BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

SOLID WASTE LANDFILL RULES

(35

Ill.

Ah.

Code 810

and

81

1)

Dorothy

Gum, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100

W.

Randolph, Suite 1 1-500

Chicago,

Illinois 60601

(VLA

COOL)

Matt

Dunn

Environmental Bureau Chief

Office of the

Attorney

General

James R. Thompson Center

100

W.

Randolph, 1

2"

Floor

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(Service

List-Via First

Class

NOTICE

Bill

Richardson, General Counsel

Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources

One Natural

Resources

Way

Springfield, Illinois

62702-2

271

(Via First Class Mail)

Timothy

J.

Fox

Ill. Pollution Control Board

James

R.

Thompson Center

100 W.

Randolph,

Suite 1 1-500

Chicago, Iflinois

60601

(Via First Class Mail)

PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE

that

I

have

today

filed

with

the Office of the Clerk

of

the

Illinois Pollution Control

Board

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's Pre- filed

Testimony of Gwenyth Thompson and Christian J. Liebman,

a

copy of each of which is

herewith served upon

you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

Assistant

Chunse.1

v

DATE: February

14,2007

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

102 1

North Grand Avenue kt

.

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

(2

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTlON CONTROL BOARD

IN

THE MATTER

OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO

SOLID WASTE

LANDFILL

RULES,

(35

111.

Adm. Code 810

and

MOTlON FOR ACCEPTANCE

NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection

~~enc~

("filids

EPA") and, purmant

to

35

IH.

Adm. Code 101

.Subpart

C

and

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 102.424,

moves

the

Lllinois PolIution

Control Board rBoard')

to

Respect fully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

A

'

~imberl

f A.

Geving

V

Assistant

Counsel

Division of Legal

Counsel

DATE:

~ebruary

14,2007

102 1

North Grand

Ave.

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springkld, IlIinois 62794-9276

(2

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED

PAPER

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTlON CONTROL BOARD

IN

THE MATTER

OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO

SOLD WASTE

LANDFILL

RULES,

(35

XII.

Adm. Code 8 10

and 8 1

TESTIMONY OF GWENYTH THOMPSON

My name

is

Gwenyth Thompson.

I

am

currently

the manager of the Groundwater

Assistance Unit to Solid Waste in the Permit Section of the Bureau

of

Environmental Protection

Agency ("Agency").

I would like to

thank

everyone involved in this rulemaking effort. I would particularly

like to thank the National Solid

Wastes

Management Association

representatives

for their

cooperation with the

Agency

in

addressing our concerns regarding changes

to

the

current

regulations, including incorporation of Agency input into the proposed changes.

In

addition,

I

would like

to

thank

for attending these hearings and for their interest, questions, and input.

The

purpose of

my

tdmony is

to

address issues

raised at the

first hearing in

this

matter.

My

testimony is structured

to

track

the

amendments

as

addressed

in

the

hearing.

I. Amendment

10,

p. 63, line

9,

I would first like to point out that

this

regulation,

35

111.

Adm. Code

81 1.315(e)(l)(GNi), incorporates the

35

Ill.

Ah.

Code 620

("620"')

list of

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

parameters, not the

standards

associated with those parameters.

Let

me stress that

we

do not

use

the standards (values)

from

the

620

regulations,

j

usl

a

we

did not

use

b

&mda&

hm

3

5

111.

Adm.

Code

302 ("3Q2"') in

the pa,

nor

wiU

we use

them

in

the

future.

hdfilb subject

to

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

8

1 1

have their

own

standards, which will be discussed below in detail

(see

discussion of Applicable

Groundwater

Quality

Standards

("AGQS')). The

620

reference in these

proposed amendments is solely intended to use the 620 list of parameters. It should also be

noted that

the same

rulemaking that promulgated the

620

standards,

R1989-0

14,

applicability

of

302

to

groundwaterer

To

address

Ms.

Andria's question directly,

I

compared

the

constituents

hm

Part

302,

public

water

supply

standatds to those

of

the

Part

620,

Class I potable

groundwater standards.

By my

cow here

are

11

more

inorganic parmeters and standards

in

620

than

there

are

in

302.

In addition, there are

40

more organic parameters apd standards in

620

than

there

are in

302.

Themfore,

by

virtue

of having more parameters,

620

is

more comprehensive for these rulw

than

302.

At ME;.

Andria's

quest,

I compared the standards for

the 22

parameters that inhabit both

the

302

and

620

lists. For

1

3 of

the

parameters,

the

620 standards were the

same

or had lower

values (meaning that

620

values were

as

conservative or more protective). The exceptions were

Barium, Chromium,

Iron,

SeIenium, Sulfate, Total Dissolved Solids

(TDS),

Heptachlor,

Heptachlor Epoxide, and

Sylvex,

which had slightly higher standards. For those parameters, I

reiterate

my

previous testimony that,

to

the

best

of my

knowledge, the standards promulgated for

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 620,

Class

I,

have been developed specifically

to

protect human hedth and the

environment in potable water supplies. However,

to

reiterate,

these values are moot for

this

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

regulation because

we

don't

use

the

standards

in 620;

rather,

we

use

The

standards

come from the

AGQS.

There

are

only

5

constituents listed in the 302

standards

that are not found in

620:

Aldrin,

Dieldrin, DDT, Oil, and Paratlion.

Of

these,

Oil

exists

on

the

proposed detection monitoring

list, The

others

are pesticides,

and

pesticides are

a11

included in the

assessment

monitoring list.

The

standard

parmeters must meet is background,

as

discussed below.

2.

Amendment

10,

p.

65,

lines

7

through

23.

In

refdg

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 620

standards,

Mr. R210

asked which groundwater quality

standards

apply

to

landfills. For

35

IIL

Adm.

Code

8 1 1

landfills,

the

groundwater standard is the

AGQS,

which is

defmed as

ambient

background

as

cbnnined

by

statistical analysis of existing

groundwater

quality. Tbis is the

groundwater standard for

8

1 1

landfills

at

the

edge

of the zone of attenuation or compliance

boundary

(100

feet

hm

the

edge

of the

waste

or the property

bundary,

if closer).

In

other

P.

words, if natmd background contains lower concentrations

than

allowed

by

any standard,

then

the facility

must meet the lower concentrations; the regulations do

not

allow

exceedences

up

to a

given standard However, within the zone of attenuation

(the

area between

the waste

and

the

1

00-foot

compliance

boundary),

Class

IV

groundwater

applies,

as

stated

in

35

11.

Adm.

Code

620.240(a),

which acknowledges

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

8

1 1

.

The Class

IV

Maximum Allowable Predicted Concentrations MAPCs").

As

found in

3

5

ILI.

Ah.

Code

8

1 1.3 1 7

and

8

1 1

-3

1

SIC),

a

landfill operator

is

required

to

develop MAPCs using

a

contaminant transport model

as

an

early warning mechanism, MAPCs

apply

at wells

located midway between

the waste

boundary and compliance

boundary.

If

an

MAPC

is

exceeded

50

feet

fbm

the

waste

bunday, then the AGQS may potentially

be

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

exceeded at

the cmpliance boundary. Therefore,

an

exc&ce

of an MAPC would initiate

assessment

in

order

to

prevent imptic@

at the

compliance

boundary. Outside the landfill

zone

of

attenuation, the applicable groundwater standard is

the

standard

as defined

by

3

5

Ill. Adm.

Code

3. Amendment

t

9,

pp.

80-83.

The

amendment deletes total: metal monitoring from the

detection monitoring program, though retains

them

in assessment monitoring.

A

number of

the

total metals

are

quired

for

d~tection

monitoring

by

40

CFR

258, Appendix

I

(the federal

quiremmb

for mupicipal =lid waste landfills),

However, the

federal

rules

allow

the

State

to

alter the required list upon making

a

damstration

to

USEPA,

in writing, and received their

coocwrence

that

tbe

proposed alternab

list was

an

adequate substitution. Copies of

the

comqmndence

accompany

this

testimony.

4.

Amendment

1

9,

p.

84.

Ms.

Andria offers the concern

that

tbe

mas

m

tested

". .

.after

the groundwater

co~ltamhalicln

h

wcurred." Qur pmaw

at

new

landfills

quires

background development for an extensive list of parameters, which

can

be found

itl

Attachment

I

at the end of the document called LPC-PA19. It can be found

at

the Agency's website:

http:/lwww

.epa.state.

i1,usllmd~re~uIatary-v~mwd~ermi

t

s-andtmann~ernent/foms/pl

9-

instructions.df.

The

parameter list contains most parameters required during assessment.

Functionally, background has

already

been developed for most parameters

on

the assessment

monitoring list, wbich are available for comparison, should assessment monitoring be required in

the

futuEe.

In

addition, regulation

35 111.

Adm.

Code

8

1 1.3

19@)(5)(C)

requires

that background

be

developed for

any

parameter that is detected in

groundwater

during assessment monitoring.

In

the

circumstance

where background has not been developed, this regulation

requires

that it be

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

developed. Background must be established

at

locations unaffected

by

the landfill.

5.

Amendment

26,

p.

125.

The

Agency

committed

to

provide

the exact

link

on

the

Agency website

where

all active

(under

review) and inactive,

(acted

upon)

applications are

described. That web address

is: http:/lefladataepas~te.il.usI1mdlso~idwt.

This

link allows

-

I

rfi

a

user

to

search for

both

active and inactive applications

by

several variables

(e.g.,

facility name,

site number, city, county).

The information

includes the following: the

date

the application is

received, the

date

that the Agency is required

to

take final action,

a

brief summary of

the

application's

purpose, names

of

Agency reviewers, and, for inactive applications,

dates

Agency

took action.

6,

Amendment

45,

p.

1

64.

I would like

to

clarify

my

previous

mponse

to Ms.

Liu.

Aitchison's

adjustment,

as

we11 as

Cohen's,

are

general

1

y

used

when non-detects are between

15%

and

so%;

the

data sets

must be normally distributed

.

This concludes

my

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

GWEm TBOMPSON, W.G.

Mmh,

1998

Licmed

hf~onal

Geologrst

Stak

of

lllinois

License

No.

EXPERIENCE:

February

May,

1984

Illinois

EPA

Bureau of

Land

Permit Won

Maqpx

-

Solid Waste

Grouadwater

Unit

Supervise

geologists

miming

applW01ls

for solid

waste

lmd6Uq

review groundwater impact

wessmmb;

review

propid

adjusted

stadds

and

regulatmy chmp; provide

technical

support

and

tminingin~~~~

Illinois

EPA

Bureau of Land Permit

Section

Assistarrt

Manager

-

Solid Waste

Gmdwta

Unit

Manager (EPS

IV)

Reviewed

applications for

hdfi1I

development,

groundwas

investi~ons,

contaminant&msprtm&ling

andco&actioasoas

Illhis Department

of

Minw

&

Minerals

-

Land Reclamalion

Division

Eduated

Goal

mill&

pmit

appli~otls

with

fa

potdid

impacts

to

surface

and

gmudwhx.

Evaluated

gmwhter

qualityIqwhty

data.

kis

mmt

of

Mines

and

Minerrrls

Division

of

Oil &

~UnchgroImd lnjectian Control

Prograra

Completed area

reviews

for geology

and

active

injection

as part

of

evaluation for Class

II

injection wells.

Dkbd

field investi@ons.

Abandoned

Mined

Lands

Rechation

Council

-

Emergency Resp~lse

Field

bvd@or

of

hwhed

mine mqemies. Designed

atad

impl-w-.

Geo1~udl~-~~

Kansas

Vol~~tioa

Assid

site

geologist

with

development

wHs.

B.S.

Geology

University of OkIahoma

-

Norman, Oklahoma

&&&

Work-H~log~aadE~~dd

Scim

wigfit

state

UMty

s8ngUnan st

University

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGIONS

5

77

WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD

CHICAGO, IL 60604.3590

REPLY

TO THE ATTENTION

OF

DW-81

October

1 1,2006

Mr. Stephen

Nightingale,

PE

Permit

Section

Manager

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

N.

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

Mr,

Nightingale:

Your

letter, dated September 18,2006, requesting 40

CFR

Part

258

Appendix

I

Total

Metals Proposed DeletionReplacement, has been reviewed.

Your

letter provides detailed

informa?mn

on

how

he

proposed changes

to the

Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency

detection monitoring program will provide

a

reliable indication

of

inorganic

releases

born

MSWLF units to groundwater, taking into account the factors outlined

40

CFR

25 8+54(a)(Z)(i-iv). The information you submi

ttd is considered sufficient

justification

for

implementing the proposed detection

monitoring program.

As always

the

XEPA approach

of communicating

with

Region

5

staff

on

proposed

program

changes

in

advance

Sincerely,

Donna

Twickler

Environment

a1

REC" JED

~

O

C

.J 2006

~

Rocyehdhcyatmbh

Wed

mth VapatrbM Od Based Inks on 1OOx R-

Paw

(50% Pos!eanwmar)

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

1

1 021 NORTH

GRAND

AVENUE

EAST, P.O. BOX

1

9276, SPRINGFIELO, ILLINOIS

62794-9276

- !

2

1 7)

2171524-3300

September

18,

2006

CerWed

Mail

7002 2030 0001 1879

4442

Ms.

Dom

Twickler

Environmental Engineer

USEFA

Region

5,

D

W-U

77

West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Re:

40

CFR

Part

258 Appendix 1 Total Metals Proposed DeletiodReplactment

The

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency @PA)

requests a determination from the US EPA

whether proposed detection monitoring program changes are considered consistent with 40

CFR

Subtitle

D. The

proposal eliminates

certain

unfiltered

metal

parameters from the Illinois

annual

detection monitoring constituent list. These metals are contained on'the

40

CFR Part

258

Existing Program:

The existing detection-monitoring program in

Hlinois

includes quarterly monitoring of the

G1

list

of

parametm and annual monitoring of the G2 list of parameters (see Attachment

I).

The

G

1

list

is monitored quarterly for filtered metals including arsenic,

cadmium,

iron,

lead,

manganese, and

mercury.

The

G2

list is a comprehensive list of inorganic and organic parameters: it includes

organics

from

40

CFR

258

Appendix

1,40

CFR

141.40, Illinois Administrative Code 620,

organics found

at

solid

waste

facilities

from publications, and unfiltered

inorganics

antimony,

arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,

cobalt,

copper, iron, lead, manganese,

mercury,

nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and

zinc. After the collection of a minimum

of

5

years of

data a

facility

may request a reduction fiom quarterly to semi-annual sampling in

detection monitoring wells.

Proposed New Program:

It is proposed that

an

alternative

list

of inorganics be

substituted for the

40

CFR

Part 2

5

8

Appendix I total

metals

based on criteria stipulated

in

40

CFR Part

258.54(a)(2),

The proposed

list

of

indicator constituents (new

G

1

list)

to

be

analyzed

quarterly includes

total

Cyanide and the

following

filtered parameters: Ammonia-Nitrogen,

Arsenic,

Boron, Cadmium,

Chloride,

Chromium, Lead,

Magnesium,

Mercury, Nitrate, Sulfate, Total Dissolved Solids and Zinc. In

addition,

any

facility accepting

more

than

50% by

volume

non-municipal

waste

must

also

monitor for additional parameters based on leachate and

waste

content.

As with the existing

program, under the

new

program, a facility

may

petition for a reduction from quarterly to

semi-

annual

monitoring after

5

years of data have been collected.

Roc--4302

NorthhinSbC#.R~,Il61103-(815)987-7760

DE~PL~INES-~S~I

W.HarrimSt, kPlaim,lL60016-18.17)29/-4000

ELGIN

-

595

South

Sbk, Elg~n, 11 601

23

-

(847)

608-31

31

Pfonl~

-

5415 N Univenlty

St,

Peorra, 11 61614

-

(309) 693.963

BWU

w

LMlD

-

R~A-

7620

N. Unimriw St., Pm~a,

It

61 61 4

-

(303)

693-5462

*

CMWAICN

-

21

25

%uth

F~rst Sw Clumpa~gn. IL 61820

-

01

f)

2785800

SPIIHGFIUO

-

4500

S.

Sixth

Street

Rd., Springfield,

1i

62706

-

(21 7)

786-6692

4 COLLIWIUE

-

2009 Ma11 Ulmt, Coll~nsv~lle,

I1

61234

-

(6181 346-5120

M~mm-2309 W.

Main

St, Suite 116. Marron,

It

62959

-

(61 8)

993-71W

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Page 2

In addition, revisions are proposed for

the

G2 list.

The

new list would include

an

expanded

list

of 40 CFR Part

258

Appendix

I

volatile organics and

be

sampled more frequently. All detection

mooitoring

wells

will

be sampled semi-annually for all organic parameters

fiom

40 CFR Part

258

Appendix I,

as

well

as A0

CFR Part

14 1.40

organics

(see

Attachment

II).

Leachate continues to

be

monitored far the parameters in Attachment 1. Proposed

revis

jam

,

.

include sampling monitoring points

on

rn

al@rnatieg

schedule.

The

facility

would

monitor

the

Attacbent

1

list

on

a

semi-annual

basis

with

Supporting Information and Discussion:

This

section presents

an ovemiew

af

the total

heavy meld constituents

as

a

compound elass

in

terms of their utility as detection monitoring parameters

aad

presents

an

alkrnative list.

The

alternative

list is proposed in

accordance

with 40

CFR Part

25

8.54(4)(2),

the Director of

an

approved

State

may establish

an

alternative list of inorganic indicator parameters for a MSWLF

unit,

in

lieu

of

some

or

all of

the

heavy metals listed under Appendix I, if

tbe

alternative

pameters provide a reliable indication of inorganic

releases

horn

the MSWLF unit

to the

ground

water.

In

determining alternative parameters, the Dircctor shall consider the following

factors:

(i)

Tfie

types, quantities,

and

concentrations of constituents in wastes managed

at the

MSWLF unit;

(ii)

The mobility, stability, and persistence of

waste

constituents

or their reaction products in

the

zmsaturahd zone beneath

he

MsWLF

unit;

[iii)

The

detectability of

indicator

pmeters,

waste

constituents,

and reaction products

in

the

ground

water;

and

(iv)

The concentration

or

values and coefficients of variation of monitoring parameters or

constituents

in

the ground water bapkgaund.

The

proposed changes

to the

detection monitoring program are

baxd

upon examinatiop of

literature pertaining to the frequency

of

detected

compounds

in

leachate,

studies and information

pertaining to mobility, stability and persistence, and

the

contrast of concentrations

hetween

leachate and ambient groundwater. The program does not propose to delete all

40

CFR

Part

25

8

Appendix I insrgmics,

as five

(arsenic,

cadmitun,

chromium. lead

and

zinc)

will

be

rchd

9s

quarterly indicators.

Potential indicator constituents for landfills have

been

studied

as to

their relative mobility,

stability

and

persistence in

the

subsurface ~nvironment According

ta

published research

the

heavy melds

as

a

compound

class

are among

the

least mobile of detection monitoring parameters

when compared

to

othet inorganic parameters

and

VOCs (Christensen,

et

al.,

1

994).

In

leachate

characterization

studies

conducted, it has been shown

that

the

detection frequency of the trace

metals monitored range from

45%

(RUST E&I,

1995) to 67%

(US

EPA,

1998).

The

WMI

study

performed

by

RUST E&I was based

on

10

landfills located in Illinois, Louisiana, New Yark

and

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Page 3

Pennsylvania.

MSW

leachate data

was

studied for the purpose of identifying which constituents

ate

prevalent

in

leachate

and

for determining which would provide an indication of a relax.

The study included the trace metals summarized below,

as

well

as

inorganic

constituents and

organic

compounds

(not

shown).

Concentration ranges and detection frequencies

of

the trace metals in MSW leachate.

WMI

Study

(1

989-

i

992)

,

Literatwe Data

(2)

Trace

Metal

Minimum

.

Maximum

Detection

Minimum

Maximum

Dttection

(u&)

(u&l

Frequency

I%)

(u@)

Frequency

(%I

Antimony

<I

9.3

-

8

1,5

47,OQO

,A --,- -

30

{I)

-

RUSTEM,

1995.

LcachatcChmckrizalion

Study,

(2)

"Draft

B-

Dccument.

Summy

of Dafd

on

Murkipd

Solid W-

hdfi

Chwkhik",

USEPA July

1988). Summay of83

Smirsry

Sitcs. Inclwh

data

fmn

Wicomin S~dy

(19845,NUS

Sbdy

(L9%7J,

Sobalta

Study (19861,

'Rdc

Auoc.

Studks (1985),

Tetar

AM

SiU* (1986). IDd Wmt~

M-tnt

Sbdy

(1987).

Christensen,

et

al.

(1994) state

that

"heavy metals do

not

constitute

a

groundwater poilution

problem

at

landfills because landfi I1 leachates

usually

contain

only modest heavy-metal

concentnitions

.

.

.and..

.

are

subject

to

strong attenuation by sorption

and

precipitation." Though

the

same

work cautions against the possible effect

of

long-term leachate changes toward

increased

mobility of heavy metals,

a

recent paper

by Kjeldsen,

et

al., (2002) concludes that

the

"postulated

enhanced

release of

accumdated heavy

metals" would not

take

place in

the

long

tan

according

to

model analyses.

The mobility of metals is controlled by physical

factors

reiated

to the

geologic matrix

(e.g.,

rock

type, mineralogy, grain size) and hydrochemical factors

related

to

the subsurface environment

(e .g.,

pH, Eh, complexing ligands, competing ions). The physiochemical properties of the metals

and

the

subsurface conditions

govern

the partitioning, transport, and fate

of

each of

the

mehis.

Metals

in

the god

may exist

as:

free ions, insoluble precipitates, metal ligand complexts,

adsorbed species, species held

on

to

by

ion exchange, and species that differ in oxidation

states.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Page

4

Due ta

the

positive charge of metal ion species> adsorption of metals onto negatively charged

clay minerals or organic matrer

is

an

important limiting process

with

respect

to

metals

mobility.

Ilissolved parameters

exist

truly in

solution

(such

as

groundwater).

Dissolved parameters cannot

be removed fiam

a

liquid

without

a

phase

change

(such as distillation, precipitation, adsorption,

or extraction) (MacKenzie et

al,

1

998).

Suspended (or total) solids are large enough

to

either

settle out

of solution or

be

removed by filtration (MacKenzie

at

al,

1998).

The mobility of

inorganic parameters

is

therefore betrer reflected by monitoring

dissolved

parmeters

as

compared

to

total

metals, wbh

have

been rendered immobile due to physw

or

chemical

processes. This

is

especially

tnre in

fine-grained

environments.

Many detection-monitoring programs

at facilities

in

Illinois

are

developed in siltyl~layey

subsurface materials, which often yield twbid samples. Alteration

of

sampling

pmcedures (we

of low

flow

sampling)

to

decrease turbidity

b

yielded varied results

of

success.

Turbidity

creates a large bias in

the

resultant

data,

which results

in

wholly unreliable

data

for

detection

monitoring purposes (Gibbons, R.

D.

and Sara, M.,

1

995).

Our experience

in

administering

the

current regulatory program in Illinois underscores this unreliabiiity. Turbidity issues contribute

to

an

unacceptable false positive rate

that

necessitates complex

md

continual

statistical treatment

of

the

data

to

maintain acceptable statistical power.

Specifically,

the

following

parameters proposal

for

removal

from

the Illinois detectian-

monitoring

program. Justification is provided

as

required by

40

CFR Part

25

8(a)(2).

Antimosv

(total)

Detection

frequency

of antimony in MSW landfill Ieachate is less than

30%.

Additionally,

the

maximum

concentration cited

in

the

leachate study

was

detected

below the Iliinois Class

n

groundwater standard

(24

ug/l).

Barium

is

commonly

detected

in

groundwater fram

the

presence of

b~um

containing

mineral

deposits. Barium is detected in the majority of leachate samples collected but afkn not

at

concentrations

above

ambient groundwater concentrations.

The

major attenuation mechanisms

for

barium

are adsorption,

exchange, and

precipitation. Barium

also

can be released from natural

soils under reducing conditions or

in

presence of sulfate and

may

give false positive results.

Additionally, the

maximum

concentration provided in the ltachate

study

was

detected

below the

Wbis Clm

I groundwater

standard (2000

Bervllium (total)

Beryllium

is

rarely

detected in the groundwater or

MS

W

leachates.

The

major attenuation

mechanisms are precipitation and exchange. Additionally,

both

maximum

concentrations

detected in the leachate and literature studies were below the

Illinois

Class TI groundwater

standard (500 ugll).

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Page

5

Cobalt (totab

Detection frequency of cobalt leachate samples is less

than

42%.

It

is thought that cobalt

can

coprecipitate or be

absorbed

by

manganese

and iron oxides (Fetter, 1999). In addition,

both

maximum

concentrations

detected

in

the leachate and literature studies

were

below the Illinois

Class

I

groundwater standard

(1

000

Cop~er (total)

Sources

of

copper in the environment include

natural

deposits, industrial deposits, wood

preserving, and plumbing. Copper was detected in most

MSW

leachate samples monitored.

Copper is attenuated

in

the

soil through exchange

and

adsorption

mechanisms. Adsorption of

copper occurs at a greater

extent

than for most other metals. The major attenuation mechanisms

for copper are adsorption, exchange, and precipitation.

In

addition, bath

maximum

concentrations detected in the leachate and literature studies

were

below the Illinois

Class

I

groundwater standard (650

Nickel (total)

Nickel is detected in the majority of MSW leachate samples, but is generally not found in

groundwater because it occurs mainly as insoluble hydroxides or sulfides. The

major attenuation

mechanisms

axe

adsorption

and

precipitation. Additionally, the

maximum

concentration

detected

in the leachate study

was

detected below the Illinois Class

II

groundwater standard (2000 ug/l).

Selenium

(total)

The detection frequency of selenium in

MSW

leachate

is

less

than

44%. It is naturally occurring

as mineral deposits

in

one of four oxidation

states. The

major attenuation mechanisms are

adsorption and exchange but

this

varies with

the

selenium species, controlled

by

pH, redox, and

soil composition. Additionally, the

maximum

concentration

detected in

the leachate study was

detected below the Illinois Class I groundwater

standard

Siher (total)

The detection frequency of silver in MSW leachate is less than

47%.

Silver is generally not

found

in

groundwater

as

it

will

form highly insoluble precipitates and is strongly adsorbed

by

clay, making it relatively immobile in soil.

In

addition,

both

maximum concentrations

in

the

leachate and literature studies

were

detected

at

or below

the

Illinois Class

I

groundwater standard

(SO

udl).

Thallium (total)

The detection fkquency of thallium in MSW leachate is less than 41%. AdditionalIy, the

maximum

MIium

concentration detected in

the

leachate study was below the Illinois Class

U

groundwater standard

(20

ud).

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Page

6

Vanadium (totan

It is believed that in aqueous solutions (such as groundwater), vanadium may form ten different

oxides and hydroxides

and

can react with dissolved iron

to

form insoluble precipitates (Fetter,

1

99). Vdium also does not

have

an Illinois Class

I

or Class

I1

groundwater standard.

The parmeters proposed to be monitored quarterly in lieu of the above total

metals

include

general

water

quality parameters as well as dissolved trace metals. Each of the proposed

parameters is listed below along with some

information

about each parameter. in general, these

inorganic parameters are less affected by

natural

pracesses

andlor exist

at

better

concentration

contrast between leachate

and

background groundwater, which

make

them more

effectivg

and

reliable detection monitoring parameters in comparison to total

Ammonia (dissolved)

Ammonia is a common

component

of anaerobic decomposition

common

to landfills. Due to the

anaerobic

conditions

in landfills (i.e., in the

absence

of

oxygen),

ammonia is present within

leachate at significant concentrations above typical

ambient

background. Exceptions to this

would include areas with

agricultural

sources

or

in

Arsenic (dissolved)

Arsenic is a

common

trace metal that is typically detected in

both landfill

leachate

ad

natural

groundwater. The detection

fkequency

in landfill leachate for both of

the above

studies

was

92%.

Arsenic

was

reported in Illinois Community Water Supply Wells at an average concentration of

approximately 1 ugll (IEPA

2004),

which is lower than the concentration reported in leachate in

the above

studies.

Boron (dissolved)

Boron is common

in

landfill Ieachate especiaIly where ash

has

been accepted. Boron is also

common1

y

detected in natural groundwater and

was

detected in Illinois Cornmuni

ty

Water

Supply Wells at an

average

concentration of approximately 150 ug/l (IEPA 2004). Chemically

unbound

boron is readily soluble

in

water and behaves similarly to chloride. It is not ~eadily

Cadmium (dissolved)

Cadmium is considered

a

trace

component

of groundwater with

a

Class

I GQS of

5

ugll.

Although the leachate

study

detection frequency was low (only 8%), the detection frequency

in

the

literature

study

was 74% and the detected concentrations are likely above the Class

I

GQS.

Cadmium sulfate

(CdSOr)

has a

very

low soiubili

ty

product, but cadmium can

be

mobile in

Chloride (dissoIved)

ChIoride is generally regarded as one of

the

best indicator parameters.

As

stated in Fetter

(1

999),

"chloride

ions

arc

not

reactive.

They do not participate in redox reactions, are not sorbed onto

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Page

7

mineral

or organic

surfaces, and do not form insoluble precipitates. Chloride is sometimes used

as

a

tracer

in

Chromium (dissolved)

Chromium

is considered a trace component of groundwater. Chromium is not typically detected

in Illinois groundwater

as

less

than

1

%

of samples

from

Illinois

Community

Water Supply Wells

reported chromium above the reporting limit of 5 ugA

@PA

2004).

The detection frequency in

leachate for both studies was moderate, thus indicating that

chromium

is a commonly detected

Cyanide (total)

Cyanide is

a

natural inorganic substarice. of health concern (MacKenzie

et

al,

1998).

Lead

(dissolved)

Lad

is

considered a trace

groundwater

constituent. bad is not typically detected in Illinois

groundwater

as

less than

10%

of samples from Illinois

Community

Water Supply Wells reported

lead above

tbe

reporting limit of

5

ug/l

(IEPA

2004).

Conversely, the detection

fkquency

of lead

in

the

leachate study and literature data

was

greater

than

65%.

Magnesium

(dissolved)

US

EPA funded a research project on the "Flood of

1993".

The study

was

carried out by the

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Solid Waste Management Program.

The

study

identified magnesium

as

one

of

the

best indicators of

ltachate

Mercury (dissolved)

Mercury is considered

a trace

groundwater constituent. Mercury is

not

typically detected in

Illinois

groundwater

as less than

1%

of samples

hrn

Illinois Community Water SuppIy Wells

reported mercury above the reporting limit of

0.1 ufl

(EPA

2004),

Mercury is

not

commodly

detected

in landfill leachate, however, mercury is proposed

to

be

retained

as

a detection

monitoring

parameter due to its potential effects

on

Nitrate (dissolved)

Nitrate is a naturally occurring

form

of nitrogen that

can

be derived from both natural and

manmade sources. The form that nitrogen takes in the environment is dependant

on

the

presence

or absence of oxygen. The nitrogen cycle dictates that nitrate is most prevalent in aerobic

environments, whereas ammonia is present in anaerobic environments. As stated in

Lu

et aJ

(1

9851,

"if the soil/leachate system is aerobic, nitrification (mineralization) of organic nitrogen

sources

occurs

readily, producing nitrate

as

an end product. Nitrate is

mobile,

moving readily

with

the soil solution into the lower vadose zone and ultimateIy

into

groundwater." Because

nitrate

is an anion and

is negatively charged,

it

is

not adsorbed

by clay minerals

or

does not

participate

in

ion

exchange

reactions. Thus, nitrate

can

be om

effective detection monitoring

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Page 8

parameter in environments

where

other nitrogen

sources

are minimal and aerobic conditions

are

prevalent.

Sulfate (dhohed)

Sulfate is a naturally occurring form of sulfur, and, similar to the nitrogen discussion above, the

form that sulfur takes

in

the

environment is dependent

upon

the presence or absence of

oxygen

(excluding

elemental

sulfur). In

anaerobic envimnments such

as

during

the

decomposition

process in landfill envkoments, sulfate

is

not

prmat

as

it is converted

to

sulfide. Sulfate

can Be

a usell

parameter in that

in

ambient groundwater

it

will typically decrease if

the

groundwater

is

impacted

by

lachate.

Total Dissolved Solids

Total

dissolved solids

(TDS)

is

a generic

measurement of the

total

amount of minerals and

nutrients that are dissolved

(not

merely suspended)

in

water. Because suspended solids increase

with turbidity, total dissolved solids

(TDS)

is a better measure of the components of

a

solution

as

opposed

to

the suspended solids potentially disturbed during groundwater sampling. Leachates

typically have

a

much higher TDS

as

opposed

to

ambient groundwater providing

a good

contrast

far detection monitoring purposes. It is also useful for

checking

the accuracy of field specific

Zinc (dissolved)

Zinc is considered

a

trace constituent in groundwater. Zinc is not

typically

detected in Illinois

groundwater

as less than

5%

of samples from Illinois Community Water Supply Wells reported

zinc

above

the

reporting limit of

1 00 ug/l

(IEPA

2004).

Conversely, the detection frequency of

zinc

in

the

leacbate study and literature data

was

greater

than

90%.

Additionally,

the

new proposed program includes expanded VOC monitoring. Volatile organic

compounds {VOCs) are highly detectable and generally non-naturdly

occurring

so as to be

superior detection

monitoring

parameters when cornpqd to the

total

metals.

Given

our

experience

in

administering

the

current groundwater

monitoring

program

in

Illinois,

elimination of

the

above listed

40

CFR Part

258,

Appendix

I,

unfiltered

heavy

metals will not

have

a

deleterious effect

on

groundwater monitoring programs

in

Illinois. Rather

focusing

in

on

certain inorganic parameters

and

VOCs shown

to

be reliable

indicators of

a

reiease wiH enhance

the detection

monitoring

programs by curtailing the false positive rate.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Page

9

Thank

you

for

assistance

and consideration

of

this matter. If you

should

have

any

questions

please feel

free

to

contact

Sincerely,

stepfen F. ~i~htinhle,

P.E.

Manager,

Fennit

Section

Bureau

of

Land

bcc:

DLC-Klm Geving

Steve Nightingale

Chris Liebmn

Gwenyth Thompson

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

References

Christensen, T.H.,

Kjeldsen, P.,

Albrechtsen, H-J., Heron,

B.

Nielsen, P.H., Bjerg, P.L.,

Holm,

P.E.,

1 994,

Attenuation of

Landfill

Leachate Pollutants

in

Aquifers: Critical Reviews in

Environmental Science and Technology, 24(2):

1

19-202.

Davis, J.A.,

et

al.

1993.

Influence

of

Redox Environment

and

Aqueous Speciation

on

Metal

Transport in Groundwater: Preliminary Results of

Trace

Injection Studies, in:

Metals

in

Groundwater, Allen, H.E., et al. editors. Lewis ~ublishers.

Davis, MacKenzie

L.

and D.

A.

Cornwell,

1998.

Introduction

to

Environmental Engineering.

WCB McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts.

Dragun,

J.,

1

988.

The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials. Hazardous materials Control

research Institute, Silver Springs, Maryland.

Fetter, C.W.,

1999.

Contaminant Hydrogeology. Prentice Hill, Upper Saddle Hill, New Jersey

Freeze,

R.

Allan

and

J.

Cherry,

1979.

Groundwater.

Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

Englewood Cliffs,

New

Jersey.

Gibbons,

R.D.,

and Sara

M.,

1995.

Statistical comparison of Metal Concentrations in Filtered

and

unfiltered Ground-water Samples,

Ln:

Ground Water Sampling-A Workshop Summary.

EPM6001R-94/205

Illhais Environmeatd Protection Agency, Bureau of Water. Illinois Water Quality Report,

2004.

May

2004

Kjeldsen,

P., Bar&

M.

A., Rooker, A.P., Baun,

A.,

Ledin,

A.,

Christensen,

T.H.,

2902,

"Present

and

Long-Term Composition of MSW

Landfill

Leachate: A Review,

Environmental

Science

and

Technology,

32(4),

297-33

6.

Ls James C.S,

B. Eichenbrger, and

R

Steams, 1985. Leachate From Municipal

Landfills

Production ad Management. Noyes Publications,

Pak

Ridge, New Jersey.

RUST

E&I,

1

995.

Leachate Characterization Study.

Lewis Publishers.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Parameter

Acetone

AcroIein

Acrylanitri le

AIdicarb

Aldrin

Alumiaum

Ammonia

Arsenic

Atrazine

Barium

Benzene

Benzo(a)Pyrene

BOD

(ma)

Boron

B

romobenzene

Bromoc

hloromethane

(chlorobrornomethane)

Bromoform vribromomethane)

Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide)

sec-Butylbemne

tert-Butyl

benzene

Cadmium

Calcium (mgL)

Carbafuran

Carboa Disulfide

Chn Tetrachloride

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

(mglt)

Chlordane

Chloride

(m@)

Chlorobenzene

Chloroethane (Ethyl Chloride)

Chloroform (Trichloromethaae)

Chloromethane (Methy

1

Chloride)

p-C hlorotoluene

Chromium

C

hlorodibromomethane (Dibromoc

hIorornethm)

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Parameter

Cobalt

Copper

p-CresoI

Cyanide (mg/L)

Palapon

PDT

Di

bromomethane (Methylene Bromide)

m-Dichloroknzene (1,3

Dicblorobell~ene)

o-Dichlorobenzene

(1,2

Dichlorohenzene)

p-Dichloxobanzent

[1,4

Dicblorobemne)

Dichlororaethane

(Methylene Chloride)

Dieldrin

Diethy1 Phthalatc

Dimethyl Phthlate

Di-N-Butyl Phthlate

Dinoseb (DNBP)

Endrin

Di(2-Ethylhexy1)Phthalate

Ethylbenzene

Etbylene Dibromide

(EDB)(

1,2-Pibrorns ethane)

Fluoride

(m&)

Heptachlor

Heptachlor Epoxide

Hexachllorobutadiene

Hexou:hlorcyc!~pentadiene

lodomzt4ane (Methyl Iodide)

Iron

Isophomne

Isopropyl benzene

p-Isopropyltoluene

Lindane

Magnesium (mgfL)

Methoxyclor

Naphthalene

Nitrate-Nimgen

(m@)

Oil(Hexane-Soluble or Equivalent)

(m&)

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Parameter

Parathion

Pentachlam phenol

pH

Phenols

Piclaram

PoIychlorinated Biphenyls

Potassium

(mglL)

n-Prop yl

benzene

Silver

Simazine

sodium (m&)

sme

Sulfate

(mgk)

TOC

Tetrachloroethylene

m@)

(Perchlo~oethylen)

Tetrahydro

furan

Thallium

Toluene

Toxaphene

Trichloroethy lene

(Trichloroethene)

Vinyl Chloride

Vinyl

Acetate

Xylenes

m-X

ylene

o-Xylene

p-X yiene

zinc

1,1,1

,ZTetrachloroethane

1 ,l ,l -Trichloroethane (Methylchlorofonn)

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,1,2-Trichloroethme

1,1 -Dic hloroethane

1,l -Dichloroethylene

1,l -Dichloropropene

1,2,3

-Trichl oro benzene

1,2,3 -TrichIoropropane

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1,2,4-Trimeth yIbenzene

I

,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane

(DBCP)

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

cis-1 $2-Dichloroethylene

trans-

1

,ZDicMoroethylene

1,2-Dichloroehe

1,2-Dichloropropane

(Prop ylene Dichloride)

1,3,5-Trimetbyibenzene

1,3-Dichloropropane

1

$3-Dichloropropne

cis-

l,3-Dichlompropene

trans-

l,3-Dichloropropene

trans-

1,4-Dichlor0-2-Butene

2,2-Dichlarapropane

2,4,5-TP (Silvex)

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic

Acid (2,4-D)

2-Butanone(Methy1

Ethyl

Ketone)

2-Hexanone

(Methyl Butyl

Ketone)

4-Methyl-ZPentanone (Methyl

Isobuty 1

Ketone)

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

ATTACHMENT

Parameter

Acetone

Acrylonitrile

Benzene

Bromobenzene

Bromochlorome~me

Bromodichloromethane

Bromoform; Tri bramomethane

n-Butylbenzene

sec-Butyl

benzene

tert-Butylbenzene

Carbon disulfide

Carbon tetrachloride

Chloroknzene

Chloroethane

Chloroform; Trichloxomethane

o-Chlorotoluene

p-Chlorotoluene

Dibrornochloromethane

1

,ZDibromo-3-chloropropme

1,2-Dibromoethane

1

,ZDichlorobenzene

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

tram-

l,4-Dichloro-2-butene

Dichlorodi fluoramethane

1,l-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,l -Dichloroethylene

cis-

l,2-Dichloroethylene

trans-

1

2-Dicloroethylene

1,2-Dichloropropane

I ,3-Dichloropropane

2,2-Dichloropropane

I,

1

-Dichloropropene

1,3-Dichloropropene

cis- 1,3-Dichlompropene

trans-

l,3-Dichloropropene

Ethylbenzene

Hexachlorobutadiene

2- Hexanone; Methyl

hutyl

ketone

Isopropylbenzene

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

Parameter

p-Isoprop

yltoluene

Methyl bromide; Bromomethane

Methyl chloride; ChIoromethane

Methylene bromide; Dibromornethane

Methyl ethyl ketone

Methyl iodide; Iodamethane

4-Methyl-2-pentanone

n-Prop

y

benzene

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloloethanel

Tetrachloroethylene

Tetrahydro

furan

Toluene

1,2,3

-Trichlorobewne

1,2,4-Trichlorbenzene

1,1,1

-Trichlom&ane

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Trichlotoethylene

Trichlarofluorometbane

1,2,3-Trichloropropane

1,2,4-TrimethyIbenzene

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene

Vinyl

acetate

Vinyl chloride

X ylenes

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

IN THE

MATIER

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO

SOLD WASTE DISPOSAL LANDFILL RULES

(35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 810 and

81 1)

1

1

1

R

07-8

)

(Rulemaking

-

Land)

1

1

TESTIMONY

OF

CHRISTIAN J, LIEBMAN

My

name is Christian

J.

Liebman. I

am

the Manager of the Solid Waste Unit

in

the

Pmit Section within

the

Bureau of Land of

the

I1Ibois Environmental Protection

Agency.

I

have

been in my

current position since Febsuary

1999.

From

June

1985,

until I assumed

my

current position, I was

a

pennit reviewer in the unit I now manage. In

1984,1

received

a

B.S.

in

Geologicul Engineering from University of Missouri

at

Rolla and, in

2002,

I received

an

M.S. in

Civil

Engineering from

Southem

Illinois University at Carbondate. I

am

licensed in the

State

of

Illinois

as

both

a

Professional Engineer and

a

Professional

Geologist.

My

resume is attached.

Today,

I

wi 11

be testi

fymg

in support of the proposed changes

to

35

Ill. Adm.

Code

Parts

8

10

and

81 1,

specifically Sections

81

1.309(g)I1),

81

1.309(g)(2)(G),

81

1.309(g)(3)(D),

8 1

1.309(g)(4),

8 1 1.309(g)(5)

and 81 1 .Appendix

C.

This tatirnony

also responds to

an issue the Board

the

first

hearing

on this

rulemaking regarding unpermitted, on-site landfills.

1.

OVERVIEW

Leachate monitoring can help

detmine

the degree

to

which

a

landfill poses

a threat

to

the

groundwater

by

ascertaining what types of

contaminants

are

leaching

out

of the

wastes

that

have

been

disposed in the landfill and in

what

concentrations, The changes

to

the

leachate

monitoring requirements of

35 111. Adrn. Code

Part 8

1 1

proposed

in this rulemaking are intended,

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

primarily,

to:

I) pnwide clarification

regding

the constituents for

which

leachate should be

rnonitorsd; and

2)

ensure

that

leachate monitoring systems

are

variability.

These

changes

were

initially

suggested

by the Agency.

*C

.

11.

LEACHATE MONITORING

PARAMETERS

6

in

administering the leachate monitoing

requirements

of 35 Ill. Adm.

Codc

Part 8

1 1, the

Illinois EPA has taken the position

that

the

parameters for which

groundwater

is monitored

should be a subset of the parameters for which leachate is monitd. That is,

we

have required

leachate

hm

permitted solid

waste

landfills to be monitored for

all

the

parameters for which

groundwater must, by regulation, be monitored and essentially all other parameters

that

according

to

the literature,

be

found in leachate.

Since

the

Agency began permitting landfills under 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

Parts

8 10-8

14

in the

early

1990's,

we have consistently employed the approach described

above.

We

believe that

our

practices

have

a

sound

technical basis, but the current regulatory basis for it

may

be less solid,

While 35 Ill.

Ah. Code

8

1 1.3

19(a)(2)(A)(i) supports our approach,

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

8

1

1.309(g),

as currently

written,

could be read

to

mean that leachate

can

be monitored for a

much shorter list of parameters

than

we

have been

requiring.

codify

tbe

approach

we

have

been using.

The cIarification regarding leachate monitm parameters is made through the proposed

amendments

to

Sections

81 1.309(g)(1), 81

1.309(g)(2)(G),

Appendix

C

[Refmd

to as

Prsposed Amendments

4,5,6

and

9

in

Ja.

SPATIAL VARtABILITY

Within

a landfill, leachate

quality

can vary

hm

one area to anather. The causes of

this

spatial

variability

include

differences

in

the age

of

the

wastes

and, therefore,

differences

in the

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

depe

to

which they have

decomposed and

stabilized, differences in the types of

waste

disposed

from one

area

to another, and differences in the volume of water percolating through

the

waste

--

-

e.g.,

much more water would be

expected

to percolate

through

the waste

at

the

active

face

than

through

waste

in

an

area over which finaI cover

has

been

applied.

Leachate quality data from a leachate monitoring program that is not capable of detecting

spatial variability may underestimate

the

strength of the leachate

from

some

areas

of the landfill.

Also, in

some

cases, constituents

contained in the leachate produced in

one

area

of

may not

be

detected at

all due to dilution by leachate from other areas.

Although the

Agency

has long

recognized

that leachate monitoring networks capable of

detecting spatial variability are desirable,

we have

admittedly been less than consistent in

requiring permitted landfills to have such

systems.

As a result, at least one landfill now has

literally dozens of leachate monitoring points, while

others have

only one. The proposed

changes will

ensure

that

new landfills either have the capability of detecting leachate variability

(provided there is

a

minimum of four leachate monitoring points or

one

for

every

25

acres of

waste

footprint)-- or the landfill operator has demonstrated to the

Agency's

fewer leachate monitoring points

are

needed due

to

site specific circumstances.

The

change specifying

&e

minimum number of leachate monitoring points is made by

the

addition of Section

8 11.309(g)(4)

[Referred

to as

Proposed

Amendment

7

in

the

IV,

FREQUENCY OF LEACHATE SAMPLING

Under the current regulations, each leachate monitoring point at a landfill is initially

sampled quarterly,

and

after eight rounds of quarterly sampling the frequency of sampling is

decreased to semi-amuaily. The proposed amendments do not require the initial quarterly

sampling; instead, they require semi-annual leachate monitoring from

the

start, with

each

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

monitoring point being sampled

at

least once every

two years.

Thus,

under

the

proposed

amendments,

at a

points would be sampled.

The reduction

in

the frequency of leachate

sampling,

as set

forth

in

the

proposed

amendments,

was

offered

by

the Agency in

exchange

for the

NS WM

A's

support of the specified

list of leachate

monitoring

parameters and the minimum number of leachate monitoring points.

The proposal frequency is sufficient to adequately characterize leachate, and it also provida

more equality between landfills that have

many

leachate monitoring points and those with fewer.

For example, under the current regulations, a landfill with four leachate monitoring points must

perform four times

as much

leachate sampling as a landfill with one point, Under

the

amendments,

two

such landfills would do the

same amount

of

leachate

sampling.

The changes regarding

the

frequency of leachate

monitoring

are

made through

the

proposed amendment

to

Section 81 1,309(gMl) and

the addition

of Section 8 I

[Referred

to as

Proposed Amendments

4

and

8

in

the

V.

WERMITTED, ONSITE LANDFILLS

In

the

January

29,2007

hearing

on this

rulemaking, the

Board

asked if the

Agency

could

produce

a

list of

unpennittd

onsite landfills that

are

regulated under

35

111. Ah.

Code

Part 815. Attachment 1 to this

testimony

is offered in response to this request. It is

a

list

of the

unpermittd, onsite landfills

that

the Agency's Bureau

of

LandPIanning and

Reporting

Section

is

aware

of and to which "On-Site Permit Exempt

'8 15'

Facility, Annual Report" forms

are

VI.

CONCLUSION

In

closing,

I

would like

to

thank

the members

of

the

NSWMA for their hard

work

and

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

perseverance in pursuing this rule change. I would also like

to

consideration of

these

changes,

ATTACHMENT

1

:

List of Unpennitted, On-Site Landfills Regulated Under

Part

8 1

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

RESUME

CHRISTIAN J. LIEBMAN

102 1

North Grand Ave. East,

P.O.

Box

Springfield, Illinois

62974-9276

(2

EDUCATION

M.S., May 2002, Civil Engineering from Southern Illinois Universi ty-Carbondale,

Carbondale, IL, Major: Civil Engineering

B.S., May

1984,

University of Missouri

-

Rolla, Rolla,

1WO,

Major

WORK EXPERIENCE

02/99

-

Present

Solid

Waste

Unit

Manager

in

the Illinois Environmatal Protection

Agency's Bureau of land, Division

of

Land

PoIIarfion

Control,

Permif

Section. Tke job

consists of supe~~ising

the I2 engineers who am

responsible

for

reviewing the permit

applications

for all the solid

waste

landfills and

clean camtniction and

demolition debrisjil operalions

in

the

Stde

of

fllinois, subject

to

the BOL pennit procars. The primary job

objective

of

this position

is

to

ewm thal these permit applications

are

given cornistent,

high-quai@

reviaus

in

a

timely manner.

Pennit Reviewer

in

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's

Bureau

of Land,

Division

of Land Polluiion Control, Permit Section,

advancing from

an

Environmental Protection Engineer I lo

Environmental Protection

Engineer

III. The job entailed reviewing

permil applications

for

solid

waste

landfills, dransfer stations

and waste

composring

faciliiries,

comparilrg the proposals made in the applications

to the regulatory

and

statutory

requimments

and then

dra3ing

preliminary responses

(either

permits with

conditions

or denials) for

mnageMent

PROFESSIONAL LICENSES

Licensed Professi~wl Engineer in the

State

of Illinois (License

No.

062-049263).

Licensed Professional Geologist in

the

State of Illinois (License No.

196-000989).

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, February 14, 2007

---

ATTACHMENT

1:

LIST

OF

UNPERMITTED, ON-SITE LANDFILLS REGULATED UNDER PART

BOL Site

No.

Contact

Name

Facility Name

Anthony Gianelio

Chicago Regional Port Dist

.

Donald

F.

Schud

Schroud

Roprty

Lany

Carpenter

Robinson Carbon Inc.

Becky Yonker

Gerry Allen

Gerry

Allen Solid Waste Site

B.

J. Lemonier

Johns

Manville Intl.

Inc.

Rick Moore

Star Industries Inc.

Dixon

Marquette Cement Co.

Doug Stracke

ASF-Keystone Inc

R. D. Mitchem

IIlinois American Water

Co.

Darrin

Dodge

Honeywell

Intl.

Inc.

Sheri Tucker

Lafarge Corp.

E.

L.

Gramme

Caterpillar

hc.

-

Mapleton

Plant

Bruce Steinkarnp

Wirco Castings

Inc.

Andrew H.

Green

VA

Medical Center

Daniel

R.

Feezor,

PE

General Motors Landfill

Dale Vandevelde

Northwestern Steel

&

Wire

Art Gaan

Frantz Mfg.

Co.,

SteeI Ball Div.

John

G.

Nanna

J.

W. Peters

&

Sons

hc.

Leonard F.

Hopkins

Southern

Illinois Power

Lawrence

Turner

Price Brothers

Co.

Hagan H. Harker

Mid-States Concrete Products

1 1

lth

&

Calumet Expressway Chicago

1 260 1

Carondolet

Ave.

Chicago

121

87

E.

950th

Ave.

Robinson

7700 W. DuPont Rd.

-

B

Morris

1230

Ferry Landing

Road

Galena

RR

1,

Box

221

Abingdon

I 871 N. Pershing Rd.

Waukegan

Portland

Ave.

0gI-b~

1914

White