ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

7,

1990

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

DEVELOPMENT, OPERATING AND

)

R88-7

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR

)

(Rulemaking)

NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS

PROPOSED RULE.

SECOND NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION OF

THE

BOARD

(by J.

Anderson):

On March

1,

1990,

the Board adoDted a second First Notice

proposed Opinion and proposed Order

in this R 88—7

regulatory

proceeding.

The proposed regulations were published

in the

Illinois Register on March

16,

1990.

Today’s Second Notice

action

is taken

for the purpose of submitting

the proposal

to the

Legislature’s Joint

Cortunittee on Administrative Rules

(JCAR),

as

required by the Administrative Procedures Act.

The

proposal

includes modifications from the second First Notice proposal

in

response

to hearing testimony and written comments,

and the

Board’s Scientific/Technical Section

(STS)

“

Response

to

Additional Comments on Proposed Parts 807,

and 810 through 815”,

(STS Response) filed on this day as Ex.33).

This Opinion will

not

repeat the discussions presented

in

the Board’s

45 page

Opinion of March

1,

1990;

rather,

it will reference that Ooinion

where necessary, and will

include

in its entirety

in the Second

Notice submittal

to JCAR,

as well

as the STS Response

and,

of

course,

the proposed Second Notice Order.

To the extent that

the

Board concurs with the recommendations

in the STS Response,

the

Board accepts

the rationale contained

in

that document, with the

exceptions

or additional discussion

as noted herein.

The Board held

a hearing on the second First Notice proposal

on April

6,

1990,

and accepted comments until May

1,

1990.

Apart

from members

of

the Board’s

staff,

the hearing

participants included:

Illinois Environmental Protection Acencv (Aaencv)

Gary King,

Esq.,

Enforcement Programs

Edwin

Bakowski,

Manager, Solid Waste/UIC Unit,

DLPC

Waste Management,

Inc.

Percy Angelo,

Esq., Meyer,

Brown

&

Platt

John

J. McDonnell,

P.E.

(Ex.

31),

Environmental Manager WM,

Inc.

John Baker, Manager, Environmental Monitoring Programs,

WM,

Inc.

112—7n

---

—2—

National Seal Company

Mark Steger,

Esq. McBride, Baker

& Coles

Gary Kolbasuk, Technical Manager, National Seal Co.

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

James T.

Harrington,

Esq., Ross and Hardies

Illinois Department

of Energy and Natural Resources

Bonnie Eynon Meyer,

Coordinator, EcIS Analysis Program

Phillips Fibers Corporation

Gerald F.

Barry

,

Sales Engineer, Phillips Fibers Corp.

Comments were filed by the following:

American Colloid Company by Jim Olsta,

P.E.,

Divisional Sales

Manager, P.C.25

3M Industrial Chemical Products Division by Bruce

H.

Spoo, Market

Development Manager, P.C.26

GSI Environmental by Michael Groh,

P.C.27,28

Illinois Department

of Commerce and Community Affairs

Impact

Analysis by William M.

Rodman, Deputy Director, P.C.29

Administrative Code Division by Tom McDermand,

P.C.30

Will County Land Use Department,

by Kevin Standbridge,

Dir.,

Solid Waste Division,

P.C.3l

Winnebago Reclamation Service,

Inc.

by John Holmstrom 111,

P.C.32

Chambers Development Company,

Inc.

by Scott

A.

Fitzmorris, Area

Manager, P.C.33

Agency,

First Notice Comments

by Gary King,

Esq.,

P.C.34

112—80

---

—3—

National Seal Company,

by Mark Steger,

Esq., McBride, Baker

&

Coles,

P.C.35

Illinois Steel Group and Illinois Cast Metals Association

by

Charles Wesseihoft, Ross

& Hardies, P.C.36

Caterpillar,

Inc.

by

C.

D.

Seeber,

Manager Facilities

Engineering, P.C.37

Waste Management

of Illinois,

Inc.

by Percy

L. Angelo,

Esq.,

P.C. 38

Agency response to information request, by Gary King,

Esq.,

P.C. 39

BOARD COMMENTS CONCERNING PARTICULAR RULES

There are a number of comments submitted of which

the Board

wishes to take special

note.

Section 811.101 Delayed Applicability

off the Regulations.

Section 811.101(b)

as proposed

in the second First Notice

provided

for a delayed applicability

off Part

811,

Standards

for

New Solid Waste Landfills.

More specifically,

the effect of the

proposed language is to “stay”

the applicability of these rules

to new landfills, accepting waste only from the steel, utility

and foundry 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 file

a proposal of general applicability to the

industry category no later

than December

1,

1990,

then the “stay”

continues

in effect for new landfills

for

two years

after the

filing with the Secretary of State.

If the industries do not

timely file,

Part 811 becomes effective immediately,

on December

2,

1990.

During the period of delayed applicability of Part

811,

the landfills are 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

112—81

---

—4—

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 proposal

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

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 ~o 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

112—82

---

—5—

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”.

Like 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 adplicable regulations

as

to

a category.

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

11 2—83

---

—6--

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”

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.

Section 811.306 Liner Systems

The

Board agrees with

the explanation and recommendation

in

the STS Response that,

as an alternate

to the minimum five

foot

compacted clay liner,

a minimum three

foot compacted clay liner

plus

a geomembrane be allowed.

The Board had requested comment

in its March

1,

1990,

Opinion, and received testimony and comment

in response.

(See e.g.

R.

442—524).

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

iii

terms

off leachate captured and

as

a leachate barrier.

Experience has shown

that the controlling

factors for

the

long term effectiveness of

the geomembrane are

112—84

---

—7—

directly related

to the care taken during

its installation.

Geomembranes must

be selected that are compatible with the

leachate and are of appropriate thickness

to allow

for proper

installation.

It

is also important

that machinery not damage the

geomembrane.

This requires good management,

as

is also the case

with the installation of

a clay liner. The estimated costs

appeared competitive overall and economically

reasonable.

Part 8l1.Subpart

B,

Inert Waste Landfills

After reviewing the comments and testimony at hearing,

the

Board concurs with the STS proposal

for more stringent

regulations

for

inert waste landfills.

The Board had requested

comments,

with specificity,

particularly regarding random load

checking and the components

of an acceptable groundwater

monitoring program, including

locational

standards,

hydrogeological

site investigations

to establish number and

location of wells,

compliance

point, what would trigger remedial

action,

etc.

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, and instead has proposed a

random load checking

system similar

to that

for non—inert

landfills, while continuing

to use the leachate itself

to determine compliance but with added

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.

Section 8ll.315(e)(2),

the test pit requirement

Waste Management noted

in

its testimony that construction of

a test pit would require

a local excavation permit

by the County

Board, citing Will County

for reference.

(R.

53)

WMI asserted

that if’it were denied,

the phase

three hydrogeologic

investigation would be

interrupted before

they got

to

the siting

hearings.

Will County

responded that

a permit might

not be

required by the County ordinance;

rather,

it would be

a case—by—

case determination by

the County engineer.

(P.C.

31)

We also

note that the regulation has been reworded

to clarify that

the

test pit

is not the only option available.

Agency Comments,

P.

C.

34.

Regarding the proposed definition

of

“aquifer”

in Section

810.103,

the Agency asserted that

it was “highly

inappropriate”

for

the Board

to narrow

in these

rules beyond the legislative

definition

of

“aquifer” contained

in the Groundwater

Protection

112—85

---

—8—

Act.

(see

Para.

2)

We first

note that this proceeding

is not

implementing a mandate pursuant

to the Groundwater Protection

Act, and

that the first First Notice Opinion addressed

aspects

of

the relationship between the Groundwater

Protection Act and this

rulemaking.

Aside from the merits of urging the use of

the same

language, we remind the Agency that the intended applicability of

a particular rule often may require that

we limit or otherwise

differ from legislative language (see

e.g.

the different

definitions of

“disposal”

between the Environmental Protection

Act and these

rules),

and we find nothing

in the Environmental

Protection Act that precludes

the Board from doing so, unless

there is

a

specific regulatory mandate

(see

e.g.

Sections 3.13

and 21

(m)

regarding hazardous hospital wastes).

We finally note

that the legislative definitions

in the Environmental Protection

Act are for the purposes of construing

the Act itself

(see

Section

3).

The Agency expressed concern,

rightly so,

about

the

potential applicability of the definition,

in Section 3.32

of

the

Act,

of a new “Regional Pollution Control Facility”,

which could

trigger what

is commonly called the SB 172 siting process, when

a

facility establishes ancillary facilities such as borrow areas,

facility modifications,

or

new monitoring points.

(see Para.

2)

The Agency recommends

that

the proposed definition of facility be

amended to add:

Ancillary

facilities

not

directly

related

to

waste

management,

such

as

monitoring

systems

and

borrow

areas,

are

not

to

be

considered

part

of

the

facility

for purposes

of

Section

3.37

of the Act.

We do not believe

that so altering the definition of

facility in this proceeding would cure the potential problem

noted by the Agency.

The definition of Regional Pollution

Control Facility in the Act controls what

is subject

to SB172,

not the Board.

Exempting “ancillary

facilities” would

require,

we believe, either

a legislative amendment

to Section

3.37 or

a

construction by the Board of

the existing legislative

language as

applied to

the specific

facts

in a contested case where SB 172

is

at

issue.

We also note

that construing

the definition

in Section

3.37 of the Act

is a challenge indeed.

For example, entities

coveted contain words

like “sanitary

landfill” and “waste

disposal site”

(“sanitary landfill” and

“site” are elsewhere

defined in the Act),

as well as

“waste treatment facility”

(“facility”

is not elsewhere defined

in the Act), and then

exempts certain entities called sites or

facilities

or parts of

them or other operations identified by other

labels,

depending on

what they do, who controls them,

what kind of wastes they take,

where they are located,

etc. However,

the Act’s definition says

nothing about “ancillary

facilities”,

much less

include examples

of what

they are.

Moreover, even

if

the Board were

in this

proceeding

to attempt,

by

legal

and statutory analysis,

to

construe ancillary facilities

as exempt,

the language proposed by

112—86

---

—9—

the Agency

is not easily construed.

For example,

if

a borrow

area

is used

for daily

cover,

and yet

is

not to be directly

related to waste management,

where

is

the dividing line?

The Agency,

in reference

to Section 811.306, continues

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

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

lxl0’

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 now prbposed 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.

Regarding Part

811,

Subpart

D, we will delete Section

403(c)(2)(B)

for consistency with P89—13(A).

The Agency notes

that,

pursuant

to P89—13(A),

non—hazardous waste manifests would

112—87

---

—10—

no longer

be

required to be submitted to the Agency.

(see Para.

15)

The Agency made a sizeable number of

newly proposed

recommendations

in their post hearing comments regarding

financial assurance and contingency plans.

(see Para.

18 —32).

As has been stated on numerous occasions,

most recently in the

Board’s second First Notice Opinion of March

1,

1990,

on

p.

29,

any fundamental adjustments

to the financial assurance

regulations not related to this P88—7 proposal will have

to be

dealt with

in another proceeding.

Additionally,

the issues

raised by the Agency

in most

respects have not previously been

discussed

in this proceeding.

The Agency’s newly proposed

language for contingency plans also has not been previously

aired;

while

the Agency’s language uses RCRA Part

724 contingency

plan regulations as

a model,

the RCRA regulations were adopted as

“identical

in substance”

rules pursuant to Section 7.2 of the

Act;

they have not been considered by the Board on their merits

for hazardous wastes sites, and certainly have not been

considered

in this

regulatory proceeding. As the Board explained

in its second First Notice Opinion

(pp.

26—28),

we have

determined

to proceed, and issues raised at this stage will have

to await another proceeding.

We note that other participants have indicated a desire to

re—visit

the financial assurance regulations.

We can open a new

docket upon receipt of any formal proposals

to amend,

or consider

a request

for an inquiry hearing.

We do not believe that

it

is

advisable

at this time

to open

a Docket on

the Board’s own

motion;

in the earlier financial assurance regulatory docket,

R84—22,

a Docket D was opened by the Board primarily to receive

amending proposals and none were forthcoming from the

participants.

In any event, we note that the STS response

contains some interim observations

in response

to the Agency

comments that we invite

the participants

to

review.

Board Members

B. Forcade and J.

Dumnelle concurred.

I,

Dorothy

M. Gunn,

Clerk

of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, j~reby certify

that the above Opinion was adopted on

the

‘-‘i-”

day of

_____________

,

1990,

by

a vote of

7—ô

‘7

Dorothy M~Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

112—88

---

RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON

PROPOSED PARTS 807,

AND

810 THROUGH 815

Development, Operating and Reporting Requirements

(R88—7)

The Scientific/Technical Section,

June 7,

1990

112—89

---

INTRODUCTION

This document was prepared by the Scientific/Technical Section

(STS)

staff of the Illinois Pollution Control Board consisting of

Dr. Harish Rao,

STS Chief, Mr. Anand Rao and Mr. Morton Dorothy,

STS staff

scientists,

in response

to testimony presented at the

April

6,

1990 hearing and additional comments received since the

second

First

Notice

of

March

1,

1990

on

the

Board’s

proposed

nonhazardous solid waste landfill regulations of R88-7 proceedings.

STS

has

addressed

the concerns

of

the commentors

and

suggested

language changes.

It must

be noted that the major changes occur

in Subpart

B on inert wastes while most of the remaining changes

are for clarity and are not intended to substantively alter

the

intent of the proposed rules.

For the most part,

the suggested

changes

involve

re—wording

or

reorganization

of

certain

subsections.

The changes to the second First Notice are indicated

using strikeouts and underlining.

The comments addressed in this document were provided by the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency); Waste Management

Inc.

(~TMI),

which

includes

testimony

presented

at

the

hearing

(NMI’s

testimony)

and post hearing comments

(P.C.

#38); and by the

National Seal Company (NSC), which provided testimony, and exhibits

which

include

“Fabrication

of

Polyethylene

FNL

Field

Seams,”

“Standard

No.

54,

Flexible

Membrane

Liner,”

and

“Construction

Quality Assurance for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities” at

the hearing.

As most of

WMI’s

post hearing comments were repeated

from their earlier testimony or

cortunents,

STS has provided common

response to both sets of comments.

The comments are referenced in

this document either by comment number (Agency’s comments),

by the

page

number

(WMI’s

comments)

or

by

exhibit

or

transcript

page

112—90

---

Section 807.105

1.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#1

The proposed

rules

were developed

for the

sole purpose

of

regulating nonhazardous solid waste disposal facilities.

STS

does not recommend the application of these rules cumulatively

with

RCRA

regulations

of

hazardous

waste

facilities.

STS

suggests clarifying changes to subsection

(a)

as follows:

a)

Persons and facilities

regulated

Part

or

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 811 through

815T~

hi-jowever,

if such a facility

also....

in

35

Ill.

Adin.

Code 810.103,

such

units are

subject

to such

reqi.iirernents of this

Part and

35

Ill.

Adm.

Section 810.103

1.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#2

2.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#2

(B)

STS believes that the additional explanation to the statuatory

definition of “Aquifer”

is needed to clarify the boundaries

of the aquifer and is consistent with the Illinois Groundwater

3.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#2

(C)

STS

recommends

the

inclusion

of

the

Agency’s

suggested

definition of the term “Bedrock”

as follows:

“Bedrock”

means

the

solid

rock

formation

immediately

underlying

any

loose

superficial

material

such

as

soil,

4.

Response to hearing Questions

(Tr.

pg.

648-650)

STS suggests deletion of the term “non-watersoluble”

in the

definition of “inert waste” as follows:

“Inert waste” means.

.

.

shall

include only non—biodegradable—

~

112—91

---

5.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#2

(E)

STS agrees that the definition of “Perched aquifer”

is not

clear

arid notes that the term is inaccurate. STS suggests the

following changes for the purpose of clarity:

“Perched

watertable

aquifer”

means

an

elevated

watertable

above

a discoritinious saturated lense~that is bounded by an

elevated watertable resting

on

a

low permeability Isuch

as

clay)

layer

within

a

high

permeability

(such

as

sand)

formation.

6.

Based

on the Agency’s questions regarding the applicability

of rules to “new” units located in existing facilities,

it was

pointed out that Part

814,

which utilizes the standards

of

Part

“New

facility”

or

“New

unit”

means

a

solid

waste

effective date of this Part.

A new unit located in an existing facility shall be considered

a

unit

subject

to

Part

814,

which

references

applicable

recp.lirements

of Part 811.

7.

STS suggests the following change

in the definition

of “New

facility” or “New unit” to clarify this intent.

Further, the

term “maximum allowable concentration”,

in the definition of

significant

modification

should

be

changed

to

“maximum

allowable predicted concentration”

for consistency with the

reset of the rule as follows:

“Significant Modification”

.

.

.

.will occur:

A

change

in.

.

.

.

or

the

maximum

allowable

8.

Response to the Agency’s comment #2

needs

to

be

defined

and

suggests

the

inclusion

of

and

below

the

bottom

elevation

of

a

constructed

liner

wastes,

where

no

constructed

liner

is

present.

that

is

aquifer,

and

which

includes

any

lower

aquifer

that

hydraulically connected to this aquifer within the facility’s

112—92

---

4

p~mit

area.

9.

Response

to WMI’s comments

(P.C.

#38,

pg.

#2)

and Chambers

Development comments

(P.C.

#33)

STS

agrees

that

the

definition

of

“waste

piles”

does

not

specify

a time period for the removal

of accumulated wastes

and

suggests

a

one

year

period,

as

follows,

for

Board

consideration:

“Waste pile” means an area..

.

.

year the waste has been

is being removed

for utilization or

disposed that there

i3

a

10.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#2

(G)

STS

notes

that

the

definition

of

the

term

“Zone

of

attenuation” does account for what the Agency terms “disposal

of

wastes

in

trenches.”

It

must

be

noted

that

the term

“bottom of the wastes” is not referring to a single point, but

was

a reference to

the entire surface

area over which the

waste

is placed.

However,

for the purposes of clarity, STS

suggests the following alternative language:

“Zone

of attenuation”

is the three d

cluding the volume occupied by

irnensional region

formed

the placement of waste

from

extending downwards

from the bottom of

the w~e&-’-e-r

from the ground surface, whichever is lower, to the bottom of

the uppermost

aquifer,

and hounded by

the smaller

of the

volumes resulting from vertical planes drawn to the bottom of

the uppermost aquifer

at the property boundary or 100 feet

Section 811.105

1.

Response to WMI’s comments (WMI’s testimony,

pg.

#2 and P.C.

#38, pg.

#3)

STS notes that the regulations allow the placement of wastes

in areas other than the lowest part of the active face under

certain weather conditions.

However,

for reasons

of

safety

or

difficulties

related

to

the site’s characteristics,

the

following addition

is suggested:

All wastes

shall

be deposited

at

the lowest part

of

the active

face,

and compacted to the highest achievable density necessary to

minimize void

space

and

settlement

unless precluded

by

extreme

weather conditions.

The Agency may approve an alternate location

for placement

of wastes,

if the operator demonstrates that

it

is

112—93

---

5

required under the conditions existing at the site or for reasons

Section 811.108

1.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#4

STS

agrees

that

the

salvageable

materials

should

not

be

described

as

wastes

and suggests

the

following

change

to

subsection

c)

2)

May not be accumulated

alternative conditions

for the management of the i~astcssuch materials in

compliance with subsection

Section 811.111

1.

Response to the Agency’s comment #5

STS has no objections to the inclusion of additional language

that

provides

quantifiable

standards

and

suggests

the

following additions to subsections

(C)

(2) and

c)

2)

All rills, gullies and crevices six inches or deeper

identified in the inspection shall be filled.

Areas

identified by the operator or the Agency

inspection

~

particularly

susceptible

to

erosion

shall

be

recontoured.

5)

All

reworked surfaces~ and

areas with

failed

or

eroded

vegetation

in

excess

of

100

square

feet

cumulatively,

shall

be

revegetated

in

accordance

Subpart B: Inert Waste Landfill

1.

Response to WMI’s

comments

(P.C.

#38,

pg.

#4—5)

and Chambers

Development comments

(P.C.

#33)

In response to the Board’s request for comments on sufficiency

of

the

groundwater

protection

measures

for

inert

waste

landfills,

WMI

has suggested that such landfills should

be

required

to

have

a

groundwater

monitoring

program.

STS

believes

that

groundwater

monitoring

will

not be workable

without

also

including

hydrogeologic

site

investigation

requirements necessary to establish an effective monitoring

network.

112—94

---

6

The

lesser

requirements

for

inert

waste

landfills

are

intentional in these regulations and are based on the concept

that

solid

waste

can

and will

be

stringently

screened

to

determine

if the waste can be considered

inert.

STS

notes

that the general requirements in Subpart A (Sections 811.101

through 811.111) apply to all landfills including location and

operational

standards.

Nevertheless,

because

of

concerns

expressed both by

WMI

and Board members that

standards

for

inert

waste

landfills

may

be

inadequate,

STS

suggests

for

Board consideration,

(1)

the use of

a random load checking

program

to help prevent hazardous wastes or non—inert waste

from

being

accepted

at

an

inert

waste

facility,

(2)

the

inclusion

of

a

leachate testing

program aimed

at deterring

non-inert

wastes

from

being

intentionally

or

otherwise

deposited in an inert waste landfill and

(3) specification of

reporting requirements.

The load checking will involve a prohibition against accepting

wastes if there is no accompanying documentation showing that

the

waste

is

inert

in

accordance

with

the

determination

procedure

prescribed

in Section

811.202.

In

addition,

STS

proposes a random load checking program which is an adaptation

of the one used at chemical and purtescible waste landfills

(it

includes

checking

for

non-inert

wastes

as

well

as

hazardous

wastes,

decreased

minimum

random

inspections

of

waste

loads

to

one per week,

and one leachate analysis per

month

in accordance with 811.202

of leachate generated

from

a randomly chosen waste

sample).

The results

of

the load

checking will be required to be included in the annual report

to be sent to the Agency.

The leachate testing program will require operators of inert

waste landfills to collect representative samples of leachate

on a six-month basis and test

it

in accordance with Section

811.202 to confirm that the leachate is not contaminated.

In

addition, once in two years, a broad scan organics scan of the

leachate will be required in accordance with 811.319

(a)(3).

If the leachate testing confirms that

it is contaminated or

that organics are present, then the inert waste unit or units

will become subject to the requirements and standards applying

to a chemical

or putrescible waste

landfill,

including

any

closure and remedial action requirements.

STS

recommends

using

the

above

framework

for

adding

new

Sections 811.206 and 811.207 which provide the requirements

for leachate sampling and load checking respectively for Board

consideration.

STS also corrects the reference to the Board standard and adds

language

to

specify

what

the

operator

must

test

test

in

subsection

(a)

and

suggests

language

to

(b) (2)

112—95

---

7

ensure that

in carrying

out the test,

the extraction

fluid

used

represents

the physical

and

chemical

characteristics

(such as pH and temperature)

of the infiltrating fluid flowing

through the waste.

With regard to

P.C.

33, STS notes that

the

intent

in

the

proposed

regulations

is

to

allow

an

appropriate

test

to

be

chosen

based

on

the

site

specific

conditions and that would include consideration of the “time

factor”

in obtaining representative samples of leachate.

The suggested changes are as follows:

Section 811.202

Determination of Contaminated Leachate

a)

Leachate

shall

be

considered....

greater

than

the

standards

for public and food processing water

supply

standards

in

35

111.

Adm.

Code.. .302.5.

The operator

shall determine whether the leachate from the waste

is

contaminated by analyzing

it for constituents for which

a numerical standard has been established by the Board.

b)

2)

The

test

shall

utilize

an

extraction

fluid

resembling

representative

of

the

physical

and

chemical characteristics of the liquid expected to

infiltrate through the waste.

c)

No

change)

Section

811.206

Leachate Sampling

~j

All

inert waste landfills shall

be designed to include

a monitoring system capable of collecting representative

samples of leachate generated by the waste, using methods

such as, but not limited to, a pressure—vacuum lysiineter,

trench lysirneter or a well point.

The sampling locations

shall

be

located

so

as

to

collect

the

least

diluted

leachate samples..

~j

Leachate samples shall be collected and analyzed at least

once

in six month

to determine,

using the

statistical

procedures

of

subsection

811.320

(e),

whether

the

collected leachate is contaminated as defined in 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 810.103.

~j

Once every two years,

leachate samples shall

be tested

for the presence of organic chemicals in accordance with

subsection

811.319

(a) (3)

.

If

the

results

of

testing

shows

the presence

of

organic

chemicals,

operator

shall

notify

the Agency

of

this

finding,

I12—96

---

8

~j

If

the

results

of

testing

of

leachate

samples

in

accordance with subsection

(b) confirm that the leachate

is contaminated as defined ~

35 Ill. Adm. Code 810.103,

the operator shall notify the Agency of this finding,

in

writing, before the end of the business day following the

finding.

In addition, the inert waste landfill facility

causing the contamination:

fl

shall

no

longer

be

subject

to

the

inert

waste

landfill requirements of Subpart B

21

shall be subject to the requirements for Putrescible

and Chemical Waste Landfills of Subpart

C. including

closure

and remedial action.

~j

The

results

of

the

chemical

analysis

tests

shall

be

included

in the Quarterly Groundwater Reports submitted

to

the

Agency

in

accordance

with

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

813.502 for permitted facilites and with Subpart D of 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 815 for non-permitted facilities.

Section

811.207

Load

Checking

~j

The operator shall not accept wastes for disposal at an

inert

waste

landfill

unless

it

is

accompanied

by

documentation

that

such

wastes

are

inert

based

on

testing

of the leachate

from such wastes performed

in

accordance with the requirements of Section 811.202.

~j

The operator shall institute and conduct a random load

checking

program

at

each

inert

waste

facility

in

accordance

with

the

requirements

of

Section

811.323

except that this program shall also be designed:

fl

to detect and discourage attempts to dispose non—

inert wastes at the landfill

21

to require

the facility’s

inspector to examine

at

least one random load

of

solid waste delivered

to

the landfill on a random day each week; and

fl

to

require

the

operator

to

test

one

randomly

selected

waste

sample

in

accordance

with

Section

811.202

(a)

and

(b)

to determine

if the waste

is

inert.

~j

The

operator

shall

include

the

results

of

the

load

checking in the Annual Report submitted to the Agency in

accordance with

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 813.501 for permitted

facilites and with Subpart C of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 815 for

112—97

---

9

non—permitted facilites.

Section

811.302

Facility

Location

1.

Response to WMI’s comments (WMI’s testimony,

pg.

#

3

and

P.C.

#38,

pg.

#3)

The restrictions specified in Section

811.302(e)

for locating

landfill facilities

in close proximity to airports are based

on federal criteria at 40 CFR 257.3-8

(c).

Any future changes

in that section of the

CFR will

have to be proposed to the

Board

for

adoption

in

Illinois

in

accordance

with

the

Administrative Procedures Act.

Section

811.306

Liner

Systems

1.

Response

to

the

Agency’s

comment

#7

and

NSC’s

comments

(exhibit #27)

The

issue

of

clay

liner

thickness

has

been

discussed

extensively

at

hearings.

STS’s

“Response

to

Comments”

document (Exhibit #1) also addresses this

issue.

The Agency’s

comments continue to advocate a minimum liner thickness of 10

feet

to

ensure sufficient

protection.

However,

the Agency

does not provide technical support for prescribing a 10 foot

minimum liner thickness.

STS notes that such rule-of-thumb

prescriptions

might

have

been

appropriate

before,

when

landfill

development

was

in

its

infancy

and

inadequate

scientific design standards were available.

STS contends that

a

3

feet minimum

liner thickness

is sufficient to meet the

design

and performance

standards,

provided the landfill

is

equipped with the proposed

leachate drainage and collection

system

and

meets

the

proposed

construction

quality

standards.

STS

believes

that

this

conclusion

is

supported

by

the

technical information in the record.

Regarding the option of

a composite liner,

STS notes that a

properly

installed

composite

liner

will

provide

greater

protection against groundwater seepage compared to a compacted

earth

liner

alone.

A

composite

liner

consisting

of

a

geotnembrane

in

contact

with

an

underlying

compacted

earth

layer

offers

the

greatest

degree

of

impermeability.

Geomembranes have extremely low permeability and any leachate

movement

through

the

geomembrane

is

due

to

diffusion.

Diffusion is controlled by the concentration gradient across

the geomembrane.

On the other hand, leachate movement through

a clay liner is due to convection which

is controlled by the

pressure gradient across the clay liner.

A geoinernbrane/clay

composite

layer

functions

well

because

the

geomembrane

provides a barrier to pressure driven mass transfer, while the

1I2-~98

---

10

underlying clay liner forms a barrier to concentration driven

mass transfer.

The two components

together

in a composite

liner

therefore

develop

a

high

degree

of

resistance

to

movement of leachate through the liner system.

The information presented at the April

6th hearings

(Exhibit

#27)

indicates that a geoinembrane used in combination with a

clay

liner

reduces

the

leakage

of

leachate over a

10

year

period

from 160,000 gallons

for

a clay liner compacted

to

l0~ cm/sec to 70

gallons for an intact composite liner.

The

large volume of leachate collected from a composite liner will

significantly reduce the threat of groundwater contamination.

STS recognizes the problems associated with geornembranes, such

as

faulty

seams,

tears

and punctures.

However,

testimony

before the Board has shown that a geornembrane in combination

with

a clay

liner

is

still

effective

since

small

tears

or

punctures

in the geomembrane do

not affect the integrity

of

the entire

liner

system.

Based

on

these observations,

STS

recommends

the

use

of

a

composite

liner

consisting

of

a

geomerabrane underlain by

3

foot compacted clay

liner as

an

alternative specification to a 5 foot compacted clay liner and

suggests the following changes to subsection

d)

Compacted Earth Liner Standards

5)

Alternative

specifications,

using

standard

construction techniques, for hydraulic conductivity

and liner thickness may be utilized,

provided that

under the following conditions:

A)

In no case shall—tThe liner thickness shall be

no

less

than

1.52

meter

(5

feet)

unless

a

composite

liner

consisting

of

a

geomembrane

immediately overlying

a compacted earth liner

is installed.

The following minimum standards

shall apply for a composite liner:

£1

the geornembrane shall be no less than 60

mils

(0.06

inch)

in

thickness

and meet

the

requirements

of subsection

(e);

and

.jJJ

the compacted

earth

liner

shall

be

no

less than 0.91 meter

(3 feet)

and meet the requirements of subsections

(di (2) through

(d) (4)~

Section

811.309

Leachate

Treatment

and

Disposal

System

1.

Response to

WMI’s

comments

(WMI’s Testimony,

pg.

#4 and P.C.

#38, pg.

#7)

112—99

---

11

Subsection

811.309(b)

requires

parallel

operations

that

allow

the

management

and

disposal

of

leachate

during

routine

maintenance.

The additional operations may include storage

and/or other treatment processes.

2.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#8

Subsection

(c)

prescribes

design

standards

for

leachate

treatment and disposal systems and does

not cover groundwater

monitoring

requirements.

However,

STS

notes

that

the

standards for the groundwater monitoring system contained in

Section

811.318,

does

require

all

potential

sources

of

discharges

to

the

groundwater

within

the

facility

to

be

monitored as a part of the facility’s monitoring program.

3.

STS recommends the addition of a subsection

(d)

(5)

to prevent

the leachate drainage

and collection system from being used

for storage.

STS suggests the following change:

d)

Standards for Leachate Storage Systems

~.j

The leachate drainage and collection system shall

not be used for the purpose of storing leachate.

4.

Response to WNI’s comments

(P.C.

#38,

pg.

#7)

STS agrees that the standards should allow hauling of leachate

to treatment works in situations where a direct connection to

sewerage system

is not available or temporarily restricted and

recommends the addition of

a new subsection

811.309(e) (6).

The

suggested

changes

which

include

a

minor

change

in

subsection

(e)

(5)

are

as

follows:

e)

5)

Leachate shall

be allowed

to flow into the sewer-

age system at

all times; however,

if access...

~J

Where

leachate

is

not directly discharged

into

a

sewerage system, the operator shall provide storage

capacity sufficient to transfer all leachate to an

offsite treatment works.

The storage system shall

meet the requirements of subsection

(d).

5.

STS recommends changes to subsection

(f) (6)

to be consistent

with the suggested changes

to

35

Ill.

Adrn Code 810.103

(see

Section 810.103, comment

#4)

as follows:

112—100

---

12

f)

6)

Daily and

intermediate cover shall be permeable

to

the extent necessary to prevent the accumulation of

water

and

formation

of

perched

watertables

conditions and gas buildup, or alternatively cover

shall...

6.

In

response

to

WMI’s

comments

regarding

the

frequency

of

leachate

monitoring

811.309(g)),

STS

recommends

that

the

Board consider requiring a reduced frequency of once per year,

if a constituent

to be monitored

is not detected.

However,

if

a

monitored constituent

is detected,

then the

frequency

could

revert

to

quarterly

sampling.

STS

suggests

the

following changes:

g)

1)

Representative

samples

of

leachate

shall

be

collected from each unit and tested

in accordance

with subsections

(2) and

(3)

at a frequency of once

per quarter while the leachate management system is

in

operation.

The

frequency

of

testing

may

be

changed

to

once

per

year

for

any

monitored

constituent,

if it is not detected in the leachate.

However,

if such

a constituent

is

detected

in the

leachate,

testing

frequency

shall

return

to

a

quarterly schedule.

7.

STS

thanks

WMI

for

pointing

out

the

error

in

lettering

Subsection 811.309(g).

The subsection will be re-lettered as

follows:

gh)

Time of Operation of the Leachate Management System

Section

811.310

Landfill

Gas

Monitoring

1.

Response to the Agency’s comment #9 and WMI’s

comments

(P.C.

#38, pg.

#9)

STS notes that the subsection

(b) (8) was intended to prescribe

minimum location standards for ambient air monitoring and was.

not intended to prescribe the type of monitor to be used.

The

following change will be made to clarify this

intent:

b)

8)

At least

air inonitorjJ~g9locations

shall

be

chosen

and

samples

shall

be

taken

-1-o-cated

no

higher...

112—101

---

13

2.

Response to WMI’s comments (WMI’s testimony,

pg.

#6 and P.C.

#38, pg.

#9)

STS notes that landfill operations may have an impact on air

quality and therefore it is reasonable to include air toxics

among constituents that may need to be monitored.

In order

to address WMI’s concern regarding monitoring of compounds on

the

list

of

air

toxics

adopted

by

the

Board

pursuant to

Section 9.5 of the Act,

STS recommends the addition of a new

subsection

(c) (5) that clarifies the monitoring requirements

of such compounds.

The suggested addition to Section 811.310

is as follows:

c)

~

The operator shall include in the permit

a list of

air

toxics

to

be

monitored

in

accordance

with

subsection

(d).

The Agency

shall

determine

the

monitoring frequency of the listed compounds based

upon their emission rates and ambient levels in the

atmosphere.

Section 811.311

Landfill Gas Management System

1.

Response to WMI’s comments (WMI’s testimony,

pg.

#

7

arid P.C.

#38, pg.

#9)

STS thanks

WMI

for pointing out the typographical error

in

subsection

(a) (1)

arid corrects

it

as follows:

a)

1)

A methane concentration

greater.... which is located

at or beyond outside the property boundary or 30.5

meters

(100

feet)

from

the

edge

of

the

unit,

whichever is less;

2.

Response to WMI’s comments

(WNI’s testimony,

Pg.

#7)

The intent

of subsection

(c) (10)

is

to require

a

test

for

leakage of the portion of gas collection system that conveys

the

gas

leaving

the

units

to

the

processing

and disposal

facility.

STS suggests the following additional language for

the purposes of clarity:

c)

10)

The portion of the gas collection system,

used to

convey the gas collected from one or more units for

processing

and disposal

shall

be

tested

collection system or entry of air into the system.

112—102

---

Section 811.312

1.

Response to WMI’s comments

(WMI’s testimony,

pg.

#7 and P.C.

#38, pg.

#9)

The WMI’s comment regarding tranfer of landfill gas to a third

party

is not very clear.

If

WMI’s concern

is about offsite

gas processing

facilities, STS notes that subsection

(g) (1)

provides the criteria based

on volume of gas processed,

for

determining whether or not an off-site gas processing facility

should be

considered

as a part

of the solid waste disposal

facility.

2.

In response to WMI’s concern regarding direct discharge of gas

to

the

atmosphere,

STS

suggests

clarifying

changes

to

subsections

(c)

and

(f) (2).

Also,

a change

in

subsection

811.312(e)

reflects

the

inclusion

of

the

control

device

requirements under the new source performance standards of the

Federal Clean Air Act applicable in Illinois under Section 9.1

of the Act.

The suggested changes are as follows:

c)

No gas may be discharged directly to the atmosphere.

Gas

shall

be

unless treated or....35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

200

through 245.

f)

2)

All

constituents

and

parameters....

shall

be

identified and included

in t~e

,~

,permit issued by

the Agency pursuant to 35 Ill. Mm. Code 200 through

245.

At a minimum...

e)

When

requirements

of 3~ill.

Adm.

Code 230.110

new source

performance

standards

adopted

pursuant

to

Section 9.1(b)

of the Act.

Section 811.314

Final Cover

1.

Response to WMI’s testimony

(Tr.

pg.

#566-568)

STS

notes

that

the

proposed

rules

already

require

an

intermediate

cover

to be

placed

in accordance

with Section

811.313,

if

a final cover cannot be placed within 60 days of

the placement of the final lift.

.

Therefore,

if placement of

the final lift occurs at the end of the construction season,

and it

is not technically feasible to place the final cover,

then

the

requirements

of

Section

811.313

will

apply.

No

change

is recommended.

112—103

---

Section 811.315

Hydrogeologic Site Investigation

1.

Response to WNI’s comments

(WMI’s testimony,

pg.#

8)

STS notes that the hydrogeologic site investigation is carried

out for the purpose of characterizing the uppermost aquifer,

identifying

the

potential

contaminant

pathways,

and

determining the direction and rate

of groundwater movement.

The information developed from the hydrogeologic investigation

will

be

used

for

the

groundwater

impact

assessment

and

establishment of

a groundwater monitoring program.

The proposed rules provide

a systematic three phase approach

for performing the hydrogeologic

site

investigation and

is

based

on testimony presented at the 11-15-85 hearing by Dr.

Berg of the ISGS.

However, the requirements of this Section

allows the operator to use any number of alternative phases

to carry out the site investigation as long as the required

information is collected in a systematic sequence to meet the

purposes of the hydrogeologic site investigation.

2.

Response to the Agency’s comment #10

(A)

STS

agrees

that

the

use

of

the

term

“disposal

related

disturbance” in the existing language of subsection

(b) (1) may

lead

to

confusion

and

suggests

the

following

clarifying

change:

b)

1)

The investigation shall be conducted

in a minimum

of

three

phases

prior

to

submission

of

any

application

to the Agency

for a permit to develop

and operate a landfill facility any disposal related

disturbance.

3.

Response to the Agency’s comment #10

(C), Chambers Development

Company

(P.C.

#33)

and WNI’s comments

(P.C.

#38, pg.

#11)

Boreholes must be placed within the boundaries of the unit,

in

order

to

characterize

the

hydrogeology

of

the

site

accurately.

STS notes that

the placement of borehole as close

as feasible to the geographic center of the site is a minimum

requirement that is based on information in the record in this

proceeding.

Also,

a properly sealed borehole will not provide

a pathway for contaminant migration.

STS also notes that an

operator is not prevented from also locating boreholes outside

the

“footprint”

of

the

landfill

site,

if

it

will

provide

additional

information.

112—104

---

16

4.

Response to the Agency’s comment #10

(D)

STS

notes

that

the

Agency’s

comment

refers

to

subsection

(c) (2) (B)

and not

(e) (2) (B).

The existing language accounts

for the possibility of the upper most aquifer being a bedrock

aquifer.

If such

a scenario exists,

then the boring should

extend

50

feet below the bedrock aquifer.

However,

for the

purpose of clarity, STS suggests the following change:

c)

2)

B)

A minimum of one continuously.., specified by

this phase

of the investigation.

The boring

shall

extend

at

least

15.2

meters

(50

feet)

below the bottom of the uppermost aquifer or

through the full depth of the confining layer

below the uppermost aquifer, or to bedrock if

the bedrock

is below the upper most aquifer,

whichever

elevation

is

higher.

The

locations...

5.

Response to Chambers Development

(P.C.

#33)

The

term,

“extending

down

to

the

bottom

of

the

uppermost

aquifer”

refers to the depth

to which the requirements

of

subsection

(d) (2) (D)

apply.

The

proposed

definition

of

“aquifer” is a minor modification of the statutory definition

that

is

adequate and serves

the purposes

of these proposed

regulations without the

specification of

a

flow

rate.

No

change is recommended.

With

regard

to

the

flow

characterization

required

in

subsection

(e) (1) (h),

the

intent

is

to

obtain

sufficient

information

to

meet

the

purposes

of

the

hydrogeological

investigation.

Variations in quality and quantity of flow are

needed to establish background concentrations.

6.

Response to WMI’s comments

(P.C.

#38,

pg.

#11,

Tr. pg.

#

589—

595)

The requirements

of the phase

III investigation involve the

collection of additional

information based on the data base

developed during the phase

I and. II investigations, to carry

out the specific tasks listed in subsection

(e) (1).

STS notes

that

in

order

to

collect

the additional

information,

the

operator

may

use

methods

such

as

test

pits,

borings

and

monitoring wells.

STS agrees that the existing language of

subsection

(e) (2)

and subsection

(f)

are not very clear and

after

consolidating

the

methods

in

subsection

(e)

and

112—105

---

17

rewriting subsection

(f) for clarity,

suggests the following

language:

e)

2)

CpecifIc flequirments

In

addition to the specific

requirements

applicable

to

phase

I

and

II

investigations,

the

operator

shall

collect

information needed to meet the minimum standards of

a phase III investigation by using methods that may

include, but are not limited to, excavation of test

pits,

additional

borings

located

at

intermediate

points between boreholes placed during phase

I and

II

investigations,

placement

of

piezometers

and

monitoring wells, and institution of procedures for

sampling and analysis.

A

New DprlnrT.

..

.the

st.upy area.

B)

At least one test pit.

.

.

area of each unit.

C)

All borings.

.

.

on

homogeneous strata.

f)

The operator may conduct.

.

.

in any number of alternative

phases ways provided that the necessary information

is

collected in a systematic sequence consisting of at least

three

phases

that

is

equal

to

or

superior

to

the

investigation procedures of this Section.

Section 811.317

Groundwater Impact Assessment

1.

Response to the Agency’s comment #11

The subsection

(a) (1) requires the operator to estimate the

net amount of seepage from the unit by giving consideration

to

both inward and outward movement of groundwater.

For the

purposes of clarity, STS recommends the inclusion of minimum

design

standards

for

the

leachate

drainage

system

in

subsection

(a) (1) (A).

Suggested change is as follows:

a)

1)

A)

That

the minimum design

standards

for slope

configuration,

cover

design,

liner

design,

leachate drainage and collection system design

and operation app1y~-jand

2.

STS corrects

a typographical oversight and suggests changes

to

address

comments

on

groundwater

quality

standards

(see

comment

#1, Section 811.320)

as follows:

112—106

---

18

b)

The

groundwater

contaminant

transport

(GCT)

model

results...

.

considered

acceptable

if

the

GCT

model

operator predicts

that

the concentrations...

.

are

less

than the applicable

groundwater quality

standards,

as

determined

in

of Section 811.320,

within

100 years

of

closure.

Section 811.318

Design, Construction

and

Operation of

Groundwater Monitoring Systems

1.

STS believes

that the existing language of subsection

(b) (5)

is

not

consistent

with

the

requirements

of

groundwater

monitoring

programs

(Section

811.319)

and

suggests

the

following changes:

b)

5)

A minimum of at least.. .unit.

Such well or wells

shall

be

used

to

monitor

any

statistically

significant

increase

in

the concentration

of

any

constituent,

in

accordance

with

subsection

811.320(e)

and

shall

be

used

for

determining

compliance with an applicable groundwater quality

standard

of

Section

811.320.Such

aAn

observed

statistically

significant

increase

above

the

applicable groundwater quality standards of Section

811.320

in

a

well

located

at

or

beyond

the

compliance boundary shall constitute

a violation é~1

a groundwater quality standard.

2.

STS corrects

a typographical error

in subsection

811.318(c)

as follows:

c)

Maximum Allowable Predicted Concentrations

The

operator

shall.. .at

all

monitoring

points.

The

predicted values shall be used to establish the maximum

predicted

allowable predicted concentrations

(MPA~C)

at

each monitoring point.

The MPA~Cscalculated

in

this

subsection

shall

be

applicable

within

the

zone

of

attenuation.

3.

Response to WNI’s comments

(WMI’s testimony,

pg.

#9 and P.C.

#38, pg.

#13)

In response to WNI’s concern regarding the standards

for the

design and construction of monitoring wells,

STS notes that

the standards allow the use of any material for well casing,

as long as the performance standards of subsection 811.318(d)

112—107

---

19

are met.

4.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#12

(A)

The

purpose

of

subsection

(e) (2)

is

to

ensure

that

a

representative groundwater sample is obtained.

STS notes that

during the initial pumping, the sample will contain both the

water from the aquifer and the stagnant water present in the

well casing

arid therefore, proper sampling techniques should

be

employed

to

collect

samples

which

contain

at

least

95

percent of the aquifer water.

It is possible to estimate the

percent

of water coming

from the aquifer and that

from the

storage, if the transmnissivity of the aquifer and the pumping

rate

are

known.

A detailed discussion

on

this

subject

is

contained in a document titled “Procedures for the Collection

of Representative Water Quality Data from Monitoring Wells”

(Exhibit 2AR R84-17 D).

Section 811.319

Groundwater Monitoring Programs

1.

Response to WMI’s comments (WNI’s testimony,

pg.# 10 and P.C.

#38, pg.

#13)

In the

section

on monitoring schedule

and

frequency

,

STS

agrees that the use of the term “threat to groundwater” needs

further clarification and suggests the deletion of subsection

(a) (1) (A) (ii)

and

adding

clarifying

changes

to

subsection

(a) (1) (B).

As

noted

at

hearing,

STS

deletes

subsection

(a) (1) (B) (iii).

The following changes are suggested:

a)

Detection Monitoring Program

1)

Monitoring Schedule and Frequency

A)

The monitoring

period.

.

.

.

except as

specified

in subsection

(a) (3)

~ or may

institute more

frequent

sampling

throughout

the

time

the

source constitutes a threat e~~

groundwater

contamination.

For

the

purposes

of

this

section,

Pthe

source

shall

be

considered

a

threat

to

groundwater,

if

either

of

the

following

occur:

i)

the

results

of

the

monitoring indicate that the concentrations of

any of

the constituent monitored within the

zone

of

attenuation

are

above

the

maximum

allowable

predicted

concentration

for

that

constituent-t-. e~

i)

thc

concenf~at~on ci

monitored

at

or

beyond

112—108

---

20

attenuation is above background or greater

than 50°~

of any Board established standard

-i~-Ccction811.320 that is applicable.

B)

Beginning

fifteen years after closure

of the

unit,

or five years after all other potential

sources

of discharge

no

longer

constitute

a

threat to groundwater are of contamination

considered as defined

iii~

Monito~-’n’-’snaii

~

is

oDserved.

2.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#13

(C)

The intent of subsection

(a) (1) (C) (i)

is to determine if there

is a statistically significant increase in the concentration

of any monitored constituent compared to its previous value

and does not imply comparisons of absolute values.

STS notes

that the number of samples obtained at each periodic sampling

should

be

adequate

to

perform

the

statistical

analysis

required

by

this

subsection.

In

order

to

clarify

any

percieved

confusion,

STS suggests

the following

changes

to

subsection

(a) (1) (C) (i):

i)

No statistically significant increase j~

detected

in

the

concentration

of

any

constituent

above

that

measured

and

recorded during the immediately preceding

scheduled

sampling

greater

than

the

previous

sample

is

detected

for

three

consecutive years,

after changing to an

annual monitoring frequency;

or

3.

Response to WMI’s comments (WNI’s testimony, pg.#

10 and P.C.

#38, pg.

#14 to 16, Tr. pg.

#

568—578)

STS believes that the language suggested by WNI

is vague and

does not clearly define the basis for choosing constituents

to be monitored.

STS agrees that the standards should allow

the

use

of

indicator

constituents.

However,

indicator

constituents selected for monitoring should represent all the

constituents

in

the

leachate

in

terms

of

their

transport

processes

(advection,

dispersion

and

reactivity).

STS

suggests

the

addition

of

subsection

81l.319(a)(2)(B)

as

follows:

a)

2)

Criteria for Choosing Constituents to be Monitored

~

The operator.

.

.

.

following requirements:

112—109

---

21

Ai)

The constituent.

.

.

.

leachate; and

BJJJ

The Board has

contamination.

~j

One

or

more

indicator

constituents

representative

of the transport

processes of

constituents in the leachate, may be chosen for

monitoring

in

place

of

the

constituents

it

represents.

The

use

of

such

indicator

constituents

must

be

included

in

an

Agency

approved permit.

4.

Response to WMI’s comments (WMI’s testimony,

pg.#lJ and P.C.

#38, pg.

#16)

STS

notes

that

any

observed

increase

in

accordance

with

subsection

811.3l9(a)(4)(A)

will

trigger

the

confirmation

procedures.

In order to clarify the intent

of the existing

language,

STS suggests

the following

changes

to

subsection

811.319(a) (4) (A):

a)

4)

A)

The confirmation...

.

conditions.

The operator

shall, under any of the following conditions,

institute

the

confirmation

procedures

of

subsection

(a) (4) (B).

However,

the operator

shall

after notifying the Agency

in writing,

within

10

days,

of

such

an

the

following

observed

increase~

and

instituting

the

r~’ocedures

of

subsection

(a) (4) (B)

for

confirming the incrca3c:

5.

Response to WNI’s comments

(WNI’s testimony,

pg.#13)

The requirements of subsection 811.319 (a) (4) (B) clearly states

that

the Agency

should

be

notified

within

10

days

of

the

determination of the source of the increase.

The requirement

does not imply that the determination should be made within

10 days.

STS agrees that

it may not be possible for the operator to

notify the Agency of a confirmed increase within 24 hours of

the

confirmation

during

weekends

and

state

holidays

and

recommends changes to subsection

(a) (4) (B) (i)

as follows:

a)

4)

B)

112—110

---

22

i)

The

operator

shall

verify...,

observed

increase.

The operator shall notify the

Agency of

any confirmed

increase before

the end of the next business day following

within 24 hours of the confirmation.

6.

Response to WMI’s comments (WNI’s testimony, pg.# 13 and P.C.

#38,

pg.

#17, Tr. pg.

# 619—622)

The reference to the term

“remodeling”

in WNI’s comments

is

not

very

clear.

For

the

purposes

of

this

discussion,

remodeling

is assumed to be a process of model recalibration.

The model recalibration involves the use of new site specific

information

which

affect

the

model’s

parameters

and

for

confirming

the

MAPCs

established

during

the

hydrogeologic

assessment.

STS notes that the model recalibration must be

performed under the same boundary conditions,

that

is being

in

compliance

with

the

applicable

groundwater

quality

standards

at or beyond the zone of attenuation for

a period

of 100 years.

The

concept

of

model

recalibration

before

the

assessment

monitoring,

as

suggested

by

WMI,

is

not

acceptable.

STS

believes that a model recalibration

is warranted only if new

site specific information which affect the model’s parameters,

comes

to

light

during

the

assessment

monitoring.

The

requirements of subsection

(c) allows the operator to perform

model recalibration using new information developed during the

assessment

monitoring.

However,

STS

suggests

additional

language

to

subsection

(c) (1)

to

clearly

articulate

the

provision for model recalibration.

7.

Response

to the

Agency’s

comment

#13

(B),

(C)

and WMI’s

comments

(WMI’s testimony, pg.#14 and P.C.

#38,

pg.

#19)

STS agrees that when the assessment monitoring has confirmed

a monitored increase above an applicable groundwater quality

standard

that

is

attributable

to

the

solid

waste

disposal

facility at or beyond the zone of attenuation,

the operator

may,

as part of

a remedial program,

or under the Section 34

of the Act be required by the Agency to halt the acceptance

of wastes at the affected units.

STS recommends changes to

subsection

(b) (3) requiring the operator to assess the impacts

of

continued

waste

acceptance

at

a

facility.

STS

also

suggests the addition of a requirement

in

subsection

(d) (1)

to include such information along with the technical support

for the proposed remedial action plans.

In

response

to

the

Agency’s

comments

regarding

the

applicability

of

groundwater monitoring

program,

STS

notes

112—111

---

23

that the requirements of Part 811 apply to both permitted and

non-permitted

facilities.

However,

STS

agrees

that

the

existing language of subsection

(d) (2) (C)

is not very clear

and recommend changes for the purpose of clarity.

In response to WNI’s comments

regarding the remedial action

requirements of subsection

(d)

,

STS notes that the remedial

action procedures are triggered either by an exceedence of the

applicable groundwater quality

standards of Section 811.320

in accordance with subsection

(b) (3)

,

or if the groundwater

impact assessment

of subsection

(c)

indicates the need

for

remedial

action.

However, STS agrees the existing language

of

subsections

(b),

(c)

and

(d)

needs

clarification

and

recommends changes.

STS notes that several subsections within

subsection

(d)

have been relettered.

Changes

suggested

in

response

to

comments

6 and

7

are

as

follows:

b)

Assessment Monitoring

1)

The

assessment monitoring

shall

be

conducted

to

collect

information

to

assess

the

nature

and

extent.

3)

If the analysis of the assessment monitoring data

program shows that the concentration of one or more

constituents,

monitored

at

or beyond

the

zone

of

attenuation

is

above

the

applicable

groundwater

quality

standards

of

Section

811.320

and

is

attributable to the solid waste disposal facility,

exceeds the applicable Section 811.320 groundwater

quality standards beyond the zone

of

attenuation,

then

the operator

shall

determine

the nature and

extent of the groundwater contamination including

an

assessment

of

the

potential

impact

on

the

groundwater should waste continue to be accepted at

the

facility and

shall

implement

remedial

action

requirements

in accordance with subsection

(d).

4)

If the analysis of the assessment monitoring data

program shows that the concentration...

c)

Assessment of Potential Groundwater Impact Assessment

An

operator required

to

conduct

a

groundwater

impact

assessment

under

this

Section

in

accordance

with

subsection

(b) (4)

shall assess the potential impacts

e~

the

increased

concentrations

outside

the

zone

of

attenuation

that

may

result

from

confirmed

increases

112—112

---

24

above

the

maximum

allowable

predicted

concentration

within

the

zone

of

attenuation,

attributable

to

the

facility,

in

order

to

determine

if

there

is

need

for

remedial

action.

In

addition

to

the requirements

of

Section 811.317, the following standards

shall apply:

1)

The operator asscssmen-t shall..

.

.programs

~

such

information

may

be

used

for

the

recalibration of the GCT model

and

2)

The

operator

shall

submit

the

groundwater

impact

assessment

and any proposed

remedial

action

plans

determined.

.

.

.

assessment

monitoring program.

Permitted facilities shall

submit this information as an application for

~inn~ricant

r~rm~c

mooiricaLlon.

d)

Remedial Action

fl

The

operator

shall

submit

plans

for the remedial

action to the Agency.

Such plans and all supporting

information

including

data

collected

during

the

assessment monitoring shall

be submitted within 90

days of determination of either of the following:

~j

If tlhe groundwater impact assessment performed

in

accordance

with

subsection

(c),

shows

a

potential for exceeding the groundwater quality

standards of Section 811.320 at or beyond the

zone of

attenuation,

indicates that remedial

action

is needed

or if

it

is

An~

confirmed,

unacr

ei~ncr

~u~~ccc~on

~a)or

significant

increase

above

the

applicable

groundwater

quality

standards

of

Section

811.320 is determined to be attributable to the

solid

waste

disposal

facility

in

accordance

with subsection

(b).

at or beyond the zone of

pttenuation, then the operator shall institute

a remedial action pro-gram

in compliance with

the following standards.

~)

The plans...pursuant

to

subsection

(b).

If

the

facility

has

been

issued

a

permit.

.

.

significant

modification to the permit;

~)

The operator shall implement the plan for remedial

action shall

be

implemented within

90 days of the

following:

A)

90

days of the Completion

of the groundwater

112—113

---

25

impact assessment

under

subsection

(c)

that

requires remedial action

B)

90

days

of

Establishing

that

detection

a

violation of an applicable groundwater quality

standard of Section 811.320 is attributable to

the solid waste disposal facility in accordance

with under subsection

(b)ji);

or

C)

Agency approval of the remedial

action plan,

where the facility has been permitted by the

Agency

pursuant

of

Section

21

of

the

Act,

within 90 days.

.

.action plan.

~4)

The remedial action program shall consist of

‘4~j~.Termination of the Remedial Action

A)

The remedial action program shall continue j~

accordance with the plan until monitoring shows

that

the

concentrations

of

all

monitored

constituents are below the threat of exceeding

the maximum allowable predicted concentration

of

any

constituent

within

the

zone

of

attenuation, and the threat

of exceeding and

below

the

applicable

groundwater

quality

standards of Section 811.320 at or beyond the

zone

of

attenuation,

over

a

period

of

4

consecutive quarters no longer exist.

B)

The operator shall

submit to the Agency

all

information

collected

under

subsection

(d) (5) (A) necessary to show that the threat of

~

the maximum allowable concentration

of any constituent

no longer exists.

If the

facility

is

permitted,

facilities

then

the

operator

shall

submit

this information

as

a

significant modification of the permit.

Section 811.320

Groundwater quality standards

1.

Response to WMI’s comments (WMI’s testimony,

pg.

#17, Tr. pg.

#

540—546)

STS notes

that

in

its

Response

to

Comments document dated

March

1,

1990,

Section

811.320

was

expanded to

establish

clearly

what

the

term,

“applicable

ground

water

quality

standard” would be under different situations.

Each of these

situations was included at subsections

(a) (1) (A) through

(D).

For the situation in which the background is above an existing

Board

established

standard

for

a

specific

monitored

112—114

---

26

constituent,

the STS had recommended that

the

lower

of the

two,

namely

the

Board

established

standard

would

be

the

applicable

standard.

The

STS

had

intended,

in

such

a

situation,

that

the

operator

would

apply

for

an

adjusted

groundwater

quality

standard

in

accordance

with

subsection

(b) (3).

However, after reconsideration, based on the comments

and hearing

testimony,

STS agrees

that

filing

an

adjusted

standard each time the background concentration

is above

a

Board established standard may not be feasible.

STS therefore

recommends that subsections (a) (1) (B) and (a) (1) (C) be deleted

in

their

entirety

and

suggests

changes

to

(a) (1) (A)

and

relettering of

(a) (1) (D);

minor clarifying changes to

(b) (3)

are also suggested for clarity as follows:

a)

1)

A)

The background concentration,

if

there

is no

Board

established

standard

for

that

constituent

~x

B)

The background concentration,

constituent;

The Board established standard,

if

...

if

...

for that

below the

C)

background concentration;

or

D~)

The Board established standard adjusted by the

Board

in

accordance

with

the

justification

procedure of subsection

(b).

b)

Justification for Adjusted Groundwater Quality Standards

3)

For groundwater which contains naturally occurring

constituents which do not meet exceed the standards

-~-equircinentsof 35 Ill.Adm. Code

2.

STS notes that

the performance

standards

for the design

of

landfills

require

new units

to

be

in

compliance

with

the

applicable groundwater quality standards

of Section 811.320

for

a period

of

100

years

after the

closure

of

the unit.

However, this standard has not been clearly articulated in the

proposed

rules.

STS

believes

that the

compliance

period

should be included under the groundwater quality standards and

suggests the following addition to subsection 811.320(a) (2):

a)

2)

Any

statistically

significant

increase

above

an

applicable

groundwater

quality

standard

established

pursuant to subsection

(a)

that

is attributable to

the facility and which occur~soutside at or beyond

at the zone

of attenuation within

100 years after

112—115

---

27

closure of the last unit accepting waste within such

a facility shall constitute

a violation.

3.

Response to WMI’s comments

(WMI’s testimony, pg.#l4 and 15)

STS

notes

that

for

any

monitored

constituent,

only pj~

groundwater quality standard established

in accordance with

subsection 811.320(a) exists and it is applicable at or beyond

the zone of attenuation.

In order to clarify any perceived

confusion,

STS recommends the use of

consistent terminology

in the text of the rules where ground quality standards are

refered,

and

suggests

the

use

of

“applicable

groundwater

quality

standards

of

Section

811.320,”

as

a

possible

referencing format.

This format has been incorporated in the

changes suggested

in the preceding pages.

STS suggests the

following change to subsection

(c) (1) for consistency in this

regard

as

well

as

with

the

definition

of

“zone

of

Attenuation”:

c)

1)

The zone of attenuation, within which concentrations

of constituents in leachate discharged from the unit

may

exceed

the

applicable

groundwater

quality

standard of Section

811.320,

is volume bounded...

uppermost aquifer and excluding the volume occupied

by the waste.

4.

Response to WNI’s comments (WNI’s testimony,

pg.

#17)

The proposed rules require the gathering of monitoring data

prior to acceptance of waste

at a landfill for establishing

background

concentrations.

In

fact,

subsection

811.320(d)

requires initial monitoring to start during the hydrogeologic

investigations.

5.

Response to the Agency’s comment

#14

(A)

STS notes that the statistical tests, such as those listed in

subsection

(e) (4)

(C), may be used to determine whether or not,

monitored concentrations above an absolute value represents

a

statistically

significant

increase.

For

example,

a

confidence

interval

may

be

constructed

for

the

mean

concentration of a monitored

constituent and compared with an

absolute value,

such as an MAPC.

If the entire

confidence

interval’s

lower

bound

exceeds

the

MAPC,

that

is

strong

evidence of a statistically significant increase in the mean

concentration above the MAPC.

No changes to this section are

suggested.

112—116

---

28

6.

Response to the Agency’s comment #14

(B)

Where percentage of nondetects are between 15 and 50 percent,

Cohen’s adjustment must be used to account for the nondetects.

A number

of

statistical

tests

may

be

used

to

analyze

the

adjusted data.

However, the application of tests other than

those

listed

in

subsection

(e) (4) (C)

will

require

special

considerations

and guidance

from

a

qualified

statistician.

Therefore,~.cnlythe tests listed

in subsection

(e) (4) (C) are

specified.

It must be noted that the use of other statistical

tests

are allowed

as

long

as

they meet the requirements

of

subsection

(e) (6).

STS

agrees

that

the

rules

should

allow

the

use

of

transformation procedures to normalize the sampling data and

use

the

normal

theory

statistical

tests,

if

data

transformation is sucessful.

This was the intent, but was not

explicitly included.

However based on the Agency’s comments,

STS recommends changes to subsections

(e) (1) and

(e) (3) (B) to

include data transformation provisions.

7.

Response to the Agency’s comment #14

(C)

STS believes that the general performance standards of 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

724.197(i)

are

not

adequate

for

choosing

the

appropriate

statistical

test

or

tests

for

analyzing

groundwater monitoring

data.

Even though the standards

of

Part

724

address

issues,

such

as

nondetects

and~data

distribution in general terms, detailed requirements will be

useful for choosing an appropriate test.

STS notes that the

existing language of subsection

(e) reflects the requirements

of Part 724 and provides additional guidance.

STS recommends

that the Board retain the existing

subsection

(e).

STS agrees that the experiment-wise error rates are applicable

to

the

tests

listed

in

subsection

(e) (4) (C);

however,

the

error rates for these tests must be specified by the Agency

in accordance with the requirements of Part 724.

STS suggests

changes to clarify the intent of subsection

(e) (4) (C).

STS notes that the

proposed rules specify

statistical tests

based on the adequacy of the background data and analytical

capability.

These

issues

are

addressed

in

subsections

811.319(a) (4) and 811.320(e).

Suggested changes to subsection

(e)

e)

1)

Statistical

tests

shall

be

used

to

analyze

groundwater monitoring

data.

One

or

more

of the

normal theory statistical tests listed in subsection

112—117

---

29

(e) (4) shall be chosen first for analyzing the data

set

or

transformations

of

the

data

set.,

unless

Where such normal theory tests are demonstrated to

~

inappropriate~j

tests

listed

in

subsections

(e) (5) a~ or a test in accordance with subsection

(e) (6)

shall be used.

Any

3)

Monitored

data

that....

(MDL).

The

following

procedures

shall

be

used

to

analyze

such

data,

unless

an alternative procedure,

as

prescribed

in

accordance with

subsection

(e) (6),

is shown

to be

applicable:

B)

Where percentage of nondetects in the data base

used is between 15 and 50 percent, and the data

or

data

transformations

are

normally

distributed,...

4)

Normal theory statistical

tests that the owner or

operator shall use:

B)

Parametric analysis of

but not limited to,

Fisher’s Least

Significant difference

(LSD),

Student M~jewman—Kuelprocedure

C)

Control

charts,

prediction

intervals

and

tolerance intervals, for which the type I error

levels

shall

be

specified

by

the Agency

in

accordance with the requirements

of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 724.197(i)

are not applicable.

5)

Nonparametric statistical tests shall include that

the owner or operator shall use use:

Mann—Whitney

U-test...

6)

The owner or operator may use a~nyother statistical

test that it can demonstrate is more appropriate due

te

based on the distribution of the sampling data

may

be

used,

if

it

is

demonstrated

to

meet

the

requirements of

35 Ill.Adm Code 724.197(i).

Section 811.321

1.

Response to WMI’s comments

(WMI’s testimony,

pg.

#2 and P.C.

#38,

pg.

#3)

STS provides additional language to subsection 811.321(a) (1)

to address

WMI’s concern regarding the requirements for waste

placement

(see

comment

#1,

Section

811.105).

Also,

a

typographical

oversight

in

subsection

811.321(a) (2) (C)

is

corrected.

The suggested changes are as follows:

112—118

---

a)

Phasing of Operations

1)

Waste disposal... .the placement of waste shall begin

in the lowest part of the active face of the unit,

located

in

the

part

of

the

facility

most

downgradient with respect to groundwater flow, part

of the facility,

in the lowest possible part of the

unit.

2)

C)

When

groundwater..

.

requirements

of

Section

811.319

Section 811.323

Load Checking Program

1.

Response to WHI’s comments

(P.C.

#38, pg.

#21)

The requirements of this Section does not prevent the operator

from

returning

unacceptable

wastes

to

the generator.

To

clarify the intent of this Section, STS suggests the following

addition to subsection

(c) (1):

c)

1)

If

any

regulated hazardous

wastes

•are....

known.

Waste

loads

identical

to

the

regulated

hazardous

waste identified through the random

load checking

which have not yet been deposited

in the landfill

shall not be accepted.

The area where

Section 82.1.503

Construction Quality Assurance

1.

Response to WMI’s comments (WNI’s testimony,

pg.#18 and P.C.

#38,

pg.

#22)

In response to WNI’s comments regarding the duties of the CQA

officer,

STS

notes that the requirements

of Section 811.503

allows the CQA officer to designate an officer—in-absentia to

carry out the duties

listed

in subsection

811.503(a).

STS

suggests

the

following

clarifying

addition

to

subsection

811.503(b):

b)

If the CQA officer

is unable to be present

to perform,

as required by subsection (a), then the CQA officer shall

provide,

in

writing,

reasons

for

his

absence,

a

designation of ~person

who shall exercise professional

iudgeinent

in carrying out the duties of a COA officer as

the

designated

CQA

officer-in-absentia,

and