ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 18,

1983

In the matter of:

R82—19

PHASE II RCRA

RULES

PROPOSED RULE.

 FIRST

NOTICE

PROPOSED OPINION OF

TILE

 BOARD

 (by D.

 Anderson):

On August 18, 1982 the Board opened this docket for the

purpose of promulgation of Phase II

RCRA

regulations in response

to the United States

Environmental

Protection

 Agency’s

 (USEPA’s)

promulgation of interim final rules allowing permit applications

for new and existing hazardous waste management

 (HWN)

 facilities

(47 FR 32,369, July 26,

 1983),

 These rules became effective on

January 26,

1983.

Section

 22.4(a)

 of the Environmental Protec-

tion Act

 (Act)

 requires the Board to adopt within

 180 days

regulations or amendments thereto promulgated by USEPA pursuant

to Sections 3001 through 3005 of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA).

The Board previously adopted regulations allowing Illinois

to receive Phase

 I interim authorization

 (R8l-22, Opinion and

Order of February

4,

 1982;

 6 Ill.

 Reg.

 4828).

 Authorization

was received on May 17, 1982

 (47 Fed.

 Reg.

 21,043),

 The Phase

I

rules

have recently been amended to reflect amendments to the

corresponding federal rules

 (R82-l8,

 Order of January 13,

 1983).

In

 a related action the Board adopted regulations to allow

Illinois to receive authorization for an underground injection

control

 (UIC)

 program (R81-32, Opinion and Order, May

 13, 1982;

6 Ill. Reg.

 12,479,

 October 15,

 1982).

 Authorization for this

program has not yet been received.

In summary, this action will involve adoption of a RCRA

permit program and standards for

HWM

facilities and several

types of treatment, storage and disposal

 (TSD)

 unit.

The

permit program proposal consists of new Part 703, and amendments

to Parts 702 and 705, which were previously adopted with the

UIC package.

 Parts

 702, 703 and 705 correspond to 40 CFR 122,

Subparts A and B,

 and 40 CFR 124.

 The operating standards

proposal consists of new Part 724, which corresponds to 40

CFR 264.

 There will also be miscellaneous amendments to other

Parts so that the entire RCRA/UIC package is up to date and

consistent.

51-286

—2—

Federal Regulations

The proposal is current with federal regulations appearing

in

the

Federal Register on or before October 29,

 1982.

The

following amendments have been incorporated:

35

 Ill. Adm. Code

 47 Fed. Reg.

Part 702

4996

(November 23,

 1981 through October 29,

 1982)

 15,306

27,533

32

369

41,563

Part 703

 32,369

(1982

CFR

plus

 July

 1 through October 29,

 1982)

 32,372

Part

705

(No changes resulting from federal amendments)

Part 724

 28,267

(1982 CFR plus July

 1 through October 29,

 1982)

 28,627

30,446

32 ,349

44,738

46,277

In order to bring the rest of the RCRA/UIC package up to

date,

 it will be necessary to propose miscellaneous amendments

Parts

700,

704,

720,

721,

722,

723,

725

and

 730.

 These

will be proposed after the main package in order to even out

the typing load.

 These will appear at a later date

 in the

Illinois Register, but soon enough to allow comment prior to

adoption of the Phase II rules.

Overview of the RCRA Program

Part 703 contains the RCRA permit requirement.

 Together

with

Parts

702

and

705

 it provides for applications, public

participation

and

permit

 issuance.

 Generally, existing facili-

ties obtained interim status by filing a Part A application.

The Agency will call in Part B applications in order to

initiate actual permit issuance.

 New facilities will be

required to file both. Part A and Part B of the application.

The Agency will review

permit

applications against the opera-

ting standards of Part 724.

The Part 724 standards consist of two broad divisions:

1.

 Subparts A—H contain rules generally applicable

to all

HWM

facilities;

51-287

—3—

2.

 Subparts 1-0 modify and supplement these rules as

applied to specific types of TSD units,

The regulated TSD units fall into seven categories:

Containers

(storage);

Tanks

(storage

and

 treatment);

Surface

impoundments

(storage

and

treatment);

4.

 Waste piles

 (storage);

5.

 Land

treatment

 (sludge application);

6.

 Landfills

 (disposal, including surface impoundments

and waste piles used for disposal);

7.

 Incinerators

 (treatment).

Exemptions from Part 724

Among the exemptions

 are the following:

1.

 Underground injection ~724.101(d)

2.

 Publicly owned treatment works

 5724.101(e);

 Small quantities

 5724.101(g)

 (1);

4.

 Farmers

 5724.101(g)

(4)1;

5.

 Totally enclosed treatment facilities, elementary

neutralization units and indoor wastepiles

5724.101(g)

(5)

and

 (6);

 §724.290;

6.

 Addition of absorbent materials

 5724.101(g)

 (10));

Requirements Common to All HWM

The following requirements are common to all HWM facilities:

1.

 USEPA ID number

 (5724.111);

2.

 Security:

 surveillance, fence and signs

 (5724.114);

3.

 Personnel training program, job descriptions and

titles

 (5724.116)

;

4.

 Outside 100 year flood plain 15724.118(b);

51-288

—4—

5.

 Internal and external communications, ~ff

 ire extinguishers

and

 water or foam (5724,132);

6.

 Aisle space for emergency equipment

 (5724,135);

7.

 Arrangements with local emergency units

 (5724,137);

8.

 Contingency plan describing the action of personnel

certain

emergencies

(5724,152);

9.

 A designated emergency coordinator

 (5724,155);

10.

 Manifest system

 (5724,171);

11.

Operating

record

(5724,173);

12.

 Annual reports

 (5724,177)

;

13.

Financial

responsibility

(5724,240),

Financial

Requirements

There

are

three

types

financial

requirements:

1.

 Financial assurance for closure

 (5724,243);

Financialassurance

for

post-closure

care

(5724,245);

3.

 Liability

for

sudden

and

non-sudden

 accidental

occurrences

(5724,247),

Financial assurance for closure and post-closure care

may be conveniently discussed together, since

 a single mechanism

may be used

 (5724.246).

 All HWN operators must give closure

assurance, but only operators of disposal units must give post—

closure care assurance.

 Disposal units include landfills,

and

piles and impoundments when it appears that it will not be

possible to remove all waste residues on closure

 (5724,240),

The

closure

 rules begin with an estimate of closure cost

8at

the

point

 in the facility’s operating life when the extent

and manner of its operation would make closure the most expen-

sive,

 as indicated by its closure plan”

 (5724.243),

 This must

be revised by the

operator

annually

and

whenever

 a change in

the closure plan increases the cost of closure.

 Note that

closure

could

range

from

removal

few

barrels

container

storage area to closure of a hazardous waste landfill costing

millions of dollars.

Facilities

with

disposal

units

must

estimate

the

post-

closure cost, which is,

 in current dollars, the annual

51-289

—5—

post—closure cost estimate times the number of years post-

closure care will be required (5724.444).

 It must be changed

annually or

when

 the.

post-~c1osure

plan

changed.

Post-

closure care involves,

 for example, maintenance of cover and

continued groundwater monitoring,

The operator is required to give financial assurance in

amount

equal

the

closure

cost

estimate

and,

for

disposal

units,

the

post—closure

 cost

estimate.

This

may

done

through a combination of the following mechanisms:

1.

 A trust fund

 55724.243(a)

 and 724.245(a);

Surety

bond

guaranteeing

payment

into

trust

fund

155724.243(b)

 and 724.245(b);

3.

 Surety bond guaranteeing performance or payment

into trust fund 55724.243(c)

 and 724.245(c);

4.

 Letter of credit which

will

obligate

financial

institution to fund a trust

 55724.243(d)

and

724.245(d);

Insurance

obligating

the

insurer

pay

closure

or post—closure care costs

 at the direction of

the Agency

 55724.243(e)

 and 724.245(e);

6.

 Self-insurance by an operator or by its parent

corporation which meets

 a financial test

55724.243(f)

 and 724.245(f).

The first four work together:

 the operator could set up

a trust fund and pay

part

the

closure

and

post—closure

cost

into the trust.

 The rest of the financial assurance could be

given by

 a combination of bonds and letters

 of credit payable

to the trust.

 Part of the assurance could also be given with

insurance, which does not involve a trust fund.

In addition to the federal mechanisms, the Board has

proposed to allow an alternative state—required mechanism for

closure, but not post—closure, assurance:

 the operator may

give a bond without surety secured by a certificate of deposit

or a State of

Illinois

bond

 in an amount equal to the closure

cost estimate 15724.243(j).

 This will work like method

(1)

with the.

State

acting

 the.

trustee

holding

property

equal

to the closure cost estimate.

 The intention is to allow small

operators to avoid the costs associated with profits to private

trustees, sureties and insurance companies.

 For a small busi-

ness with a hazardous waste storage area,

 the annual adininistra-

tive costs could easily exceed the closure cost.

51-290

—6—

The financial assurance regulations function through

permit modifications which affect the amount or type of

assurance which must be given.

 Disputes could arise between

 the permittee and the Agency if the Agency modified the permit

increase

 the cost estimate,

the

permittee

requested

decrease in the estimate, if the Agency decided the operator

or parent corporation no longer met a financial test or if the

Agency deemed the facility abandoned or othexwise modified the

permit to require closure to begin.

 Section 724.243(j)

 deems

these events to be permit denials allowing appeal to the Board.

See also §724.245(k).

Section 724.247(a)

 requires the operator to maintain

insurance for sudden accidental occurrences in the amount of

at least $1 million per occurrence with an annual aggregate

of

 $2 million.

 Section 724.247(b)

 requires at least $3 million

for non—sudden occurrences, with an annual aggregate of

$6

million.

 Sections 724.247(c)

and

Cd)

 allow the level of

required liability to be adjusted up or down at the instance

of the Agency or the operator.

 Section 724.247(f)

 allows self

insurance under conditions similar to closure assurance.

Rather than set forth the form of instruments

 in detail,

the Board has incorporated 40 CFR 264.151 by reference.

The

Agency will promulgate standardized forms, based on the federal

rules modified to reflect Illinois

 law.

Changes in the amount or type of financial assurance or

 liability insurance are permit modifications which must proceed

by way of the Part 705 procedures and may be appealed to the

Board.

Requirements Not Common to All HWM Facilities

Some requirements vary depending on the type

 of HWM

facility.

 These include the following, which will be discussed

at greater length below:

1.

 Inspections;

2.

 Waste Analysis;

3.

 Special requirements for ignitable, reactive or

incompatthle waste;

4.

 Design standards

 (other than groundwater protection);

5.

 Groundwater protection:

 liner design, leak detection

and monitoring;

6.

 Closure and Post—closure;

51-291

—7—

7.

 Exemptions from groundwater protection and final

cover requirements.

Inspection

The general inspection requirements require a written

schedule for inspection of monitoring, emergency, operating

and structural equipment and security devices

 15724.115(b).

The operator must follow the schedule and maintain a log

1SS724.1l5(a)

 arid

 (6).

 Specific schedules and types of

inspection are specified for the various types of TSD unit.

Inspections include both routine operating inspections and

inspections during construction or repair.

 “Inspections” are

carried out by the operator, not the Agency.

 This is also

sometimes referred to as “monitoring”, to be distinguished

from “groundwater monitoring”, which is

 a separate topic.

 This

use of the terms “inspection”

 and “monitoring” differs from the

usual meaning in Board rules.

Examples of operating inspection requirements include:

1.

 Tanks:

 Daily inspection of overfilling equipment,

pressure and temperature guages and actual liquid

level; weekly inspection for corrosion, wet spots

and dead vegetation;

 complete inspection as scheduled

by permit condition

 (5724.294).

2.

 Surface impoundments:

 Weekly inspection, and after

storms, of overtopping controls,

 for sudden drops in

level,

 for liquids in any leak detection system and

for erosion.

 Structural integrity must be certified

by an engineer if

 an impoundment has been out of

service for more than six months

 5724.326

 (b).

3.

 Piles:

 Weekly inspections, and after storms,

of

run—on/run-off and wind dispersal controls, and

for liquids in any leak detection system or leachate

collection system 5724.354(b).

4.

 Land treatment:

 Weekly inspections, and after storms, of

run—on/run—off and wind dispersal controls and for

liquids in any leak detection or leachate collection

system 15724.403(b).

6.

 Incinerators:

 Continuous monitoring of combustion

 temperature, waste feed rate, “indicator combustion

gas

velocity”

and

carbon

monoxide;

daily

inspections

for spills and leaks; weekly testing of alarms and

emergency waste feed cutoff

 (5724.447).

51-292

—8—

During

construction,

liners

must

inspected

for

uni-

formity, damage and

imperfections.

Soil-based

liners

must

inspected for lenses, root holes,

 etc.

 Synthetic liners must

be inspected for tight joints and the absence of tears

15~724.326(a),724,354(~~~nd 724.403(a).

Waste

Analysis

The operator must obtain a detailed physical and chemical

analysis

any

hazardous

waste

before

treats,

stores

disposes of it 15724.113(a).

 This must be repeated as neces~

sary

ensure

that

accurate

and

date

5724.113(a)

(3).

The

facility

 permit

requires

waste

analysis

plan

specifying

the

types

tests,

sampling

methods

and

frequencies

which

the

 initial analysis will be reviewed 5724.113(b).

For off-site facilities, the waste analysis plan must also

specify procedures used to inspect incoming loads to ensure

that they match the identity of the waste on the manifest

5724.113(c).

 This does not necessarily require

 a chemical

analysis of each load, unless the plan calls for such

5724.113(c)

 (2).

The waste analysis rules depart from the norm only with

respect to incinerators

 (5724.441).

 Permit applications

require more detailed information on waste

 feed,

including

the heat value, viscosity and Appendix VIII hazardous constitu-

ents

 (35 Ill. Adm.

 Code 703.223 and 703.224).

 Throughout

operation the operator must conduct sufficient analyses to

confirm that the waste feed is within the physical and chemical

composition limits specified in the permit

 5724.441(b).

Ignitable

and

Reactive

Waste

General

requirements

for

ignitable,

reactive

and

incom-

patible waste include the following:

Protection

from

sources

ignition,

“No

Smoking”

signs

and

all

smoking

and

 flames confined to

specifically designated locations;

2.

 Precautions for extreme heat or pressure, toxic

gases

and

damage

structural

integrity;

3.

 Documentation from literature search must be included

with the permit application

 (5724.117).

Additional specific requirements

 for types of TSD unit

include

the

following:

Tanks:

Protection

construction

material

from

wastes

which

are

 incompatible with construction

51-293

—9—

materials 15724.292(a);

 washing between incompatible

wastes

 (5724.299); exemption where wastes are treated

so

longer

be.

reactive

ignitable

immedi-

ately

 after entry into tank 15724.298(a) (1) (A);

buffer zone requirements

 5724.298(b);

 exemption for

tanks

used

for

emergency

storage,

for

example

waste

feed

diversion

from

incinerator

15724.298

(a)

(3),

Impoundments:

Authorization

for

treatment

impoundment

immediately

after

placement

and

for

emergency

use

(5724.329),

3.

 Piles:

 Separation from other wastes by berm or wall;

cleaning of base between incompatible wastes

 (5724.357).

Land

Treatment:

Authorization

waste

immediately

incorporated

into

the

soil

longer

ignitable

reactive

(5724.381),

Landfills:

Ignitable

wastes

may

landfilled

containers

if

usual

precautions

are

followed;

reactive

waste is prohibited unless

 it is treated in place so

longer

reactive

immediately

after

placement.

Incinerators:

special

requirements.

Design

and

Operating

Standards

Other

Than

Groundwater Protection

The design standards center on different factors depending

on the type of TSD unit,

 The design and operating rules closely

 related to groundwater protection are discussed in the sections

which follow.

 The following are design and operating rules

which

are

not

closely

groundwater

protection:

Tanks:

foundation

shell

strength,

 pressure control,

corrosion,

over—filling

controls

and

freeboard

(5724.291)

Surface

impoundments

(storage):

freeboard

and

dike

integrity

prevent

massive

failure

without

relying

on liner

systems

5724,321(d).

3.

 Waste. piles

 (storage):

 Wind dispersal controls

15724.351(f).

Land

treatment:

the

design

left

pretty

much

open,

but

the

operator

must

make

“treatment

demonstration”

showing that hazardous constituents can be “completely

degraded,

transformed

immobilized

the

treatment

5 1-294

—10—

zone”

 15724,371(b),

 There are limitations on the

growth of food chain crops and the rate of application

of cadmium (5724.376).

5.

 Landfills:

 wind dispersal controls

 (5724.401).

6.

 Incinerators:

 Performance is evaluated by selected

“principal organic hazardous constituents”

 (POHCs)

(5724,442),

 Incinerator must achieve 99,99

 destruc-

tion and removal of POHCs.

 Particulate standard is

180 mg/dscm

 (5724,443),

 Fugitive emissions must be

controlled

 (5724,445)

Groundwater Protection Program

The “groundwater monitoring and response program” has

three stages

 (5724,191):

Detection

monitoring

program;

2.

 Compliance monitoring program;

3.

 Corrective action program.

the

facility

permit

the

Agency

specifies

which

programs

apply

 5724.191(b).

 For a new facility this should be a

detection monitoring program.

 If leaks

 are detected during

operation, the permit

should

amended

require

compliance

monitoring and/or corrective action program,

 as will be dis~

cussed in greater detail below,

The

general

groundwater

monitoring

program,

applicable

all three stages,

 includes the following,

 as specified in the

facility

permit:

1.

 A sufficient number of wells,

 at appropriate depths

and locations,

 to represent background water quality

and

the

water

quality

 the downgradient “point of

compliance” specified in the facility permit

55724.195

 and 724.197(a);

2.

 Determination of groundwater surface elevation

5724,197(f);

3.

 Establishment of background levels

 5724.197(g);

 Sampling, analytical and statistical procedures

5724.197(d)

and

 (h).

51-295

—1

1~

Detection Monitoring Program

The

first

stage

 of the groundwater monitoring and response

program is the “detection monitoring

program”

(5724.198).

This

applies to everybody subject to the groundwater monitoring

requirements who is not in the compliance monitoring or correc-

tive action programs

 (g724..191),

Some

existing

facilities

may

initially be permitted with compliance monitoring or corrective

action programs.

 The limitations

 on applicability of the

groundwater protection rules are discussed below.

An operator subject to detection monitoring must monitor

for “indicator parameters”, specified in the facility permit,

which will “provide a reliable indication of the presence of

hazardous constituents in groundwater”

 15724,198(a).

The

operator must determine groundwater quality at each monitoring

well at least twice each year,

 and the groundwater flow rate

and

direction

 annually

5724,198(d)

and

(e)j.

the

detection

monitoring

program

reveals

“statistically

significant increase” over background levels for the indicator

parameters specified in the permit, the operator must:

Notify

 the Agency

 5724.198(h)

and

 (i);

 Undertake additional

sampling

establish

background

levels for “Appendix VIII hazardous constituents”

(see

 40 CFR 261) 5724.198(h)

(1)

and

 (2);

3.

 Within 90 days, submit a

permit

application

for

compliance monitoring program 5724.198(h)

 (4);

4.

 Within 180 days, submit an engineering feasibility

study

for

 a corrective action program

 5724.198(h)

 (5)).

The operator has two options which do not delay the time

limits for permit modification applications.

 To avoid the

compliance monitoring and corrective action programs, the

operator may:

1.

 Demonstrate that

 a source other than a regulated

unit caused the increase

 5724.198(i));

or

2.

 Demonstrate

 an error in sampling, analysis or evalua-

tion,

5 1-296

Compliance

Monitoring

 Program

The

“compliance

monitoring

program”

 involves

 a permit

modification which establishes

 a “groundwater protection

standard”

permits

“when

hazardous

constituents

have

entered

the groundwater

from

regulated

unit”

(55724,192

and

724.199).

Establishment of the “groundwater protection standard” proceeds

by four steps:

1.

 Specification of “hazardous constituents”, from

40 CFR 261, Appendix VIII, which have been detected

the

uppermost

 aquifer and which are reasonably

expected

derived

from

 the unit, subject

demonstration

by

the

operator

“that

the

 constitu-

ent is not capable of posing a present or potential

hazard to human health or

the

environment”

(5724.193).

Specification

the

permit

 of a “concentration limit”

equal

(5724,194)

A.

 The background level at the time the hazardous

constituent is first specified in the permit;

B.

 For certain constituents

 (7 metals, selenium

and

 6 pesticides), a limit specified by rule,

unless the background is already over the limit;

or

C.

~An

alternate

 limit established by the Agency.

3.

 A “point of compliance” at the downgradient limit

of the unit or “area”

 (5724,195),

 (This

 is specified

in the detection monitoring program also,)

4.

 A “compliance

period”,

 extending from the time of

establishment of the standard for a period of time

equal to the active life of the facility

 (including

time prior to permitting)

 plus the closure period,

subject to extension if the operator is still in

corrective action at the end

 (5724.196),

As an example of the “compliance period”, consider a

landfill opened in 1970 and closed in 1983, with hazardous

constituents first detected in groundwater in 1985.

 The compli-

ance. period will be 1985 through 1998, subject to extension if

the facility is still in corrective action in 1998.

 This

is

based on the assumptions:

 that hazardous constituents first

crossed the liner when the

unit

 was opened in 1970; that it took

15 years

 to reach groundwater;

 and, that the liner stopped

leaking when the landfill was

closed

 13 years

 later.

 Thus

a

13—year

plume

 is moving into the groundwater, reaching ground-

water between 1985 and 1998,

5 1-297

The

“compliance

 monitoring program”

permit

modifica-

tion

which

~re~uires

the

 operator to monitor groundwater to

determine

whether

 regulated units are in compliance with the

groundwater protection standard

1S724,199(a),

the

operator

determines that the ~groundwaterprotection standard is being

exceeded at any regulated unit, he must notify the Agency and

submit

 a permit modification application for a “corrective

action program”, subject to the possibility of showing a sam-

pling error or other source of the increase, or asking for an

 alternative standard 5724.199(i)

and

 (j).

Corrective Action Program

The “corrective action program”

is

 a permit modification

which requires the operator to prevent hazardous constituents

from exceeding

the

 concentration limits

specified

the

permit

“by removing the hazardous waste constituents or treating them

in place”

5724,200(b)

and

 Ce).

 A groundwater monitoring

program is

established

 “to demonstrate the effectiveness

the corrective action program”

5724,200(d).

 Corrective

action continues

until

 the end of the compliance period, and

beyond

that

until

 the groundwater protection standard has not

been exceeded for three consecutive

years

 5724.200(f).

Closure and Post-closure

The operator must close the facility so as to minimize

the need for

further

 maintenance and to

minimize

the

escape

of hazardous constituents

 ($724~.211). A closure plan must be

submitted with the permit application

(5724.212),

The

operator

must “treat,

remove

 or dispose of” all

hazardous

wastes

within

days

after

 receiving the final volume

waste,

and

complete

closure

within

 180 days

 (5724,213),

When

closure

complete,

the operator’s engineer certifies to the

Agency

that

the

closure

plan

has

been

 executed

 (5724.215),

Disposal facilities

 (landfills,

and

piles

impoundments

from which waste cannot be removed at

closure)

must

have

post—closure plan.

 Post—closure care

continues

for

 years,

with possthle reduction or extension

 (5724.217).

 Monitoring

and

maintenance

 continue-s.

 Post—closure use must not disturb

the

integrity

 the final cover 5724.217(c),

 A disposal

facility

must

 file a plat and put a notice

its

chain

title

 (5724.219).

The details of closure are spelled

out

for

the

different

types

 of TSD unit

 The operator must cover a landfill so as

to 15724.210(a):

Function

 with minimum maintenance.;

5t—298

—14--

2.

 promote drainage and minimize cover

erosion;

3.

 Accommodate subsidence;

and

“Have

permeability

less

than

equal

the

permeability

any

 bottom liner system or natural

subs oils

present’~.

During

the

post—closure

period

the

operator

must

(5724.210):

1.

 Maintain integrity of final cover;

2.

 Maintain and monitor any leak detection system;

3.

 Qperate the leachate collection system;

4.

 Maintain and monitor groundwater monitoring system;

5.

 Prevent run—on/run-off damage;

6.

 Protect and maintain surveyed benchmarks.

For TSD units other than

landfills

the

idea

avoid

the final cover and post—closure provisions.

 For example,

for

an impoundment, the operator is supposed to remove or decontami-

nate all “waste residues” on closure

 5724.328(a).

 If this is

not possible,

 it is closed like a landfill

 5724.328(b).

Groundwater Protection and Post—Closure

Care--Exemptions

For

landfills,.

groundwater

protection

dominates

the

design

and operating requirements.

The

 same is true for piles and

impoundments,

because

their

potential

become

disposal

units.

However,

treatment

and

storage

units

 escape the more

rigorous

groundwater

protection

and

post-closure

care

requirements:

Containers:

base

with

containment

and

collection

system for spills and

leaks;

removal

all

hazardous

waste and contaminated containers

 on closure

 (5724.275

and

§724.278).

Tanks:

All

must

have

inner

liners

and

weekly

inspec-

tions,

 with removal of all hazardous waste on closure

(5724,297)

3.

 Land treatment:

 Operator must conduct “unsaturated

zone

monitoring”~

 about

feet

under

the

surface,

for

principal

hazardous

constituents

(PHCs)

(5724,278).

Operator is generally exempt from groundwater monitor--

ing

and

full

closure

requirements

 PHCs show up

the

unsaturated

zone,

5 1-299

—15—

4.

 Incinerators:

 Operator must remove hazardous waste

on closure.

Landfill Grc ~ndwaterProtection Design

The basic landfill design requires:

liner

“constructed

materials

that

prevent

wastes

from passing into the liner during the active life of

the facility”

 1S724.40l(a).

2.

 A leachate collection and removal system 15724.401

(a) (2).

3.

 Run-on controls designed for the peak of a 25-year

storm

 5724.401(a).

4.

 Run-off controls to collect and control a 24—hour,

25—year storm 5724.401(d).

5.

 Groundwater monitoring

 (5724.190).

There are two ways around this.

 The first allows the Agency

to exempt the facility from the liner and leachate collection

provisions if the operator demonstrates that alternative design

arid operating practices and location characteristics

 “will

 prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents to ground-

water or surface water at any future time”

 5724.401(b)).

The second way gets the operator around the groundwater

monitoring provisions.

 The basic thrust of the regulatory

program is to get everybody to design new landfills with a

double liner and leak detection system as follows.

 These

landfills must:

1.

 Be entirely above the seasonal high water table

5724.402(a)

 (1));

2.

 Have two liners designed so as “to prevent the

migration

liquids

into

out

the

space

between the liners”

 15702.402(a) (2);

3.

 Have a leak detection system in the space. between

f5702.402(a) (3);

4.

 Have leachate collection and removal from above the

top liner

 5724.402(a)

 (4),

 and have run—on/run—off

controls

 5724.401(d)

and

 (e)1,

 as with all landfills.

—16—

Surface Impoundirtent Groundwater

Protection Design

Liner requirements for impoundments are similar to those

for landfills:

 a liner with run-on/run—off controls, but no

leachate collection.

 The impoundment must have

 a liner which

will

prevent

migration

wastes

into

the

liner

during

the

active

life

15724.321(a).

closure

all

“waste

residues”,

including any contaminated liner, must be removed 5724.328(a).

 not, the remaining wastes

 (not necessarily hazardous) must

be dewatered and covered like

 a hazardous waste landfill

5724.328(a)

 (2).

The operator can be exempted from the liner requirement

on a showing that alternatives will prevent migration at any

time in the future

 5724.321(b).

The operator can be exempted from the groundwater moni-

toring requirement by use of

 a double liner with leak detection

system (5724.322).

Waste Pile Groundwater Protection Design

The basic design for

 a waste storage pile is

 a liner,

a

leachate collection system and run—on/run-off controls

5724.351(a).

 Liner design includes foundation requirements

5724.351(a)(l)(ii).

 Leachate may not be allowed to exceed

one foot in depth inside the pile

 5724. 351 (a) (2).

 Waste may

be allowed to migrate into the liner

 5724.351(a)

 (1),

 but the

liner would have to be removed on closure, or remaining wastes

would have to be covered like a landfill

 (5724.358).

Piles which are inside a building and protected from

precipitation are exempt if no free liquids are placed in the

pile,

 and there is run—on protection and no reactions producing

leachate

 (5724.350)

Piles may be exempted from the liner and leachate collection

provisions if the operator demonstrates no migration at’any

time

in the future 15724.351(b).

Piles

may

also

be.

exempted

from

groundwater

monitoring

there

is

a

double

liner

with

leachate

detection

between

and

collection and removal from above. the top liner

 (5724.352).

There is an exemption from groundwater protection unique

piles

the

waste

periodically

removed

the

liner

can

be inspected.

 Such a

 pile. must have a single liner and a

leachate removal system (5724.353).

~1-~o1

—17—

S~ar~ofMa~or

Issues

The

 Board is directed to adopt

 a regulatory program which

is “identical in substance” with the federal,

 Part of the

Board’s

job

review

the.

federal

rules

make

such

changes

 as are necessary to make the program consistent with Illinois

law.

 In this Proposed Opinion, the Board will solicit comments

on what it perceives at this time to be major issues.

The

public is invited to comment on these,

 as well as the text of

the rules and

such

issues

they

perceive,

I.

 Permit Modifications:

A.

 Should the Agency be able to extend the time for Part A

via a “compliance order”?

 Should this be allowed

only via a variance?

 155703.150(c)

 and 703.157(b);

40 CFR 122.22 (a) (3)

 and 122.23(e) (2)3

B.

 Groundwater Protection:

 Should the Agency be able

to impose compliance monitoring and corrective action

via permit modification rather than an enforcement

action after contaminants are detected in groundwater

5724,198(h)?

Financial

Responsibility:

Should

the

Agency

able

to change financial responsibility requirements

without

enforcement

action?

1.

 Should a surety become liable only when the Board

orders closure to begin 55724,243(b)

 (4) (B)

and 724.243(c) (5)?

May

the

Agency

draw

letter

credit

with-

 out a Board or Court order

 5724,243(d)

 (8)?

3.

 Should the Agency be able to get to financial

resources

without

 a Board Order if the operator

fails to pay an insurance premium 15724.243(e) (6))?

4.

 Does the Agency have authority to “deem a facility

abandoned”, triggering financial mechanisms,

without a Board Order?

 Can the Agency require alternate.

financial

assurance based on its own information of

insolvency without a Board Order 15724,243

(f)

(7)

and

(8)

6.

 Would stays during appeals of permit modifications

related to increases in financial assurance frus-

trate the purpose. of providing funds for closure

before environmental damage can be done

 5724.243(j)

51-302

—18—

D.

 Liability Insurance:

 Can the Agency increase

the

amount of required insurance based on its own

irif or—

mation without a Board Order

 5724,243(e)

 (8) (A)?

 POEC Removal:

 Failure to obtain

through

 incineration

99.99

 destruction

removal

 efficiency of principal

organic hazardous constituents is not grounds for an

 enforcement action, but is grounds for permit modifi-

cation.

 Is this consistent with public enforcement

under the Illinois Act?

 Can the Agency force a permit

modification without

 a Board Order 5724.443(d))?

II.

Rulemaking:

A.

 Groundwater Protection

1.

 Does the Agency have authority to set in permits

groundwater concentration limits other than those

specified by Board rule 55724,193

 and 724.194(a))?

2,

 Can the Agency grant exemptions or alternate

concentration limits that depart from the concen-

tration limits set by Board rule

 55724.193

and

724,194(b)?

B.

 Post—closure Period:

 Can the Agency reduce or extend

the 30—year post—closure care period 5724.217(a)

 (2)?

III. Agency Variances:

A.

 Should schedules of compliance to achieve full compli-

ance with Part 724 standards be allowed

 in. permits

only pursuant to Board variance

 55702.110

 and 702.162?

Should

schedules

compliance

for

floodproofing

require

 a variance from §724,118(b)?

 Would these.

need IDOT approval 15703,184(e)?

C.

 Groundwater Protection:

 Should the alternate. concen-

tration limits and exemptions be allowed without a

variance or site specific f55724.193, 724.194 and

724,198(h)?

D.

 Closure:

 Can the.

Agency

 approve disturbance

after

closure by way of permit modification?

 What if the

facility permit has been terminated 5724.217(c)?

Would this require a variance from §21(n)

 and §39(g)

of the Act?

E.

 Liability Insurance;

 Do permit modifications reducing

the required amount of liability insurance. amount to vari-

ances from Board rules

 155703.183(g)

 and 724.247(c))?

 Land Treatment Demonstrations:

 Do Agency determina-

tions resulting

in.

 exemptions

from

some

 groundwater

protection

and

post--~losure

care

 requirements amount

 variances

F(5724,190(a)

(4)

 and 724.380(d)?

Landfills:

Does

 the alternative

demonstration

prevention

migration

hazardous

constituents

any

time

in

the

future

without

following

the

design

requirements

 of Part

724

amount

Agency—granted

variance

5724~40l(b)?

Emer~ency Permits~

Are

these

consistent

with

the

procedural

cequirements

the

Act

(5703,221)?

IV.

Appeals:

A.

 Agenci7 Record:

 Can the Board let the Agency incor-

porate documents by reference into the Administrative

record

 5705,

 210(e)?

Appeals

from

 Enforcement-type Permit Modifications:

Can

these

saved

allowing

appeals

 the Board?

Will

 the system work fast enough if the Board allows

for

appeal?

Does

the

Administrative

Procedure

Act

require

 appeal?

1.

 Groundwater

protection:

 Appeal by operator if he

fails

convince

 the Agency that an increase in

background

was

 caused by another source. or a

samplino error (5724,198(1)1;

2.

 Financial assurance:

a.

 Appeal of disputes over estimated

closure

cost

 55724,242

and

724~244)

 Agency refusal to release

funds

 from

closure

trust or reduce

bond

estimated

 cost

goes

down

55724.243(a)

(7)

(b)

(7)

 (c) (7) ~

Cd)

(7)

and

(k);

Appeal

mechanism

the

Agency

withholds

payments from an

insurance

 company to some-

one cleaning up a site

 5724.243(e)

 (5fl.

Who

is

the

 permittee?

 Will

this

 require a

Circuit Court action on

the

 insurance. contract?

V.

 Facility Location Requirements:

S.B.

172

 Amendments

51 ~AÔ.

—20--

Should

 the Board drop the specific notification

requirements for local officials 15705.163(a) (5))?

2.

Should

the

Board

drop

 the absolute requirement of

 Agency hearing before issuing a RCRA permit

15705,182(a)?

Seismic

 Standards

1.

 Appendix VI to 40 CFR 264 says there are no

 Holocene faults in Illinois,

Should

the

seismic

information

requirements

and

standards

 deleted

from

 the rules ¶55703,184(a)

and

(b)

and

 724.118

(a)?

Or,

 is this

presumption

 which could be

overcome by citizen testimony?

2.

 Should

the

Board

modify

Part

 724 to state the

seismic

rule

 521(k) of the Act, or is this

preempted?

C.

 Floodproofing:

 Note that S.B.

 172 allows County

approval only with proof that floodproofing is up to

IDOT standards

 539,2(a)

 (4).

 Does this mean that the

Agency cannot review the facility with respect to the

Part 724 floodproofing rules

 55703.184

 and 724.118(b))?

D.

 Other Facility Location Requirements:

 Do the other

requirements

§21(k)

apply

 RCRA

permits?

Should

the Board try to restate these in RCRA language in the

rules,

or

just

reference

them

and

 let the Agency apply

the

Act

directly

5703,184(a)?

Will

the

Agency

able to consider underlying geological conditions and

aquifers in reviewing the siting of hazardous waste

landfills with double liners and a leak detection.

system?

VI.

 Decision Periods:

Are

these

 applicable

 5705.184(f)?

VII. Relationship to

Chapter

and

Chapter

A.

 Copy of manifest is to be sent to the Agency

155724,171(a) (4)

and

 (b) (4).

B.

 Should the. Board delete the annual report requirement

since

 the. Agency can generate this information from

manifests

 15724,175 (d)J?

C.

 Should

the

Board

specifically

require

Chapter

permits for hazardous waste disposal sites which

are exempt from RCRA because they only handle small

quantities

 155703.123 and 724,101(g) (1)?

~2 I—

VIII.

 State Control Over

Financial

 Guarantors:

A.

 Are insurance companies insuring risks in

Illinois

subject to regulation by

the

 Department of Insurance?

Does the Agency have the authority

 to. deny a permit

if required insurance is to be supplied by an insurer

 which is not in compliance with Illinois law

 55724,243

(e) (1)

 and 724.247 (a)

(1)

(B)?

B.

 Does the Agency have adequate statutory authority

to administer the cash bond for closure

 5724.243(j)

and Section 4(1)

the

 Act?

IX.

 Termination

Interim

Status:

 Should the Board establish

a

definite

date

for

termination

interim

 status

with

permits

 be reopened if

additional

Part

724

standards

are

promulgated?

Proposaland

Solicitation

Comments

separate

 Proposed Order,

the

Board

has

proposed

adopt

Parts

703

and

 724, and

 amend

Parts

702

and

705.

Amendments

 Parts

 700,

 704,

720,

721,

722,

723,

725

and

730

will be

proposed

the

near

future,

Pursuant to Section 22,4(a)

of

the

Act,

Section

5

the

Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to this rulemaking.

The Board will nonetheless publish a notice of proposed rule-

making in the Illinois

and

 solicit comments for a

period of 45 days,

Because the text of the proposal is lengthy, it will not

be distributed with

the

Proposed

Order

 or appear

 the Opinion

volumes.

 The public is

 asked to wait until the proposal appears

in the Illinois Register.

 However,

 a copy will be placed in the

file and will be made available for inspection and copying.

This Proposed Opinion will be placed in the file and wiLl

be distributed with the Order to persons on the notice-list,

but will not be published in the- Opinion volumes.

This Proposed Opinion supports the Board’s Proposed Order

of this date,

—22—

 Christian L. Moffett, Clerk

 of the Illinois Pollution

Control

 Board, hereby ~ertify that the ~bove Proposed

Opinion

was adopt~on the

Jf~

day

~

 1983 by a

vote of ~

Illinois

Board