78269
78.271

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 28,

1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR OWNERS

)

 R84—l7

AND OPERATORS OF CLASS

 I AND

)

 Docket 0

CLASS

II

LANDFILLS

AND

FOR

)

GENERATORS

AND

HAULERS

)

SPECIAL

WASTE

PROPOSED

RULES

SET

FOR

HEARING:

ORDER

THE

BOARD

(by

3..

Anderson):

Summary

Today’s

Action

Consistent

with

the

directives

the

Board’s

Orders

February

and

March

1987,

May

and

May

26,

1987,

the

Board’s Scientific/Technical Section

 (STS)

 filed its “Recom—

mendations

 For A Non—Hazardous Waste Disposal Program

in

 Illinois

And A Background Report To Accompany Proposed Regulations For

Solid Waste Disposal Facilities”

 (Recommendation)..*

 These

proposed regulations would establish standards for the

design/development and operation of new facilities for the

 disposal of non—hazardous waste1.

For the reasons expressed

below,

 the Board accepts the Recommendations of the STS, and

orders that these proposed regulations be presented at hearings

to be held on June

 29 and 30,

 19871.

 In the interests of

distinguishing this proposal from the previously filed proposals

in R84—l7, the Board opens a new sub—docket,

 R84—17, Docket 0,

for consideration of the Board/STS proposal; the records in R84—

17, Dockets A,B, and C are incorporated into Docket

D..

Finally, no later than June 3,

 1987, the STS

 is directed to

prepare and file

 a revised version of the proposed rules and

background document1.

 The revised version of the background

document

 is to contain an executive summary;

 leave is further

given

 to correct typographical errors and to make those editorial

 At the outset,

 the Board wishes to commend the STS for the

quality of its participation in this proceeding1.

 A special

acknowledgment is due to Richard

 A.. DiMambro, both as coordinator

of the various consultants and other experts whose testimony has

been sponsored by the Board’s STS during

 the course of this

proceeding, and as principal author of the STS Recommendations..

The Board also acknowledges the contributions made to the STS

Recommendations by STS environmental scientist

 Dr.. Harish Rao,

Dr.. Gilbert Zemansky (during the course of his former

 employment

as STS Chief), and Karen Mystrik,

 STS librarian..

78.268

—2—

changes which were discussed by the STS orally at the Board

meeting..

 These revised documents, as well as this Order

 shall be

provided

 to the persons on the R84—l7 notice list..

Procedural History

The Board adopted

 its “Chapter 7” regulations covering

operations of sanitary landfills

 in 1973..

 These regulations,

since codified as

37

 Ill..

 Adm.. Code Part 807, have remained

virtually unchanged since that time, save for the addition of

regulations concerning financial assurance for closure and post—

closure care..

 In 1976,

 the Board adopted its “Chapter 9”

regulations concerning the hauling of special waste..

 These

regulations, since codified as 35

 Ill..

 Adm..

 Code Part 809, have

also existed virtually without change, except for the addition of

regulations concerning hauling and disposal of hazardous hospital

waste..

Abortive attempts to modernize these

 rules commenced in the

1980..

 Docket R80—20 was initiated by

 a proposal of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

 to update Chapter 7, and

Docket R81—31 was initiated by a Board proposal to update Chapter

9..

 These proposals were consolidated and dismissed by Order of

 the Board on October

 5, 1982,

 after hearings indicated that

extensive revision of the proposals was necessary..

 In that

Order,

 the Board noted that:

The

 Agency

and

 the Illinois State Chamber

of

Commerce

 (ISCC

 indicated

 that

 they

 were

working

 together

on

a

 substitute

 proposal

which

 would

 replace

 both

 Chapters

7

and

9..

During

the

 hearing

 process

it

has

 become

clear

 first

 that

the

 subject

 matters

of

Chapters

7

and

9

 require

 coordination

to

insure

 consistency and,

 second,

 that

it

 will

be

 difficult

to

 relate

the

 testimony on

the

former

 proposals

to

the

 evolving

 combined

proposal..

The

 Board

 therefore

 hereby

consolidates

 R80—20

and

 R81—31,

and

at

the

same time dismisses both..

In that same Order, Docket R82—2l was opened to consider the

anticipated Agency/ISCC proposal for permits

 for waste management

and hauling,

 arid

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—2l

proposal..

 The proposal was withdrawn as the Agency believed that

the best solution

 to various problems identified at hearing was

submission of an amended and expanded proposal..

78269

—3—

This docket, R84—17, was initiated to consider

 a draft

proposal

 filed by the Agency on May 31,

 1984..

 Two inquiry

hearings were held

 at which participants identified concerns with

the proposal and questioned the Agency concerning its

 intent..

At

the 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 commiting some of

the resources of the STS to this proceeding, no revised proposal

had been submitted..

 Although the Agency has been

 a very active

and helpful participant in subsequent phases of this proceeding,

it has not filed a new proposal

 or presented evidence

 in support

of the existing draft proposal..

On April

4,

 1985, the ISSC filed an alternate proposal..

By

Order of April

18,

 1985,

 the Board established Docket

 B for

consideration of this proposal..

 Four hearings were held

in

Docket B concerning this proposal..

On August 15,

 1986, Waste Management of Illinois filed

another

 alternate proposal, which the Board designated as R84—17

Docket

C,.

 This proposal was the subject of nine hearings..

Concurrently with the hearings held

 in Dockets B and

 C, the

Board held additional hearings

 in Docket

A..

 The purpose of these

hearings was presentation of testimony by various consultants and

other scientific experts whose appearance was arranged by the

STS..

 These consultants and other experts did not critique the

various proposals pending before the Board, but instead provided

testimony concerning their research and experience concerning

subjects integral

 to analysis and/or development of comprehensive

regulations

 for the management of waste..

 These consultants and

other experts, and the subject of their testimonies, were as

follows:

Dr.. Richard

 C.. Berg,

 Various geological consid—

Dr.. Thomas

 M.. Johnson,

 erations regarding landfill

Dr. William

R..

 Roy,

 siting and potential for

Dr.. Robert

A..

 Griffen

 groundwater contamination

Illinois State Geological Survey

Dr.. David

 E.. Daniel,

 Landfill/Liners and other

Assistant Professor

 earthen barriers

University of Texas

Dr.. Robert

K..

 Ham,

 Generation and character—

Professor of Civil

&

 istics of landfill leachate

Environmental Engineering

 and gas

University of Wisconsin

78-270

—4—

Dr.. Cecil Lue—Hing,

Director of Research

and Development

Metropolitan Sanitary District

of Greater Chicago

Roberta

L..

 Jennings,

Certified professional

geological scientist &

consulting hydrologist

Dr.. Aaron

 A.. Jennings,

Associate Professor of

Civil Engineering

University of Toledo (Ohio)

A case history of landfill

leachate treatment at a

publicly owned treatment

works (MSGDC Calumet Sewage

Treatment Works)

Hydrogeology of clay soils

and landfill siting

Groundwater contamination

modeling

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—17

 is sufficient to

enable the Board

 to determine that, while each

proposal has meritorious components,

 no single

proposal

 pending

 before

it

is

 sufficiently

refined or comprehensive to be adopted by the

Board

as

the

 Board’s

own

 proposal

for

the

purposes of

 first notice publication pursuant

to

the

 Illinois Administrative Procedure Act,

and

 resulting

 additional

 hearings..

It

is

clear to the Board that the Board

 itself, with

the assistance of its scientific/technical and

legal

 staff,

 must craft

 a proposal to address

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..

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

 in this docket today,

May

 28..

On May 20,

 a comment was jointly filed by Citizens for

a

Better Environment, McHenry County Defenders, Center for

Neighborhood Technology, Sierra Club, South Chicago Development

Commission and Coalition for Appropriate Waste Disposal..

 On May

21, comments were filed by BFI of Illinois,

 Inc.. and Waste

Management..

 (The Agency had filed comments on April 24,

 1987 in

advance

the

last

hearing)..

78.271

—5—

On May 22, the STS filed its Recommendations,

 including

proposed new Parts 810—812,

 and a supporting background

 report..

These documents were submitted

 in “rough draft”

 form to allow the

Board Members to begin their review of them over the Memorial Day

weekend..

 Filing of this “work

 in progress” was necessitated by

the terms of the Board’s Order of February 19, 1987;

 said Order

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

 10l..121..

 A more refined draft version

of these documents was filed by the STS on May

26,

 1987..

The STS Recommendations

It

 is the aim of the Board,

 in the R84—l7 docket,

 to adopt

a

comprehensive set of regulations which establish standards for

the hauling, treatment, storage, disposal and recycling of all

non—hazardous and special waste..

 The facilities to be covered

would include both existing and new facilities,

 regardless of

whether the facilities are exempt from permit requirements

pursuant to Section 21(d)

 of the

 Act..

 The proposal submitted by

the STS covers only a segment of this universe..

 Generally, the

proposal establishes standards for the design/development and

operation of new waste disposal facilities..

More specifically, the STS has proposed new parts 810

through 812

 Part 810 “General Provisions” consists largely of

definitions..

 The bulk of these define terms not included

 in the

existing regulations..

Part 8ll..l0l

 “Standards For Waste Disposal Facilities”

 would

apply only to new waste disposal

 facilities, including those

which are exempt from permitting requirements pursuant to Section

21(d)

 of the Act..

 These general standards include location

requirements, as well as various operating requirements..

Additionally, this Section establishes separate standards for the

design of facilities which dispose of three newly—established

classes of waste:

 putrescible waste,

 inert waste and chemical

waste..

 These include standards for the construction of a

landfill’s foundation; liner;

 final cover and slopes; systems for

drainage, collection,

 treatment,

 storage, disposal, recycling and

monitoring

 of leachate; systems for monitoring, managing

processing and disposal of landfill gas; and systems for

establishing and monitoring groundwater quality before, during

and

 after

 the period of disposal of waste at the site..

 This Part

also establishes standards for construction quality assurance

programs to assure compliance with the standards for

 a landfill’s

design..

—6—

Part

812

contains

 specification of information

 to be

included

permit

 applications for the design of a facility..

This Section does not, however,

 address issues related to the

structuring of the permit system, such as whether the

supplemental permit system should be retained; such issues will

be addressed

 in the next installment of the proposal, which the

STS anticipates filing

in

 June..

Board Review and Comment

The Board accepts the Recommendations of the STS, and will

set hearings to be held on June 29 and June 30,

 1987 concerning

proposed Parts 810, 811 and

 812..

 There are several factors which

contribute to this decision..

 First,

 it had been the Board’s

initial intention to delay further hearings

 in this docket until

after the STS had submitted draft regulations and recommendations

covering all of the above—described subject areas, and the Board

had adopted a comprehensive proposed set of regulations for first

notice publication in the Illinois Register..

 However, in

reviewing its budget for the current and coming fiscal years1 the

Board has determined that it would be prudent to authorize

hearings during this fiscal year on those aspects of a proposal

which have been developed by the STS with the assistance of

consultants who have previously testified in this proceeding and

whose services may not

 in future be available to the Board:

 Dr..

Robert Ham,

 Dr.. David Daniel and

 Dr.. Aaron Jennings..

 The Board

additionally believes that the participants’ ability to evaluate

these portions of the proposed rules will be hampered only

minimally,

 if at all, since the Board anticipates addressing the

larger permitting issues in advance of hearing..

Second, this proposal appears to draw together the best

elements from the proposals by the Agency, ISSC,

 and Waste

Management*, as well as the recommendations provided

 in testimony

by the various experts..

 Some modification of the proposed

regulations will likely seem appropriate after consideration of

 additional testimony and comments received at and after hearing..

However, this proposal appears to chart an appropriate course

mid—way between the two unacceptable regulatory approaches:

the

“cookbook” method of

 inflexible lists of requirements and the

ultimately flexible “trust me” method of requiring compliance

with “whatever the Agency

 in its unfettered discretion thinks

best”..

 In those area where

 it is scientifically or technologic-

ally impracticable

 to set forth specific methodologies or

protocols,

 the proposal appears to establish sufficient criteria

for exercise of judgment to comply with the specificity

requirements of

 Illinois administrative

 law..

 The Board today takes no action concerning any of these

proposals..

 To do so would be premature,

 as the Board/STS

proposal

 is not as comprehensive as the other

 three..

 These

proposals remain pending before the Board..

—7—

Finally, the Board believes that, with one exception, this

proposal responds in large part to the concerns expressed

throughout this proceeding by the Agency, the waste generators

and disposers, and the environmental community..

 The single

exception is the comment made by the ISSC at the April

28

hearing, which is that the Board should suspend this rulemaking

 until the USEPA issues its criteria for non—hazardous waste

disposal pursuant to Subtitle

 D of RCRA; such action is

anticipated

 in March of

 1988..

The

 Board does not consider suspension of rulemaking to be

an acceptable option..

 Review of the procedural history of the

“Chapters

 7 and 9 Update” proceedings has made it clear

 to the

Board that if its rules are ever to be modernized that momentum

must be maintained..

 The instant proposal

 is fully consistent

with existing Subtitle D criteria..

 Aside from the issue of the

USEPA’s consideration of the “dry landfill” concept as opposed to

the Board’s consideration of enhancement of biodegradation, the

Board has no reason to believe that the proposal

 is inconsistent

with USEPA’s current line of

 thinking..

 Indeed,

 it is not

inconceivable that further progress with this proposal will

influence USEPA thinking, to the benefit of the State of

Illinois..

It

 is for all of the foregoing reasons that this proposal

is

set for hearing..

ORDERED..

I, Dorothy

 M.. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, h~ebycertify that the above Order was adopted on

the

~N-

 day of

_____________,

 1987, by a vote of

Dorothy

 N.. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

78-274