ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

17,

1990

IN THE MATTER OF:

DEVELOPMENT, OPERATING AND

)

R88-7

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR

)

(Rulemaking)

NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS

ADOPTED RULE.

FINAL ACTION.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by J. Anderson):

SUMMARY OF TODAY’S ACTIONS*

On August

2,

1990,

the Board received

a statement of no

objection from the legislative Joint Committee on Administrative

Rules

(JCAR)

to these landfill regulations

as proposed at Second

Notice.

(This statement was conditioned on certain agreed style

and format changes, which are identified

in the Guide

to the

Appendices

at the end of this Opinion.)

This JCAR action

completed the last procedural requirement necessary for final

adoption..

The regulations will become effective when they are

filed with the Secretary of State.

This

final Opinion and

accompanying Order

is

a culmination of an enormous effort by the

Board,

including its Scientific/Technical

Section, as well as the

*

At

the outset,

the Board wishes

to

cotmriend 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 Rao, 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—17 proceedings,

and as principal author of

the 1988 STS Recommendations.

The Board also acknowledces

the

contributions made

to the 1988 STS Recommendations

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

14.

Crowley,

who has served as

Hearing Officer

thrcuahout

these proceedings,

and who has

participated

in the drafting

of the Board’s Opinion and Order

in

this and related matters.

I

I.

—

S 3

---

—2—

participants, both in this proceeding and

its predecessor R84—l7

proceeding,

to vastly upgrade

the non—hazardous waste landfill

regulations.

These regulations apply

to nonhazardous waste landfills,

which include waste piles.

Both “municipal” and industrial

landfills are included, onsite and off-site,

permitted and

unpermitted.

The landfills are regulated by waste received

in

three categories: putrescible,

chemical, and inert.

Existing

facilities are divided

into three general groups,

based on their

level of compliance:

facilities that may remain open

for

an

indefinite period of time beyond seven years,

facilities

that

must close within seven years, and facilities

that must institute

closure within two years

or are already scheduled to close

in

that

time.

The proposal introduces

a new method of setting groundwater

monitoring standards which

ties

the site characteristics, design,

operation,

monitoring, and reporting into an integrated system.

The groundwater

standards also function as location and

performance standards.

The groundwater standards are based on

the background quality of groundwater;

the operator must

demonstrate that the landfill will not cause

a change in the

background water quality at a point no greater than 100 feet from

the landfill within

100 years

of closure of

the landfill.

The

regulations specify that a contaminant transport model

be used

for the groundwater

impact assessment.

The regulations also require compacted earth liners,

or in

combination with

a geomembrane,

and leachate collection,

treatment and disposal systems;

gas monitoring,

measurement

collection and management

system; detailed construction and

operating oversight

requirements; post—closure care

for

as many

years as necessary at each landfill to demonstrate that

contamination

is no longer

a problem;

a trigger mechanism for

prompt

remedial action where

indicated;

location standards

for

sensitive areas; and more intensive permitting and reporting

requirements.

This Opinion will include the procedural

history, and will

attempt

to recapture the issues as they developed following the

first First Notice,

the second First Notice, and the Second

Notice proposed opinions and orders adopted on February

25,

1988,

March

1,

1990 and June

7,

1990 respectively.

The Opinion proper

will include from prior opinions sometimes verbatim discussions

of

certain issues where we

feel

it will be beneficial

to have

the

subject matter

“all

in one placer’.

However, much of the material

showing

the development of

the

rules

in

response to comments

is

contained

in the three Scientific/Technical Section

(STS)

documents

that accompanied

the three earlier opinions noted

above, namely Exs.

1,

26 and 33.

Also,

to the extent

that the

regulations

reflect

the Board’s concurrence with the STS

II 4—4S4

---

—3—

recommendations

in those documents,

the Board accepts the

underlying

rationale,

with the exceptions

or additional

discussion being noted

in the Opinion proper.

Therefore,

the

Opinion will also include,

as appendices,

the three STS

documents; Appendix Al

is the March

7,

1988 Background Report;

Appendix A2

is the March

1,

1990 Response

to Comments; and

Appendix A3 is the June

7,

1990 Response to Additional Comments

on Proposed Parts

807,

and 810 through 815.

Please note, however,

that,

since persons who have been on

the notice

list

throughout have already earlier received the

Appendices,

these documents will not be included

in this mailing,

and will be later

sent only upon special

request.

MAJOR PARTICIPANTS

The record

in this matter,

developed

in R84—17,

Dockets A,

B, C and D as well as

in this R88—7 docket,

is too voluminous for

the Board to synopsize all

testimony or

comments presented.

At

the risk

of inadvertantly omitting someone,

we are listng the

following individuals and organizations have participated

in the

hearings.

cqe note that commentors are listed in the second First

Notice and the Second Notie.

The Agency

(“informal” Proponent

in R84—l7, Docket

A)

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

Scott

0.

Phillips,

Esq.

Enforcement Programs

Phillip Van Ness,

Esq.

formerly of Enforcement Programs

(currently employed by

the Board)

Virginia Yang,

Esq.

Enforcement Programs

II!~--4~Y~

---

—4—

Gary King,

Esq.

Enforcement Programs

Edwin

C.

Bakowski

Manager,

Solid Waste/UIC Unit,

DLPC

Illinois State Chamber

of Commerce

(Proponent

in R84—l7,

Docket

B)

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group.

The R84—17,

Docket B proposal was prepared by the Illinois

Waste Regulatory Committee of the ISCC.

Testimony concerning the

language of the R84-l7,

Docket B proposal was presented by:

Sidney M. Marder,

P.E.

Environmental Consultant

Jeffrey C.

Fort,

Esq.

Gardner, Carton and Douglas

(formerly)

The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

(IERG),

formed

in

1986,

is an affiliate of

the ISCC which currently represents some

36 Illinois Industries interested

in the development

of the

state’s environmental regulations.

(P.C.

50,

p.

1).

Since

formation of

IERG, ISCC has not participated

in the R84-l7 docket

as a separate entity.

IERG has been represented

in this

proceeding by:

Sidney M.

Marder,

P.

E.

Executive Director,

IERG

Katherine

D. Hodge,

Esq.

General Counsel,

IERG

James T.

Harrington, Esq.

Ross

& Hardies

In addition, both ISCC and IERG have sponsored technical

testimony in R84—17,

Dockets

B

& D and R88—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 and Illinois Cast Metals Association

David H.

Miller

Consulting Engineer

Michael Slattery

President,

Illinois Cast Metals Association

Thomas

M.

Barnes, Venture Manager

Outokumpu,

01

(sic)

1 14—486

---

—5—

Illinois Utility Industry:

Thomas Hemminger

Director of Water Quality, Commonwealth Edison

Thomas Kunes:

Executive Vice President,

RMT,

Inc.

Chairman, American Foundryman’s Society

Committee lOF on Water Quality

& Solid Wastes

Waste Management of Illinois,

Inc.

(Proponent

in R84—l7,

Docket

ci-

Various

representatives of Waste Management

of

Illinois

(WMI),

its parent corporation Waste Management,

Inc.

(WM,

Inc.),

and Waste Management

of North America

(WMNA),

another WM,

Inc.

subsidiary, presented testimony

in support

of WMI’s R84—l7,

Docket C proposal,

as well as considerable comment concerning the

STS R84—17, Docket D proposal and the Board’s proposal

in R88—

7.

The representatives

for Waste Management have been:

Peter Vardi

Vice President For Environmental Management,

WM,

Inc.

Gary Williams

Director,

Environmental Compliance WM,

Inc.

Ronald Poland

Director,

Environmental Engineering,

WM,

Inc.

John Baker

Manager, Environmental Monitoring Programs,

WM,

Inc.

John J. McDonnell,

P.

E.

Environmental Manager,

WM,

Inc.

Henry

L. Martin

Manager, Gas Recovery,

WMNA

Tom Tomaszewski

General Manager, CID Processing, WMI

Dale Hoekstra

General Manager, Midway Landfill,

WMI

Dr. Jay Lehr

Professor of Groundwater Hydrology, Ohio State University;

Executive Director, National Water Well Association

E. Clark

Boli

President, Meredith/Boli and Associates

1 IA—/;87

---

—6—

Carolyn Lown,

Esq.

WM,

Inc.

Percy Angelo,

Esq.

Mayer, Brown

& Platt

STS

(Proponent in R84—l7, Docket

D)

The STS sponsored the testimony of various witnesses

in R84—

17, Docket A, which testimony served as the basis

for some

components of the STS proposal supported by further

testimony

in

R84—17, Docket D and R88-7.

The STS witnesses and consultants,

and the subjects of their testimonies were:

Richard A.

DiMambro

ERM,

Inc.

former Environmental Scientist, STS

Morton Dorothy,

Esq.

Member,

STS

Dr. Harish G.

Rao

Chief,

STS

Dr. Richard C.

Berg,

Thomas

14. Johnson,

Dr. Bruce

R. Hensel

Dr. William R. Roy

Dr. Robert

A. Griffin

Illinois State Geological Survey

Dr. David

E.

Daniel

Assistant Professor

University of Texas

Dr. Robert

K. Ham

Professor of Civil

&

Environmental Engineering

University of Wisconsin

Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing,

Director

of Research

and Development

Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District

of Greater Chicago

Dr. Aaron A. Jennings,

Associate Professor

of

Civil Engineering

The University of Toledo (Ohio)

STS R84-l7D Proposal

as

principal drafter,

and

later

in R88—7

as

consultant

R88—7 proposal financial

assurance

R88—7 proposal-revisions

in response

to comments

Various geological conside-

rations regarding landfill

siting and potential

for

groundwater contamination

Hydrogeologic

Investigations

Landfill/Liners and other

earthen barriers

Generation and character-

istics of landfill leachate

and gas;

Inert waste

testing

A case history of landfill

leachate treatment at

a

publicly owned treatment

works

(MWRD Calumet Sewage

Treatment Works)

Groundwater contaminant

transport modeling

114—4SS

---

—7—

Bruce Hensel

State Geological Survey

Report, potential

for

groundwater contamination,

numerical estimates

Department of Energy

& 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 purposes

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 Zalcrnan,

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

The Board further notes

that

the Illinois State Geological Survey

is also a division of DENR.

DENR’s EcIS concerning the R88—7 was presented

at hearing by

employees

of DENR’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

11

4—45(1

---

—8—

individual waste management companies who have participated

in

this proceeding are NSWMA members.

In listing these companies

in

this section for convenience,

the Board

is not implying that

these companies are necessarily affiliated with NSWMA.

These

participants have been:

Joseph

R. Benedict

former Chairman,

Illinois Chapter, NSWMA

Director of Regulatory Affairs, Sexton Companies

Dr. Charles A. Johnson

Technical Director, NSWMA

Dr. Edward Repa

Institute of Solid Waste Disposal,

NSWMA

Bob Peters

State Program Manager, NSWMA

Fred A.

Prillaman,

Esq.

Mohan,

Alewelt,

& Prillaman

James Anibroso

Chairman,

Illinois Chapter, NSWMA

Environmental Manager, Land

& Lakes,

Co.

Carl Ball

President, Environmental Reclamation Co.

Paul

DeGroot

President,

States Land Improvements Co.

Leo Lentz

Modern Landfill Co.

Francis

J.

O’Brien

Environmental Control Manager, Browning Ferris Industries of

Illinois,

Inc.

William A. Speary,

Jr.,

Esq.

Tenney and 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

representing a coalition of groups.

(Individual members of

these

groups are too numerous

to

list).

These have been:

Patricia A.

Sharkey, Esq.,

formerly representing

in R84—l7,

Citizens

for a Better Environment

(CEE),

I

14—4’~fl

---

—9—

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

R84—17, Docket

D,

on behalf of themselves

or their clients.

James Douglas Andrews,

P.E.

Andrews Environmental Engineering

Darryl Bauer

Baxter and Woodman,

Inc.

Daniel P.

Dietzler,

P.E.

Patrick Engineering,

Inc.

Richard

W.

Eldredge,

P.E.

Eldredge Engineering Associates,

Inc.

Roberta

L.

Jennings

Consultant Hydrologist

Other Companies

Gary Kolbasuk, Technical Manager

National Seal Company

Mark Steger,

Esq.

McBride,

Baker and Coles

Gerald

F.

Berry,

Sales Enaineer

Phillips Fibers Corporation

I 1!-4fl1

---

—10—

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Predecessor Dockets to R88-7

The Board will again summarize the procedural

history

in

this proceeding, but also

references

the reader

to summaries of

certain issues

in the three prior R88—7 proposed opinions.

The Board adopted

its “Chapter

7”

regulations covering

operations of sanitary landfills

in 1973.

These regulations,

since codified as

37

Iii. 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

l980s.

Docket R80—20 was initiated by a proposal of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

to update Chapter

7, and

Docket R8l—3l was initiated by a Board proposal

to update Chapter

9.

These proposals were consolidated and dismissed by Order

of

the Board on October

5,

1982,

after hearings indicated

that

extensive revision of the proposals was necessary.

In that

Order, the Board noted

that:

The Agency

and

the Illinois State

Chamber

of

Commerce

ISCC

indicated

that

they

were

working

together

on

a

substitute

proposal

which

would

replace

both

Chapters

7

and

9.

During

the

hearing

process

it

has

become

clear

first

that

the

subject

matters

of

Chapters

7

and

9

require

coordination

to

insure consistency

and,

second,

that

it

will

be

difficult

to

relate

the

testimony

on

the

former

proposals

to

the

evolving

combined

proposal.

The

Board

therefore

hereby

consolidates

R80-20

and

R81-3l,

and

at

the

same time dismisses

both.

In that same Order,

Docket R82—2l was opened

to consider the

anticipated Agency/ISCC proposal for permits

for waste management

and hauling, and Docket R82—22 was opened

to consider

the antici-

pated proposal

for landfill operating criteria.

The Agency filed

a proposal

in the R82—21 docket only,

which proposal was the

subject of hearings.

Both dockets were closed by Order

of June

16,

1983,

as

a result

of Agency withdrawal

of

its R82—21

proposal.

The proposal was withdrawn,

as the Agency believed

111-492

---

—11—

that the best solution to various problems identified

at hearing

was submission

of an amended and expanded proposal.

Docket R84—l7, was initiated

to consider

a draft proposal

filed by the Agency on May 31,

1984.

Two inquiry hearings were

held at which participants identified concerns with the proposal

and questioned

the Agency concerning

its intent.

At the last

hearing

the Agency indicated its intention of

filing a revised

proposal.

As the Board noted

in

its Resolution of December

6,

1984 announcing

its intention of committing some of the resources

of the Scientific/Technical

Section

(STS)

to this proceeding,

no

revised proposal had been submitted.

Although the Agency has

been a very active and helpful participant

in subsequent phases

of this proceeding,

it has not filed

a new proposal

or presented

evidence in support of

its draft proposal.

On April

4,

1985,

the ISCC filed an alternate proposal.

By

Order

of April

18,

1985,

the Board established R84—l7

Docket B

for consideration of this proposal.

Four hearings were held

in

Docket B concerning

this proposal.

On August

15,

1986, Waste Management

of Illinois filed

another alternate proposal, which

the Board designated as R84—l7

Docket C.

This proposal was the subject of nine hearings.

Concurrently with the hearings held

in Dockets B and C,

the

Board held additional hearings

in Docket A.

The purpose of

these

hearings was presentation

of testimony by various consultants and

other scientific

experts whose appearance was arranged by the

STS.

These consultants and other experts did not critique the

various proposals pending before the Board, but instead provided

testimony concerning their

research and experience concerning

subjects integral to analysis and/or development of comprehensive

regulations for the management of waste.

By its Order

of February

19,

1987,

the Board determined

that

only one additional hearing would be held

in Dockets

A,

B, and

C.

One basis

for this determination was that:

“The record

to date

in R84—l7

is

sufficient

to

enable the Board

to determine that,

while each

proposal has meritorious components,

no single

proposal

pending

before

it

is

sufficiently

refined or

comprehensive

to

be

adopted

by the

Board

as

the

Board’s

own

proposal

for

the

purPoses

of

first

notice publication pursuant

to

the

Illinois Administrative

Procedure

Act,

and

resulting

additional

hearings.

It

is

clear

to rhe Board

that

the Board

itself,

with

the assistance of

its

scientific/technical

and

legal

staff, must craft

a proposal

to address

11

4~4(13

---

—12—

the

sum

of

the

various

concerns

which

have

been brought

to the Board’s attention.”

The Order went on to establish

the form and procedures for

the filing of a proposal by

the STS,

including required filing

of

documents for public

inspection contemporaneously with

distribution

of copies

to the Board Members, consistent with ex

parte

restrictions articulated

in the Board’s

“Protocols of

Operation For the Scientific/Technical

Section”, RES 86—1,

January 26,

1986 and the Board’s Procedural Rules,

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 101.121.

By Order

of March

5,

1987,

the Board established that the

final hearing

in Dockets

A,

B,

and C would

be held on April

28,

1987,

that the public comment period would close on May

20, and

that the Board would commence deliberations on May

28,

1987.

Consistent with the directives

in the Board’s Orders of

February 19 and March

5,

1987,

on May

22 and May

26,

1987,

the

STS filed an initial set of proposed regulations consisting

of

new Parts

810, 811 and 812 with its supporting “Recommendations

for Non—Hazardous Waste Disposal Program in Illinois and A

Background Report To Accompanying Proposed Regulations For Solid

Waste Disposal Facilities”

(Background Report).

On June

12 and

June 21,

1987,

t,he STS filed another

set of proposed

regulations,

consisting of Parts

813 and 814 and a supporting Background

Report

By Orders of May

28 and June

22,

1987,

the Board authorized

the STS proposal

for hearing.

The May

28 Order established a

Docket D for consideration of the STS proposal.

The Board

expressly noted

that

it was taking no action

at that time on the

proposals

in Dockets A,

B,

C.

The STS proposal was the subject

of ten hearings.

To

expedite the proceedings, participants were required

to file

written questions and comments concerning

the STS proposal,

to

which the STS provided written

responses

to be discussed at

hearing.

The comment period was closed

in Docket D on December

30,

1987.

At hearing,

the STS had committed

to redrafting

various

portions

of the proposal

in response

to testimony and

to consider

redrafting

in response

to any subsequent written comment

received.

Accordingly,

the STS filed revised versions of various

portions of its proposed rules and Background Report on January

15, February

4 and 18.

Consistent

with prior practice

in this

docket,

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

January

5,

1988,

as

a matter of discretion and

to the extent that

time permitted.

1 14

--4(14

---

-13-

By Order

of February

4,

1988,

the Board adopted an Order

which realigned

its relationship with the STS.

The Board’s Order

stated:

The

Board

has

been

deliberating

the

STS

revised

proposal,

as

well

as

the

records

in

Docket

A,

B,

&

C since January

21,

1988.

The

Board has limited

its discussions with the STS

consistent

with

the February

19,

1987,

Order

and

the

Board’s

Protocols.

The

Board

has

found

that

in order

to fully and expeditiously

deliberate

these

matters

it

is

necessary

to

informally

consult

with

STS

staff

concerning

the technical details

in the voluminous R84—17

record.

As

the

bases

for and comments

concerning

the

STS proposal

are

a

matter

of

public

record,

the

Board

now

feels

that

it

may,

without

prejudice

to

the

integrity

of

its

process,

terminate

its

“arm’s

length”

dealing with STS

staff.

Accordingly,

as

of

this date,

the STS

staff

will

no longer

be

considered

“exterior”

to

the

Board

within

the

meaning

of

the

Protocols.

STS

staff

is

directed

to

resume

communications

with

the

Board

in

the

usual

Board/staff

relationship.

The

ex

parte

constraints

of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

101.121(b)

shall apply

to STS communications with persons

other

than Board Members and staff.

Deliberations continued on February

5,

1988.

On February

11,

1988,

the Board adopted an Order

directing

its staff

to develop a revised proposal

for

its consideration on

February

25,

1988 finding

that:

The

Board

is

in

full

agreement

with

the

essential

elements

of

the proposal.

However,

the

Board

wishes

to

see

regulatory

language

embodying

certain

concepts

which

either

are

not

contained

in

the

existing

proposal,

are

not

clearly

expressed,

or

are alternative

to

those presently proposed.

Docket R88—7

As earlier explained,

Docket R88—7 was opened by the Board’s

Opinion and Order of February

25,

1988.

The proposal wan

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

I 14-.’(13

---

—14—

June,

1989.

On June 16 and 20, the Board conducted two hearings

to receive into the record testimony and exhibits commissioned by

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

major

roles

in the R84—l7 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

A.

DiMambro, primary author

of the STS Recommendations and Background Report in the R84—17

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 EcIS

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.

In response

to the first First Notice proposal

in

1988,

the

Board received

24 public comments.

On February

16,

1990,

at

the Board’s request, JCAR submitted

its concerns and comments

(JCAR concerns), based on its

preliminary review of the 1988 proposed rules.

As was the case in the R84-l7 docket,

the Board directed its

STS to prepare for review by the Board an analysis

of

the public

comments received, and any recommended amendments

to the rules

which

it believed were warranted by the comments or hearing

I l/—4~)6

---

—15—

record.

As earlier stated,

the STS comments were marked as

Exhibit

26.

Then,

on March

1,

1990,

the Board adopted a second First

Notice Opinion and Order.

As explained

in

greater detail

in that

Opinion,

Section 5.01(d)

of

the APA requires a

repeat First

Notice

if more than one year has passed

before going

to Second

Notice.

The one year period had expired April

25,

1989

during

the period in which

the required Economic Impact Study

(EcIS) was

being prepared.

The rules proposed by the Board

in its second First Notice

Order were published

in

14

Illinois Register

3834 et

seq., March

16,

1990.

There were a number of changes from the first First

Notice proposal.

The Board also scheduled another hearing, held

on April

6,

1990, and accepted comments until May 1,

1990.

‘As

noted

in the Second Notice Opinion,

14 comments were

received.

On June

7,

1990,

the Board adopted its proposed Opinion and

Order

for Second Notice and submitted it

to JCAR, which

considered it at its July

26,

1990 meeting and, as noted earlier,

voiced no objection.

SPECIAL ISSUES

As stated earlier,

the earlier adopted Opinions and Orders

and the STS documents have been structured

to “track” the issues

raised at the 35—odd hearings and the public comments, and the

ongoing regulatory language responses.

We do not feel

that it

would add

to an understanding of the

regulations

to regurgitate

or otherwise re—discuss them here.

In most all instances the

issues have not been re—raised as the proceeding went forward.

However,

there are

a number of important areas

that bear

repeating here either because

the issues have been a source of

confusion or ongoing contention,

or

because we perceive

a need

for emphasis.

The EcIS

The Act requires the Board to consider

the results of the

EcIS and other economic information

in the record.

Thus,

we

believe that

it would be appropriate

to repeat here the summary

of the EcIS contained

in the second First

Notice.

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

(Ex.

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

~4

q

7

---

—16—

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 EelS where

the

EelS’

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 Agency’s 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 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 increase 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.

i14—4~R

---

—17—

Further 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 second First Notice Opinion includes the Board’s

consideration of,

and response

to, the issues raised

in comm~nts

and testimony at hearing, which will not be revisited here,

except insofar as they involve the issue of contaminant transport

modelling, which

is discussed below.

The Board, pursuant

to

Section 27(b)

of the Act,

repeats here its determination that the

regulations

“are economically reasonable and that they will not

have an adverse economic impact on the people of the State

of

Illinois”.

Definitions

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.

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 even further postpone the adoption of

114—49~

---

—18—

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 R88—7

First Notice Opinion and

further addressed in R88—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 standing 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

improvements, and we have adopted language changes that more

clearly reflect distinguishing features among these

terms.

However,

the definitions must also be read

in conjunction with

what the regulatory standards 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 have included

the term land application unit

(in place of

land treatment unit)

and made changes

to its definition as well

as to

the definitions

of landfill, surface

impoundment and waste

pile.

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 and

is not

going to be removed from the site.

This may or may not be true

of

a surface impoundment, which receives wastes

in liquid form

and where the solid residues accumulated over time may be

transported

to another site for final disposal.

Further the

record developed during this lengthy proceeding did not

focus or

114—590

---

—19--

elaborate on what kinds of regulations 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 termed a land

application unit

in the context of solid waste.

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

landfill,

no matter what

it

is

called.

There must be some clear, positive interactive

relationship s1iown between the soil and the amounts

incorporated.

If the activity

is serving an agronomic purpose,

then requiring such things 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 proposition.

However,

we have specified the showing an

operator must make (e.g.

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

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 operators

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 waste piles “exempts”

these individual

from enforcement

provided that disposal elsewhere

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 declined

to propose storage and treatment

additions at this time,

for

reasons earlier explained.

11 4—501

---

—20—

Part

811 Subpart B Inert Waste Landfills

The Board requested 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 Member felt 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 requested 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 requested that cornmentors 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 trigger

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 requested

comment as to whether the random load checking requirements

in

Part 8ll.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.

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

unacidified water, which

in the Chicago area at

least

is on the

alkaline side.

We requested comment on this issue to ascertain

the adequacy of

the Section Bll.202(b)(2), regarding extraction

fluid requirements.

After

reviewing the comments and testimony at the hearing,

following second First Notice,

the Board concurred with the STS

proposal for more stringent regulations

for

inert waste

landfills.

The Agency did not address this question and

no other

comments with real specificity were received.

At hearing,

it

was

pointed out that there

is

a need

to assure that leachate can be

sampled,

if

that

is what to be monitored over time.

(R.

635,

636).

The STS questioned

the benefits of using a monitoring well

approach without

the concommittant hydrogeological

investigation,

and instead had proposed a random load checking system similar

to

that for non—inert landfills,

while continuing to collect and

test the leachate itself

to determine compliance but

with

added

11

4-502

---

—21—

monitoring and reporting requirements.

If

subsequent

contamination is verified,

the landfill would lose its “inert”

classification,

and become subject

to the regulations applicable

to putrescible or chemical waste

landfills.

We believe that this

approach will serve the dual purpose of first providing

environmental protection against the future disposal of non-inert

waste, and at

the same time keeping truly inert waste from using

up air space in the putrescible

or chemical waste landfills.

Existing Landfills, Timing of Closure

There has been some confusion regarding Part 814 and how

it

applies

to existing facilities.

In addition to the STS responses

to questions regarding Part 814 contained

in Ex.

26, pp.249—255,

a more detailed description of

that

Part is provided below.

All existing

landfill facilities are required to notify the

Agency (in accordance with Section

814.104),

within six months of

the effective date, principally with regard

to the facility’s

estimated date of closure of existing units and state whether the

facility

is subject to the requirements of either Subpart

B,

C,

D

or

E.

Pursuant to Part 814,

if an existing facility

is unable to

meet the requirements of Subparts B or

C and

D,

then it

is

subject

to Subpart D and such

a facility will have

to initiate

closure within

2 years of the effective date of

the Part subject

to the existing operation and closure standards of Part

807.

All

other existing facilities subject to Subparts

B,

C or

D are

required

to submit information,

as required by

.35 Ill.

Adrn.

Code

812,

to the Agency demonstrating compliance with the appropriate

Subpart.

Such information

(for unpermitted facilities), or an

application for significant modification of a permit

in

accordance with 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 813

(in the case of permitted

facilities),

is to be filed with the Agency within

48 months of

the effective date of the Part or an earlier date specified by

the Agency.

One example of when an earlier date may be specified

by the Agency is

a situation in which

the existing unit or

facility,

subject

to Subpart

D,

has plans

to close within

4 years

(48 months)

of the effective date of the Part.

An existing facility accepting

inert wastes only

is

subject

to Subpart

B,

if

it remains open indefinitely

(after

the

effective date) and

is able to meet the requirements of

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

811 Subparts A and B.

An existing facility accepting chemical and putrescible

wastes

is subject

to Subpart

C,

if

it

remains open beyond

7 years

after

the effective date of the Part and

is able

to meet

the

following:

1 14—~0i

---

—22—

1)

Requirements of

35

Ill. Adm. Code 814.302(b)

for an effective

leachate management system, protection against slope failure,

calculation of the design period for purposes of financial

assurance; and

2)

The requirements for new units specified

in 35

Ill.

Adm. Code

811 except

for the exemptions specified in

35

Ill. Adm.

Code

814.302(a).

The major exemptions are with regard to the

location standards,

foundation and mass stability analysis

standards,

the liner and leachate drainage and collection

requirements of Part 811,

final cover requirements and the

comprehensive hydrogeological site investigation

requirements.

However, hydrogeologic information sufficient

to establish a groundwater monitoring program to meet

the

water quality standards of

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 811.320

is

required.

An existing facility accepting chemical and putrescible

wastes

is subject to Subpart

D,

if

it remains open beyond

2 years

but no longer than

7 years after

the effective date of

the Part

and

is able to meet the following:

1)

Requirements of

35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.402(b)

regarding

prohibition against expansion of the facility or accepting

new special wastes, meeting the groundwater standards as

specified in

35

Ill. Mm. Code 8l4.402(b)(3) and calculation

of the design period for purposes of financial assurance;

and

2)

The requirements for new units specified

in 35

Ill. Adm. Code

811 except

for

the exemptions specified in

35 Ill.

Adm. Code

814.402(a).

The major exemptions are with respect

to the

location standards,

foundation and mass stability analysis

standards,

the liner and leachate drainage and collection

requirements, the hydrogeological site investigation

requirements,

the groundwater

impact assessment standards,

the groundwater monitoring

requirements and the groundwater

quality standards of

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 811.320.

Another area concerning Part 814

that requires further

explanation is the issue of which rules are applicable to new

units at existing facilities.

A question was posed

by Mr.

King

from the Agency during

the April

6,

1990 hearing concerning

the

potential for conflict between the applicability sections of Part

811 and Part

814 and asking whether Part 811 or Part 814 applied

to new units at existing facilities.

The response provided by

Dr.

Rao at hearing was as follows:

“Part

814 would

be applicable

to

new units

at

existing

facilities.

However,

the applicable

standards would come

from Part 811.

So there

114_50L

---

—23—

are

certain

parts

of

811

that would apply

to

new units at existing facilities.”

(R.

435—436)

It should be noted that the response

invokes the

applicability of Part 814 because an existing facility

is

involved,

and

is correct

in that Part 811 standards would be

applicable.

We believe that some further explanation is

desireable.

However,

it should be kept

in mind that any

application of Part 814 must

be viewed from the perspective of

the Board’s primary goal

—

to bring the State’s landfills under

the regulations

for new landfills as quickly as possible.

We

emphasize that the term “new unit”

(and “new landfill”)

in these

regulations are defined

in Part 810 and “come into being” after

the effective date of these regulations, and refer

to units

first

receiving

a load of waste after the regulations are filed with

the Secretary of

State.

How Part 811 applies

in Part

814 must be

read in this context.

The requirements of Part 811 apply

to all

new units,

unless

the Board grants special relief

in these

regulations or

later

by

way

of,

say, an adjusted standard.

Part 814 addresses the special concern of how to regulate

existing landfills as they are phased—out.

The two year/se~~en

year/beyond seven years

time frames for closure and accompanying

requirements of Part 814 obviously apply to existing units

already receiving waste at the time the rules become effective.

The applicability of Part 814 to what we will call,

for purposes

of discussion only,

“permitted” new units,

i.e.,

units which were

permitted but had yet

to receive the first load of waste,

is not

so obvious

if such units are

in existing landfills subject

to

either the requirements of Part 814,

Subpart D

(i.e.

standards

for existing units

that may not remain open beyond seven years)

or

the requirements of Part 814,

Subpart C

(i.e.

standards for

existing units that may remain open beyond seven

years).

Those “permitted”

new

units

in an existing facility subject

to Part 814,

Subpart

D are

to be treated as existing units as

long as

the following two circumstances exist.

First,

they were

permitted before

the term

“new

unit” had come into effect and,

second,

the units do not expand beyond the area included

in the

permit.

Waste may be placed

in such “permitted” new units

subject

to

the requirements

in Part

814, Subpart

D,

including the

requirement

that that they remain open

for

no longer

than seven

years.

The Board further

notes

that Subpart D does not allow new

units

to be opened,

meaning that

an operator wishing

to extend

further beyond what was previously permitted must comply with the

requirements

of Part

811.

Unlike Subpart

D,

“permitted”

new units that

have yet to

receive waste,

in an existing facility subject

to Part

814,

Subpart

C are not treated as existing units because

they can

potentially remain open for a much longer period of

time.

The

11!,—

5

r~

5

---

—24—

requirements

of Subpart

C for existing units,

those that are

already receiving wastes, do take into account the extended

period of time that the unit will

remain open as well as the high

costs of retrofitting existing units.

Liner Depth and Composition

Only the Agency continued

to insist on

a minimum 10 foot

liner.

The Board believes

that

it would clarify the Board’s

position by repeating comments

in the Second Notice Opinion.

(p.

9)

The

issue of

liner depth and composition persisted

throughout this proceeding.

The first First Notice proposal

included the recommendation by the STS, which remained unchanged

throughout,

that a minimum earth liner of three feet provided an

adequate margin of safely, given

the performance standards,

the

requirements for construction quality assurance, hydrogeological

investigations,

liner construction and foundation, ongoing

leachate collection,

etc.

The Board recognized

that these

interrelated design and operating requirements reflected a

technically supported conclusion

that,

in terms of environmental

protection,

the traditional heavy reliance on

a liner as a

containment barrier

is an inferior approach.

However,

it

requested comment on the advisability of

increasing the liner

to

five feet

(p.

56).

After further testimony and comments,

the Board concluded,

in its second First Notice Opinion,

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.”

(p.

41).

The Board then requested more comment about

the merits

of

a three foot compacted clay liner plus an

artificial

liner

as an alternate minimum.

After considering testimony and post-hearing comment

at the

hearing following the second First Notice request,

the Board

agreed with the explanation and recommendation of the STS that

this alternate minimum be allowed.

The Board stated that the

record “indicates

that

a three foot compacted clay liner plus

a

geomembrane liner directly applied on top of

it has demonstrated

capabilities equal or

superior to the recompacted five foot

liner,

at

least

for non—inward gradient landfills, both

in terms

of leachate capture and as a leachate barrier”.

(p.

6).

The Agency,

in reference

to Section 811.306, continued

to

insist that anything less than

a minimum

10

foot liner

is

insufficient protection of the environment.

(see Para.

7). The

Board believes that

its proposal

for

a minimum five foot liner,

as well as

its proposed alternate of

a three foot liner plus

a

geomembrane,

is more than justified by this record.

In addition

114—506

---

—25—

to the comments of

the STS, we make the following observations.

Except

for the Agency’s “fence post” problem which we have taken

care of,

the Agency has not presented any scientific or technical

justification as

to the environmental enhancement to be gained by

requiring a minimum ten foot liner

in the proposed regulatory

scheme.

Nor have others.

Nor have the other participants agreed

with the Agency’s position.

It was generally recognized that

these regulations are crafted to change

the traditional reliance

on a liner.

The issue then was whether the minimum liner

thickness should be three feet or whether

it should be five

feet.

For example, while supporting five feet

as an add-on

safeguard,

the McHenry County Defenders and

the Citizens

for

a

Better Environment,

in a jointly filed Comment, nevertheless

state:

Based

on

the

STS

Background

Report

and

testimony presented

at

hearing,

we agree

that

a

three—foot

thick clay

liner,

constructed

in

relatively

thin,

well

compacted

lifts

to

achie~e

field

hydraulic

conductivities

of

1x10’

cm/sec

or

less

can provide

sufficient

containment

of

contaminated

leachate,

when

used

in

combination

with

a

properly designed

and operated leachate collection system.

(P.C.

11,

p.

4,

June

6,

1988)

The Board believes that this record amply supports the

superiority of

the panoply of detailed site hydrogeology

investigations coupled with the design and operation of leachate

control systems embodied in these

regulations.

We

particularly

disagree with the Agency’s blanket assertion, without any

documentation whatsoever,

that allowing the minimum

5 foot liner

places

the State behind other states

in environmental controls at

“sanitary landfills”.

We strongly suggest that the Agency’s

selection of liner thickness as

its sole measure of comparison

with other

states’

regulations reflects undue,

and outdated,

dependence on the passive use of a liner

as the only means of

preventing

the escape of

leachate.

The record clearly shows

that

this dependence

is not justified.

In addition,

the Agency’s

assertion fails

to recognize that

a specific site location

is not

precluded from adopting

or being required

to

adopt

a

liner

thickness greater than the minimum

if conditions

at the site

warrant

it.

Section 811.101 Delayed Applicability of

the Regulations.

One of the more difficult issues

for the Board

to

“get

a

handle on” was

the request

from the steel,

utility

and foundry

industries

for a delayed applicability of

the Part

811 standards

for

new and

existing landfills.

Because we

feel that

the

114-507

---

—26—

situation

is still capable of causing confusion, the Board will

repeat here comments in the Second Notice Opinion.

Section 811.101(b) as had been proposed

in the second First

Notice provided for

a delayed applicability of Part 811,

Standards for New Solid Waste Landfills.

More specifically, the

effect of the proposed language was to “stay”

the applicability

of these rules

to new landfills, accepting waste only from the

steel, uti1ity~andfoundry industries,

for

the period of time

between the date when the regulations become effective

(i.e. when

they, are filed with the Secretary of State)

until December

1,

1990.

If the industries

filed a proposal

of general

applicability to the industry category no later than December

1,

1990,

then the “stay” would have continued in effect

for new

landfills for two years after

the filing with the Secretary of

State.

If

the industries did not timely

file, Part

811 became

effective immediately,

on December

2,

1990.

During

the period of

delayed applicability of Part 811,

the landfills were to be

subject

to the now existing Part 807 standards.

The Agency continues to strongly oppose granting any delayed

applicability of the regulations

to the steel,

utility and

foundry industries.

(see P.C.

34,

Para.

3)

It asserts that

persuasive evidence is lacking regarding a lesser environmental

threat by these landfills, and that the industries have had more

than sufficient

time to present

a proposal.

The Agency

recommends deletion of Section 811.101(b).

WMI also questioned the merits of the temporary exemption,

noting that the exemption could encourage the industries

to

establish new landfills to

a lesser design

in the interim, and

that,

while the utilities have made an effort

to prepare and

present alternative proposals,

the foundries have only done

studies, and the steel industry has yet

to present anything

demonstrating a good faith effort.

WMI asked how the new

landfills are

to be designed

in

the interim;

if

the purpose

is

to

subject such landfills

to industry specific rules,

then the Board

should make the new landfills subject

to the Board’s regulations

until

the new rules are adopted,

noting that there is no evidence

that the on—site operators are running out of space.

WMI thus

appears

to agree with the Agency.

WMI

also asked for

further

clarification as

to how on—site landfills can use alternatives

to

the basic Board standards,

and how they are

to proceed when

Agency approvals are required.

(R.

546-548)

The Illinois Steel Group and The Illinois Cast Metals

Association,

(Steel),

in

a

joint comment,

(see P.C.36) asserted

that IERG,

on January

2,

1990 (P.C.

24), had requested that

existing on—site facilities also be included

in the “stay,”

pending new industry specific

rules

for existing landfills.

Regarding new landfills,

they argue that they should

be subject

to the now—existing rules,

and should then be allowed

to make

1 14—5r~S

---

—27-

whatever modifications are necessary

to comply later with the

industry specific standard.

In support,

Steel argues

the anomaly

of having existing facilities,

receiving the exact

same waste,

having

to begin efforts toward retrofitting

if they want to stay

open beyond the two year

phase—in period in the new rules, while

new landfills would be presumably subject

to a lesser standard.

Steel suggests that the Board,

in proposing

a temporary exemption

for new landfills, apparently feels

that

there

is some merit

in

the industries’

belief that a lower degree of control

is

necessary for these wastes.

Steel wants,

therefore,

a two year

exemption for new facilities and the grandfathering of existing

facilities operated on—site, with the Board accepting

a proposal

in December applicable to both new and existing facilities.

Caterpillar

Inc.

(Caterpillar)

in its comments

(P.C.37)

noted that its Mapleton Plant

is

a gray iron foundry,

located

in

Peoria,

which operates an

82 acre onsite landfill into which they

dispose of

80

to 90 thousand tons per year of waste foundry sand.

They generally agree with the “proposed regulation language

previously submitted by the Cast Metals Association

(ICMA)

regarding monofills and beneficial

reuse”.

(We

note that we are

uncertain as

to what “proposed regulation language” Caterpillar

is referring to.)

Caterpillar asserted

that the landfilling

costs for the Mapleton Plant would go from $4.49/cubic yard to

$15.25/cubic yard,

a

240

increase,

if the company had

to dispose

off-site, and that this would represent an increased annual

disposal cost ranging from $645,000

to $710,000.

Caterpillar

also noted that off—site landfilling would reduce

the available

“public” volume

for wastes needing

“a high level of

containment”.

Caterpillar also asserted that the wastes

being

moved over public highways would increase, with

a

resulting

increase

in infrastructure wear,

traffic congestion and

increasing bureaucratic burden to

“follow waste handling and

transportation

in the public sector”.

We

can only note that the ground continues

to shift

regarding

the

industries’

intent,

timetable, and what they are

requesting,

including whether

their proposal would cover existing

landfills.

(See e.g.

R.

65,

and second

First Notice Opinion,

p.

38—40, which we believe

reflects the situation at

that time as

accurately as possible after careful review of a confusing

record).

For

the reasons expressed

in the second First Notice

Opinion,

we do not believe

this

record supports special

relief

for all

these already existing landfills,

whether called

“grandfathering”

or

“exemption”.

LJke any other existing

landfills,

they can singly seek

to demonstrate

the need for

temporary or long

term relief,

including during

the lengthy

phase—in period already provided

in these regulations.

There

also

is nothing

in the Act preventing

the industries

from

proposing generally applicable reaulations

as

to a category.

I

I4--5~°

---

—28—

Regarding the anomaly asserted by Steel

if we do not include

existing landfills,

we note that,

if there is any anomaly,

the

anomaly also supports the notion that the Board should not grant

any relief

to new landfills either.

Regarding new landfills,

the

Board particularly disagrees with the suggestion by Steel

that,

in granting

a “stay”, the Board has pre—determined the merits of

the proposals to be filed

in December.

Also,

we share

the

concern that the delaying of the applicability of Part 811 might

provide an incentive to industry to build new landfills

in the

interim,

so as

to be subject only to

the existing regulations.

We suggest, however,

that any industry doing

so

is truly “rolling

the dice”.

They would be gambling on what would be the nature of

the regulations that would apply

to them in the near future as

new landfills (the “stay” would not affect their designation as

new landfills).

In the interim,

the existing regulations in

large measure leave

to the Agency considerable flexibility as to

how they should be implemented or enforced, regardless

of

whether

the site requires a permit or

not.

Given

this situation,

we ourselves do not quite understand

why the industries have not moved more quickly.

We also again

note that

it

is not clear

in the record what number of new

landfills,

if any, are anticipated

in the near future

(the

utilities appear

to be anticipating two).

(See second First

Notice Opinion,

p.

40).

We also agree with WMI that

the record

gives little enlightenment as to whether the landfill operators

are running out of space.

This has been

a close call for the Board.

On

reconsideration,

we have determined

that

the best course of

action is

to grant only a one year “stay”.

This will serve

to

put the proceedings on a much shorter timetable and will also

provide the incentive

to the industries

to have their data ready

and submit their proposals as soon as possible.

We also note

that some clarifying language has been included

in Section

811.101(b).

Also, we will continue

to include off—site as well

as on—site landfills in the “stay”.

We fail to

see, and the

participants have not explained environmentally or otherwise, why

they want to exclude off—site landfills both from the “stay” and

from any December proposals they might

submit.

Our decision

to

grant the “stay” admittedly rests on the expectation

that the

industries will appreciate,

on balance,

the advantages

to them of

not installing new landfills during

the “stay” period unless lack

of air space

is

a critical factor,

and even then will consider

whether it might

be more prudent

to comply with these

new

regulations rather

than the old ones,

or

at

least seek a permit.

Finally, WMI also asked for clarification as

to how onsite

landfills,

those operating outside the permit

system, are

to

proceed

if

they wish to

use alternatives

to basic Board standards

or when approval by the Agency

is

required

if an alternative

is

to be used.

This question relates

to more than the “stay”

114—510

---

—29—

issue.

For example, Agency approval

is required

for use of

alternate daily cover materials, and

there any any number of

instances

in these

rules, such as where performance standards and

assessment and remedial action plans are involved, where onsite

operators arguably carry a greater risk of

a subsequent

enforcement action for decisions made by

them, outside a permit

setting, as

to what constitutes compliance with the rules.

This

is

a legal as well as

a practical problem that

is not

new, except

insofar as the problem will be larger with the new regulations.

Answering the question posed ultimately requires knowing what the

operator wants to do and looking

at

the individual rule involved,

considering the facts

of

a particular situation.

However, as

a

general observation,

the operator may have a number of options,

including seeking an adjusted standard before the Board;

voluntarily applying

for

a permit,

so that modifications can be

approved; informally consulting with the Agency if the Agency

is

willing;

simply taking

the course

of action with confidence

that

the rule allows

it, etc.

We note

that these proposed rules,

particularly the reporting requirements, reflect a conclusion by

the Board,

based

on the record,

that more needs

to be known about

the activities of onsite facilities.

Relation to the Groundwater Protection Act

The first First Notice Opinion contains an extensive

discussion of the relationship of

the landfill regulations and

the Groundwater Protection Act.

(see

pp.

47-52).

We note that

groundwater standards are being addressed pursuant to that Act

in

pending Dockets R89—5 and R89—14.

We believe that it

is

important to repeat here the essence of the Board’s response to

that portion of the discussion which evolved around whether the

compliance by landfills with the non-degradation standards as

enunciated in these landfill

regulations would somehow be at odds

with the

regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of the

Groundwater Protection Act.

We still see no reason why that Act

would inherently make the landfill regulations

not compatible.

We again repeat

that “the Groundwater Protection Act does not

explicitly require the Board

to adopt any specific regulations

and does not explicitly forbid the Board from adopting any

regulations.

In

fact,

that Act explicitly provides that

it

is

not intended to preclude the Board from exercising

its general

authority

to adopt regulations pursuant

to Title VII

of the

Environmental Protection Act.”

(pp.

51,

52).

Groundwater Modeling

Waste Management,

in particular, has challenged throughout

this proceeding

the availability and use of modeling,

particularly as proposed by the Board

for compliance and remedial

action purposes.

WMI has generally asserted that,

given

the

state

of development

of modeling for

this purpose,

it

is not

114—511

---

—30—

possible

to use modeling for the purpose of showing no increase

above background.

(See e.g. P.C.

#23,

p.

13).

While the Board has addressed this issue before, most

recently

in its second First Notice Opinion, we will again

address

it here.

The STS background report

(Ex.

1,

pp.

59—69) contains a

detailed discussion of the issues relating

to groundwater impact

assessment and the use of groundwater contaminant transport

(GCT)

models.

The report also discusses and addresses the questions

raised by

cortimentors regarding the use of GCT models by

identifying the purposes and advantages that such tools provide

in assessing the potential for contamination at

a landfill site,

and that modeling

is

a necessary and appropriate component of

the

proposed solid waste landfill regulations.

The technical support

for this position was primarily provided by Dr. Aaron Jennings,

who testified

in the earlier hearing

in the R84-l7A docket on

June

13,

1986, participated in several other hearings in 1987 in

the R84—17D docket and provided comments which are included

in

the STS Response

to Comments document

(Ex.

26).

During the

1986 hearings,

Dr. Jennings presented a detailed

review of the fundamentals of groundwater flow and contaminant

transport modeling and answered questions relating to his

testimony.

The Board in its first First Notice Opinion of

February 25,

1988

in R88-7 stated that

it was not persuaded by

comments theretofore filed that the use of GCT models

is

inappropriate, but that further comments would be entertained.

Waste Management

Inc.

in its P.C.

#23 continued

to argue against

the use of GCT models and questioned the appropriateness

of its

use.

Responses

to these comments were provided by the STS

in Ex.

26,

pp.

127—135 and pp.

193.

The Board also notes that the

Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources in P.C.

#22

provided several examples of cases and studies where groundwater

flow and contaminant

transport modeling have been successfully

used.

This information was provided at the request of WMI during

the questioning

of Ms.

Uhlman at the November 27,

1989 EcIS

hearing.

Ms. Uhiman

included the following statement:

“Briefly,

these

references

should

establish

that

groundwater

modeling

has

been

a

successful

tool

in

predicting

ground

water

advective

and

diffusive

transport.

These

models

have

been

applied

to

complicated

geologic

scenarios

and

have,

in

many

instances,

been

successfully

calibrated

and

verified.

A skilled hydrogeologist should

be

able

to

make

acceptable

predictions

using

these

readily

available

computer

codes.

Adjusting landfill facility design

in response

to

modeled

expected

and worst—case

scenarios

114—512

---

—31—

will reduce the need for assessment monitoring

and the potential for facility failure.”

(P.C.

#22,

pp.

2)

Some further comments provided by Dr. Jennings after

reviewing the February 25,

1988 First Notice language and public

comments stated as follows:

“Since

the

board

has

offered

to

entertain

further

comment

on

the

concern

that

contaminant

transport

modeling

is

inappropriate

as

proposed,

I

will

offer

the

following.

Most

of

the

criticisms

I

have

heard

are

thoroughly

flawed.

The

proposed

modeling

requires

that

designers

be

able

to

anticipate

the

most

serious

environmental

problems

of

landfills.

I

see

no

credible

justification for bypassing this requirement.”

“It

is

true

that

there

are

poor

models

and

poor applications

of good models.

Obviously,

I

would

not advocate

the use

of

poor

models,

or

the

application

of

models

by

people

not

sufficiently

competent

to

use

them

properly.

However,

I

feel the safeguards

built

into the

proposal

(specifically

the

requirements

for

model

documentation,

field

calibration,

and

results

sensitivity

analysis)

are

sufficient

to guard against gross misuse.”

“It

is

also

true

that

the transport problems

can

be

complex.

However,

if

the

proposed

operations

are

too

complex

for

competent

professionals

to

anticipate

with

the

best

available

scientific

models

(i.e.

by

engineering

analysis),

then

they

are

too

unpredictable

to be allowed.

‘Too complicated

to

understand’

is

a

very

poor

justification

for proceeding without understanding.”

“Finally,

on

several

occasions

I

heard

the

claim

that

one

could

not

know

what

the

leachates would be like until

the facility was

in

place,

and

without

this

source

strength

information,

the

modeling

could

not

be

successful.

This

argument

is

also

self—

defeating.

It

is

true

that

source

quantification

may

be

difficult.

It

may

require

the

synthesis

of

as

much

information

as possible about

the proposed source plus

the

judicious

use

of

estimation,

extrapolation,

assumption and

judgment.

However,

unless one

1 14—-SI 3

---

—32—

can

make

a

reasonable

assessment

about

the

magnitude

of

the

most

serious

environmental

problems, how could the facility be allowed at

all?

The argument of unknown source strength

also

implies

that

one

cannot

guarantee

essentials

like

liner

compatibility.

If

you

don’t

know

what

will

be

generated,

you

certainly can’t

know

that

the

liner materials

will

be

compatible.

Fortunately,

I

haven’t

yet

heard

this

as

a

reason

to

do

away

with

chemical compatibility analysis.”

(Ex.

26,

pp.

194—195)

At the June 29,

1989 hearings,

Mr. Bruce Hensel of the

Illinois Geological Survey presented

the results of a study

carried out, at the behest of the STS, on the potential for

groundwater contamination resulting from land burial of municipal

wastes

for several mapped hydrogeologic scenarios common

in

Illinois and to determine the appropriateness of

the compliance

distance of

“100 feet

in

100 years.”

Mr.

Hensel,

a

hydrogeologist, cautioned that use of

the model results described

in the ISGS study are necessarily generalized

for development of

regulations and policies and could not be applied to specific

sites.

He, however, noted that the use of models

in the Board’s

proposal for use

in the design

and enforcement stages of

a

landfill must use “extensive and rigorously collected site—

specific data”.

(R.

246).

Where a worst

case’ scenario

is

modeled,

the actual values measured would remain lower

than the

model predicted values.

(R.

249,

269,

270).

By worst case

scenario, Mr. Hensel did not mean plugging

in unrealistic

numbers; rather he meant

that the numbers should be reasonable.

A skilled modeler who knows geological uncertainties,

will take

weak data

regarding,

for example, dispersion and effective

porosity, and err on the more conservative side of

the range of

values.

(R.

282,

283,

286,

287).

He also 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.

It was noted by Mr.

DiMambro,

during

the June 1989 hearings,

that

it

is wrong

to characterize the Board’s proposal as being

dependent on modeling to meet the design criteria.

The design

and performance 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 be exceeded

in 100 years at

100 feet from the

waste boundary.

He also 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.

(R.

259—262).

The Response

to Additional Comments

(Ex.

33)

filed

by the

STS contains further clarification on the use and support

in

the

114—514

---

—33—

record

for

GCT

models.

STS

states

the

following

with

regard

to

WMI’s

P.C.

#38:

WMI

is incorrect

in believing

that modeling is

‘used

to

set

a

groundwater

regulatory

standard.’

Groundwater

modeling

is

a

tool

that

can

be

used

for

designing

landfills

to

meet

the groundwater quality standards outside

the

zone

of

attenuation

(i.e.,

“100

feet

in

100

years”

standard).

The

model

also

serves

to predict concentrations of contaminants

as

a

function

of

distance

and

time.

Increases

measured

above

a

predicted

concentration

can

provide an early warning

trigger for potential

increases

above

a groundwater

standard

at

or

outside the compliance boundary.

(Ex.

33,

pp.

38)

Based on the record before

it,

the Board again affirms that

the continuing arguments against

the use of GCT models

in its

proposed regulations are not persuasive;

there

is very little

technical support

for

that position.

Instead,

there

is

overwhelming support and information which establishes

that GCT

modeling has been used previously and can be implemented

in

carrying

out

groundwater

impact assessments, used for purposes of

establishing

a groundwater monitoring network and can be used

to

ensure compliance with the groundwater quality standards

applicable

to

a specific landfill facility.

The Board,

therefore,

continues

to believe

that the record supports the

inclusion of GCT models

in these

regulations and considers their

application to be both necessary and appropriate.

Part 8ll.Subpart

D Additional Standards for Management

of Special

Wastes

at

Landfills

We note that,

since these landfill regulations were first

proposed

in 1988,

the Board has proposed, and adopted on August

10,

1989 the regulations

in Docket R89—l3(A),

In the Matter of:

IDENR Special Waste Categorization

Stud~y. The Board has revised

Subpart D

in

these landfill regulations

so as to be consistent

with the R89—l3(A)

regulations.

We particularly note the changes

regarding manifesting and reporting.

Financial Assurance

We again remind those who desire

to revisit

the financial

assurance regulations that the Board

is prepared to open

a

separate Docket upon

receipt of any formal proposals

or,

alternatively,

to

first

consider

a request by way of an inquiry

hearing.

This instant proceeding clearly indicated that the

Board’s existing regulations need

to be generally revisited.

However,

as

earlier

stated,

in the Second Notice Opinion,

the

1 14-SI 5

---

—34—

Board believes

it advisable not to itself open a new Docket for

wto reasons: first,

based on its earlier experience

in R84—22,

where a Docket D was opened for amending proposals, but none were

forthcoming; and second,

the record

in this proceeding

understandably does not contain sufficient detail about

the

problems based on the anticipation that only problems related to

R88—7 would be dealt with

in this proceeding.

We will now proceed to the Guide

to the Appendices which is

intended

to assist

in locating varies portions of the attached

STS Appendices Al,

A2, and A3.

I 14—~16

---

35

GUIDE

TO APPENDICES

BOARD’S

FINAL

OPINION IN

R88-7

NONIIAZARDOUS

WASTE

LANDFILL REGULATIONS

The

appendices to the August

17,

1990 Final Opinion

in R88-

7

contains

the

following

three

documents

prepared

by

the

Scientific/

Technical Section

(STS)

of the Board

to provide the

technical support and rationale for the non-hazardous solid waste

1.

Appendix A-i:

Recommendations For A Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Program

In Illinois And A Background Report To Accompany Proposed

Regulations

For Solid Waste Disposal

Facilities,

March

7,

1988

(Exhibit

1,

R88—7)

A

Section-by-Section analysis

of

an

STS

proposal

for

regulating nonhazardous waste landfills was submitted in parts

to the Board

on

May

22,

May 26, June

12, and June 21,

1987.

The Board Orders of May 28 and June 22,

1987 established the

R84-17D

docket

to

consider

the

STS

proposal.

STS

filed

revised versions of various portions of its proposed rules and

background report on January 15, February 4 and 18,

1988.

The

Board

First

Notice

Opinion

and Order

(February

25,

1988)

opened

Docket R88-7

to

propose

rules

largely based

on the

information presented

in this document,

filed March

7,

1988,

2.

March

1,

1990

(Exhibit 26,

P.88—7)

This document contains the recommendations

provided by

the STS

in response to

public comments received during the

First Notice comment period.

The second First Notice

(March

1,

1990)

language reflects the changes made by the Board

to

address the public comments.

Most of the changes were based

3.

Response to Additional

Comments On Proposed

Parts

And 810 Through 815,

June

7,

1990

(Exhibit 33,

comments

received

during

the

second

First

Notice

comment

11

1.—

~

1 7

---

36

period

are contained

in this

document.

The Second Notice

language (June 7,

1990) contains the changes made by the Board

based on the STS’s recommendations

in this document.

STS notes that issues relating to changes made by the Board,

which

are

either

not

addressed

or

are

different

from

the

recommendations

in the above documents are discussed in the Board

Opinions filed

at First Notice

(February

25,

1988),

second First

Notice

(March

1,

1990)

and Second Notice

(June

7,

1990).

The attached Appendix Guide Table provides a listing of the

final

rules by Section numbers

and references the page number(s)

in

each of the above three documents addressing

that particular

Section.

The Background Report

(A-i)

provides technical support

for a particular Section and the other two documents

(A-2

and A—

3) provide responses to public comments and the rationale for any

changes recommended by the STS to that section.

114-51S

---

37

APPENDIX GUIDE

TABLE

Section

Page Numbers of Documents

in Appendices:

A-i

A-2

A-3

Remarks

PART

807

SUBPART A:

807.105

4

2

PART 810

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

810.101

13

j

810.102

13

j

810.103

13

4—34

2—4

J

810.104

J,NA

PART 811

STANDARDS FOR NEW SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS

SUBPART A:

GENERAL STANDARDS FOR ALL LANDFILLS

811.101

16

37

811.102

16

j

811.103

17

42,43

811.104

19

44

811.105

19

44,45

811.106

19

811.107

20

48,49,51

J

811.108

21

53

811.109

21

53,54

811.110

22

811.111

22

57,58

SUBPART B:

811.201

23

811.202

25

61

7

811.203

26

811.204

26

65

J

811.205

27

66

J

811.206

7

J,NA

811.207

8

SUBPART C:

811.301

811.302

27

69

114-SF)

---

38

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE

(Contd.)

Section

No.

Page Numbers of Documents in Appendices:

A-i

A-2

A-3

Remarks

811.303

29

71

811.304

30

J

811.305

30

811.306

32

78,79

10

3

811.307

38

80,81

—

811.308

39

82

—

811.309

41

83—89

11,12

811.310

45

92—96

12,13

811.311

48

97,98,100—102

13

811.312

53

106,107

14

811.313

54

108

—

811.314

55

110,112

—

811.315

57

115—120,122,124

15—17

3

811.316

58

127

—

811.317

59

127—132

17,18

811.318

69

135—143

18

3

811.319

75

145—155

19—25

3

811.320

77

161,164—168

26—29

3

811.321

92

168,169

30

811.322

92

811.323

170

30

J,NA

SUBPART

D:

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL

WASTES

AT

LANDFILLS

811.401

93

173

811.402

93

173—174

811.403

93

174—177

811.404

93

1.78

3

811.405

94

180

NA

SUBPART

E:

CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS*

811.501

94

811.502

94

184,185

811.503

95

186

30

811.504

95

31

811.505

95

187

31

811.506

95

31

811.507

95

189,190

32

811.508

J,NA

114—520

---

39

APPENDIX GUIDE

TABLE

Section

Page Numbers of Documents

in Appendices:

A-i

A-2

A-3

Remarks

811.509

J,NA

SUBPART

G:

FINANCIAL

ASSURANCE

811.700

96

197

32

811.701

97

197

—

811.702

197

—

NA

811.703

198,199

—

811.704

97

200—202

811.705

98

811.706

NA

811.707

NA

811.708

202

J,NA

811.709

NA

811.710

203—206

NA

811.711

207—208

NA

811.712

209

NA

811.713

209

NA

811.714

811.715

214,215

J,NA

PART

812

INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED IN A PERMIT

APPLICATION

SUBPART A:

GENERAL

INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR ALL LANDFILLS

812.101

98

218

812.102

98

812.103

98

812.104

98

219

812.105

98

812.106

98

220,221

812.107

98

221,222

812.108

98

223

3

812.109

98

812.110

98

224,225

3

812.111

98

812.112

98

225

812.113

98

226

812.114

98

227

812.115

98

812.116

98

I 14--521

---

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE

Section

No.

Page Numbers of Documents

A-i

A-2

A-3

Remarks

SUBPART B:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR INERT WASTE

LANDFILLS

812.201

98

812.202

98

812.203

98

812.204

98

SUBPART

C:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PUTRESCIBLE AND

CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILLS

812.301

98

227

812.302

98

3

812.303

98

228,229

812.304

98

229

812.305

98

3

812.306

98

812.307

98

812.308

98

229

—

3

812.309

98

—

33

812.310

98

812.311

98

231

812.312

98

812.313

98

812.314

98

812.315

98

812.316

98

3

812.317

98

232

3

812.318

98

3

PART 813

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTED LANDFILLS

SUBPART A:

813.101

99

3

813.102

99

813.103

100

233

813.104

100

813.105

100

813.106

NA.

813.107

101

813.108

101

813.109

101

236

3

I 14- 522

---

41

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE

Section

Page Numbers of Documents

in Appendices:

A-i

A-2

A-3

Remarks

813.110

102

238,239

34

3

813.111

103

240

34

3

SUBPART

B:

ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR MODIFICATION AND

SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION OF PERMITS

813.201

104

241

35

3

813.202

104

813.203

104

242

813.204

104

SUBPART C:

ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR THE RENEWAL OF PERMITS

813.301

105

813.302

105

813.303

105

813.304

105

244

813.305

105

SUBPART D:

ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR INITIATION AND

TERMINATION

OF

TEMPORARY

AND

PERMANENT

CLOSURE

AND

POSTCLOSURE

CARE

813.401

105

3

813.402

105

813.403

105

244

SUBPART

E:

REPORTS

TO

BE

FILED

WITH THE AGENCY

813.501

106

245

35

3

813.502

106

246

813.503

106

35,36

PART 814

STANDARDS FOR EXISTING LANDFILLS

AND UNITS

SUBPART A:

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

814.101

106

249

3

814.102

107

814.103

107

250

814.104

107

814.105

NA

814.106

NA

SUBPART

B:

STANDARDS FOR UNITS ACCEPTING INERT WASTE

814.201

251

NA

1

14--523

---

42

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE

(Contd.)

Section

No.

Page

Numbers

of

Documents

in

Appendices:

A-i

A-2

A-3

Remarks

814.202

251

SUBPART

C:

STANDARDS

FOR

EXISTING

UNITS

ACCEPTING

CHEMICAL

AND

PUTRESCIBLE

WASTES

THAT MAY REMAIN

OPEN

FOR

MORE

THAN

SEVEN

YEARS

814.301

107

251

814.302

108

251,252

3

SUBPART

D:

STANDARDS FOR EXISTING UNITS ACCEPTING CHEMICAL AND

PUTRESCIBLE WASTES THAT MUST INITIATE CLOSURE WITHIN SEVEN YEARS

814.401

110

253

814.402

110

253—255

3

SUBPART

E:

STANDARDS

FOR

EXISTING

UNITS

ACCEPTING

INERT

WASTE

ONLY,

OR ACCEPTING CHEMICAL

AND

PUTRESCIBLE WASTES THAT MUST

INITIATE

CLOSURE

WITHIN

TWO

YEARS

814.501

110

814.502

NA

PART 815

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

FOR ALL

LANDFILLS EXEMPT

FROM

PERMITS

SUBPART A:

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

815.101

111

257

3

815.102

112

SUBPART

B:

INITIAL FACILITY

REPORT

815.201

112

257

815.202

112

815.203

112

815.204

NA

SUBPART

C:

ANNUAL REPORTS

815.301

112

257

815.302

113

815.303

113

257

36

3

SUBPART

D:

QUARTERLY

GROUNDWATER

REPORTS

815.401

113

257

815.402

113

258

114—524

---

43

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE

(Contd.)

Section

No.

Page Numbers of Documents

in Appendices:

A-i

A-2

A-3

Remarks

SUBPART

E:

INFORMATION

TO

BE

RETAINED

ONSITE

815.501

113

258

815.502

113

3

815.503

113

Symbols

STS has not recommended any changes to these sections.

NA

Background Report (A-i) does not address or discuss these

sections.

3

The

Board

has

made

changes

in

these

sections

in

response

to

comments

received

from

the

Joint

Committee

on

Administrative

Rules

(JCAR).

The

Final

Notice

language

(Aug.

17,

1990)

reflect

these

changes.

*

Note that the Subpart E requirements at Section 811.501

through Section

811.507

are discussed

in Appendix A-i

under

Sections

811.601 through Section 811.607.

3.

Dumelle

and

B.

Forcade

concurred.

I,

Dorothy

M. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certif

that the above Opinion was adopted on

the

/7i’~day of

____

_______

1990,

by a vote of

~.

/-i~A~27.

~

Dorothy M.

Illinois Pollution Control Board

114--52 5