1 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
IN THE MATTER OF: )
3 )
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE )
4 LANDFILLS- NON-METHANE ) No. R98-28
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 35 ILL. ) (RULEMAKING-AIR)
5 ADM. CODE 201.103, 201.146 )
AND PART 220 )
6 )
7 Record of proceedings before
8 MS. CATHERINE GLENN, Hearing Officer, reported by
9 Lisa H. Breiter, CSR, RPR, CRR, Notary Public,
10 within and for the County of DuPage and State of
11 Illinois, CSR License No. 84-3155, at Room 9-031,
12 James R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph
13 Street, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, on the 1st
14 day of May 1998 commencing at 11:00 o'clock a.m.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
1
1 APPEARANCES
2
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
3
MS. CATHERINE GLENN, Hearing Officer
4 MS. MARIE TIPSORD
DR. RONALD L. FLEMAL
5 MR. ANAND RAO
6 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
7 MR. YOGINDER PAUL MAHAJAN
MR. RICHARD FORBES
8 MR. MICHAEL E. DAVIDSON
MS. RACHEL DOCTORS
9
MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE:
10
MS. KIMBERLY HARMS, Waste Management
11 MR. LIONEL TREPANIER, Chicago Greens
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
2
1 I N D E X
2
3 PAGE
INTRODUCTION BY HEARING OFFICER
4 GLENN............................ 4
5 TESTIMONY OF RICHARD A. FORBES....... 10
6 TESTIMONY OF YOGINDER PAUL MAHAJAN... 23
7 COMMENTS BY MS. DOCTORS.............. 42
8 QUESTIONS BY MR. TREPANIER........... 49
9 QUESTIONS BY BOARD MEMBERS........... 54
10
11
12
E X H I B I T S
13
PAGE
14
15 Exhibit No. 1.............................. 23
16 Exhibit No. 2.............................. 48
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
3
1 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Good morning.
2 My name is Catherine Glenn, and I'm the Hearing
3 Officer in this proceeding. I would like to
4 welcome you to the hearing being held by the
5 Illinois Pollution Control Board in the matter of
6 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Non-Methane
7 Organic Compounds, 35 Illinois Administrative Code
8 201.103, 201.146 and part 220, rulemaking 98-28.
9 We're going to recess for one hour
10 because the Agency, due to inclement weather, is
11 going to arrive late. I would like to recess
12 until noon. Thank you.
13 (Recess taken.)
14 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Let's go back on
15 the record, Lisa. Good morning, for those of you
16 not present at 11:00 o'clock, I would like to
17 welcome you to this hearing being held by the
18 Illinois Pollution Control Board. My name is
19 Catherine Glenn.
20 I'm the Hearing Officer in R98-28 in
21 the matter of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,
22 Non-Methane Organic Compounds, 35 Illinois
23 Administrative Code 201.103, 201.146 and Part 220.
24 Present today on behalf of the Illinois
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
4
1 Pollution Control Board and seated to my right is
2 Dr. Ronald Flemal, the board member coordinating
3 the rulemaking. Also present and seated to
4 Dr. Flemal's right is Anand Rao of the Board's
5 Technical unit, and seated to my left is Marie
6 Tipsord, attorney assistant to Board Member Tanner
7 Girard.
8 In the back on the table, I have placed
9 notice list and service list signup sheets.
10 Please note that if your name is on the notice
11 list, you will only receive copies of the Board's
12 opinions and orders and all the Hearing Officer
13 orders.
14 If your name is on the service list,
15 you will not only receive those items, but you
16 will also receive copies of all documents followed
17 by all persons on the service list in this
18 proceeding. Please keep in mind that if your name
19 is on the service list, you are required to serve
20 all persons on the service list with all documents
21 that you file with the Board.
22 Copies of the Board's March 19th, '98,
23 proposed rule and the March 19, 1998, Hearing
24 Officer Order are also located on the table in the
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
5
1 back. Also on the table is a letter from Chairman
2 Manning to the Department of Commerce and
3 Community Affairs regarding the economic impact
4 study in rulemaking 98-28.
5 On March 13th, 1998, the Illinois
6 Environmental Protection Agency filed this
7 proposal for rulemaking to amend 35 Illinois
8 Administrative Code 201.103 and 201.146.
9 Additionally, the Agency submitted a proposal to
10 add a new part, 35 Illinois Administrative Code,
11 Part 220.
12 The Board adopted for first notice the
13 amendments to Part 201 as proposed by the Agency.
14 This proposal was published in the Illinois
15 Register on April 10th, 1998, at 22 Illinois
16 Register 6466. Also on March 19th, 1998, the
17 Board adopted for first notice the new Part 220.
18 This proposal was also published in the Illinois
19 Register on April 10th, 1998, at 22 Illinois
20 Register 6500.
21 This proposal was filed pursuant to
22 Section 28.5 of the Environmental Protection Act
23 entitled Clean Air Act Rules and Fast Track
24 Procedures. Pursuant to the provisions of that
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
6
1 section, the Board is required to proceed within
2 set time frames toward the adoption of this
3 regulation.
4 As stated in the Board's March 19th,
5 1998, order, the Board has no discretion to adjust
6 these time frames under any circumstances. Also
7 pursuant to Section 28.5, the Board has scheduled
8 three hearings. As announced in the Hearing
9 Officer order dated March 19th, today's hearing is
10 confined to testimony by the Agency witnesses
11 concerning the scope, applicability and basis of
12 the rule.
13 Pursuant to Section 28.5, the hearing
14 will be continued on the record from day-to-day,
15 if necessary, until completed. The second
16 hearing, besides including economic impact
17 considerations in accord with Public Act 90-489
18 effective January 1st, 1998, shall be devoted to
19 presentation of testimony, documents and comments
20 by affected entities and all other interested
21 parties.
22 The third and final hearing will be
23 held only at the Agency's request. If the third
24 hearing is canceled, persons listed on the notice
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
7
1 list will be advised of the cancellation through a
2 Hearing Officer Order. The second hearing is
3 currently scheduled for Wednesday, May 13th, 1998,
4 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Board Chambers at the
5 Sangamon County Building in Springfield. It will
6 be devoted to economic impact considerations and
7 presentation of testimony, documents and comments
8 by affected entities and all other interested
9 parties. Prefiling deadlines are in the March
10 19th, 1998, Hearing Officer Order.
11 The third hearing currently is
12 scheduled for Thursday, May 21st, at 1:30 in Room
13 9-031 here in this building, the James R. Thompson
14 Center. It will be devoted solely to any Agency
15 response to the materials submitted at the second
16 hearing. The third hearing will be canceled if
17 the Agency indicates to the Board that it does not
18 intend to introduce any additional material.
19 This hearing will be governed by the
20 Board's procedural rules for regulatory
21 proceedings. All information which is relevant
22 and not repetitious or privileged will be
23 admitted. All witnesses will be sworn and subject
24 to cross questioning. Again, the purpose of
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
8
1 today's hearing is to allow the Agency to present
2 testimony in support of the proposal and to allow
3 questioning of the Agency.
4 The Agency will present any testimony
5 it may have regarding its proposal. Subsequently,
6 we will allow for questioning of the Agency
7 regarding its testimony. I prefer that during the
8 question period, all persons with questions raise
9 their hands and wait for me to identify you so --
10 and also acknowledge when I call on you who you
11 are and what organization you represent, if any.
12 Are there any questions regarding the
13 procedures we'll follow this morning? Seeing
14 none, at this time, I would ask Board Member
15 Flemal if he has anything else he would like to
16 add.
17 DR. FLEMAL: I'd just like to welcome
18 everybody to the hearing and express my gratitude
19 to the Agency for the fine quality of the proposal
20 that they put before us. It's a joy to be able to
21 attack a proposed rule like this with as much
22 background and information as you put together for
23 us in a very comprehensive form, and certainly
24 it's welcome by the Board and I expect by the
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
9
1 public as well to have proposals brought to us in
2 this form. I appreciate it.
3 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: At this time, I
4 would like to ask the Agency if it would like to
5 make an opening statement. We will then turn to
6 the Agency's presentation of its proposal.
7 MS. DOCTORS: I would like to make a
8 short opening statement after my two witnesses,
9 Richard Forbes and Yoginder, make their
10 statements, and they will need to be sworn in.
11 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Let's swear them
12 in then, and then we'll hear their testimony.
13 (Witnesses sworn.)
14 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Mr. Forbes, did
15 you want to begin?
16 MR. FORBES: Yes, I'll start. Good
17 morning, my name is Richard A. Forbes. I am
18 employed by the Illinois Environmental Protection
19 Agency as the manager of the Ozone Regulatory Unit
20 in the Air Quality Planning Section, Bureau of
21 Air. I've been employed by the Agency in this
22 capacity for 13 years. Prior to that, I served as
23 analysis unit manager and new source review unit
24 manager, both in the Permit Section of the
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
10
1 Agency's Bureau of Air. Prior to that, I served
2 as an environmental protection engineer in the
3 Permit Section of the Agency's Bureau of Water.
4 In all, I've been employed by the Agency for 26
5 years.
6 My educational background includes a
7 Bachelor of Science degree in general engineering
8 from the University of Illinois at
9 Urbana-Champaign and a master of science degree in
10 environmental engineering from Southern Illinois
11 University at Carbondale. I hold a professional
12 engineering license and am registered as a
13 professional engineer in the state of Illinois.
14 As part of my current duties in the Air
15 Quality Planning Section, I am responsible for the
16 overall development and preparation of regulatory
17 submittals to the Pollution Control Board to
18 address Federal Clean Air Act requirements as well
19 as the preparation and submittal of state
20 implementation plan revisions and emission
21 inventories for air contaminants to the United
22 States Environmental Protection Agency or USEPA.
23 In this capacity, I was responsible for
24 the overall development of the proposal before you
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
11
1 today regarding the control of emissions of
2 non-methane organic compounds or NMOC at municipal
3 solid waste landfills. My testimony today
4 addresses the need for Illinois to adopt
5 regulations to control such emissions and
6 describes the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
7 Other Air Quality Planning Section staff will
8 address the specific requirements of the proposed
9 rule including necessary capture and control
10 provisions, the technical feasibility and cost
11 effectiveness of such controls, the potentially
12 impacted sources and the emissions reduction from
13 implementation of the proposed rule provisions.
14 Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
15 requires all states to adopt a plan that
16 establishes standards of performance for any
17 existing source to which a standard of performance
18 under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act would apply
19 if the source were a new source. On March 12th,
20 1996, USEPA promulgated, pursuant to Section
21 111(d), a new source performance standard or NSPS
22 for new municipal solid waste landfills and
23 adopted an emissions guideline or EG for existing
24 municipal solid waste landfills that requires that
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
12
1 emissions of NMOC be controlled in landfill gas.
2 Landfill gas is comprised of organic
3 compounds, primarily methane and carbon dioxide
4 with a smaller proportion of NMOC and is produced
5 by decomposition of the waste by microorganisms in
6 the landfill. NMOC includes volatile organic
7 material or VOM, hazardous air pollutants or HAPs
8 and other non-methane organic compounds.
9 A municipal solid waste landfill is one
10 that accepts household waste regardless of what
11 other types of waste are accepted by the landfill.
12 The Federal NSPS and EG applies to municipal solid
13 waste landfills that accept household waste,
14 although these landfills may also accept other
15 types of waste, for example, commercial or
16 industrial.
17 The NSPS applies to municipal solid
18 waste landfills where construction, reconstruction
19 or modification commenced on or after May 30th,
20 1991. The EG applies to municipal solid waste
21 landfills where construction, reconstruction or
22 modification commenced before May 30th, 1991. In
23 addition, the municipal solid waste landfill owner
24 must either have accepted waste since November 8,
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
13
1 1987, or have unused capacity for additional
2 waste. An existing municipal solid waste landfill
3 may be currently accepting waste or may be closed.
4 The Agency is proposing regulations to
5 implement the requirements of Section 111(d) of
6 the Clean Air Act as they apply to existing
7 municipal solid waste landfills. In Illinois,
8 Federal NSPS's are automatically implemented by a
9 pass-through federal delegation to the state so
10 that new municipal solid waste landfills are
11 already covered with no further state action being
12 necessary.
13 As noted previously, Section 111(d)
14 requires that states adopt plans to control
15 emissions from existing sources where USEPA has
16 regulated the same type of new source as it has
17 done with municipal solid waste landfills. The
18 state's plan for existing municipal solid waste
19 landfill sources must require the same level of
20 control as USEPA does in the NSPS for municipal
21 solid waste landfills.
22 USEPA has also adopted an EG for
23 existing municipal solid waste landfill sources
24 that must be used by states as a guide for its
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
14
1 state plan. The federal NSPS and EG provisions
2 for municipal solid waste landfill sources are
3 substantially identical. The Agency's proposal
4 includes the standards and emission control
5 provisions for existing Illinois municipal solid
6 waste landfill sources that are equivalent to
7 those of the federal NSPS and EG.
8 The Agency's proposed rules will apply
9 to existing municipal landfill owners or operators
10 if construction, reconstruction or modification of
11 the landfill commenced before May 30th, 1991, and
12 the landfill has accepted waste since November
13 8th, 1987, or has unused design capacity. The
14 federal NSPS and EG apply to all geographic
15 regions, that is, the state of Illinois, so the
16 Agency's proposed rule will apply statewide to
17 municipal solid waste landfill sources.
18 The Agency has found that Illinois has
19 approximately 47 landfills that will be affected
20 by the proposed rule. Of these 47 landfills, 21
21 have a design capacity less than 2.5 million
22 megagrams or million cubic meters and will only be
23 required to submit an initial design capacity
24 report.
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
15
1 The remaining 26 landfills have design
2 capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million
3 megagrams or million cubic meters and will be
4 required to file both an initial design capacity
5 report and an emission rate report. Owners or
6 operators of landfills reporting emissions equal
7 to or greater than 50 megagrams per year will be
8 required to install a gas collection and control
9 system.
10 The Agency estimates that all of these
11 26 landfills have or will have NMOC emissions in
12 excess of the 50 megagram per year criteria and
13 will therefore be subject to the control
14 requirements of the proposed regulation. The
15 Clean Air Act requires that standards for
16 performance of new and existing sources reflect
17 the best demonstrated technology or BDT.
18 For municipal landfills, USEPA has
19 defined as BDT as (1) a well designed and well
20 operated gas collection system, and (2) a control
21 system achieving 98 percent reduction of landfill
22 emissions for municipal landfills with emissions
23 equal to or greater than 50 megagrams per year.
24 A well designed and well operated
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
16
1 collection system is (1) capable of handling the
2 maximum expected gas generation rate; (2) has a
3 design capable of monitoring and adjusting the
4 operation of the system; and (3) is able to
5 collect gas effectively from all areas of the
6 landfill that warrant control.
7 In addition to requiring BDT, Section
8 111 of the Clean Air Act requires that performance
9 standards or emission limits be prescribed.
10 However, when USEPA determines that an emission
11 limit is not feasible or enforceable, the Clean
12 Air Act provides USEPA with discretion to allow an
13 alternate to be prescribed. This is the case for
14 the required municipal solid waste landfill gas
15 collection system.
16 In the NSPS and EG, the gas collection
17 system is subject to a design, operational and
18 work practice standard rather than a performance
19 standard. The performance standard for the gas
20 collection system is not appropriate because it is
21 not technically feasible to measure the amount of
22 gas available for collection, only to estimate how
23 much gas is produced.
24 USEPA has also included provisions in
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
17
1 the NSPS and EG that allow an owner or operator to
2 install an alternate gas collection and control
3 system because of the variety of landfill designs.
4 Pursuant to the NSPS, USEPA allows an owner or
5 operator to apply for permission to install an
6 alternate system if he/she can demonstrate
7 equivalent control.
8 Since this provision is consistent with
9 the NSPS, the Agency's proposal also allows for
10 equivalent alternative collection and control
11 systems to be used when reviewed and approved by
12 the Agency and contained in a
13 federally-enforceable permit. In addition, the
14 Agency's proposal contains an exemption to the
15 requirement that existing municipal landfills meet
16 the same emission standards as new sources.
17 USEPA supported such state flexibility,
18 as stated in its preamble to the adoption of the
19 NSPS and EG, where it recognized that in some
20 situations, the requirements may be unreasonable
21 for existing municipal solid waste landfills, and
22 appropriate adjustments would be necessary on a
23 case-by-case basis. The Agency's proposal
24 recognizes this concern and provides a mechanism
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
18
1 for granting an alternate emissions standard or
2 schedule where warranted.
3 In addition to the typical record
4 keeping, reporting and monitoring provisions of
5 air regulations adopted by the Board and which are
6 included in the proposed rule, the Agency has also
7 included a number of compliance reporting
8 provisions. First, within 90 days of the
9 effective date of the adopted regulation, any
10 existing municipal solid waste landfill
11 constructed or modified before May 30th, 1991, and
12 which has accepted waste at any time on or after
13 November 8th, 1987, must file an initial design
14 capacity report with the Agency.
15 This information will verify the size
16 and/or capacity of the municipal solid waste
17 landfill and assist the Agency and the source in
18 determining the applicability of the rule. Next,
19 within 90 days of the effective date of the
20 adopted regulation, any existing municipal solid
21 waste landfill subject to the rule and which has a
22 design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5
23 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters
24 must submit an initial NMOC emissions report using
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
19
1 one of the methodologies specified in the rule.
2 Thereafter, an annual NMOC emissions
3 report must be filed with the Agency by June 1st
4 of each subsequent year. For any existing
5 municipal solid waste landfill subject to the
6 ruler whose NMOC emissions equal or exceed 50
7 megagrams per year and do not have a collection
8 and control system, a construction permit
9 application must be filed within one year after
10 reporting that the NMOC emissions equaled or
11 exceeded the 50 megagram per year threshold.
12 Within 30 months of reporting the NMOC
13 emissions rate equally or exceeding the threshold,
14 the municipal solid waste landfill must install a
15 gas collection and control system meeting the
16 provisions of this regulation. Lastly, within 180
17 days of the startup of the gas collection and
18 control system, an initial performance test of the
19 system must be conducted and the results reported
20 to the Agency in accordance with the provisions of
21 this regulation.
22 These provisions are intended to
23 provide the municipal solid waste landfill
24 owner/operator sufficient time to evaluate the
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
20
1 status of their municipal solid waste landfill,
2 determine the need for gas collection and control
3 equipment, time to install and calibrate the
4 system to meet the provisions of the regulation
5 and provide the Agency with sufficient
6 documentation to ensure that subject sources are
7 in compliance with the rules.
8 The attached table 1 provides an
9 example of how these dates would work for an
10 existing municipal solid waste landfill source
11 subject to the provisions of the proposed rule
12 whose NMOC provisions currently exceed 50
13 megagrams per year. The example is for
14 illustrative purposes only and assumes the
15 effective date of the rule to be July 1st, 1998.
16 In summary, Illinois is required to
17 prepare a plan which addresses the control of NMOC
18 emissions from existing municipal solid waste
19 landfills. This plan must provide equivalent
20 control of NMOC emissions as the federal NSPS and
21 EG for municipal solid waste landfills. In
22 developing the rule, the Agency has prepared a
23 substantially identical rule allowing for
24 equivalent alternatives where appropriate.
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
21
1 Based on preliminary data available to
2 the Agency, the proposed rule will initially
3 affect 47 of the state's municipal solid waste
4 landfills, but only 26 will be potentially
5 impacted by the gas collection and control
6 provisions, of which 23 have already installed or
7 have been issued Agency permits to install such
8 equipment. This information will be verified by
9 the source reporting requirements included as part
10 of the rule. This concludes my testimony.
11 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
12 Mr. Forbes. Ms. Doctors, would you like to move
13 to submit table 1 that Mr. Forbes referenced in
14 his testimony and submit that as an exhibit?
15 MS. DOCTORS: I believe it's already an
16 exhibit. I think it's already part of the record
17 as attachment 2. Yeah, attachment 2, table 3.
18 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Okay. Would you
19 mind doing it anyway so it will be easier to read
20 with the transcript?
21 MS. DOCTORS: Sure, that's fine, I don't
22 mind.
23 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you.
24 MS. DOCTORS: I'm sorry. You want me to
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
22
1 make a motion? Yes, I would request at this time
2 that table 1 as attached to the testimony be
3 admitted into record.
4 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Are there any
5 objections to this motion? Seeing none, the
6 motion will be granted, and we'll admit table 1 as
7 an exhibit.
8 (Document received
9 in evidence.)
10 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: The title of
11 table 1 is Example Timetable for Compliance with
12 MSWL Regulations. We'll make this Exhibit No. 1,
13 and Mr. Mahajan, would you like to proceed.
14 MR. MAHAJAN: Good morning. My name is
15 Yoginder Paul Mahajan, and I'm employed as an
16 environmental protection engineer in the Air
17 Quality Planning Section in the Bureau of Air of
18 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency or
19 Agency. I have been employed in this capacity
20 since March 1992.
21 Prior to my employment with the Agency,
22 I worked for various metal fabrication industries
23 for nine years. My educational background
24 includes a bachelor of engineering degree in
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
23
1 mechanical engineering from Bhopal University of
2 Bhopal, India. As part of my regular duty with
3 the Air Quality Planning Section, I was involved
4 with preparing emission estimates for various
5 source categories used in the development of the
6 1990 ozone season weekday emissions inventories,
7 evaluating control technology applicable to
8 volatile organic material or VOM emissions sources
9 utilized in the preparation of the 15 percent rate
10 of progress plan for the Chicago and St. Louis
11 ozone non-attainment areas and assisting in the
12 development of the regulations for the control of
13 VOM emissions from source categories included in
14 the 15 percent rate of progress plans.
15 Regarding the proposal before you
16 today, I am involved in the development of the
17 municipal solid waste landfills or MSWL
18 regulations and personally prepared the technical
19 support document or TSD for the proposal. An MSWL
20 is an entire disposal facility in a contiguous
21 geographical space that receives household waste
22 on or in land. It may receive other types of
23 waste such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous
24 sludge and industrial solid waste.
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
24
1 Landfill gas is generated naturally by
2 the decomposition of the waste. Landfill gas
3 primarily consist of methane, carbon dioxide and
4 trace amounts of non-methane organic compounds or
5 NMOC. NMOC include volatile organic material or
6 VOM, hazardous air pollutants or HAP, H-A-P, and
7 odorous compounds. Emissions of NMOC results from
8 NMOC contained in the landfill waste and from
9 their biological processes and chemical reactions
10 within the landfill.
11 Waste arriving at the landfill is
12 placed in open cells where some of the NMOCs are
13 emitted to the ambient air. Although soil covers
14 are used to control emissions, NMOC continue to
15 escape into the air even after a cell is closed.
16 As part of my evaluation of the control of NMOC
17 emissions from MSWL, I identified several source
18 of guidance.
19 On May 30, 1991, the United States
20 Environmental Protection Agency or USEPA proposed
21 a new source performance standards or NSPS for new
22 MSWL and emission guidelines or EG for existing
23 MSWL. After receiving public comments from the
24 industry representatives, governmental entities,
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
25
1 environmental groups and private citizens, USEPA
2 in December 1995 published the background
3 information document, Air Emission From Municipal
4 Solid Waste Landfills - Background Information For
5 Final Standards and Guidelines.
6 Subsequently, on March 12, 1996, the
7 USEPA promulgated standards of performance for new
8 MSWL and EG for existing MSWL. The intended
9 effect of the standards and guidelines is to
10 require certain MSWL to control emissions to the
11 level achievable by the best demonstrated
12 emissions reduction system considering costs,
13 non-air quality health and environmental and
14 energy impacts.
15 The guidance documents discuss the
16 various control available for reducing emissions
17 from MSWL. In selecting best demonstrated
18 technology or BDT for new and existing source,
19 USEPA considered various technologies associated
20 with gas collection and control devices used to
21 destroy the collected gas.
22 The BDT for the EG requires the
23 reduction of MSWL's emissions from existing MSWL
24 emitting 50 megagram per year of NMOC or more
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
26
1 with, number one, a well-designed and
2 well-operated gas collection system, and two, a
3 control device capable of reducing NMOC in the
4 collected gas by 98 weight percent or 20 parts per
5 million by volume.
6 A well-designed and well-operated gas
7 collection system, would, at a minimum, number
8 one, be capable of handling the maximum gas
9 generation rate predicted over the life of the
10 equipment; number two, have a design capable of
11 monitoring and adjusting the operation of the
12 system; and number three, be able to collect gas
13 effectively from all areas of the landfill that
14 warrant control.
15 Properly designed and operated flares,
16 both open and enclosed, can achieve 98 percent or
17 more destruction efficiency with landfill gas.
18 Energy recovery systems, such as internal
19 combustion engines, gas turbines, and steam
20 boilers have also been demonstrated to achieve 98
21 percent emission control.
22 Energy recovery systems have the
23 potential to offset the cost of control. However,
24 the capital cost for these systems is higher than
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
27
1 for flares, and a site-specific study would be
2 needed to determine the technical and economical
3 feasibility of installing an energy recovery
4 system for a given landfill. Thus, an open flare
5 -- thus, an open flare as an add-on control device
6 along with properly designed collection system are
7 the best demonstrated technology for control of
8 landfill emissions.
9 The guidance documents contain the
10 control costs and economic impacts of the final
11 standard and guidelines. The MSWL regulations
12 require control at a given landfill only after the
13 emission rate reaches the regulatory applicability
14 level of 50 megagram per year. During the control
15 period, costs and emission reduction will vary
16 from year to year. Therefore, the annualized
17 numbers for any impact will change from year to
18 year.
19 Nationwide, average cost effectiveness
20 of control using flare for the affected existing
21 MSWL in 1992 is $1,147 per megagram or $1,043 per
22 ton of NMOC reduced. The annual cost of waste
23 disposal is estimated to increase by an average of
24 $1.30 per megagram for the existing MSWL. Costs
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
28
1 per household would increase approximately $5 per
2 year when the household is served by an existing
3 landfill.
4 However, the USEPA anticipates that
5 many landfills will elect to use recovery system,
6 and costs per household for those areas served by
7 the landfill with a recovery system would be less.
8 The Agency believes that these costs of waste
9 disposal are representative of affected households
10 in Illinois.
11 At present, the Agency's Bureau of Air
12 does not have any specific standards for the
13 control of landfill gases. Landfills are
14 regulated by the Agency's Bureau of Land. 35
15 Illinois Administrative Code 700 through 871
16 contains regulations pertaining to waste disposal.
17 The Bureau of Land requires a gas collection
18 system when any of the following conditions
19 exists:
20 Number one, a methane concentration
21 greater than 50 percent of the lower explosive
22 limit in the air is defected below the ground
23 surface by a monitoring device or is detected by
24 an ambient air monitor located at or beyond the
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
29
1 property boundary or 100 feet from the edge of the
2 unit, whichever is less.
3 Number two, methane is detected at a
4 concentration greater than 25 percent of the lower
5 explosive limit in the air in any building on or
6 near the facility. Number three, malodors caused
7 by the unit are detected beyond the property
8 boundary.
9 Landfill gas may not be discharged
10 directly to the atmosphere unless treated or
11 burned on site prior to discharge. Landfills are
12 required to obtain construction and operating
13 permits from the Bureau of Air to install control
14 devices such as flare and internal combustion
15 engine.
16 Current Bureau of Land regulations are
17 focused on the management of the waste disposal
18 and the explosive hazard of methane. They do not
19 regulate emissions of landfill gas. Based on the
20 EG, the Agency is proposing a regulation to
21 control emissions of NMOC from the existing MSWL
22 in Illinois. The geographic region subject to the
23 proposal is the entire state of Illinois. The
24 provision of this proposal are substantially
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
30
1 identical to NSPS.
2 Today's proposal requires the owner or
3 operator of an existing landfill constructed or
4 modified before May 30th, 1991, and has accepted
5 waste any time on or after November 8, 1987, to
6 report the design capacity of the landfill within
7 90 days of the promulgated rule. The owner or
8 operators of an MSWL with a design capacity equal
9 to or greater than 2.5 million megagram and 2.5
10 million cubic meters are required to report the
11 periodic calculation of annual NMOC emissions rate
12 within 90 days of the promulgation of rule and
13 thereafter on June 1st of subsequent year.
14 Within 30 month of the date when a
15 reported NMOC emissions rate equal to or greater
16 than 50 megagram per year, the owners and -- the
17 owners and operator of existing MSWL must install
18 a well-designed an well-operated gas collection
19 and control system to achieve control of collected
20 NMOC by 98 weight percent or less than 20 parts
21 per million by volume as hexane at 3 percent
22 oxygen.
23 The collected gas may be treated for
24 subsequent sale or use, provided that all
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
31
1 emissions from the -- from any atmospheric vent
2 from the treatment system are routed to a control
3 device meeting either specification above. Within
4 180 days of the installation of collection and
5 control system, an owner or operator of an MSWL is
6 required to test performance to show compliance
7 with either of the above specifications.
8 The proposal also include provision
9 that allow an owner or operator to install an
10 alternate gas collection and control system or a
11 system that meets an alternate emissions standard.
12 The proposed rule provides a three-tiered system
13 for calculating whether the NMOC emissions rate is
14 less than or greater than 50 megagram per year.
15 Under tier 1, the owner or operator
16 uses the USEPA's approved default values for the
17 NMOC concentration, methane generation rate
18 constant and methane generation potential. Tier 2
19 allows the use of a site-specific NMOC
20 concentration value based on the sample taken at
21 the landfill. An owner or operator electing to
22 use a site-specific NMOC concentration is required
23 to retest every five years.
24 Tier 3 allows an owner or operator to
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
32
1 use site-specific values for the methane
2 generation rate constant and the NMOC
3 concentration. The three-tier system does not
4 need to be used to model the emission rate if an
5 owner or operator has or intend to install
6 controls that would achieve compliance.
7 The provision of the operational
8 standard for gas collection and control system
9 include, number one, collection of gas from each
10 area, cell or group of cells in which non-asbestos
11 degradable solid waste has been placed for a
12 period of five years or more for active areas and
13 two years or more for closed areas.
14 Number two, operation of the collection
15 system with each wellhead at negative pressure,
16 with a nitrogen level less than or equal to 20
17 percent or oxygen level less than or equal to 5
18 percent. Number three, operation with landfill
19 gas temperature less than 55 degrees centigrade at
20 each wellhead transporting the collected gases to
21 a treatment or control system operated at all
22 times when the collected gas is vented to it.
23 And number four, a requirement that the
24 collection system be operated to limit the surface
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
33
1 methane concentration to 500 parts per million or
2 less over the landfill determined according to a
3 specified monitoring pattern. The proposed rule
4 allows an owner or operator to cap or remove the
5 gas collection and control system when the
6 following conditions are met:
7 Number one, the landfill is no longer
8 accepting waste; number two, a system removal
9 report has been submitted to the Agency; number
10 three, the collection and control system have been
11 in continuous operation for a minimum of 15 years;
12 and number four, the annual NMOC emission rate
13 routed to the control device is less than 50
14 megagram per year on three successive dates,
15 between 90 and 180 days apart; and number five,
16 the system is not required to satisfy any
17 applicable requirement of 35 Illinois
18 Administrative Code 800 through 849.
19 The proposed rule requires an owner or
20 operator of an MSWL to monitor the gas collection
21 system including measuring the gauge pressure,
22 temperature and oxygen or nitrogen concentration
23 at collection header on a timely basis and for the
24 control system monitoring the parameters that
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
34
1 indicate that the gas stream is routed
2 continuously to the destruction or recovery
3 device. Owners or operators are required to be in
4 compliance at all times except during period of
5 startup, shutdown or malfunction.
6 Reporting and record keeping provision
7 of the proposal require the owners or operator to
8 submit an initial design capacity report, and if
9 applicable, an initial NMOC emission report, and
10 thereafter, an annual NMOC emissions report until
11 either they install a gas collection and control
12 system or they close the landfill. Prior to
13 installing a gas collection and control system,
14 the owners or operators are required to apply for
15 a construction permit to install a collection and
16 control system within one year of the first report
17 in which the NMOC emissions exceed 50 megagram per
18 year.
19 Within six months of the installation
20 of the collection and control system, the owners
21 or operators are required to certify compliance,
22 and if applicable, submit the result of the
23 performance test. Owners or operators are also
24 required to submit annual emission report pursuant
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
35
1 to Section 201.302 and Part 254. Owners or
2 operators wanting to cease operating or to remove
3 a gas collection and control system are required
4 to submit an equipment removal report 30 days
5 prior to removal of the control equipment.
6 Owners or operators are required to
7 keep on-site records of the total design capacity
8 for life and maintain readily accessible records
9 of the data on the control equipment for the life
10 of the equipment. For at least five years, the
11 owners or operators are required to keep on-site
12 records of design capacity, the current amount of
13 solid waste, the year-by-year waste acceptance
14 rate, up-to-date readily accessible continuous
15 records of the equipment operating parameters as
16 well as the records of the period of exceedances.
17 To identify the sources affected by the
18 MSWL rule, the Agency initially relied on the list
19 of the existing landfill in the Illinois provided
20 by the Bureau of Land. The Bureau of Air then
21 mailed out a questionnaire to 538 owners or
22 operators of the landfills to obtain information
23 regarding the capacity of the landfill, type and
24 quantity of the waste in place, whether it was
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
36
1 receiving waste on and after November 8, 1987, et
2 cetera.
3 The preliminary review of the
4 information received from the sources indicated
5 that there were 47 MSWL affected by today's
6 proposal. Of these 47 MSWL, 21 have design
7 capacities less than 2.5 megagram of waste.
8 Therefore, they are subject to only the reporting
9 requirement of their design capacities of the
10 landfill. Of the remaining 26 MSWL, 4 are closed,
11 while 22 are operating, and these 26 are
12 potentially impacted by the MSWL rule.
13 The proposed rule requires that within
14 90 days of the promulgated rule, each owner or
15 operator of existing MSWL must report the design
16 capacity of the landfill, and if the design
17 capacity is equal to or greater than 2.5 million
18 megagram and 2.5 million cubic meters, they must
19 report the NMOC emission rate. The preliminary
20 information submitted by the owners or operators
21 contained the design capacity in mass or volume.
22 To identify which of the MSWL will be
23 potentially impacted, the Agency assumed that if
24 the design capacity exceeded the threshold for
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
37
1 mass, it would also exceed the threshold for
2 volume and vice versa. Sources will need to
3 notify the Agency in their initial design capacity
4 reports if this assumption is incorrect for their
5 MSWL.
6 To identify which of these MSWL will
7 require gas collection -- will require gas
8 collection and control systems, the Agency
9 estimated the NMOC emissions. Information
10 provided by the sources and the default values for
11 concentration of NMOC, methane generation rate
12 constant, and methane generation potential
13 provided in the NSPS and proposed MSWL rule were
14 used to calculate NMOC emissions.
15 Each of the 26 potentially impacted
16 MSWL meet the design capacity and NMOC emission
17 levels referring installation of gas collection
18 and control system. Further review of the sources
19 showed that of -- that of the 22 operating MSWL,
20 14 have the gas collection and control system in
21 place, and 5 have applied for the construction
22 permit to construct gas collection and control
23 system. Of the 4 closed MSWL, 2 have that -- two
24 have gas collection and control system in place,
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
38
1 and 2 have applied for construction permit to
2 construct gas collection and control systems.
3 The Agency estimated the NMOC
4 uncontrolled emission from 26 impacted MSWL, as
5 described in the AP-42, Compilation of Air
6 Pollutant Emission Factors, to be 5.53 tons per
7 day. Of 5.53 tons per day of NMOC emissions, 3.81
8 tons are in the Chicago ozone non-attainment area
9 and .45 tons are in the metro east ozone
10 non-attainment area.
11 After gas collection and control
12 systems are installed, the total NMOC emissions
13 will be reduced from 5.53 tons per day to 1.47
14 tons per day. Thus, a net NMOC emissions
15 reduction of 4.06 tons per day will be achieved.
16 Please note that in my TSD, there is a subtraction
17 error, the net NMOC emission reduction is 4.06
18 tons per day and not 4.01 tons per day.
19 The USEPA document AP-42, Compilation
20 of Air Pollution Emission Factor, described that
21 39 weight percent of NMOC emissions are VOM.
22 Therefore, the total uncontrolled VOM emissions
23 from 26 impacted MSWL are estimated to be 2.15
24 tons per day. Of the 2.15 tons per day VOM, 1.49
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
39
1 tons are in the Chicago ozone non-attainment area,
2 and .18 tons are in the metro east ozone
3 non-attainment area.
4 After gas collection and control
5 systems are installed, the total VOM emissions
6 will be reduced to .57 tons per day. Thus, a net
7 VOM emission reduction of 1.58 tons per day, i.e.
8 1.1 tons in Chicago non-attainment area and .13
9 tons in the metro east non-attainment area, be
10 achieved.
11 In summary, the Agency relied upon the
12 guidance document published by the USEPA in
13 developing the proposal for MSWL rule. The
14 proposed rule is consistent with the requirements
15 of the EG. The provisions of the proposals are
16 substantially identical to provision contained in
17 the NSPS that require an MSWL with design capacity
18 of 2.5 million megagram or above and 2.5 million
19 cubic meters or above and that has NMOC emissions
20 50 megagram per year or above to install gas
21 collection and control system to reduce NMOC
22 emissions by 98 weight percent.
23 The Agency relied on the cost estimate
24 contained in the USEPA guidance documents. The
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
40
1 cost of controls using flare for the affected
2 existing MSWL is $1,147 per megagram or $1,043 per
3 ton of NMOC reduced. The annual cost of waste
4 disposal is estimated to increase by an average of
5 $1.30 per megagram for the existing MSWL. Cost
6 per household would increase approximately $5 per
7 year when the household is served by the affected
8 existing landfill. In some cases the cost will be
9 less when energy recovery system will be used.
10 The proposed MSWL rule will affect 26
11 existing MSWL, of which 16 already have the gas
12 collection and control systems, and 7 have applied
13 for the construction permit to construct the gas
14 collection and control system. The state NMOC
15 emissions will be reduced by approximately four
16 tons per day.
17 On the basis of the Agency's review of
18 the USEPA guidance documents and NSPS regulations,
19 the proposed rule on MSWL is considered
20 technically feasible and economically reasonable.
21 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
22 Mr. Mahajan. Just by means of clarification, when
23 you referred to TSD, was that for the technical
24 support documents?
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
41
1 MR. MAHAJAN: Yeah.
2 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Ms. Doctors,
3 would you like to submit anything further?
4 MS. DOCTORS: I'd like to mention a few
5 points. This is a complex rulemaking, and there
6 are other parts of our rules and programs that it
7 will affect, although it did not require any
8 amendments to the Board regulations, I'd like to
9 just mention it so it's on the record before
10 presentation.
11 The deadline that we're required to
12 file the state plan is by July 31st, 1998. We
13 were delayed in filing our rule in part because
14 the National Solid Waste Management Association
15 challenged some key provisions in the final rule
16 including the definition of modification and
17 design capacity, and in part because we needed to
18 do outreach activities, both with affected sources
19 and link between our bureaus with the Bureau of
20 Land and make sure we had consistency between the
21 two types of rules.
22 It was not until November 13th, 1997,
23 that USEPA and the National Solid Waste Management
24 Association were able to reach a proposed
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
42
1 settlement on these key terms. We, the Illinois
2 EPA, included these as well as the other changes
3 that were in their proposed settlement in its
4 proposal, and I checked yesterday on the Internet,
5 and they still haven't signed off on the
6 settlement so I would like to reiterate the
7 commitment that we made to sources that the
8 Agency's committed to proposing any further
9 amendments, should they be necessary, after the
10 settlement has been finalized in order to ensure
11 that the rules for the existing landfills are
12 consistent with the rules for the new landfills.
13 We can -- in addition, we finally
14 completed our outreach activities in January of
15 1998. I'd like to briefly mention what our state
16 plan includes besides the municipal solid waste
17 rules, these rules. It also includes -- we have
18 an agreement with USEPA that requires us to file
19 certain types of reports detailing emissions in
20 the state of Illinois and what types of
21 enforcement activities we've been pursuing.
22 In addition, the Illinois EPA's
23 committed to funding and enforcing this program,
24 the provisions. Once the rules are adopted, we're
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
43
1 committed to following through. I'd like to note
2 that this rulemaking was filed pursuant to Section
3 28.5 of the Act because both monetary and
4 administrative sanctions are provided for.
5 Specifically, Section 111(d), the Clean Air Act
6 requires USEPA to promulgate a federal plan within
7 two years after it makes a finding that the state
8 has failed to require -- has failed to submit a
9 required plan.
10 In addition, should they make such a
11 finding, they would also have the authority to
12 reduce part of our grant that we receive under
13 section 105 of the Clean Air Act. I'm going to
14 make a couple more comments. With regard to the
15 additional flexibility, while the rule provided
16 for when we went out to -- outreach facilities
17 indicated specifically that they would like the
18 additional flexibility.
19 So with regard to types of collection
20 control systems, owners and operators may install
21 alternate systems that they demonstrate that the
22 collection and control system that does not meet
23 the specification in the proposal achieves
24 equivalent control, and they must also indicate if
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
44
1 there's a need for different compliance
2 monitoring, operation testing requirements.
3 They must obtain approval from the
4 Agency and have these new requirements included in
5 the federally-enforceable permit for a state
6 implementation plan revision, and then the
7 provisions would supersede the particular
8 requirements specified in this part. With regard
9 to alternate emissions standards, the Clean Air
10 Act and the Federal Code of Regulations allow
11 states to provide for alternate emission standards
12 and compliance schedules for the section existing
13 guidance, for sources affecting via existing
14 guidance because they recognize an existing source
15 when compared to a new source might face some kind
16 of unreasonable burden, an unreasonable cost, a
17 physical impossibility or some other factor
18 specific to the source.
19 So in addition to the requirements that
20 are required under Section 28.1 of the Act for
21 adjusting standards, the source must also
22 demonstrate that they meet one of the -- that it's
23 unreasonable in some factor and must include, of
24 course, the necessary compliance monitoring,
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
45
1 operation testing, record keeping, reporting
2 requirements if they differ from what's in the
3 proposal.
4 The petition, of course, must be
5 approved by the Pollution Control Board, and then
6 that petition would be included in either a
7 federally-enforceable permit or in SIP
8 provisions, and then the provisions would
9 supersede the particular requirements specified in
10 the proposed rule. The emissions guidance also
11 affect two other programs that we have. One is
12 the Clean Air Act Permit Program, and sources that
13 are at least 2.5 megagrams or cubic meters are
14 required to obtain the Clean Air Act Permit
15 Program, whether they're going to be affected by
16 the NSPS or EG within 12 months after submitting
17 the design capacity report showing that their
18 design capacity is above this threshold.
19 However, given that the smaller
20 landfills that are less than 2.5 will not be
21 required to install control, they will also --
22 we've proposed that they become -- that they will
23 be exempt from the permit -- from regular state
24 permitting requirements unless they already have
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
46
1 some other kind of discrete device that would be
2 permitted under the Board's rules, and this
3 amendment was proposed at Section 201.146.
4 In addition, the landfill owners are
5 now required, if they haven't prior been
6 submitting annual reports pursuant to Section
7 201.302 and 254, the calculation for this is
8 slightly different, as Mr. Mahajan mentioned, that
9 they can use the AP-42 factors or site-specific
10 data rather than using the more conservative
11 emission calculations specified in the rule.
12 And then finally, I had talked to the
13 Hearing Officer, Cathy Glenn, about the Agency's
14 oversight in submitting Chapter 3 as part of the
15 background document, and I'd like to do that at
16 this time. It's the chapter -- table of contents,
17 No. 13, and it's the star document and here is
18 Chapter 3.
19 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Does anyone have
20 any objections to admitting this document as
21 Exhibit 2? Seeing no objections, the Chapter 3 --
22 MS. DOCTORS: 3, economic impact --
23 impacts.
24 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Chapter 3
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
47
1 economic impacts is so admitted as Exhibit 2.
2 (Document received
3 in evidence.)
4 MS. DOCTORS: I only have one copy. Do
5 you need more copies?
6 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: We can take care
7 of that afterward. We'll make one.
8 MS. DOCTORS: Okay.
9 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you.
10 MS. DOCTORS: Thank you. This concludes
11 my statement.
12 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Does the Agency
13 have anything further to offer for this proposal,
14 or is that all the information the Agency wanted
15 to submit at this time?
16 MS. DOCTORS: This concludes our
17 testimony.
18 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Before we get to
19 the question portion of the hearing, let's take a
20 short five-minute break. I have that it's 1:17 so
21 we'll reconvene in five minutes. Thank you.
22 (Recess taken.)
23 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Let's go back on
24 the record. We will now proceed with the
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
48
1 questions for the Agency witnesses. As I
2 previously mentioned, if anyone has a question if
3 you could so indicate to me, I'll acknowledge you
4 and you can identify yourself for the record and
5 who you represent, if anyone, or any organization.
6 Does anyone have any questions? Yes.
7 MR. TREPANIER: I'm Lionel Trepanier.
8 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Could you spell
9 that, please.
10 MR. TREPANIER: T-R-E-P-A-N-I-E-R. I'm
11 with the Chicago Greens. Thank you. My first
12 question is to the Agency. The megagrams and the
13 meters cubed seem to be equated in places and to
14 my mind equated in places like the exemption
15 that's like at 201.146 sub PG. What is the basis
16 of that, of -- why has the Agency chose that a
17 megagram is being used equivocally with a meter
18 cubed?
19 MS. DOCTORS: We didn't make that
20 choice. This rule comes directly from the federal
21 regulation from the NSPS. That's how they do it.
22 MR. TREPANIER: Is that also the source
23 of the 50 megagram per year limit for emissions?
24 MS. DOCTORS: Yes, it is.
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
49
1 DR. FLEMAL: I wonder if you would allow
2 me just a question to sneak in here because I
3 think it fits in.
4 When you then talk about the emissions
5 reductions, you changed units from megagrams to
6 tons. Why -- are the tons there the English tons
7 or the metric?
8 MR. MAHAJAN: Tons we use for the US
9 tons, and the megagram is the metric.
10 DR. FLEMAL: Okay. So there is a change
11 in the unit you're discussing there from megagrams
12 equals metric tons?
13 MR. MAHAJAN: Yeah, approximately 1
14 megagram equal to 1.1 US ton.
15 MR. TREPANIER: Does the Agency look at
16 if there's any likelihood that a landfill that has
17 less than 2.5 million either megagrams or meter
18 squares may have an MOS emissions greater than 50
19 megagrams per year?
20 MR. MAHAJAN: The USEPA did the study,
21 and they found out that -- not very economical to
22 have control on that smaller landfills.
23 MR. TREPANIER: A question looking at
24 page 34 of the Board's March 19th order, and there
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
50
1 under the subsection H, sub 4, talks -- there the
2 rule is speaking about testing the NMOC emissions
3 on three successive test dates, and I'm wondering
4 is there any requirement that the three tests be
5 exclusively the only tests that are done during
6 that time period, or might the source perform as
7 many tests as they wish and find three that have
8 this level that they're looking for?
9 MS. DOCTORS: I don't think that there's
10 anything that prohibits what you're talking about.
11 It's just expensive. The expense would prohibit
12 them, but there's nothing -- as its written, I
13 don't think we contemplated that people would
14 perform more tests.
15 MR. TREPANIER: But yet, there would be
16 no restriction?
17 MS. DOCTORS: I don't see a restriction.
18 MR. DAVIDSON: I think what we could as
19 an Agency require the test be representative --
20 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: I'm sorry, could
21 we swear you in.
22 MR. DAVIDSON: Sorry.
23 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: That's okay.
24 (Witness sworn.)
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
51
1 MR. DAVIDSON: My name's Mike Davidson.
2 I'm with the permit section, and our section would
3 probably be the one to evaluate sections of the
4 test -- testing and probably would require that
5 the company, if they have a series of tests
6 performed on a specific day demonstrate the
7 specific test they pick out is representative of
8 emissions from the landfill.
9 So they would not necessarily be able
10 to pick out one specific test with a low number to
11 show that they're below. They would have to show
12 why that test is representative of a series of
13 tests performed on that day.
14 MR. TREPANIER: If I might, does the
15 Agency have any indication that the levels of NMOC
16 emissions is steady throughout the year? Have you
17 looked at, if possible, these emissions vary by
18 season?
19 MS. DOCTORS: That's why USEPA did that
20 study. It's in the background, if you've got a
21 copy of the Federal Register. If not, I will
22 provide it for you, and they discuss why they
23 varied the time period, and they felt that that's
24 why they staggered the times that it had to be
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
52
1 done, that it couldn't just be 30 days, 30 days,
2 30 days. It had to be over 180.
3 MR. TREPANIER: No more than 180?
4 MS. DOCTORS: Yeah. No more than 180,
5 no less than 90 days so it can't be done any less
6 than 90 days apart in order to take that into
7 account.
8 MR. TREPANIER: So a 91-day period would
9 be the shortest allowed?
10 MS. DOCTORS: Yes.
11 MR. TREPANIER: I don't know, was there
12 an indication that -- about the variations,
13 seasonal variations in the emissions?
14 MS. DOCTORS: There is some seasonal
15 variation. I mean, I believe that's what it said.
16 I would have to look it up.
17 MR. MAHAJAN: The decomposition of the
18 waste depends on the moisture content so it does
19 vary with the season.
20 MR. TREPANIER: The Agency is satisfied
21 that 91 days would sufficiently put us past any
22 wet period?
23 MR. MAHAJAN: Yeah.
24 MR. TREPANIER: Thank you.
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
53
1 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Are there any
2 further questions? Seeing none, I'll turn to
3 Dr. Flemal and Mr. Rao and Ms. Tipsord. Are there
4 any questions that any of you have for the Agency?
5 DR. FLEMAL: I think we have quite a few
6 questions that go to particulars in the rule and
7 are mostly -- these are in our part to get some
8 clarification of what language is intended, but I
9 do have sort of one question which probably is an
10 overall question let me pose first.
11 The justification that USEPA makes in
12 both the new source performance standard and the
13 EG refer both to non-methane organic compounds and
14 methane. In other words, it appears, if one looks
15 at that document, that they're intended to --
16 justification for this whole program is to control
17 both of those categories, methane and the broader
18 category. Yet, when we are adopting the
19 regulations, the focus is only on the NMOC. Why?
20 MS. DOCTORS: Dick, would you like to --
21 MR. FORBES: I think because the focus
22 is on something that can be measured. The NMOC is
23 a test that they can measure. When you capture
24 the gas, you're also going to be capturing methane
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
54
1 along with that. I think the concern is not so
2 much with the methane except methane is being more
3 of an explosive gas and a possible fire hazard in
4 a landfill.
5 In fact, I think that in many ways
6 that's most of the concern that the land division
7 rules pertain to is making sure that heavy
8 concentrations don't build up to an excessive
9 amount. But more specifically, I think it's from
10 the VOM for the HAPs and the other non-methane
11 materials from the environmental perspective that
12 the rule is really going forward, I think, from
13 the air side.
14 DR. FLEMAL: I can certainly understand
15 the rationale for wanting to control the
16 non-methane organic compounds. There's some bad
17 actors there, and we ought to address them. But
18 in the process of controlling those, we are also
19 controlling methane. Shouldn't we, in effect,
20 take credit for the fact that we are doing
21 something in addition with this program than just
22 the non-methane organic compounds?
23 MR. FORBES: Well, I guess in most
24 instances, I think our rules really look at
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
55
1 volatile organic material or non-methane
2 materials, and I think in almost all through most
3 of the hazardous -- control of hazardous
4 materials, it's the same way. We generally do
5 exclude methane in any of those instances. So I
6 guess you're right, we would be getting some
7 credit for reducing the methane content, but I'm
8 not sure that there was particular interest at
9 least on the EPA's part to --
10 DR. FLEMAL: USEPA or federal EPA?
11 MR. FORBES: USEPA.
12 DR. FLEMAL: USEPA. I would point out
13 that in their summary in which they adopt the
14 NSPS, methane sort of gets as high level press as
15 the NMOC does. Yet, when we come here, we're not.
16 I don't know that we should have a purpose in life
17 to gain credit for things we do, but on the other
18 hand, as that document points out, methane
19 emissions contribute to global climate change in
20 addition to their problems associated with fire
21 and explosion and what not, and it seems to me
22 that we have more justification for what we're
23 talking about today than simply the NMOC, and I
24 suppose we could say so.
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
56
1 MR. MAHAJAN: But those documents, they
2 do refer to there will be methane reduction so
3 those will be done. That's the ancillary benefits
4 of this rule.
5 DR. FLEMAL: Ancillary rather than as
6 a --
7 MR. MAHAJAN: Yeah.
8 DR. FLEMAL: We can then move on to some
9 of the questions that go to more particular
10 provisions.
11 MR. RAO: I had some questions,
12 hopefully verification type questions concerning
13 the rules, and I just go section by section and
14 start with 220.110, definitions. You proposed a
15 definition for closed landfill, and in that
16 definition you refer to a notification of
17 modification as described in 35 Ill. Admin. Code
18 811.110. When I looked at 811.110, I didn't see
19 any specific procedures there. Can you please
20 explain what you meant by that.
21 MS. DOCTORS: Do you have that with you?
22 That would be helpful. Under D-2 --
23 MR. RAO: I don't have it now.
24 MS. DOCTORS: Under D-2, the rule
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
57
1 provides that a modification in the written
2 closure plan shall constitute a significant
3 modification of the permit and then -- so that's
4 really what we were -- we worked very closely with
5 land, and that's what they indicated would be the
6 trigger for their program.
7 MR. RAO: Okay. So what you're saying
8 is for a closed landfill to accept waste, they had
9 to file a significant modification application?
10 MS. DOCTORS: Yes.
11 MR. RAO: I still -- you know, I don't
12 have clearly in my mind how a closed landfill can
13 open just by filing a significant modification
14 permit, but if you can ask your land people to
15 clarify that, if you can.
16 MS. DOCTORS: Let me see if I can.
17 MR. RAO: If you can, fine.
18 MS. DOCTORS: The way the term closed
19 landfill is being used here is different than the
20 way the Bureau of Land typically talks about a
21 closed landfill. They're talking about one that's
22 gone through that whole closure process, and we
23 were trying to kind of -- this kind of captures
24 the fact that there's no waste being placed in
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
58
1 there and they've done their closure, I'm
2 assuming, under this process. And then if they
3 want to reopen, they have to do the significant
4 mod and obtain a developmental permit. So they
5 would have to do two things to do that. Does
6 that --
7 MR. RAO: Maybe, yeah. It was just when
8 I saw that, it strike me that this concept was not
9 in there. That's how it's supposed to operate.
10 MS. TIPSORD: Anand, can I follow up on
11 that?
12 MR. RAO: Uh-huh.
13 MS. TIPSORD: Wouldn't, though, it be
14 correct that if they filed the significant
15 modification permit and got a developmental
16 permit, then it becomes -- it's no longer a closed
17 landfill?
18 MS. DOCTORS: That's right.
19 MS. TIPSORD: So isn't it sufficient for
20 this definition just to say in which no additional
21 solid waste will be placed, period? Because once
22 it starts accepting new waste, it no longer is a
23 closed landfill.
24 MS. DOCTORS: This definition, I
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
59
1 believe -- and I can check to be sure, but I
2 believe it is almost verbatim out of the Federal
3 Register because I remember I had taken out in one
4 of my proposals the last sentence, "Once a permit
5 has been received and additional solid waste is
6 placed in the landfill," and then I received a
7 comment from one of my affected facilities that
8 requested that the sentence as they negotiated it
9 with the USEPA be put back in the rule. So I put
10 it back in the rule.
11 I guess maybe that should have been
12 part of my opening statement is that I believe
13 Waste Management and BFI were very closely
14 associated with the development of the rule with
15 USEPA, and they negotiated out many of these
16 definitions that seem a little different than the
17 way air definitions have typically been worded.
18 So I don't know if that's helpful or not helpful.
19 MS. TIPSORD: I guess my concern and I
20 think probably what Anand is getting at is the
21 problem is not only not typical of air, but it
22 doesn't sound like it's typical of our landfill
23 closed definition either. So we're almost
24 creating a third definition of what's a closed
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
60
1 landfill.
2 MS. DOCTORS: Can I look at it and
3 indicate that I'll address this a little further
4 in comments?
5 MR. RAO: That would be helpful.
6 MS. DOCTORS: Okay.
7 MR. RAO: Moving along, this is just a
8 minor format thing I wanted to ask you. When you
9 referred to the landfill rules, you referred to
10 part 800 to 849 in the rules. Would it be
11 acceptable for you if we just refer to those parts
12 that deal with the landfill regs because I think
13 part 810 through 817 are the ones that deal with
14 landfills. Because some of these other rules, you
15 know, apply to used tires, infectious waste and
16 other types of solid waste.
17 MS. DOCTORS: Can I check with the
18 Bureau of Land and see?
19 MR. RAO: Okay.
20 DR. FLEMAL: The basic point there is
21 that 800 through 849 is more encompassing than
22 just the landfill regulations. It's the solid
23 waste regulations, some of which have nothing to
24 do with landfills.
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
61
1 MR. MAHAJAN: We just wanted to cover --
2 MR. RAO: The whole universe?
3 MS. DOCTORS: Is that --
4 MR. RAO: Yeah, it's something that you
5 can check and let us know.
6 MS. DOCTORS: Okay. And your
7 recommendation would be 800 through 817?
8 MR. RAO: Yeah.
9 DR. FLEMAL: Or even subtitle G.
10 MR. RAO: Subtitle G would be okay, too.
11 MS. DOCTORS: I don't think we have a
12 problem with subtitle G. I think we need to start
13 it there.
14 MR. RAO: Moving along to section
15 220.200, applicability of the rules, in this
16 section, you've used these terms, construction,
17 reconstruction or modification, and modification
18 has been defined in the rules, but the other two
19 terms have not been defined.
20 Can you explain what these terms,
21 construction and reconstruction, mean in the
22 context of this rule.
23 MS. DOCTORS: Do you want to do that,
24 Dick?
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
62
1 MR. MAHAJAN: Construction and
2 reconstruction means if they have -- when they
3 apply for the permit to accept the waste, they
4 apply for the permit, that is when they start
5 accepting waste as the construction, and in
6 between if they do any kind of reconstruction
7 before May 30th, 1991, then they would be under
8 EG, if it is done after that.
9 MR. RAO: Are you saying that
10 construction refers to a new landfill or --
11 because modification covers any kind of expansion
12 in a landfill. So I just wanted to get this clear
13 as to what the other two terms mean, like if
14 there's some construction activity going on in a
15 landfill, existing landfill, will that be covered
16 by the rule if it meets the other two conditions
17 that you have about the landfill existing before
18 May 30th, 1991, and if it has accepted waste after
19 November 1987.
20 MR. MAHAJAN: If they accepted waste
21 after that date and so they are in the EG if they
22 don't modify it. If they're still accepting the
23 waste, they are in the EG. They are existing.
24 DR. FLEMAL: I take it these three terms
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
63
1 come directly out of the federal regulations, is
2 that it?
3 MS. DOCTORS: (Nodding head.)
4 DR. FLEMAL: Is there a definition of
5 those terms anywhere within the federal
6 regulation?
7 MS. DOCTORS: I would have to check.
8 DR. FLEMAL: Federal regulations, I
9 should say, because I don't think they're part of
10 the current NSPS.
11 MS. DOCTORS: Right. I think for the
12 construction term, we were using our definition of
13 construction out of Part 201 because that would be
14 the hierarchies, not to go back to the federal
15 regulations, but to look within what was already
16 in Part 201 or the Act 211. That's where we would
17 go, but construction does refer to something
18 that's new, and reconstruction would be --
19 DR. FLEMAL: So here you're relying on
20 the definitions from 211 to support construction
21 and reconstruction but not modification?
22 MS. DOCTORS: That's right. That's
23 true.
24 MR. RAO: So reconstruction would be
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
64
1 something where they may be upgrading their
2 landfill without expanding the capacities?
3 MR. FORBES: Reconstruction could be,
4 also, for some existing gas equipment that
5 possibly has gone bad, you know, you need to
6 replace a pipe. So depending on how people would
7 view that, they might say, well, it's not like
8 construction because it's already there, but it's
9 reconstruction, I guess.
10 MR. RAO: Okay. I just wanted to get
11 that cleared up, you know, because the thing is we
12 have these other definitions in the landfill rules
13 about what's new, what's existing and just making
14 sure that everything's consistent.
15 DR. FLEMAL: I take it in your outreach,
16 there was no question raised by the affected
17 industries that the definitions we might be using
18 here out of 211 would conflict with something
19 that's in subtitle G?
20 MS. DOCTORS: That's correct. I got two
21 sets of very extensive comments, plus we had a
22 number of outreach meetings, and that issue was
23 not raised except for the one on the closure where
24 they wanted some language put back in on
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
65
1 modification.
2 MR. RAO: One more question on that same
3 subsection in 220.200, subsection A. You have
4 these two conditions, you know, that a landfill
5 has to meet to be subjected to this rule. One of
6 them is that the landfill has to accept waste
7 after November 8, 1987, or it should have
8 additional design capacity available for future
9 waste deposition.
10 Could you explain what the second
11 condition means in terms of existing landfill.
12 MR. MAHAJAN: It means that if the
13 landfill is operating right now, they were
14 operating on this spot in between, they're not
15 accepting waste, but if it's still available, they
16 can start off with one month or so. So they are
17 not closed.
18 MR. RAO: So are you saying that if a
19 landfill stopped accepting waste before November
20 8, 1987, and has stayed dormant till now, like
21 over the last ten years --
22 MR. MAHAJAN: Yeah.
23 MR. RAO: -- those are the landfills
24 you're referring to here?
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
66
1 MS. DOCTORS: Yeah, it's included.
2 MR. MAHAJAN: That means they are -- if
3 they didn't accept waste after November 8, 1987.
4 MR. RAO: No. What if they have
5 additional design capacity?
6 MS. DOCTORS: It's affected. It's
7 covered.
8 MR. RAO: Are there such landfills
9 around that have been dormant for a long period of
10 time?
11 MS. DOCTORS: Mike?
12 MR. DAVIDSON: What was the question
13 again?
14 MR. RAO: The question was are you aware
15 of any landfills in the state which have been
16 dormant for the last ten years which have not been
17 accepting waste but which have additional design
18 capacity to meet the condition here?
19 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, but that goes back
20 to the question of closure. If they haven't
21 completed closure, they're still considered by
22 land to be open. They haven't accepted any waste.
23 They still have additional capacity, and there may
24 be ongoing closure, maybe extend for years.
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
67
1 So if they have additional capacity and
2 if the company wanted to, they could accept waste
3 after filing an application for modification with
4 the Bureau of Land to accept more waste.
5 DR. FLEMAL: The similar problem we've
6 had with this term, though, or this concept is the
7 additional design capacity available. That's
8 different from permitted capacity or allowed
9 capacity.
10 I can say I'm going to design a
11 landfill that's huge, does that mean -- and then
12 sit on it for ten years, does that mean I have to
13 go through this rule? I have design capacity. I
14 designed it for something bigger than I've
15 actually used.
16 MS. DOCTORS: Yes.
17 DR. FLEMAL: But it's only in my head,
18 it's a design. Why do I, under that circumstance,
19 fall under the regulation?
20 MS. DOCTORS: I mean, this rule, partly
21 there's some history involved. The original
22 proposal was in 1991. Nobody thought it was going
23 to take them five or six more years to do a final
24 rule. So that in part is where the gaps in the
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
68
1 time lines come in because this is straight
2 federal regulation requirement that we do it this
3 way.
4 DR. FLEMAL: Including this term, this
5 additional design capacity available for future
6 deposition?
7 MS. DOCTORS: Yes, right. That's their
8 applicability scenario, and it is complicated.
9 DR. FLEMAL: Do you guys keep records of
10 each landfill's design capacity and hold the
11 landfill to actually using all their design
12 capacity?
13 MS. DOCTORS: We don't make them use all
14 their design capacity. When we permit them, it's
15 now being included in their permit, their design
16 capacity.
17 MR. FORBES: The Bureau of Land's
18 requirements. So when they would apply for
19 whatever appropriate permits that they have, they
20 would indicate what that design is. So instead of
21 being in your mind, it would have to have been --
22 DR. FLEMAL: So we're really talking
23 about permitting capacity here if you have
24 permitted capacity still available, but then does
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
69
1 anybody have an 11 or greater old -- year-old
2 permit that is still active?
3 MS. DOCTORS: Well, the issue is for --
4 the issue is this was to pick up some -- because
5 we really struggled. It said permitted, and then
6 we had the same kind of questions that you're now
7 asking us, and we realized that for some of the
8 older landfills that might be out there, there
9 might be -- because before the last set of
10 landfill regulations were adopted, they didn't
11 routinely put the design capacity into the permit.
12 So we wanted to make sure that if there was
13 additional -- if the hole was there and there was
14 space, that we pick them up, and for most
15 landfills, we don't believe this will be terribly
16 onerous, as you heard in our testimony.
17 Most people have either -- have the gas
18 collection system installed or have applied for a
19 construction permit to install the gas collection
20 system. So as far as we know, there isn't -- we
21 don't have a lot of outliers. We feel that we've
22 identified affected sources.
23 DR. FLEMAL: Wouldn't have some little
24 landfill sitting out there that at one time had
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
70
1 grandiose designs of being a big landfill. It
2 fell through, didn't develop or whatever, and we
3 now come back years later and say, yeah, but you
4 said you were going to be a big one, you have
5 design capacity, would they come under this
6 regulation?
7 MS. DOCTORS: They would, and what
8 they'd have to do is simply file the design
9 capacity report. They're not going to have
10 emissions obviously so they're not going to have
11 to install control equipment, and if they felt
12 like they needed to amend their permit to reduce
13 their design capacity, that's what we would do.
14 MR. FORBES: I might add, too, that we
15 did attempt to work with the Bureau of Land to
16 find out through their records who they have as
17 landfills in the entire state, and we looked at
18 ones that were closed as well as active landfills,
19 and that I believe we mentioned was --
20 MR. MAHAJAN: 538.
21 MR. FORBES: -- 538 landfills that were
22 identified, and from that we tried to apply the
23 rules that we proposed before you today, and our
24 understanding is there would be 47 that would be
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
71
1 impacted. So I don't think there's any like that
2 that would be out there to the best of our
3 understanding.
4 DR. FLEMAL: If we ever have one come
5 down now, hopefully we will be prepared after this
6 discussion to somehow treat that person fairly.
7 MR. RAO: Moving along to subsection C
8 under section 220.210. This sets out the
9 reporting requirement.
10 MS. DOCTORS: I'm sorry, what page are
11 you on?
12 MR. RAO: Subsection C, page 20 of the
13 Board order.
14 MS. DOCTORS: Page 20.
15 MR. RAO: In your testimony you state
16 that these emission reports must be submitted on
17 an annual basis, but the rule doesn't seem to say
18 that. Is this an oversight?
19 MS. DOCTORS: There's a tier system.
20 Depending on how you estimate your initiative, you
21 use the most conservative formula for estimating
22 your emissions, tier 1. Then you can report every
23 five years, and if you use tier 2 or tier 3, then
24 you must report annually, and that's a federal
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
72
1 requirement.
2 DR. FLEMAL: That's the January 1 report
3 date?
4 MR. RAO: June 1.
5 MS. DOCTORS: June 1, yes.
6 MR. RAO: Where does it say in the rule?
7 MS. DOCTORS: Okay. In the rule, that
8 would be under the reporting requirements in --
9 okay, it's on page -- let's see.
10 MR. FORBES: Page 41.
11 MS. DOCTORS: Oh, yes.
12 MR. RAO: Okay. I have a general
13 question about requirements for gas collection
14 systems and the control system, and I think you
15 may have done it but I just wanted to ask you on
16 the record.
17 Are these requirements consistent with
18 what we have in Part 811 for the landfills?
19 MR. MAHAJAN: No.
20 MR. RAO: No?
21 MR. MAHAJAN: Part 11, you mean the land
22 regulations?
23 MR. RAO: Yes.
24 MR. MAHAJAN: Land regulations are
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
73
1 focusing on the explosive nature of the methane.
2 They have to monitor first and then, you know,
3 apply that control --
4 MR. RAO: Yeah.
5 MR. MAHAJAN: -- of the gas collection
6 system. In this case, these are the regulations
7 based on the capacity of the landfill and the
8 waste they have in there.
9 MR. RAO: I realize the criteria for
10 installing a system is different, but what I'm
11 asking is about the actual collection system and
12 the control system, are they -- the requirements,
13 are they consistent?
14 MR. MAHAJAN: Yeah, they are consistent
15 with those, yeah. And actually we are requiring
16 them -- requiring the landfill to have approval
17 from the Bureau of Land.
18 MR. RAO: For example, you stated that
19 on some of these affected landfills, some of them
20 are already in the process of installing the gas
21 collection system, and are they installing
22 pursuant to the land regulations or the air rules?
23 MR. DAVIDSON: Both.
24 MR. RAO: Both.
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
74
1 MR. DAVIDSON: In some regards, they are
2 complying with the limitations to -- to keep below
3 the explosive limit, methane and concentration
4 around the landfill. In other cases, they're just
5 converting waste energy, more due to public
6 concern over some controlled methane in that
7 regard or they're trying to comply with the
8 perceived nature of these rules.
9 Based on the NSPS requirements, they
10 perceive that they would have to comply with
11 substantially the same thing as NSPS. They're
12 installing a system pursuant to the NSPS
13 requirements at this time.
14 MR. RAO: So if there's an existing
15 landfill which has put in a gas collection system
16 pursuant to the land regulations, it should not
17 have a lot of additional things that need to be
18 done to meet these rules.
19 MR. DAVIDSON: We'd have to go on a
20 case-by-case basis.
21 MR. RAO: Based on your knowledge, will
22 there be substantial additions or something that
23 you can approve under your --
24 MR. DAVIDSON: It should be fairly
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
75
1 simple.
2 MR. RAO: -- alternate standard?
3 MR. DAVIDSON: They may evaluate it
4 doesn't meet the criteria as far as concentration
5 wells. They may have to install more wells, or
6 they may have to upgrade their flare or whatever
7 system to meet the requirements such as having
8 them install a temperature monitor or something
9 like that.
10 DR. FLEMAL: Let me try looking at the
11 same issue from just some slightly different
12 perspectives. Based upon the record, your count
13 is that of the 26 facilities that would be greater
14 -- that have NMOC emissions greater than 50
15 megagrams per year, 23 of them either have or are
16 in the process of installing gas collection
17 systems. Am I right on that figure?
18 MR. FORBES: Yes.
19 DR. FLEMAL: That's not, however, to say
20 that 23 of them will be in compliance. Is that
21 also a correct statement?
22 MR. FORBES: Yes.
23 MS. DOCTORS: Yes.
24 DR. FLEMAL: Do you have any estimate of
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
76
1 those -- how many may not be in compliance of
2 those 23 or even a likelihood? Are we likely to
3 see a few or a lot of those 23?
4 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't foresee any of
5 them really being out of compliance, a few
6 modifications, but not --
7 DR. FLEMAL: But they wouldn't be in
8 compliance immediately with their current systems
9 or even the systems that are already under
10 construction or somehow permitted but not
11 necessarily in operation?
12 MR. DAVIDSON: I think that's what we
13 have foreseen, allowing them additional time to
14 come into compliance based on this proposal.
15 DR. FLEMAL: Well, one of the hoops we
16 certainly have to jump through on this one is what
17 is the cost of it. We can say that 23 of 26 have
18 no cost because they already have a system in.
19 That's different than saying that there are X
20 which will have no costs, some which will have
21 bearing cost and three maybe will have some, and
22 that's what I'm trying to get a handle on.
23 They're certainly going to ask us what's it going
24 to cost. What can we tell them about the systems
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
77
1 that are already in place?
2 MR. FORBES: Maybe I can end this. I
3 think based on the feedback that we got from our
4 outreach with the affected sources, and I think
5 most of the ones who would be impacted in the 26
6 attended one or the other of our outreach
7 meetings, and in addition to our outreach with our
8 Bureau of Land, I think we generally feel that
9 most of those that are installing collection
10 systems or have systems installed will
11 substantially comply with the requirements.
12 We can't say that they will 100 percent
13 apply because, as mentioned, there may be some
14 temperature monitoring. There may be a couple of
15 other monitoring aspects that are not currently
16 required in the landfills that will be required
17 here, but I think the main portion of the
18 collection system that's there or is being
19 contemplated will meet the requirements that are
20 proposed here today.
21 Of course, final determinations will
22 have to be made once the rule is on the books, and
23 as part of the Title V applications and review,
24 the permit section will be making those
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
78
1 determinations, but we think they will
2 substantially meet the requirements.
3 DR. FLEMAL: Could we then based upon
4 that analysis say as well that the cost figure
5 that you've given us for the average cost of
6 removal of a ton of NMOC at a thousand plus
7 dollars will not apply in fact in most of the
8 landfills, at least as marginal increased costs?
9 MR. FORBES: Yeah, I think we could say
10 that. The cost effectiveness value that we've
11 cited here --
12 MR. MAHAJAN: They are based on the
13 USEPA studies, and they studied 572 landfills, and
14 each landfill they come up with how much -- how
15 long the control will be installed and how much it
16 will cost and how much reduction will be there.
17 From there they have the cost
18 effectiveness, and according to that economic
19 impacts, they say the average cost for the
20 landfill, if they don't have that control system
21 installed already, it will be around 3.68 million
22 average per landfill.
23 MR. FORBES: Maybe I can just finish my
24 thought. What I was going to say was I think the
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
79
1 costs that we've cited there, the thousand
2 dollars, a little over a thousand dollars per ton,
3 would be for an uncontrolled landfill to add the
4 collection and control system.
5 DR. FLEMAL: The entire capital cost
6 would be attributed to --
7 MR. FORBES: Correct.
8 DR. FLEMAL: -- the NMOC reductions?
9 MR. FORBES: Correct. So since many of
10 these existing landfills already have some of that
11 equipment in place, the costs would be less than
12 that since they already expended the funds for
13 collection.
14 DR. FLEMAL: This figure of a cost per
15 ton of removal of a contaminant is one I know that
16 is regularly used in air, but for the record in
17 this proceeding, how does this compare to cost per
18 ton reductions that you folks deal with? Is this
19 a big cost, low cost?
20 MR. FORBES: I would say it's on the low
21 side for the more recent air regulations that we
22 have been talking about. If you recall, the 15
23 percent rate of progress plan regulations averaged
24 somewhere between $3500 to $5,000 per ton. In the
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
80
1 Emissions Reduction Market System rulemaking, we
2 were talking probably an equivalent cap -- direct
3 control option to -- as opposed to the marketing
4 system, we were thinking would probably be close
5 to $10,000 a ton. So something in the range of a
6 $1,000 per ton, we would consider very reasonable
7 and probably on the low side.
8 DR. FLEMAL: That's all I have.
9 MS. TIPSORD: I have some -- just some
10 minor questions regarding consistency within the
11 rule. First off, I noticed that in several of the
12 formulas, you say where colon, but there are a
13 couple where you say where comma. For example,
14 the commas are used in --
15 MS. DOCTORS: If you give me maybe the
16 page number, I'll be able to --
17 MS. TIPSORD: Page 28 of the Board's
18 order.
19 MS. DOCTORS: 28?
20 MS. TIPSORD: Yeah, that's 220.240.
21 MS. DOCTORS: I got it.
22 MS. TIPSORD: Versus --
23 MS. DOCTORS: 23, page 23.
24 MS. TIPSORD: Yeah, page 23 and back
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
81
1 further, you use the colons as well.
2 MS. DOCTORS: I'm open to the Board's
3 recommendation, whichever you want to go with a
4 colon or a comma is fine.
5 DR. FLEMAL: Don't you suppose --
6 MS. TIPSORD: I just did this with GLI
7 so I know.
8 MS. DOCTORS: I appreciate this. I'm
9 sorry.
10 MS. TIPSORD: That's okay. The other
11 thing I just went through GLI, in Section 220.110,
12 subsection D at the top of page 21, you used a
13 colon at the end of subsection C(ii).
14 MS. DOCTORS: Yes.
15 MS. TIPSORD: And then you used
16 semicolons after subsection A and subsection B.
17 MS. DOCTORS: And then a colon after --
18 MS. TIPSORD: Then a colon at C and then
19 semicolon again at C(i). My question is when you
20 use A, do you mean A, B and C or A, B or C?
21 MS. DOCTORS: No, it's A, B and C. It's
22 the description of the system, the date the system
23 was installed and a demonstration that the
24 collection C -- the collection system meets the
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
82
1 requirements of X.
2 MS. TIPSORD: Okay. And then under
3 C(i), is that C(i) and 2 or C(i) or 2?
4 MS. DOCTORS: Do the active collection
5 systems include flares. Okay, it's "or." We
6 cannot test an open flare.
7 MS. TIPSORD: And then in 220, just to
8 sure because you did use the "and" there, under
9 subsection a, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, you want all five
10 of those?
11 MS. DOCTORS: Yes.
12 MS. TIPSORD: And you used an "or" on
13 subsection 2 for A and B so either "a 2 A" or "a 2
14 B," right?
15 MS. DOCTORS: Yes, it's --
16 MR. MAHAJAN: a 2 A or --
17 MS. DOCTORS: Yes, or B.
18 MS. TIPSORD: And I have one other.
19 Back on page 28, we're talking about that section
20 220.240 A 1 B, there's no punctuation at the end
21 of that. Do you use a colon after A?
22 MS. DOCTORS: There should be a colon,
23 that's correct.
24 MS. TIPSORD: That's all I have.
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
83
1 DR. FLEMAL: I think I have one last
2 one. It goes back to the affected facilities and
3 what the affected facilities are. My reading of
4 what you've given us in the testimony and in the
5 record is that there are three facilities that
6 you've been able to identify that either don't
7 currently have gas collection systems or currently
8 are not in the process of installing such. Am I
9 correct on that number?
10 MR. DAVIDSON: What we can say is they
11 don't have currently any air pollution control
12 permits so they either don't have an ID number or
13 they don't have any identification through the
14 Bureau of Air.
15 We didn't check directly with those
16 companies to see if they've complied through the
17 Bureau of Land with obtaining permits for the
18 control of methane, just identified them as not
19 having air pollution control permits.
20 DR. FLEMAL: I see. So it's possible
21 that these three also have gas collection systems
22 that they put in in response to land requirements?
23 MR. DAVIDSON: I would say they would be
24 in violation of probably land's permit because
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
84
1 they would be required to install -- to obtain
2 permits through us.
3 MS. DOCTORS: But is it possible?
4 MR. DAVIDSON: It's possible.
5 DR. FLEMAL: It is possible. I was
6 confused on that because my assumption was, first
7 off, these are operating landfills, these three,
8 as I understand?
9 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
10 DR. FLEMAL: You are simply not certain
11 that they have gas collection systems under some
12 land permit. Is it possible for you to identify
13 for us whether in fact they do have such?
14 MR. DAVIDSON: Sure.
15 DR. FLEMAL: Check with land and see if
16 they have any understanding or records that
17 indicate that these three remaining landfills
18 either have or are in the process of installing
19 gas collection.
20 From the perspective of what the impact
21 of this proposed rule is, I think that that might
22 be useful information, and if you can provide that
23 for us perhaps at the next hearing, I think that
24 that would be useful or written comment at that
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
85
1 time frame.
2 MS. DOCTORS: Is that when you'd like
3 written comments is at the next hearing to address
4 the issues raised here?
5 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: To answer your
6 question, Ms. Doctors, since we have to have the
7 second hearing for when it is set, if you'd like
8 address these things at that time orally, that
9 would be fine with us or if you'd rather wait and
10 address these issues in your final comments, that
11 would be okay, too.
12 MS. DOCTORS: I'm going to go back and
13 we'll see how hard it is to obtain the
14 information.
15 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Okay. Are there
16 any further questions then?
17 DR. FLEMAL: Just give me one minute to
18 run through.
19 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Okay.
20 DR. FLEMAL: Yes, I did have just one
21 little small matter yet. The cost figures that we
22 have been talking about regarding the cost
23 effectiveness, for example, in terms of the cost
24 per ton of reduction pollutant are figures, as I
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
86
1 recall, from 1992, is that correct?
2 MR. MAHAJAN: Yes.
3 DR. FLEMAL: Do you have any feeling for
4 whether those figures would be within the same
5 general area if we could somehow get them to 1998
6 figures?
7 MR. MAHAJAN: Probably they will. What
8 happened, not that present value of 1992, but they
9 did take the entire cost of the control for the
10 entire period and then they discounted it to that
11 one control period which is 1992.
12 DR. FLEMAL: So to the extent, though,
13 that there's been any increase in cost and what
14 not over this roughly six-year period, these
15 figures would be underestimates of what a 1998
16 cost would be, but you don't think substantially
17 so?
18 MR. MAHAJAN: No.
19 DR. FLEMAL: And then as well on the
20 cost figures, you note that the annual cost of
21 waste disposal is estimated to increase by an
22 average of $1.30 per megagram as a result of this
23 proposal. That $1.3 per megagram is an increase
24 on what base? This is a marginal cost upon what
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
87
1 magnitude number?
2 MR. MAHAJAN: The first one is based on
3 the -- what they call -- this one is based like
4 they have tons of material so it will be $1.30 per
5 megagram of waste.
6 DR. FLEMAL: I guess I didn't say that
7 very well. This obviously is a marginal cost.
8 I'm just wondering what is the basis. Does this
9 represent a 10 percent increase, a 50 percent
10 increase, 100 percent? Obviously it depends upon
11 what the base cost per ton is.
12 MR. MAHAJAN: We didn't rely upon the
13 base cost. We relied upon the USEPA documents,
14 and they come up with that cost, 1.30.
15 MR. RAO: Is it $1.30 on top of the fees
16 that they charge?
17 MR. MAHAJAN: Yes, whatever the existing
18 is, it will be $1.30 more.
19 DR. FLEMAL: But we don't know more than
20 what so we can't make a percentage comparison. If
21 that kind of figure could be gotten without too
22 much difficulty, I'm sure we've got it in our
23 records all over the place because we have lots of
24 places where people talk about what the cost of
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
88
1 waste disposal is.
2 It might be useful to put it in this
3 record anyway again because I expect people are
4 going to look at it and say how do we make sense
5 of $1.30 per ton, and I think it will make sense
6 by saying it's two percent or ten percent or
7 something increase.
8 MR. FORBES: We'll look into that, too.
9 DR. FLEMAL: Okay.
10 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Any further
11 questions? Seeing none, I would ask if anyone
12 else present has any comments regarding this
13 rulemaking. Okay, there are none.
14 Again, then please note that the second
15 hearing in this rulemaking is scheduled for
16 Wednesday, May 13th, at 1:00 p.m. at the Sangamon
17 County Building in the County Board Chambers.
18 That's 200 South 9th Street in Springfield.
19 The third hearing is scheduled for
20 Thursday, May 21st, at 1:30 here in this room. I
21 remind you that if the Agency doesn't request --
22 does not request the third hearing, the Board will
23 cancel the third hearing, and in that event
24 anybody that's on the notice list will receive
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
89
1 notification of the cancellation. There is one
2 other question, if we could backtrack.
3 MR. RAO: Sorry, this isn't on our list.
4 MS. DOCTORS: It's very complicated.
5 MR. RAO: Missed it. This question
6 relates to a comment, public comment we received
7 from BFI concerning interpretation of the federal
8 rules and how you have it interpreted in
9 requirement in our rule. I will tell you it deals
10 with the reporting requirement that you have in
11 your rule.
12 MS. DOCTORS: Yes, right.
13 MR. RAO: So far, let me ask you are you
14 familiar with BFI's comment? Did you receive a
15 copy of the comment?
16 MS. DOCTORS: No, I didn't receive it,
17 but I'm assuming it is the same comment that I
18 received earlier about whether reporting should be
19 done. They felt if you used tier 2 or tier 3, you
20 could also make use of the five-year.
21 MR. RAO: Yes, that's correct.
22 MS. DOCTORS: Right, and I went back in
23 the Federal Register and the Federal Register for
24 the NSPS required one year. In my statement of
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
90
1 reasons, I've got a discussion of that issue.
2 Where is it? Statement of reasons. On
3 page 25, the Agency's statement of reasons, I
4 cited the Federal Register. It's specifically at
5 40 CFR 60.757, and I just took the language right
6 out of the NSPS.
7 MR. RAO: We will take a look at it, but
8 it may be, you know, helpful to the Board if you
9 can take a look at their comment because they, you
10 know, cut and paste specific sections from the
11 federal rules saying this is how it should be
12 interpreted.
13 MS. DOCTORS: Right.
14 MR. RAO: So if you don't have a copy,
15 we will be glad to provide you with a copy of
16 those comments.
17 MS. DOCTORS: I never received it. It
18 was never provided to me.
19 DR. FLEMAL: I think, in fact, there's a
20 copy on the back table, is there not?
21 MS. DOCTORS: Right, but basically what
22 they're saying, if you look at the CFR, they're
23 saying at the beginning of Section 60.757, it's
24 right at the beginning, A, that anything can
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
91
1 apply, but after it says anything can apply, it
2 then goes forward and said, but if you use tier 2,
3 you have to resume annual reporting.
4 So I'm happy to take a look at their
5 comment again, but I think it's probably what they
6 had said to me before on the telephone and in
7 writing.
8 MR. RAO: Okay.
9 MR. FORBES: I guess maybe the concern
10 there, too, is we, in order to try to ensure
11 federal approvability of the state's rule, we were
12 trying to exercise whatever, I guess, flexibility
13 we could exercise given the EG and the NSPS
14 language, but when we discussed this with BFI --
15 and they did raise it, I think, at the one
16 outreach meeting or following one of the outreach
17 meetings -- that, as Rachel said, as we've looked
18 at it, we were concerned that it seemed to us
19 pretty clear that USEPA was not providing for that
20 provision, and so we were somewhat concerned about
21 making that change.
22 MS. DOCTORS: Right, and I'd also like
23 to be on the record that when we did speak with
24 them, we said if you come up with anything in
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
92
1 writing that supports your interpretation, please
2 provide it to the Agency, and that was not done.
3 We obviously weren't even given a copy of the
4 comment so I'd like to be on record just to say
5 that it's a little unexpected.
6 HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Okay. I think
7 that concludes our questions. If there are any
8 other matters that need to be addressed, anyone
9 have anything? Okay. Well, we'll see you all
10 again then May 13th at 1:00 p.m. in Springfield,
11 and thank you very much for coming, and this
12 matter is hereby adjourned.
13 (Which were all the proceedings
14 had in the above-entitled case.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
93
1 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2 LISA H. BREITER, CSR, RPR, CRR, being
3 first duly sworn, on oath says that she is a court
4 reporter doing business in the state of Illinois;
5 that she reported in shorthand the proceedings at
6 the taking of said hearing and that the foregoing
7 is a true and correct transcript of her shorthand
8 notes so taken as aforesaid, and contains all of
9 the proceedings had at said hearing.
10
11
12
13
LISA H. BREITER, CSR, RPR, CRR
14 L.A. REPORTING
79 West Monroe Street
15 Suite 1219
Chicago, Illinois 60603
16 (312) 419-9292
(312) 419-9294 Fax
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING - (312) 419-9292
94