    In Wasteland,
    Inc.
    v. Ill. Pollution
    Control Board,
    118 Ill. App.
    3d 1041,
    456 N.
    E.
    2d 964
    (Third
    District,
    1983),
    the landfill was permitted to receive “brick,
    concrete, pavement,
    glass, clay,
    tile,
    ceramics...”, but not
    putrescible or combustible material.
    The court stated:
    The landfill herein was granted
    a permit for
    those
    wastes,
    while
    the
    record
    clearly
    demonstrates
    that
    large
    amounts
    of
    paper,
    cardboard and garbage were accepted.
    Because
    109—226
    3
    the permit did not cover those materials,
    the
    measures
    designed
    to
    protect
    against
    water
    pollution
    where
    those
    materials
    were
    being
    deposited were not required
    of the landfill
    operators.
    Thus,
    no
    sufficient
    protective
    barriers
    were
    required
    or
    built
    into
    the
    landfill.
    No clay footliners
    sic),
    designed
    to
    retain
    leachate,
    were
    present,
    nor
    were
    monitoring wells built to track such potential
    problems...
    Id,
    at 151.
    Our concern is that a Wasteland type situation would be very
    difficult to detect under the present proposal because of lack of
    monitoring.
    And, the present proposal provides no safeguards
    (such as restricting siting near aquifers, or liner requirements)
    to reduce the likelihood of environmental harm.
    We think such
    safeguards should be added to the present proposal in at least
    some form.
    Regarding the test to determine what is an inert waste, we
    also have problems. A concern is that the acidity of the rainfall
    falling upon a landfill for “inerts” may cause leachate problems.
    Illinois rainfall has been measured as acid as pH 3.9 and
    averages about pH 4.2.
    Whatever fluid is used to test “inerts”
    should have at least the same maximum acidity as occurs in
    Illinois rainfall.
    Bill S. Forcade
    //
    Board Member
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Concurring Opinion was
    filed
    on the
    J~’~day of
    __________________,
    1990.
    D. Dumelle
    Board Member
    109—227

    Back to top