ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

1,

1990

IN THE MATTER

OF:

DEVELOPMENT,

OPERATING AND

)

R88-7

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR

)

(Rulemaking)

NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS

PROPOSED RULE.

SECOND FIRST NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOAR:

(by

J. Anderson):

SUMMARY

OF TODAY’S ACTIONS*

In Docket R88—7,

by Opinion and Order

of February

25,

1988,

the Board adopted

a set

of proposed regulations

for

first notice

publication

in the I11ino~sRegister.

These prcposed regulations

contained

developrtent, operatina and reportina requirements

applicable

to new ard existing landfills which dispose

of non—

hazardous waste.

In adopting

this proposal,

the Board considered

the extensive record developed

in the predecessor R84—l7,

Dockets

A,

B,

C and D (dismissed

in February,

1988).

The Board’s

proposal

was largely based

on the proposal submitted by the

Board’s Scientific/Technical

Section

(STS)

which was the subject

of hearings

in R84—17,

Docket

D.

The rationale

for

the Board’s

*

At the outset,

the Board wishes

to

commend

the

Board’s

Scientific/Technical Section

(STS)

for the quality

of

its

participation

in this

proceeding.

Since initiation of

this R88-7

docket,

the principal STS contribution has been made

by

Dr.

Harish Rac,

STS Chief,

with the assistance

of Anand Rao and

Morton Dorothy,

STS environmental scientists.

A special

acknowledgment

is due to Richard

A.

DiMambro,

(during

the course

of his former employment

as STS environmental scientist)

both as

coordinator

of the various consultants and other

experts whose

testimony has been sponsored

by the Board’s STS during the course

of

the predecessor

R84—l7 proceedina,

and as principal author

of

the 1988

STS Recom.-nendations.

The Board also acknowledoes

the

contributions made to

the 1988 STS.Reccmnendations

by

Dr.

Harish

Rao,

Dr.

Gilbert

Zemansky

(during the course of his former

employment as

STS Chief),

and Karen Mystrik

(during the course

of

her

former employment as STS librarian).

The Board also wishes

to acknowledge the special contribution

made

by. Senior Attorney,

Kathleen M.

Crowley,

who has served

as

Hearing Officer

throughout

these proceedings,

and who has

participated

in the drafting

of the Board’s

Opinion and Order

in

this and related matters.

109—ni

---

—2—

proposal was expressed

in

its February

25,

1988 Opinion, which

must

be

read

in conjunction with the STS “Recommendations

For

a

Non—Hazardous Waste Disposal Program

In Illinois and A Background

Report To Accompany Proposed Regulations

For Solid Waste Disposal

Facilities,

Part A:

Landfills’

(Final, March

7,

1988)

which was

entered as Exhibit

1

in Docket R88—7.

Pursuant

to the requirements of

the Illinois Administrative

Procedure Act

(APA),

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1987,

ch.

127,

par.

1001

et

seq.,

First Notice

of the Board’s proposal

was published

in the

Illinois Register on April

22,

1988

(12

Ill.

Rev.

7069

et

seq.).

As noted

in the Board’s February,

1988 Opinion

(pp.

43—

46) pursuant

to then—existing requirements

of Section

27

of

the

Environmental Protection

Act

(Act)

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1987

ch.

ill

1/2,

par.

1027,

the Department

of Energy and Natural Resources

(DENR) determined

that

the preparation

of an economic

impact

study

(EcIS)

was necessary

in this proceeding.*

DENR’s analysis,

entitled “Economic Impact Study of Landfill Regulations

(R88—7)”

(Ex.

10) was filed with the Board on September

12,

1989.

Required public hearings were held concerning the EcIS on

November

17 and

27,

1989;

the required post-hearing comment

period

closed on January

2,

1990.

In the ordinary rulemaking,

the usual

next step would

be

adoption

of

a second notice Opinion submitting

the proposal

to

the Joint Committee

on Administrative Rules

(JCAR)

for

a

45 day

review period,

after

which

rules

could

be finally adopted and

filed with the

Administrative Code Unit of

the Secretary

of

State

(Code Unit).

This

is

not,

however,

the usual

rulemaking.

Section 5.01(d)

of

the

APP. provides that

“No

rule..

.

.may be

adopted.

.

.more than one year

after

the date the

first notice

period...commenced.”

The one year period expired April

25,

1989

during the period

in which the EcIS was being prepared.

Accordingly,

the Board’s

only

procedural

recourse

is publication

of

a new first notice

in this Docket.

This Opinion, and

the accompanying Order,

then,

re—start the

required APA notice process.

As explained

in detail later,

today’s proposal

is not identical

to

that proposed

in 1988.

Today’s proposal

includes modifications

from the prior proposal

made on the Boards

own

motion

in light

of events which

have

occurred

in the past

two

years,

as

well

as hearing testimony and

written comments made by various participants

in these

proceedings, and the STS

250—plus page “Response to Comments on

Proposed Parts

807 through

815,

R88—7 Non—hazardous Solid Waste

*

Section

27 has since been amended

by

P.A.

85—1048

(also known

as

SB 1834),

effective January

1,

1989,

to authorize

the Board to

determine wheui-r~r

~..

EcIS should be

prepa’~ed for any given

proposed rules.

109—02

---

—3—

Landfill Reculations”,

(Final

March

1,

1990) which

is entered as

Exhibit

26

in this proceeding.

In general,

the Board

will

not

repeat today the discussions

presented

in the Board’s

62 page Opinion of

February

25,

1988

other than where such repetition

is absolutely necessary to an

understanding of

today’s proposal.

Today’s Opinion instead

focuses

on areas

in which

the proposal

has evolved since

1988,

and issues recuiring an updating

of the Board’s

1988

discussion.

The

Board will

not

address minor modifications made

in the prior proposal

to comport

with style and format

requirements

of the APA as reflected

in

the implementing

rules

of

the Code Unit and JCAR.

To the extent that

the Board has adopted

modifications that

comport with STS comments

Ex, 26,

the Board

accepts

the rationale contained

in that document, with the

exceptions

noted

herein,

which will

be distriouted

to persons

on

the notice

list,

in

this proceeding along with today’s Opinion and

Order.

MAJOR PARTICIPANTS

The record

in this matter,

developed

in R84—l7, Dockets

A,

B,

C and

D as well

as

in this R88-7 docket,

is too voluminous

for

the Board

to synopsize

all testimony presented.

The following

individuals and organizations have made contributions

to this

proceeding

as noted.

The Agency

(Proponent

in P84—17,

Docket

A)

Questions

concerning the Agency’s P84-17,

Docket

A informal

proposal were received by,

and the Agency was from time

to time

represented

in the R84—l7 dockets

by:

Lawrence Eastep,

P.

E.

Permit Manager,Division

of Land Pollution Control

(DLPC)

Harry Chappel,

P.

E.

Manager,

Compliance

Section,

DLPC

Monte

Nienkirk

Manager,

State Site Management

Unit,

Remedial Project Management

Section,

DLPC

Linda

J.

Kissinger

Environmental Protection Specialist,

DLPC

Charles Mikalian,

Esq.

formerly

of Enforcement

Programs

109—03

---

—4—

Scott

0.

Phillips,

Esq.

Enforcement Programs

Phillip Van Ness,

Esq.

formerly of

Enforcement Programs

(currently employed by the Board)

Virginia Yang,

Esq.

Enforcement Programs

Gary King,

Esq.

Enforcement Programs

Of

this group,

Mr.

King,

Mr. Eastep and Mr. Chappel have

continued involvement

on

the part

of

the Agency

in P88—7,

which

is currently also represented

by:

Edwin

C..

Bakowski

Manager,

Solid Waste/UIC Unit,

DLPC

Illinois State Chamber

of Commerce

(Proponent

in R84—17,

Docket

B)

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group.

The P84—17,

Docket

B proposal was prepared by

the Illinois

Waste Regulatory Committee

of

the

ISCC.

Testimony concerning

the

language of

the P84-17,

Docket

B proposal was presented by:

Sidney

M. Marder,

P.

E.

Environmental Consultant

Jeffrey C.

Fort,

Esq.

Gardner, Carton

& Douglas

The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

(IERG),

formed

in

1986,

is an affiliate

of the ISCC which currently represents

some

34

Illinois Industries interested

in

the development

of

the

state’s environmental regulations.

(P.C.

50,

p.

1)

Since

formation of

IERG,

ISCC has not participated

in the P84—17 docket

as

a separate entity.

IERG

is currently represented

in this

proceeding

by:

Sidney M. Marder,

P.

E.

Executive Director,

IERG

Katherine

D. Hodge, L~j

General Counsel,

IERG

---

—5—

James

T. Harrington,

ESq.

Ross

& Hardies

In addition

to presentation of

testimony by Mr. Marder,

both ISCC

and 1ERG have sponsored technical testimony in P84-17,

Dockets

B

& D and P88-7,

concerning the

properties of wastes generated by

certain

industries and the state of

the research concerning

disposal

of such wastes.

These industries, and their

representatives have been:

Illinois Steel Group:

David

H. Miller

Consulting Engineer

Thomas

M.

Barnes,

Venture Manager

Outokumpu,

Oy

(sic)

Illinois Utility

Industry:

Thomas Hemminger

Director

of Water Quality, Commonwealth Edison

Foundry Industry:

Michael

Slattery

President,

Illinois Cast Metals Association

Thomas Kunes:

Executive Vice President,

RMT,

Inc.

Chairman,

American Foundryman’s Society

Committee 1OF on Water Quality

&

Solid Wastes

Waste Management

of Illinois,

Inc.

(Proponent

in P84—17,

Docket

cJL

Various representatives of Waste Management

of

Illinois

(WMI),

its parent corporation Waste Management,

Inc.

(NM,

Inc.),

and Waste Management

of North

America

(WMNA)

,

another

NM,

Inc.

subsidiary,

presented

testimony

in support

of WMI’s P84—17,

Docket

C prooosal,

as well

as considerable comment

concerning the

STS P84—17, Docket

D prcposal and the Board’s proposal

in P88-

7.

The representatives

for Waste Management

have been:

Peter Vardi

Vice President

For Environmental Management,

NM,

Inc.

Gary Williams

Director, Environmental Compliance NM,

Inc.

109—05

---

—6—

Ronald Poland

Director, Environmental Engineering,

NM,

Inc.

John Baker

Manager, Environmental Monitoring Programs,

WM,

Inc.

Henry

L.

Martin

Manager, Gas Recovery,

WMNA

Tom Tomaszewski

General Manager,

CID Processing, NM

Dale Hoekstra

General Manager, Midway Landfill,

WM

Dr. Jay Lehr

Professor

of Groundwater Hydrology,

Ohio State University;

Executive Director,

National Water Well Association

E.

Clark

Bali

President, Meredith/Boli and Asscc~ates

Carolyn Lown,

Esq.

WM,

Inc.

Percy Angelo,

Esq.

Mayer,

Brown

& Platt

STS

(Proponent

in P84-17,

Docket

D)

The STS sponsored the testimony of various witnesses

in P84—

17, Docket

A,

which testimony served as the basis

for some

components of the STS proposal

suppcrted

by further

testimony

R84—1~,Docket D and P88—7.

The STS witnesses

and consultants,

and the subjects

of their testimonies were:

Richard

DiMarnbro

ERM,

Inc.

former Environmental Engineer,

STS

Morton Dorothy,

Esq.

Member,

STS

Dr. Harish Rao

Chief,

STS

Dr. Richard C.

Berg,

Thomas

M.

Johnson,

Bruce

P.

HenseJ

Dr. William P. Roy

STS R84-l7D Proposal

as

principal drafter

P88—7 proposal financial

assurance

P88—7

proposal—revisions

in response

to comments

Various geological consid-

erations regarding landfill

siting and pOtential

for

groundwater contamination

110—06

---

—7—

Dr. Robert A.

Griffin

Illinois State Geological Survey

Dr. David

E.

Daniel,

Assistant Professor

University of Texas

Dr. Robert

K.

Ham,

Professor of Civil

&

Environmental Engineering

University of Wisconsin

Dr. Cecil Lue—H~ng,

Director

of Research

and Development

Metropolitan Water

Reclamation

District

of Greater Chicago

Dr. Aaron

A.

Jennings,

Associate Professor

of

Civil Engineering

University of Toledo (Ohio)

Landfili/Liners and other

earthen barriers

Generation and character-

istics of landfill leachate

and gas

A case history

of landfill

leachate treatment

at

a

publicly owned treatment

works

(MWRD Calumet Sewage

Treatment Works)

Groundwater contamination

modeling

Department

of Energy and Natural Resources

The Division of

Energy and Environmental Affairs

of the

Department

of Energy and

Natural Resources

(DENR)

has

participated throughout

these proceedings

for

the purpose

of

determining whether DENR would prepare an economic impact study

concerning

the various proposals and the scope of any such

study,

DENR employees present

for

these purposes have included:

Bonnie Eynon Meyer

Coordinator, EcIS Analysis Program

Elliott Zimmerman

Resource Planner

Stanley Yonkauski,

Esq.

Fred Zalcman, Esq.

Technical testimony concerning special waste disposal issues

was presented

by

a representative

of

another

division of DENR:

Dr. David Thomas

Director,

Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center

1r49—07

---

—8—

The Board

further

notes that the Illinois State Geological Survey

is

als.o

a division of DENR.

DENR’s EcIS concerning

the P88—7 was presented at hearing by

employees of

DENP.’s EcIS contractors,

the consulting

firm Camp,

Dresser, and McKee.

These individuals were:

Jeanne

F. Becker

Wayne

P.

Pferdehirt

Kristine Uhlman

Illinois Chapter, National

Solid Waste Management Association,

and Various Landfill Operators

The Illinois Chapter

of the National Solid Waste Management

Association (NSWMA)

has sponsored testimony and comments on

behalf

of the Illinois Chapter and its various member disposal

facilities.

As the Illinois Chapter has not provided the Board

with

a membership

list,

the Board

is unsure of how many of the

individual

waste management

companies

who

have participated

in

this proceeding are

NSWMA

members.

In listing these companies

in

this section

for convenience,

the Board

is

not implying

that

these companies are necessarily affiliated with NSWMA.

These

participants have been:

Joseph P.

Benedict

former Chairman,

Illinois Chapter,

NSNM.A

Director of Regulatory Affairs,

Sexton Companies

Dr. Charles

A. Johnson

Technical Director, NSWMA

Dr.

Edward Pepa

Institute of Solid Waste Disposal,

NSWMA

Bob

Peters

State

Program

Manager,

NSWMA

Fred A. Prillaman,

Esq.

Mohan,

Alewelt,

& Prillaman

James Ambroso

Chairman, Illinois Chapter,

NSWMA

Environmental Manager,

Land

&

Lakes,

Co.

Carl Ball

President, Environmental Reclamation

Co.

PE.’Jl :eC-~ao~

President,

States Land Improvement

Co.

I

09.-08

---

—9—

Leo Lentz

Modern Landfill Co.

Francis. J. O’Brien

Environmental Control Manager, Browning Ferris Industries of

Illinois,

Inc.

William A.

Speary,

Jr.,

ESq.

Tenner

&

Bentley

former General Counsel,

Pioneer

Processing,

Inc.

Environmental Groups

Various environmental groups

have participated

in these

proceedings

through

their directors,

as well

as through counsel

represe.ntina

a coalition of groups.

(Individual members of

these

groups’are

too numerous to list).

These have been:

Patricia

A.

Sharkey,

Ese.,

formerly representing

in P84—17,

Citizens

for

a Better Environment

:CBE),

Great

Lakes Sierra Club, McHenry County Defenders

(MCD),

Center for Neighborhood Technology,

Coalition For Appropriate Waste Disposal,

South Chicago Development Commission

CBE:

Kevin Greene

Research Director

Dr.

Robert Ginsburg

former Midwest Research Director

MCD:

Gerald Paulson

Executive Director

Greg Lindsay

Environmental Consultant

Environmental Consultants

In addition

to those previously

listed,

various

environmental consulting

firms have participated, particularly

in

P84—17, Docket

D,

on behalf

of themselves

or their clients.

These include:

James Douglas Andrews,

P.

E.

Andrews Environmental Engineer ing

110—09

---

—10—

Darryl Bauer

Baxter and Woodman,

Inc.

Daniel

P.

Dietzler, P.E.

Patrick Engineering,

Inc.

Richard W.

Eldredge,

P.E.

Eldredge Engineering Associates,

Inc.

Roberta

L. Jennings

Consultant Hydrologist

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Predecessor Dockets

to R88-7

The Board adopted

its

“Chapter

7”

regulations covering

operations of sanitary landfills

in 1973.

These regulations,

since codified as

37

Ill. Adm.

Code Part 807, have remained

virtually unchanged since that

time,

save

for the addition of

regulations concerning

financial assurance for closure and post—

closure care.

In

1976,

the Board adopted

its “Chapter

9”

regulations concerning

the hauling

of special waste.

These

regulations,

since codified as

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code Part

809,

have

also existed virtually without change,

except

for

the addition

of

regulations concerning hauling and disposal of hazardous hospital

waste.

Abortive attempts

to modernize

these

rules commenced

in the

1980s.

Docket P80-20 was initiated

by

a proposal

of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

to update Chapter

7,

and

Docket P81—31 was initiated by

a Board proposal to update Chapter

9.

These proposals were consolidated and dismissed

by Order

of

the Board on

October

5,

1982,

after hearings

indicated that

extensive revision of

the proposss was necessary.

In that

Order,

the Board noted

that:

The Agency

and

the

Illinois

State Chamber

of

Commerce

ISCC

indicated

that

they

were

working

together

on

a

substitute

proposal

which

would

replace

both

Chapters

7

and

9.

During

the

hearing

process

it

has

become

clear

first

that

the

subject

matters

of

Chapters

7

and

9

require

coordination

to

insure

consistency

and,

second,

that

it

will

be

difficult

to

relate

the

testimony

on

the

former

proposals

to

the

evolving

combined

proposal.

The

Board

therefore

hereby

consolidates

R80—20

and

P81—31,

and

at

the

same time dismisses

both.

109—10

---

-11-

In that same Order,

Docket P82—21 was opened to consider

the

anticipated Agency/ISCC proposal

for permits

for waste management

and hauling, and Docket P82—22

was opened to consider the antici-

pated proposal

for landfill operating criteria.

The Agency filed

a proposal

in

the P82-21 docket only, which proposal was the

subject of hearings.

Both dockets were closed by Order of June

16,

1983,

as

a result

of Agency withdrawal

of

its P82—21

proposal.

The proposal was withdrawn as

the Agency believed

that

the best solution to various problems identified at hearing was

submission of

an amended and expanded proposal.

This docket,

P84—17,

was initiated

to consider

a draft

proposal filed

by the Agency on May

31,

1984.

Two

inquiry

hearings were held

at which participants identified concerns with

the proposal and questioned the Agency concerning

its intent.

At

the 1a~thearing

the Agency

indicated its intention of

filing

a

revised proposal.

As the Board noted

in

its Resolution

of

December

6,

1984 announcing

its intention of committing some

of

the resources

of

the Scientific Technical Section

(STS)

to this

proceeding,

no revised proposal had been submitted.

Although the

Agency has been

a very active and helpful participant

in

subsequent phases of

this proceeding,

it has not filed

a new

proposal

or presented evidence

in support

of the existing draft

proposal.

On April

4,

1985,

the ISCC filed an alternate proposal.

By

Order

of April

18,

1985,

the Board established Docket

B for

consideration of this proposal.

Four hearings were held

in

Docket

B concerning this proposal.

On August

15,

1986,

Waste Management

of Illinois filed

another alternate

proposal, which the Board designated as P84-17

Docket

C.

This proposal was the subject

of nine hearings..

Concurrently with the hearings held

in Dockets B and C,

the

Board held additional hearings

in Docket

A.

The purpose

of

these

hearings was presentation of testimony

by various consultants and

•other scientific experts whose appearance was arranged

by the

STS.

These consultants and other experts did not critique

the

various proposals pending

before

the Board,

but instead provided

testimony concerning

their research and experience concerning

subjects integral

to analysis and~ordevelopment

of comprehensive

regulations for

the management

of waste.

By its Order

of February

19, 1987,

the Board determined that

only one additional hearing would

be held

in Dockets

A,

B,

and

C.

One basis

for

this determination was that:

“The record

to date

in P84—17

is sufficient

to

enable the Board

to determine that, while each

proposal has meritorious components,

no single

proposal

pending

before

it

is

sufficiently

109—11

---

—12—

refined

or

comprehensive

to

be

adopted by

the

Board

as

the

Board’s

own

proposal

for

the

purposes

of

first

notice publication

pursuant

to

the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act,

and

resulting

additional

hearings.

It

is

clear

to the Board

that

the Board

itself,

with

the assistance

of

its scientific/technical and

legal

staff,

must

craft

a proposal

to address

the

sum

of

the

various

concerns

which

have

been brought

to the Board’s attention.”

The Order went

on

to establish the form and procedures

for

the filing of

a proposal

by the STS,

including required filing of

documents

for public

inspection contemporaneously with

distribution of copies

to

the Board Members, consistent with ex

parte restrictions articulated

in

the Board’s “Protocols of

Operation For the Scientific/Technical Section”, RES 86—1,

January

26,

1986

and the Board’s Procedural Rules,

35

Ill.

Adm.

‘Code 101.121.

By Order

of March

5,

1987,

the Board established that

the

final hearing

in Dockets

A,

B,

and

C would be held on April

28,

1987,

that

the public comment period would close

on May

20, and

that the Board would commence deliberations on May28,

1987.

Consistent with the directives

in

the Board’s Orders

of

February

19 and March

5,

1987,

on May

22 and May

26,

1987,

the

STS filed an

initial

set of proposed regulations consisting

of

new Parts

810,

811

and 812

with

its supporting

“Recommendations

for Non—Hazardous Waste Disposal Program

in Illinois and A

Background Report To Accompanying Proposed Regulations

For Solid

Waste Disposal Facilities”

(Background Report).

On June

12 and

June

21,. 1987,

the STS filed another

set ofproposed

regulations,

consisting

of Parts

813 and 814 and a supporting Background

Report.

By Orders of May

28 and June

22,

1987,

the Board authorized

the STS proposal for

hearing.

The May

28

Order established a

Docket

D for consideration of the STS proposal.

The Board

expressly noted

that

it was taking

no action at

that time on the

proposals

in Dockets

A,

B,

C.

The STS proposal was the subject of

ten hearings.

To

expedite the proceedings, participants were required

to file

written questions and comments concerning

the STS proposal,

to

which the STS provided written responses to be discussed at

109—12

---

-13-

hearing.

The comment period was closed

in Docket

D on December

30,

l987.*

~t hearing,

the STS had committed

to redrafting various

portion~of the proposal

in respcnse

to testimony and to consider

redrafting

in response

to any subsequent written comment

received.

Accordingly,

the STS filed

revised versions of

various

portions of its proposed

rules

and Background Report on January

15, February

4 and 18.

Consistent with prior practice

in this

docket,

the STS dealt with the Agency’s untimely comment, filed

January

5,

1988,

as

a matter

of discretion and

to the extent

that

time permitted.

By Order

of

February

4,

1988,

the Board adopted an Order

wnich

realigned its relationship with the SIS.

The

Board’s Order

stated:

The

Board

has

been

deliberating

the

STS

revised

proposal,

as

well

as

the

records

in

Docket

A,

B,

& C since January

21,

1988.

The

Board has limited its discussions with the STS

consistent

with

the

February

19,

1987,

Order

and

the

Board’s

Protocols.

The

Board

has

found that

in order

to fully and expeditiously

deliberate

these

matters

it

is

necessary

to

informally

consult

with

STS

staff

concerning

the technical details

in the voluminous P84—17

record.

*

Post—hearing comments will sometimes be referred to herein by

Public Comment

(P.C.)

number

without identification of

submitter.

The following

is

a listing of post—hearing public

comments

in Docket R84—l7D by

number and submitter:

P.C.

42,

Wagner Casting Company

by

James Mason, Vice President

Manufacturing Services;

P.C.

43, Andrews Environmental

Engineering,

Inc. by

J.

Douglas Andrews,

P.

E., President;

P.C.

44, Northeastern

Illinois Planning Commission

by Lawrence

B.

Christmas,

Executive Director;

P.C.

45, Environmental Reclamation

Company by Carl Ball,

President;

P.C.

46, McHenry County

Defenders by Gerald

A.

Paulson;

P.C.

47, National Solid Wastes

Management Association Final

Comments by Fred

C. Prillaman,

Esq.;

P.C.

48, Pioneer

Processing,

Inc.

by William A.

Speary,

Jr.,

General Counsel;

P.C.

49,

Land and Lakes Co.

by James

T.

Ambroso,

Environmental Manager;

P.C.

50, Illinois Environmental Regulatory

Group by James

T.

Harrington,

Esq.;

P.C.

51, Waste Management

of

Illinois,

Inc.

by

Percy

I.

Angelo,

Esq.;

P.C.

52,

Illinois

Department

of Energy

and Natura

Resources

by

Fred Za~cman, Esq.;

P.C.

53,

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

by Phillip

R.

Van Ness,

Esq.

109—13

---

—14-

As

the

bases

for

and comments

concerning

the

STS

proposal

are

a

matter

of

public

record,

the

Board

now

feels

that

it

may,

without

prejudice

to

the

integrity

of

its

process,

terminate

its

“arm’s

length” dealing with

STS

staff.

Accordingly,

as

of this date,

the STS

staff will

no

longer

be

considered

“exterior”

to

the

Board

within

the

meaning

of

the

Protocols.

STS

staff

is

directed

to

resume

communications

with

the

Board

in

the

usual

Board/staff

relationship.

The

ex

~arte

constraints

of

35

Ill.

Adrn.

Code

101.121(b)

shall apply

to STS communications with persons

other

than Board Members and staff.

Deliberations continued on February

5,

1988.

On February

11,

1988,

the Board adopted an Order

directing

its.staff

to develop

a revised proposal

for

its consideration on

February 25,

1988 finding

that:

The

Board

is

in

full

agreement

with

the

essential

elepients

of

the proposal.

However,

the

Board

wishes

to

see

regulatory

language

embodying

certain

concepts

which

either

are

not

contained

in

the

existing

proposal,

are

not

clearly

expressed,

or

are

alternative

to

those presently proposed.

Docket P88—7

As earlier explained,

Docket P88—7 was opened by the Board’s

Opinion and Order

of February

25,

1988.

The proposal was

published at

12 Illinois Register 7069

et

seq.,

April

25,

1988.

DENR commenced preparation

of

the EcIS,

and further formal

proceedings

of the Board were accordingly held

in abeyance until

June,

1989.

On June

16 and 20,

the Board conducted two hearings

to receive into tne record testimony and exhibits commissioned by

the Board’s STS from outside consultants who had previously had

major

roles

in the P84—17 proceeding.

Mr.

Bruce

Hensel,

of

the Illinois State Geological Survey,

presented the study commissioned

by the STS alluded

to

in the

Background Report and at hearing, entitled

“Numerical Estimates

of Potential

For Groundwater

Contamination From Landfill Burial

of Municipal Wastes

in Illinois”

by Bruce

R.

Hensel,

Richard C.

Berg and Robert

A. Griffen.

(Ex.

7).

Dr. Robert

K.

Ham,

Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of

Wisconsin,

presented narrative testimony regarding landfill

siting performance

and design requirements and potential

for

groundwater contamination.

Richard ~

Di~a~rhro~

primary author

of the STS Recommendations and Background Report

in

the P84—17

109—14

---

-15-

proceeding during the course

of his former employment with the

Board was available

to participate

in discussion

of any issues

relating to the proposal.

Members

of the STS who participated

on both hearing days

were Dr. Harish Rao,

STS Chief

and Mr. Morton Dorothy.

Mr.

Dorothy presented his concerns regarding problems with the

existing financial

assurance regulations particularly

as they

related

to the extended post—closure

care period.

Draft

amendments

to the financial assurance

rules were presented

for

initial discussion.

Additional testimony and comment was also presented

on June

20 by the Agency and WMI.

On September

12,

1989,

DENR filed

its EcIS.

At hearings

held on November

17 and

27,

1989,

DENR’s EcIS contractors,

the

environmental consulting

firm of

Camp,

Dresser

and McKee,

presented

the EcIS and answered questions concerning

it.

Participants who presented testimony

in response to the LoIS

included WMI and the Illinois Utilities,

speaking on their own

behalf

as well as that

of

IERG.

The post

hearing comment

period

expired on January

2,

1990.

Since publication

of the

first notice proposal

in

1988,

the

Board received

24 public comments, which were numbered as

indicated:

1)

Gisela Topolski;

2)

St. Clair

County Solid Waste Task

Force;

3)

Kristine Uhlman,

CGWP,

Senior Project

Hydrogeologist and Douglas

J.

Hermann,

Vice President,

Geo—

Environmental Group,

STS Consultants,

Ltd.;

4)

Deere and

Company

by John

E.

Smith, Environmental Control;

5)

Citizens

for Controlled Landfills,

Belleville,

submitted

by Thomas

Sintzel;

6)

Land and Lakes Company by James Ambroso,

Environmental Manager;

7)

Illinois Chapter

of the National

Solid Wastes Management Association submitted by Fred

C.

Prillaman;

8)

Illinois Department

of Transportation

submitted

by Gregory

N.

Baise,

Secretary;

9)

Comments

of

the

Illinois Steel Group by James

T.

Harrington;

10) Comments

of

the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

by James

T.

Harrington;

11) McHenry County Defenders

by Gerald

A.

Paulson, Executive Director;

12)

Illinois Utilities;

13)

Illinois Case Metals Association by Michael

P.

Slattery,

President;

14) Waste Management

of

Illinois

by Percy

L.

Angelo;

15) Comments

on Behalf

of John Sexton Contractors

Co.

by Joseph

P.

Benedict,

Jr.,

Director

of Regulatory

Affairs;

16)

P.

K.

Ham,

Professor,

Civil and Environmental

Engineering;

17) Bert Fowler

—

Engineer and Architect

submitted

by Bert Fowler,

Consulting Engineer;

18) Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

by Phillip P.

Van Ness;

19)

Gisela Topoiski,

Joliet,

Illinois;

20)

Illinois Chapter

of

109—15

---

—16—

the National Solid Waste Management Association

(NSWMA)

submitted by James T.

Ambroso, Chapter Chairman;

21)

Agency

Pre—First Notice Comments submitted by Gary

P.

King;

22)

Illinois Department

of Energy and Natural

Resources submitted

by Fred Zalcman;

23) Waste Management

of

Illinois,

Inc.

submitted

by Mark

P.

Ter Molen;

and

24) Comments

of

the

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group submitted by James

T.

Barrington.

On February

16,

1990,

at

the Board’s request, JCAP submitted

its concerns and comments (JCAR concerns),

based on its

preliminary review

of the 1988 proposed rules.

As was the case

in the P84—17 docket,

the Board directed its

STS to prepare

for review by the Board and analysis

of

the public

comments received,

and any recommended amendments

to

the rules

which

it believed were warranted by the comments or hearing

record.

As earlier stated,

the STS comments have been marked as

Exhibit

26.

(The STS comments do not address

the

JCAP. concerns,

which were received too late for STS consideration.)

THE 1989 HEARINGS

The major presentations

of new data received at the four

hearings held

in this docket are outlined below, except

that

testimony presented

by the regulated community

is later discussed

in conjunction with the

rules or

issues which

the testimony

addressed.

On June

16, 1989,

Dr.

Ham, who worked closely with the STS

in developing

the regulations,

and Mr. DiMambro,

formerly with

the STS,

appeared

at the behest

of the Board

to present

information on broader issues related

to the public comments

received.

Dr.

Ham and Mr.

DiMambro addressed five issues covered

in

Dr. Ham’s pre-submitted testimony.

(Lx.

3).

The

STS

had.

requested comments on

the following areas:

the definition

of

inert waste,

leachate recycling,

and thickness of clay

liners.

Review of land use on and adjacent

to landfills,

and adustments

for experimental practice were

also commented

on.

Dr. Ham

directed the participants

to his pre—submitted testimony

for any

clarification of his oral testimony.

At hearing, most

of the

focus was on the proposed inert waste category, and a relatively

detailed summary

is presented below.

Regarding

the inert waste definition,

Dr.

Ham asserted

that,

while

there

is

no perfect definition,

the definition must remain

conservative because

there must

be

no question that the

environment will

be protected

in the absence of environmental

controls such as groundwater monitc’riri~.

Also,

the conservative

definition protects

the generator and disposer

of

the waste

09—16

---

—17—

“against mutual liabilities

that have

a tendency

to come back and

haunt us after the fact”

(P.

16).

Dr Ham believed

there are two

aspects

in protecting

the quality

of the groundwater:

1)

the

leachate

must meet the drinking water standards

for any

parameter,

and

2)

if

the groundwater

is already above

the

drinking water

standard for any parameter,

the leachate must be

no worse.

(The proposed standards

referenced

by Dr. Ham are

contained in Section 811.202 and

refer

to the Board’s public and

food processing water

supply standards.)

Dr. Ham noted that the

drinking water

standards would

reflect health

or aesthetic

concerns.

He would use groundwater standards only as tracers,

and would not recommend requiring

a laundry list

to define

the

groundwater

or require

the leachate

to meet every groundwater

parameter.

He believes

that the drinKing water parameters are

all that

is necessary

to protect

the public health and

groundwater quality with respect

to potential uses.(R.

15—17,

28—

32, 43~.

Mr. DiMambro noted,

in response

to the groundwater/drinking

water discussion,

that

the proposed definition

of

inert waste

is

intended to apply over any kind

of geology or

groundwater:

it

requires that the

inert waste,

to be

truly inert,

must not create

a leachate that

exceeds

the drinking water standards.

The

leachate must not cause

the use of

the groundwater

to be

diminished;

that

is the justification for

not requiring

a

hydrogeological assessment

to

assess background quality

of

the

groundwater.

If

the leachate

exceeds the drinking water

standards,

it should be evaluated on

a case by case basis.

If

the leachate tests

high,

then that would

indicate that the waste

is not inert.

Mr. DiMambro also pointed

out that

the inert waste

category

is a bottom line category.

The standards

for inert

waste apply directly inside the landfill;

in contrast,

the

standards

for chemical and putrescible waste are a combination

of

water quality and migration standards that

take into account

aspects of design and the existing geology,

and apply

a certain

distance away from the waste boundary.

Thus

the question as to

which of the

two sets of standards

is more lenient cannot really

be answered,

since they are not comparable.

He noted

that,

to

require that

an inert waste landfill make a demonstration that

the background concentration

be met

at

100 feet

in 100 years,

would approach requiring

the trappings

of

a chemical waste

disposal landfill.

(P.

33—35,

43,

62, 7579, 8083).

L~r.Ham feels

that,

in situations where

the waste exceeds

the standard,

the waste could still

be declared as inert

as long

as the person

is willing to do the hydrogeological work

to show

that the groundwater

in that location

is

not going

to be

degraded.

For example,

there

are many places where

the iron

in

the groundwater

is already at

200 ppb,

and he

feels

it would,

in

that

situation,

be ridiculcus

to require

a waste landfilled

without

an liner

or

leachate collection system

to comply

with the

drinking water standard

for

iron.

However,

Dr. Ham felt

that

109—17

---

—18—

such

situations should be decided on

a site specific basis.

Mr.

DiMambro felt

that

Dr. Ham’s

views

are compatible with the

proposed regulations.

(P.

37,38).

Dr.

Ham stated that each generator should make

the leachate

cemonstrations,

and each would have to account

for variations

in

the source of the materials,

such as variations

in the coal from

different sources.

He also would have no problem with generators

combining

their waste

for disposal,

as long

as each would. make

a

separate demonstration.

The demonstrations would be expensive,

but

he believes

it

is necessary

to prove

that the waste doesn’t

have

to be worried about

in the future;

however,

he also noted

that

the up—front effort

has the potential for future rewards.

Based on his experience,

Dr. Ham believes

that the best

evidence

to present

to

the Agency

that

inert waste

will not

contaminate the groundwater would be

to monitor that waste

in the

landfill.

Waste

from an existing landfill would be the best

baseline information

as

to what

the leachate will look like.

Next best would be

to go

to

a

landfill where

it can be

demonstrated

that

the waste

is similar.

Otherwise data

will have

to be specially gathered

to convince the Agency,

such as

by

building

a landfill with

a liner

so the leachate can be collected

or by using a much smaller test

landfill designed and operated

over

a year

or two

to detect maximum concentration

(P.

18—22,

24).

Dr. Ham is conducting an experimental

test series

in

Wisconsin with piles

of foundry wastes,

and

is comparing them

with lab tests,

as well conducting

a parallel

testing

of several

natural

soils.

The field data are showing

that

it

is

taking

about two years

to detect the maximum concentration.

As

a

general

statement,

Dr. Ham cautioned

industry about the

risk

of

remedial action at

a

test location

if

it

had no data to back

up

its belief

that the waste

is

inert,

and Mr. DiMambro pointed out

that there are experimental practice requirements

in the proposed

regulations.

(R.

26,

27,

30—43,

49,

54, 5565,

70).

Dr. Ham believes that the least convincing evidence,

at

present,

to demonstrate that

a waste

is inert,

is that derived

solely from a laboratory

leach test

(P.

18—22).

Dr. Ham proposes

use of

a water test.

He recognizes that on a parameter by

parameter basis one could argue,

for

example.,

“for

an acid test,

a distilled deionized water

test,

a mild acid

test to simulate

acid

rain;

one could argue control

of

reduction potential”

(R.

21) but

he does not think

that

there is enough evidence that any

such tests

will

exactly show what can be expected in the real

world.

He would suggest using

the laboratory leach

test as

a

provisional classification tool,

to be borne out by later

“real

world” data,

when seeking

a less rigorous landfill design for

non—inert waste;

if

the waste

later turns out to be inert then

leachate and groundwater

monitoring could

be discontinued,

but

the risk

is

that i~

it

is not~ the

Agency might require the

landfill owner

to do

remedial action.

(P.

18—23,

57—60).

109—18

---

—19—

Dr. Ham next testified on the

issue of

leachate recycling.

He stated that leachate recycling has been used widely on an

experimental basis,

but

it

is not certain that

it reduces

the’

time~period

for waste decomposition.

There

is confusion in the

literature as

to whether leachate recycling enhances degradation,

but most of

it suggests that recycling will reduce the

degradation period.

He noted,

however,

that the regulations

reduce

the post closure care period only

for

the purpose of

financial assurance,

and that each site still must assure that

the post closure care period

is finished.

He feels leachate

recycling

is difficult to carry out

in practice.

The one

situation where leachate recycling does seem to work is

if the

leachate

is neutralized before

it

is recycled.

For now,

he

recommends leaving

the proposed regulations

as they are.

If an

operator decides

to discontinue

a recycling effort

because

it

is

causing problems, any corrective actions would

not be

a cause

for

environmental concern.

The operator

must be prepared to export

100

of

the leachate.

Mr.

DiMarnbro noted that the regulations

require the operator

to comply with the leachate storage capacity

provisions.

(R.

124—138,

152—154).

Regarding the

issue of liner

thickness,

as

noted

later

Dr.

Ham prefers

a requirement

of

a minimum

5 feet of compacted clay.

His conclusions are

repeated elsewhere.

However,

Dr. Ham also

felt

that the option of utilizing

a three

foot clay liner plus an

artificial liner,

would be equivalent

to a

five foot liner,

assuming that the waste

is compatible with the artificial liner.

(P.

142).

Mr. DiMambro believes that adding more to the three

foot

liner

for all practical purposes will not change the performance

of

the system,

because “the measure

of performance

of the

landfill, which

is the efficiency at which the leachate

is

removed from the system, will not change significantly based on a

change

in. the liner thickness”.

(P.

145).

Regarding land use

on and adjacent

to landfills,

Dr.

Ham

feels that

states,

or municipalities possibly through

their

zoning powers,

should have

a method

to review,

over the long

term,

the development of

land both on and adjacent to

landfills.

His particular concern

is to make sure that there are

no settling or gas migration problems, which may be

of more

concern

than groundwater

issues.

He was not familiar

with

Illinois

law,

but thought that Illinois Groundwater Protection

Act did not address this subject.

Mr.

DiMambro noted the

difficulty

of writing

a proposal

so

as

to avoid getting

into land

use planning.

The proposal

is framed

to accommodate any

specified later land use for the landfill property,

as

long

as

the closure and post closure care performance standards,

including aroundwater monitoring

and leachate collection,

are not

affected.

He cautioned that

later

changes

in land use that would

affect

the the final cover

design,

such as

slope,

must not

cause

109—19

---

—20—

more leachate to be generated than the standards allow.

(P.

155—

163).

Regarding adjustments

for experimental practice,

Dr. Ham

is

concerned that,

in addition to the detailed requirements

presently in the proposal, there be

a simpler, more flexible,

mechanism for special cases where the experiments are less global

in nature and where

the environmental impact would

be non—

detectable.

For example, someone

he knows

is interested

in

moisture

routing through landfills,

and would want

to temporarily

apply different covers

on,

say,

a

100 foot square test area;

since

the landfill

has

a

full

leachate collection system and

is

meeting

the standards,

the impact

of the experiment would be

non—

detectable.

Mr. DiMambro noted

that the experimental practice procedure

applies

to experiments where

it

is clearly impossible

to conduct

the experiment

in compliance with the performance and design

standards.

The regulations provide

for

the

type of observation

experiment

in Dr.

Ham’s example without going through the

experimental practices process.

Also,

as

a general comment,

Mr.

DiMambro stated that he does not see an adequate, more flexibile,

replacement

for the present procedure that would comply with the

requirements of Illinois Administrative law.

Mr. DiMambro also

explained the intent

of the language

in the proposal regarding an

evaluation of

the “success”

of

an experimental practice:

“Success” refers only

to the amount

of environmental damage and

is related to the extra

financial assurance the operator has

provided in case remedial action

is

needed;

“success” should not

be interpreted as applying

to the degree or specificity of

the

data gathered,

or its usefulness

for future permitting or

compliance purposes

(P.

163—179).

The State Geological Survey Report

At the behest of

the STS,

the Illinois Geological

Survey

performed

a

research project

to

a) quantitatively rate the

potential

for groundwater contamination resulting

from land

burial of municipal waste

for

several mapped hydrogeologic

scenarios common

to the State

of Illinois and b)

evaluate the

appropriateness of

a compliance distance of

100 feet surrounding

a landfill as

a limit

for

leachate migration over

a

100 year

period,

as proposed

by the Board

in the February,

1988

regulations.

At the June

20,

1989 hearing,

Mr.

Bruce Hensel

presented the results

of that project,

a report entitled

“Numerical Estimates of Potential

For Groundwater Contamination

From Land Burial

of Municipal Wastes

in

Illinois,

by Bruce

P.

Hensel, Richard

C. Berg and Robert

A. Griffin

(February,

1989,

HWRIC/Project No.

87—033)

(Ex.

7).

The Survey’s methodology was as follows:

109—20

---

—21—

Quantitative

ratings

of

potential

for

groundwater

contamination were assigned

to

16

hydrogeological

scenarios.

The

conceptual

models

for

these

scenarios

were

based

on

geologic sequences

in Illinois mapped

by Berg,

Kempton,

and

Cartwright

(1984).

Chemical

transport

of

six

constituents

commonly

found

in

municipal

landfill

leachat.e

(chloride,

cadmium,

chemical

oxygen

demand

(COD),

methylene

chloride,

trichloroethylene,

and

xylene)

was mathematically simulated for these

16

scenarios

with

the

Prickett

Lonnquist

Aquifer

Simulation Model

(PLASM;

Prickett

and

Lonnquist,

1971)

and

the

Random

Walk

contaminant transport model

(Prickett, Naymik,

and

Lonnquist,

1981).

The

six

chemical

constituents

exhibited

a

broad

range

of

characteristics,

with mobilities

ranging

from

conservative

(non-adsorbed,

non—degraded

constituents for which movement

is co—incident

with groundwater)

to

very

low,

and

toxicities

ranging from highly toxic

to non—toxic.

Two

landfill

designs

were

incorporated

into

the conceptual models.

One design represented

a

10-foot

thick

bottom

liner

with

leachate

head

10

feet

above

the

liner.

The

second

design represented

a

3—foot

thick bottom liner

with

a

leachate

collection

system.

The

leachate

collection

system

was

simulated

by

setting

head

in

the

landfill

at

1—foot.

A

constant

initial

concentration

for

each

contaminant

was

used

in all

scenarios.

These

procedures

allowed

comparison

of

relative

contaminant

migration

rates

for

the

hydrogeological

scenarios

without

introducing

a

bias

related

to

the

landfill design

or

its

initial

contaminant

concentrations.

(Lx.

7,

pp. ix—x

The

Survey

discovered

that

the predicted migration

for

all

six contaminants modelled did

not

exceed the

100

foot compliance

distance

for

5

hydrogeologic

scenarios.

Extension

of

the

distance

to

150 feet

raises the number

of complying scenarios

to

8,

while extension

of the distance

to 1000 feet raises

the number

of complying scenarios

to

10.

Among

other

conclusions,

the Survey Report stated:

Based

on

the predicted migration distances of

chloride,

cadmium,

COD,

methylene

chloride,

TCE, and xylene, and given the assumptions and

109—2 1

---

—22—

initial

conditions

of

the

mathematical

and

conceptual

models

used

for

this

study,

the

following

conclusions

may

be

drawn

regarding

the

suitability

of certain geologic sequences

as

sites

for

sanitary

landfill

disposal

facilities:

It

would

be

difficult

to

site

a

municipal

waste

disposal

facility

in

areas

where

a

continuous

aquifer,

having

hydraulic

conductivity

greater

than

lxlO4

cm/s,

is

found

within

35

feet

of

the

ground

surface

without

posinq

a

high

potential

for

contamination

to

that

aquifer.

Predicted

migration

of

all

modeled

chemical

constituents,

except

cadmium,

was

extensive

for

hydrogeological

scenarios

representative

of

these

areas.

For

example,

predicted

migration

of

methylene

chloride

was

greater

than

500

feet

for

scenarios

with

these

simulated

hydrogeologic

conditions.

This

conclusion

does

not

imply

that

aquifers

overlain by thicker confining layers will have

a

low probability of contamination,

since such

a scenario was not tested.

It

may

be

possible

to

site

a

municipal

waste

disposal

facility,

without

posing

a

high

potential

for

contamination,

in

areas

which

contain

1)

cemented

sandstone

which

may

be

overlain

by

as

much

as

35

feet

of

clay—rich

diamicton,

or

2)

thick

deposits

of

silty

and

or

clayey diamicton,

silt-rich bess

or

silt-

rich

lacustrine

materials.

This

conclusion

assumes

that;

1)

the

landfill

is

carefully

designed

to minimize leakage,

and

2)

there are

no

pathways

of

preferential

flow

(i.e.,

joints,

fractures)

through

the

underlying

materials which would allow rapid migration of

contaminants.

Predicted

migration

of

contaminants

with

conservative

to

high

mobility

was

limited

for

hydrogeological

scenarios

representative

of

these

areas.

Little migration of contaminants with moderate

to low mobility was predicted.

The

lowest

potential

for

groundwater

resource

contamination

will

occur

in

areas

where

the

uppermost

50

feet

of

geologic

material

contains

no aquifers and consists of clay—rich

diamicton

or

low

permeability,

non—fractured

bedrock.

Materials

such

as

these

are

not

109—22

---

—23—

generally

considered

to

be

aquifers,

and

hydra~1ic conduct~vi:y is

typically

less

than

lx10~

cm/s.

Mathematical

modelling

of

contaminant

transport

for such areas predicted

no

appreciable

contaminant

migration

over

a

simulated 100—year

time span.

No specific sites were used for the study.

The sources of data

and other details of the modeling are contained

in the

report

noted above and

in the set

of computer—generated sketches that

were provided.

(Cite Ex.or

P.C#)

and which were further explained

by Mr.

Hensel at

hearing

(P.

238

et seq.).

At hearing,

Mr.

Hensel amplified that

the predicted

migration

for chloride was

fcoused upon,

since chloride

is highly

mobile,

is commonly

found.

in high concentrations

in

landfills,

and serves as

a worst

case scenario

for contaminants

that may

be

more toxic.

The study modeled

the migration over

the simulated

time period of 100 years prescribed

in

the Board proposal.

Again,

the

results showed that

if

the compliance distance

is

50

to

100 feet

(the Board proposal

sets

the compliance distance

at

100

feet),

the siting cf

landfills would

be

geologically feasible

in about

50

of

the State.

J~. 245).

~f the

less mobile

constituents were modeled,

he

felt,

without

confirming

it, that

the area would rise

to about

55.

He could

not estimate what

percentage of the State would be available after taking

into

account other factors

such as

zoning,

recharge area,

or

Groundwater Protection Ac: constraints,

but did not concede that

using

a larcer,

deeper

landfIll

could

be presumed

to affect

the

percentage.

(P.303-306).

Mr. Richard DiMambro,

while

not addressing policy

considerations,

also felt

that

additional engineering features

could be utilized

to offset the problems

in the

less desirable

geological

areas.

He

used the example

of an industrial monofill

where

the owner

insists

on

locating

it

in

a particular place;

the

burden

is then on

the operator

to design the proper engineering

features.

He noted

that

it

is

the economics

of

the situation

that would drive

the utilization of a site.

(P.

317)

Mr. Hensel cautioned that model

results described

in their

study can be used generally

for

the development of regulations

and policies;

they are necessarily generalized

for application

to

the entire State and cannot necessarily be

applied

to specific

sites.

The Board’s proposed use of models

in

tne desigh and

enforcement stages of

a

landfill must

be site—specific,

using

“extensive and rigorously collected site—specific data”.

(P.

246)

Where

a worst

case scenario

is modeled,

the actual values

measured would remain lower

than the model

predicted values.

(P.

249,

269,

270)

By worst

case scenario,

Mr. Hense

did not mean

plugging

in unrealistic numoers;

rather,

he meant

that

the

numbers should

be reasonable.

A skilled modeller who knows

109—23

---

—24—

geological uncertainties, will

take weak data

regarding,

for

example, dispersion and effective porosity,

and err on

the most

conservative side of

the

range of values.

(P.

282,283,

286,287).

He stated that

a model

such

as DRASTIC

(proposed for

use

in the WMI R84—l7C proceeding)

is also too generalized

to

be

used in a site—specific setting

(R.

294—297).

Mr. DiMambro disagreed with

the notion

that battles will

occur with

the Agency over what

is

a good model

to the detriment

of using the modelling approach

to meet specific design

criteria.

He noted that

there will always

be disagreements over

explicit design criteria.

He believes

that,

since

the P88—7

proposal establishes minimum design criteria,

it

is wrong

to

characterize the proposal

as being dependent

on modelling to meet

the design criteria.

The design criteria have been established,

and the model

in the first

instance

is used

to demonstrate that

the proposed design will

not allow the applicable Board standard

or background concentration

to

he exceeded

in

100

years at

100

feet from the waste boundry.

The operator

is also asked,

based

on the model predictions,

to establish monitoring points within

the zone of attenuation, where

the operator would establish

maximum allowable predicted concentrations that are reasonably

conservative.

If the predicted numbers are exceeded,

it may be

an early warning that something has gone wrong;

but even

in that

case remedial.action

is not necessarily

required.

He has stated

that

it

is an unrealistic scenario

to believe that after the

landfill

is sited,

the model would

throw out the siting and

design simply because

of the model

selected or the choice

of an

input parameter.

(P.

259—262).

Mr.

DiMarnbro also stated that the proposed monitoring system

is designed not only

to confirm model prediction but also catch

failures.

He also pointed Out that

minor defects

in construction

and the beachate collection system,

and

minor

intrusions by

objects into the

liner,

are expected

to have relatively little

effect on the amount

of leachate collected;

because of

the nature

of the hydraulic conductivity system,

the

leac’nate would “rather

flow through the leachate collection system than

to go through

the liner”.

(R.

321).

The hydrodynamics of the proposed system

are different from those

in which

the liner

is the sole barrier

and there

is no beachate collection system.

The monitoring

system also provides reassurance that

a catastrophic failure

would be detected.

(P.

321—323).

Three other persons

testified at the June hearings.

Mr.

Morton Dorothy

of the Board’s STS presented testimony regarding

financial

assurance.

Mr. Harry Chappell

of

the Agency presented

brief testimony.

Mr.

John Baker

of WMI presented testimony

for

clarity when asking questions.

109—24

---

—25—

The EcIS.

As earlier stated,

the EcIS

(Ex.

10) was filed with the

Board

by DENR on September 12,

1989.

Two hearings were

conducted,

on November

17

and

27,

1989.

At

the first

hearing,

the Opinion

of DENR’s Economic and Technical Advisory Committee

was also submitted

(Lx.

14);

that Opinion concurred with the

conclusions of

the EcIS,

and particularly agreed that

it

is

extremely difficult

to quantify the incremental avoided health

costs but that they are substantial.

The Opinion also agreed

that the

indirect

impact on employment and disposable income was

comparatively insignificant.

We will summarize the broad conclusions

of the study here,

utilizing the Executive Summary

(EcIS E—l through E—8),

and will

reference detailed breakdowns elsewhere

in the EcIS where the

EcIS’

conclusions were disputed at hearing

or

in public comment.

Only the

incremental

impacts of the proposed. rules

as

compared

to the existing

rules were evaluated.

The study

in many

areas utilized the Agencys

implementation of the more generally

worded, existing Board

rules

for comparison purposes.

The study

noted that the incremental

costs will,

in general,

be greater

for

existing than new facilities,

because most recently proposed new

landfills already incorporated features

of the proposed

rules.

Also,

costs

for onsite

(exempt from permitting

by Section 21(d)

of the Act)

facilities will generally be higher

than for

those

off—site,

since onsite facilities

are typically built

to

lower

standards.

This is because,

under

the proposal, although the

Section

21(d)

permit exemption will still

be in effect,

those

facilities will be explicitly required to meet

the same design,

operating, closure,

and post-closure requirements

as will off-

site facilities.

Benefits were estimated to be

substantial, especially with

respect

to reducing

the potential for groundwater contamination

from landfill leachate.

Avoided costs include cleanup and

remediation.

The study

notes

that

there

is substantial

disagreement about how to place

an economic value

on the

degradation

of

a natural

resource, certainly on

a Statewide

basis.

The annualized

incremental

costs

for development and

operation of new onsite and off—site landfills combined

is

estimated to be about

$42 million by the year

2005.

This estimate

assumes that only “new”

facilities,

as defined

in the proposal,

will

be operating

at that time.

Also,

during the early years,

the incremental annualized cost

to operate and close existing

facilities, both off—site and onsite,

is estimated to be $75

million.

This cost will decline

to the $42 million estimate

for

2005 because new landfills

(which includes new units

at existing

109—25

---

—26—

sites)

will begin

to replace those upgraded and operated under

the Board’s proposed interim standards.

Disposal costs were estimated to rise to about $7.37/ton for

existing landfills and

not more

than $3.58/ton for new

landfills.

If these costs are wholly passed on to

residences,

there would

be

a resulting increased disposal cost

of about $0.89

and $0.43 monthly per household respectively; however,

if

a

community’s existing landfill had to close prematurely under the

proposal, there would be additional

temporary cost increases.

Future costs may also be avoided under the proposal by the

reduction of the rate of

leachate generated,

the amount

of

leachate available

for escape,

the reduction of

leachate contact

time,

the quality control over

liner construction,

and improved

monitoring and response requirements.

While

a comparative

analysis

is difficult,

a rough estimate

of annual savings

Statewide

in operating and maintenance costs

resulting from fewer

future remediation projects at off—site landfills was estimated

to be about

$14 million per

year.

Regarding

onsite facilities,

the capital costs

for remediation are estimated

to

be

reduced by

$46 million total; assuming that about one—half of

the sites will

eventually require remediation,

operations and maintenance

savings

at

these sites are estimated

to be $15 million per year.

The study also noted that an unquantifiable,

but

potentially

significant, benefit was avoided costs to

repair

damage caused

by landfill

gas,

including gas induced explosions

and damage

to final cover vegetation,

and the health and

environmental threat from escaping, potentially toxic,

landfill

gases.

While other direct and indirect benefits and costs were

identified,

they were considered minor

in relative

terms.

THE DECISION TO PROCEED AT THIS TIME

At pages

23—42

of

its February,

1988 Opinion,

the Board

presented an overview of the

Illinois waste disposal

system,

and

then went on to discuss,

at pages

43—52,

the inter—relation

between

the proposed rules and various anticipated governmental

actions

in the waste management

area.

The state of

the

law has

changed little since

that time.

USEPA

has not promulgated RCRA

Subtitle D regulations governing the disposal

of nonhazardous

waste.

The rulemaking review of groundwater standards mandated

by the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act

(codified

in pertinent

part’as Sections 14.4(a) and 14.4(c)

of the Act)

is

in progress,

109;26

---

—27—

but

is

the subject

of such vigorous debate

that

it

is presently

uncertain as

to when

these rulemakings will

be completed.*

In

1988,

the Board cited two “overriding arguments

in favor

of expeditious action”,

the first

of which was:

the

need

to

facilitate

siting

of

new

and

expanded

landfills

which

are defined

as

“new

regional pollution control

facilities”

subject

to

the

local

government

site

location

suitability

approval

process

of

Sections

39.1

and

40.1

of

the

Act,

commonly

known

as

the

SB172 process.

(p.

33)**

This need

is even more compelling

today than

it was

in

988.

The legislature

is

currently studying

SB

172,

and the

Governor commissioned

a recently report

on the subject.

It

is

clear

to the Board that the status of

these proposed landfill

rules

is an integral component of

the debate over landfill siting

which

is expected to occur

in the legislative session this

spring.

Given the 90 day notice requirements

of the APA

(a

45

day first

notice period

for

receipt

of public comments,

and

a

45

day second notice period

for

review by JCAR),

it

is problematic

as

to whether

tne Board could have

landfill

rules adopted before

the end of

the session on June

30,

even assuming expedited review

of comments by the Board.

It

is

the Board’s goal, however,

to

submit

proposed rules

to JCP.R

for second notice as early this

spring as is

practicable; once proposed rules are submitted to

JCAR,

the only changes which can be made

are those responsive to

JCAR comment.

If

this goal

is

to be achieved,

the Board cannot

at this

time act on some of

the suggestions

it has received

for

“improvements”

to the proposal,

particularly as

they relate

to

definitions and changes

to the scope

of the rules.

The Agency,

fOr

instance,

has requested that the Board address the issue of

when

a discarded material

should be viewed as

a “waste”,

rather

*

These proceedings are P89-5,

Proposed Amendments to Title

35,

Subtitle

F:

Public Water Supplies

(Parts 615 and 616)

and P89—14,

Groundwater

Quality Standards

(35 Ill. Adm. Code 620).

**

The second reason was

“the need

to collect data concerning

the operations and effect

of landfills which enjoy

the Section

21(d)

on—site exemption from permitting and whose activities

have

accordingly been largely exempt from scrutiny.”

This

issue has

since been legislatively addressed to some extent

by

the addition

to the Act

of Section

2l(d)(3),

which requires

some permit-exempt

facilities

to notify

the Agency every three

years

as

to specified

aspects of

their operation.

109—27

---

—28—

than

a recyclable

resource.

(P.C.

21)

The Agency correctly notes

that

this has been

a problem in the RCRA hazardous waste program,

and the Agency

is also correct

in

noting that

this

is

a problem

which deserves attention.

However,

this

is an

issue which has

not previously been the subject of discussion

in this proceeding,

and certainly was not within the scope of

the economic

impact

study..

To open this subject

(or any other about which

there

is

little or no prior

record) would substantially delay the adoption

of those regulations as

a whole.

‘As NSWMA has aptly stated

“further delays

in establishing new regulations will

be costly

as

unregulated

facilities will do more harm to the environment and

result

in substantial clean—up burdens”.

(P.C.

20)

The Board acknowledges that the above

SB172—based comments

do not apply to the

industrial, permit—exempt onsite landfills

which would also be subject

to some portion of the proposed

rules,

as these landfills

are not

subject

to the SBl72

siting

process.

However,

the environment

does not distinguish

as

to

whether

a potential contaminant source

is

a permitted one or

not,

and the data generated concerning onsite landfills since

the

Board’s

1988 Opinion

(p.41-43)

indicates that design and

construction standards

for

such sites

are highly variable.

The

Board sees

no useful purpose

in indefinitely delaying the

invitation

of closure

by

those

at

industrial

landfills that do

not conform to today’s

basic expectations

for environmental

protection.

As discussed

in detail later

in this Opinion,

rather

than countenancing any across—the-board delays,

the Board

is

proposing

a

short

delay

in applicability of the proposed

regulations

for new facilities

for certain industrial groups

which have exhibited

some diligence

in addressing the

environmental consequences of operation of

landfills to dispose

of their wastes.

EcIS ISSUES

A number

of comments addressing

the EcIS were received,

which are discussed below.

Comments from NSWMA

The Illinois Chapter

of

the

NSWMA

submitted

a number of

comments.

(P.C.

20).

We do not see where

the statement

by NSWMA

that the costs

to

comply would be higher

for on—site facilities

as compared with

off—site facilities

is

at odds with

the conclusions

of the EcIS.

NSWM.A does not feel that

the EcIS adequately addressed the

impact on downstate businesses and homeowners from premature

facility closings.

The EcIS concludes that many,

if

not all,

of

the

29 small

landfills

(1—29

acres)

may be

forced to close

prematurely because

they might

not have

the financial ability

to

109—28

---

—29—

stay open.

The EcIS noted that landfills generally may only

prematurely close facility units rather

than the whole facility;

however,

a small landfill may not

be able

to recover the

incremental

costs

of about

$31.45/ton of solid waste disposed

to

remain open after

1992,

or about

$40.49

to remain open after

1997.

it noted

that the impacts

for haulers would occur

only as

related

to the time difference between the scheduled closure date

and the premature closing date, and that the cost increases

will

eventually be passed on to generators under

new contracts,

assuming that

the hauling distances are longer.

The LoIS did not

attempt

to quantify

the increase

in hauling costs,

stating that

it

is not possible

to identify

the landfills affected, and

whether

the wastes would be re—routed

to an existing or

new

landfill

that could be closer

or farther

away.

The EcIS

concludes that

the incremental cost

impact

is expected

to be

relatively minor and of

relatively short duration.

(EcIS 6—5,6;

also see Section

5 and 7).

NSWMA asserts

that

‘it would appear”

that

few small

facilities could pass on

such an increase

in their

tipping fees

and that the

result would be

long distance transfer

or increased

illegal burning and dumping.

(P.C.

20, p.1)

We do not see where

the EcIS failed

to consider the tipping

fee consequences postulated by NSWMA.

Regarding the assertion

concerning

increased illegal activities,

if

small landfills were

to close prematurely,

the EcIS does factor

in the incremental

costs as

related

to the size of the landfill

as well as other

factors

(e.9.

see Table

5—1), and we fail to see how the short

term effects of premature closure, ~

se, would be

a controlling

factor.

We also question whether the illegal activity

speculation

is any more valid

as related

to

a small landfill

closure

in

a rural

area than it

is

to

a large landfill

closure

in,

for

instance,

the Chicago metropolitan area.

We also point

out that an operator can seek

relief

by way

of

a variance,

adjusted standard,

or site specific rulemaking petition.

Regarding financial assurance,

and NSWMA’s concern about the

availability and costs

of

financial assurance given

the

30 year

post—closure coverage required,

the financial assurance

provisions have been amended somewhat

to account

for

the increase

for those facilities covered

by the statutory

requirement

for

such assurance.

We request comment on these changes,

but remind

NSWMA

that any fundamental problems with the financial assurance

reculations that are

not

related to this R 88—7 proposal

will

have

to be

dealt with

in another proceeding.

NSWMA commented

that,

while

the EcIS concludes that

the

enhanced groundwater monitoring

requirements will help prevent

significant clean

up costs,

it did not discuss the

impact,

particularly on non—monitored,

unlined onsite facilities.’

NSWMA

asserts

that

such facilities may have

to pay more

to clean up the

109—29

---

—30—

groundwater

as

a result of

identifying the problem through the

improved monitoring programs.

We can only note that,

the

earliera problem is detected,

the less

the cleanup costs are

likely to be,

so the costs could be

relatively

less for

cleanup,

not more.

NSWMA comments that the estimated cost of leachate treatment

was underestimated because

it assumed that

the leachate would

be.

discharged into

a sewer tributary to a wastewater treatment

plant,and that few sites have sewers available and the costs

for

off—site industrial treatment are high.

Also,

NSWM.~.asserts,

the

transportation costs

for

le’achate were

not

included.

We do not

know the basis

for NSWMA’s assumption

that

the charges imposed

by

a wastewater treatment plant, plus

the potential costs

of

pretreatment, would necessarily

be

less.

NSWMA also challenged

the validity of using

the Agency’s

“green sheets”

as

a baseline

for evaluating

the new regulations,

since

they are not standards.

We believe that the EcIS

acceptably defended the use

of these documents as

ar

aid

in

computing

incremental

costs.

These documents are

in

fact used

for permit

issuance

in the absence

of detailed Board regulations,

and,

erom

a practical economic comparison standpoint,

we

believe

that it was not inappropriate

to use them for

determining

incremental

costs.

Section

811.323

(previously Section 811.406) of

the Board’s

proposal

includes requirements

for operators

to random check

incoming loads

for hazardous waste.

If such wastes are found,

the operator

is

to set such waste

aside, cordon

it off, and take

certain steps to assure

that

the waste

is properly cleaned up and

transported and disposed

of, with the hauler bearing such

costs.

NSWMA believes

that

the LoIS understates

the costs

to the

operator

(see EcS pp.

6—18

to

6-20)

because

it does

not

include

direct and indirect

costs

such as potential insurance or other

liability exposure, whether

a RCRA permit might

be

required,

and

hazardous waste training requirements.

We suggest that

the

hazardous waste liability would exist

in any event;

however,

the

existence of specific,

enforceable, regulatory

steps designed

to

reduce

the likelihood of disposal

of hazardous waste

loads at

the

facility should be more liKely

to provide the

reassurance or

lessen

the impact

in

the

areas of concern than would be the case

if these provisions did

not exist.

We also note that the EcIS

appeared to factor

in the training requirements referred

to.

WMI Comments

WMI,

in P.C.

#23, disagreed with

a number

of conclusions

presented in the LoIS.

WMI asserts that the EcIS should have included the costs of

model

recalibration or assessment monitoring,

which

it asserts

109—30

---

—31—

are significant.

W.’41

references

a

recent

three year assessment

monitoring cost

of over S250,000

for one particular

landfill,

also noting that no release from the landfill has been

confirmed.

It asserts

that

the costs of remodeling and

recalibration ranges from $30,000

to $100,000,

and hydrogeologic

studies

required by modeling

exceedances and false positives

would cost

from $20,000

to $100,000.

it asserts

that

the Act

would be violated

oy the failure

to consider the

technical

feasibility

of the proposed modeling

or

to consider the economic

reasonableness with regard

to assessment monitoring and

recalibration.

(P.C.

23,

p.

12,

21)

WMI’s assertions

reflect

its basic disagreement

over the

avaiability

and use

of modeling

for compliance

and remedial

action purposes.

We believe

that the extensive

record

on this

subject

supports the use of modeling

for

this purpose.

The issue

was again raised at the LoIS hearings,

and discussed.

We

take

note of

the post—hearing comments of DENR, which summarized

its

view that modeling

is an effective tool

for the purposes intended

and listed

a number of

references

of successful modeling efforts,

a list requested

at hearing,

DEN?. stated:

The

track

record

of

ground

water

modeling efforts

has

shown

that modeling

is

a

reliable science that

should

not

result

in

excessive

costs

to

the

facilities... .Therefore,

assessment

monitoring

costs

are considered

rernediation costs

in

the Ec1S

because assessment monitoring

is

expected

to occur

only when

the

facility

leachate

containment

system

has

failure

and

contaminants

are

discovered

in

monitoring wells,

not

when

the modeling

effort

has

failed

to

predict

the

expected performance

of

the

system,

short

of

a catastrophic

failure.

For

this

reason,

it

is

not expected that an increased number

of

false

positives

would

necessitate

assessment

monitoring,

nor

would

it

require

model

recalibration.

As

one

cannot

predict

the accuracy

of

the

modeling

effort,

one

can

only

assume

that

‘the model would

be constructed adequately,

and the

statistical

probability

of

false

positive

analytical

results

would

be

considered within

the

modeling assumptions.

(P.C.

22,

p.

2,3)

We also note tnat WM

did no:

identify the nature

of

the

facility

it referenced and the circumstances surrounding

the

expenses incurred.

WMI

also believes

that the groundwater

standards,

which

apcly’in practice only

to putresoicle

landfill operations,

are

“unsuDDorted,

tecnr.icallv

infeas:dle, economically unreasonable

and unfair

in

their appi~:cat~on’

,

anc

toat

it

~s not pcss~b1eto

109—31

---

—32—

use modeling “to show no increase above background”.

(P.C.

23,

p.

13)

We believe that the record supports the justification for

incremental costs presented

in the EcIS.

WMI’s comments reflect

its continuing disagreement over the modeling issue,

which

comments have been addressed above and

in the STS report.

WMI criticizes the EcIS

for

using Agency “green sheets”

for

determining incremental

costs

for offsite landfills,

but

not for

onsite

landfills.

We note that,

in the absence

of permit

or

other

related. records

for onsite landfills,

the LcIS

understandably used another approach for estimating incremental

costs. We also note, as discussed earlier,

that NSWMA

felt that

onsite incremental costs may

be

underestimated.

WMI also believes that the costs of permitting

are vastly

underestimated.

It based

this statement on an asserted cost

approaching

$5 million

for

the recent balefill project.

Even

accepting the figure as

correct, we have

no idea as

to how much

of those costs are related

to the absence of

regulations

on which

both the Agency and the applicant

can rely.

IERG Comments

The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

(P.C.

24)

criticizes

the EOIS

for

its failure

to make

a finding

that the

proposed performance

standards can be met

by an operator’s

compliance with the design standards or

that such standards are

“reasonable and necessary for

the protection of

the environment”.

(P.

2).

We question the basis

for IERGs expectation that such

a

finding

is required

in the LoIS.

In any event,

by testimony and

comment, referred

to earlier,

it

is clear

that the EcIs

contractors believe that such standards can

be met.

We also note

that

it

is the Board,

in adopting record—based regulations,

that

must make the regulatory decisions concerning environmental

protection,

and that the test

is whether

the regulations are

arbitrary

or capricious.

IERG also points out that

the

contractors

justified the economic benefits

by demonstrating the

reduced need

for

remediations

of existing and future

sites,

but

did not demonstrate that most

such sites would have required

remediation or

“been subject

to remediation under existing law or

practice”.

(P.C.

24,

p.

2)

We

suggest that

the LOIS contractors

would

not,

as

a matter

of practicality,

be able

to demonstrate

which

sites might

require remediation

in the future.

(see

p.

26,

infra).

As

the contractors

repeatedly stated,

using existing

Agency data and data generated from those responses

they rece.ived

to questionaires which

they circulated,

that they were unable

‘

even

to identify all

of

the sites which would be regulated by the

proposed

rules.

In any

event,

we believe

that the technical

record and

LoIS data developed

in this proceeding

supports the

assumption

that many

sites may need remediation under existing

109—32

---

-33-

law

and practice, and

in many cases

the need

for

remediation will

not

be identified

until

after

an environmental upset

occurs.

Board Conclusions Concerning

the Economic Reasonableness of

the

Proposed Regulations.

After considering

the LoIS and other

economic information

in

the record,

pursuant

to Section

27(b)

of

the Act,

the Board

determines

that

the proposed regulations are economically

reasonable and that

they will

not

have an adverse economic impact

or. the people of

the State

of Illinois.

BOARD COMMENTS CONCERNING PARTICULAR RULES

As earlier

explained, where

the Board has adopted

modifications

to the February,

1988 Opinion as suggested by the

STS

in its analysis

of public comments,

as

a general matter

the

rationale will not

be set

forth here;

this Opinion must

be read

in conjuotion with

the ETS response

to comments

(Lx.

26), which

in

turn’ must be read

in conjuction with the STS Background Report

(Lx.

1).

To the extent that

the STS response

to comments

presents options

for Board consideration,

the Board will here

address

the options where deemed appropriate.

The Board notes generally

that,

in response to JCAR

concerns,

the

number

of definitions

in Part 810 have increased,

and numerous minor amendments have been made in other Parts.

Such amendments are largely grammatical and typographical

corrections; cross references

to the Act, various other

Acts,

and

Board

rules;

and deletion of phrases such as

“sufficient

to”,

“necessary

to”,

‘~enouchto”,

and

the like.

These are not

specifically pino.ointed

in

this Opinion.

The Board

does note,

however,

that

it was not

its

intent

to change the meaning

of the

rules proposed

in

1988.

Where

a response to JCAR concerns could

have

a major effect on the rules,

the Board has requested

comment.

Deletion of Proposed Amendment

to Section

106.410

In the February,

1988 proposal,

the Board had proposed

to

amend

its procedural

rules

for RCRA adjusted standards

to

encompass adjusted standards

for

these rules.

This amendment

is

no

longer necessary,

as the

Board. has adopted general

rules

for

adjusted standards

at

35

Ill. Adm.

Code l06.SubpartG.

These

rules are referenced

as apProPriate witnin the proposa~as

a

whole.

The Board also notes

that

its February,’l988 Opinion

(pp.

52—53)

discussed,

and declined

to adopt

IERG’s suggested addition

of

a

“generic”

rule to allow

for adjustment

of any standard

in

the proposed

rules.

The Board oel:eved

that the language of

Secr~cn28.1 precluded sucn act..

S:nce

that

time,

Section

109—3 3

---

—34-

28,1 has been amended to provide

for

the relief ILRG had

requested.

Section 807.105 Relation

to Other Rules

The Agency has strongly

recommended

“the concept that these

rules should represent minimum waste handling requirements

in

Illinois, applicable

to all wastes,

including hazardous wastes

except

in case of conflict with RCRA requirements.”

(P.C.

21,

p.

2).

The Board declines

to do so

for

a number

of reasons.

If there

are

to be any “patching-in” amendments

to the

hazardous waste

regulations,

it

is more appropriately done

in

a

RCRA proceeding.

Exactly which of

these rules should apply to

hazardous wastes has not been aired at all

in this proceeding.

What

is more stringent and not

in

conflict with RCRA is not

easily determined.

For example,

the Agency has pointed out

that

these

regulations require

that groundwater monitoring must occur

on

a quarterly basis,

whereas the Board

has determined.

that

RCP.A

monitoring

is semi—annual.

There

are potential, differences

in

test methodologies,

contaminants

to be monitored,

etc.

that do

not

lend themselves

to easy identification and resolution.

The

approach taken regarding design and performance standards,

and

operating standards are different between the two sets

of

regulations.

We agree with IERG comments that wholesale application of

proposed Parts

810 through 815

to hazardous waste landfills

“would present a major disruption of the Illinois hazardous waste

program and destroy its parallelism with the federal program”.

(P.C.

24,

p.

10).

Even

if

it

is true

that some of

the hazardous

waste facilities might

be subject

to

less stringent standards

than

those

for non-hazardous waste, we

do not agree

that an

anomalous result will occur;

this assumes that non—hazardous

waste facilities are inherently of lesser environmental concern

than hazardous waste facilities.

We suggest that the concerns

might

be different,

but

that they are not unequal.

Section 810.103 Definition

Defining Landfill

to Determine Regulatory

Scope

One of

the most fundamental

tasks

in framing regulations

is

to make as clear

as possible what operations are subject

to the

regulations.

When the Board proposed the

instant regulations on

February

25,

1988,

it re—titled the proposal

to reflect

its

intent that these regulations

apply

to non—hazardous waste

landfills.

Included are those

landfills exempt from the

requirement to have a permit pursuant

to Section 21(d)

of the

Act.

.109—34

---

—35—

It

became clear

that the Board would have

to defer

to

another proceeding

the crafting

of

regulations

to properly

address the rest of the universe

of

storage,

treatment and

disposal solid waste

facilities.

If the Board attempted here

to

be all

inclusive,

it was clear

that

the development

of

a record

to accomplish this

would

ever,

further postpone

the adoption of

the landfill regulations.

The comments themselves point

out

the

difficulty of distinguishing what

is

a landfill, much less

distinguishing other

types of

facilities and the

related

questions as

to what constitutes storage,

transfer stations,

treatment,

recycling etc.

in

a

regulatory context.

We fully

share

the concerns

about

the potential environmental

impact

of

other activities;

however,

as

earlier explained,

to

fail

to

address an area of

critical concern now,

and. instead wait until

some future time when

we can address everything

is

unacceptable.

We also wish

to preserve the enforceability

of

these regulations

by assuring

that they are not selectively

applied.,

i.e.

that pieces

of

the regulatory scheme are ignored

in

an attempt

to expand

the universe.

We note

that these

issues

were addressed

in

the first

P88-7

First Notice Opinion and

further addressed

in

R

88-8,

Census

of Solid Waste Management

Facilities Exempt

from the Permit Requirement

as Provided

in

Section 21(d)

of

the Act,

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

808,

February

25,

1988..

Defining what

is

or

is

not

a

landfill

requires one

to look

at other

long standinc terms

of art such as

land application or

treatment units,

surface

impoundments, and waste piles.

The

testimony and comments clearly indicate that

the definitions need

improvement, and we have proposed language changes that

more

clearly reflect distinguishing features among these

terms.

However,

the definitions

must

also be

read

in conjunction with

what the

re~u1a:orystandards

require an operator

to abide

by.

As noted earlier,

any

selective application

of

the regulatory

provisions are not allowed

unless specifically provided

for

in

the regulations themselves.

We are proposing

to change the definitions of land

application unit

(and

to delete the definition of

land treatment

unit),

landfill,

surface

impoundment

and waste pile and are

repeating

them here

as follows:

“Land application unit”

means

an area where

wastes are

acronomically spread over

or disked into land or otherwise

applied so

as

to become incorporated into the soil surface.

For

the purposes of

this Part and

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

811

throuch

815,

a land application unit

is not

a

landfill;

however,

other

Parts

of

35

Ill.

Ado.

Code:

Chapter

I

may

apply and may include the permitting requirements

of

35

Ill.

A~lm..Code

309.

109—35

---

—36—

“Landfill” means

a unit

or

part of

a facility

in or

on which

waste

is placed and accumulated,

over time,

for disposal, and

which

is not a land application unit,

a surface

impoundment

or

an underground injection well.

For the purposes of this

Part and

35

Ill. Ado. Code

811

through

815, landfills include

waste piles,

as defined

in this Section.

“Surface impoundment” means

a natural

topographic depression,

man—made excavation,

or diked

a area into which flowing

wastes,

such as liquid wastes or wastes containing free

liquids are placed.

For the purposes

of this Part and

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

811 through

815,

a surface impoundment

is not

a landfill.

Other

Parts

of

35

Ill. Adm.

Code: Chapter

I may

apply

including the permitting

requirements of

35

Ill. Ado.

Code

309.

“Waste pile”

means

an area on which noncontainerized masses

of

solid, non—flowing wastes are placed for disposal.

For

the purposes

of this

Part and

35

Ill.

Ado.

Code

811 through

815,

a waste pile

is

a landfill,

unless

the operator can

demonstrate

that

the wastes

are not accumulated

over

time

for

disposal.

At

a minimum,

such demonstration shall

include

photographs, records

or other observable or discernable

information, maintained

on

a yearly basis,

that show that the

waste

is being removed for utilization or that there

is

a

plan

for disposal elsewhere.

The term

“landfill” always connotes disposal, unlike

the

other

terms, which can connote storage,

treatment or disposal.

We

have retained the term “disposal”

for

landfills,

but have removed

the word “disposal” from the definitions of land application unit

and surface impoundment;

defining them

in terms

of disposal,

as

opposed

to treatment or

storage,

is not necessary

here,

since

they are not proposed

to

be regulated under

this proposal

in any

event.

Another distinguishing,

though

not unique,

feature

of

a

landfill

is that the waste

is accumulated over time.

This may

or

may not

be true

of

a

surface impoundment,

but

neither the record

nor

the proposed regulatory scheme

really addressed what kinds

of

reaulations would

be approPriate

for

the various

“pits, ponds and

lagoons”

in this state.

The definition

is

intended

to clarify

what must

be shown

to avoid being

regulated as

a

landfill;

a

flooded out dump would

not

be exempt.

As earlier stated,

regarding

a land treatment unit,

we note that the

term

is more

appropriately

a

land application unit.

Whether

the activity is

for

treatment or

not

is

not

relevant

to this proceeding.

Also,

the word “agronomically”

has been added

to make clear

that,

if

waste

is accumulated over

time at

a

rate greater

than the

agronomically determined

rate’,

the unit

is subject

to being

regulated as

a landfil~l, no matter what

it

is called.

‘There must

be some clear,

positive interactive

relationship shown between

109—36

---

-37-

the soil and the amounts incorporated.

If

the activity

is

serv~naan agronomic purpose,

then req~iring such tnings

as

liners

and. daily and final

cover

would

not make

sense.

Regarding waste

piles,

we continue

to believe that there

is

no persuasive

reason to treat

them as other

than landfills

as

a

general

proDosition.

However,

we have specified

the showing

an

o~erator oust make

(i.e.

that

the wastes are not accumulating

over

time)

to allow for

those activities where

the waste

is truly

being

routinely removed,

for whatever purpose.

We recognize that

there will probably be more “gray areas”

to be resolved here than

elsewhere.

Part

of

the problem

is the mentality

that

has grown

up over the years

that

“it couldn’t

be

a landfill

if

it didn’t

start

as

a hole

in

the ground”.

We

no longer think

that

that

mentality is defensible.

In any event,

we believe

that, with

the

proposed language, operators of

temporary waste

piles would

be

well advised

to maintain records or other

information

for

documentation

if they do not wish

to

be

regulated as

landfill

operators.

It

is particularly difficult

for others

to easily

ascertain whether waste

is

or

is not accumulating.

The intent

of

the language

is

to put the onus

on the operator

to demonstrate

that

it

is

not.

In this context,

the Board

notes the concern of one of

its

Members that tighter regulation of waste piles could adversely

affect the agricultural community,

given

the common practice of

piling debris cleared

from fields and ditches

for

later

disposal.

The Board believes that

the above—described treatment

of wastepiles

‘exempts”

these

individual

from enforcement

provided that disposal

elsewnere does occur

on

a routine basis.

Finally,

the STS suggested definitions of storage and

treatment have been deleted

and.

an optional addition

to the

statutory definition of

“disposal” has been modified

accordingly.

The Board declines

to propose storage and treatment

additions a: this time,

for

reasons earlier explained.

Other Definitions

Many definitions which appear

in today’s proposal and which

did not appear

in,

or were amended

since,

the

1988 proposal were

added

or amended

at

the succestion of

the STS

in resoonse

to

puol~c comJnent.

(See Ex.

26, c~.$-l4).

Others were added

in

response to JCAR concerns.

Tnese :ncude dei~nitions for

the

following

terms:

borrow area;

NPDES;

100

year flood

plain;

25

year,

24

hour precipitation event;

100 year,

24

hour

precipitation event;

professional engineer; professional

surveyor;

perched aquifer;

POTW,

reoharce zone;

responsible

cnarge;

settlement;

sole source aquifer;

and waste

stabilization.

Where feasicle,

def:nit:ons were drawn

from the

Act or existing

defonitions.

10’)—37

---

—38—

The Board also notes

the Agency’s comments,

and the STS

response, concerning certain definitions

in Part

807 which are

not replicated

in Part

810.

(Lx.

26,

pp.

45).

The Board

generally agrees with the STS that wholesale replication

of Part

807 definitions into Part 810

is inadvisable.

However,

as

to the

specific definitions suggested by the Agency for

inclusion,

the

Board agrees that

“lift” and “working face” should

be defined and

has added definitions;

we believe

that “cover”

is adequately

described

in the context

of Part

811.

The Agency

is

invited

to

comment as

to whether there are other specific definitions

in

Part .807 which should

be added

to Part

810.

Section 811.101 Exemptions

from,

or Delayed Applicability of,

the

Regulations

IERG,

generally, and the groups

or associations representing

the steel,

utility and foundry

industries,

testified at

least as

far back as October,

1987,

that they wanted an exemption from the

regulations

for existing landfills,

and delayed applicability

from

th’e regulations

for new landfills,

the

latter request based

on

the time needed

for industry proposal and Board adoption of

general

rules applicable

to an

industry category

for new

landfills

only.

The latest

requested

time for delayed

applicability appeared

to

be

two years.

(P.C.

24)

The

Illinois Cast Metals Association and

the Illinois Steel

Group

expect

to submit

a proposal

jointly, with the

Illinois

Utilities submitting

a separate proposal.

The LoIS had

considerable difficulty

in

identifying and characterizing

the

industrial

landfills,

particularly since

they appear

to

be

primarily onsite

so

that

records of

tneir numbers and activities

are difficult

to obtain.

For onsite facilities,

four were

identified for electrical utilities

(Table

3—6 through

9),

four

for foundries

(Table 3—10),

and an uncertain number

for steel,

although seven are listed

for primary metals

(Table 7—2).

The

EcIS estimates that

there may

be about

74 onsite facilities

in

all,

but these numbers are uncertain,

as well

as

the numbers

by

category, with the possible exception of

the utility numbers.

Of

the

74,

there are 48

for which specific information

is known.

(EcIs

R.

178,

EcIS 3—30, Table

3—11).

The Board

is unwilling

to delay

the applicability of

its

regulations across—the—board

to the existing landfills

in the

above industrial categories.

We

do not find persuasive evidence

in the record

as

to why these existing

industrial landfills,

whether onsite or offsite,

should not comply with the

regulations.

We note that an existing landfill

is able

to remain

open

for

seven years,

during the phase

in period, with

considerably lessened requirements.

There

is

no

real explanation

in

the record as

to why these phase—in compliance requirements

would not,

for any of these landfills,

be both technically

feasible,

and,

as

indicated

in the EcIS,

economically

109—38

---

—39—

reasonable.

If

a landfill wishes

to stay open beyond seven

years,

there

is still

no

real

explanation

in

the record as

to why

none of

the remaining exist~nc 1andf~liscould

not comply with

those added requirements.

We

note tnat

the industries

do not

intend

to propose catecorical

regulations

for existing landfills,

and we are unwilling

to assume

that

these landfills,

without

exception,

merit

the kind of special consideration requested

here.

The Board

realizes however,

that much of

the regulatory

iangua9e

in Part

811 was drafted

to focus

on new facilities

or

units and that certain aspects

of those regulations were then

made “applicable”

to existing facilities and units

by other

parts

of

today’s proposal.

This segregated concept

leaves open

the

possioility

of confustion

as

to when any applicable obligation

of

Part

811

would

have

to be performed

oy existing facilities and

units.

The

Board believes

tnat most

if

not all of

the cuestings

regarding

“when” an existing

Ur,it

would

have

to perform certain

activities have been answered

by today’s proposal.

However,

the

Board specifically requests the participants

to review the

proposal

from this perspective and provide comment

on any

confustion

that might

appear.

IERG argued

that

the adjusted standard language in Section

28.1 of the Act

might

not provide

the relief requested,

especially

if the statutory language

is construed

as precluding

a

health and environment

based standard.

Also,

IERG asserts,

if

all affected entities came

in

for

an adjusted standard,

the Board

would be overwhelmed.

(P.C.

24,

p.

6).

The Board. does not accept this

line of

reasoning.

Section

28.1 does not preclude adjustment ‘to another

standard.

It

requires

a

showina

that “the

requested standard will not result

in environmental

or health effects substantially and

significantly more adverse than the effects considered

by

the

BOard

in adopting the rule of

general ap~licability”. (Section

28.l(c)(3),

emphasis added).

We do no: see why the standards

in

the landfill regulations,

as opposed

to any other

regulations,

preclude such

a

showina.

We sugces:

that

the lack

of data

regarding these landfills

is the problem,

not the regulations.

We note that even the onsite facilities identified

in Table

3—11

of

the EcIS have widely different designs, with some lacking

monitoring wells,

for example,

so

we

suspect

that we will not

necessarily

be inundated witn adjusted standard petitions.

Regarding the requests

to proDose regulations

of general

applicability

for

the industrial

categories,

we

note that the

Illinois Utilities

feel

that they

will

have

a proposal ready

to

file in November

of

1990;

the others were not

as specific.

The

Acency

strongly opposes any open ended exemption,

noting that

in

the Board’s February

25,

1988, Ooin~cn (at

o.

53)

the oroups

asse-tec

t’~t

tre

s’c~.~o~a

a cco~eteo

t.~ertec~ica~st...c~es

10

0~

3’)

---

—40—

by July

1,

1989.

(P.C.

21,

p.

1,2).

We will accommodate some

slippage for

filing of the proposals.

We will postpone the

applicability of

the rules

for new landfills for the three

industrial categories named

above

for two years,

only

if

the

proposals are filed

no later

than December

1,

1990.

It was not

at all clear

on the record

the number

of new

landfills

anticipated

in the near future

(the utilities appeared

to be

anticipating two),

but the effective stay here appears

to

be

a

reasonable balance from an environmental and industry

perspective.

We take particular

note that the Illinois Utilities have

been working on regulations

that would also include ash lagoons,

which are not covered

by these

regulations.

The Utilities noted

that

the Agency has been exercising

its technical

judgment by

requiring

three

foot

liners and monitoring wells when

issuing

NPDES permits.

The Utilities expressed

a concern

that

the lagoons

might become subject

to portions

of

the regulations as

a

de facto

action of

the Agency.

We can only note

that,

absent Board

specific regulations

for the

lagoons,

the Board will not prejudge

what Agency actions shOuld

be

in this area.

We strongly suggest

that it might

be prudent

for

the Utilities to propose their

lagoon regulations.

Section 811.306 Liner Systems

In its February,

1988 Opinion (p.56),

the Board requested

cOmment as

to whether the minimum thickness of

a clay liner

should be three

feet,

as proposed by the STS,

or five feet as

others suggested.

The STS continues

to recommend

to the Board

that the minimum

thickness of

a clay liner

be

established at three

feet,

on the

grounds that the efficiency ratio of leachate containment

i,ncreases rapidly

as

a clay liner’s

densit’y

is increased

to three

feet,

but that

the efficiency

ratio increase

is quite small as

the clay liner’s density

is increased from three

feet to ten

feet.

The STS emphasizes that the

liner thickness,

together

with

a comprehensive set

of construction quality assurance

requirements are required

to ensure that the clay liner,

placed

and compacted according

to specifications,

meets

the design

standards of

the landfill.

(Ex.

76, pp.23—29).

‘The Board has determined

to propose

a minimum of

five foot

th’ick compacted clay liner,

rather

than

the three

feet.

recommended at

first First

Not’ioe.

We fully

respect the

expertise reflected

in the

record and the expertise of our

Scientific/Technical Section that led

to the Section’s continuing

to recommend

a three

foot liner.

We recognize

that the design

and operating requirements

in these regulations change

the

traditional reliance on

a

liner, and so change

the liner

requirements themselves.

However,

from its own experience,

the

109—40

---

-41-

Board believes

it

is wise

to take

a more cautious approach with

the newly proposed regulatory

scheme; while

the regulations are

crafted

to include

a

number of checks and balances, we feel that

it

is prudent

to require an extra

two feet

to guard against

an

unanticipated potential

for error

in implementing

the regulations

that might

be sufficient

to cause more

reliance on the liner than

was

intended.

In so doing,

the Board notes Dr. Ham’s view that

while

there

is

some very good evidence that

a

three

foot clay

liner

is reasonable,

a five

foot clay liner

is

a reasonable

minimum which allows

for error~ in building the liner and changes

in material quality.

(R.

138,

139,

Lx.

3).

The Board also considered,

in addition

to the five foot

liner minimum requirement,

the merits of allowing use of

a three

foote compacted clay liner plus an artificial

liner

as

an

alternate minimum.

It can be argued that

the use of

two

materials can provide greater protection

than adding two feet of

the same material.

However,

the Board requests comment

about

the

merits

of relying

on an artificial

liner

for

this purpose.

Section 811.319 Procedures

for Groundwater Monitoring Program

The STS has recommended several clarifying changes

in this

Section, which

the Board

is including

in the proposed

rule.

(Lx.

26, pp.144-159).

The Board points out

the addition

of Section

8l1.319(a)(4)(B)(iii),

a suggested option which requires

an

operation

to notify

the Agency

in writing of any confirmed

increase

in the monitored level

of

a contaminant,

within

19 days,

and

to state

the source of

the increase.

The Board specifically

solicits comment concerning

the specified time

frame.

Additionally,

at

a Board Member’s suggestion,

Section

8l1.3l9(a)(3)

has been modified

to establish an organic

monitoring schedule

for existing,

as well

as

new,

wells.

Section 811.320 Groundwater Quality Standards’

This Section has been generally reworked by

the STS

to

clarify intent

in response

to public comments.

(Lx.

26, pp.158—

168).

The Board will

not

repeat

its reasons

for declining

to

defer

this

rulerrakirc until

completion of

rulemaking

required

under

the Illino:s Groundwater Protection

Act;

interested persons

are referred

to pages

47—52

of

the Board’s February,

1988

Opinion.

The Board notes

that the term “nondegradation”has been used

to describe the aopro.ach taken

in

these regulations.

“Nonde;radaticn”

is

a term of

art,

and

is no~meant

to be viewed

in the absolute sense

or

as

implyinc that

regulatory standards

adopted

in other Board

regulations

do not serve

to protect

the

environment.

Its use also requires the application

of

statistical methods and procedures

to ensure

that increases above

109—4 1

---

—42—

an established standard are shown

to be statistically significant

incr,eases.

Nondegradation also desoribe~sthe u’nderlying “100

feet

in 100 years” contaminant transport design and compliance

restrictions embodied

in the regulations,

and

in this context we

believe

that

the use of the term is appropriate.

The Board points out,

and specifically requests comments

concerning,

the optional one sentence addition to the end of

subsection

(d)(l)

contained

in the STS Responses

(p 84).

This

requires the operator to

1)

maintain onsite

a list of

the

groundwater background concentrations established pursuant to the

rule

and,

2)

provide

a copy

of the

list to the Agency,

and

3)

provide

to the Agency updated lists within

10 days after any

change..

The Board also wishes

to note

a difficulty presented by

Section 81l.320(e)(4)—(6).

In these

subsections,

in response

to

comments,

the STS has recommended

a specification of various

statistical tests

to’ be used

to analyze groundwater monitoring

data.

JCAP. has commented

that statistical

tests cannot

be

incorporated by

reference, which would require the Board

to

reproduce these voluminous materials

as appendices

to its

rules.

The Board

requests comments

as

to whether

the references

to the specific statistical tests should be deleted and replaced

with

a performance standard similar

to that contained

in

35

Ill.

Ado.

Code 724.197(i).

Part 8ll.Subpart

B

Inert Waste

Landfills

The Boar’d requests more specific comment from those who have

addressed the stringency of the

inert waste definition and the

sufficiency of the proposed groundwater protection safeguards

for

inert waste landfills.

Regarding the groundwater protection

safeguards,

some felt

that

a groundwater monitoring program

should

be included.

One Board Me~.~barfelt groundwater monitoring

as well as

location standards might

be necessary

to detect and

reduce harm from the inadvertent

or

intentional disposal of

unauthorized wastes.

We

request that any commentors specifically

identify what,

if any, components

of

a groundwater monitoring

program might

be appropriate,

as

well

as

the implications

of

such

requirements

for

inert

landfill classification and requirements

as proposed,

including the definition of inert.

We request that

commentors address the following components of

a groundwater

monitoring program: what hydrogeological

site investigations

should be required to establish the location and number

of

monitoring wells; what standard should apply and what

constituents should be monitored;

what would be the compliance

point

and what would trigoer

remedial action

(assessment

monitoring,

corrective action etc.); what reporting and operating

requirements should be

included;

and what requirements should

apply

to existing

facilities and

to new facilities.

Regarding

operating requirements.,

we

also request comment

as to whether

the

109—42

---

—43—

random load checking requirements

in Part 81l.Subpart

D,

or some

other

load checking

requirement, might

be appropriately added

to

these regulations

as

a safeguard against non—inert waste loads

coming

to the landfill.

We note that we do not wish

to delay the adoption of

the

regulations;

if necessary,

we believe

that

these

issues can

effectively be visited

in another proceeding,

given the two year

and seven year phase—in periods

in

the proposal.

Also,

we

believe that more data will

be forthcoming

as

the regulations are

implemented, which

should help

in crafting added requirements,

if

any.

In any event,

the Board will determine how to proceed on

these issues after

reviewing comments received during this second

First Notice period.

A Board Member

was also concerned that

the

inert waste

demonstration does not require

that acidity of

rainfall be taken

into account.

He noted that rainfall

in Illinois has an average

‘acidity

of about pH

4.2, and that

“inerts” ought

to be tested

with water acidified at least

to that level

rather than with

unacidi’fied water,

which

in

the Chicago area at

least

is on

the

alkaline side.

We note

that Section 811.202(b)(2), regarding

extraction

fluid

requirements, appears

to address the concern,

but we’request comment on this

issue.

Part 81l.Subpart

D Additional Standards for Management of Special

Wastes at Landfills

The Board

notes

that since

these

regulations were proposed

in 1988,

rulemaking activity concerning certain special wastes

issues has proceeded

in Docket P89—13(A),

In the Matter of:

IDENR

Special Waste Categorization Study,

Second Notice Opinion and

Order, November

15,

1989.

The

rulemaking implements

the mandates

of Section

22.01 and 22.9 of

the Act, which require

a)

review of

the manifesting system currently contained

in Part 809

for non—

hazardous special wastes and adoption of

an annual report

requirement, and

b)

adoption

of

a system of categorizing special

waste’s according

to their degree of hazard.

The P.89—l3A proposed rules would establish two classes

of

special non—hazardous waste.

Manifests for non—hazardous wastes

would

no longer

be

sent

to. the Acency,

but would, among

other

things,

be

retained

cr.site

and serve

as the basis

for periodic

reports

to the Agency

(quarterly,

in some cases, and annual

in

others).

The Board believes

it has revised Subpart

D to be consistent

with the R89—13A proposal.

The Board specifically requests

comments as

to whether

there are any lingering inconsistencies.

1

0’)— 4

3

---

—44—

Part:811..Subpart G Financial Assurance

As previously mentioned,

amendments

to the Subpart

G

financial assurance rules were discussed at the June,

1989

hearings.

These were largely technical amendments made

in

response to public comments,

as well as adjustments necessary to

accommodate the amendment to Section

22.17 of the Act which,

effective July

1,

1990,

extends

the period for monitoring gas,

water,

and settling at permitted. landfills from

5

to 15 years.

In the Board’s February,

1988 Opinion

(p.58),

the Board had

noted that

it was not proposing

to repromulgate the financial

assurance forms currently contained

in

Appendix

A, and requested

comment.

The Board

is

now

persuaded of the advisability of

retaining appropriate forms

in

the body of

its

rules,

and

is

accordingly proposing slight modifications to these

forms

in this

Order.

Additionally,

technical amendments have been made

in

response to JCAR concerns.

The language

in Part Bll.Subpart

D as

proposed in 1988 was largely

a verbatim repetition of the

language of existing Part 807.Subpart

F,

adopted

in 1985;

language which was acceptable

to JCAR in 1985 would appear to be

objectionable today.

Section 813.501 Annual Reports

Section 815.303 Information To Be Submitted

Sections 813.501 and 815.303 require

the filing

of annual

reports;

the first

by permitted facilities,

and the second by

permit—exempt

facilities.

At

the request of

a Board Member,

we

are proposing to direct that an additional

piece

of information

be filed with the annual report:

the waste identification report

required by Section 811.404.

These reports

contain chemical

analyses for each different special waste

(not each shipment of

special waste) handled

at

a facility.

The purpose

of inclusion

of

the annual filing provision

is

to make

these chemical analyses

available at

the Agency

for public inspection.

Several comments

requested greater public access

to

information regarding nearby

facilities.

The Board hopes mandatory filing of

the waste

identification reports with the Agency will go far

to satisfy

these

concerns.

Section 815.401 Scope and Applicability

The Board has proposed,

and requests comments concerning,

the addition of

a required quarterly report listing groundwater

background concentrations prepared

in accordance with

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 8l1.320(d)(l)

(see previous discussion of this

109—44

---

—45—

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS DOCKET

As noted

in the Board’s Order today,

the Board will accept

written comments concerning

this proposal

for

45 days following

the publication

of’ the proposal

in the Illinois Register.

In

their comments, participants should detail their questions and

concerns and,

in particular,

should identify which issues and

Parts,

if any, have not been covered

in the 30-odd hearings held

in Docke-t P84—17 and the

four hearings held in this docket, R88—

7;the Board

is not disposed

to have a

“replowirig of

old ground”

covered in P84—17 and in this docket.

In order

to expedite the

process,

the Board

is anticipating reserving one hearing date as

soon

as’ possible.

The date

arid

location will

be established

shortly by the hearing officer and will be mailed

to those on the

Board’s notice

list.

Board Members

J.

Dumelle and

B.

Forcade concurred.

1, Dorothy

M. Gum, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,~her~bycertify that ~e

above Proposed Opinion was adopted

on

the’

/~‘)

day of

/1~

~

,

1990, by

a vote

of.

‘

.

/.~

“

~

~/~2).

//

Dorothy M. q~n, Clerk

Illinois Pojiution Control Board