State of Illinois o 0 0 tt 0 S.^ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mary A. Gade, Director 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, IL 62794-9276217-785-2891

Refer to: Woodstock Municipal LandfillL1110950001McHenry CountySuperfund/Genl. Corr.

Mr. Bill Bolen, HSRL-6JUSEPA, Region 577 W. Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604

Dear Bill:

Attached is the Illinois Pollution Control Board's opinion on 35IAC, Subtitle G, parts 810-815, (the "new" landfill regs.)promulgated in September 1990. I have highlighted some pertinentareas with yellow tags.

The rationale for why these new regulations were warranted is notas emphatic as I had hoped (see first tag). But my guess is thatit was probably understood by all entities involved that newregulations were needed.

Also attached is a copy of Lisa Gerloff's (Woodstock Independent^recent article. Another one will be coming out shortly, perhaps inthis week's Independent.

In any case, I hope this information proves beneficial or useful.If you have any questions, please call.

Sincerely,

Charlene FalcoState Project ManagerFederal Sites Management Unit

cc: Division File

Printed on tacycM Piper

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDAugust 17, 1990

IN THE MATTER OF: ))

DEVELOPMENT, OPERATING AND ) R88-7REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ) (Ruleraaking)NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS )

ADOPTED RULE. FINAL ACTION.

OPINION OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):

SUMMARY OF TODAY'S ACTIONS*

On August 2, 1990, the Board received a statement of noobjection from the legislative Joint Committee on AdministrativeRules (JCAR) to these landfill regulations as proposed at SecondNotice. (This statement was conditioned on certain agreed styleand format changes, which are identified in the Guide to theAppendices at the end of this Opinion.) This JCAR actioncompleted the last procedural requirement necessary for finaladoption. The regulations will become effective when they aiefiled with the Secretary of State. This final Opinion and 'accompanying Order is a culmination of an enormous effort by theBoard, including its Scientific/Technical Section, as well as the

* At the outset, the Board wishes to commend the Board'sScientific/Technical Section (STS) for the quality of itsparticipation in this proceeding. Since initiation of this R88-7docket, the principal STS contribution has been made by Dr.Harish Rao, STS Chief, with the assistance of Anand Rao andMorton Dorothy, STS environmental scientists. A specialacknowledgment is due to Richard A. DiMambro, (during the courseof his former employment as STS environmental scientist) both ascoordinator of the various consultants and other experts whosetestimony has been sponsored by the Board's STS during the courseof the predecessor R84-17 proceedings, and as principal author ofthe 1988 STS Recommendations. The Board also acknowledges thecontributions made to the 1988 STS Recommendations by Dr. HarishRao/ Dr. Gilbert Zemansky (during the course of his formeremployment as STS Chief), and Karen Mystrik (during the course ofher former employment as STS librarian).

The Board also wishes to acknowledge the special contributionmade by Senior Attorney, Kathleen M. Crowley, who has served asHearing Officer throughout these proceedings, and who hasparticipated in the drafting of the Board's Opinion and Order inthis and related matters.

114-4S3

-2-

participants, both in this proceeding and its predecessor R84-17proceeding, to vastly upgrade the non-hazardous waste landfillregulations.

These regulations apply to nonhazardous waste landfills,wn'idn 'inc'iube was'te pVi.es. "bo't'n "•mun'ic'ipa'j."' ani 'indus'tr'ia"ilandfills are included, onsite and off-site, permitted andunperraitted. The landfills are regulated by waste received inthree categories: putrescible, chemical, and inert. Existingfacilities are divided into three general groups, based on theirlevel of compliance: facilities that may remain open for anindefinite period of time beyond seven years, facilities thatmust close within seven years, and facilities that must instituteclosure within two years or are already scheduled to close inthat time.

The proposal introduces a new method of setting groundwatermonitoring standards which ties the site characteristics, design,operation, monitoring, and reporting into an integrated system.The groundwater standards also function as location andperformance standards. The groundwater standards are based onthe background quality of groundwater; the operator mustdemonstrate that the landfill will not cause a change in thebackground water quality at a point no greater than 100 feet fromthe landfill within 100 years of closure of the landfill. Theregulations specify that a contaminant transport model be usedfor the groundwater impact assessment.

The regulations also require compacted earth liners, or incombination with a geomembrane, and leachate collection,treatment and disposal systems; gas monitoring, measurementcollection and management system; detailed construction andoperating oversight requirements; post-closure care for as manyyears as necessary at each landfill to demonstrate thatcontamination is no longer a problem; a trigger mechanism forprompt remedial action where indicated; location standards forsensitive areas; and more intensive permitting and reportingrequi rements.

This Opinion will include the procedural history, and willattempt to recapture the issues as they developed following thefirst First Notice, the second First Notice, and the SecondNotice proposed opinions and orders adopted on February 25, 1988,March 1, 1990 and June 7, 1990 respectively. The Opinion properwill include from prior opinions sometimes verbatim discussionsof certain issues where we feel it will be beneficial to have thesubject matter "all in one place". However, much of the materialshowing the development of the rules in response to comments iscontained in the three Scientific/Technical Section (STS)documents that accompanied the three earlier opinions notedabove, .namely Exs. 1, 26 and 33. Also, to the extent that theregulations reflect the Board's concurrence with the STS

114-484

-3-

recommendations in those documents, the Board accepts theunderlying rationale, with the exceptions or additionaldiscussion being noted in the Opinion proper. Therefore, theOpinion will also include, as appendices, the three STSdocuments; Appendix Al is the March 7, 1988 Background Report;Appendix A2 is the March 1, 1990 Response to Comments; andAppendix A3 is the June 7, 1990 Response to Additional Commentson Proposed Parts 807, and 810 through 815.

Please note, however, that, since persons who have been onthe notice list throughout have already earlier received theAppendices, these documents will not be included in this mailing,and will be later sent only upon special request.

MAJOR PARTICIPANTS

The record in this matter, developed in R84-17, Dockets A,B, C and D as well as in this R88-7 docket, is too voluminous forthe Board to synopsize all testimony or comments presented. Atthe risk of inadvertantly omitting someone, we are listng thefollowing individuals and organizations have participated in thehearings. We note that commentors are listed in the second FirstNotice and the Second Notie.

The Agency ("informal" Proponent in R84-17, Docket A) s

Lawrence Eastep, P.E.Permit Manager, Division of Land Pollution Control (DLPC)

Harry Chappel, P.E.Manager, Compliance Section, DLPC

Monte NienkirkManager, State Site Management Unit, Remedial Project ManagementSection, DLPC

Linda J. KissingerEnvironmental Protection Specialist, DLPC

Charles Mikalian, Esq.formerly of Enforcement Programs

Scott O. Phillips, Esq.Enforcement Programs

Phillip Van Ness, Esq.formerly of Enforcement Programs(currently employed by the Board)

Virginia Yang, Esq.Enforcement Programs

114-485

-4-

Gary King, Esq.Enforcement Programs

Edwin C. BakowskiManager, Solid Waste/UIC Unit, DLPC

Illinois State Chamber of Commerce (Proponent in R84-17, DocketB) Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group.

The R84-17, Docket B proposal was prepared by the IllinoisWaste Regulatory Committee of the ISCC. Testimony concerning thelanguage of the R84-17, Docket B proposal was presented by:

Sidney M. Harder, P.E.Environmental Consultant

Jeffrey C. Fort, Esq.Gardner, Carton and Douglas (formerly)

The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group (IERG), formed in1986, is an affiliate of the ISCC which currently represents some36 Illinois Industries interested in the development of thestate's environmental regulations. (P.C. 50, p. 1). Sinceformation of IERG, ISCC has not participated in the R84-17 docketas a separate entity. IERG has been.represented in thisproceeding by:

Sidney M. Harder, P. E.Executive Director, IERG

Katherine D. Hodge, Esq.General Counsel, IERG

James T. Harrington, Esq.Ross & Hardies

In addition, both ISCC and IERG have sponsored technicaltestimony in R84-17, Dockets B & D and R88-7, concerning theproperties of wastes generated by certain industries and thestate of the research concerning disposal of such wastes. Theseindustries, and their representatives have been:

Illinois Steel Group and Illinois Cast Metals AssociationDavid H. MillerConsulting EngineerMichael SlatteryPresident, Illinois Cast Metals Association

Thomas M. Barnes, Venture ManagerOutokumpu, Of (sic)

114-436

-5-

Illinois Utility Industry:Thomas HemmingerDirector of Water Quality, Commonwealth Edison

Thomas Kunes:Executive Vice President, RMT, Inc.Chairman, American Foundryman's SocietyCommittee 10F on Water Quality & Solid Wastes

Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. (Proponent in R84-17, Docket£1

Various representatives of Waste Management of Illinois(WMI), its parent corporation Waste Management, Inc. (WM, Inc.),and Waste Management of North America (WMNA), another WM, Inc.subsidiary, presented testimony in support of WMI's R84-17,Docket C proposal, as well as considerable comment concerning theSTS R84-17, Docket D proposal and the Board's proposal in R88-7. The representatives for Waste Management have been:

Peter VardiVice President For Environmental Management, WM, Inc.

Gary WilliamsDirector, Environmental Compliance WM, Inc.

Ronald PolandDirector, Environmental Engineering, WM, Inc.

John BakerManager, Environmental Monitoring Programs, WM, Inc.

John J. McDonnell, P. E.Environmental Manager, WM, .Inc.

Henry L. MartinManager, Gas Recovery, WMNA

Tom TomaszewskiGeneral Manager, CID Processing, WMI

Dale HoekstraGeneral Manager, Midway Landfill, WMI

Dr. Jay LehrProfessor of Groundwater Hydrology, Ohio Sta'te University;Execu-ive Director, National Water Well Association

E. Clark BoliPresident, Meredith/Boli and Associates

114-487

-6-

Carolyn Lown, Esq.WM, Inc.

Percy Angelo, Esq.Mayer, Brown 4 Platt

STS (Proponent in R84-17, Docket D)

The STS sponsored the testimony of various witnesses in R84-17, Docket A, which testimony served as the basis for somecomponents of the STS proposal supported by further testimony inR84-17, Docket D and R88-7. The STS witnesses and consultants,and the subjects of their testimonies were:

Richard A. DiMambroERM, Inc.former Environmental Scientist, STS

Morton Dorothy,Member, STS

Esq.

Dr. Harish G. RaoChief, STS

Dr. Richard C. Berg,Thomas M. Johnson,Dr. Bruce R. HenselDr. William R. Roy

Dr. Robert A. GriffinIllinois State Geological Survey

Dr. David E. DanielAssistant ProfessorUniversity of Texas

Dr. Robert K. HamProfessor of Civil &

Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin

Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing,Director of Research

and DevelopmentMetropolitan Water ReclamationDistrict of Greater Chicago

Dr. Aaron A. Jennings,Associate Professor of

Civil EngineeringThe University of Toledo (Ohio)

STS R84-17D Proposal asprincipal drafter, andlater in R88-7 asconsultant

R88-7 proposal financialassurance

R88-7 proposal-revisionsin response to comments

Various geological conside-rations regarding landfillsiting and potential forgroundwater contamination

HydrogeologicInvestigations

Landfill/Liners and otherearthen barriers

Generation and character-istics of landfill leachateand gas; Inert wastetesting

A case history of landfillleachate treatment at apublicly owned treatmentworks (MWRD Calumet SewageTreatment Works)

Groundwater contaminanttransport modeling

1U-AS8

-7-

Bruce Hensel State Geological SurveyReport, potential forgroundwater contamination,numerical estimates

Department of Energy & Natural Resources

The Division of Energy and Environmental Affairs of theDepartment of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR) hasparticipated.throughout these proceedings for the purposes ofdetermining whether DENR would prepare an economic impact studyconcerning the various proposals and the scope of any suchstudy. DENR employees present for these purposes have included:

Bonn-.e Eynon MeyerCoordinator, EcIS Analysis Program

ETl'iott ZimmermanResource Planner

Stanley Yonkauski, Esq.

Fred Zalcman, Esq.

Technical testimony concerning special waste disposal issueswas presented by a representative of another division of DENR:

Dr. David ThomasDirector, Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center

The Board further notes that the Illinois State Geological Surveyis also a division of DENR..

DENR's EcIS concerning the R88-7 was presented at hearing byemployees of DENR's EcIS contractors, the consulting firm Camp,Dresser, and McKee. These individuals were:

Jeanne F. BeckerWayne P. PferdehirtKristine Uhlman

Illinois Chapter, National Solid Waste Management Association,and Various Landfill Operators

The Illinois Chapter of the National Solid Waste Management'Association VffiJWMX'j "nas sponsored 'testimony and comments onbehalf of the Illinois Chapter and its various member disposalfacilities. As the Illinois Chapter has not provided the Boardwith a membership list, the Board is unsure of how many of the

1U-4S"

individual waste management companies who have participated inthis proceeding are NSWMA members. In listing these companies inthis section for convenience, the Board is not implying thatthese companies are necessarily affiliated with NSWMA. Theseparticipants have been:

Joseph R. Benedictformer Chairman, Illinois Chapter, NSWMADirector of Regulatory Affairs, Sexton Companies

Dr. Charles A. JohnsonTechnical Director, NSWMA

Dr. Edward RepaInstitute of Solid Waste Disposal, NSWMA

Bob PetersState Program Manager, NSWMA

Fred A. Prillaman, Esq.Mohan,. Alewelt, & Prillaman

James AmbrosoChairman, Illinois Chapter, NSWMAEnvironmental Manager, Land & Lakes, Co.

Carl BallPresident, Environmental Reclamation Co.

Paul DeGrootPresident, States Land Improvements Co.

Leo LentzModern Landfill Co.

Francis J. O'BrienEnvironmental Control Manager, Browning Ferris Industries ofIllinois, Inc.

William A. Speary, Jr., Esq.Tenney and Bentleyformer General Counsel, Pioneer Processing, Inc.

Environmental Groups

Various environmental groups have participated in theseproceedings through their directors, as well as through counselrepresenting a coalition of groups. (Individual members of thesegroups are too numerous to list). These have been:

Patricia A. Sharkey, Esq., formerly representing in R84-17,Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE),

114-490

-9-

Great Lakes Sierra Club, McHenry County Defenders (MCD),Center for Neighborhood Technology,Coalition For Appropriate Waste Disposal,South Chicago Development Commission

CBE: Kevin GreeneResearch Director

Dr. Robert Ginsburgformer Midwest Research Director

MCD: Gerald PaulsonExecutive Director

Greg LindsayEnvironmental Consultant

Environmental Consultants

In addition to those previously listed, variousenvironmental consulting firms have participated, particularly inR84-17, Docket D, on behalf of themselves or their clients.

James Douglas Andrews, P.E. «Andrews Environmental Engineering -

•E

Darryl Bauer —Baxter and Woodman, Inc.

Daniel P. Dietzler, P.E. *.Patrick Engineering, Inc.

Richard W. Eldredge, P.E.Eldredge Engineering Associates, Inc.

Roberta L. JenningsConsultant Hydrologist

Other Companies

Gary Kolbasuk, Technical ManagerNational Seal Company

Mark Steger, Esq.McBride, Baker and Coles

Gerald F. Berry, Sales EngineerPhillips Fibers Corporation

114-491

-10-

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Predecessor Dockets to R88-7

The Board will again summarize the procedural history inthis proceeding, but also references the reader to summaries ofcertain issues in the three prior R88-7 proposed opinions.

Th« Board adopted its "Chapter 7" regulations coveringoperations of sanitary landfills in 1973. These regulations/since codified as 37 111. Adm. Code Part 807, have remainedvirtually unchanged since that time, save for the addition ofregulations concerning financial assurance for closure and post-closure care. In 1976, the Board adopted its "Chapter 9"regulations concerning the hauling of special waste. Theseregulations, since codified as 35 111. Adm. Code Part 809, havealso existed virtually without change, except for the addition ofregulations concerning hauling and disposal of hazardous hospitalwaste.

Abortive attempts to modernize these rules commenced in the1980s. Docket R80-20 was initiated by a proposal of the IllinoisEnvironmental Protection Agency (Agency) to update Chapter 7, andDocket R81-31 was initiated by a Board proposal to update Chapter9. These proposals were consolidated and dismissed by Order ofthe "Boarci on October "5, ~1W2, after hearings indicated thatextensive revision of the proposals was necessary. In thatOrder, the Board noted that:

The Agency and the Illinois State Chamber of. Commerce [ISCC) indicated that they wereworking together on a substitute proposalwhich would replace both Chapters 7 and 9.During [the hearing] process it has becomeclear first that the subject matters ofChapters 7 and 9 require coordination toinsure consistency and, second, that it willbe difficult to relate the testimony on theformer proposals to the evolving combinedproposal. The Board therefore herebyconsolidates R80-20 and R81-31, and at thesame time dismisses both.

In that same Order, Docket R82-21 was opened to consider theanticipated Agency/ISCC proposal for permits for waste managementand hauling, and Docket R82-22 was opened to consider the antici-pated proposal for landfill operating criteria. The Agency fileda proposal in the R82-21 docket only, which proposal was thesubject of hearings. Both dockets were closed by Order of June16, 1983, as a result of Agency withdrawal of its R82-21proposal. The proposal was withdrawn, as the Agency believed

114-492

-11-

that the best solution to various problems identified at hearingwas submission of an amended and expanded proposal.

Docket R84-17, was initiated to consider a draft proposalfiled by the Agency on May 31, 1984. Two inquiry hearings wereheld at which participants identified concerns with the proposaland questioned the Agency concerning its intent. At the lasthearing the Agency indicated its intention of filing a revisedproposal. As the Board noted in its Resolution of December 6,1984 announcing its intention of committing some of the resourcesof the Scientific/Technical Section (STS) to this proceeding, norevised proposal had been submitted. Although the Agency hasbeen a very active and helpful participant in subsequent phasesof this proceeding, it has not filed a new proposal or presentedevidence in support of its draft proposal.

On April 4, 1985, the ISCC filed an alternate proposal. ByOrder of April 18, 1985, the Board established R84-17 Docket Bfor consideration of this proposal. Four hearings were held inDocket B concerning this proposal.

On August 15, 1986, Waste Management of Illinois filedanother alternate proposal, which the Board designated as R84-17Docket C. This proposal was the subject of nine hearings, r

Concurrently with the hearings held in Dockets B and C,- theBoard held additional hearings in Docket A. The purpose of theseheatings was presentation of testimony by various consultants andother scientific experts whose appearance was arranged by th*STS. These consultants and other experts did not critique tfcevarious proposals pending before the Board, but instead providedtestimony concerning their research and experience concerningsubjects integral to analysis and/or development of comprehensiveregulations for the management of waste.

By its Order of February 19, 1987, the Board determined thatonly one additional hearing would be held in Dockets A, B, andC. One basis for this determination was that:

"The record to date in R84-17 is sufficient toenable the Board to determine that, while eachproposal has meritorious components, no singleproposal pending before it is sufficientlyrefined or comprehensive to be adopted by theBoard as the Board's own proposal for thepurposes of first notice publication pursuantto the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act,and resulting additional hearings. It isclear to the Board that the Board itself, withthe assistance of its scientific/technical andlegal staff, must craft a proposal to address

-12-

the sum of the various concerns which havebeen brought to the Board's attention."

The Order went on to establish the form and procedures forthe filing of a proposal by the SIS, including required filing ofdocuments for public inspection contemporaneously withdistribution of copies to the Board Members, consistent with exparte restrictions articulated in the Board's "Protocols ofOperation For the Scientific/Technical Section", RES 86-1,January 26, 1986 and the Board's Procedural Rules, 35 111. Adm.Code 101.121.

By Order of March 5, 1987, the Board established that thefinal hearing in Dockets A, B, and C would be held on April 28,1987, that the public comment period would close on May 20, andthat the Board would commence deliberations on May 28, 1987.

Consistent with the directives in the Board's Orders ofFebruary 19 and March 5, 1987, on May 22 and May 26, 1987, theSTS filed an initial set of proposed regulations consisting ofnew Parts 810, 811 and 812 with its supporting "Recommendationsfor Non-Hazardous Haste Disposal Program in Illinois and ABackground Report To Accompanying Proposed Regulations For SolidWaste Disposal Facilities" (Background Report). On June 12 andJune 21, 1987, the STS filed another set of proposed regulations,consisting of Parts 813 and 814 and a supporting BackgroundReport

By Orders of May 28 and June 22, 1987, the Board authorizedthe STS proposal for hearing. The May 28 Order established aDocket D for consideration of the STS proposal. The Boardexpressly noted that it was taking no action at that time on theproposals in Dockets A, B, C,

The STS proposal was the subject of ten hearings. Toexpedite the proceedings, participants were required to "ETlewritten questions and comments concerning the STS proposal, towhich the STS provided written responses to be discussed athearing. The comment period was closed in Docket D on December30, 1987.

At hearing, the STS had committed to redrafting variousportions of the proposal in response to testimony and to- considerredrafting in response to any.subsequent written commentreceived. Accordingly, the STS filed revised versions of variousportions of its proposed rules and Background Report on January15, February 4 and 18. Consistent with prior practice in thisdocket, the STS dealt with the Agency's untimely comment, filedJanuary 5, 1988, as a matter of discretion and to the extent thattime permitted.

114-414

-13-

By Order of February 4, 1988, the Board adopted an Orderwhich realigned its relationship with the STS. The Board's Orderstated:

The Board has been deliberating the STSrevised proposal, as well as the records inDocket A, B, & C since January 21, 1988. TheBoard has limited its discussions with the STSconsistent with the February 19, 1987, Orderand the Board's Protocols. The Board hasfound that in order to fully and expeditiouslydeliberate these matters it is necessary toinformally consult with STS staff concerningthe technical details in the voluminous R84-17record.

As the bases for and comments concerning theSTS proposal are a matter of public record,the Board now feels that it may, withoutprejudice to the integrity of its process,terminate its "arm's length" dealing with STSstaff. Accordingly, as of this date, the STSstaff will no longer be considered "exterior" _.to the Board within the meaning of the eProtocols. STS staff is directed to resume jicommunications with the Board in the usual rBoard/staff relationship. The ex parteconstraints of 35 111. Adm. Code 101.121(b)shall apply to STS communications with persons *t-other than Board Members and staff.

Deliberations continued on February 5, 1988.

On February 11, 1988, .the Board adopted an Order directingits staff to develop a revised proposal for its consideration onFebruary 25, 1988 finding that:

The Board is in full agreement with theessential elements of the proposal. However,the Board wishes to see regulatory languageembodying certain concepts which either arenot contained in the existing proposal, arenot clearly expressed, or are alternative tothose presently proposed.

Docket R88-7

As earlier explained. Docket R88-7 was opened by the Board'sOpinion and Order of February 25, 1988. The proposal waspublished at 12 Illinois Register 7069 et seq., April 25, 1988.DENR commenced preparation of the EcIS, and further formalproceedings of the Board were accordingly held in abeyance until

U4-405

-14-

June, 1989. On June 16 and 20, the Board conducted two hearingsto receive into the record testimony and exhibits commissioned bythe Board's STS from outside consultants who had previously hadmajor roles in the R84-17 proceeding.

Mr. Bruce Hensel, of the Illinois State Geological Survey,presented the study commissioned by the STS alluded to in theBackground Report and at hearing, entitled "Numerical Estimatesof Potential For Groundwater Contamination From Landfill Burialof Municipal Wastes in Illinois" by Bruce R. Hensel, Richard C.Berg and Robert A. Griffen. (Ex. 7). Dr. Robert K. Ham,Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University ofWisconsin, presented narrative testimony regarding landfillsiting performance and design requirements and potential forgroundwater contamination. Richard A. DiMambro, primary authorof the STS Recommendations and Background Report in the R84-17proceeding during the course of his former employment with theBoard was available to participate in discussion of any issuesrelating to the proposal.

Members of the STS who participated on both hearing dayswere Dr. Harish Rao, STS Chief and Mr. Morton Dorothy. Mr.Dorothy presented his concerns regarding problems with theexisting financial assurance regulations particularly as theyrelated to the extended post-closure care period. Draftamendments to the financial assurance rules were presented forinitial discussion.

Additional testimony and comment was also presented on June20 by the Agency and WMI.

On September 12, 1989, DENR filed its EcIS. At hearingsheld on November 17 and 27, 1989, DENR's EcIS contractors, theenvironmental consulting frrm of Camp, Dresser and McKee,presented the EcIS and answered questions concerning it.Participants who presented testimony in response to the EcISincluded WMI and the Illinois Utilities, speaking on their ownbehalf as well as that of IERG. The post hearing comment period^xpVreti xm i-anuary "*, YWl;.

In response to the first First Notice proposal -in 1988, theBoard received 24 public comments.

On February 16, 1990, at the Board's request, JCAR submittedits concerns and comments (JCAR concerns), based on itspreliminary review of the 1988 proposed rules.

As was the case in the R84-17 docket, the Board directed itsSTS to prepare for review by the Board an analysis of the publiccomments received, and any recommended amendments to the ruleswhich it believed were warranted by the comments or hearing

114-496

-15-

record. As earlier stated, the STS comments were marked asExhibit 26.

Then, on March 1, 1990, the Board adopted a second FirstNotice Opinion and Order. As explained in greater detail in thatOpinion, Section S.01(d) of the APA requires a repeat FirstNotice if more than one year has passed before going to SecondNotice. The one year period had expired April 25, 1989 duringthe period in which the required Economic Impact Study (EcIS) wasbeing prepared.

The rules proposed by the Board in its second First NoticeOrder were published in 14 Illinois Register 3834 et seq. , March16, 1990. There were a number of changes from the~First FirstNotice proposal. The Board also scheduled another hearing, heldon April 6, 1990, and accepted comments until May 1, 1990. Asnoted in the Second Notice Opinion, 14 comments were received.

On June 7, 1990, the Board adopted its proposed Opinion andOrder for Second Notice and submitted it to JCAR, whichconsidered it at its July 26, 1990 meeting and, as noted earlier,voiced no objection.

SPECIAL ISSUES

As stated earlier, the earlier adopted Opinions and Ordersand the STS documents have been structured to "track" the issuesraised at the 35-odd hearings and the public comments, and theongoing regulatory language responses. We do not feel that twould add to an understanding of the regulations to regurgitateor otherwise re-discuss them here. In most all instances theissues have not been re-raised as the proceeding went forward.However, there are a number of important areas that bearrepeating here either because the issues have been a source ofconfusion or ongoing contention, or because we perceive a needfor emphasis.

The EcIS

The Act requires the Board to consider the results of theEcIS and other economic information in the record. Thus, webelieve that it would be appropriate to repeat here the summaryof the EcIS contained in the second First Notice.

As earlier stated, the EcIS (Ex. 10) was filed with theBoard by DENR on September 12, 1989. Two hearings wereconducted, on November 17 and 27, 1989. At the first hearing,the Opinion of DENR's Economic and Technical Advisory Committeewas also submitted (Ex. 14); that Opinion concurred with theconclusions of the EcIS, and particularly agreed that it isextremely difficult to quantify the incremental avoided healthcosts, but that they are substantial. The Opinion also agreed

114-497

-16-

that the indirect impact on employment and disposable income wascomparatively insignificant.

We will summarize the broad conclusions of the study here,utilizing the Executive Summary (EcIS E-l through E-8), and willreference detailed breakdowns elsewhere in the EcIS where theEcIS' conclusions were disputed at hearing or in public comment.

Only the incremental impacts of the proposed rules ascompared to the existing rules were evaluated. The study in manyareas utilized the Agency's implementation of the more generallyworded existing Board rules for comparison purposes. The studynoted that the incremental costs will, in general, be greater forexisting than new facilities, because most recently proposed newlandfills already incorporated features of the proposed rules.Also, costs for onsite (exempt from permitting by Section 21(d)of the Act) facilities will generally be higher than for thoseoff-site, since onsite facilities are typically built to lowerstandards. This is because, under the proposal, although theSection 21(d) permit exemption will still be in effect, thosefacilities will be explicitly required to meet the same design,operating, closure, and post-closure requirements as will off-site facilities.

Benefits were estimated to be substantial, especially withrespect to reducing the potential for groundwater contaminationfrom landfill leachate. Avoided costs include cleanup andremediation. The study notes that there is substantialdisagreement about how to place an economic value on thedegradation of a natural resource, certainly on a Statewidebasis.

The annualized incremental costs for envelopment andoperation of new onsite and' off-site landfills combined isestimated to be about $42 million by the year 2005. Thisestimate assumes that only "new" facilities, as defined in theproposal, will be operating at that time. Also, during the earlyyears, the incremental annualized cost to operate and closeexisting facilities, both off-site and onsite, is estimated to be$75 million. This cost will decline to the $42 million estimatefor 2005 because new landfills (which includes new units atexisting sites) will begin to replace those upgraded and operatedunder the Board's proposed interim standards.

Disposal costs were estimated to rise to about $7.37/ton forexisting landfills and not more than $3.58/ton for newlandfills. If these costs are wholly passed on to residences,there would be a resulting increase disposal cost of about $0.89and $0.43 monthly per household respectively; however, if acommunity's existing landfill had to close prematurely under theproposal, there would be additional temporary cost increases.

114-498

-17-

Further costs may also be avoided under the proposal by thereduction of the rate of leachate generated, the amount ofleachate available for escape, the reduction of leachate contacttime, the quality control over liner construction, and improvedmonitoring and response requirements. While a comparativeanalysis is difficult, a rough estimate of annual savingsStatewide in operating and maintenance costs resulting from fewerfuture remediation projects at off-site landfills was estimatedto be about $14 million per year. Regarding onsite facilities,the capital costs for remediation are estimated to be reduced by$46 million total; assuming that about one-half of the sites willeventually require remediation, operations and maintenancesavings at these sites are estimated to be $15 million per year.

The study also noted that an unquantifiable, but potentiallysignificant, benefit was avoided costs to repair damage caused bylandfill gas, including gas induced explosions and damage tofinal cover vegetation, and the health and environmental threatfrom escaping, potentially toxic, landfill gases.

While other direct and indirect benefits and costs wereidentified, they were considered minor in relative terras.

*.The second First Notice Opinion includes the Board's -"

consideration of, and response to, the issues raised in commentsand testimony at hearing, which will not be revisited here, 'except insofar as they involve the issue of contaminant transportmodelling, which is discussed below. The Board, pursuant to-*.Section 27(b) of the Act, repeats here its determination tha* theregulations "are economically reasonable and that they will sothave an adverse economic impact on the people of the State ofIllinois".

Definitions

Defining Landfill to Determine Regulatory Scope

One of the most fundamental tasks in framing regulations isto make as clear as possible what operations are subject to theregulations. When the Board proposed the instant regulations onFebruary 25, 1988, it re-titled the proposal to reflect itsintent that these regulations apply to non-hazardous wastelandfills. Included are those landfills exempt from therequirement to have a permit pursuant to Section 21(d) of theAct

It became clear that the Board would have to defer toanother proceeding the crafting of regulations to properlyaddress the rest of the universe of storage, treatment anddisposal solid waste facilities. If the Board attempted here tobe all inclusive, it was clear that the development of a recordto accomplish this would even further postpone the adoption of

114-490

-la-

the landfill regulations. The comments themselves point out thedifficulty of distinguishing what is a landfill, much lessdistinguishing other types of facilities and the relatedquestions as to what constitutes storage, transfer stations,treatment, recycling etc. in a regulatory context. We fullyshare the concerns about the potential environmental impact ofother activities; however, as earlier explained, to fail toaddress an area of critical concern now, and instead wait untilsome' future time when we can address everything isunacceptable. We also wish to preserve the enforceability ofthese regulations by assuring that they are not selectivelyapplied, i.e. that pieces of the regulatory scheme are ignored inan attempt to expand the universe. We note that these issueswere addressed in the first R88-7 First Notice Opinion andfurther addressed in R88-8, Census of Solid Waste ManagementFacilities Exempt from the Permit Requirement as Provided inSection 21(d) of the Act, 35 111. Adm. Code 808, February 25,1988.

Defining what is or is not a landfill requires one to lookat other long standing terms of art such as land application ortreatment units, surface impoundments, and waste piles. Thetestimony and comments clearly indicate that the definitions needimprovements, and we have adopted language changes that moreclearly reflect distinguishing features among these terms.However, the definitions must also be read in conjunction withwhat the regulatory standards require an operator to abide by.As noted earlier, any selective application of the regulatoryprovisions are not allowed unless specifically provided for inthe regulations themselves.

We have included the term land application unit (in place ofland treatment unit) and made changes to its definition as wellas to the definitions of laridfill, surface impoundment and wastepile.

The term "landfill" always connotes disposal, unlike theother terms, which can connote storage, treatment or disposal.We have retained the term "disposal" for landfills, but haveremoved the word "disposal" from the definitions of landapplication unit and surface impoundment; defining them in termsof disposal, as opposed to treatment or storage, is not necessaryhere, since they are not proposed to be regulated under thisproposal in any event.

Another distinguishing, though not unique, feature of alandfill is that the waste is accumulated over time and is notgoing to be removed from the site. This may or may not be trueof a surface impoundment, which receives wastes in liquid formand where the solid residues accumulated over time may betransported to another site for final disposal. Further therecord developed during this lengthy proceeding did not focus or

114-500

-19-

elaborate on what kinds o£ regulations would be appropriate forthe various "pits, ponds and lagoons" in this state. Thedefinition is intended to clarify what must be shown to avoidbeing regulated as a landfill; a flooded out dump would not beexempt. As earlier stated, regarding a land treatment unit, wenote that the term is more appropriately termed a landapplication unit in the context of solid waste. Whether theactivity is for treatment or not is not relevant to thisproceeding. Also, the word "agronomically" has been added tomake clear that, if waste is accumulated over time at a rategreater than the agronomically determined rate, the unit issubject to being regulated as a landfill, no matter what it iscalled. There must be some clear, positive interactiverelationship shown between the soil and the amountsincorporated. IE the activity is serving an agronomic purpose,then requiring such things as liners and daily and final coverwould not make sense.

Regarding waste piles, we continue to believe that there isno persuasive reason to treat them as other than landfills as ageneral proposition. However, we have specified the showing anoperator must make (e.g. that the wastes are not accumulatingover time) to allow for those activities where the waste is Jitulybeing routinely removed, for whatever purpose. We recognize;thatthere will probably be more "gray areas" to be resolved hera^thanelsewhere. Part of the problem is the mentality that has grgwnup over 'xhffc •yw.vs. hhat "it couldn't be a landfill if it didrv'.tstart as a hole in the ground." We no longer 'trrivriK x'lsA. ^mentality is defensible. In any event, we believe that, with theproposed language, operators of temporary waste piles would bewell advised to maintain records or other information fordocumentation if they do not wish to be regulated as landfilloperators. It is particularly difficult for others to easilyascertain whether waste is or is not accumulating. The intent ofthe language is to put the onus on the operators to demonstratethat it is not.

In this context, the Board notes the concern of one of itsMembers that tighter regulation of waste piles could adverselyaffect the agricultural community, given the common practice ofpiling debris cleared from fields and ditches for laterdisposal. The Board believes that the above-described treatmentof waste piles "exempts" these individual from enforcementprovided that disposal elsewhere does occur on a routine basis.

Finally, the STS suggested definitions of storage andtreatment have been deleted and an optional addition to thestatutory definition of "disposal" has been modifiedaccordingly. The Board declined to propose storage and treatmentadditions at this time, for reasons earlier explained.

114-501

-20-

Part 811 Subpart B Inert Waste Landfills

The Board requested more specific comment from those whohave addressed the stringency of the inert waste definition andthe sufficiency of the proposed groundwater protection safeguardsfor inert waste landfills. Regarding the groundwater protectionaa_te.cma_r_ds... anma tf"JJ-, t-.ha.i-- a. ty"-O)inrlwaJ-j'-r. wnnjj-jv.ijin, <ysyy*w..should be included. One Board Member felt groundwater monitoringas well as location standards might be necessary to detect andreduce harm from the inadvertent or intentional disposal ofunauthorized wastes. We requested that any commentorsspecifically identify what, if any, components of a groundwatermonitoring program might be appropriate, as well as theimplications of such requirements for inert landfillclassification and requirements as proposed, including thedefinition of inert. We requested that commentors address thefollowing components of a groundwater monitoring program: whathydrogeological site investigations should be required toestablish the location and number of monitoring wells; whatstandard should apply and what constituents should be monitored;what would be the compliance point and what would triggerremedial action (assessment monitoring, corrective action etc.);what reporting and operating requirements should be included; andwhat requirements should apply to existing facilities and to newfacilities. Regarding operating requirements, we also requestedcomment as to whether the random load checking requirements inPart 811.Subpart D, or some other load checking requirement,might be appropriately added to these regulations as a safeguardagainst non-inert waste loads coming to the landfill.

A Board Member was also concerned that the inert wastedemonstration does not require that acidity of rainfall be takeninto account. He noted that rainfall in Illinois has an averageacidity of about pH 4.2, and that "inerts" ought to be testedwith water acidified at least to that level rather than withunacidified water, which in the Chicago area at least is on thealkaline side. We requested comment on this issue to ascertainthe adequacy of the Section 811.202(b)(2), regarding extractionfluid requirements.

After reviewing the comments and testimony at the hearing,following second First Notice, the Board concurred with the STSproposal for more stringent regulations for inert wastelandfills. The Agency did not address this question and no othercomments with real specificity were received. At hearing, it waspointed out that there is a need to assure that leachate can besampled, if that is what to be monitored over time. (R. 635,636). The STS questioned the benefits of using a monitoring wellapproach without the concommittant hydrogeological investigation,and instead had proposed a random load checking system similar tothat for non-inert landfills, while continuing to collect andtest the leachate itself to determine compliance but with added

114-502

-21-

raonitoring and reporting requirements. If subsequentcontamination is verified, the landfill.would lose its "inert"classification, and become subject to the regulations applicableto putrescible or chemical waste landfills. We believe that thisapproach will serve the dual purpose of first providingenvironmental protection against the future disposal of non-inertwaste, and at the same time keeping truly inert waste from usingup air space in the putrescible or chemical waste landfills.

Existing Landfills, Timing of Closure

There has been some confusion regarding Part 814 and how itapplies to existing facilities. In addition to the STS responsesto questions regarding Part 814 contained in Ex. 26, pp.249-255,a more detailed description of that Part is provided below.

All existing landfill facilities are required to notify theAgency (in accordance with Section 814.104), within six months ofthe effective date, principally with regard to the facility'sestimated date of closure of existing units and state whether thefacility is subject to the requirements of either Subpart B, C, D

Pursuant to Part 814, if an existing facility is unablei-tomeet the requirements of Subparts B or C and D, then it is Tsubject to Subpart D and such a facility will have to initiateclosure within 2 years of the effective date of the Part subjectto the existing operation and closure standards of Part 807. Allother existing facilities subject to Subparts B, C or D are -required to submit information, as required by 35 111. Adm. £ode812, to the Agency demonstrating compliance with the appropriateSubpart. Such information (for unpermitted facilities), or anapplication for significant modification of a permit inaccordance with 35 111. Adiru Code 813 (in the case of permittedfacilities), is to be filed with the Agency within 48 months ofthe effective date of the Part or an earlier date specified bythe Agency. One example of when an earlier date may be specifiedby the Agency is a situation in which the existing unit orfacility, subject to Subpart D, has plans to close within 4 years(48 months) of the effective date of the Part.

An existing facility accepting inert wastes only is subjectto Subpart B, if it remains open indefinitely (after theeffective date) and is able to meet the requirements of 35 111.Adm, Code 811 Subparts A and B.

An existing facility accepting chemical and putresciblewastes is subject to Subpart C, if it remains open beyond 7 yearsafter the effective date of the Part and is able to meet thefollowing:

114-503

-22-

1) Requirements of 35 111. Adm. Code 814.302(b) for an effectiveleachate management system, protection against slope failure,calculation of the design period for purposes of financialassurance; and

2) The requirements for new units specified in 35 111. Adm. Code811 except for the exemptions specified in 35 111. Adm. Code814.302(a). The major exemptions are with regard to thelocation standards, foundation and mass stability analysisstandards, the liner and leachate drainage and collectionrequirements of Part 811, final cover requirements and thecomprehensive hydrogeological site investigationrequirements. However, hydrogeologic information sufficientto establish a groundwater monitoring program to meet thewater quality standards of 35 111. Adm. Code 811.320 isrequired.

An existing facility accepting chemical and putresciblewastes is subject to Subpart D, if it remains open beyond 2 yearsbut no longer than 7 years after the effective date of the Partand is able to meet the following:

1) Requirements of 35 111. Adm. Code 814.402(b) regardingprohibition against expansion of the facility or acceptingnew special wastes, meeting the groundwater standards asspecified in 35 111. Adm. Code 814.402(b)(3) and calculationof the design period for purposes of financial assurance; and

2) The requirements for new units specified in 35 111. Adm. Code811 except for the exemptions specified in 35 111. Adm. Code814.402(a). The major exemptions are with respect to thelocation standards, foundation and mass stability analysisstandards, the liner and leachate drainage and collectionrequirements, the hydrogeological site investigationrequirements, the groundwater impact assessment standards,the groundwater monitoring requirements and the groundwaterquality standards of 35 111. Adm. Code 811.320.

Another area concerning Part 814 that requires furtherexplanation is the issue of which rules are applicable to newunits at existing facilities. A question was posed by Mr. Kingfrom the Agency during the April 6, 1990 hearing concerning thepotential for conflict between the applicability sections of Part811 and Part 814 and asking whether Part 811 or Part 814 appliedto new units at existing facilities. The response provided byDr. Rao at hearing was as follows:

"Part 814 would be applicable to new units atexisting facilities. However, the applicablestandards would come from Part 811. So there

114-504

-23-

are certain parts of 811 that would apply tonew units at existing facilities."

(R. 435-436)

It should be noted that the response invokes theapplicability of Part 814 because an existing facility isinvolved, and is correct in that Part 811 standards would beapplicable. We believe that some further explanation isdesireable. However, it_should be kept in mind.that any .application of Part 814 must be viewed from the perspective ofthe Board's primary goal - to bring the State's landfills underthe regulations for new landfills as quickly as possible. Weemphasize that the term "new unit" (and "new landfill") in theseregulations are defined in Part 810 and "come into being" afterthe effective date of these regulations, and refer to units firstreceiving a load of waste after the regulations are filed withthe Secretary of State. How Part 811 applies in Part 814 must beread in this context. The requirements of Part 811 apply to allnew units, unless the Board grants special relief in theseregulations or later by way of, say, an adjusted standard.

Part 814 addresses the special concern of how to regulateexisting landfills as they are phased-out. The two year/sevenyear/beyond seven years time frames for closure and accompanyingrequirements of Part 814 obviously apply to existing units -already receiving waste at the time the rules become effective.The applicability of Part 814 to what we will call, for purposesof discussion only, "permitted" new units, i.e., units which/, werepermitted but had yet to receive the first load of waste, is; notso obvious if such units are in existing landfills subject t*>either the requirements of Part 814, Subpart D (i.e. standardsfor existing units that may not remain open beyond seven years)or the requirements of Part 814, Subpart C (i.e. standards forexis-ing units that may remain open beyond seven years).

Those "permitted" new units in an existing facility subjectto Part 814, Subpart D are to be treated as existing units aslong as the following two circumstances exist. First, they werepermitted before the term "new unit" had come into effect and,second, the units do not expand beyond the area included in thepermit. Waste may be placed in such "permitted" new unitssubject to the requirements in Part 814, Subpart D, including therequirement that that they remain open for no longer than sevenyear:?. The Board further notes that Subpart D does not allow newunits to be opened, meaning that an operator wishing to extendfurther beyond what was previously permitted must comply with therequirements of Part 811.

Unlike Subpart D, "permitted" new units that have yet toreceive waste, in an existing facility subject to Part 814,Subpart C are not treated as existing units because they canpotentially remain open for a much longer period of time. The

114-505

-24-

requirements of Subpart C for existing units, those that arealready receiving wastes, do take into account the extendedperiod of time that the unit will remain open as well as the highcosts of retrofitting existing units.

Liner Depth and Composition

Only the Agency continued to insist on a minimum 10 footliner. The Board believes that it would clarify the Board'sposition by repeating comments in the Second Notice Opinion, (p.9)

The issue of liner depth and composition persistedthrouqhout this ijroceedinq,. The_ f_Lr_s.t_ ELtsX NnJ-_uv>. rjr.orjAfiA.Uincluded the recommendation by the STS, which remained unchangedthroughout, that a minimum earth liner of three feet provided anadequate margin of safely, given the performance standards, therequirements for construction quality assurance, hydrogeologicalinvestigations, liner construction and foundation, ongoingleachate collection, etc. The Board recognized that theseinterrelated design and operating requirements reflected atechnically supported conclusion that, in terms of environmentalprotection, the traditional heavy reliance on a liner as acontainment barrier is an inferior approach. However, itrequested comment on the advisability of increasing the liner tofive feet (p. 56) .

After further testimony and comments, the Board concluded,in its second First Notice Opinion, that "it is prudent torequire an extra two feet to guard against an unanticipatedpotential for error in implementing the regulations that might besufficient to cause more reliance on the liner than wasintended." (p. 41). The Board then requested more comment aboutthe merits of a three foot compacted clay liner plus anartificial liner as an alternate minimum.

After considering testimony and post-hearing comment at thehearing following the second First Notice request, the Boardagreed with the explanation and recommendation of the STS thatthis alternate minimum be allowed. The Board stated that therecord "indicates that a three foot compacted clay liner plus ageomembrane liner directly applied on top of it has demonstratedcapabilities equal or superior to the recompacted five footliner, at least for non-inward gradient landfills, both in termsof leachate capture and as a leachate barrier", (p. 6).

The Agency, in reference to Section 811.306, continued toinsist that anything less than a minimum 10 foot liner isinsufficient protection of the environment, (see Para. 7). TheBoard believes that its proposal for a minimum five foot liner,as well as its proposed alternate of a three foot liner plus ageomembrane, is more than justified by this record. In addition

UA-506

-25-

to the comments of the STS, we make the following observations.Except for the Agency's "fence post" problem which we have takencare of, the Agency has not presented any scientific or technicaljustification as to the environmental enhancement to be gained byrequiring a minimum ten foot liner in the proposed regulatoryscheme. Nor have others. Nor- have the other participants agreedwith the Agency's position. It was generally recognized thatthese regulations are Grafted to change the traditional relianceon a liner. The issue then was whether the minimum linerthickness should be three feet or whether it should be fivefeet. For example, while supporting five feet as an add-onsafeguard, the McHenry County Defenders and the Citizens for aBetter Environment, in a jointly filed Comment, neverthelessstate:

Based on the STS Background Report andtestimony presented at hearing, we agree thata three-foot thick clay liner, constructed inrelatively thin, well compacted lifts toachieve field hydraulic conductivities of1x10 cm/sec or less can provide sufficientcontainment of contaminated leachate, whenused 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 thesuperiority of the panoply of detailed site hydrogeology '•*investigations coupled with the design and operation of leaotlatecontrol systems embodied in these regulations. We particularlydisagree with the Agency's blanket assertion, without anydocumentation whatsoever, that allowing the minimum 5 foot linerplaces the State behind other states in environmental controls at"sanitary landfills". We strongly suggest that the Agency'sselection of liner thickness as its sole measure of comparisonwith other states' regulations reflects undue, and outdated,dependence on the passive use of a liner as the only means ofpreventing the escape of leachate. The record clearly shows thatf-h.vi. 'ift.'j/yjri/VJn.t V5> Trt/c Jju 'c'i"r'ie6. "In addition, the Agency'sassertion fails to recognize that a specific site location is notprecluded from adopting or being required to adopt a linerthickness greater than the minimum if conditions at the sitewarrant it.

Section 811.101 Delayed Applicability of the Regulations.

One of the more difficult issues for the Board to "get ahandle on" was the request from the steel, utility and foundryindustries for a delayed applicability of the Part 811 standardsfor new and existing landfills. Because we feel that the

114-507

-26-

situation is still capable of causing confusion, the Board willrepeat here comments in the Second Notice Opinion.

Section Sll.lOl(b) as had been proposed in the second FirstNotice provided for a delayed applicability of Part 811,Standards for New Solid Waste Landfills. More specifically, theeffect of the proposed language was to "stay" the applicabilityof these rules to new landfills, accepting waste only from thesteel, utility and foundry industries, for the period of timebetween the date when the regulations become effective (i.e. whenthey are filed with the Secretary of State) until December 1,1990. If the industries filed a proposal of generalapplicability to the industry category no later than December 1,1990, then the "stay" would have continued in effect for newlandfills for two years after the filing with the Secretary ofState. If the industries did not timely file. Part 811 becameeffective immediately, on December 2, 1990. During the period ofdelayed applicability of Part 811, the landfills were to besubject to the now existing Part 807 standards.

The Agency continues to strongly oppose granting any delayedapplicability of the regulations to the steel, utility andfoundry industries, (see P.C. 34, Para. 3) It asserts thatpersuasive evidence is lacking regarding a lesser environmentalthreat by these landfills, and that the industries have had morethan sufficient time to present a proposal. The Agencyrecommends deletion of Section 811.101(b).

WMI also questioned the merits of the temporary exemption,noting that the exemption could encourage the industries toestablish new landfills to a lesser design in the interim, andthat, while the utilities have made an effort to prepare andpresent alternative proposals, the foundries have only donestudies, and the steel industry has yet to present anythingdemonstrating a good faith effort. WMI asked how the newlandfills are to be designed in the interim; if the purpose is tosubject such landfills to industry specific rules, then the Boardshould make the new landfills subject to the Board's regulationsuntil the new rules are adopted, noting that there is no evidencethat the on-site operators are running out of space. WMI thusappears to agree with the Agency. WMI also asked for furtherclarification as to how on-site landfills can use alternatives tothe basic Board standards, and how they are to proceed whenAgency approvals are required. (R. 546-548)

The Illinois Steel Group and The Illinois Cast MetalsAssociation, (Steel), in a joint comment, (see P.C.36) assertedthat IERG, on January 2, 1990 (P.C. 24), had requested thatexisting 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 subjectto the now-existing rules, and should then be allowed to make

114-503

-27-

whatever modifications are necessary to comply later with theindustry specific standard. In support, Steel argues the anomalyof having existing facilities, receiving the exact same waste,having to begin efforts toward retrofitting if they want to stayopen beyond the two year phase-in period in the new rules, whilenew landfills would be presumably subject to a lesser standard.Steel suggests that the Board, in proposing a temporary exemptionfor new landfills, apparently feels that there is some merit inthe industries' belief that a lower degree of control isnecessary for these wastes. Steel wants, therefore, a two yearexemption for new facilities and the grandfathering of existingfacilities operated on-site, with the Board accepting a proposalin 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 inPeoria, which operates an 82 acre onsite landfill into which theydispose of 80 to 90 thousand tons per year of waste foundry sand.They generally agree with the "proposed regulation languagepreviously submitted by the Cast Metals Association (ICMA)regarding monofills and beneficial reuse". (We note that we areuncertain as to what "proposed regulation language" Caterpillaris referring to.) Caterpillar asserted that the landfilling*costs for the Mapleton Plant would go from $4.49/cubic yard *o$15.25/cubic yard, a 240% increase, if the company had to difeposeoff-site, and that this would represent an increased annual ~disposal cost ranging from $645,000 to $710,000. Caterpillaralso noted that off-site landfilling would reduce the available"public" volume for wastes needing "a high level ofcontainment". Caterpillar also asserted that the wastes bei*gmoved over public highways would increase, with a resultingincrease in infrastructure wear, traffic congestion andincreasing bureaucratic burden to "follow waste handling andtransportation in the publrc sector".

We can only note that the ground continues to shiftregarding the "industries' intent, timetable, and what they arerequesting, including whether their proposal would cover existinglandfills. (See e.g. R. 65, and second First Notice Opinion, p.38-40, which we believe reflects the situation at that time asaccurately as possible after careful review of a confusingrecord) .

For the reasons expressed in the second First NoticeOpinion, we do not believe this record supports special relieffor all these already existing landfills, whether called"grandfathering" or "exemption". Like any other existinglandfills, they can singly seek to demonstrate the need fortemporary or long term relief, including during the lengthyphase-in period already provided in these regulations. Therealso is nothing in the Act preventing the industries fromproposing generally applicable regulations as to a category.

114-500

-28-

Regarding the anomaly asserted by Steel if we do not includeexisting landfills, we note that, if there is any anomaly, theanomaly also supports the notion that the Board should not grantany relief to new landfills either. Regarding new landfills, theBoard particularly disagrees with the suggestion by Steel that,in granting a "stay", the Board has pre-determined the merits ofthe proposals to be filed in December. Also, we share theconcern that the delaying of the applicability of Part 811 mightprovide an incentive to industry to build new landfills in theinterim, so as to be subject only to the existing regulations.We suggest, however, that any industry doing so is truly "rollingthe dice". They would be gambling on what would be the nature ofthe regulations that would apply to them in the near future asnew landfills (the "stay" would not affect their designation asnew landfills). In the interim, the existing regulations inlarge measure leave to the Agency considerable flexibility as tohow they should be implemented or enforced, regardless of whetherthe site requires a permit or not.

Given this situation, we ourselves do not quite understandwhy the industries have not moved more quickly. We also againnote that it is not clear in the record what number of newlandfills, if any, are anticipated in the near future (theutilities appear to be anticipating two). (See second FirstNotice Opinion, p. 40). We also agree with WMI that the recordgives little enlightenment as to whether the landfill operatorsare running out of space.

This has been a close call for the Board. Onreconsideration, we have determined that the best course ofaction is to grant only a one year "stay". This will serve toput the proceedings on a much shorter timetable and will alsoprovide the incentive to the industries to have their data readyand submit their proposals'as soon as possible. We also notethat some clarifying language has,been included in Section811.101(b). Also, we will continue to include off-site as wellas on-site landfills in the "stay". We fail to see, and theparticipants have not explained environmentally or otherwise, whythey want to exclude off-site landfills both from the "stay" andfrom any December proposals they might submit. Our decision togrant the "stay" admittedly rests on the expectation that theindustries will appreciate, on balance, the advantages to them ofnot installing new landfills during the "stay" period unless lackof air space is a critical factor, and even then will considerwhether it might be more prudent to comply with these newregulations rather than the old ones, or at least seek a permit.

Finally, WMI also asked for clarification as to how onsitelandfills, those operating outside the permit system, are toproceed if they wish to use alternatives to basic Board standardsor when approval by the Agency is required if an alternative isto be used. This question relates to more than the "stay"

U4-510

-29-

issue. For example. Agency approval is required for use ofalternate daily cover materials, and there any any number ofinstances in these rules, such as where performance standards andassessment and remedial action plans are involved, where onsiteoperators arguably carry a greater risk of a subsequentenforcement action for decisions made by them, outside a permitsetting, as to what constitutes compliance with the rules. Thisis a legal as well as a practical problem that is not new, exceptinsofar as the problem will be larger with the new regulations.Answering the question posed ultimately requires knowing what theoperator wants to do and looking at the individual rule involved,considering the facts of a particular situation. However, as ageneral 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 beapproved; informally consulting with the Agency if the Agency iswilling; simply taking the course of action with confidence thatthe rule allows it, etc. We note that these proposed rules,particularly the reporting requirements, reflect a conclusion bythe Board, based on the record, that more needs to be known aboutthe activities of onsite facilities.

Relation to the Groundwater Protection Act *.a.

The first First Notice Opinion contains an extensive 2discussion of the relationship of the landfill regulations andthe Groundwater Protection Act. (see pp. 47-52). We note tteatgroundwater standards are being addressed pursuant to that Act inpending Dockets R89-5 and R89-14. We believe that it is timportant to repeat here the essence of the Board's response tothat portion of the discussion which evolved around whether thecompliance by landfills with the non-degradation standards asenunciated in these landfill regulations would somehow be at oddswith the regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of theGroundwater Protection Act. We still see no reason why that Actwould inherently make the landfill regulations not compatible.We again repeat that "the Groundwater Protection Act does notexplicitly require the Board to adopt any specific regulationsand does not explicitly forbid the Board from adopting anyregulations. In fact, that Act explicitly provides that it isnot intended to preclude the Board from exercising its generalauthority to adopt regulations pursuant to Title VII of theEnvironmental Protection Act." (pp. 51, 52).

Groundwater Modeling

Haste Management, in particular, has challenged throughoutthis proceeding the availability and use of modeling,particularly as proposed by the Board for compliance and remedialaction purposes. WMI has generally asserted that, given thestate of development of modeling for this purpose, it is not

114-511

-30-

possible to use modeling for the purpose of showing no increaseabove background. (See e.g. P.C. #23, p. 13).

While the Board has addressed this issue before, mostrecently in its second First Notice Opinion, we will againaddress it here.

The STS background report (Ex. 1, pp. 59-69) contains adetailed discussion of the issues relating to groundwater impactassessment and the use of groundwater contaminant transport (GCT)models. The report also discusses and addresses the questionsraised by commentors regarding the use of GCT models byidentifying the purposes and advantages that such tools providein assessing the potential for contamination at a landfill site,and that modeling is a necessary and appropriate component of theproposed solid waste landfill regulations. The technical supportfor this position was primarily provided by Dr. Aaron Jennings,who testified in the earlier hearing in the R84-17A docket onJune 13, 1986, participated in several other hearings in 1987 inthe R84-17D docket and provided comments which are included inthe STS Response to Comments document (Ex. 26).

During the 1986 hearings. Dr. Jennings presented a detailedreview of the fundamentals of groundwater flow and contaminanttransport modeling and answered questions relating to histestimony. The Board in its first First Notice Opinion ofFebruary 25, 1988 in R88-7 stated that it was not persuaded bycomments theretofore filed that the use of GCT models isinappropriate, but that further comments would be entertained.Waste Management Inc. in its P.C. #23 continued to argue againstthe use of GCT models and questioned the appropriateness of itsuse. Responses to these comments were provided by the STS in Ex.26, pp. 127-135 and pp. 193. The Board also notes that theIllinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources in P.C. #22provided several examples of cases and studies where groundwaterflow and contaminant transport modeling have been successfullyused. This information was provided at the request of WMI duringthe questioning of Ms. Uhlman at the November 27, 1989 EcIShearing. Ms. Uhlman included the following statement:

"Briefly, these references should establishthat groundwater modeling has been asuccessful tool in predicting ground wateradvective and diffusive transport. Thesemodels have been applied to complicatedgeologic scenarios and have, in manyinstances, been successfully calibrated andverified. A skilled hydrogeologist should beable to make acceptable predictions usingthese readily available computer codes.Adjusting landfill facility design in responseto modeled expected and worst-case scenarios

114-512

-31-

will reduce the need for assessment monitoringand the potential for facility failure."

(P.C. *22, pp. 2)

Some further comments provided by Dr. Jennings afterreviewing the February 25/ 1988 First Notice language and publiccomments stated as follows:

"Since the board has offered to entertainfurther comment on the concern thatcontaminant transport modeling isinappropriate as proposed, I will offer thefollowing. Most of the criticisms .1 haveheard are thoroughly flawed. The proposedmodeling requires that designers be able toanticipate the most serious environmentalproblems of landfills. I see no crediblejustification for bypassing this requirement."

"It is true that there are poor models andpoor applications of good models. Obviously,I would not advocate the use of poor models,or the application of models by people not »sufficiently competent to use them properly. 31However, I feel the safeguards built into the rproposal (specifically the requirements formodel documentation, field calibration, andresults sensitivity analysis) are sufficientto guard against gross misuse." i:

*:"It is also true that the transport problemscan be complex. However, if the proposedoperations are too complex for competentprofessionals to • anticipate with the bestavailable scientific models (i.e. byengineering analysis), then they are toounpredictable to be allowed. 'Too complicatedto understand' is a very poor justificationfor proceeding without understanding."

"Finally, on several occasions I heard theclaim that one could not know what theleachates would be like until the facility wasin place, and without this source strengthinformation, the modeling could not besuccessful. This argument is also self-defeating. It is true that sourcequantification may be difficult. It mayrequire the synthesis of as much informationas possible about the proposed source plus thejudicious use of estimation, extrapolation,assumption and judgment. However, unless one

114-513

-32-

can make a reasonable assessment about themagnitude of the most serious environmentalproblems, how could the facility be allowed atall? The argument of unknown source strengthalso implies that one cannot guaranteeessentials like liner compatibility. If youdon't know what will be generated, youcertainly can't know that the liner materialswill be compatible. . Fortunately, I haven'tyet heard this as a reason to do away withchemical compatibility analysis."

(Ex. 26, pp. 194-195)

At the June 29, 1989 r ings, Mr. Bruce Hensel of theIllinois Geological Survey rented the results of a studycarried out, at the behest che STS, on the potential forgroundwater contamination rt .Iting from land burial of municipalwastes for several mapped hydrogeologic scenarios common inIllinois and to determine the appropriateness of the compliancedistance of "100 feet in 100 years." Mr. Hensel, ahydrogeologist, cautioned that use of the model results describedin the ISGS study are necessarily generalized for development ofregulations and policies and coifld not be applied to specificsites. He, however, noted that the use of models in the Board'sproposal for use in the design and enforcement stages of alandfill must use "extensive and rigorously collected site-specific data". (R. 246). Where a worst case scenario ismodeled, the actual values measured would remain lower than themodel predicted values. (R. 249, 269, 270). By worst casescenario, Mr. Hensel did not mean plugging in unrealisticnumbers; rather he meant that the numbers should be reasonable.A skilled modeler who knows geological uncerta'-^ ties, will takeweak data regarding, for example, dispersion a effectiveporosity, and err on the more conservative side- of the range ofvalues. (R. 282, 283, 286, 287). He also stated that a modelsuch as DRASTIC (proposed for use in the WMI R84-17C proceeding)is also too generalized to be used in a site-specific setting.

It was noted by Mr. DiMambro, during the June 1989 hearings,that it is wrong to characterize the Board's proposal as beingdependent on modeling to meet the design criteria. The designand performance criteria have been established and the model inthe first instance is used to demonstrate that the proposeddesign will not allow the applicable Board standard or backgroundconcentration to be exceeded in 100 years at 100 feet from thewaste boundary. He also stated that it is an unrealisticscenario to believe that after the landfill is sited, the modelwould throw out the siting and design simply because of the modelselected or the choice of an input parameter. (R. 259-262).

The Response to Additional Comments (Ex. 33) filed by theSTS contains further clarification on the use and support in the

114-514

-33-

record for GCT models. STS states the following with regard toWMI's P.C. 138:

WMI is incorrect in believing that modeling is'used to set a groundwater regulatorystandard.' Groundwater modeling is a toolthat can be used for designing landfills tomeet the groundwater quality standards outsidethe zone of attenuation (i.e., "100 feet in100 years" standard).' The model also servesto predict concentrations of contaminants as afunction of distance and time. Increasesmeasured above a predicted concentration canprovide an early warning trigger for potentialincreases above a groundwater standard at oroutside the compliance boundary.

(Ex. 33, pp. 38}

Based on the record before it, the Board again affirms thatthe continuing arguments against the use of GCT models in itsproposed regulations are not persuasive; there is very littletechnical support for that position. Instead, there isoverwhelming support and information which establishes that GCTmodeling has been used previously and can be implemented incarrying out groundwater impact assessments, used for purposes ofestablishing a groundwater monitoring network and can be used toensure compliance with the groundwater quality standardsapplicable to a specific landfill facility. The Board,therefore, continues to believe that the record supports theinclusion of GCT models in these regulations and considers theirapplication to be both necessary and appropriate.

Part Sll.Subpart D Additional Standards for Management of SpecialHastes at Landfills

We note that, since these landfill regulations were firstproposed in 1988, the Board has proposed, and adopted on August10, 1989 the regulations in Docket R89-13(A), In the Matter of;IDENR Special Waste Categorization Study. The Board has revisedSubpart D in these landfill regulations so as to be consistentwith the R89-13(A) regulations. We particularly note the changesregarding manifesting and reporting.

Financial Assurance

We again remind those who desire to revisit the financialassurance regulations that the Board is prepared to open aseparate Docket upon receipt of any formal proposals or,alternatively, to first consider a request by way of an inquiryheating. This instant proceeding clearly indicated that theBoard's existing regulations need to be generally revisited.However, as earlier stated, in the Second Notice Opinion, the

U4-515

-34-

Board believes it advisable not to itself open a new Docket forwto reasons: first, based on its earlier experience in R84-22,where a Docket D was opened for amending proposals/ but none wereforthcoming; and second, the record in this proceedingunderstandably does not contain sufficient detail about theproblems based on the anticipation that only problems related toR88-7 would be dealt with in this proceeding.

We will now proceed to the Guide to the Appendices which isintended to assist in locating varies portions of the attachedSTS Appendices Al, A2, and A3.

114-516

35

GUIDE TO APPENDICES

BOARD'S FINAL OPINION LN R88-7NONHAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL REGULATIONS

The appendices to the August 17, 1990 Final Opinion in R88-7 contains the following three documents prepared by theScientific/ Technical Section (STS) of the Board to provide thetechnical support and rationale for the non-hazardous solid wastelandfill rules:

1. Appendix A-l:

Recommendations For A Nonhazardous Waste Disposal ProgramIn Illinois And A Background Report To Accompany ProposedRegulations For Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, March7, 1988 (Exhibit 1, R88-7)

A Section-by-Section analysis of an STS proposal forregulating nonhazardous waste landfills was submitted in partsto the Board on May 22, May 26, June 12, and June 21, 1987.The Board Orders of May 28 and June 22, 1987 established theR84-17D docket to consider the STS proposal. STS filedrevised versions of various portions of its proposed rules andbackground report on January 15, February 4 and 18, 1988. TheBoard First Notice Opinion and Order (February 25, 1988)opened Docket R88-7 to propose rules largely based on theinformation presented in this document, filed March 7, 1988,and the STS's proposal considered in R84-17D.

2. Appendix A-2:

Response to Comments on Proposed Parts 807 through 815,March 1, 1990 (Exhibit 26, R88-7)

This document contains the recommendations provided bythe STS in response to public comments received during theFirst Notice comment period. The second First Notice (March1, 1990) language reflects the changes made by the Board toaddress the public comments. Most of the changes were basedon the STS's recommendations presented in this document.

3. Appendix A-3:

Response to Additional Comments On Proposed Parts 807,And 810 Through 815, June 7, 1990 (Exhibit 33, R88-7)

STS's recommendations to the Board in response to publiccomments received during the second First Notice comment

114-517

36

period are contained in this document. The Second Noticelanguage (June 7, 1990) contains the changes made by the Boardbased on the STS's recommendations in this document.

STS notes that issues relating to changes made by the Board,which are either not addressed or are different from thereconunendations in the above documents are discussed in the BoardOpinions filed at First Notice (February 25, 1988), second FirstNotice (March 1, 1990) and Second Notice (June 7, 1990).

The attached Appendix Guide Table provides a listing of thefinal rules by Section numbers and references the page number(s)in each of the above three documents addressing that particularSection. The Background Report (A-l) provides technical supportfor a particular Section and the other two documents (A-2 and A-3) provide responses to public comments and the rationale for anychanges recommended by the STS to that section.

114-518

37

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE

SectionNo.

Page Numbers of Documents in Appendices:A-l_________A-2__________A-3________Remarks

PART 807SOLID WASTE

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

807.105 NA

810.101810.102810.103810.104

PART 810SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL: GENERAL PROVISIONS

131313 4-34 2-4

JJJ

J,NA

PART 811STANDARDS FOR NEW SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS

SUBPART A: GENERAL STANDARDS FOR ALL LANDFILLS

811.101811.102811.103811.104811.105

811.106811.107811.108811.109811.110

1616171919

1920212122

37

42,4344

44,45

48,49,5151

53,5456

4,5

811.Ill 22 57,58

SUBPART B: INERT WASTE LANDFILLS

811.201811.202811.203811.204811.205

2325262627

61656566

811.206811.207

J,NANA

SUBPART C: PUTRESCIBLE AND CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILLS

811.301811.302

2727 69

114-510

38

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE (Contd.)

Section PaaeNo

811.811.811.811.811.

811.811.811.811.811.

811.811.811.811.811.

811.811.811.811.811.

811.

811.811.811.811.811.

811.

811.811.811.811.811.

811.811.811.

Numbers of DocumentsA-l A-2

303304305306307

308309310311312

313314315316317

318319320321322

323

SUBPART

401402403404405

406

SUBPART

501502503504505

506507508

2930303238

3941454853

5455575859

6975779292

D:

9393939394

E:

9494959595

9595

71--

78,7980,81

8283-8992-96

97,98, 100-102106,107

108110,112

115-120,122,124127

127-132

135-143145-155

161,164-168168,169

-

170

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL

173173-174174-177178-

180

CONSTRUCTION QUALITY

_184,185186-187

_189,190

-

in Aocendices:A-3

_--10-

_11,1212,131314

_-

15-17-

17,18

1819-2526-2930-

30

WASTES AT

_----

-

ASSURANCE

_-303131

3132-

Remarks

J

J

JJJ

J

JJJ

J,NA

LANDFILLS

J

NA

PROGRAMS*

J,NA

114-520

39

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE (Contd.}

SectionNo.

Page Numbers of Documents in Appendices:A-l_________A-2__________A-3_______ Remarks

811.509

811.700811.701811.702811.703811.704

811.705811.706811.707811.708811.709

811.710811.711811.712811.713811.714

811.715

SUBPART G:

9697

97

98

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

32197197197

198,199200-202

202

203-206207-208209209

214,215

33

33

J,NA

NANA

NANA

J,NANA

NANANANA

J,NA

J,NA

PART 812INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED IN A PERMIT APPLICATION

SUBPART A: GENERAL INFQRMATION REQUIRED FOR ALL LANDFILLS

812.101812.102812.103812.104812.105

812.106812.107Vj."* .Yl/b812.109812.110

812.111812.112812.113812.114812.115

812.116

9898989898

9898Vb9898

9898989898

98

218

219

220,221221,222

224,225

225226227

J

J

114-521

40

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE (Contd.)

SectionNo.

Page Numbers of Documents in Appendices:A-l_________A-2__________A-3________Remarks

SUBPART B: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR INERT WASTELANDFILLS

812.201 98812.202 98812.203 98812.204 98

SUBPART C: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PUTRESCIBLE ANDCHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILLS

812.301812.302812.303812.304812.305

9898989898

227

228,229229

812.306812.307812.308812.309812.310

9898989898

22933

812.311812.312812.313812.314812.315

9898989898

231

812.316812.317812.318

989898

232JJJ

PART 813PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTED LANDFILLS

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROCEDURES

813.101813.102813.103813.104813.105

813.106813.107813.108813.109

9999100100100

101101101

233

236

NA

J

11A-522

41

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE (Contd.)

SectionNo.

813 . 110813. Ill

Paae NumbersA-l

102103

of DocumentsA-2

238,239240

in ADDendices:A-3

3434

Remarks

JJ

SUBPART B: ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR MODIFICATION ANDSIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION OF PERMITS

813.201813.202813.203813.204

104104104104

241

242

35

SUBPART C: ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR THE RENEWAL OF PERMITS

813.301813.302•IW-.VU.813.304813.305

105105ws,105105

244

SUBPART D: ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR INITIATION AND TERMINATIONOF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT CLOSURE AND POSTCLOSURE CARE

813.401813.402813.403

813.501813.502813.503

105105105 244

SUBPART E: REPORT? TO BE FILED WITH THE AGENCY

106106106

245246

35

35,36

PART 814STANDARDS FOR EXISTING LANDFILLS AND UNITS

SUBPART A: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

814.101814.102814.103814.104814.105

106107107107

249-250--

814.106

NA

NA

SUBPART B: STANDARDS FOR UNITS ACCEPTING INERT WASTE

814.201 251 - NA

114-523

42

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE (Contd.)

SectionNo.

Page Numbers of Documents in Appendices:A-l________A-2________A-3_______Remarks

814.202 251

SUBPART C:PUTRESCIBLE

814.301814.302

SUBPART D:PUTRESCIBLE

814.401814.402

STANDARDS FOR EXISTING UNITS ACCEPTING CHEMICAL ANDWASTES THAT MAY REMAIN OPEN FOR MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS

107108

251251,252

STANDARDS FOR EXISTING UNITS ACCEPTING CHEMICAL ANDWASTES THAT MUST INITIATE CLOSURE WITHIN SEVEN YEARS

110110

253253-255

SUBPART E: STANDARDS FOR EXISTING UNITS ACCEPTING INERT WASTEONLY, OR ACCEPTING CHEMICAL AND PUTRESCIBLE WASTES THAT MUST

INITIATE CLOSURE WITHIN TWO YEARS

814.501814.502

110NA

PART 815PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LANDFILLS EXEMPT FROM- PERMITS

SUBPART A: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

815.101815.102

111112

• 257

815.201815.202815.203815.204

SUBPART B: INITIAL FACILITY REPORT

112 257112112

NA

815.301815.302815.303

815.401815.402

SUBPART C: ANNUAL REPORTS

257

257 36

SUBPART D: QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER REPORTS

112113113

113113

257258

114-524

43

APPENDIX GUIDE TABLE (Contd.)

Section Page Numbers of Documents in Appendices:Nn-________ft-l________».-?._________fr.-X_______

SUBPART E: INFORMATION TO BE RETAINED ONSITE

815.501 113 258815.502 113815.503 113

STS has not recommended any changes to these sections.

NA Background Report (A-l) does not address or discuss thesesections.

J The Board has made changes in these sections in responseto comments received from the Joint Committee onAdministrative Rules (JCAR). The Final Notice language(Aug. 17, 1990) reflect these changes.

* Note that the Subpart E requirements at Section 811.501through Section 811.507 are discussed in Appendix A-lunder Sections 811.601 through Section 811.607.

J. Dumelle and B. Forcade concurred.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution ControlBoard, hereby certify-that the above Opinion was adopted onthe '7**- day of /V^fu-^r- • 1990, by a vote of £ -O^__ ~ ™

Dorothy M. Gjfnn, ClerkIllinois Pollution Control Board

114-525

~ _,,,.... ,. ,_JN CO 'TMOIL BOA1RITDOF ————————————————————————————————————

ILLINOIS STATt or ILLINOIS CEKTCC • 1OO WEST RANDOLPH STREET • Su.re II 5OO • CHICAGO ILLINC:S 6O6O1 « 312 814 362O

JOHN C MARLIN CMAWXAN RONALD C FLEMALURBANA ILLINOIS DEKALB ILLINOIS

JOAN G ANDERSON BILL S FORCADEWESTERN SPRINGS ILLINOIS CHICAGO ILLINOIS

JACOB 0 OUMELLE J THEODORE MEYER

MICHAEL L NAROULLIAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OF THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD'SNEW REGULATIONS FOR LANDFILLS*

Proceeding R88-7August 17, 1990

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REGULATIONS

The Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) has adoptedsweeping amendments to its landfill regulations. They apply toall municipal and industrial landfills, which include wastepiles. The regulations are crafted, using a mix of performanceand minimum design standards, so as to protect the existingenvironment, both above and below ground, from degradation.Among the significant new regulations are:

• Interrelated systems of checks and balances to controltransport of contaminants, including a stringent groundwaterassessment program;

• Liners of compacted earth, or. compacted earth andgeomembrane;

• Leachate collection systems;

• State of the art leachate treatment and disposal . RtCtlVtUrequirements;

SEP 1 8 1990• Landfill gas monitoring and management;

IEPA-DLPC• Detailed construction and operating oversight requirements;

* This summary is being provided solely as a service to personswho have requested a short explanation of hundreds of pages oftechnical documents. This summary has not been formally adoptedby the Board and is not intended to have any precedentialeffect. The Board's Opinions and Orders in this docket are thesole sources of law in this matter.

3-

for nonhazardous waste disposal facilities. They are more orless outdated, having been adopted for the most part in July1973. They barely recognize the problems of landfill gasmonitoring and collection, groundwater monitoring, and liners andleachate collection systems and the organization does not lenditself easily to reorganization or expansion. '

The Agency submitted an informal proposal to the Board inMay 1984. This proposal contained many specific design standardsthat described how a landfill is to be designed andconstructed. The Illinois State Chamber of Commerce (ISCC)proposed regulations based primarily upon the existingregulations and submitted it to the Board in April 1985. Severalhearings on this proposal were held in which waste generators anddisposers underscored the need for a waste management systembased upon the relative risk of the waste on the environment.Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) prpposed a third set ofrequirements. This proposal was an attempt to follow theCongressional directive under RCRA Subtitle D and to develop aregulatory proposal at the state level which would generallytrack with anticipated Subtitle D standards as they had beendeveloped at that time.

The Board requested that the Scientific/Technical Section(STS) review the three proposals, the comments and testimony pro-vided by the participants, and any other important information onlandfill design and operation and provide recommendations to theBoard. The STS made its recommendations in a background reportand proposal in May and June 1987. Ten hearings were held andmodified recommendations were filed with the Board in February1988. The Board's first and second First Notice and SecondNotice proposals and the final regulations were developed withthe ongoing assistance of the STS, which filed morerecommendations in March and June, 1990.

The. Hoa A he.TJ.ftww. «-Jjah. 'Jvs> wtjiAVLVurrb vwctrrpoTate 't'ne 'oestaspects of the above proposals, the testimony of several inter-national experts on solid waste disposal, a survey of pertinentliterature on solid waste disposal, and a review of the commentsand concerns presented by the many participants at the 35-oddhearings held by the Board. The regulations are based on soundscientific principles, and represents a workable approach to theregulation of nonhazardous waste disposal facilities.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REGULATIONS

The regulations are based upon the following generalprinciples:

Regulations must be as stringent or more stringent than a-yfederal requirements for nonhazardous waste disposal;

-4-

Regulations must be consistent with all existing Illinoisstatutes, including the Solid Waste Management Act and theIllinois Groundwater Protection Act;

The operator of a landfill is responsible for utilizing thebest economically available technology to minimize dischargesof pollutants from the landfill; and

Thte operator is always required to demonstrate that thetechnology used to control pollutants is sufficient toprevent air and water pollution.

These principles apply to all landfills, including those locatedat industrial facilities and at all municipal landfills, includ-ing small landfills. There: is no documentation to show thatsmall landfills are less likely to cause groundwater contamina-tion, air pollution and significant impacts to public health andsafety.

The regulations added »iximw--partsrto'"the -Board'sftions for waste disposal." Part 810 contains the definitions,Part 811 describes the design and performance standards for newlandfills, Part 812 prescribes the information necessary in apermit application. Part 813 contains procedures for permitting,Part 814 describes phase-in standards for existing landfills, andPart 815 -contains procedural requirements for facilities exemptfrom permitting requirements. Among some of the new provisionsare the following highlights:

Waste Categories: Categories based upon physical and chemicalproperties of wastes are established. Inert waste will notburn, biodegrade, serve as food for vectors, form a gas,cause an odor, or produce a contaminated leachate. Theregulations for inert waste disposal are less stringent thanfor municipal garbage. Chemical waste is defined as wastesthat will form a contaminated leachate by chemical orphysical processes. Such wastes are produced as a result ofsome sort of industrial activity and would usually be placedin a disposal unit dedicated to only that waste (amonofill). Putrescible waste will form a contaminatedleachate by biological, chemical or physical means. Municipalwaste is considered putrescible waste by definition and mustbe placed in a sanitary landfill.

Location Standards: Location standards will restrict the loca-tion of landfills to areas where they will not invade thescenic or recreational values of rivers; restrict or reducethe temporary water storage capacity of a 100-yearfloodplain, jeopardize nature preserves or any endangeredwildlife, threaten or destroy irreplaceable historical andarcheological sites, invade a wetland, or cause waterpollution. Additional location standards for facilities

-5-

accepting putrescible and chemical wastes include setbackzones from airports, highways, homes, drinking watersupplies, and sole-source aquifers.

Surface Water Drainage: Standards are proposed to insure thatrainfall runoff that comes into contact with disturbedlandfill areas does not pollute surface water. Otherstandards require that structures be built to divert watera.round the landfill.

Postclosure Maintenance Standards: A monitoring period is estab-lished for a minimum of 15 years after closure. The moni-toring period continues until the waste is stabilized and theoperator can assure that the landfill will not cause anypollution.

Determination of Contaminated Leachate: Criteria for testing isoutlined to determine whether the leachate expected to beformed by a waste is contaminated. The procedure must be areasonable approximation of conditions expected in the field.

Foundation and Mass Stability Analysis: The operator is requiredto analyze the foundation soils beneath a landfill todetermine the bearing capacity and susceptibility tolandslides.

Liner Systems: Minimum criteria are specified. All landfillsmust be equipped with an earth liner at least five feet thickor, alternatively, a three feet thick earth liner covered bya compatible geomembrane liner. Earth liners must becompacted to achieve a hydraulic conductivity of 1x10"'cm/sec. (1.24 inches/yr.)

Standards for the Leachate Drainage, Collection, Treatment, andDisposal Systems: All landfills must be equipped with aieachate collection system and the operator must operate thesystem and safely dispose of treated leachate.

Landfill Gas Monitoring and Management: All landfills must bemonitored for excess landfill gas migration. Standards areestablished and monitoring frequency is specified. If gasmigrates from the landfill in large quantities then theoperator must install a system to collect landfill gas. Gasmay be processed for beneficial uses or discharged to theatmosphere by flaring, incineration, or treatment to meet theterms of the required air discharge permit.

Standards for the Final Cover System: All landfills must becovered with an earth layer three feet thick compacted to thedensity necessary to achieve a hydraulic conductivity r.cgreater than IxlO"7 cm/sec. (1.24 inches/yr.) A final

-6-

protective layer of soil capable of supporting vegetationthree feet thick will overlay the compacted earth cover.

Hydroqeologic Site Investigations: A three phase investigationprocedure is specified. The investigation consists of sitespecific data collection from borings.

Groundwater Protection: The regulations introduce a new methodof setting groundwater monitoring standards which ties thesite characteristics, design, operation and monitoring intoan integrated system. The methods by which a facility isdesigned and monitored are guided by the methodologyspecified by the Clean Water Act and the National PollutionDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) and based upon existingBoard regulations. These groundwater standards are notintended to be considered as only monitoring requirements;they also function as location standards and performancestandards. The procedures for evaluating site adequacy, thedesign of the facility and the monitoring program are relatedbecause they all utilize the groundwater standards asperformance criteria.

The design of the landfill must not rely upon the existingnatural environment as the primary containment mechanism.All landfills that contain wastes which may producecontaminated leachat- must be designed with a liner and aleachate collection system. After the containment mechanismis chosen the operator must show that discharges from thefacility will not cause an increase in the concentrations ofleachate constituent compounds at a point 100 feet from thewaste boundary, or property line, whichever is less within100 years after closure of the unit. This process willinfluence the location of landfills to desirable geologicallocations because the presence of undesirable features suchas sandy solids will result in the rapid transport ofcontaminated leachate. If the containment mechanism isinadequate then it must be upgraded or another site must bechosen. This procedure is called the groundwater impactassessment contaminant transport model is specified.

Groundwater Quality Standards: The groundwater standards arebased upon the existing quality of groundwater. The landfillmust not cause a change in the background water quality ofthe groundwater at a point 100 feet from the landfill, or theproperty boundary, whichever is less, within 100 years ofclosure of the landfill. The Board may adjust this standardon a case by case basis.

Construction Quality Assurance: The operator will be required toinstitute a construction quality assurance program for allstructures at a landfill, including the liner, cover, leach-ate collection system, and any berms and dikes. All aspectsof construction must be inspected and tested under the super-

-7-

vision of a designated construction quality assuranceofficer, who prepares an acceptance report.

Financial Assurance for Closure and Postclosure Care: Theoperator of a landfill is required to give financialassurance for a postclosure care period estimated at thirtyyears.

Term of Permit: A permit must be renewed every five years.

Authorization to Engage in Experimental Practices: This procedure allows the operator to try new materials and techniquesthat may require an entirely different set of standards thanthose specified by regulation.

Acceptance Reports: Before placing a structure into use, theAgency reviews the acceptance report submitted by the cons-truction quality assurance officer to ensure that it has beenbuilt in accordance with the approved design. This isroughly the equivalent of what is now called a constructionpermit. The Agency will monitor construction by issuing anoperating authorization for each structure at the facilitybuilt in accordance with a construction quality assuranceplan. An operator may not place a structure into serviceuntil the Agency reviews the acceptance report submitted bythe construction quality assurance (CQA) officer and issuesthe authorization.

Annual Reports: All operators must submit as a minimum, anannual report to the Agency. The annual report containsoperating summaries, monitoring data and analysis, and areport on the status of the facility.

Existing Facilities: Existing facilities are divided up intothree general groups: facilities that may remain open beyondseven years, facilities that will close within seven years ofthe effective date of these regulations, and facilities whichare either unable to demonstrate compliance with therequirements of the first two categories, or are scheduled toclose within two years of the effective date of theseregulations. Facilities in this last category must closewithin two years of the effective date of these regulationsunder their existing permits, in accordance with the terms oftheir existing permit.

Reporting Requirements for Onsite facilities: Part 815 describes.the information that must be filed with the Agency by facil-ities exempt from permit requirements under Section 21(d) ofthe Act. Facilities would be required to file an initialfacility report with the Agency, describing the facilitylayout and design, annual reports, and quarterly groundwatermonitoring reports.

APPENDIX A-1

i !"] v^ult/-v'\' > ' . "

EDITION NOTE

This report is a combined, revised and updated version oftwo reports submitted to the Board on June 3, 1987 and June 22,1987. It is intended to be read along with the proposed regula-tions submitted to the Board on February 18, 1988. This reportand proposal supersede all previous subroittals by the Scien-tific/Technical section of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

The proposed regulations adopted by the Board containchanges and additions to the February 18, 1988 proposal that arenot addressed in this report. These changes and additions areexplained in tNe Board's First Notice Opinion and Order, dated'February 25, 1968 (Docket R88-7T.

Copies of the February 16, 1986 proposal are available upcr,written request from the Illinois Pollution Control Board (10TWest Ran doff. Street, Suite 11-500; Chicago, IL 60601) fcr thecost of reproduction and postage, $34.17.

CONTENTS

Page

I. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 1

A. Introduction........................................!B. An Overview of the Record to Date................... 2C. The Choice Between Performance and Design

Standards........................................... 3D. Hazardous Constituents in Nonhazardous Waste......... 5I. Protection of Groundwater.......................... .7F. Organization of the Proposal....................... 10

ii. A DISCUSSIO:: or THE PROPOSAL. ...........................13A. Discussion of Part 81C: General Provisions........ 13B. Discussion of Fart 811: Standards for Waste

Dispose! Facilities............................... .16

Subpart A: General Standards for WasteDisposal Facilities....................16

Subpart E: Standards for Inert WasteDisposal Facilities....................23

Subpart C: Standards for PutrescibleWaste Disposal Facilities .............. 27

Sjb-=rt D: Standards for Identification andManagement of Special Wastes........... 52

Subpart E: Construction QualityAssurance Programs.................... .54

Subpart G: Financial Assurance and PostclosureCare...................................96

C. Discussion of Part 812: Information to beSucnttec ir. a Ferrr.it Application. ................. 96

D. Discussion of Part 813: Procedures forPerir.it Applications, Renewals and Modifications... .99

Subpart A: Procedures for Permit Applications.....99Subpart B: Procedures Applicable to

Significant Modification Of Permits...104Subpart C: Renewal of Permits.................... 105Subpart D: Procedures for Temporary and Permanent

Closure and Postclosure Care..........105Subpart E: Reports to be Filed with the Agency...106

E. Discussion of Part 814: Regulations forExisting Operations...............................l06

Sucpirt f-: General Requirements..................1C£Subpart B: Standards for Existing Units Accepting

Cnerical and Putrescible Wastes....... 1C7

£t£T.cs:dE for Existing Units Tr.s;Mjst Close Within Sever. Years.....

Sjtpart D: Standards for Unitst'losi ng ~'rn Two •i

F. Discussion of Part 815: Procedural Requirementsfor Facilities Exempt from Permits................111

Subpart A: General Requirements................. .111Subpart B: Initial Facility Report...............112Subpart C: Annual Reports........................112Subpart D: Quarterly-Groundwater Reports......... 113Subpart E: Information to be Retained Onsite.....113

III: REFEREN'CEE. ...........................................114

IV. INDEX. .................... ."". .......................... .132

A. Nares Incex.................................. .....132E. Subject Index.................................... .132

TABLES

1. Ranges of Pollutants in Selected Wastes..................242. Geological Sites Chosen for Modeling Study............... 603. Hydraulic Conductivities and Porosity Values Used

in This Project.......................................... 614. Retardation Factors and Initial Concentrations

Used i-. Tr.is Project..................................... 815. Increase in Design Period for Existing Operations....... 109

FIGURES

1. Maxir.jr- Extent of Chloride Migration After 100 Years.....632. Kaxiiriur, Concentration of Chlorides at

Point of Corpl iance...................................... 8-i3. Maximum Concentration of Chlorides at

Point of Compliance......................................854. Distance Versus Time Profiles for the A and B Sites...... 675. Distance Versus Time Profiles for the C Sites............686. Distance Versus Time Profiles for the D, E, F,

and G Sites..............................................897. Geologic Deposits Suitable for Landfilling of

Nonhazardous Wastes......................................9]

I. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Introduction

Consistent with the Board's Orders of February 19, 1987 andMarch 5, 1987, the Scientific/Technical Section (STS) reviewedthe information in the record of Proceeding R84-17, Dockets A, B,and C. The STS provided recommendations to the Board in the fontof a background report and proposal. These were cubnitted to theBoard on June 3, 1987 and designated as Docket D. This reportcontains an analysis of the major technical issues and providessubstantiating information, background, and an explanation of thebasis for the accompanying proposed regulations. It has been '.updated and amended with new information as a result of the com-ments and testimony received between June 1987 and December 1987.

We propose that the format and language in the Board's pre-sent regjlations for landfills (part 807) be reorganized, withseparate sections for permitting requirements, construction qual-ity assurance, and design and performance standards. These rec-ommendations include minimum design standards, performance stan-dards for special circumstances and alternative technologies, anew procedure fcr implementing experimental practices, new per-mitting procedures and requirements for a groundwater impactassessment.

The propose- regulations are limited to nonhazardous wastedisposal facilities. Fc; the purposes of this report and pro-posal we define nor.hazardous waste disposal facilities as allfacilities not regulated under The Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA). The proposed regulations do not apply towaste generators, waste haulers, temporary storage of waste,waste treatment facilities, surface impoundments and hazardous .waste disposal facilities. Except for sections specificallyrelated to permits and permit functions these requirements areintended to apply to onsite disposal facilities.

This report represents the opinions and recommendations ofthe Scientific/Technical Section. The primary author was RichardA. DiMambro, environmental engineer with the Scientific/TechnicalSection. The report was reviewed in whole or part by Dr. BarishRao, environmental engineer with the Scientific/Technical sec-tion, Dr. Gilbert Zemansky, chief of the Scientific/TechnicalSection and now a private consultant, and Karyn Mistrik, librar-ian with the Scientific/Technical section, who also assisted inthe literature survey. Kathleen Crowley, attorney assistant toBoard member Joan Andersor, reviewed the proposal as to form andprocedure consistent with the Board order of February 19, 1987.Dr. David E. Dar.iel, Dr. Robert K. Ham, and Dr. Aaron A. Jenningseach reviewed parts of the report and provided comments.

B. ftr. Overview of TheRecord to Date

The present regulations in Part 807 are inadequate. They donot meet existing minimum federal criteria for nonhazardous wastedSWWWMrnRTiTities. They are acre or 1 8. ou,|djtfj,; |»»ving been•*o|C«Osi:t>e'aost part in 1973£:,,J$|f at1sfy™cog-nite theproblems of landfill gas saDi*OwyfejlJ»<J collect/pn, groundwater•onitoring, and liners and leachate collect ion" "systems. Theminimum standards for onsite waste disposal facilities, which areexempt from permit requirements pursuant to Section 21 (d) of theEnvironmental Protection Act (Act), are in some"respectsdifficult to understand and implement because some standards aretied directly to permit conditions. Finally, the organization ofthe regulations does not lend Itself easily to reorganization orexpansion.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) sub-mitted a proposal on May 31, 1984 and was the subject of hearingsheld in proceeding R84-17 Docket A. The Agency proposal can begenerally characterized as a design standard based approach be-cause the regulations are quite specific about how a waste dis-posal facility is to be designed and constructed. While twohearings were held, the background information necessary to sup-port the technical requirements was never presented to theBoard. Nevertheless, there are some interesting aspects, partic-ularly in groundwater monitoring, that we recommend adopting.The organization, however, is confusing because it references andsupplements the RCRA hazardous waste disposal requirements inParts 700 through 725 and the nonhazardous waste dispose! re-quirements in Parts 807 and 809. Because the Agency provided notechnical support for the design standards, their merits cannotbe comprehensively evaluated.

The Illinois State Chamber of Commerce (ISCC) prepared aproposal (R84-17 Docket B) based primarily upon the existinoParts 807 and 809 and submitted it to the Board on April 4,1985. This proposal can be generally characterized as aperformance-standard based approach. General standards offacility performance are prescribed with procedures forimplementation of Agency design criteria. Several hearings onthis proposal were held in which waste generators and disposersunderscored the need for a waste management system based upon therelative risk of the waste on the environment. However, becausethis proposal retains nearly all of the present language of Parts807 and 809, adoption of this proposal would perpetuate existingproblems.

Waste Manaaemer.t, Inc. (WMI) proposed a third set of re-quirements (R64-17 Docket C). The goal of WMI 'in preparingthese regulations was to follow the Congressional directive underRCR-. Subtitle D ana to develop a regulatory proposal at the statelevel which would generally track with the proposed Subtitle Dsta-.dirds as they are currently being developed" (R. 1247-1248,

DockP' C). This proposal contains several new concepts nc:discjssec in the others, including a detailed set of locationstandards with the intent of limiting facility-development toareas with suitable hydrogeological characteristics, and aclassification system called DRASTIC, which gives potential sitesa numerical rating based upon weighted, site-specific factors.The specific standards for waste disposal facilities can begenerally characterized as perfornance-standard based. Theproposal by w«l retains some of the old language, but greatlyexpands the number of requirements and scope of Agency review.The proposal contains sections which would bring the regulationsinto compliance with the existirig federal criteria, 40 CFR 257.Tne proposal was also supported by extensive testimony by KKI andtheir consultants. Ke expanded.and clarified many of WMI'sconcepts in this proposal.

The weaknesses of the WMI proposal stem in part frorr thefact that the proposal originated from a similar proposal sent byV.I tc the United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). It delegates authority and provides flexibility to theAge-.cy sirrilar tc that provided to the USEPA. Some of thisdelegation violates the Environmental Protection Act and theIllinois Adrinistrative Procedures Act, thus making some criticalparts of the WM: proposal as written unworkable in Illinois. Wealso believe that the groundwater protection requirements areunworkable. This point will be discussed in detail further.

The proposal that follows is a result of our review of therecord of this proceeding to date. A proposal and backgroundreport was initially filed in June 1987. Hearings were held be-tween June and October 1987. • The comments, information and sug-gestions by participants have been given serious consideration.As a result of new information, suggestions and comments the pro-posed regulations and the background report have been revised.The regulations are based on sound scientific principles, andcombine some of tne most desirable aspects of all three proposalswith new standards which we have developed from the literatureand the recommendations of the experts who testified before thatBoard. He believe the proposal represents a workable approach tothe regulation of nonhazardous waste disposal facilities.

C. The Choice Between Performance and Design Standards

Much of the debate by proponents is focused on the perceivedadvantages and disadvantages between 'performance standards" and"design standards." Generally, a performance standard describesthe expected performance of a structure allowing specific designcriteria -to be developed on a site-specific basis. Design stan-dards delineate specific design requirements applicable to allstructures. A clear distinction does not exist between the two;what IT.ay be defined as a design standard by one person right beconsidered a performance standard by another. For example, wecan specify tr,at runof froir disturbed areas less" than thatresulting fro- the 25- ar ?var.t be diverted around the landfill

site. EC-T wauls Cell this a performance standard because thelevel cf expected performance of the structure has beer,specified; others would call it a design standard because the 25-year event is the basic parameter used to determine the size ofthe structure. Because of the difficulty in interpretation ofthese terms they are not used within the context of theregulatory proposal itself. However, we make liberal use ofthese terms throughout the report.

The advantages of performance standards are that they in-crease the flexibility of the landfill designer, allow Bite spe-cific information to drive the design of the facility, and readi-ly allow the adoption of new technology without changes to theregulations. On the other hand, proper implementation of per-formance standards requires a much greater effort in processingpermit applications. This is because the justification forchoosing a particular design standard must be presented for eachsite. The applicant must hire a large number of qualified indi-viduals or consultants to prepare the designs. The Agency isWVL, VtAiV%Vi.vi vi, •jia.vi.n.v.n. *. i-v.<y--. sJ(JJU_e_d s_taf f to review de-signs. Whereas overall savings in construction costs are pos-sible, they will be offset in part by the increased costs ofpreparing and reviewing engineering designs.

Design standards are easily understood by all parties, theylead to equity among all waste disposal operators, they assureconsistency in the review process, they are easily enforced bythe regulatory authority, and they require less expertise on thepart of both the regulatory authority and the operators (bothfind it easy to follow "cookbook" methodologies rather than de-velop new design criteria for each site). In order to implement-a design-standard based approach, very conservative standardsmust be established, usually .based upon the worst possible condi-tions expected to be encountered. Most facilities will, there-fore, be overdesigned. However, part of this additional con-struction cost will be offset by the reduced design and engineer-ing staff requirements.

It is not necessary to base an entire regulatory programaround solely performance or solely design standards. Instead,we recommend that each element of a solid waste management pro-gram be evaluated individually to determine the appropriate regu-latory mechanism. Massmann and Freeze (1987) assessed the rela-tive worth of "containment-construction activities, site explora-tion activities, and monitoring activities as components of adesign strategy for a waste Management facility subject togroundwater contamination" using mathematical models. A sensi-tivity analysis indirectly showed that design standards are moreeffective than performance standards in reducing risk and thatdesign standards are more effective when applied as requirementson the containment structure (liner and leachate collection sys-teir.s) tha-. on the groundwater monitoring network. But they alsofound that performance standards are more effective at identify-ing sites that may fail. Therefore, there is some justification

for proposing a regulatory prograr with a combination of designand peiIormance standards.

In some cases, such as, for example, the number and locationof groundwater monitoring wells in the monitoring network, wepropose the use of performance standards because the desiredperformance must be achieved at many sites displaying highlyvariable geology. In other cases, the judicious use of designstandards is utilized where we believe it is necessary and appro-priate to set minimum standards to promote equity among the var-ious segments Of waste management professionals and to give theAgency a more precise mechanism by which to measure equivalentperformance. Design standards'are particularly effective fordescribing the minimum expectations of the engineered landfillstructures such as, for example, compacted earth liners andcovers. Ke also use design standards for specifying technologywhich i£ so sjpericr that alternate methods are unlikely to everprove more effective. In cases where design standards arespecified we also propose a set of alternate performance criteriawhich in turn allows designers to utilize different design stan-dards. This is a refined extension of the equivalent performanceconcept proposed by KM I. The burden falls on the permitapplicant to demonstrate to the Agency that the performancecriteria are achieved. In the case of onsite facilities, whichrequire no permit by the Agency, the designers who wish toutilize the alternate performance criteria must evaluate thedesign standards on their own. Should an enforcement action evertake place, the operator of the onsite facility would be requiredto demonstrate that the performance criteria were achieved.

A third category of standards, often referred to as "con-struction standards," has also been discussed as a desirableregulatory mechanism. The term construction standard is -utilizedwhen prescribing specific methods for constructing facilities,for example, l i f t thickness, minimum number of passes, type ofcompaction equipment, and geomembrane compounds. We do not be-lieve that construction standards are an appropriate regulatorymechanism. The use of construction standards can arbitrarilylimit desirable design flexibility, and nay become so detailedthat the original intent of the regulation is lost.

D. Hazardous Constituents in Nonhazardous Waste

Hazardous wastes nay legally enter landfills designated forresidential and commercial wastes. This waste nay be attribu-table to three sources within the landfill: household hazardouswaste, hazardous waste generated by small quantity generators(nc ira-.ifest is required, this waste may find its way into asanitar.- landfill.), and hazardous waste placed in sanitary land-f i l l ? prior to 1976. Our review to date indicates that the land-fills f'or which data on hazardous constituents were collectedmay have, at sore point, accepted waste that is now excluded fromth? f a c i l i t y by RCRt. It is imposs' Me to determine what per-centast- cf tr.e hazardous constituen ce be attributed to small

q u a n t i t i e s of ho-jsehold hazardous waste and small quantity qer.er-atcrs a-.c what percentage car, be attributed to hazardous waste;placed before the stringent requirements of the RCRA. Brow- tr.zDonnelly (1965) caution that the "toxicity of the municipal land-fill leachate may be due to past disposal, legal or illegal, ofindustrial waste or be a result of the anaerobic degradation ofselected waste constituents."

The presence of hazardous constituents in leachate hasseveral implications that can affect a landfill design andperformance. The first is that these constituents can attackboth the liner and the in situ soils and destroy their lowpermeability characteristics. -However, the average constituentsof municipal leachate are unlikely to cause a liner failure.This will be discussed in more detail in Section II of thisreport.

Second, it is implied that a wastewater treatment plant isunlikely to accept leachate with hazardous constituents. Dr.Lue-King of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago(MSD) presented a case study to the Board (Lue-Hing, 1986) inwhich the disposal of leachate from a hazardous waste facilitywas by discharge to a wastewater treatment facility. Dr. Lue-Hing indicated that the wastewater could be handled as any otherindustrial point-source discharge (R. 794, Docket A) and that MSDwould have little problem dealing with leachate from nonhazardouswaste disposal facilities (R. 790, Docket A). Re did cautionthat the ability to handle large amounts of leachate will varyfrom plant to plant and that varying amounts of pretreatment maybe necessary (R. 798-800, Docket A.). After a review of otherpertinent literature, described in more detail in Section II ofthis report, we conclude that the hazardous contaminants inleachate froir nonhazardous waste disposal facilities, if properlymanage-, are unlikely to cause problems in handling and dispos-al. While some smaller facilities may be unable to handle leach-ate flow which exceeds about five percent of their inflow, mostmodern wastewater treatment plants should be able to handleleachate. We have developed standards for leachate handling(Section 811.309) and discuss them in Section II, below.

Finally, it has been suggested that, because sanitary land-fills contain hazardous waste and the leachate contains hazardousconstituents, all sanitary landfills should meet the minimumdesign requirements for hazardous waste disposal facilities (Sub-title C of RCRA). The data we have reviewed does not supportthis extreme position. We agree that hazardous constituents arefound in leachate, sometimes in amounts close to the maximumdrinking water standard and these nay escape from the unit. Suchreleases appear to be few and far between. If we treat theexisting data as an upper bound, then the average concentrationof hazardous chemicals in leachate is likely to be much lower orundetectable. Because of the current RCRA requirements for thehandling, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes we do notexpect r ture levels of hazardous leachate contaminants in sani-tary lar. "ill leachate to be any greate. than studies have shown.

1 I- Joes not appear tr.at the presence of household hazardouswaste anc waste from small quantity generators affects the per-formance of sanitary landfills. This does not constitute anendorsement of such a practice. There may be other valid reasonsfor removing small quantities of hazardous waste from the wastestrear such as, for example, health and safety of collection andhaulina personnel.

E. Protection of Groundwater

The protection of the groundwater resource is perhaps themost important factor in the siting and design of solid wastedisposal facilities. The Agency proposal required the applica-tion of the public and food processing water supply standards in35 111. AdT Code 303, Subpart B at an unspecified point of com-pliance'. It appears that the Agency intended to apply thesestandaids at the point of sampling within the property. Thedisadvantage to this prograrr. is the lack of an enforceable pointof compliance.

WM; proposes no specific standards. A point of complianceis established at 500 feet from the waste boundary or the proper-ty boundary, whichever is less. If a statistically significantincrease in the concentration of any constituent is discovered atthat point, then an assessment monitoring program is estab-lished. If the assessment monitoring program confirms the con-tamination, then a risk assessment is performed and followed, ifnecessary, by a remedial action. It is only when a risk assess-ment i; performed that specific standards for the protection ofgroundvater are estaolished. This approach is strongly biasedtowards protecting sources of groundwater currently in use. Therisk evaluator is required to' consider potential uses ofgroundwater surrounding the property, but the performancestandard proposed by WKI requires that the facility pose "no riskto humen health and the environment." Under this standard it isunclear if potential sources of drinking water will receive thesame level of protection as sources of groundwater currently inuse. The requirement for a risk assessment after contaminationis observed provides no assurances before the placejnent o_t wa&t_e_that gioundwater will be protected. The only assurance that isprovided under this system is that the geologic criteriaestablished under the DRASTIC procedure is adequate to controlthe escape of any contaminants. No burden is placed upon theoperator to demonstrate that the geology, design and operationare sufficient to prevent contamination.

This proposal introduces a new method of setting groundwatermor.itoiing standards which ties the site characteristics, design,operation and monitoring into an integrated systeir. The methodsby which a facility IE designed and monitored are modeled afterthe methodology specified by the Clean Water Act and the NationalPollution Discharge Elimination Systeir (NPDES) and basej 'jponexistirg Board regulations. These proposed grc dwat»i candardsshould not be considered o-ly as monitoring requ rem - r.t_. A

p r c - c e i j - ' for e v a l _a t ir.3 s.te adequacy, the design of tV.« f = r ; l -ity ana the nonitorir.g program are related. We intend that thegrour.dwater standards be viewed as per formance. standards that theoperator mjst achieve by following a rigorous procedure forsiting and designing the facility.

This procedure starts with the premise that a discharger (togroundwater) is' responsible ,for pieventing a di«ch«r9« to ground-water by^us-Ina the best economically available containment andlirtchate r'**OVal technology. A di»chargrr ray not rely upon theiilltting nafutal environment as ,the primary containment•WWrtrWtmttt. The requirement for onsite leachate management andcontainment is inflexible; however, the designer of the facilityBiay determine the best containment mechanism by utilizing theequivalent performance standards. In Part II of this report itwill be shown that tre best available containment and leachateremoval technology is a compacted earth liner three feet t h i c kwith a leachate drair.age layer and collection system. This isthe nriin-.jn allowable containment technology allowed at anyf a c i l i t y tna' disposes solid waste that will produce contair ins t edleacl.ate, Variations tc this design are allowed if the operatorcar demonstrate that the performance will be equivalent to, orsuperior to, the established minimum design standards.

After the containment mechanism is chosen the operator mustshow that discharges from the facility will not cause an increasein the concentrations of constituent compounds at a point 100feet fror the waste boundary, or property line, whichever is less»ith. -. .00 years after closure of the unit. If the containmentirechanisr. is inadequate then it must be upgraded or another sitemust be chose-. We call this procedure a groundwater impactassessment ani specify a methodology in Section 811.317.

If the waste to be disposed is inert, then no contaminatedleachate is expected tc be formed and no containment mechanism isr e q u . r e d . It has been suggested that a third category of wastebe developed and recognized by these regulations, "benign"wastes. Benign wastes would be industrial wastes such as flyash, fcundry sand, steel mill slags, dusts and sludges. Benignwastes, it was suggested, could be placed in facilities withoutcontainment mechanisms if the attenuation mechanisms of the insitu materials would provide 'equivalent protection of the en-vironment to the standards set forth herein for 'land disposalsites" receiving general municipal wastes' (Exhibit 33, R 84-17Docket D). It is strongly recommended that Buch standards bediscouraged as a matter of policy. In order to protect and pre-•erve the environment each discharger to groundwater Bust utilizethe best available and economically feasible technology to pre-vent the discharge of contaminated leachate to groundwater. Thesolution to pollution is not attenuation or dispersion. We donot iecommend or endorse any standards which rely on the naturalenvironment as the primary containment and treatment mechanism.

: : war £_•:::•: s-.r r tr. = : "sr.all" sanitary landfills bs d€s.=r.i;to. less stringent standards than "large" landfills. Nodocumentation was presented, however, to demonstrate that smalllandfills are less likely to cause significant impacts to puslichealth, safety, and cause groundwattr contamination and airpollution. The size of a facility does not appear to ba anappropriate criteria for determining the stringency of standards.

The proposal does not contain specific geologic locationstandards. Several possible methods of implementing hydro-geological location standards have Men proposed:

1. Use a categorization method such as DRASTIC criteriaratine. This was proposed by MMI. They proposed twocategories of acceptable sites, "locationally preferred* and"locatjonally constrained." *

2. I'sc c. set of cesigr. standards to establish locaticr. = :suitability. This is what the Agency proposed. A specificset cf .distances and ir.inimuir, hydraulic conductivities wouldbe estafcl isr.es1. Tr.e advantage to a system such as this isthat the standards would be very simple to understand andenforce. Tne disadvantages are the same as any design stan-dards, the requirements are inflexible and would be basedupon the worst possible conditions expected to beencountered. The standards that would be chosen will alsobe somewhat arbitrary.

3. Establish a performance-based approach with no minimurlocation criteria and require the operator to demonstratethe suitability of a site solely on the basis of a ground-water impact assessment. .Such a requirement is subject tomanipulation of the predicted performance by the engineeredfeatures and can be affected by the quality of the data usedto perfo:r. the assessment.

The third approach was chosen, with modifications. Theoperator is reqj:re: tc utilize certain ir.inimuir. structures suchas a liner, leachate collection system, final cover, and will berequired to monitor the performance of the facility over time.The suitability of the site and the minimum engineered featuresare evaluated during the groundwater impact assessment. TheIllinois State Geological Survey evaluated the potential effectsof the design standards described in this proposal on groundwaterin various geological formations found throughout the state. Theresults of this study indicate that a performance based approachis workable in Illinois. The study showed that a groundwateriirpact assessment could differentiate good sites from marginal"sites anb ir.arsina'j sites Iron: poor sites.

F. Organization of the Proposal

The proposed regulations will replace all of existir.s 35111. Adrc,. Code Part 807, at least for landfills. Part 607 isstructured in such a way that major modifications would be nearlyimpossible. The new regulations are divided into five newParts. All definitions have been placed in on* Part and are tobe applied consistently throughout. No terns previously definedin the Act, except solid waste, have been modified to avoid con-fusion. The definition of solid wast* is modified tospecifically exclude hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA.

Three broad categories of-nonhazardous solid waste are pro-posed. This division reflects the general consensus that wastesshould be disposed in a manner consistent with the risk they poseto the environment (R. 13-14, 85S, and 862, Docket B). The cate-gories of waste are somewhat consistent with the Agency's propor-al of classes of landfill. Instead of delineating the waste bygenerator, we propose three categories based upon the propertiesof the wastes. There are three levels of waste disposal regula-tions, consistent with the category of waste to be placed in theunit. The implementation of a special waste categorization sys-tem as described in another Board proceeding, R85-27, may improvethe interpretation of these concepts by providing a system ofmeasuring waste properties.

The first category of waste is called inert and is definedas waste that will not burn, biodegrade, serve as food for vec-tors, form a gas, cause an odor, or produce • contaminated leach-ate. The proposed regulations for inert waste disposal are in-tended to prevent erosion, insure stability and prevent unau-thorized waste fror entering the unit. The requirement for dailycover may be waived if there is no danger of blowing debris or ifdaily cover wojld not minimize or eliminate windblown parti-cles. Postclosure care requirements are minimal and relatemainly to surface reconstruction.

The second category of waste is called chemical waste and isdefined as a waste that will form a contaminated leachate bychemical or physical processes. Such wastes are produced as aresult of some sort of industrial activity and would usually be ~placed in a disposal unit dedicated to only that waste (a mono-fill). However, chemical wastes may be codisposed in a putresc-ible waste disposal unit. The main difference between chemicalwastes and putrescible wastes is the recognition of the biode-gradable component of putrescible wast*. Facilities which acceptonly chemical wastes need not b* equipped with gas collectionsystems and will not qualify for reductions in the design periodbased upon shredding and leachate recycle.

The third category of waste is called putrescible waste andis defined as waste that will form a contaminated leachate bybiological, cheir.ical or physical means. Municipal waste is con-sidered pjtrescible waste by definition. This type of waste must

11

be placed in a disposal unit equipped with liners, leachate andgas control systems, final cover caps and other requirementstypical of sanitary landfills. This category of wastes is thedefault category. Any waste which is not regulated under RCRA,cannot be classified as inert and cannot be classified aschemical is considered putrescible.

Hazardous wastes must be handled in accordance with RCRA aswell as other state hazardous waste requirements. We propose nochanges to any hazardous waste requirements at this time and donot include hazardous wastes in .the definition of solid waste forthese regulations. An operator, in order to comply with some ofthe performance standards described in this proposal, may be ;required to'construct structures or per for IT. monitoring thatexceeds the mir.irr.jit hazardous was£e standards.

Part 811 contains the design, performance and operatingstandards for all new waste disposal facilities, including onsitefacilities. This part is organized into six subparts. Subpart Acontains standards of general applicability for all facilities.Subparts B and C each address additional requirements for inert,putrescible and chemical waste disposal units, respectively, inaddition to the requirements of Subpart A. Subpart D containsrequirements identification and management of special wastes.Subpait E contains requirements for Construction QualityAssurance. The standards for severe! structures can be coveredby a single set of construction quality assurance requirements.All structures requiring a construction quality assurance programare denoted in either their appropriate sections or in SubpartV. Sj-Jvyc:?- G. CAnJuU-ns. th«. cXoAuxe, ajjd ijo_s_tcJLes_ur_e iinancLalassurance requirements.

Port- 612 contains requirements for the information to besubmitted to the Agency for a permit to develop and operate awaste disposal facility. The standard itself is separate fromthe procedures involved in demonstrating compliance. The per-formance, design and operating standards can be implemented by anoperator of an onsite facility without permit conditions or othermethods of agency approval. Part 812 is intended to be a check-list of materials to be submitted in a permit application.

Part 813 contains procedures for obtaining, modifying andrenewing permits for solid waste disposal facilities. There isalso a new procedure for implementing experimental practices. Ingeneral, there is very little discussion in the record on whatconstitutes a workable permitting procedure and there is verylittle information available in the published literature. Hostof the procedjres in Part 813 are based upon statutory require-ments and existing regulations in Part 807; however, we proposesome new procedures to .address the increased size and scope cfpermit applications.

We have else reevaluated r Agency's practice of issuing &development an;, later, an opeiating permit to each facility.

12

Continuation of this practice under these proposes reaulationswould be cumbersome and, in some cases, confusing. The proce-dures in Part 813 require the Agency to issue a development per-mit for a solid waste disposal facility. All units, supportingsystems, operating plans, and postclosure plans would be approvedin a single permit. The Agency will Monitor construction byIssuing an operating authorization for each structure at thefacility built in accordance with a construction quality assur-ance plan. An operator nay not place a structure into serviceuntil the Agency reviews the acceptance report submitted by theconstruction quality assurance (CQA) officer and issues the auth-orization. Conditions nay be placed on the authorization only asthey relate to the operation of the structure under review.

Part 814 contains standards for existing facilities. Exist-ing facilities are divided up info three general groups: facili-ties that may remain open for an indefinite period of tine,facilities that will close within seven years of the effective 'date of these regulations, and facilities which are either unableto demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the first twocategories, or are scheduled to close within two years of theeffective date of these regulations. Facilities in this lastcategory must close within two years of the effective date ofthese regulations under their existing permits, in accordancewith the requirements of Part 607. The minimum requirements ofPart 814 are based upon the existing federal requirements (40 CFRPart 257).

Part 815 describes the information that must be filed withthe Agency by facilities exempt from perm.it requirements underSection 21 (d) of the Act. Facilities would be required to file.an initial facility report with the Agency, describing the facil-ity layout and design, annual, reports, and quarterly groundwatermonitoring reports.

13

II. t. PISCUSSIOK OF THE PROPOSAL

A. Discussion of Part 810; General Provisions

Section 810.101 Authority, Policy and Purpose

This section sets the scope of the regulations. These newrequirements will apply to all waste disposal facilities excepthazardous waste management facilities permitted under 35 111.Adm. Code Part 700.

Section 810.102 Severability

This section establishes the Severability, for appealpurposes, of the new regulations^

Section 810.103 Definitions

We propose deleting all of the existing definitions in Part807 ar.3 starting with a clean slate. He see no reason to changeor modify terms defined in the Act/ unless absolutely neces-sary. The goal has been to simplify the definitions, encourage aconsistent vocabulary throughout, and minimize confusion. Manydefinitions have been eliminated because the terms are redundant,obvious from context, outdated, unnecessary, or no different thana "dictionary" definition. We propose one section of definitionsthat will be applicable throughout Parts 810 through 815.

"Admixtures" are chemicals added to naturally occurringearth materials to improve their physical and chemical proper-ties. The proposed regulations contain a provision to allowearth liners enhanced by admixtures, provided that the perform-ance of the liner is equal to, or greater than, the indicatedrequ i regents.

The definition for "applicant" is intended to identify anyperson, partnership, corporation, or government agency which mayapply for a permit. The term applicant is used until the permitis approved, at which point the term "operator* is used. Weintend that there be one applicant who will receive a permitwhich designates a single operating entity.

A definition of the term 'aquifer* is necessary to definethe bottom of the zone of attenuation. The groundwater standardsapply to all groundwater whether or not there is an aquifer.VJ.TVC* •t'ne trounawa'ter Tro'tect'lon "Act now contains a definition ofaquifer suitable for the purposes of this proposal a new defir.i-tior. it nc: necessary here. We recommend using the definition ofaquifer fror the tct.

"Runon" is a term, that, unfortunately, is becoming widelyaccepted in regulat v language. We can find no use of the wordin hydrology or en: .eerin? texts or papers and the definitionsof runn- ir. other state requirements are inappropriate for our

pjrp?ses. The reasor. is because runon is a very imprecise a-,cunscier.tif ic term. Runoff, however is a widely accepted ancprecise hydrologic terir used to describe the percentage ofprecipitation that flows overland to and on but not in a defined•treamchannel. Ke propose using this more precise tern and usinga Modifier to distinguish between runoff which »ust be handledand treated and runoff which should merely be diverted. Runofffrom disturbed areas may be discharged only in accordance withthe terms ol a permit to bivttavrg* 'Vrwin VH* Vyvwj . liinnfS, twr..undisturbed areas must be diverted around disturbed areas, to theextent possible, to minimize the. amount of water that must beintercepted and treated. 'Disturbed areas* are defined as anyland which is physically altered during the waste disposal opera-tion and land physically altered for support facilities.

"Earth liners" are narrowly defined as structures con-structed fro- naturally occurring soil materials. So called"natural liners" are excluded froir. this definition. This pointis further discussed in the section on liners.

"Hydraulic Barriers" are defined as structures designed toprevent or control the seepage of water. Several examples aregiven. An earlier, similar definition of "earth barriers" hasbeen dropped.^ ^^"

He will be using consistently two new terms to describesolid waste disposal sites. A "unit" is a solid waste disposaltrench or pit. •JPflJrWWWJ" is the entire solid waste disposaloperation which c'a'n consist of one or more units, WtP*H9tt*iJ*HlS«STldtiTrreTF%fl¥afT>g*, leachate treatment and storage systems,s'urface water control systems, gas control systems, aW**fir*NMMsconnected fb an dj«afflt allied 'b.y "the"! acll ity; wper*t6r5 1*«'*f *el <TtiaWny s*trifctnflrtr whi:ch"*a«->* <d i t *ct °% rid i elusive «ex*no*i<*

-wit Win*** on d aste -dlAPMaJLjtefi.Ctticm nd'lS flee*-_

fKould"be -includes "Trf the facility. ' The permit area. is a three-dimensional boundary around a permitted facility. All units andrelated «tj c|ures |muk[tl|,| -y<i»hij,.th»-«*rm f area., mmmmmmmfrV

A definition of "field capacity* is proposed because thisterm is used in the design and performance standards. A designer•ust assume the unit is at field capacity when designing a leach-ate collection system in accordance with the standards in Section811.307 (b). Saturation of the waste is considered undesirable(Bam, 1986). The definition of field capacity is taken from thetestimony of Dr. Robert K. Ban (R. 545, Docket A).

"Gas condensate" is the liquid produced in a landfill gascollection syster when the gas is cooled or compressed. Thisdefinition is derived from several sources and is intended tocover all liquids within the gas collection, processing, anddisposal systeir.£.

The gas management requirements originally* proposed havebeen modified for clarity and as a result of several comments.Ke propose changing the emphasis from "active", and "passive"management systems to "gas collection systems" and "gas ventingsystems." This distinction is related to the functions of thevarious gas management systems available to an operator.

A gas collection system is designed to collect and transportgas to a central point, or points, where it can be burned,treated, or processed for beneficial use. Gas collection systemscan be active, meaning that the gas is transported through thesystem by a mechanically produced pressure differential such as acompressor. Gas collection systems may also function as passivesystems, meaning that gas flows to the collection point by apressure differential created by the biodegradation process.

A gas venting systeir. is designed to direct landfill gas froirbelow ground to the surface, where the gas can mix with air.This definition takes the place of the previously defined"passive systerr.."

- chosen to use the./ "geofv!ti),es" to describe all •y" , „

"""'" ' ' ts^W^^^j^iii^^^^l^.H(W»ta:.»nesi. Geo*e»br*ne..is * t*x» nowprActice because it correctly implies, Ux9 these

Function in applications other than lining w&S£esue-, as covers, for example. Geotextiles are

with a wide range of applications throughout j.,_jt*'disposal f aci.l ity..-Performance standards are proposed toprVvTaT"g"lTdahee to the designer. -

The tern- "groundwater," as defined in the Act, is suitablefor the purposes of these regulations. He do not feel that it isappropriate to offer a new definition in this proposal. Thedefinition of grojndwater is taken directly from the Act.

He have modified the existing definition of "leachate" tobroadly apply to all water that comes into contact with a solidwaste. Leachate is further defined in context, where necessary,as contaminated or uncontaminated.

A definition of "malodorous odor* is necessary because theexistence of such an odor will trigger the installation and oper-ation of a landfill gas control system. In response to commentsrequesting a more enforceable and less subjective definition, wewill use the language from the definition of air pollution, 35111. M-. Code 201.102.

In order tc irinimize confusion over the applicability ofSection 811.303 (fc), a precise definition of a shredding opera-tion is necessary. The intent is to include all operations thatcut, t« , puncture or shred a solid waste, exposing more area todecrad ior. processes (K. 636, Docket .A) and breaking open pro-

tective clastic wrapping and containers that nay inhibit thedegradation process (Kinman et al., 1966). Baling and othervolume modification operations do not qualify because they ir.aynot necessarily expose more surface area of the waste to theelements that lead to stabilization.

The procedure proposed by the Illinois State Chamber ofCommerce (ISCC) for handling permit modifications is refined bydeveloping a specific definition of significant modification (R.48-51, Docket B). The definition we propose is to be utilized asa guidance criteria to determine, if Agency review of amodification is necessary.

The definition of solid waste has been narrowly defined toexclude hazardous waste disposed in compliance with other Boardrequirements. Solid waste is fur-ther modified into three specif-ic categories base' upon the relative ability of the waste to bestabilized snc its potential to degrade the environment throughA_i_r_ dr. W4_t_e_t

B. Discussion of Part 811; Standards forWaste Disposal FacilitieT

SOBPART AGENERAL STANDARDS FOR WASTE

DISPOSAL FACILITIES

Section 811.101 Applicability

The standards in Subpart A apply to all new waste -disposalunits. They are to be used in conjunction with the applicablereguiren-er.ts of Subparts B and C.

Section 811.102 Location Standards

The location standards here are proposed on the assumptionthat there are areas clearly unacceptable for development of anykind of waste disposal facility. These location standards arederived primarily from federal requirements. In some eases thereare corresponding State of Illinois requirements.

The requirement limiting development of solid waste disposalfacilities in 100-year flood plains, Section 811.102(b), is takenfrom 40 CFR 257.3-1. Development of facilities in the 100-yearflood plain may be allowed only if compensatory storage of floodwaters is provided and the facility is designed to withstand aflood without breaching. It was suggested by several partici-pants that all solid waste disposal operations in floodplains bebanned outright. This suggestion was given consideration. Wenote that there may be some instances where a floodplain offersthe or.ly practical location. For such situations a set of per-formance criteria would be desirable. The existence of thesecriteria should not be construed as an encouragement for thedevelopment of landfills within a floodplain. One participant

noted that the intent of new legislation for the management offloodplains, HB 996, 'was clearly to prohibit new construction inthe 100-year flood way within northeastern Illinois.* This,statute does not appear to "clearly" prohibit Waste disposalfacilities. The Department of Transportation may designate anyactivity within a floodplain as appropriate in certain cases. A•et of standards for facilities constructed in the floodplain isappropriate for those circumstances where facilities are to bedeveloped in a floodplain. He decline to modify this section.

Section 611.101 (c) is taken from the federal require-ments. We have modified it to fnclude State landmarks as desig-nated pursuant to the Illinois-Historic Areas Preservation Act.'

Sections 811.102 (e) and (f) are directly froir 40 CFR 257.3-8, with language modifications to conform to state format andadmnistrative procedures. Subsections (c), (d), (e) and (f)require documentation from the respective agencies, either feder-al or state, that the facility will not cause a violation of thestatutes or requirements in question. The Agency is not requiredto make the determinations. Section 812.109 contains require-ments for an applicant to submit documentation from the federalor state agency responsible for enforcing the Specific provision.

Section 811.103 Surface Water Control

The surface water control requirements are intended toprevent pollution of surface water by diverting runoff frorundisturbed areas around the disturbed areas and preventing thedischarge of runoff from disturbed areas that does not meetapplicable discharge requirements. All disturbances at afacility mjst be considered point sources of pollution and alldischarges must be regulated under Section 402 of the Clean HaterAct. In response to comments we have modified the language torequire that discharges meet applicable standards. This changesthe focus of the section from treatment to discharge. Hatersmeeting applicable discharge limitations nay be dischargedwithout treatment.

Section 811.103 (a) applies to the collection of runoff fromdisturbed areas. Facilities must obtain • permit to discharge.This requirement applies to all solid waste disposal facilities,not just those permitted by the Agency.

He recommend that all surface water facilities be designedfor the 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event. All runoff result-in; froir this, or smaller, precipitation events must be dis-charge- ir. accordance with applicable standards. Runoff froir"larger events neeo not be controlled or monitored. Ke alsorecommend that treatment facilities be designed to survive the100-year, 24-hojr precipitation event.

' 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event appears ir, thefedera. re :. i reir.ents as a ir.inimjr.. Based upon the probability of

exeeecing this event over the life of a typical facility ar.3 thedamage that would occur to public health and safety, the 25 yeardesign event appears appropriate. To determine the probati:-;yof exceeding this event a simple statistical evaluation can beperformed by assuming, for example, that a landfill will operatefor 10 years and take 5 years after closure to establish ahealthy stand of vegetation. The probability of equaling orexceeding the 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event at least onceduring the 15 year lifetime of this example is 46 percent.

It has been suggested that, instead of the proposed cri-teria, the standards applicable -to discharges from coal miningoperations, 35 111. Adm. Code Subtitle D, be utilised (R. 1897,Docket D). Ke do not believe that these requirements are appli-cable to discharges from solid waste disposal facilities. Thedesign precipitation events for-mining operations is the 10-year,24-hour precipitation event. The minimum federal requirementsfor sanitary landfills is the 25-year, 24-hour precipitationevent. The mining discharge requirements are less stringent.The requirements of this section are based upon existing Boardrequirements for discharges from point sources. No informationhas been presented to show that discharges from existing solidwaste disposal facilities exceed these standards. Finally, thedata collected by the USEPA from coal nine sources indicates thatonly a small number of contaminants appear in discharges, includ-ing: iron, lead, ammonia, zinc, fluoride, manganese, totalsuspended solids and pH. We can expect a wider range of contami-nants from solid waste operations, especially where runoff comesinto contact with the waste or leachate from the waste. If anoperator were required to monitor only the requirements appli-cable to discharges from coal mines, then many critical contami-nants may be ir.issei and substantial amounts of pollution mayoccur. Finally, the locations, types of materials, size of oper-ations, types of contaminants, and relative risks to the environ-ment are different. It would be inappropriate to expect alldischarges froir, solid waste disposal facilities to be the same asall discharges from mining operations.

The Board received comments contending that come surfacedisturbances due to landfill activities do not constitute a pointsource of pollution. He disagree. In general, our interpreta-tion of the definition of a point source in the CHA and theapplicable federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.26 indicate that apoint source is created once the area has been disturbed.

Runoff from undisturbed areas must be routed around thedisturbed areas, to the extent possible. Runoff from undisturbedareas which must be commingled with runoff from disturbed areasis considered to be runoff from disturbed areas and subject topossible treatment. We specify the 25-year, 24-hour precipita-tion event as the design event for diversion structures to beconsistent with the requirements for disturbed areas and theexisting federal criteria.

1?

Section 811.104 Survey Control

A disposal operation should take place only within thespecified and approved area. The regulations in this sectionwill insure that the facility is properly placed, as indicated byits legal description, and that the limits of the disturbed areasare accurately designated.

The location of chemical and putrescible waste disposalfacilities is particularly important. The groundwater qualitystandards are applicable within .a zone of attenuation around thefacility that is not subject to stringent requirements.

All permitted operators will be required to conform to ele-vations designated on a topographic nap. A professional landsurveyor land should periodically (once a year) check the eleva-tions aaiinst estatlished benchmarks and report these elevationsto the Agency in the annual report required in Section 613.

Section 811.105 Compaction

Compaction is the key to avoiding or minimizing settlingproblems. Dr. KST. also indicated that the density of the wasteis a factor in the biodegradation process (R. 640, Docket A).Buivid et al. (198:) found that loosely packed, well nixed Mater-ial is not as favorable for biodegradation as wore heavily com-pacted material, we recommend that all operations compact wasteto the maxinurr. extent possible to minimize void spaces. We donot recommend specific design standards such as minimum density,number of passes or size of lifts because they do not adequatelycover the range of wastes arrd disposal practices likely to beencountered. This section is proposed as a performance stan-dard. Likewise, a minimum lift thickness is not specified inthis section. We can find no documentation to support any typeof minimum construction standard such as the two feet in theexisting requirements. A lower lift thickness or more compactiveeffort may be appropriate for some operations.

The first lift of waste must be placed in a Manner whichwill protect the leachate drainage and collection pipe systems.Therefore, the requirements for the first five feet of waste arehandled as a special case in Section 811.321.

Section 811.106 Daily Cover

The requirement for an application of cix inches of soil asdaily cover appears in the existing regulations, all three pro-posals and in nearly every other state program we have evalu-ated. The pjrpose of daily cover is to minimize windblowndetris, minimize access to the waste by vectors, minimize thethreat of fires, and minimize odors. We have found no evidencethat this retirement is inappropriate or excessive in achievingthe desired results.

Dr. Johnsor,, of the National Solid Waste Management Associa-tion (NSWMA), suggested that flexibility be allowed for alterna-tives to daily cover. We propose an alternate-performance stan-dard to allow an operator to substitute • different material ordifferent technique. One example of such • substitute is the useof tarpaulins to cover the active fact at the end of the work day(Anonymous, 1979). Tansel et al. (1967) studied novel covermaterials and alternatives to daily cover, noting that dailycover 'consumes a considerable fraction of total landfill volumeand it may be appropriate in some cases to consider alternativesto traditional daily cover soil applications." Among some suc-cessful novel covers are synthet'ic sheeting, chemically fixedsludge, sludge amended soil, shredded refuse, shredded tires,flyash, bottom ash, slag, and others. Alternative techniquesinclude stripping cover prior to" resuming waste placement and 'applying no daily cover at all.

In order to maximize flexibility the proposal contains ahalternative performance standard to change or eliminate the useof daily cover si all units. The operator must determine thatthe novel or alternative daily cover meets the same performanceas the six inches of daily cover. This flexibility will apply toall types of waste.

Section til.107 Operating StandardsThe intent, of subsection (a) (1) is to require the operator

to conduct filling in the most stable manner. Subsection (a) (2)requires the operator to plan the progression of waste placementso that parts of the facility can be closed as quickly as pos-sible.

The performance standard specified in subsection (b) (1) isintended to keep the active operation concentrated to as small anarea as possible. This regulation is framed as a performancestandard in which the available equipment, safety of the workers,and efficiency of operation must be considered. In general, webelieve that the size of the open face will be determined by theoperator's ability to apply daily cover in accordance with Boardrequirements.

Subsection (b) (2) is a design standard that specifies themaximum slope allowable at the working face. Steeper slopes maybe appropriate in some cases. The optional performance standardstay be used if the waste has sufficient strength. The operatormust have sufficient equipment at the facility to maintain com-pliance with all Board regulations. The types and numbers ofequipment necessary for operations are determined by the size ofthe working face, amount of solid waste accepted at the facility,operating practices and maintenance schedules. This section alsorequires the operator to maintain all equipment to perforir thenecessary functions.

21

Sufficient utilities must be available at all times in orderto operate the facility and the environmental control systems.These utilities generally include electricity to operate machin-ery, water for workers, firefighting, and some processes, andwastewater treatment capability. Other utilities may be neces-sary to comply with the regulations. This section is notintended to require the construction of utilities that are notnecessary for compliance with these regulations.

The environmental control systens at a solid waste disposalfacility will probably operate in an acceptable manner atfirst. Proper maintenance is re'quired in order to keep thesesyster.s working at the level necessary to Beet the regulations.This requirement is a general performance standard for the opera-tor to provide ongoing maintenance and operation of essentialequipment Qi.J processes.

Section 611.107 (f) regulates open burning in accordancewith Board requirements and the federal criteria, 40 CFR 257.3-7(a).

Section 811.107 (g) was taken from the existing Boardregulation. It is intended to require that dust suppressionmethods be adopted. Section 811.107 (h) was taken from theAgency proposal and is intended to address any problems due toexcessive noise. Sections 811.107 (i) and (j) were taken fromthe Agency proposal to require the operator to develop vectorcontrol and fire safety plans.

Subsection (k) vat taken from the existing regulations. Theoperator is responsible for litter patrol and cleanup at thefacility to prevent litter from migrating from the site.

Section 811.108 Salvaging Operations

In keeping with State policy to recycle (Illinois SolidWaste Management Act, HB 3548), salvaging operations should beencouraged. Materials should be removed from the disposal siteand reused wherever possible to conserve space. These perform-ance standards allow a salvaging operation within reasonablelimitations. Obviously the salvaging operation should neverinterfere with the operation of the waste disposal facility,particularly the environmental control operations.

By definition, a salvaging operation which has a unique andexclusive economic relationship with a single waste disposalfacility is considered a part of the facility.

Section 811.109 Boundary Control

We propose a boundary control section to address three prob-lems: safety, access and unauthorized dumping. The operator willbe required to restrict acces* to the active parts of the filland prevent access after norn. ho^rs. The active waste disoosal

ares cer. re ar. extrerr.ely hazardous place for people to wanderthrough or children to play in. Section Sll.HKa) requires tr.eoperator to secure the area, presumably by fencing but other

Access to any waste disposal site should be limited. Oneproblem discovered at inert waste facilities in California isthat chemical and putrescible wastes somehow find their way intothe facility (R. 1494-1496, Docket C). Any holt in the ground isa potential illegal disposal cite. We, therefore, stronglyrecommend that every waste disposal facility, including inertwaste disposal facilities, limit access to authorized peopleonly. Federal criteria, 40 CFR 257.3-8(a), requires that theoperator prevent unauthorized access. We also recommend that .inert waste be screened just as. stringently as putrescible andcher.ical wastes prior to acceptance by the facility.

We recommend that a sign be posted at the entrance to thefacility, showinj the information listed in Section 811.113(b).The ir.ost critical pieces of information on the sign are the hoursof operation and the phone number to call in emergencies. Onecar. assume that activity in the facility after normal operatinghours is illegal and anyone observing such activity may call theemergency number if it is easily provided.

The intent of this section is to prevent unauthorized dump-ing and protect public health and safety. All facilities,including inert waste disposal units, must be secure. Fencing,security checks, warning signs and locked gates should beconsidered routine at all solid waste disposal facilities.

Section 811.110 Standards for Closure

This section addresses the shape and contours of the finalclosed landfill. They are generally stated as performance stan-dards so that the operator retains flexibility to designate anappropriate land use for the site and design a final topographycompatible with that land use. It is not the intent of thesestandards to specify a particular land use.

Section til. Ill Postclosure Maintenance StandardsThis section describes the closure, and postclosure

maintenance and inspection requirements. He have modified theinspection frequency from annual to quarterly inspections for thefirst five years. After that, the inspections may be reduced to•n annual rate if a good stand of vegetation is established andthere are no clearly eroding areas.

SUBPART B:Standards for Inert

Naste Disposal FacilitiesSection 810.201 Applicability

Subpart A applies to all facilities. The standards in thisSubpart are tailored to inert waste disposal facilities. If allof the waste streams entering a unit are inert, then the operatorwould be required to comply with the requirements of Subpart Aand Subpart B.

This Subpart is intended to apply mainly to disposal opera-tions at industrial sites which dispose wastes that will notcause o: contribute to environmental problems such as groundwaterpollution and gas irigration. Landfills should be reserved forwastes which may pose a threat to public health and safety.Alternate disposal methods for inert wastes will conservevaluable landfill capacity for wastes which will producecontaminated leachate and gas. Alternate disposal methods, suchas those outlined in this Subpart, would reduce the cost ofdisposal without increasing the threat to public health andsafety.

It has been suggested that regulations be developed whichcategorically define certain industrial waste streams as inert.For example, all steel slag wastes and all foundry waste sandswould be categorized as inert by definition. While informationis available to show that many wastes produced by many r. = nu-facturers are indeed inert, it is clear that all waste streamsvary in their ability to produce contaminated leachate and mustbe evaluated on a case by cise basis. Perhaps the most completeinvestigation of specific waste stream properties was conductedfor the American Foundrymen's Society by Ham, et al. (19E5). Harr.et al. (1985). They found variations in 13 foundry landfillleachates (6 ir an unsaturated zone study and 7 in a saturatedzone study). Some leachates contained constituents below thedrinking water standards while others contained several constitu-ents in excess of the drinking water standards, the latter leach-ates, if not properly controlled, nay cause groundwater contami-nation. Table 1, showing data from the American Foundrymen'sSociety (1978) shows the ranges of contaminants in foundry leach-ates as compared to other wastes. While the range of concentra-tions shows that foundry leachate is not as contaminated, in gen-eral, as municipal leachate it is clear that foundry leachate maybe considered contaminated and may cause groundwater pollution.

Tnere are also difficulties in determining the wastes to beincluded in a generic waste stream. The materials used in theprocesses at ferneries and steel manufacturing plants vary, as dothe constituents of the raw.materials, it wo-ld be impossible todevelop a defir.iticr. of a generic waste stream without inclucir.c

Table 1: Ranges of Pollutants in Selected Hastes

Conponent

Organic carbor.(mg/L)

ODD (mg/L)Phenol (wg/L)Cyanide (mg.'L:Sulfate (mg/L!

Iror, (mg/L,Zn (mg/L)Ni (mg)Cu (mg/L)PH

FoundryLeachate

4-ies25-1,10012-40:20- E:30-1,2003-:, 2:G.l-C.:0.1-150-0.60.02-1.67.2-10.0

Urban LandfillLeachate

250-2?, 008

100-51,000---

25-1,500-

200-1,7001-135

0.01-0.60.1-10

4-9

Septic TankEffluent

2S-20P

250-1,0000-300

-10-6000-100-20

0.150.020.1

6.8-6.5

BoardStandard

-_.f].0:5500.1.41.01.01.0.02

6.5-9

•35 111. Air. Ccic 3C : . 3O3C2 . 3C5

sor« kind of test o! the waste to determine its characteristics,thus defeating th« pjrpose of a generic classification. Clearly,the most appropriate method of categorizing waste is on anindividual waste stream basis.

Section 811.202 Determination of Contaminated Leachate

This section describes the acceptable ways to determine if c.leachate is contaminated. It is framed as a performance standardso that specific methodologies for extracting leachate samplescan be adjusted to account for variabilities in the waste andsite specific conditions.

The operator may test leachate by obtaining samples from alaboratory procedure or from an actual landfill. The intent ofthese requirement £ is to obtain a sample of leachate that comesas close as possible to the leachate that may be produced underfield conditions. These regulations are intended to providestandards fcr testin:, not a standard test and should provid-tsufficient guidance to the Agency and operators to developappropriate test methods. Ke chose to not recommend a specifictest procedure in these regulations. It was suggested that aspecific test procedure was necessary in order to implement theserequirements. Ke do not agree. The intent of this regulation isto specify the conditions under which the test is to take placeto closely replicate field conditions.

It has beer, suggested that the water quality standards usedfor evaluation address only certain parameters from the list ofchemicals reflated by the Board. The assertion is that thereare several standards established in Part 300 that are based uponconditions found only in surface waters that are intended toprotect aquatic life and are, therefore, not appropriate forgroundwater regjlation. This assertion is premised on the con-cept that groundwater only serves as a source of drinking waterfor humans. Tr.e Board found that while groundwater is used forpublic water supplies it would be shortsighted to ignore otheruses. The Board stated (R86-8, p. II-6):

In addition to withdrawal by man, natural discharges ofgroundwater constitute a significant facet of an over-all picture of groundwater utility. While not conven-tionally considered a "use* of water, these dischargersare a major contributor to the natural aqueous environ-ment. Therefore, come consideration of the role theyplay is warranted and should be borne in mind in anyplanning for groundwater protection.

Nature! groundwater discharges are most obvious atthe site of springs. However, natural groundwater dis-charges alsc occur into streams, lakes, and wetlands.As such, they contribute water to these environments,and ir. sore cases and at some ti.nes they i the dori-nar.t source of water added to the environ /it i.n g-j-r: -

tier. Clearly, the quality of the groundwater re-source, therefore, has ramifications on the quality ofthe environment into which the groundwaters discharge.

This excerpt shows that the Board does not intend to adoptgroundwater standards based solely on their use as a public watersupply. In addition to groundwaters which discharge to surfacewaters, the Board noted in their report (R86-8, p. II-6) thatagriculture accounts for 24 percent of the groundwater use inIllinois and that irrigation, the largest agricultural category,alone accounts for 18 percent of the total groundwater used inthe state. It is quite appropriate to recommend standards whichprotect fish, wildlife and vegetation and arc consistent withBoard recommendations. It can'-be assumed that the Agency, whenpreparing proposed standards for Board regulations in accordancewith the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act, will consider theserecommendations by the Board. The application of standards forinert waste are btsed upor. an assumption the', the wastes will notpose a threat to the environment no natter where (within reason)the landfill is placed.

Section 810.203 Design Period

The design period is the period of time the facility isexpected to be in operation and serves as the basis for design ofstructures and calculation of postclosure care costs, the designperiod for an inert waste disposal unit is a minimum of fiveyears after closure. Tnis period is the minimum allowed by stat-ute and is likely to be sufficient to allow the establishment ofa good stand of vegetation so that stability is maintained anderosion is ir.iniir.izec. Biodegradation of the waste is notexpected to occur; therefore, no gas monitoring is required.This section establishes the design period only for inert wastedisposal facilities.

Section 811.204 Final Cover Requirements

The purpose of final cover over an inert waste disposal unitis to provide sufficient soil to promote vegetation so the areawill be erosionally stable and aesthetically pleasing. The depthof final cover can vary as a function of the type Of vegetationand land use after filling. He propose that three feet of coverbe placed over the entire unit. Warn season perennial turfgrassmixtures require a minimum of three feet of good topsoil for rootpenetration (Casnoff and Beard). More cover can be specified, ifnecessary, for areas where root penetration in expected to behigher. The cover need not be inperneable; in fact, good qualitytopsoil is preferable to promote vegetation growth.

Less cover may be acceptable. This is for cases where novegetation is planned; for example, if the area is to serve as aparning lot then one foot of compacted 'base material may be allthat is necessary, in all cases we recommend that the finalslope configuration be en onally stable.

Section 611.205 Final Slope and Stabilization Standards

These standards require that all inert wa-ste disposalfacilities be designed to resist massive slope failures such astoppling and sliding. The operator will need to perforir a slopestability analysis to determine the maximum height and slopes fora specific location. The operator will also find it necessary toinvestigate the soils under and around the facility for thepossibility of a slope failure.

The requirements for vegetation are proposed as performancestandards. The operator may Qhoose appropriate species basedupon the postclosure land use of the site. The intent of subsec-ticr. (b) is to require the operator to construct an erosionallystable Ejrfsce wr.icr, will not be susceptible to wind or watererosion.

SDBPART C:STANDARDS FOR PCTRESCIBLE AND CHEMICAL

HASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES

Section 611.301 Applicability

The requirements of this subpart apply to all new units thataccept putrescible and chemical wastes. By definition, a facil-ity the-, codisposes both chemical and putrescible wastes is con-sidered a putrescitle waste disposal facility. The limits ofcodisposal of special waste can be determined by the Agency on asite-specific basis in accordance with the requirements ofSubpart £.

Section 811.302 Location StandardsThese standards provide prohibitions within the vicinity of

certain existing structures or designated areas. The intent isto provide a margin of safety over and above that of the engin-eered features. If the operator has carefully followed theserequirements then the ijr_o-b-ahX.'U_''-»j *&. % tA'vVt.'vafcVfe iftrjnrye Vngroundwater quality beyond the property boundary is greatlyreduced. The setback from public water supply wells is intendedto provide a margin of safety to reduce the risk that wells willbecome contar.inated due to discharges from the unit. The setbackdistances are provided in the Groundwater Protection Act. Withthis modification we believe that this proposal is now consistentwith the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act in all respects.

Ke consider sole-source aquifers designated by USEPA as aspecial case for which additional protection must be provided.In additior. to the requirements for a liner, leachate collectionsyste-, final cover, a groundwater impact assessment and ground-water mor.itcrir.: , specific geologic location standards for dis-tance to the aquifer and permeability are proposed. The setbackdisicr.ct is increased and an adcit si showina. that the in sit.-

ii- will effectively control the migration of contar.;r.sr.-.£into the aquifer is required. We recommend that sole-sojrceaquifers be given the maxiir.uir. practical protection possible. Ar.yputrescible waste disposal facilities looated near cole-sourceaquifers must provide a high degree of assurance that dischargeswill not occur. We are unaware of any sole-source aquifersdesignated by USEPA in Illinois at this tine. This should not,however, affect the adoption of stringent criteria for developingwaste disposal facilities on or near the aquifers.

It has been suggested that this criteria is not sufficientto insure protection of drinking water. It should be noted thatthis subsection is an additional set of requirements to all ofthe other groundwater protection Mechanisms, including the set-back requirements of subsection.(a), the liner and leachate col-lection systeir reqJireir.ents of Sections 611.306 through 611.3CE,and the water quality standards. We believe that the cumulativeeffect of all of these requirements is sufficient to protect asource of drinking water.

The setback distances for homes, occupied dwellings andother buildings are intended to establish a noise, odor andnuisance tone bet wee". the buildings and the edge of the ur.it.Note that distances are measured from the edge of the unit to theedge of the building, not the property boundary. In response tomany comments on these established distances we propose to allowa smaller setback distance if the owner provides permission tothe operator in writing.

Setback distances froir surface waters were originallyproposed to provide a margin of safety for upsets and failure ofthe runoff control systems. - We have reconsidered these setbackstandards because:

1. It is difficult to specify which surface waters should besubject tc setback standards. The previously recommendedsection generated many comments on the interpretation of•navigable waters." One suggestion was to establish minin.jrsizes of ponds and rivers to be subject to thesestandards. We find such designations somewhat arbitrary;

2. Regulations are already proposed to divert or controlsurface water runoff resulting from the 25-year, 24-hourprecipitation event. The probability of exceeding thisevent at least once during the 15 year life of a facility isapproximately 46 percent;

3. Stringent requirements are proposed for facilities locatedin 100-year floodplains; and

4. Protection of wild and scenic rivers, sensitive wildlife,and endangered species is assured by other provisions in theproposal.

Kc , tr.erclc-re , cc. not believe that additional numerical settee*.distances are necessary or appropriate to assure adequateprotection of surface water.

Subsection (f) is taken from the federal criteria, 40 CFR .257.J-8 (c). It was suggested that a landfill be allowed withinthe specified setbacks from an airport if the operator coulddemonstrate that the hazard from birds to aircraft could becontrolled. He do not believe it is appropriate for the Agencyto become involved with issues related to airport safety. Wedecline to accept this suggestion.

Section 811.303 Design Period

Waste disposal units will'function for a certain, finiteperiod of tire. This period is determined by the length of timethe unit is tc be in operation and by the amount of time neces-sary to stabilize the waste. The length of time a waste dispose)unit is to be in operation can be fairly accurately estimated.The stabilization time, or postclosure care period, car, be esti-mated with less -certainty. We now define a new terir,, "designperiod," in context, as the period of tine the structures at alandfill must be designed to function properly. The sare designper.od must be applied to all putrescible waste disposalfacilities to insure equity ar-ong all operators and provideadequate long tern performance. The best information availabletc us suaoests that this period ought to be approximately thirtyyears after closure. All environmental control structures mustconsist of materials and equipment that can function for amininijiT of thirty years after closure.

Hair and Bookter (1962) showed that shredding can acceleratethe stabilization process. Dr. Ham stated that

shreddinc is beneficial in the sense that thedecomposition will occur more quickly and you will formmore of the organic materials leaving the site asmethane, at opposed to leachate-borne constituents. Itwould shorten the period of time over which you must beconcerned about it from a water contaminationpotential. (R. 655, Docket A)

Buivid et al. (1981) found that shredding of paper and otherfibrous materials exposed the fibers at the torn edges to•enhanced capillary action and subsequent enzymatic attack." Inorder to encourage the use of shredding we propose that thedesign period be reduced to twenty years if all putresciblewastes entering the unit are shredded. The definition for shred-ding requires that all putrescible waste be reduced so that 90percent by dry weight will pass a three inch sieve.

If a leachote recycling system is installed anc cps:a:ed ir.accordance with Section 811.309 (e) then we believe that thedesign period can be reduced to twenty years. Hair and Bookter(1982), pohland (1980), and Lu et al. (1985> have observed vary-ing degrees of accelerated decomposition in various laboratory•ized lysineters.

The design period is established only for purposes of pre-paring designs and estimating the duration of the unit for thepurposes of calculating postclosure care coat estimates. Theactual stabilisation period will be determined on a site-specificbasis by monitoring leachate and' landfill gas production andsurface topography for unacceptable settling, excessive erosion,seeps, cracks, stressed vegetation, and other problems.

It was suggested that the regulations should not allow areduction in the design period for units that recycle leachate orshred waste. He believe that there is sufficient documentationto show that these practices accelerate the decomposition processand that some incentive must be provided to operators willing toinvest in the equipment to recycle leachate or shred waste. Theincentive provided by a reduction in the design period is notexpected to increase the probability of groundwater pollutionbecause the postclosure care period is dictated by monitoringresults. He therefore, decline to accept this suggestion.

The design period for chemical waste disposal units is theoperational life of the unit plus 30 years. This nay not bereduced because biodegradation is not expected to occur.

Section 811.304 Foundation and Mass Stability Analysis andSection 811.305 Foundation Construction Standards

The liner and leachate collection system are likely tofunction adequately for the entire design period if they are notsubject to excessive movement due to foundation failure. Theability of the material beneath the waste disposal facility tosupport the expected loadings must be carefully evaluated by ageotechnical engineer. If necessary, patches of poor foundationmaterial must be removed and replaced with suitable soil. Suchfoundation soil must be placed with the sane care as a linersystem.

The requirements for nass stability will insure that thefacility is not placed in areas prone to landslides and other•assive failures. A geotechnical analysis will also show if thefinal configuration of the facility will cause a failure. Themethods for analyzing slopes for stability is a well-establisheddiscipline in civil engineering. Many analysis methods areavailable froir hand calculation and graphical estimates to com-puter analysis programs designed to operate on computers rangin=froir. personal computers to large mainframes.

, The safety factor for bearing capacity is the ratio betweenthe ultimate bearing capacity of the soil and the pressureexerted on the soil by the waste disposal unit. A safety factorof 1.0 indicates that the maximum bearing capacity of the soil isequal to the pressure exerted by the unit and failure is immi-nent. Higher safety factors for bearing capacity than for slopestability are generally used. The factors presented here arewithin the range of accepted practice for facilities that may bea threat to public health and safety should failure occur. Veryhigh factors of safety are occasionally specified where there islittle detailed knowledge of the underlying soils. This is notlikely to be the case at solid waste disposal facilities wherethe hydrogeology must be accurately described.

The factors of safety are derived from Ruang (1965) andSowers and Sowers (1970). The safety factors for slope stabilityare in the range of standard engineering practice for projects ofthis type. In simple terms, a safety factor is the ratio betweenthe forces that tend to hold a slope in place and the forces thatwould cause a slope to fail. A safety factor of less than 1.0 isconsidered unsafe; safety factors between 1.0 and 1.2 have "ques-VitmtftoVfe -fcVtVxry," irewrbVnig "to Tmtnen »n6 'Sowers TiWD"). Hostcivil engineering projects are designed in the range of 1.3 toabout 1.5. The exact safety factor is generally set based uponthe expected hazards, the threat to public health and safety, andthe conditions under which the slope analysis is to take place.Static safety factors of 1.5 are specified for earth dams, miningtailings ponds, and coal processing waste embankments. The stat-ic safety factor specified here is within the range of standardgeotechnical engineering practice where failure of the structurepresents a threat to public health and safety.

It is also common practice to specify lower seismic slopesafety factors because the probability of these events is lowerand the methods of analysis of seismic events are generally con-sidered to be conservative. Again, the seismic slope safetyfactor specified in the regulations is within the range ofstandard practice.

These are performance standards. The effect of this sectionwould be to limit the height and maximum permissible slopes of aunit, based upon the ability of the underlying soils to supportthe weight of the unit and the strength of the material in andbelow the unit to resist slope failure. If an analysis showsthat a safety factor may be exceeded the operator has severalalternatives under these regulations to meet the standards:

1. Lower*the maximjr elevation of the waste, thus providing lesspressure on the soil by lowering the weight of the wastedisposal unit.

2. Consider removing the weak material under the proposed unitan2 repl 'nc it with suitable material having a high bearingcapacity

3. Excavate down to a desirable strata of suitable foundationmaterial. This may not be practical if there is an inter-vening water table.

4. If the facility cannot achieve the required slope safetyfactors then the operator could reduce the steepness of theslopes or the height of the fill until the desired factor isachieved.

Unless the in situ material is extremely poor, or if thesurrounding slopes are prone to sliding, we do not see this sec-tion as precluding the construction of a waste disposalfacility. However,the size and configuration nay need to bemodified to comply with these standards.

Section 811.306 Standards for Liners Systems

The operator will be required to utilize the best economi-cally available methods to minimize the discharge of leachatefrom the unit. The best available, economically reasonable con-tainment systeir is a compacted earth liner, three feet thick,compacted to achieve a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 1x10cm/sec. Overlying the liner should be a leachate drainage andcollection system to collect leachate that accumulates on theliner.

The liner requirements will apply at all putrescible andchemical waste disposal units, whether or not a so called•natural liner" exists. The operator may choose to recompact thein situ material or import borrow material that will meet therequired specifications.

The standards for liners were developed by considering theliner and leachate collection system.as an integrated systemrather than two separate structures and evaluating the sensitiv-ity of certain design parameters of the leachate collection andliner system for implementation in Illinois. These regulationsare intended to be applied in conjunction with Sections 811.307and 811.308 to provide an integrated leachate collection/linersystem. He consider the following design parameters as appro-priate for setting regulatory standards: thickness of the earthliner (d), length of the liner cell (Sg), slope angle of theliner (theta), saturated hydraulic conductivity of the drainagelayer of the leachate collection system (k,) and the saturatedhydraulic conductivity of the earth liner (kj).

When leachate is allowed to drain freely from the collectionsystem soire of these parameters are less sensitive than others.Sensitivity is evaluated ty varying one parameter and holding allthe others constant in a series of computer simulations. Foreach simulation the efficiency is usually calculated. Efficiencyis defined »s Va.A'j, or the volume of leachate drained by theleachate collection systeir. divided by the volume leaked throuah

tr.t line:, expresses 6^ a percer.tage of flow. High efficiencyratios .are generally preferred because « higher percentage ofleachate is drcinec by the collection system. Most liners andleachate collection systems rarely exceed an efficiency of about85 percent.

As d increases the efficiency also increases. This increaseis not proportional. This is best shown in the sensitivityanalysis performed by Kmet et al. (1961). Using a model proposedby Hong (1977), in which the leachate flow from a singleprecipitation event is calculated, they observed that as dchanges from 0 to 3 feet the efficiency increases rapidly; as dincreases from 3 to 10 feet the change in the efficiency ratio isquite small. The optimum liner thickness is approximately 3feet. This optimur. thickness _does not appear to be sensitive tochanges ir. k?. Demetracopoulo's et al. (1984) made the sameobservation using a quasi-steady state version of the Wongmodel. Korfiatis et al. (1966), using a more sophisticatedfinite-element model, found that d is not a significant factor.Clerici and Collison (1962) developed a steady-state model toevaluate leachate collection systems. They were able to use the•nre/tit1.! v*. -i/Vsvy:. v,. VAvtw)*. \.tJ)A.\/,lw,\\Ar-*Juv>. vjVAti. viA. <w>.-cluded that a well designed leachate collection system can per-form more efficiently than a thick compacted earth liner alone.Therefore, we conclude that a liner approximately three feetthick is the most efficient and cost effective barrier whenleachate is allowed to drain freely from the system.

Liners ar< generally constructed by using heavy scrapers,rollers, and dczers (R. 24-25, 1/15/86). Consider, for example,a liner three feet thick compacted in thin horizontal lifts ofsix inches. Six separate construction operations, one for eachlift are involved in building this liner. If for come reason adefect occurs on a small portion of one lift (and is not caughtby the quality assurance inspectors) there still remains anotherfive nondefective layers which can provide protection. There-fore, we consider a liner three feet thick as, generally, theminimur, practical size that can be constructed by standard equip-ment and techniques with naturally occurring earth materials,over large areas, and still provide an acceptable margin ofsafety.

The appropriate hydraulic conductivity of kj (liner hy-draulic conductivity) has been discussed as a very critical de-sign component. Kmet et al. (1981) found, however, that theratio kj/k, is a more sensitive factor. They found that the op-timum hydraulic conductivity ratio (kj/ki) is 1x10"*, with apractical range between 1x10"' and 1x10" . Demetracopoulos eta:. (1964, observed no change in the efficiency ratio when theyvaried the hydraulic conductivity of the liner from 0.01 ft/dayto O.OCC1 ft/day ("approximately 4xlO"8 cm/sec to 4X10"6

crr,/sec). Korfietis et al. (1986) found that the hydraulics of-he leachate collection/liner system are controlled by the leach--.? flow rate, kj and k2. Cosier and Snow (1964), using a finite

element flow model, fcjr.c k,, as well as drain spacing and th.epermeability of the drain filter to be significant. However,this study only applied to one site in which pressure or. theliner and leachate collection system was evaluated instead of theefficiency ratio and the liner parameters were 'not evaluated at•11.

In order to derive an appropriate value for ko *" looked atpractical values of kj. Berg et al. (1984) estimated the hydrau-lic conductivity of naturally occurring clean sand and gravel inIllinois as approximately lxlO~3 cm/sec. An operator should haveno trouble finding large quantities of suitable material for aleachate collection system drainage layer that can achieve aminimum hydraulic conductivity of 1x10 3 cm/sec. He, therefore,propose that kj be a minimum of _lxlO~J en/sec. An optimum valuefor k, can now be derived by setting kj l *9ual to 1*10 an<3

substituting 1x10"" cm/sec for kj, resulting in an optimum kj ofIxlC"7 cm/sec. Conventional construction.techniques using natur-ally occurring soils can be used to construct the liner andleachate collection system to achieve the required hydraulicconductivities (Reades, 1966; Gordon et al., 1984). An operatormay adjust these requirements for site specific conditions byusing the equivalent performance criteria.

Gordon et al. (1984) investigated four clay-lined landfillsin Wisconsin. While problems were discovered at some sites, theoverall performance of liners in Wisconsin demonstrated thatcompacted earth liners can "provide a high level of groundwaterprotection for mjnicipal solid wastes and many industrialwastes." They further recommend a sound, detailed engineeringplan and proper oversight to implement that plan. We, therefore,recommend that the compacted earth liner be constructed inaccordance with a construction quality assurance plan.

Should the groundwater impact assessment show that moreprotection is necessary the designer has several options: in-crease the thickness of the earth liner (very inefficient, asindicated above, bat possible), add a geonenbrane over the earthliner, add a geomeir.brane and another leachate collection system(the RCRA double liner), use special.construction techniques todecrease the hydraulic conductivity, or use admixtures to inprovethe characteristics of the liner. Other factors related toleachate production can be controlled such as changing the finalcover design to decrease infiltration and changing the finaltopography to increase surface runoff. A competent designer willconsider several of these options and choose a coabination thatis Most economical. The proposed regulations allow the designerthis flexibility.

Natural liners have been defined (in this proceeding, atleast) as naturally occurring clayey soil deposits which functionas earth barriers and are not modified by construction equip-ment. Excavations into the clay form the sides and bottom of thelandfi1!. One can argue that recompaction of natural material is

ti.e- line:, txp r e £ £ t i as a percentage of flow. High efficiencyratios .are generally preferred because a higher percentage ofleachate is drained by the collection system. Most liners andleachate collection systems rarely exceed an efficiency of aboutVb percent.

As d increases the efficiency also increases. This increaseis not proportional. This is best shown in the sensitivityanalysis performed by Kmet et al. (1981). Using a model proposedby Wong (1977), in which the leachate flow from a singleprecipitation event is calculated, they observed that as dchanges front 0 to 3 feet the efficiency increases rapidly; as dincreases froir. 3 to 10 feet the change in the efficiency ratio isquite small. The optir.jm liner thickness is approximately 3feet. This optiirur thickness .does not appear to be sensitive tochanges in k-. Deroetracopoulo's et al. (1984) made the sameobservation using a quasi-steady state version of the Wongmodel. Korfiatis et al. (1966), using a more sophisticatedfinite-element model, found that d is not a significant factor.Clerici and Coilison (1962) developed a steady-state model toevaluate leachate collection systems. They were able to use themodel to design an efficient liner/collection system and con-cluded that a well designed leachate collection system can per-form more efficiently than a thick compacted earth liner alone.Therefore, we conclude that a liner approximately three feetthick is the most efficient and cost effective barrier whenleachate is allowed to drain freely from the system.

Liners er« generally constructed by using heavy scrapers,rollers, and dczers (R. 24-25, 1/15/86). Consider, for example,a liner three feet thick compacted in thin horizontal lifts ofsix inches. Six separate construction operations, one for eachlift are involved in building this liner. If for some reason adefect occurs on a snail portion of one lift (and is not caughtby the quality assurance inspectors) there still remains anotherfive nondefective layers which can provide protection. There-fore, we consider a liner three feet thick as, generally, thenunimur. practical size thet can be constructed by standard equip-ment and techniques with naturally occurring earth materials,over large areas, and still provide an acceptable margin ofsafety.

The appropriate hydraulic conductivity of k2 (Ither hy-draulic conductivity) has been discussed as a very critical de-sign component. Kmet et al. (1981) found, however, that theratio k2/k, is a more sensitive factor. They found that the op-timum hydraulic conductivity ratio (kj/kj) is 1x10"*, with apractical range between IxlO"5 and 1x10" . Demetracopoulos etal. (1964, observed no change in the efficiency ratio when theyvaried the hydraulic conductivity of the liner from 0.01 ft/dayto O.OCC1 ft/day ("approximately 4xlO~B Clr./sec to 4xio~6cm/sec). Korfiatis et al. (1986) found that the hydraulics of"he leachate collection/liner system are controlled by the leach--.e .low rate, kj and k2. Cosier and Snow (196<), using a finite

36

Despite the confidence that a liner can function for longpoetclosure periods liner materials should be tested for compati-bility with leachate constituents, particularly in the case ofchemical waste disposal units. The proposed regulations requirethat all liner materials, including admixtures and geomembranes,be compatible with the leachate constituent* at concentrationsexpected to come into contact with the liner. Bowders et al.(1985) document the advantages, disadvantages and applicabilityof some common testing methods. Specific test procedures arestill under development and appear to be specific to the linermaterial that is to be tested. He decline to propose a specificcompatibility test.

The use of geomembranes as .the primary liner systeir, withouta compacted earth liner, is strongly discouraged because of therelative immaturity of this technology and the mechanism of fail-ure inherent in these systems. A puncture or rip is permanentunless the liner is repaired by hand. Compacted earth linershave limited self-healing characteristics and are able to absorbexcessive forces and blows. However, a geomembrane and an earthliner composite system combination can be very effective. Thegeomembrane car. withstand tensile loadings that would cause anearth liner to crack and fail while the earth liner providesprotection against punctures and conpressive stresses. He pro-pose that geomembranes be used only in conjunction with an earthliner meeting the standards of Section 811.306(a).

Forseth ana Kmet (19B3) evaluated flexible membranes for usein landfills. They recommend evaluating the following factorswhen choosing a geomembrane: weathering resistance, soilcompatibility, resistance to .biological attack, physical suita-bility, installation requirements, and the compatibility of themembrane to the waste.

Elevated temperatures can cause creep and increase thesusceptibility to attack' from leachates. Low temperatures cancause a membrane to become brittle and crack. A geomembraneshould be designed for the temperature extremes normally expectedat the site. Ultraviolet light can also attack a geomembrane. Ageomembrane installation should be covered as Boon as possibleafter installation. Forseth and Kmet (1983) suggest several testmethods for evaluating a liner's susceptibility to weatheringforces.

Naturally occurring soil conditions can attack a liner.Tests are available to allow a designer to evaluate the suscepti-bility of a geomembrane to chemical attack from the in situ soilmaterials.

Biological attack may consist of microorganisms, plants,insects, burrowing animals and hoofed animals such as deer.There are actually animals that seem to enjoy eating geomembranecompounds. Most r" these concerns can be mitigated by coveringthe liner as soon .-. sossible after construction. All vegetation

not neressary Et certain sites because the material already meetsor exceeds the appropriate requirements. However Griffir, et al.(1985! found that natural in situ material contains sand lenses,joints, fractures, iricrostructure and other anomalies that maycause excessive leakage. Field testing techniques can accountfor some of these factors but we have seen no evidence that largeclay deposits are sufficiently homogenous throughout the largeareas necessary for land disposal units. Field testing is alsoimpractical for large scale construction quality assurance pro-grams. Natural liners alone may not be utilized under thisproposal. All liners must, therefore, consist of compacted earthmeeting the minimum design requirements discussed in thissectioi.. If sufficient material is not available onsite then itmust be imported. The requirements for compacted earth linersand leachate collection systems at all putrescible and chemicalwaste disposal units are prudent technically feasible an-'economically reasonable when compared to the requirementsproposed by the Acency and KMI (a compacted earth liner 10 feetthick).

Cherr.icals may attack earth liners and destroy their lowpermeability characteristics. In general, 'organic chemicalsmost be present in a separate phase from the water (for exair.ple,gasoline floating on top of groundwater), or be dissolved inwater at a concentration greater than 50 percent organic solventin ordei for the organic chemical to pose any significant threatto the integrity of the earthen liner" (Daniel, 1985). Such acircurstance is unlikely at a municipal landfill.

Shimek and Hermann (1985), using sanitary landfill leachatesamples froir a Wisconsin landfill, found no change in permeabili-ty over periods between 6 months and one year on recompacted claysamples. Kuellner et al. (1'985) also found that compacted claysare not affected by sanitary landfill leachate after 4 to 7 porevolumes of leachate passed through the column. Finno and Schu-bert (1966) observed clay liner compatibility with actual leach-ate samples at the CID Metropolitan Environmental Complex. Theyfound that the permeability of the in situ liner did not increaseafter 3 years of exposure to landfill leachate. EMCON Associates(1983) collected and examined specimens of liner Material for forchanges in physical properties over tine from • number of differ-ent facilities. A cample of clay liner exposed to leachate for 9years showed no "cracking, channeling, or unusual changes intexture or consistency." A geomembrane cample of chlorosulfon-ated polyethylene exposed to leachate for 9 years was swollen andsoft, the low-density polyethylene cample appeared to be unaf-fected after 9 years of expocure. While these ctudies do notshow that a liner can always function effectively for an infinitetime period, they do provide come confidence that modern, well-designed liners c=n effectively maintain the required hydraulicproperties for many years. We also emphasize that 80 percent, ormore, of the leachate will be drained through the leachatecollection system and that the concentrations of contaminantsthat may co-'rit.-te to the degradation of a liner in the leachateare expected to decrease with time.

Daniel, who suggested that paving equipment could lay dowr. verythin horizontal layers of carefully mixed material (R. 94, Do eke'.A, 1/15/86). Another example is the use of admixtures such assoil cement, asphalt or bentonite. Fuller and Warrick (1965)present several different admixture types. Soil cement is amixture of Portland cement, water, and in situ soils. A linerconstructed from soil cement is not ss strong as a usual concreteslab but will have a very low permeability. Chemical soil addi-tives can be mixed, sprayed or injected into the in situ soil.Some common chemical additives are: petroleum-based emulsions,powdered polymers, and monovalent cationic based salts.

The performance of the alternative technology must be atleast equal to the performance of the 3 foot thick liner com-pacted to a hydraulic conductivity of 1x10"' CB/SCC. This is theconcept of 'equivalent performance." The burden is on the opera-tor to demonstrate that the alternative technology can achievethe desired performance. We also propose that the technology beused, at least once, in a similar manner to that proposed. Thissubsection is not intended to be utilized as a way to conductexperiments on unproven technologies.

Section 111.307 Leacbate Drainage SystemsAll areas of liner surface must be covered by a drainage

layer designed for a maximum head of leachate of 1 foot duringthe wettest month of the year. The leachate head observed in aproperly designed systeir should not exceed 1 foot more than onceper year, and then only for a few weeks.

None of the researchers studying leachate drainage and col-lection sv.stejr. behavi_Qr. hA»«. tuyyj. *h.lA vt dft.r.vv v?. •ajA.vaiira 'vWi/vfor maximum leachate head. All have found that higher headsencourage more leakage while lower heads result in a lack ofdriving force to move leachate through the drainage blanket tothe collection pipe. The sensitivity analysis performed by Kmetet al. (1961) show that 1 foot is an appropriate criteria, pro-viding high removal efficiency and minimizing leakage. This isintended as a design criteria, not an operating standard. Theoperator has no control over the amount of infiltration occurringat the landfill after the system is constructed.

Kmet et al. (1981) found no optimum value for collectionpipe spacing. In general, efficiency decreases as spacingincreases in a fairly linear fashion. The designer willdetermine pipe spacing on a case by case basis in accordance withthe standard requiring a maximum of 1 foot of leachate.

Both Kmet et al. (1981) and Demetracopoulos et al. (1984)found that liner slope angles greater than 1 degree but less than3 degrees were most effective in increasing efficiency. No sig-nificant improvement was observed above 3 degrees, indicatingthat drainage is controlled by other parameters. There is nooptimjir. value. Ke, therefore, propose a performance standard

shojld be removed fror the liner area to prevent damage fror.plants. This is not likely to be a problem under this proposalbecause all geomembranes must be constructed over • preparedbase.

There are a number of tests available to establish the phys-ical properties of a geomembrane. Porseth and Kmet (1983) pointout that the interlaboratory reproducibility of some tests isquestionable, mainly because of the lack of specific standardsfor some tests. This situation is improving, however, becausenew standards are being established and used. A designer Bust beaware of the physical limitation's of the geomembrane materialwhen designing a waste disposal facility.

The installation of geomembranes is a highly specializedconstruction operation. Openings in the membrane must becarefully sealed, seams must be properly fabricated and damage tothe geomembrane by construction crews must be avoided. The in-staller of a geomembrane must follow a construction qualityassurance plan and submit the acceptance report to the Agency.Performance standards for design and construction are appropriatebecause of the wide array of geomembrane types, styles and con-struction techniques. The designer must demonstrate that thegeomembrane will perform for the design period under unfavorablestresses and operating conditions and be compatible with theexpected leachate constituents.

Less conventional hydraulic barriers such as bentoniteslurry walls, cutoff walls and other impermeable barriers areslowly becoming more acceptable. We recommend the use of thesetechnologies only in conjunction with a compacted clay liner.

Slurry walls consist of a narrow trench excavated withspecialized equipment or a backhoe which is pumped full of aslurry material which keeps the walls of the excavation fromcaving in. The slurry can contain bentonite, water, cement andeven flyash to reduce permeability (Anonymous, 1986). The stan-dards we propose specify a minimum level of performance but pro-vide considerable flexibility to determine the most appropriatesite specific design. Slurry walls Must extend into a lowerconfining unit. In response to a comment criticizing the re-quired key depth of the wall into the confining layer we havechanged this construction standard into • performance standard.The slurry wall must extend into the lower confining layer to adepth necessary to maintain a continuous hydraulic barrier andprevent seepage.

Subsection (g) is proposed to allow an operator to utilize ar.v-. wtvsvjn/vl •«} •••hiwv ivytAvt'itm's "oecause ne» 'tech-

nology must be recognized and encouraged. Special constructiontechniques may be utilized, for example. If more elaborateequipment is available and s thinner liner will perform 5£ wellor better thar. the three oot liner then these special construc-tion techniques ir.«y be ut ii.-<-:. A good example was given by Dr.

Tr.e collection pipes must be able to withstand the weight ofequipment and material above the system. The operator isrequired to demonstrate that the pipe will have sufficientstrength. In order to further protect the pipes from damage,special operating standards are proposed in Section 811.321.

Ghasseiri et al. (1986) investigated problems, such as clog-ging, related to leachate collection systems at hazardous wastelandfills and surface impoundments. However, most of the docu-mented operating experience was found at municipal landfills.Problems were primarily attributed to poor (or no) design, littleor no attention to construction quality control, and lack ofmaintenance and monitoring. The proposed regulations addresseach of these problems. Clogging of the leachate collection anddrainage system was not a problem identified by Ghasseir.i et al'.(1966) at landfills with properly designed collection systems.Where clogs or blockages occur the leachate can move through thedrainage blanket along another pathway. Two landfills inWisconsin reported no clogging problems after ten years of opera-tion (Ghasseir.i et al., 1986). With proper maintenance and care-ful design and construction we see no reason why a leachatedrainage an: collection system could not function for the entiredesign period and, if necessary, beyond.

Compatibility of all leachate collection system materials isimportant. Ghassemi et al. (1986) described one case where adrainage blanket consisting of crushed limestone reacted with theacidic leachate and solidified into a solid block. The regula-tions cor.tai- a performance standard requiring that all materialsused in the leachate drainage and collection system be compatiblewith the leachate expected to be produced.

The leachate drainage and collection system must be con-structed with as much care, if not more, as the liner system.Therefore, we propose a stringent quality assurance program toinsure proper placement and testing of all materials.

Maintenance of the leachate collection system is vital toinsure proper performance during the design period. This meansthat all sections of the collection system must be accessible forinspection and for cleaning by, for example, water jets or brush-es. The regulations require the operator to install cleanoutpoints and demonstrate that the number of cleanout points isadequate to insure access to the entire system. We propose thatthe system be monitored to Insure consistent performance.

Landfills located in the saturated sone, or inward-gradientlandfills, as they are sometimes called, have been discussed assolutions to areas where the water table close to the land sur-face. Boutwell and Derrick (1986) examined the unique hazardsand presented several case studies of inward-gradient land-fills. They describe several successful applications of thisdesign in several Gulf Coast states.

whicn allows designers to choose an appropriate liner slope an=:?based upon the predicted amount of settlement, the ability of theoperator to construct a sloped liner and the other controllingparameters in leachate drainage/liner system design.

The flowrate of leachate used in the design of • leachatedrainage system is determined by using a water balance model .The water balance must take into Account precipitation, evapo-transpiration, runoff, infiltration, storage and discharge (R.541-576, Docket A). The conditions under which this water bal-ance is to be calculated are provided in the proposal. Severalmethods are available to perform a water balance but all requiresome kind of input. • The HELP Model has been evaluated by severalresearchers, Barbour et al. (1965), Warner et al. (1966), andPeters et al. (1986). All found the model useful in designingcomposite cover systems and predicting the amount of leachate tobe generated.

The unit will eventjally reach field capacity. The require-ment that the landfill be designed to handle leachate after fieldcapacity has been reached is conservative during the early yearsof a unit but is likely to be a realistic condition during theclosure phase.

The leachate drainage systeir shall be designed under theassumption that a final cover is in place. The tine betweenplacement of waste and placement of the final cover is likely tobe a few months to a year. The collection of leachate from aclosed unit is likely to occur for a minimum of five years tothirty years after closure. It seems logical to design the sys-teir, around what is likely to be a long term condition. Also, itis impossible to predict the slope configuration and, therefore,the infiltration during the time waste is being placed.

Section til.308 Standards for the Leachate Collection Systea

The leachate collection systeir consists of.a network cfcollection pipes which transports leachate to central collectionpoints for drainage or pumping out of the unit. He propose thatall perforated collection pipes be surrounded by a coarse gravelenvelope. This envelope serves two purposes. It will preventsolids from clogging the perforations of the collection pipe and,in the event of a pipe collapse, will serve as a flow path forleachate to drain through the nonfunctioning part of thesystem. The envelope must be designed using standard geotechni-cal techniques for sizing coarse gravel filters (Sowers andSowers, 1970, and Bowles, 1979). These same geotechnical tech-niques ran be utilized to determine the need for a graded filteror geotextile between the drainage blanket and the coarse gravelenvelope. There are also techniques to allow a designer tochoose pipe perforation size to promote optimum movement of waterir.to the collection pipe.

Tnis section is divided into four general portions that car.be used together to design the leachate management systeir.: stan-dards for leachate storage structures, standards for leachatetreatment units, leachate discharge requirements, and standardsfor disposal to the local sanitary authority. Several partici-pants suggested that the regulations recognise that a combinationof storage and treatment be utilized to insure that there isalways a system available to accept leachate. Subsection (b)allows the operator to choose any combination of treatment orstorage systems necessary to insure continuous leachate flow.The Intent of this subsection is. to allow the operator theflexibility to combine treatment and disposal options.

Onsite leachate treatment systems are technologically feas-ible, as described by Ham (1985') and Lu et al. <196S). Biologic-al and chemical treatment plants are, by nature, complex systemsregjirin; expertise for proper operation. Or. Ham generallyrecommends onsite treatment as a last resort (R, 697, DocketA). Nevertheless, there may be some areas in Illinois wheretreatment is indeed the best or only alternative. The regula-tions we propose for treatment units allow the designer consider-able flexibility. Our concern is with having adequate leachatetreatment CA HA*.*.!} \f. *.\\ \.Va«A, t«.tny« t»p«iitVon ol 't'ne plant,and compliance with all discharge requirements. A previous re-quirement for multiple treatment units has been dropped in favorof the more flexible requirements in subsection (b).

The onsite leachate treatment system must be considered partof the facility. The operator must have constant access duringthe operational and postclosure care period and the only way toguarantee access is for the pperator to maintain responsibilityfor the overall operation and maintenance of the treatment facil-ity. The most appropriate requirements for onsite treatmentalready exist in 35 111. Ad IT.. Code Subtitle C, Nater Pollution.An operator or applicant can demonstrate compliance with theserequirements by obtaining a permit to discharge from the Agency.

It does not seem to a worthwhile exercise to remove leachatefrom an expensive liner and leachate collection system only tohave the leachate seep into the groundwater from the treatmentsystem. He propose regulations requiring the system to bedesigned and constructed to minimize seepage and, if necessary,provide secondary containment, and the leachate treatment unitsand storage facilities must be considered as potential dischargesto groundwater and subject to the groundwater monitoring require-ments. Violations of water quality standards snd remedialactions are handled the same way as discharges from the wastedisposal units themselves.

He have to assume that some degree of leachate treatmentwill be required for the entire design period, and propose aregulation requiring that the system be designed to function forthe entire design peri-.*. The actual operating perioe1 will bedetermined by monitori. ,.

Gcrdc- and Hjetne: (1964) evaluated two inward-gradientsites in Wisconsin. General problems noted were improper charac-terization of the hydraulic conductivity of surrounding claystrata and inadequate removal of leachate. In some cases perme-able strata intersected the landfill, providing a convenient pathfor leachate to leave the site. Neither of the landfills wereequipped with a drainage layer as required in Section 811.307 ofthis proposal. Removal of the leachate was not given a highpriority. To alleviate these problems Gordon and Buebner recom-mended detailed site investigations, installation of a drainaaeblanket and leachate collection system properly designed by usingstandard water balance estimates, installation of a recorcpactedclay liner, and the use of analytical techniques to determinecollection'pipe spacing.

Two of these observations need to be accounted for in theseproposed reqjirenents to give guidance to designers of inward-gradient landfills. First, the leachate collection system mustbe designed for a maximum head of one foot during the wettestmonth of the year and at the same time the groundwater is at itsseasonal high elevation. Second, the level of leachate in theleachate collection systeir. must be at or below-the level of theseasonally low water table. All of the other recommendations areaccounted for in other parts of the proposal and, in fact, areapplicable to conventional landfill design and operating prac-tice. Ne believe that inward-gradient landfills offer practicalsolutions to areas that have high water tables, provided that aleachate collection system is properly designed and operated.

Section 811.309 Leachate Treatment and Disposal Systens

In order for the liner and leachate collection system towork at the highest possible efficiency leachate must be able todrain freely at all times to storage or treatment structures.The regulations in this section are intended to allow a flexibledesign for leachate management facilities in a cost effectivemanner. A leachate management system is defined in context asthe entire sequence of leachate handling processes. For example,a leachate management system may consist of • pretreat»ent aera-tion pond with discharge to an offsite treatment works. Subsec-tion (a) requires the operator to collect leachate as it flows oris pumped from the system. The operator is designated asresponsible for leachate treatment and disposal.

There are several ways to dispose leachate: direct disposalto a local sanitary authority, treatment and discharge to surfacewater, pretreatment and disposal to a local sanitary authority,onsite storage and transport to a local sanitary authority andand direct discharge to an offsite treatment works. The proposedregulations are flexible enough to allow each of these methods inany combination. All leachate handling systems must beconsidered a psrt of the facility in order for th« Agf :: / toretair. oversight and insure proper disposal.

innocclur addition produced the most ir.ethanc in a laboratorytest, compared to no recycle and recycle alone. They stressedthe importance of evenly distributing the leachate over the areato be treated.

Leckie et al. (1979) found, in laboratory Bleed cells, thatleachate recycle accelerates the degradation process, increasesthe microbial population in the waste, and increases gasproduction. They also noted that a cell seeded with septic tankpumpings, without further management, suppressed vigorousnethanogenic organisms. They suggested pR control and leachaterecycling to help establish meth'anogenic activity.

Natale and Anderson (1965) evaluated a full scale leachaterecirculation system at the Lycoining County Landfill inPennsylvania. They found that methane was produced at twice therate at sections undergoing leachate recycling than at sectionswhere no recycling occurred. This indicates more rapid degrada-tion of the waste and is consistent with the results expectedfrom laboratory and pilot tests. Leachate recycling resulted inmore settlement of the waste. This is considered an overallbenefit because 'early physical stabilization will minimize theyears after completion (closure) that the surface will have to beregraded to maintain a uniform surface." The data on leachatequality is a little less conclusive. In general, the degradationrate for COD was approximately 25 to SO percent of that producedin pilot scale tests; yet that is estimated to be two to fivetimes faster than a pilot scale waste cell without recycle (whatwas considered typical landfill conditions). Better degradationrates were observed when field capacity was maintained as opposedto saturation.

Leachate recycle can also be effective at putrescible wasteindustrial monofills. Merritt and Pohland (1985) describe apilot study on leachate from a landfill associated with a fiber-glass insulation manufacturing facility. Leachate recycle inpilot cells filled with insulation waste enhanced biological,chemical and physical processes leading to degradation.

Only select sites, with desirable topography and adequatewaste management practices may recycle leachate. Ne intend thatonly new facilities and existing facilities that meet all designstandards should be allowed to recycle leachate.

Dr. Ram described a gradual degradation process in whichleachate quality gradually improves over time. Eventually theleachate will no longer pose a threat to groundwater. Subsection(g) requires the operator to monitor leachate quality throughoutthe operation of the unit and for a minimum of five years afterclosure. When the leachate meets the applicable requirements fordischarges of deoxygenating.wastewater the operator may discon-tinue the operation of the leachate management system. There isno indication that perpetual leachate collection, treatment anddisposal is necessary. Leachate q . ility is expected to improve

Lu et al. (1965) suggest that for "leachate collectea from elandfill located near a wastewater treatment system, a convenientmethod of treatment would be to discharge the leachate to the•ewer system." Ke would extend this to apply to all operationsthat find it economically advantageous to transport leachate to aPOTK rather than treat it onsite. Up to 5 percent by volume ofhigh strength leachate (10,000 mg/L COD) can be added to waste-water at a conventional treatment plant without degrading ef-fluent quality of the plant with regard to conventional para-meters (Boyle and Ham, 1974). Chian and DeWalle (1977) foundthat up to 4 percent could be added before treatment efficiencydecreased. These studies, in addition to the testimony by Or.Lue-Hing (Exhibit 15B, Docket A), indicate that leachate can behandled by the majority of POTW's. The case described by Dr. 'Lue-Hing consisted of leachate from the CID facility inChicago. Leachate is pretreate-d and transported to the Calumetsewage treatment works.

Subsection (d) contains standards for leachate storage sys-tems. WMI suggested that leachate storage structures be designedto held 5 days worth of accumulated leachate. This seems to bean appropriate number with an adequate margin of safety.

Subsection (e) has been expanded in response to commentsfrom several participants who suggested that more flexibility beprovided. The subsection now references offsite treatment plantsinstead of publicly owned treatment works. This allows a systemsuch as a an industrial wastewater treatment facility to beutilized to treat leachate. The operator must assure that thetreatment plant hold a permit to discharge, is operated by &certified operator, and less than SO percent of the flow to thetreatment works is attributable to the solid waste disposalfacility. This last requirement is intended to prevent anoperator from declaring an onsite leachate treatment operation anoffsite plant. Access to the sewage system must be available atall times. If not, an alternate management system must beprovided.

Section 611.309 (f) sets parameters for leachate recyclingsystems. To our knowledge, these are the first regulatoryrequirements for leachate recycling systems to be proposed inthis country. Current landfill practice is generally gearedtowards preventing the introduction of Moisture into a land-fill. These regulations allow for the controlled introduction ofleachate into a landfill for the purpose of accelerating thedegradation processes. We feel that these regulations addressall potential problems that May occur. There is a growing bodyof literature supporting the concept of leachate recycle. Dr.Ram presented testimony on some research of his own acquaintanceshowing the benefits of leachate recycle under laboratory andpilot scale conditions (R. 647-650, Docket A).

Buivid et al. (1961) found that leach '? recycle enhanr 1methane generation. Leachate recycle enhf ,-ed with a nutrie. .

If e gas collection system is installed, then the monitoringfrequency changes to quarterly to insure that the syster is cor.-trolling the migration of gas from the unit. The monitoring datais used during the postclosure care period to determine if gascollection is necessary after the waste has stabilised.

Lu and Rovers (1980) found that relatively simple techniquesof methane measurement can be utilised and that spatial variabil-ity in permeable strata was relatively small. Cruteher et al.(1981) observed that gas flows fairly freely throughout a land-fill and there are no apparent directional properties. Theprobes, therefore need not be elaborate affairs and placementdoes not appear to be as critical as for groundwater wells.However, enough probes should be placed to provide an accurateassessment of gas migration.

lethane is monitored because it may create explosive condi-tions and, as discussed below, may kill vegetation. He propose amaximum allowable concentration of methane of 50 percent of thelower explosive limit in air to insure that explosive conditionsdo not occur.

Oxygen is monitored to indicate the presence of air and toestablish a potential for explosion. Nitrogen acts as an indica-tion of air leaks which can aid in the interpretation of thevalidity of the sample and the integrity of the monitoringdevices.

The measurement of pressures within a set of probes providesinformation related to the quantity of gas migrating from thesite and the likely route of migration. Such information isuseful tc future monitoring efforts and when designing a gaccollection system.

Arthur et al. (1981) found that natural gas can damage vege-tation by acting as a food source for destructive microorgan-isms. Carbon dioxide can be directly toxic to certain species ofplant roots. In order to evaluate the effects of landfill gas onred and sugar maple trees Arthur et al. (1981) exposed theirroots to a simulated mixture of landfill gas. The sugar maplesbegan to lose their leaves after 11 days and were completelydefoliated by the twentieth day of exposure. The red Maples weremore tolerant of the gas but they did lose some leaves and theremaining leaves were chlorotic after 48 days of exposure.

Due11 et al. (1986) studied the effects of landfill gases onseveral vegetation types. They found some species of vegetationare much more tolerant of landfill gas than others. Tolerance tolandfill gas constituents must be considered by the operator, whomust plant vegetation directly over the final cover of thelandfill. Such a burden should not be placed on surrounding landowners, who may have made significant investment in or who mayderive economic benefits from their vegetation. Esmaili (1975)described a case where methane, in concentrati. s of 10 to 20

at a rate dependent upcr, the conditions of the landfill such asprecipitation, cover configuration, waste density and size, andmanagement practices.

The constituents chosen for evaluation are typical of leach-ates produced by putrescible wastes. This is not intended to bean all inclusive list of potential leachate constituents, theconstituents in (g) (2) are expected to serve as indicators ofthe stabilization processes occurring in the waste.

Subsection (g) (3) provides some flexibility for industrialtype nonofills. A more narrow range of constituents can beexpected fron facilities that ..accept a limited number of wastestreams.

Leachc.it treatment is no longer considered necessary whenthe raw, untreated leachate meets the existing effluent lirita-tions in the water pollution requirements, 35 111. Adir.. Code Fart304. If lea-hate is approximately the same as any other treatedeffluent the- there is no logical reason to pump it out of theground, only to discharge it directly to a surface water body.The parameters chosen for monitoring are those for whichdischarge standards have been developed and also expected to beconstituents of the leachate.

The monitoring requirements for chemical waste disposalunits allow for more flexibility in choosing appropriate para-meters. Sore of the constituents expected in putrescible wasteleachate are not expected in certain chemical waste leachate.

Section 811.310 Landfill Gas Monitoring

Section 811.310 is the first of three sections of require-ments for landfill gas control. This section contains require-ments for all units accepting putrescible wastes. The operatormust monitor the generation, composition, and migration of land-fill gas. All putrescible waste disposal units must be monitoredfor the presence of landfill gas. Gas collection systems will benecessary only where migration appears to be a problem.

The purpose of the gas monitoring program is to monitor thebuildup and migration patterns of landfill gas. This is achievedby placing monitoring probes in and around the unit to obtain arepresentative sampling of gas concentration and movement. Moni-toring begins upon waste placement and continues until gas is nolonger detected at significant levels within the probe. He pro-pose four monitoring parameters: methane, oxygen, nitrogen andpressure. It has been suggested that probes within the wasteitself serve no purpose and should not be required. The probeswithin the waste do serve a purpose. They provide an initialpressure readme to calculate the amount of gas being producedand migrating froir the landfill. They provide information on thestate of stabilization withi -he unit and can indicate whetherunfavorasle reactions are oc. jrring. The requirement for probeswith.:-, the was:? is retained.

tt

concentration of methane was less than 10 percent and the highestconcentration of any fatty acid, n-butyric acid, was 0.11 per-cent. Colenutt pointed out that these acids are the source ofthe undesirable odors that Migrate from landfills. We note theirpresence and propose a performance standard for implementation ofa gas collection system if the operator is unable to controlmalodorous odors by standard landfill operating procedures suchas daily and intermediate cover.

Dr. Ham described the processes which control the amount of•ethane and carbon dioxide that is produced (R., (16-645, DocketA). Using this information some' rough estimates on methane pro-duction in a particular unit can be made. Several predictive gasflow models have been developed and are in use for estimating themost likely migration paths and the approximate flowrate. Herecommend the use of models to help establish the best locationfor probes and control systems. We do not recommend the use ofpredictive models to waive any Monitoring or control require-ments. We propose a regulation allowing the optional use of amodel to predict the best locations for monitoring devices.

Darcy's Law can be assumed valid for gas flow through apermeable mediuir such as soil, if the gas is assumed to be incom-pressible. Most gas flow models are developed from this rela-tionship. Lu and Kunz (1961) used this relationship in a modelto estimate gas flow from wells at the Fresh Kills landfill in•New York. They found good agreement with field conditions. Theyrecommended that high Kn/Kv (horizontal Intrinsic permeabili-ty/vertical intrinsic permeability) values are advantageous forlandfill gas withdrawal. Gas can move easily towards the wellwhile the low vertical permeability impedes the movement of airinto the fill. This condition can be approximated in an actuallandfill by utilizing relatively impermeable covers and linersand using relatively permeable daily cover and intermediatecover.

Mohsen et al. (1980) developed a finite element model tosimulate a practical variety of field conditions including vary-ing horizontal soil strata (simulating covers, liners, wastelayers, and other soil layers), various boundary conditions,water table elevations and the presence of fas release systems.They found good agreement between Model results and observedfield conditions. Findikakis and Leckie (I960) developed a one-dimensional model for the production and flux of CO, and CH4 outof a landfill and found excellent agreement between model predic-tions and field observations. It is possible to use predictivegas flow models as a tool in designing gas Management systems.Section 611.311 Standards for Gas Management Systems

This section contains the standards under which a gasmanagement syster is to be constructed and the standards fordesigning and operating a gas management system.

percent hz-i migrated 600 feet from the edge of a landfill.Damage from landfill gas can extend beyond the explosive hazardof methane to destruction of vegetation by CO,. There is,therefore, justification for controlling the Migration oflandfill gas, which consists mostly of methane and carbon diox-ide, from all landfills, not just those that nay affect nearbyhousas and buildings. Any migration of landfill gas off theproperty should be considered undesirable and potentiallydestructive, even where there are no nearby buildings.

There has been some discussion ever the presence of volatileorganic chericals in landfill gas. Intuitively, one can assumethat if volatile organic chemicals were placed in a landfill,then, one would expect to observe some quantity in either theleachate or the gas. Kinman et.al. (1986) found traces of vola-tile organic compounds and recommended further long terir study.Colenutt and Davies (1960) evaluated landfill gas extracted frorr.soils around a landfill for the presence of volatile organics.They found negligible concentrations of compounds in the landfillgas. However, an accurate quantitative analysis was almost im-possible to achieve because of severe limitations in the samplingand analysis methods. Testing procedures in the ambient air overa waste disposal unit are extremely difficult to implement forsuch email concentrations. The result* would vary greatly bysmall changes in climatic conditions such as wind speed, baro-metric pressure and temperature. Furthermore, volatile organiccompounds are ubiqjitous, they can be attributed to manysources. Proper implementation of a volatile organic compoundstesting progrs- wojld necessitate the use of background monitorsto isolate contributions by the waste disposal unit.

Gas will migrate in response to a pressure differential orby diffusion driven by concentration gradients. The pressuredifferential, in the case of a puttescible waste disposal facili-ty, is created by the degradation process which results in meth-ane. As degradation occurs, the amount of methane within thewastes increases, creating an area of high pressure and resultingin the migration of gas to areas of lower pressure, outside thelandfill. It is our hypothesis that gas migration can not occurwithout sufficient methane to produce a pressure differential.Landfill gas constituents will migrate out of the waste only inthe presence of methane, which is easily Measured and quanti-fied. Furthermore, methane molecules are smaller than volatileorganics molecules and are able to Migrate further by diffu-sion. It is, therefore, more likely that methane will triggerthe installation of a gas control system, not the presence ofexcess levels of volatile organics. We do not recommend air.or.i tor ing program for volatile organic compounds.

Fatty acids such as acetic, propionic, and butyric acidshave also been observed in landfill gas by Colenutt (1979).while the concent-it ion of methane was observed to be between 20and 80 percent, t concentrations of fatty acids was never ob-served to be more than 5.05 percent. In e 25 year old site the

It is aprror:iett to require an operator to install a gasmanagement system if malodorous odors migrate offsite. A spe-cific definition of a malodorous odor, bated on numerical stan-dards of the constituents of the landfill gas", is not appropriateor justified. The costs of icutine monitoring for these stan-dards is not justified on a continuing basis at all facilities.It has never been stated, nor is there any indication that weagree with, the contention that a person's olfactory sensesshould be used as a detection device for combustible gases. Thestandards for malodorous odors are additional requirements tothose for combustible gases. The operator of a unit that isproducing malodorous odors offsite should be required to takeappropriate gas management measures.

It was also suggested that, the maximum allowable methaneconcentrations be adjusted higher, to 100 percent of the lowerexplosive limit in air in the soil and ambient air around thefacility. A gas management system would be required after enoughmethane has migrated from the facility to cause explosive levelsconcentrations. The proposed levels of 50 percent of the lowerexplosive limit are intended to prevent explosive levels fromever occurring. It is appropriate to require action prior to theexistence of dangerous levels of gas and, therefore, decline toaccept this suggestion.

Two types of gas management systems are recognized in thisproposal, gas venting systems and gas collection systems. Gasventing systems generally consist mainly of highly permeablematerials placed in the path of migrating gas to redirect theflow to the surface or some kind of vent. An impermeable barriermay also be placed to minimize the flow of gas and direct theflow elsewhere. The drawback to venting systems is that gas mustbe generated in large quantities to create a pressure or concen-tration gradient large enough to stimulate flow. The pressuredifference is affected by changes in atmospheric pressure. Vent-ing systems do not collect gas for disposal but merely redirectit to places where it may mix with ambient air and be carriedaway. Ghasseir.i et al. (1986) evaluated a number of systems forinterception and disposal of landfill gas. They characterizedventing systems as unacceptable for emissions control at munici-pal and codisposal sites because all of the gas that is generatedwould be released.

Venting systems can be categorized in two major types, thefirst being trenches backfilled with a highly permeable materialto encourage passage of gas upward to a surface discharge area.This design can be augmented with an impermeable barrier such asa geomembrane to further encourage passage of gas to the dis-charge area. The flow of gas is not controllable and the trenchbecomes very expensive to construct at depths greater than 9.1meters-. In order to preserve the integrity of the cover andliner syster.s a trench system must be constructed outside thelandfill perimeter.

Tfiere are five conditions which can trigger the instsliaiiCT.of a gas management system. The first is when the concentrationof methane reaches 50 percent of the lower explosive liir.it at apoint of compliance 100 feet from the edge of the unit or theproperty boundary, whichever is less. The second is when methanereaches 50 percent of the lower explosive limit in the ambientair. The third is when methane is detected in a building at morethan 25 percent of the lower explosive limit. The fourth is whenmalodorous odors are detected beyond the property boundary, andthe fifth is when a leachate recycling system is to be util-ized. The intent of these standards is to prevent the buildup ofgas to explosive concentrations .and'prevent odors form migratingfron the site.

Several participants stated concerns over the requirement' toinstall a gas ir,sr;agen>ent system upon detection of a "malodorousodor." The terir is criticized as being too vague and ambiguousfor regulatory enforcement and use. It was claimed that in orderfor the requirements of this subsection to be enforceable, amechanical measuring device would have to be used because a per-son's olfactory senses could not be used as a detection devicefor combustible gases. It was suggested that the subsection (a)(4) be deleted as a triggering mechanism for gas control systemssince the use of detection devices under subsections (a) (1), (2)and (3) would be more reliable and provide a measure of accuracyand precision. We do not agree. There will always be some dis-cussion over the exact interpretation about what constitutes amalodorous odor and a mechanism exists, via an appeal to theBoard, to address disagreements with the Agency.

As an alternative to the proposed definition, a numericallimitation for odorous compounds was considered. Such numericallimitations are possible, but as pointed out by Dr. Bam (R. 337,Docket D):

I don't think there is going to be a good definition.I guess I ar concerned abojt getting bogged down herewith trying to define a bad odor.

Sure, there have been people that have done somerather detailed analyses of the chemical constituentsof landfill gas, and we believe that some discretecheir.ical constituents that cause a large part of theodor .

But to get into that kind of a thing here I thinkwould be very difficult. You are talking about sub-stantial sampling and analytical costs on a routinebasis in order to do this, which I air. sure the landfillproprietors would not want to go through; and you aretalking about developing a large database such that onecould eststlisr. that legally.

It is appropriate to require a- operator to install a gasmanagement system if malodorous odors migrate offsite. A spe-cific definition of a malodorous odor, based on numerical stan-dards of the constituents of the landfill gas; is not appropriateor justified. The costs of routine monitoring for these stan-dards is not justified on a continuing basis at all facilities.It has never been stated, nor is there any indication that weagree with, the contention that a person's olfactory sensesshould be used as a detection device for combustible gases. Thestandards for malodorous odors are additional requirements tothose for combustible gases. The operator of a unit that isproducing malodorous odors offsite should be required to takeappropriate gas management measures.

It was also suggested that, the maximum allowable methaneconcentrations be adjusted higher, to 100 percent of the lowerexplosive limit in air in the soil and ambient air around thefacility. A gas management system would be required after enoughmethane has migrated from the facility to cause explosive levelsconcentrations. The proposed levels of 50 percent of the lowerexplosive limit are intended to prevent explosive levels fromever occurring. It is appropriate to require action prior to theexistence of dangerous levels of gas and, therefore, decline toaccept this suggestion.

Two types of gas management systems are recognized in thisproposal, gas venting systems and gas collection systems. Gasventing systems generally consist mainly of highly permeablematerials placed in the path of migrating gas to redirect theflow to the surface or some kind of vent. An impermeable barriermay also be placed to minimize the flow of gas and direct theflow elsewhere. The drawback to venting systems is that gas mustbe generated in large quantities to create a pressure or concen-tration gradient large enough to stimulate flow. The pressuredifference is affected by changes in atmospheric pressure. Vent-ing systems do not collect gas for disposal but merely redirectit to places where it may mix with ambient air and be carriedaway. Ghasserr.i et al. (1966) evaluated a number of systems forinterception and disposal of landfill gas. They characterizedventing systems as unacceptable for emissions control at munici-pal and codisposal sites because all of the gas that is generatedwould be released.

Venting systems can be categorized in two major types, thefirst being trenches backfilled with a highly permeable materialto encourage passage of gas upward to a surface discharge area.This design can be augmented with an impermeable barrier such asa geomembrane to further encourage passage of gas to the dis-charge area. The flow of gas is not controllable and the trenchbecomes very expensive to construct at depths greater than 9.1meters. Jr. order to preserve the integrity of the cover andline.' syster.s a trench system must be constructed outside thelandfill perimeter.

Gas venting systems are not appropriate methods of gas con-trol and are not recognized in this proposal as satisfying therequirements for a permanent gas management syjstem. They may beuseful as temporary measures to minimize offsite migration untilan appropriate gas control system is installed. The onlyallowable gas management system in this proposal is a system inwhich gas is collected by wells, trenches or other collectionmeans and transported to a central point, or points, for,treatment, processing and disposal. This is defined as a gascollection system.

Gas collection systems may consist of wells or trenchesfilled with permeable material connected to a pipe which dis-charges at the surface. Flow js created by pressure gradients ;due to the natural degradation of the waste. The discharge tothe atii.us^l.ci e is at one or more points at the end of the pipe.This may cajse extremely hazardous and odorous conditions in thevicinity of the discharge. A flare or other air pollution con-trol device must be installed. The operation of this flare isuncor.trollatle because the gas in a passive system flows only asa result cf the aas generation rate and the permeability of thesoil. Unless the rate of gas flow and gas composition are fairlyconstant over time the properties of the flare would be impos-sible to control and complete combustion of certain gas constitu-ents would not be guaranteed. We, therefore, recommend that allsystems relying on natural processes to create flow through thesystem be designed so that they can be easily upgraded to aninduced draft syster by the installation of a compressor or othermechanical device.

Ghasseiri et al. (1986)' developed four categories of gascollection systems: horizontal or vertical wells and interior orexterior locations. Vertical gas wells located within the wasteunit itself seeir to be the most popular method, especially wheregas is to be processed for beneficial uses. The gas has a highmethane content. (Ghasseir.i et al. (1986). The wells are some-times susceptible to damage from settlement of the surroundingwaste. A drawdown zone analogous to water wells will exist be-tween the wells (Crutcher et al, 1961). Mathematical models canbe used to predict an optimum spacing.

Horizontal gas collection pipes can be placed in envelopesof permeable materials in or on finished lifts of material at anactive landfill. The advantages are that significant quantitiesof gas can be collected while the landfill is in operation be-cause waste can be placed in successive lifts above the collec-tion pipes. Ghassemi et al. (1986) point out that such systemshave the potential to remove a greater portion of gas than thevertical wells installed after completion. The main disadvantageof this type of syster is that the horizontal pipes are particu-larly susceptible to differential settlement and there is no wayto repair the system short of excavating the overlying wastematerial. • . •

Vertical wells car. be placed outside the unit to create £zone of negative pressure around the unit. Such wells are easierto construct than wells within the waste, are less susceptible t:damage from settling, can be established prior to closure of thelandfill and have been demonstrated at a number of landfills(Ghassemi et al. 1966). However, the surrounding soils must berelatively porous or the radius of influence will be small. Thecollected gas will contain store air than wells placed directly inthe waste. It would not be economical, in »ost cases, to processthe gas for beneficial uses.

Horizontal pipes in granular soil envelopes can be placed atthe bottom of a lift, along the side of the unit. Such a systemcan begin operation immediately upon placement of waste. Thesystem is not as prone to settlement as other interior systems'and the content of methane is high. The system is inaccessiblefor repair, experience with this type of arrangement is limited,and the operation of the system may interfere with the perform-ance of the leachate collection system (Ghassemi et al. 1986}.

The design of the gas collection system is site specific.The designer must weigh all the advantages and disadvantages ofeach syster. and choose one to solve the specific problem at aparticular site. We choose to establish performance standardsfor gas collection systems for this reason. The designer is freeto choose any configuration of collection wells. The systemshould be able to function for the entire design period althoughthe actual operating period for the gas collection system will bedetermined by monitoring the collected gas and the gas probesplaced around the unit. The system should also be resistant tocorrosion. Differential settlement could be a major problem atsome sites. Trie designer must consider reasonable amounts ofdifferential settlement and make allowances in the design of thesystem. We feel it is important to ensure that the gas collec-tion systeir in no way interferes with the operation of the'liner,cover, or leachate collection systems.

Gas condensate will form in the collection system (R. 731-733, Docket A). The disposal of gas condensate has been discus-sed from both political and legal standpoints (Bogardus, 1986).He propose that this material, which is derived from componentswithin the landfill, be handled in a manner similar to leachatefor treatment and disposal or recycling. In response to a sug-gestion by a participant, we have Modified this section to allowthe management of condensate separately fro* the leachate, ifdesired by the operator. The requirements of this subsection arebased upon the interpretation that condensate produced from theonsite collection and processing of gas is a nonhazardous wasteby definition. Condensate produced at an offsite processingoperation not included in the operator's facility will requiredifferent handling standards. Condensate produced offsite is aby-product or waste froir an industrial process.

Section 811.112 Landfill Gas Processing and Disposal Systems

Xmte gas is collected at a central point it must somehow bedisposed. According to Ghassemi et al, (1986) 'the two Host popu-lar methods are onsite flaring and combustion for energyrecovery. Other methods may include carbon adsorption units andprocessing into pipeline-quality product. Landfill gas can beused "as is* for onsite combustion. It Bust be upgraded to nedi-um-Btu gas for use in some industrial operations and to high-Btugas for injection into a pipeline.

In nearly all cases a discharge into air is required. Wepropose performance standards that would allow any type of com--bustion or processing operation provided that all discharges arepermitted by the Agency's Air Quality Division in compliance with35 111. Adrr.. Code Part 200, et seq.

Gas processing systems must be evaluated on a case by casebasis. One method of processing landfill gas involves convertinginto pipeline quality methane. There are several systems, bothmechanical and cheirical for removing the impurities and carbondioxide from landfill gas. One such method is the use of gascleaning towers filled with molecular sieve materials. Whilethis may result in appropriate disposal of the gas into a pipe-line, waste products from the towers and all condensate must beproperly disposed.

The performance standards for flares are taken from federalrequirements for flares at petroleum processing facilities.Although not specifically formulated for flares at landfill oper-ations the requirements appear appropriate for discharges ofmethane and their use as regulations is recommended.

The gas disposal system must be considered a part of thefacility, thus ensuring that an adequate system for gas disposalis always available, is accessible and is controllable by theoperator, what is not so clear is whether a gas processing oper-ation (and subsequent disposal of waste products) Bust be consid-ered a part of the facility. To help in this determination weconsidered the following points:

1. The flow rate of gas from the unit must always be undercontrol of the operator and adjusted as necessary accordingto monitoring results.

2: The purpose of the gas collection system is to prevent off-site migration and damage by landfill gas, the purpose is notto provide ra* materials to an industrial operation.

~j. Tne operator must always have a way to dispose of landfillgas.

4. In the event th•' :n operator forfeits financial assurancethe State of II. mis must have access to a gas disposal

Eyster or the financial assurance instrument must cor.tair.sufficient funds to build and operate a disposal system.

5. The proper disposal of gas byproducts from the processingoperation must be ensured.

6. All aspects of the gas removal operation must be under thecontrol of the operator at all times.

The nost appropriate way to address these concerns is torequire that a gas processing facility that accepts "ore than 50percent of its gas from a single' solid waste disposal facility bepermitted as part of that facility. In some cases a third partystay be contracted to process the landfill gas. The requirementsin this section do not preclude a third party from purchasing oraccepting gas for offsite processing.

There may be opportunities to transport gas to an offsiteprocessor. He propose a new subsection of performance standards.in anticipation of the construction of central processing plantsthat could serve several landfills. The first criteria is toestablish that less than 50 percent of the volume of gas proces-sed by the offsite plant is from the facility under considera-tion, otherwise, it must be considered part of the solid wastedisposal facility. Second, the operator must be in control ofthe withdrawal technology to Maintain compliance with all gasmonitoring standards. Finally, financial assurance must bewuiMA.. "It VAwVfcVt V'liVfc, it Vtwrtrtrrb Vs •propweb to Tequ'irethe operator to post financial assurance equal to the cost ofinstalling disposal equipment (such as a flare) in the eventaccess to the processing facility is denied. This requirementappears in Subftrt G.

Section 811.313 Intermediate Cover Requirements

Little documentation for optimum values of intermediatecover exists. It appears that the existing requirements, whichall three proposals currently before the Board retain in someform are adequate for Illinois. The regulations reflect currentAgency practice of allowing the total amount of cover over thewaste to be one foot, including the six inches of daily cover

The standards for intermediate cover are similar to therequirements for daily cover, reflecting the similar func-tions. Where water and gas Movement through the landfill isnecessary and desirable intermediate cover should be relativelypermeable to minimize perched water conditions.

Intermediate cover must be maintained for an indeterminateamount of time, until the next layer of waste or the final coveris placed. Until then, the cover must be graded, inspected andmaintained to prevent access to the waste by vectors, and providedrainage.

. Section 811.314 Standards for the Final Cover System

Inertias M. Johnson discussed factors in the design and con-stijction of covert for rrjnicipai waste disposal sites in testi-mony before the Board (R. 592-650, Docket A). Mr. Johnson iden-t i f i e d three primary cover functions: "water movement, gas move-ment and susceptibility to erosion." (R. 600, Docket A). Thefactors affecting these three functions may require differentoptim.il values for each. For •xajpp}*> a, fov*f designed to mini-mize infiltration is likely to have a high erosion potentialbecause the fine clay particles necessary for a low permeabilityblanket are susceptible to wind fend water erosion and nay Bedifficult to'vegetate (R. 601,..Docket A). Hr. Johnson suggestedone method as ranking the priorities and design the cover byconsidering a decreasing order of requirements.' This may re q u i r eunacceptable comprori ses, however. A better approach, recoKt-men.ie:: by *!r. Johnson (R. 606, Docket A), is a composite cover inwhich several layers, each with unique characteristics geared toa particular function are constructed.

Tr.ere are many design possibilities for a composite cover.lr oeneral, a composite, .cover will .consist of several harilayers of materials with different hydraulic and strengthparameters. The minimum cover is a two layer composite cp.n-sisting of an impermeable barrier overlain fay a drainage layer ortoptrtit. Designs of up to five or more distinct layers have beenproposed for hazardous waste disposal facilities. The necessaryreqjirements for final cover are; minimize the amount jarpercola'tiori "into the waste, prevent erosion, control ruoofi,maximize "e'VajJotf anspiratiqnt,,.a.ad,,t»quir*»- lifctl-e- maintenance. Insome case.|» g,a,s migratTforf control may be necessary a4wi..,j.n others aspecial I'ayer'Vrn be constructed to facilitate the distribution.,of recycled leacHa'te.

D k > e i et a} (1985) evaluated tn« hydrologic performance ofc< \2 :e* cf ;over designs using the HELP model. The coversconsisted of one to.th.ree, layers of, various soil types. Theyconcluded that three Ijiyer composite covers were the nost effec-tive design.) The criteria for evaluating the effectiveness ofthe design appears flawed in one area. A successful design wasconsidered as one that minimized surface runoff. That is puz-zling because there are only three ways for water to leave acover: runoff, evapotranspiration, and infiltration through thecover tD the waste. *r>»ucc««*ful d«sj?» wilt »ini»i»e infiltra-tion. If one tries to minimize runoff and infiltration the onl<f>remaining path for water is evapotranspiration. But there isonly so much water that can be evaporated and transpired becausei-e r>« -.;- r a t e of evapotranspiration will be controlled by: l i T , » - co'.i; : ions , not by the operator. in- o^cfr-^y.-iMniiciiginfiltrntior, to the fullest possible extent the deligfier BUSt

Thij, i« nat lilutlvtt* cm«»vproblum.itltht^^pWMoe3 TT3 fcarry^TJ>Jiof f^fway. The conttol^o,!

m o r e ef fect i vrljr'tiawffle-'—oy standards requiring .•f"««ior.

and stability of the final layer and regulations regarding theconstruction of runoff control facilities. BPiny «**«>»»»**** eccriteria, a three layer composite cover system is Still •off*effective than a two layer composite cover system, but onlymarginally so, and the costs for a three layer cover system aresignificantly higher.

Several different cover designs were evaluated at the OmegaHills Landfill in Wisconsin by Montgomery et al. (1987). Theyfound that the two layer composite covers (one layer of compactedclay overlain with topsoil) produced less infiltration than afour layer composite layer designed to produce a "wick effect."They also observed that runoff '•mount «pp«ar«d , to b,« related to,topsoil thickness, less runoff was produced as topsoil thicknessis increased.

Grefe et al. (1987) evaluated landfill cover functions andattributes so that the regulations for the state of Wisconsincould be improved. They found that ice lenses and freezing andthawing cycles could increase the hydraulic conductivity andlower the density of the impermeable cover. A connection tovegetation is also evident. A structurally disturbed and desic-cated liner is more likely to allow gas migration, which, asindicated in the gas control section, can kill vegetation, thuscausing erosion. They also noted that sufficient topsoil must beprovided to allow good root density. A cost analysis showed thatthe cost of a well -designed cover will, in many cases, be morethan offset by reduced leachate treatment requirements and ero-sion repair costs over the postclosure care period.

A two layer cowpgs^fe cover is proposed in th«*e regulations*>*«.mim*m\m aivaCTiiMpqm. m-.*=<-.**• , > i <. . . .h.i ....V..!,.

s one ^performance'• maxi

depositeabilitypactedreasoaab _ _ _•cnt and »oil«vi;t»|tS«ifc7i ri aai*.:.IJiftt«AS., witOhje jrsent* for complete* »*t,th. UtM&&.-.«« «iiivjHWBM«ktAi. low substi-tutes that achieve equivalent or superior performance.

The depth of final protective layer can vary as a functionof the type of vegetation and land use after filling. The soilused to construct the final protective cover must be capable ofsupporting vegetation. Warrr. season perennial turfgrass mixturesrequire a minimum of three feet of good topsoil for root penetra-tior. (Casnoff and Beard). More cover can be specified, if neces-sary, for areas where root penetration is expected to be high-er. T -,e fina. protective laver need no. /ML impermeable. Well

graded, easily drained soils containing some organic matter sjchas peat is preferable to promote vegetation. The final protec-tive layer is also intended to protect the impermeable layer fromfreezing. The range of frost penetration depth is approximately6 inches in the extreme southern part of Illinois to approxi-mately 35 inches near the Wisconsin border (Lutton, 1982). Thecontrolling factor, therefore, will be the depth necessary tomaintain good vegetative root penetration conditions, three feetof protective soil.

Section 811.315 Hydrogeologic Site Investigations

The purpose of hydrogeologic study is to gather detailedinformation to be used to evaluate the suitability of the sitelocation, provide input parameters to the groundwater impactassessment, and provide enough information to design a suitablegrojndwater modeling system. A properly conducted hydrogeil 09 '. cstudy can provide sufficient information to address these threetasks. In response to comments on this issue the subsectiondescribing the pjrposes of the hydrogeologic investigation havebeen expanded and clarified.

A general three-phase hydrogeologic investigation was sug--g steb 'oy "Dr. Vidnarc T_. "Berg ot 't'ne YlYano'is "State Geo'log'ica'lSurvey (IS3S) (R. 439-447, Docket A). The standards in thissection are based upon a three ph«s= investigation procedureconsistent with these recommendations.

The investigator must establish the area to be studied. Thestudy area must include, at a minimum, the property itself.Areas outside the property are added as necessary to establishthe geologic identity of the .area. For example, if a particulargeologic unit appears continuous across the site, but pinches outa short distance away from the site, it may be necessary to ex-tend the study area to characterize the potential contaminantmigration pathways where that geologic unit ends. This area isdefined as the study area in context.

It has been suggested that all borings be sampled continu-ously. Such a requirement is unnecessarily restrictive. Oncethe stratigraphy has been established by the first boring (whichmust be sampled continuously) it is necessary for successiveborings to be sampled at appropriate intervals.

The first phase consists mostly of a literature survey ofexisting borings, water-well logs, ISGS publications, and othersources to evaluate the regional hydrologic setting. A minimumcf c.-.e boring, preferably at the geographic center of the unit,is required to confirm the literature evaluation. This boring isrequired to be sampled continuously. At this point some of thesite location standards car. be applied to eliminate the unit frorfurther consideration. The investigator may also choose to term-inate the investiof<on if the area is unpredictable or th-• itespecific data does . t fit the regional hydrcgtologic cone

tior.E. Kore boringc Co- be drilled to help establish theregional characteristics; however, the number of necessaryexploratory borings at a discontinuous and unpredictable site ir.aybe quite high, along with the associated costs .for explorationand .laboratory work.

After the preliminary work is evaluated a Phase II study canbe designed and implemented. Exploratory boring* are drilled atvarious points throughout the site; including the corners, topo-graphic low point and topographic high point. After completionof the Phase I study the investigator analyses the results, pre-pares cross sections and other useful diagrams to help understandand illustrate the local lithology. The operator is required tobegin interpreting the data to find trends, establishstratigraphy, and broad groundwiter characteristics.

The Phase Ill investigation is conducted to confirir th»information collected in Phase II and reconcile the stratigraphyof the site. Phase III exploration continues until the charac-teristics of the site are well known, all known geologic unitsare identifies and tested and sufficient data has been developedto beg IP. a orojndwater impact assessment. All stratigraphicunits have been identified and correlated, continuity betweenboreholes has been established and any unusual geologic featureshave been investigated. The requirements for the Phase III In-vestigation were taken from USEPA (1986), and ICF, Inc. (1987).A Phase III study can consist of as few as one bore hole or asmany as the investigator can afford. A complex site nay requirean inordinate njirfctr exploration holes. It is the investigatorwho decides whether the costs involved in characterizing a com-plex site are justified.

In order to allow for flexibility in conducting thesestudies a performance standard was developed to allow theinvestigator to choose an alternate investigation format that mayutilize a different number of phases. As long as the requiredinformation is collected in a way that is equal to or superior tothe methods described in this section and the required informa-tion is collected, the alternate investigation plan may beutilized.

Section 811.316 Plugging and Sealing of Drill BolesThis section has been added in response to several comments

underscoring the need for a program to properly seal drill holesafter they are no longer necessary. The section is written as aperformance standard to require the operator to cover all drillholes to protect the public and animals from injury. When drillholes are abandonee they must be sealed so as not to create apath for the migration of contaminants and the area around thedrill hole shall be returned to its original .condition. Thesection is not intended to prevent the conversion of explorationholes into monitoring wells. The holes must be sealed when theyare no longer nee. s&ry t the operation.

Section 811.317 Groundwater Impact Assessment

Consider what we have presented to this point. Sections811.306, 811.307, and 811.308 established standards which pre-scribe an efficient and economically reasonable system for con-trolling the seepage of leachate out of the unit. Sections811.315 and 811.316 established requirements to insure a thoroughunderstanding of the hydrogeologic conditions at the site. Inthis section a methodology is proposed to bring these together to

• evaluate the impacts to the groujidwater.

We propose that the Board'adopt a policy similar to that 'used for discharges from point sources to navigable waters underthe Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA). The CKA requires a dischargerto utilize the best available technology economically available(B*.T) to remove pollutants from the effluent, regardless of thequality of the receiving water. More stringent treatment re-quirements may be imposed, if necessary, to meet water qualitystandards beyond an established mixing zone.

The CWA gave broad powers to OSEPA to regulate discharges tonavigable waters. A permitting program, called the NationalPollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was established toimplement the provisions of the CKA. The provisions of the NPDESprogram require a systematic approach to minimizing pollution:

1. Utilize the B^T to treat all discharges from point sourcesand establish discharge standards based upon the technology.

2. Establish a mixing zone within the navigable water where thedischarge standards exceed the established water qualitystandards.

3. Demonstrate that the technology used to treat the water willbe sufficient to prevent exceeding the applicable waterquality beyond the mixing zone.

4. If necessary, require technology greater than BAT tosuccessfully meet all applicable water quality standards.

5. Monitor all discharges and water quality to insurecompliance.

It is not clear if groundwater should be considered a "navi-gable water* and if discharges to groundwater Bust be permittedunder the NPDES system. In 1977, in Exxon Corp. v. Train, the5th US Circuit Court of Appeals held that the USEPA did not havethe authority to require permits to control the disposal of pol-lutants into wells. In that same year the 7th US Circuit Courtof Appeals in United States Steel Corporation v. Train held thatthe USEPA could regulate the discharge of polli' its into a wellunder the NPDES program. This nflict has ne' . been resolvedto ojr knowledge (Ballew, 1983).

Tne proposed re?j)ations follow the provisions of the NPDESprogram. The above court decisions notwithstanding, we do notbelieve that the Board is required by federal law to follow theNPDES program for discharges from landfills to groundwater. Westrongly recommend the adoption of the above five steps as amodel procedure to evaluate the adequacy of design and theimpacts to the groundwater system. Ne recommend that the Boardadopt a policy of requiring the operator to use the besteconomically available technology to control the discharge ofcontaminated leachate from a solid waste disposal facility.

He propose that the seepage of leachate from the unit betreated as a discharge which must be minimized by utilizing thebest available, economically reasonable containment technology.Then, using data collected in the hydrogeologic study as well asadditions: information, the operator must show that the dischargewill not exceed established water quality criteria at the pointof compliance. If the operator predicts that a water qualitystandard will be violated, then more stringent control technologymust be considered. We call this process the groundwater impactassessment and consider it an important step in the procedure.

The methodology to be used for the groundwater impactassessment is based upon testimony presented by Di. RobertGriffin on November 17, 1965 IK. 681, Docket A) and outlined in areport by Griffin and Roy (1986). Dr. Griffin proposed that anintegrated evaluation of the entire landfill site and design beperformed usina site-specific data, a contaminant transportmodel, and reasonable operational assumptions. A point of com-pliance some distance awey from the edge of the unit is speci-fied, as are maximum contaminant levels acceptable at the compli-ance point. Dr. Griffin made clear that the regulatory authoritymust specify the maximum contaminant levels and the point ofcompliance (R. 819, Docket A). We are proposing a system ofgroundwater standards and evaluation techniques to apply to apoint of coirpliar.ee located 100 feet from the edge of the unit orproperty boundary, whichever is less. These same standards areto be utilized for enforcement as well.

The June 1987 proposal required that the operator demon-strate compliance with the groundwater quality standards over aninfinite time period. The acceptability of the assessment wouldbe particularly sensitive to tiny changes in the values assignedto the attenuation and degradation processes, which are difficultto measure accurately. This is an unintentional effect. It is,furthermore, impractical to make predictions beyond a certaintime period. He, therefore, propose that an evaluation period of100 years be used in the groundwater impact assessment. Theoperator must demonstrate that discharges from the source ofcontamination cause, no statistically significant increase overbackground.concentrations beyond the zone of attenuation for 100years after closure of the unit. This limitation greatlysimplifies the assessment and still provides a high degree ofprotection, as the study cond -ted by ;-he 1SGS shows.

The first step in the groundwater impact assessment is datacollection. The information froir. the hydrogeologic investigationmust be adequate to perform the impact assessment. This informa-tion nay have to be supplemented by such information as geochemi-cal parameters and diffusion and dispersion data needed to inputinto a contaminant transport model. The constituents of theleachate and any applicable degradation parameters must be estab-lished and estimated. The investigator is required to use, at aminimum, the minimum design standards for the liner, leachatecollection system, and cover, if applicable. Some physical andchemical data to be used in the assessment must be determinedfrom applicable literature and previous surveys.

Once the information is collected the investigator will berequired to utilize a contaminant transport model to show theresulting concentration of contaminants at the compliance pointusing the irinimuir. prescribed design standards for the landfill.Minimum output shall be in the form of concentration profiles in5 year increments and breakthrough curves for all intermediatemonitoring points and at the point of compliance.

If the assessment shows that the minimum design andperformance standards in Part 611 are inadequate to preventcontamination of the groundwater outside the zone of attenuationthen additional protection must be provided. This additionalprotection may consist.of:

1. Fi-!din? another, more suitable site;

2. Changir.s the final configuration of the unit to promote morerunoff and less infiltration;

3. Prohibiting or limiting the disposal of certain wastescontaining the offensive contaminants;

4. Adding a geomembrane to form a composite liner systerr;

5. Adding a geomembrane and second leachate collection system(the RCRA double liner);

6. Increasing the thickness of the compacted clay liner (how-ever, thicknesses over three feet appear to have little

. effect on the rate of seepage through the liner. Thisalternative would be effective only for borderline caseswhere a small decrease in liner seepage is necessary toachieve compliance);

7. Using admixtures or special construction techniques toimprove the properties of the liner; or

6. Any cor.bir.-tior. of these, or other practices that achieve thesar.e result.

Tne ground»ater impact assessment can again be performedusing the modified design. The process of designing andassessing the impact is repeated again until compliance can bedemonstrated, the project becomes prohibitively expensive, or thesite proves to be clearly unsuitable despite all engineeredsolutions.

An important aspect of the groundwater impact assessmentwill be the required use of a predictive contaminant transportmodel. A segment of the technical community discourages the useof predictive modeling as a regulatory mechanism. Many commentswere received regarding the use,' reliability, accuracy, and wis-dom of contaminant transport models. They cite inaccurate pre-dictions, lack of sufficient input data, and manipulation ofseemingly insensitive parametefs to achieve the desired resultsas disadvantages. While these shortcomings can, and dc, exist,safeguards car, be designed into the procedure for maintaininghigh quality predictions and allowing for periodic updates of thepredictions.

All of the previous proposals before the Board require,ultimately, some sort of predictive modeling. The Agency'sproposal (Docket A) contains a requirement for predictivemodeling, Section 734.202. However, the purpose of thisrequirement and the standards by which compliance with thissection can be measured are unclear. While not addressingpredictive ir.odelins directly, both the Chamber of Commerceproposal (Docket B) and the Waste Management proposal (Docket C)would require extensive use of predictive models to demonstratethat the design of the facility would "not cause or tend to causewater and air pollution" (Exhibit 1, Docket B).

Dr. Aaron Jennings was invited on behalf of the Board, toaddress the issues of contaminant transport modeling for regula-tion. He painstakingly reviewed the fundamental science ofgroundwater contamination modeling and offered his comments onusing models as a component of these solid waste disposal regula-tions. Dr. Jennings (1986) stated the advantages anddisadvantages of deterministic models:

a. They explicitly use all the mechanistic science that isknown about the transport phenomena. Their scientificfoundation is stated and nay easily be inspected.

b. They yield unique transport predictions. Their predic-tions are completely reproducible and are independent ofthe numerical procedures used to generate them.

c. They can be used to identify missing data or incorrectinterpretation of the predominant mechanisms inoperation.

d. [They] have the ability to extend the'r predi-'ivecapabilities to new conditions for wh..-.h they ave not

been calibrate;. If, for example, the relationshipsbetween temperature and cheir.ical reaction kinetics areknown, then mechanistically based models should be ableto predict the impacts of temperature changes on themass transport process.

However:

e. Deterministic models are often crippled in the absenceof essential data.

f. Deterministic models have a -'great deal of difficultyaccommodating the natural variability of manyenvironmental attributes.

These last two issues actually reflect the quality and quan-tity of data available to the investigator. The modeling studywill only be as accurate as the data input to the model. Thiscould be construed as a shortcoming to this procedure but anylandfill location criteria will be hampered by the lack ofaccurate dats.

Several comments stated that the use of a contaminanttransport model as part of a groundwater impact assessment pro-vides an assurance which may not be justified or realized underactual field conditions. Because of their complexity and thenumerous assumptions made in model design and data entry, theresults are no more than an indication of what might occur at asite if leachate is discharged. Only in a rare instance would amodeled concentration ever be found in a monitoring well placedat a location where the model predicted it. It was suggestedthat modeling not be performed as a regulatory requirement but asan optional tool, presumably at the discretion of the operator,to be used to show reasonable estimates of how the design mayperform in the given site conditions and allow for redesign whenpredicted concentrations are significantly greater than waterquality standards. "Significant" was defined as an order ofmagnitude froir the applicable standards (Public Comment 47).

The authors of the comments apparently assume that the pur-pose of calculating the maximum allowable concentration withinthe zone of attenuation is to predict the exact concentration ofcontaminants in each well at all times, and that some sort ofpunishment is in store for the operator who fails to accuratelypredict the fate of contaminants in the groundwater. That is notthe case, the predictions serve as the maximum value expected atthe well and it must be shown that this maximum concentrationwill not cause a violation outside the zone of attenuation. Themaximum predicted concentration need not be achieved and, unlessconditions are altered which would increase the probability ofgroundwater contamination, the operator will probably not berequired to update the impact assessment. By choosing relativelyconservative values for >rtain predicted parameters th* operatoris unlikely to ever ex;, e: the maximum allowable concen*.: a-

tions. There is no punishment for conservative estimates unlessthe site has borderline hydrologic and attenuation capabilities,in which case it is certain to be carefully scrutinized. This iscertainly an appropriate use of a predictive modeling tool and aprudent design procedure. The groundwater impact assessment ispart of a rational design procedure used every day by engineersin th* design of buildings, bridges, foundations, retainingwalls, roads and pipelines.

Several specific inadequacies were identified by partici-pants. The first was that no tw,o models predict the same contam-inant profile even when all other variables are held constant.That is correct. Two models would predict Similar, but not thesame concentration profiles. Two investigators using the exactsame model may derive different'concentration profiles, basedupon the quality ana interpretation of the available data and thescenarios being used for the analysis. This is not an inade-quacy, it is a normal circumstance in any design procedure. Theauthors of this comment appear not to appreciate, as a generalmatter, how designs are developed. Design engineering is not anexact science. No methodologies exist that will insure that theexact same design is derived by all designers and such are notnecessary. The regulations provide a methodology to demonstratethat the design will perform as indicated and in compliance withthe water quality standards. He are aware of no technology thatinsures exact solutions in any engineering discipline. No twoengineers will ever design something, be it a building, a bridge,a landfill, or a groundwater monitoring system exactly alike andnobody should expect them to do so. If a groundwater impactassessment appears acceptable and is supported by the recommenda-tions of a qualified designer who utilized reasonable, conserva-tive assumptions based upon well developed data and followed arigorous evaluation procedure, then that solution must be givenserious consideration. Furthermore, it is not necessary topredict the exact concentration at the monitoring point. Theoperator predicts a reasonable value based upon an operatingscenario devised by the operator. It is necessary only to showthat the value predicted by the operator Mill not cause the waterquality standards to be exceeded outside the tone of attenua-tion. This is an appropriate use of a contaminant transportmodel.

The second inadequacy is that long term historical data forthe input parameters will not be available to calibrate themodel, and since contamination has not occurred, the transport ofcontaminants cannot be verified through the use of historicaldata. Again, this is true, but the only ways to address thisconcern would be to liir.it the construction of new facilities toareas that have a history of contamination that can be documentedor require the operator to perform a groundwater impactassessment only after contamination is observed. Both solutionsare unworkable.

65

Long terir historical data is not likely to be available at alocation unless contamination has already occurred. It is,therefore, all that much more important to carefully consider thequality of the input data and implement • monitoring prog ran- tocheck the predictions. Both of these are considered in the pro-posed regulations. The long term data will be developed duringthe life of the facility by establishing a monitoring network.Opportunities are available when the permit is renewed and whenthe maximum allowable concentrations have been exceeded to changethen based upon any new data. The lack of long term data shouldnot prevent an investigator from developing a groundwater impactassessment and a monitoring program.

It would be inappropriate to assess the potential for con-tamination of a design after the landfill is placed into oper-ation and contamination occurs. The operator should show thatthe facility is unlikely to cause groundwater contamination be-fore a permit is issued, not after contamination has occurred.Tests performed in the field which stress the environment in apredictable manner may also be conducted to help estimate certaindesign parameters. For example, tracer dye studies and pumptests can be conducted to observe the behavior of differentconditions on the system.

Finally, it was asserted that the results of transport mod-els are never considered to actually represent the real world,but are to be used as a tool to indicate what may occur at a siteunder certain conditions, not provide absolute answers. Again,this is a correct assertion and consistent with the methodologiesand expectations outlined in this proposal. The contaminanttransport model is used as a tool to indicate what may occur at asite under certain conditions, a task certainly within the capa-bilities of a contaminant transport Model. A monitoring programand an opportunity to correct the impact assessment prior to aremedial action are necessary and prudent safeguards againstunreliability in the assessment. It is not necessary to obtainabsolute, real world answers, only confirm that the values pre-dicted by the investigator are not likely to be exceeded. Thisis an appropriate use for a contaminant transport model. Thereare no absolute, 'real world' design methodologies being used byeno,ineers tftdAv; in. aji-

Several alternative facility design methodologies were pro-posed by participants. One suggestion was to adopt standardsbased upon 'good engineering practices and past landfill perform-ance* (Public Comment 47). Standards would be established torequire the operator to 'prevent the migration of wastes orleachate out of the landfill to the aquifer or surface water dur-ing a tiire period equal to the active life of the landfill.*These standards provide no realistic way to evaluate what consti-tutes 'good engineering practice* and "past landfill perform-ance." Th >ropose3 language to require that a liner preventcontatrinar. migration only during the operating period of afacility may provide insufficient protection to groundwater.

T.-.is alternative proposed methodology is vague, unsupported byany technical background, and cannot be reviewed or enforced bythe Agency.

Another suggestion was to utilize "analogous" facilities asa design standard. The operator would copy the design of anexisting facility located in similar geology if the existingfacility is shown to be "protective of human health and theenvironment" (Public Comment 47). As ha* been discussed through-out this report, a large number of interrelated characteristicsinfluence the quantity and quality of leachate discharged from alandfill. These characteristics' (for example: cover design,rainfall, evapotranspiration, .soil types, waste types, vegeta-tion, height of the fill, design of the leachate collection andliner systems, and the geochemiqal properties of the surroundingsoils) would have to be evaluated at every site, saving thedesigner no tine or money. It would be almost impossible toprove that two designs at two different sites are analogouswithout collecting the minimum data and performing the stepsnecessary for a groundwater impact assessment. Standards basedupon this concept would be difficult to evaluate and enforce.They are unlikely to save time and most certainly will save nomoney for an applicant. We are unaware of «ny existing facil-ities that can truly demonstrate that they are protective ofhuman health and the environment. It is more appropriate toevaluate the design of a facility against an absolute performancestandard such as those proposed here rather than proving that anew facility is "analogous" to an existing facility.

Base:3 upon a review of the information presented by Dr.Jennings we recommend that deterministic models be utilized in agroundwater impact assessment. A groundwater impact assessmentwill usually be performed for an area that has not been previ-ously stressed by a waste disposal operation. A stochastic modelis unlikely to be successfully utilised on sites where no wastehas been disposed and little contaminant transport data exist.The standards are based upon an assumed use of deterministicmodels. Stochastic models are not specifically excluded becausethey are performance-based standards. An operator wishing to usea stochastic model would need to be creative in demonstrating theadequacy of the model to the Agency.

He propose that the requirements for the groundwater impactassessment be written as general performance standards ratherthan design standards. There are too »any variables, techniques•nd approaches to this discipline for oore than a framework forevaluation and a set of safeguards. He do not recommend theadoption of a standard groundwater model to be used by alloperators. Tnere are many acceptable models which are constantlybeing update: with changes in technology that any contaminanttransport model that is specified might easily become outdated bythe time regjlations are implemented.

The standards in Section 811.317 (c) are based upon Jenr.ings(1966) description of the components of a complete contaminanttransport model:

Application-independent information: These are generalphysical and cheir.ical properties that nay be measure:independently of the site. Examples of these aresolubility and reaction rate constants.

Application-dependent information: These consist of thespecific hydraulic and chemical properties of the soilsand water at the site. These properties can be measuredin the field or in the laboratory but the informationwill be site-specific

Initial and boundary conditions: These are the condi-tions which define ho.- the contamination source variesas a function of time and the fundamental magnitude ofthe chemical source. The must be stated explicitly andknown with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

The proposed standards also address Dr. Jennings' fourcomments on groundwater contamination modeling for solid waste

f.R 1156-1164, Docket A):

The solution to pollution is not dispersion: The groundwaterimpact assessment may not be utilized to waive the minimumrequirements, it is intended only as a confirmation that thedesign will not cause groundwater contamination at thisparticular site. This requirement also drove the choice ofan attenuation zone 100 'feet wide. Dispersion alone isinadequate to reduce the concentration of any contaminant tobackground levels within 100 feet, some attenuation by othermeans such as adsorption must occur.

The quality of the models being used must be guaranteed:Proprietary codes are assembled by professionals and checked,and are generally dependable products. The regulations donot specify the origin of the model, whether proprietary,public domain, or in-house. Any model that meets the minimumstandards of subsection (c) may be utilized.

The quality of model input data Bust be carefullyregulated: Poor information yields poor results. A detailedhydro-geologic assessment is required by these regulations andstandards are proposed to document the quality ofinformation. It has been suggested that the quality ofinformation dilemma is the fatal flaw to the groundwaterimpact assessment approach. We do not agree. All landfillevaluation systems, including the alternate systems such asDRASTIC anc the design standard* proposed by the Agencyrequire high quality informati to produce acceptable

The groundwater impact assessment is no exception

63

and is no more susceptible to poor quality hydrogeologicinformation than anything else.

The results of single component models must be used withcaution: It is important to recognize that chemical reac-tions and other processes are talcing place as the contami-nants move toward the point of compliance.

The modeling results are used to show that the minimum de-sign standards will provide the necessary amount of protection atthe site of the facility. Model results can never be utilized towaive the minimjr design and performance standards. Unlike theAgency proposal, the modeling study we propose has a stated pur-pose. It shall be used to confirm, not derive, the acceptabilityof the de?i?' parameters.

The output fror the model will consist of a series of con-centration profiles and breakthrough curves. We require thatprofiles be created for various critical times in the life of thelandfill and that breakthrough curves be calculated at the pointof compliance and at several intermediate monitoring points.

One of the shortcomings discussed by Dr. Jennings was thequality of information that is available for input into the pre-dictive model. Some of this information goes beyond that neces-sary to characterize the hydrogeologic setting; the specific geo-chemical attributes of a soil must be evaluated. Dr. William Roywas invited to present testimony on batch adsorption proceduresfor estimating soil attenuation properties of pollutants. (R.657-679, Docket A). Adsorption is a process most contarinanttransport models incorporate. Dr. Roy outlined a laboratorytechnique which yields adsorption data for the soil beingtested. He emphasized that standardization of procedures is im-portant to achieve accurate, reproducible laboratory results.The most significant results of Dr. Roy's testimony is that inputparameters to a contaminant transport model can be developed toobtain reproducible results, are economical to perform, and yielddata useful to a modeling effort. Section 811.317 (c) requiresthe operator to demonstrate the veracity of the data. The testi-mony of Dr. Roy shows that such a demonstration is possible forsoil sorption data. We recommend that the Agency develop stan-dardized procedures for collection of sorption and other sitespecific data, particularly the procedures proposed by Dr. Roy(Ainsworth et •!.. 1984).

Many modeling parameters must be derived in the labora-tory. Therefore, standardization, or at least a minimum standardof laboratory practice, must be established and updated peri-odically. The available information suggests that laboratory andanalysis procedures are best addressed in Agency guidelines thatretain flexibility for quickly updating procedures that take intoaccojr.t itr.proverrer.ts - - technolooical advances.

69

Based upon the information provided by Dr. Roy, Dr. Griffir.,and Dr. Jennings we feel that adequate, reproducible laboratoryand field procedures can be implemented to determine the inpjtparameters to a contaminant transport model. Furthermore, theresults from a properly implemented contaminant transport modelcan be relied upon and used for meeting the requirements of theseregulations. It is appropriate to utilize contaminant transportmodels in this manner. The standards that are proposed in thissection constitute a prudent design methodology for solid wastedisposal facilities. '

Section 811.318 Groundwater Non'itoring Program

The groundwater monitoring requirements apply to all putres-cible and chemical waste units. .There are no circumstancesrecognized by this proposal in which it is reasonable to ignorethe potential imparts to groundwater, even in the most secureformations. Furthermore, the results of the groundwater impactassessment mjst be confirmed. All facilities must implementground.-ater monitoring programs.

The gro'jnd-'ater monitoring standards are based on a com-parison of upgradient, or background, groundwater quality todowngradient water quality. The establishment of backgroundwells is discussed in Section 811.320 (d). The establishment ofa statistical test is guided by Section 811.320 (e). Thelocation and operation of background wells are extremelyimportant to the overall monitoring system. They should becarefully chosen and completed.

The downgradient monitoring system consists of a network ofwells completed within the zone of attenuation and less thanhalfway between the edge of the zone and the unit in order toencojrage early detection of contaminants and to provide an addi-tional buffer around the unit for the inevitable delay betweendetection of an excursion and initiation of a remedial action.The number and location of each monitoring well is determined ona site specific basis in accordance with the requirements ofsubsection (b).

One monitoring well, at a minimum, is to be established atthe compliance point. The procedure for wells at or beyond thezone of attenuation is different from those within the zone ofattenuation. Significant increases in contaminant levels overbackground are not expected outside the zone of attenuation forat least 100 years after closure of the unit. Any increase inconcentration attributable to the unit outside the tone ofattenuation is a violation of the water quality standards, inthis case the opera-.or moves from detection monitoring toassessment monitoring to remedial action. A groundwater impactassessment is not performed. This requirement is reflected inSection 811.319 (t) (5).

Subsection (d) is a relatively new concept. The maximurrallowable concentration at any monitoring point is established bypredicting the concentration at that point and tine with agrojndwater contairinant transport model. The maximum allowableconcentrations within the zone of attenuation are intended to beaction triggers. If an increase over the predicted values isobserved the operator moves to an assessment monitoring program.

A breakthrough curve is a profile of concentration againsttime at a specific point. A breakthrough curve Bust be generatedfor each monitoring point. This breakthrough curve shows themaximum concentration possible at that point in order to meet therequired water quality standard outside the cone of attenua-tion. As long as the monitoring results show concentrations lessthan or equal to the maximum possible predicted concentration wecan be assured that the standard will not be exceeded o-jtside thezone of attenuation. The allowable concentration at a mor.itoringpoint close to the unit will be higher than one near the edge ofthe zone of attenuation because contaminants will attenuate outof the groundwater as they move to the boundary.

It has been suggested that this is an inappropriate use of acontaminant model and that it would be more appropriate and eas-ier to enforce if standards were established. It is not neces-sary to predict the exact concentration, the operator need onlyshow that the predicted maximum value at the monitoring pointwill not exceed the established standards. The use of models isdiscussed in the previous section. We do not believe that theperson who perfcrrr.s the groundwater impact assessment wiViintentionally try to mislead the Agency or the public when deter-mining the impacts and developing the maximum allowable concen-trations. Ke believe that .this proposal contains sufficientsafeguards to insure protection of all groundwater. For example,if an operator purposely overestimates the amount of attenuationexpected then the breakthrough curves at the edge of the zone ofattenuation will indicate that no impact will occur while thebreakthrough curves closer to the unit will show lower concentra-tions than are likely to occur. The result will be that duringoperations contaminants will be detected in the monitoring wellsclosest to the unit at higher concentrations than predicted,forcing the operator into a remedial action program.

Likewise, an investigator may underestimate the attenuationlikely to occur, leading to higher predicted concentrationsthroughout the zone of attenuation. The result would be higherallowable concentration predictions at the monitoring points.•Virk wtiwifstnfU-A N/v-Vt I/**. vitaA. V>. •yyirs.'VJAAVJ/wjA MiAV/vAnJ-.. *.atrigger a remedial action. We do not anticipate this occurringbecause -an underestimation of attenuation is conservative and mayshow a certain amount of degradation beyond the zone ofattenuation. The designer would have to provide additionalprotection such as a geoniembrane, to the facility. Both oftr^se see . ics will be difficult to initiate, however, becauset. i groun^.-ater impact ass.^sment must be performed with reliable

methods and site-specific information which rust be supported bythe applicant.

An alternative monitoring strategy was suggested, based upona model rule developed by the National Solid Naste ManagementAssociation and WMI. No standards are established, the operatormonitors groundwater quality at wells located at a point 500 feetfrom the waste boundary. If a statistically significant increasein the concentration of any indicator parameter is detected, thenan assessment monitoring program is established. If the facilityis the cause of the discharge, then the operator performs a riskassessment to determine if the facility poses a 'reasonable pro-bability of adverse effects on-human health and the environment.*(Public Comment 47). This approach is not recommended because"the probability of adverse effects on human health and the envi-ronment" should be established before a permit is issued, notafter contamination has been observed. A risk assessment isunnecessary in all cases. All water must be protected to a cer-tain degree; it makes no difference if the adverse impact is toan existing or potential source of drinking water. ExistingBoard regulations generally designate all waters for public andfood processing use. The applicable standards may be adjustedbeyond the public water supply standards if the water does not,and will not, serve as a public or food processing water sup-ply. This approach does not assist in confirming the success ofthe facility design. In order tc assess the success of the de-sign (which is the purpose of the monitoring program) the samestandards used to design the facility must be used duringmonitorin;.

Monitoring during the postclosure care period is nodifferent thar. monitoring during operation. Vie make no separateprovisions for postclosure monitoring.

There is a growing awareness that the methods and materialsused to construct the monitoring well affect the quality of thesample. Procedures for completing wells are constantlyupdated. We propose performance standards for monitoring wellconstruction.

Several types of casing materials are available for monitor-ing wells. Some casing materials may be fabricated frommaterials that may contribute contaminants to the camples. Ingeneral, the cost of the casing material is directly proportionalto its inert properties (Barcelona et al., 1983). Theperformance standard we propose requires the casing to not affectthe sample. This gives the operator the flexibility to choose awell-casing material that is cost effective for the type ofconstituents to be sampled. Because solvent cement typecouplings have beer, proven to release organics their use isprohibited.

All wells should be screened to prevent clooging. The sameprocedj s for desig-ing graded f<lters in the leachate coller-

tier, systen car. be use: tc choose properly sized grave, arc well-screen openings. As above, the screen should be made of a rela-tively inert material.

Barcelona et al. (19S3) state that it is "critical that thescreened portion of each monitoring well access groundwater froma specific depth interval. Vertical movement of water in thevicinity of the intake and around the casing Bust be prevented toobtain samples representative of that in the formation of inter-est." Rainwater can infiltrate through the backfilled materialand contamination can spread from an aquifer through the annularspace. We propose regulations addressing the sealing of theformation above the screened interval and at ground level toprevent the unwanted migration of water through the hole. Therequirements of Section 611.318, (g) 4, 5, 6, and 7 are taken fror

et. al . (.1983) .

Barcelona et al. (1963) eloquently describe the necessity ofa sampling strategy: "The importance of proper sampling of moni-toring wells cannot be overemphasized. Even when wells are cor-rectly located, constructed and developed, special precautionsmust be taken to ensure that the sample collected is representa-tive of the groundwater at that location. Care also is needed toensure that the sample is neither altered nor contaminated by thesampling and handling procedures." Testing the transtr.issivity ofthe formation is necessary to establish a sampling strategy.Field testing techniques are preferred. Gibb et al. (1961) makerecommendations for the collection of groundwater samples:

1) A brief 2 or 3 hour pumping test should beconducted on each monitoring well to be sam-pled. Analyses of the pump test data andother hydrologic information should be usedto determine the frequency at which sampleswill be collected and the rate and period oftime each well should be pumped prior tocollecting the sample.

2) The general rule of thumb of pumping 4 to 6well volumes will in most cases produce sam-ples representative of aquifer water. Foraquifers with unusually high tcansmissivi-ties, pumping for periods long enough toremove the 'stagnant* water column nay inducemigration of water from parts of the aquiferremote from the monitoring well. The cal-culations of percent aquifer water with timeprovide a more rational basis on which thelength of pumping can be determined. Samplesshould be collected in the minimur time re-quired to produce water representative of theacjif er .

3) A controller: ser.jling experiment, sirciler tothose in this study, preferably using a peri-staltic or submersible diaphragir. type pump,should be conducted to accurately determinethe chemical quality of the aquifer water andto verify the response of the monitoring wellto pumping as predicted from the pump testdata. Once the chemical character andresponses of the monitoring systems have beendetermined, key chemical constituents forroutine sampling can be selected.

4) Based on the sensitivity of the selectedchemical parameters," a choice of pumps forroutine sarr.pling can-be made. The use ofair- or nitrogen-lift pumping mechanismsshould be restricted to chemical constituentsinsensitive to oxidation-reduction reactionsand changes in pH. Although this study dealtwith inorganic constituents, the data suggestthat these types of pumping mechanismsprobably would also strip volatile organiccompounds froir. the water during pumping. Theperistaltic or submersible diaphragm pumpsand the bailer are recommended for most ap-plications. If a bailer is to be used, theprocedures outlined in the results sectionsof this report should be followed.

5) The monitoring well should be pumped at aconstant rate for a period of time that willresjlt in delivery of at least 95 percentaquifer water. The rate and time of pumpingshould be determined on the basis of thetransmissivity of the aquifer, the welldiameter, and the results of the samplingexperiment.

6) Measurements of pH, Eh, and specific conduct-ance should be made at the tine of samplecollection. These measurements should bemade within a closed cell, which will preventthe sample from coining into contact withatmospheric conditions. All samples shouldbe promptly filtered through a 0.45 urn pore*ize membrane and preserved according torecommended U.S. EPA procedures for thechetr.ical constituents of interest. '

Gibb ct al. (1961) also note that there are no clearprocedjres to deal with some aquifer conditions. Regulationsmust be flexible enough to accommodate emerging technology. Theproposed regulations allow the flexibility to deal with theseareas where the best technology is not yet clearly defined:

1. Sampling procedures for organic compounds are still evolvingand may, in some cases, be dependent upon the type ofsampling equipment, sample containers, distance to laboratoryand extent and accuracy necessary for the facility.

2. Sampling procedures for well's in cones of extremely low hy-draulic conductivity need to be evaluated because such wellscan easily be pumped dry before a representative sample iscollected.

3. Seasonal and other natural variations in water quality canaffect the interpretation of data. The establishment ofbackground wells upgradient of the unit can account fornatural and seasonal variability. The locations of back-ground wells are critical to the success of a groundwatermonitoring progratr.

4. In sitj sar.pling procedjres are desirable to minimize thepossible artificial introduction of contaminants into thewell during the monitoring procedure.

Monitoring devices for the unsaturated zone mostly take theform of collection lysimeters and pressure-vacuum lysimeters.Kmet and,Lindorff (19E3) reviewed the use of lysimeters to moni-tor discharges to the unsaturated zone as an indication of land-fill performance. Potentially, lysimeters located immediatelybelow the liner will provide an early confirmation of the assump-tions made in the groundwater impact assessment. A collectionlysimeter, which generally consists of a geomembrane sectionplaced beneath a waste disposal unit overlain by a permeable lay-er to collect groundwater and direct it to a collection pipe, canprovide an indication of the quality and quantity of seepage froma unit. The technology is relatively new but shows some prom-ise. An early confirmation of the assumptions to a groundwaterimpact assessment would provide assurance as to the adequacy ofthe design. The drawbacks to lysimeters appear to be that theycannot be repaired if they fail to operate properly and cannot bereplaced after the liner has been placed into operation. We donot take notice of lysimeters in the proposal but stronglyencourage their use at all new facilities. These regulations areflexible enough to allow lysimeters and other Methods of samplingthe unsaturated zone to be incorporated into a monitoringprograrr. '

The establishment of a groundwater monitoring network is avery important aspect of the operation of a landfill. An inter-disciplinary approach is r*iuired and detailed knowledge of thehydrolosy, geology, cher.is y, and design and operation of the

landfill are absolutely vital to the sCiccess of the prograr. Theelements of a successful monitoring program are perhaps bestdescribed by Barcelona et al. (1983):

Groundwater Monitoring is more complex and chal-lenging than the collection of reliable data in.natural surface waters. The lessons of past Boni-toring efforts clearly demonstrate the need formultidisciplinary inputs to planning groundwaterinvestigations. The input of both chemical profes-sionals and laboratory personnel is essential to asuccessful program.

The wise monitoring program director shouldattempt to consider carefully all existing informa-tion on local well drilling-practices, hydrogeo-Vvyi , vj/J. *J»/fc •j.v>-vt*.vfc\ VwjJvtV tA. -*vbVk •wtnft.Vc-uents on subsurface geochemistry prior to imple-mentation of a groundwater monitoring plan. Inthis way, maximal benefits will accrue from theconsiderable outlay of funds, time/ and effortinvolved in subsurface monitoring activities. Themost important result may be that in the future wewill be in a far better position to effectivelymanage and protect our groundwater supplies.

Section 811.319 Procedures for Groundwater MonitoringThis section outlines the procedures for monitoring. A

four-phase prograr is proposed: detection monitoring, assessmentmonitoring, a groundwater impact assessment and a remedial actionprogram. The standards for detection monitoring require samplingon a quarterly schedule. If' an increase in the concentration ofan indicator parameter over the maximum allowable concentrationis observed, confirmed and verified, then the operator moves onto an assessment monitoring program. If assessment monitoringconfirms that the increase exists and exceeds the maximum allow-able standard the operator performs a groundwater impact assess-ment to determine the potential impacts of the contamination.Only if the impact assessment predicts an impact to groundwateroutside the zone of attenuation is a corrective actionrequired. However, if contamination due to discharges from thesolid waste facility are observed outside the cone of attenuationin statistically significant concentrations, the operator skipsimmediately to the remedial action section. The impact hasalready occurred.

The operator is required to sample quarterly during both theactive life of the facility and the statutorily mandated minimuir.five year postclosure period. After the five year postclosurecare period, monitoring may be phased out by going to annualsampling periods, until monitoring is no longer necessary. Thisrequirement is intended to phase out the -monitoring systems on awell by well basis. It would not be unusual to find some wells

76

at a facility being monitored on a monthly basis, older onesquarterly, and sorr.e annually. If an increase in theconcentration of any constituent is observed daring the annualmonitoring period then the monitoring frequency in that wellchanges back to quarterly.

It is expected that the operator will monitor groundwaterfor a suite of indicator parameters. The indicator parametersare chosen in accordance with the criteria presented in subsec-tion (a) (3). The indicator parameter must be present orexpected in the leachate. The indicator parameter must beconsidered a pollutant or contaminant. It must be possible toestablish a procedure to collect a sample and analyze it toestablish the concentration of the constituent. One should notestablish indicator parameters for compounds that cannot bereliably measured.

The new groundwater impact assessment required by subsection(c) must be performed by the operator in accordance with thepreviously discussed standards for the impact assessment andcontaminant transport modeling. The purpose is to reevaluate theimpacts upon the environment by the unit. Permitted operationscan work with the Agency to interpret the results of the assess-ment and develop a remedial action program to control discharges

i.'fc "i/vyi/ir!. •vhit wi/t -Wi Vi.Wiiuift.VOTi.

The fourth step is the implementation of a remedial actionprogram which can range from minor operational adjustments to anelaborate groundwater treatment system. In short, any actionthat is necessary to assure .that water quality standards beyondthe zone of attenuation are not violated must be instituted.

The regulations on remedial actions assume that an "active"remedial action will take place; that is, the operator will per-form some mechanical function or construct • hydraulic barrier toprevent the contamination from spreading or to remove the contam-inated water for treatment. It was suggested that 'passive*remedial actions be considered as acceptable in this subsec- 'tion. While there are situations in which a passive remedialaction may be appropriate, this subsection is premised on thenecessity to prevent a "violation of a water quality standard byan active remedial action. If a passive remedial action is con-templated and if the remedial action would result in the tempo-rary violation of an established water quality standard then theoperator will have to either seek a variance, a site specificstandard, or an adjusted water quality standard (see Section611.320 (b)> in order to avoid one of the cleanup options. Thisproposal does not allow remedial actions which nay result in theviolation of water quality standards. The routine approval ofpassive remedial actions by the Agency is not recommended.

77

Section 811.320 Groundwater Quality Standards

The numerical limitations in this section are based upon theexisting requirements of 35 111. Adm. Code Part 302. Section302.105 states that:

Haters whose existing quality is better than es-tablished standards at the date of their adoptionwill be maintained in their present high quality.Such waters will not be lowered in quality unlessand until it is affirmatively demonstrated thatsuch change will not interfere with or becomeinjurious to any appropriate beneficial uses Badeof, or presently possible in, such waters and thatsuch change is justifiable as a result of necessarysocial and economic development.

The standards in Section 811.320 are based upon the existingnondegradatior. criteria established by the Board in Section302.105. This section, however, is inadequate to specificallydefine the maximum allowable concentrations and how and wherecontamination is to be evaluated. This section provides a morecomplete groundwater quality section that addresses discharges togroundwater by waste disposal facilities. Subsection (a)prohibits the degradation of groundwater beyond the zone ofattenuation. Thus it is vital for the operator to obtaindetailed knowledge of the groundwater flow regime and'backgroundconcentrations.

The operator may petition the Board for adjusted standards,if necessary, by utilizing the procedures in Section 611.320(b). The procedure in (b) (20 is to be used when the groundwaterin question meets all applicable drinking water standards^ Thisprocedure may not be used to allow degradation below anyapplicable drinking water standard if the groundwater alreadymeets or exceeds the standards.

If the water is already contaminated beyond the public watersupply standards then the procedure in (b) (3) is used. TheBoard may adjust the standard to whatever level is appropriate.The criteria in (b) (3) (B) are taken from the requirements forunderground injection control programs, 35 111. Adm. Code Section730.104, and have been modified to protect shallow sources ofgroundwater.

The existing standards for public water supply and foodprocessing water (Sections 302.301, 302.304, and 302.305) areused to define a source or potential source of drinking water.If the groundwater contains concentrations of constituents whichare less than the public water supply and food processino stan-dards then the standards may be adjusted to no more than'thestandards for pjtlic water supplies and food processing water.It has been asserted that these standards were not written andf-v/eloped fror a record with respect to gro> -Jwater and thatthese standards do not make sense with respe . to groundwater.

The intent of these requirements was to utilize, to theextent possible, existing Board water quality and effluent stan-dards. It is not the intent of this proposal to modify or revisethe water quality standards. The standards for public watersupplies and food processing waters apply to waters of the state,including groundwater. This interpretation is supported by theinterpretation employed by the Illinois Supreme Court (CentralIllinois Public Service Company v. PCB, 116 111. 2d. 397, 507N.E. 2d 819 (1987):'While there are no specific standards forgroundwater, groundwater is subject to existing water qualitystandards which vary on the use or potential use of the waterinvolved").

The procedures to be used for all adjusted standards in thisproposal are the procedures developed by the Board for adjustedstandards under RCRA. It is not necessary to introduce a newsysteir. for filing petitions, notice, conduct of hearings, aroother procedures within this section.

The "zone of attenuation' is roughly analogous to the sur-face water mixing zone. The intent is to provide a buffer areabetween the source of the discharge and the point at which theapplicable groundwater standards are enforced. The cone of at-tenuation is defined as a three-dimensional volume bounded at thetop by the ground surface or top of the saturated tone, below bythe bottom of the uppermost aquifer, and on each side by a planelocated at the property boundary or 100 feet from the edge of theunit, whichever is less. All contaminants must be attenuated bythe time the groundwater reaches the edge of the zone of attenua-tion. This distance is intended to accomplish severalobjectives:

1. Establish monitoring points as close to the unit as possible;

2. Keep the volume of geologic material that must be evaluatedduring a grojndwater impact assessment to a minimum;

3. Keep any potential contaminated area to an absolute Minimum;and

4. Establish an enforceable boundary at which an excursion (asignificant increase in the concentration of any contaminant,attributable to the unit, and more than the allowable maximumconcentration at that point) during the operating period islikely to be discovered before the end of the postclosurecare period.

In order to assist in the evaluation of the distance chosenfor the zone of attenuation, the Illinois State Geological Surveyperformed a computer modeling project. The purpose of the model-ing project is to quantitatively assess the potential for contam-inant migration through sequences of geologic Materials typicalto the state of Illinois using two landfill scenarios and sixcontaminants. The results of this work nay be usi~ to evaluat

the appropriateness of a 100 foot compliance distance fror. theedge of a sanitary landfill, outside of which no degradation ofgroundwater quality may occur during a 100 year period. As ofthis writing the project is still being conducted, but some re-sults are available and will be discussed and clearly demonstratethat the proposed distance of 100 feet is workable and practical.

Berg et al. (1984) mapped the upper 50 feet of geologicmaterials throughout the state of Illinois. They then quali-tatively ranked these sequences for potential for contaminationbased on the hydrogeologic and attenuation properties of thematerials. Fifteen of these sequences have been selected fordetailed evaluation in this study using mathematical models.Those sequences not modeled either are not likely to be landfillsites, are relatively rare in occurrence, or are too complex tomodel within the scope of this project. Brief descriptions ofthe fifteen sites modeled for this study are shown in Table 2.

Two landfill operating scenarios were modeled. The firstscenario consists of a landfill with a leachate collection systemover a clay liner which is three feet thick. The total head ofleachate in the landfill is one foot above the bottom liner.This scenario is similar to that proposed in Section 811.306.The second scenario represents current practice and consists of alandfill with a clay liner ten feet thick, a total head of leach-ate 10 feet above the bottom liner, and no leachate collectionsystem is in operation. The landfill operating scenarios wereremained constant for each site.

Two mathematical models were utilized: The Prickett Lonn-quist Aquifer Simulation Flow Model (PLASH) and the Random Walkcontaminant transport model.- This comparative modeling studydoes not purport to model any particular existing landfill. Foreach geologic unit the initial conditions, assumed design of thelandfill, leachate parameters, and gradients are the same. Onlythe hydrogeologic parameters of each sequence are changed. Thisprovides a test of the sensitivity of the proposed landfill linerand leachate collection standards to various geologic condi-tions. The results are most useful when compared to each other,not to the actual performance of a landfill in the field. Thetransmissivi ty, hydraulic conductivity and porosity values were

'3 shows the hydrogeologic parameters. Table 4 shows theretardation factors and initial concentrations of eachnant. Chloride is the least likely to be attenuated. Chloridecan, therefore, be considered a worst case .because it is likelyto migrate the farthest from the unit in a given amount of time.

Table 2: Geological Sites ChosenFor Modeling Study

Unit Description

Al Twenty feet of sand overlying fractured limestone.A1B Twenty feet of clay'overlying fractured limestone. •A2 Twenty feet of clay T>verlying uncor.solidated sand.A4 Tver.ty feet of clay overlying cemented sandstone.A4E Twenty feet of clay overlying sandstone.B Twenty feet of unconsolidated sand overlying silty-

clay.Cl Thirty-five feet of clay overlying fractured limestone.C2 Thirty feet of clay overlying a sand layer ten feet

thick.C2E Thirty feet of silty-clay overlying a sand layer ten

feet thick.C4 Tr.ir ty-f ive feet of clay overlying cemented sandstone.C5 Fifty feet of clay with discontinuous sand lenses.C5E Thirty feet of silt overlying clay.D Fifty feet of silty-clay.t Fifty feet of clay.F Twenty feet of clay over shale.G Tr.irty-five feet ,of clay over shale.

Table 3: Hydraulic Conductivity andPorosity Values Used In This Project

e:

Unit Hydraulic Conductivity(cm/sec)

Porosity

Fractured Limestone(Al sequence)

F r a c t u r e d Liinestorie(Cl seaaence)

SaneSandstoneCemented SandstoneSiltSilty-clayClay-Shale

Table

io-«" ID'3

l Q"~10"4

c10"?10"10-'10 I10"9

4: Mtardation Factors and Initial

.15

.15

.30

.25

.20

.45

.40

.40

.05

Concentrations Used in This Project

Contaminant InitialConcer.tratio-(mg/L)

Chloride 4000.CadmiuJr 0.4COD 9000=.Hethylene

Chloride 20.Triehloro-

ethylene 0.6Xylene 0.15

Retardation Factor

Sand Clay/ Sandstone ShaleTill

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0062. 607. 80.2 4940.

1.31 1.61 1.40 5.94

1.23 1.76 1.30 7.18

2.41 5.61 2.81 38.55.47 18.8 7.99 146.

Limestone

1.0081.7

1.16

1.20

3.455.74

Figure 1 shows the maximum extent of the chloride piur.es ata time of 100 years. Plumes have migrated more than 1000 'feet atthe A2 (sand), B (sand), Cl (till over fractured limestone), andC2B (sandy till over sand) sites. The plumes generated using the3-foot liner scenario generally have greater extent than thosegenerated using the 10-foot liner scenario. -For two geologicsequences (Cl-till over limestone and C2-till over sand) no mi-gration beyond the boundary of'the landfill occurred using the10-foot scenario while more than 500 feet of Migration occurredusing the 3-foot scenario. The reason for this difference inmigration rates appears to be related to the thickness of theconfining zone beneath the landfill. The extra 7 feet of confin-ing material (liner) for the 10-foot scenario causes an increasein the amount of time required for a particle to reach the under-lying layers. For the C sites underlain by clay till (all exceptC2B and C5B) this delay is enough to prevent particles fron-reaching the underlying aquifer within 100 years.

Figures 2 end 3 show maximum chloride concentrationsrecorded during the simulations at the 100 foot compliancedistance (botr. figures show the same data, however the verticalscale on Figure 2 only goes to 500 mg/L). For all except the Bsequence, the maximum concentration was recorded after 80 yearshad past. The concentrations generated with the 10-foot scenarioare much higher than those generated using the 3-foot linerscenario. This difference is due to the estimated mass ofcontaminants reiroved by the leacr.ate collection system. Section811.307 requires that the leachate drainage system be capable ofmaintaining a maximum leachate depth of 1 foot during the wettestmonth of the year. The steady state assumption of 1 foot isconservative. That head represents a 90% reduction in the volumeof leachate in the landfill for the 10-foot scenario; thereforethe corresponding mass of contaminants for the 3-foot liner-leachate collection scenario was reduced by 90 percent from themass used for the 10-foot scenario.

The 15 geologic sites can be placed into three generalgroups: those sites for which it will be .extremely difficult orimpossible to demonstrate compliance with the nondegradationstandards, those sites for which the nondegradation standardswill be easily met, and an in between group. Depending on leach-ate strength and amount, local geologic conditions and theaddition of engineered features, such as a geomembrane, many ofthese borderline sites might be made acceptable for solid wastedisposal.

» * M. * *-3 • <a it ma* c cHi HI "I 1-1 •*

» =ri» ..• o3 r. KJui M 31it HI n

ft O M* rr " »••7« •o t> c« S B3 • a

X • H*•• •" HI M• 3 o ct

c i •M, 3 i- 3« "O r»O arta M. >-. e

• O HIO r» 3» nr» 3 O BTO O HIM

it ow • no> r> •> H-o 3-n Ao «-3-(t

O

• aoiof» <» •-• nt> o •i« <o rrH C *••• H-o >~n o8M-.8

* >

i:

• M-c r»<a • •• H 9 Ha •> o10 rr i* Mit it • eCM. °

ft M f-Msr o 91 HIt O II

:

3

8vdPIfi_

i :^^ 1

yy 'LIP 'II -^ :v v: 'X3t^ Ki 1

«• K w MI • c' e 01 o • cu t i r t

ixito w wo. uae-wi ocuirno-.

If

^^

!\\\\\\

&& ™

< - « 2 M M i c i c 9 a t w e i e M ( t r t

Figure 2z !Uii»uB Concentration of Chlorides at Point ofCompliance. See Table 2 for a description of each geologic•equence. This figure ahows the Maximum concentration predictedat a point 100 feet downgradient from the landfill within a 10Cytar tir period after waste placement. Range shown is froir 0 to500 mg/

*.• t r *

Figure 3: H»xi«u» Concentration of Chlorides at Point ofCocplianee. See Table 2 for • description of each geologicsequence. This figure shows the aaxiMum concentration predictedat a point 100 feet dovngradient from the landfill within a 100year time period after waste placement. The range shown is from0 to 600C mg/L.

The groundwater iir.pact assessment methodology is sensitiveto changes in geology. The Al, A2, and A4B sites all clearlyshow contaminant movement past the zone of attenuation. It isunlikely that any design will be sufficient to contain pollutantsIn accordance with the water quality standards described in Sec-tion 811.320. Any seepage from a facility located within any ofthese sites will quickly migrate out of the zone of attenua-tion. Figure 4 shows the distance the plume will travel overtime.

No migration beyond the zone of attenuation was predictedfor sites C4, C5, D, E, F and G-with the liner and leachate col-lection system designs proposed in Part 811, as shown in Figures5 and 6. The groundwater impact assessment is likely to demon-strate that facilities located-at these sites will be incompliance with the groundwater standards. The Cl, C2 and C2Bsites show small increases in chloride concentration at thecompliance point within 100 years. These are borderline geologicsituations where care must be taken when evaluating theimpacts. Site specific changes in geology or leachatecharacteristics rr.ay affect the acceptability of facilitieslocated on these sites.

For certain cases, it may be possible to contain contami-nants at sites in areas where aquifers occur 20 to 50 feet belowland surface (those areas mapped by Berg et al. (1984) as C) andwhere a corpetent confining layer more than 15 feet in thicknessseparates the base of the landfill from the aquifer.

Cajtior. ir.jst be exercised for sites constructed over sandytill so that no permeable lenses of sand exist near the disposalsite. Otherwise sanitary 1'andfills in this type of environment(mapped as D by Berg et al., 1964) should be able to containcontaminants.

Sites constructed in areas where aquifers do not exist (Hap-ped by Berg et al. (19B4) as E. F, and G) and with hydrogeologicconditions similar to those modeled in this exercise willprobably be able to contain contaminants within the 100 footcompliance zone for long periods of tine.

If the compliance distance were 50 rather than 100 feet (amore stringent standard), only the C4, C5, E, F, and G sites mod-eled here would meet the standards after 100 years. If the com-pliance distance were 500 feet (a less stringent standard), theA4, A4B, C4, C5, CBS, D, E, F, and G sites would meet the stan-dards after 100 years. Therefore, a tentative conclusion is thatthe 100 foot compliance distance is reasonable. A lesser compli-ance distance may be overly restrictive while a larger compliancedistance may allow severe degradation of aquifers.

67

Figure 4: Distance Versus Tile Profiles for the A and BSites. See Table 2 for a description of each geologicsequence.

I

u » et *

Figure 5: Distance Versus Tiae Profiles for the C Sites. SeeTable J for • description of each geologic sequence.

«]~ '•* •

J 1.4C -.,^ 1JC-J

M:

«-|

uc -1.K -

u: -

K -J

'DC- uw. IKOWI eouinw.

MC-,

*.K«-M

c e iwt (vu»:i < r * «

Figure Ct Distance Versus Tine Profiles for the D, B. P, and GSites. See Title 2 for a description of each oeoloaicsequence.

Subsection (d) contains location and sampling standards forthe establishment of background concentrations. Because a non-degradation groundwater standard is applied at the compliancepoint it is in the operator's best interest to establish, beyondall reasonable doubt, the background water quality. All ground-water down to the uppermost aquifer should be evaluated todetermine stratigraphic variations.

The data from the groundwater monitoring program Bust beanalyzed by statistical techniques to differentiate minor changesin concentration due to sampling techniques, natural variability,and analysis techniques from actual increases in concentrationdue to an excursion. Subsection (e) contains minimum standardsfor statistical analysis of data. The operator nay choose any.method which provides a 95 percent level of confidence. Two com-mon tests are specifically mentioned and more sophisticate:techniques may be utilized if they meet the equivalentperformance criteria.

• Using the techniques outlined in the section on croundwaterimpact assessments, the minimum standards proposed for landfilldesign, and the groundwater quality standards proposed in thissection an operator should be able to design a solid waste dis-posal facility and demonstrate that discharges from the facilityhave a high probability of complying with the standards. Now itwill be shown that suitable areas exist throughout the statewhere the ir.:r,in<j:t design criteria can be successfully applied.In order to assess the applicability of the minimum design stan-dards to typical geologic conditions found in Illinois the Illi-nois State Geological Survey calculated the areas for which thegroundwater standards can be achieved (ie., the groundwater im-pacts are acceptable) by applying the minimum design criteria. Apreliminary evaluation, subject to correction, shows that of the35.6 million acres of land comprising Illinois approximately 47.0percent, or 16.7 million acres may be suitable for solid wastedisposal operations. Of the remaining areas some can be madesuitable by designing a more secure landfill utilizing, forexample, a geomerr.brane or a slurry wall system. Parts of theremaining areas may be suitable for operations where a less con-taminated leachate than assumed .for this study is expected to begenerated. For example, Table 1 shows that foundry leachatecontains Si'i'rerent contamVn*Tfrs Yn -tfiWerwtfi Twi e-Jr tficoncentration. The designer of a landfill must take thesefactors into consideration. Figure 7 shows Best of the suitableareas for landfills for the leachate conditions assumed in thisstudy (E, F and G sites), in black, throughout the State. Nearlyevery county has some suitable land.

The groundwater quality standards proposed in this sectioncan be achieved by utilizing widely available, economically rea-sonable, and technically feasible methods on almost half of theland in Illinois. The groundwater impact assessment procedure issensitive to specific geologic conditions and provides a practi-cal procedure for evaluating the adequacy of the proposed designof a landfill in a systematic manner.

PRELIMINARY HAPSubject to correction andverification

rigor* 7: Geologic Deposit* Suitable for Landfilling ofNonhasardous Hastes. This nap shows geologic deposits E, F and Gin black. These are locations where nonhazardous wastes nay besafely disposed by utilizing the minimum design criteria. Otherareas nay be suitable if the engineering design were improved byadding more containment protection.

Section 811.321 Operating Standards

After much consideration of the comments and testimony pre-sented at hearing the zequirenent to begin operations at the mostdowngradient portion of the facility has been retained and aovedto Subpart C from Subpart A. The advantage to beginning in thej»ost downgradient portion i* that all seepage from the facilityis likely to flow through the initial nonitoring wells and underthe previously filled areas. The disadvantages cited by severalparticipants were related to convenience. It is sometimes appro-priate to schedule operations to favor wind conditions to ir.ini-nize litter and to use higher portions of the fill during precip-itation. The regulations allow the use of areas other than themost downgradient under certain conditions.

S'jtcccticn (b) describes special procedures to be followed'during initial waste placement. The purpose of this subsectionis to trir.irr.ize dar.age to the leachate drainage and collectionsysteir fror vehicles operating over the structure and protect theliner frorr freezing by a placing layer of waste five feet thickover the entire liner before it is subject to freezingconditions. In the event the liner is exposed to freezingconditions the operator inspect the liner and show that it stillmeets the required specifications. It nay not be necessary torebuild the liner if no damage' is found.

Section 811.322 final Slope and Stabilization Standards

The intent of this section is to require the operator tcconstruct the final configuration of the disposal unit in a man-ner consistent with the postclosure land use.

Operators are encouraged to consider the setting and drain-age patterns when designing the final topography. To the extentpossible the facility should blend with the surrounding ter-rain. Slopes should be gentle, able to support vegetation, andprevent standing water. Principles of geomorphology are appro-priate when determining final grades. A well-designed facilityis likely to require little maintenance, is less likely to erode,and will not interfere with established drainage patterns.

Subsection (d) contains standards for structures over theunit. There is no reason to believe that carefully designedbuildings cannot be constructed over a waste disposal unit. Thestructures can be designed to vent gases away and not interferewith the operation of the cover, leachate collection system, andliner.

Section 811.322 Postclosure Maintenance StandardsThis section contains the standards for the operator's post-

closure care inspection and maintenance responsibilities forsurface disturbances. The intent is to require the operator toinspect the site each year and concentrate revegetation effo"Eor. areas that show erosion. In aome cases there will be no

choice fc-t ts recor.tour the s-jrface so that continuing erosior.problems are solved permanently. The minimum maintenance penocis five years, however, we propose a performance standard tomonitor until the entire surface is stabilised with vegetation.

8DBPART DSTANDARDS FOR IDENTIFICATION

AND MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL WASTES

Section 811.401 Scope and ApplicabilityThis Subpart is intended to apply to all facilities that

accept special waste, as defined in the Act. This Subpart iswritten to reflect existing policies for the transportation anddisposal of special wastes. Only those waste streams approved bythe Agency may be accepted at permitted facilities. Supplementalpermits are still required.

This Subpart is applicable to onsite facilities as well.Manifests would not be required but the inspection, testing anddisposal requirements are necessary to assure that only 'designated waste streams enter the disposal unit.

This Subpsrt is intended to supplement existing Part 809.Additional regulations for the management of special wastes areunder consideration by the Board in a separate proceeding.

Section 811.402 Notice to Generators and Transporters

This section requires the operator to provide notice byplacing a sign at the entrance to the site. The sign provides awarning to a transporter as to the types of waste accepted andpermitted at the site.

Section 811.403 Special Waste ManifestsThis section is based upon the Agency proposal and the

transportation record proposed by WMI. The intent is to maintainthe requirements for transporting and disposing special wastes ascurrently practiced by the Agency. Changes to the special wastesystem are under consideration in* a separate docket, R85-27. Asa result of any recommendations under that proceeding changes naybe made in this Subpart at a future time.

Section 811.404 Identification RecordThe identification record provides information about the

special waste to the operator. The record.contains any testresults or a certification that the special waste has not changedsince the supplemental permit was approved by the Agency. Therequirements were taken froir the KKI proposal.

94

Section 811.405 Record Keeping Requirements

This section requires all parties to retain records untilthe facility is closed and the postclosure care period is over.

SOBPART E:CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS

Section 811.601 Scope and Applicability

This Subpart outlines the minimum requirements for a con-struction quality assurance program. Each major structure at thefacility shall be constructed J»y utilizing the construction qual-ity assurance procedures outlined here. Facilities that areexempt from permitting requirements can implement these proce-dures, but are not required to submit the inspection reports oracceptance reports to the Agency.

The standards in this Subpart were taken mainly froir theUSEPA technical guidance document: "Construction Quality Assur-ance for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities" (1966).Although developed for hazardous waste facilities, many of theprocedures and recommendations .are directly applicable to non-hazardous waste disposal facilities. The standards of this Sub-part are framed, for the most part, as performance standards;however, the reporting requirements and statistical samplingtechniques are rather specific.

Section 611.602 Duties and Qualifications of Key Personnel

The operator is responsible for delegating the task of qual-ity control tc a construction quality assurance (CQA) officer.He do not mean to imply here that a single CQA officer is allthat is allowed. A different CQA officer may be designated foreach individual structure. In fact, this nay be preferable be-cause certain people may be more qualified to oversee the con-struction of compacted earth liners while others are qualified tooversee the construction of geomembranes. He see some difficultywhere two shifts may be constructing a facility structure. OneCQA officer must be in responsible charge of a single structure.

Certain functions, such as the collection and testing ofsamples can be handled by properly trained technicians. The CQAofficer is the supervisor responsible for the quality of workperformed by these designated inspectors.

The CQA officer should be a professional engineer registeredin the State of Illinois. The CQA officer must be familiar withthe design, the construction and fabrication techniques,sarplinc, testing, and inspection.

Section 811.603 Inspection Activities

This section outlines the activities at which a CQA office:shall be present. Some are already covered by a requirement inSubparts A through D, others are mentioned only her*.

Section 811.604 Sampling Requirement*This section requires the CQA officer to implement an

inspection and sampling program to insure the quality of materi-als and operations (such as ••aiding a geomembrane). The samplingprocedures should provide a confidence level of at least 95 per-cent. The sampling strategy should insure the quality of thematerials and procedures used:'

Section TTT.I.W3 •toweuiwrtttft.Vwh -Three types: of documentation are required: daily reports,

filled out by the CQA officer, inspection reports from eachinspector which are included in the daily report, and acceptancereports, which includes all daily reports and the as-builtdrawings.

The daily inspection reports are each inspector's record oftheir daily activities. They are incorporated into the CQA offi-cer's daily summary.

When a major phase of construction is complete the CQA offi-cer prepares an acceptance report. He do not provide a specificdefinition for "major phase of construction" so that the operatorcan have the flexibility necessary to begin operations, after aportion of the construction is complete.

Section 811.606 Additional Requirements for Foundations andSubbases

The remainder of the sections in this Subpart deal withadditional requirements for specific structures. The most criti-cal aspect of this section is the requirement for an inspectionof the foundation for undesirable objects and soil.

Section 811.607 Additional Requirements for Compacted EarthLiners

This is likely to be perceived as an extremely criticalsection. We follow the recommendation of USEPA (1966) and Daniel(1985) and will require the construction of a test liner sectionto evaluate the materials and construction methods prior to full-scale construction.

The record contains sowe debate on the wisdom of fieldpermeability tests and laboratory permeability tests. In gener-al, field permeability tests potentially provide a more realisticdetermination of hydraulic conductivity in liners where cracking.

settling, lack of homogeneity, and improper breaking of clodsresult in channeling. Laboratory tests are less expensive thanfield permeability tests and can provide acceptable results wherecareful quality control results in no nacrostructurts and chan-neling. He propose that field testing be performed on the testliner section, in conjunction with a laboratory testing pro-gram. The purpose is to compare the two. If the laboratorytests compare favorably to the field tests then the adequacy ofthe full-scale liner can be verified by using laboratory tests.If not, then there are probably Bone contaminant transport path-ways that the laboratory techniques nay not be able to detect.

We do not recommend the u.se of field tests to verify con-struction of the full-scale liner for the following reasons:

1. They car. take months to run, the liner would be destroyed bysunlight, subject to freezing conditions or other climato-logical factors. The data would be useless to a contractor,who could not wait around the site for months while the testis being conducted;

2. Part cf the liner would be destroyed during the installationof the ir.f iltroroeter; and

3. They are too expensive to perform in the numbers requiredfor a statistically significant sampling.

It is, therefore, vital to establish a testing protocol duringthe test-liner phase to establish a sampling program that willgive values that may reasonably be expected in the field.

Generally, when changes in construction equipment, materialsor procedures occur a new test liner must be constructed. Astandard is proposed to allow the operator to demonstrate that anew test liner is not necessary because the change is not signif-icant enouah to change the conditions under which the liner isconstructed.

SDBPART GFINANCIAL ASSURANCE AMD POSTCLOSORE CARE

Section 811.700 Purpose, Scope end Applicability For Closure

This Subpart was taken form existing regulations in Part807. Several changes have been made to Maintain consistency withthe proposed regulations and to allow store flexibility.

The two Subparts in Part 807 (E and F) are combined herebecause the differences between operational requirements, closurerequirements, and postclosure requirements are now rather subtle.

Sections froir the existing Subparts have been deleted be-cause they are either covered elsewh > .in the proposal ^r are nolonaer necessary. These sections ir. j.ude: Biennial Revision of

of Cost Estimates, Interim Formula for Cost Estimates, and Timefor Submission of Financial Assurance. Changes to the post-closure financial assurance sections are related to calculationof cost estimates, revisions to cost estimates and length ofapplicability of financial assurance. Section 811.700 combinesprevious Sections 807.600 and 807.601.

Section 811.701 Upgrading Financial AssuranceThe operator is required to upgrade the cost estimate when-

ever a change is made that affects the closure or postclosurecare costs. A provision (subsection (c» requires the Agency toalways retain an amount equal to five years of postclosurecare. This provision is expected to be useful during the last :five years of the design period.' After the design period is upthe postclosure care period is extended, if necessary, for fiveir.ore years.

Section 811.704 Cost Estimate for Closure and Postclosure Care

The standards in Part 811 are used as the basis for a costestimate. This section contains additional requirements forestimating postclosure costs.

Subsection (c) requires the operator to base the estimate onthe highest costs for closure during the next term of permit,which is no mare than five years. The cost estimate will berecalculated at every permit renewal to account for work per-formed in the last five years and an estimate of closure costsfor the coming five years. The cost estimates will increase eachpermit term in proportion to the amount of disturbance. This isa much more cost effective method of assessing financial assur-ance than the existing requirements for an estimate of the entirecost of closure for the entire facility at maximum disturbance.

The requirements for subsection (e) are taken from Section807.621 (d) (2). Another item is added to prohibit an operatorfrom deducting the value of landfill gas processed and sold to athird party.

The items in subsection (h) are intended to be considered inaddition to any required in Part 811. An extra item is (h)(3). This requires the operator to post financial assurance foralternate landfill gas disposal when gas is shipped or sold to anoffsite processor. The reason this item is added is to assurethat, should access to the offsite processing facility be elimi-nated, an alternate disposal system can be implemented.

Subsection (h) (4) provides guidance on postclosure care forthose facilities where waste stabilization is still occurringafter the end of the design period. In this case the postclosurecare period is extended for five more years.

Section 811.705 Revision of Cost Estimate

This section requires an operator to revise the cost esti-mate at every permit renewal (every five years) instead of everytwo y.ears, as now required.

Sections 811.706 to Sections 811.715 are taken directly fromthe existing requirements in Part 607. Subpart F. The onlychanges have been to require all instruments such as letters ofcredit, bonds, and self insurance to expire in five years, thusthe financial assurance will be-consistently evaluated in fiveyear blocks.

C. Discussion of Tart 812; Informationto be Submitted in a Perff.it Application

This Pert applies to all permitted operations. In effectthis is a listing of all the information that must be submittedin a permit application. All of the information must be subr.it-ted in order to have a complete application. Subpart A containsrequirements for all waste disposal facilities. Subpart Bcontains additional requirements for inert waste disposalfacilities and Subpart C contains additional requirements forputrescible and chemical waste disposal facilities.

The intent of this Section 812.104 is to require a demon-stration 'by the applicant that the proper local governmentauthority has beer, apprised of the plans for a waste disposalfacility and approval is either granted or pending. Lack ofapproval should not hold up, the determination of a completeapplication, however, the requirements of this section must befulfilled by the Agency decision deadline date or the Agency maydeny the application.

The Aaency argued that proper local government authoritymust be provided before the teview of a permit application by theAgency should be initiated. However, it appears that the Act isdesigned to accommodate concurrent review of the permit applica-tion while under review by a local government. The applicant isrequired to furnish proof prior to the Agency deadline date.

The balance of this Part requires little background anddiscussion. The naps and narrative descriptions are necessaryfor the Agency to review the application for compliance. It isintended to be as complete as possible and to act as a sort ofchecklist for an applicant.

99

D. Discussion of Part 633:Procedures for Perir.it Applications,

Renewals and Modifications

SOBPAKT APROCEDURES FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS

Section 813.101 Scope and Applicability

Part 813 applies only to facilities requiring permits.Onsite facilities are exempt from these requirements pursuant toSection 21 (d) of the Act. Subpart A contains the proceduresapplicable to permit applications. These same procedures arealso used for significant modifications, renewals, and for therepermitting of existing facilities.

Section 813.102 Delivery of Permit Application

This language is taken directly from the existing require-ments in 35 111. Adr. Code 807.205 (e). Several participantssuggested that this requirement is inappropriate because thereare no consequences in not following the standards, that thestandards are out of date because delivery methods such as over-night express services and messenger services are not consid-ered.

Ir, response to these comments several modifications areproposed. First, the section has been modified, to require theapplicant to obtain a receipt from the Agency or an acknow-ledgment that the Agency received the application on a date cer-tain. In the absence of a receipt, the Agency determines theapplicable decision deadline date. The applicant may utilize anytype of service that will provide a signed, dated receipt.

Section 813.103 Agency Review for a Complete PilingThe development of a new, comprehensive set of standards

also necessitates a reevaluation of the procedures to obtain apermit. Several standards in Part 811 require other governmentagencies to make determinations prior to review by the Agency.Part 811 also substantially increases the amount and scope ofinformation to be submitted by the applicant. The Agency shouldfocus its finite resources to the review of permit applicationswhich contain all of the required information. To address thesetwo issues we recommend the adoption of a two phase review. Thefirst phase is a review by the Agency to determine whether allthe elements required in Part 812 are included in the permit ap-plication. The second is a review of the information forcompliance.

Section 813.103 contains a new procedure requiring theAgency to find an application "complete" or "incomplete" within*,-* -buys, -y* VAvt.--. -VIA. Vyvwi wuv.. Vi&wr.. *Jiiv vpjfJAv:^ if. \.\\incomplete iterrs, all other iteir.s not addressed by the Agency are

assumed to be complete. The applicant will then have an unspeci-fied time period in which to gather all of the necessary informa-tion and amend the application. Upon filing this new informationthe Agency has 45 days to make a finding of completeness, if theapplication is still incomplete the Agency notifies the applicantand the process begins again, with a (presumably) shorter list ofincomplete items. Each time an amended application is filed the90 or 180 day "clock* atartc again, from sero. Once the Agencyfinds an application complete only the applicant can waive thedeadline for Agency decision.

Section 813.104 Agency Decision Deadlines

It is appropriate to paraphrase the Act at this point to •state the ir.ir.itr.jri Agency decision deadline. Only the applicantmay allow a waiver of the deadline.

The wore "landfill" appears in this section instead of fa-cility. TME is intended to direct the Agency and an applicantto the Act to determine the mandated deadline. This section wasnet intended tc limit the scope of the Act in this regard.

Section 813.105 Agency Concurrence on Phase I and Phase IIGeohydrological Investigations

This section is intended to provide an incentive for theAgency and a potential applicant to discuss, prior to the inves-tigation, the plans for a detailed site investigation. The threephase investigation should involve consultation with the Agency,particularly durine the planning of each phase. If the applicantperforms the studies as arranged with the Agency then the Agencymay not find the Phase I or Phase II investigations incomplete."VifA vwxvw. -irvs.«L "in*. *f.f>s.ex the. *bjLLLt_v, at the. Aoejity. to find aPhase III investigation incomplete and request additionalinformation.

This review process is discretionary on the part of both theAgency and a potential applicant. An applicant need not solicitAgency concurrence to conduct an investigation. The Agency naychoose not to review the information or nay decide not to issue aconcurrence. Neither of these could prevent the applicant frorcperforming an investigation* Therefore, an appeal mechanism isnot necessary.

He emphasize that Agency concurrence of the plans for aninvestigation is not to be considered approval of the site forwaste disposal purposes, nor is it necessarily an acceptance ofthe data generated by the plan. The Agency is only agreeing thatthe study, as proposed, will meet the minimum requirements, base:upor. the existing site-specific information. Ultimately, the in-vestigator will heve to convince the Agency with the inforir.atior.in a perir.it application that the hydrogeologic investigation wasconducted i ,c;ordance with all requirements, that enough infor-m»*ion exii « to perforir the groundwater impact assessment, and a

groundwater monitoring system can be designed and implemented,if the Agency issued a concurrence and the investigation wascarried out in strict compliance with the plan for that investi-gation, "tnen "tn« -pvnrVi »pp*.iVe*Vitni -fafy tWt Ve -bwwnftfwith rtcpect to an inadequate hydrogeologic investigation.

Section 813.106 Standards foe Issuance of • Permit and Section•13.10? Standards for Denial of a Pe»it

The minimum standards to be followed by the Agency are foundin the Act, which are paraphrased here for continuity and con-venience.

Section 813.108 Peruit Mo Defense

This section was taken from- 35 111. Adm. Code 807.208.

Section 813.109 Tern of Permit

This requirement follows the Agency's proposal to liir.it theduration of a permit to no more than five years of disposal oper-ations. The Agency will then have the opportunity' to review theexisting monitoring systems and operating plans and recommendmodifications, if necessary to maintain compliance with the regu-lations. In response to comments this section has been modifiedto require a time period of five years, not a cumulative periodof five years. In addition, financial assurance must be updatedand renewed every five years.

Many perticipsnts criticized this requirement as burdensome,indicating that financial assistance such as loans would be dif-ficult or impossible to secure unless a permit were issued forthe life of the facility. This contention was not supported bydocumentation fror, financial experts or loan officers. We spec-ulate that the consequences of a five year term of permit wouldbe far less dire than predicted. Many other permits are issuedfor five year terms: NPOES permits are issued for five yearterms, air discharge permits are issued for five year terms, coalmining permits are issued for five year terns, hazardous wastepermits are issued for five year terms but may be extended by theAgency for up to ten years. While the requirements to renew apermit may be considered burdensome and Ministerial there appearto be no documented cases of an operator's Inability to obtaincapital solely on the basis of the term of the permit.

Section 813.111 Transfer of Permits

The intent of this section is to assure that when a permitis transferred froir one operator to another a demonstration offinancial assurance is made by the new operator.

Section 813.112 Draft Approved Permits

The issuance of a draft permit is discretionary on the partof the Agency. This section makes clear that such permits arefor informational purposes. Because they do not represent finalAgency action, they are not appealable to the Board.

Section 813.113 Authorization to Engage in ExperimentalPractices

This section is intended to provide operators an opportunityto utilize experimental practices at solid waste disposal facili-ties. It is to be used when »n experiment cannot be conducted inaccordance with all of the requirements of Part 811. While thisprocedure may seem more cumbersome than the existing "experi-mental permit" section (35 111. Adit. Code 807.203) it provides anequitable and flexible process. The final decision on thegranting of an authorization is left to the Board, using the pro-cedures for adjusting standards in Section 28.1 of the Act.

Part 611 contains many performance standards that require ademonstration to the Agency that the performance of an alterna-tive technology is equivalent or superior to the design stan-dards. In the event that the applicant cannot make that demon-stration this procedure can be implemented to obtain informa-tion. The following sequence of events serves as an example ofhow this process is envisioned to work:

1. An applicant applies for a permit from the Agency. The per-mit application contains a request to use an alternativetechnology that will achieve equivalent or superior perform-ance to the applicable design standard. The Agency refusesto allow the alternative technology because the applicantcan not demonstrate that the alternative procedure car. workin this specific circumstance.

2. The applicant then petitions the Board in accordance withthe procedural rules established for adjusted standards forauthorization to conduct an experimental practice. TheAgency nay also participate as a eopetitioner in accordancewith the Board's procedural rules. The petition must con-tain a monitoring plan with a set of criteria to evaluatethe success or failure of the practice.

3. The Board evaluates the Merits of the experimental practiceand, if granted, issues an adjusted standard for the periodof time the experiment is to be conducted. The Agencymodifies the permit to allow the practice. The operatorgives the Agency linmtYa'i wkurvtivte uVi to Vw* wiiuinfwnecessary to restore the site to compliance with all Boardregjlations.

The operator conducts the experimental practice and monitorsthe resu.is.

5. At the conclusion of the time period the Monitoring resultsare compared to the previously established criteria and theexperiment is evaluated. If the experiment is a successthen the Agency returns the performance bond. Otherwise theoperator must perform whatever restoration work is necessaryto bring the facility back into compliance with all Boardregulations before the performance bond is returned.

6. The operator may utilize the experimental data for a signi-ficant modification to demonstrate that the alternativetechnology can achieve equivalent or superior performance.

The Agency is not required to accept the results of theexperiment as sole justification, of an alternative technology.More data under different conditions may be necessary.

An applicant may apply for an authorization from the Eo=:cat any time. However, experimental practices may only be con-ducted at permitted facilities. If an authorization is obtainedprior to Agency approval of a permit application the applicantmust still obtain the per IT it from the Agency before implementingthe experiments! practice.

The applicant is not constrained to a specific time liir.it toconduct an experiment. The Board approves a time limit when itadjusts the standards based upon information provided by theapplicant. Vie recommend extending this time period only underthe most unusual circumstances; otherwise, this procedure is opento abuse.

Section 813.114 Procedures for Contaminant Transport Models Dsedfor Groundwater Impact Assessments

This section is intended to allow the Agency to work withpotential applicants before a groundwater Impact assessment isconducted. Tne applicant can be assured that the model meets theminimum technical requirements and the Agency needs to evaluate amodel for compliance with Section 811.317 (c) 1, 2, and 3 once.Ne also encourage the Agency to maintain a list of acceptablemodels and provide technical assistance to applicants looking forappropriate contaminant transport models.

Several concerns were stated over how the Agency will reviewthe potentially hundreds of models that could be used to performthe groundwater impact assessment and the effect of using a modelnot yet reviewed and accepted by the Agency. If a model that hasnot been reviewed by the Agency is used then the applicant mustsubmit all the information required by this subsection in theapplication. In effect, the review and acceptance takes placeduring peririt review. This has been clarified by the addition ofa new subsection.

Tnere are indeed hundreds .of models that predict groundwatercontaminant transport. Some do not contain the necessary mech-anisms to predict attenuation, come produce output that is unus-able for a groundwater impact assessment, many contain insuf-ficient .documentation to allow the Agency to review them, othersdo not perform the necessary tasks to allow • groundwater impactassessment, and others require data that cannot be readily col-lected by the investigator. It is not necessary to review everymodel, only the ones that may be used in a groundwater impactassessment.

Ne do not believe it is necessary or fruitful for the Agencyto review the code for a model. A simple analogy was presentedby Dr. Jennings (R. 1131, Docket A) to illustrate this:

If.-you were to do soire calculations you would be ex-pected to get up in court and tell the court and judgeexactly how your calculator worked.

We are all in big trouble if we have to explainthe electronics of our calculator. Right?

Well, in some sense this is like that. He have aprebiftive Tnatfr/me tnat Ys "Buppos b: to WOT'K "propeViy.Why should I have to testify in court on the details ofevery FORTRAN statement in that'code?

It is not necessary to explain the electronics of a calculator inorder to show how you multiplied two numbers together, you needonly show that you entered the correct numbers and that the cal-culator was working properly. Likewise with models, it is notnecessary, or even desirable, to review, line by line, theintricacies of a complex computer program in order to demonstratethat the theory is sound. Proprietary code may be utilized aslong as the background on the model is available to demonstratecompliance with these requirements.

SDBPART BPROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO

SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION OF PERMITS

A significant modification is defined in Part 610. An oper-ator may apply for a significant modification at any time. TheAgency may modify • permit only to correct a typographical erroror an error in calculation or upon an order of the Board.

The applicant refers to Part 612 and submit* only the infor-mation necessary to the significant modification. The same pro-cedures for application, review and appeal of a new permit appli-cation apply. This may seem excessive for simple modificationsbut there may be some significant modifications for a large,complex syster. such as, for example, a new gas collection systeir,or e new ur.it.

SUBPART CPROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE RENEWAL OP PERMITS

Permits may be issued by the Agency for up to five years ofwaste disposal operations. The information for renewal includesan updated groundwater impact assessment. Because the maximumallowable concentrations of contaminants at the »onitoring wellsare determined by the data used in the groundwater impact assess-w». U. must be periodically updated to reflect new operatingconditions or improved expYwtWitn. wrt. X*boratory data. Theoperator must also update financial assurance. Other intomraxvuj.includes anything in Part 812 that has changed. In some ways arenewal resembles a significant Modification. He ace no reasonwhy ar. operator could not use a renewal application to requestsignificant modifications to the facility. The operators mayrequest a permit renewal at any tine, however, the renewal appli-es tier, must be sub-itted 90 or 180 days prior to the expirationdate of the current permit.

SOBPART DPROCEDURES FOR TEMPORARY AMD

PERMANENT CLOSURE AMD POSTCLOSORE CARE

Section 813.401 Agency notification Requirements

This section, taken from existing requirements for closureand postclosure care, require the operator to notify the Agencythat closure has begun.

Section 813.402 Certification of Closure

The Agency confirms that each unit has been closed in ac-cordance with the requirements and the closure plan. The Agencyprovides the specific date that postclosure care begins.

Section 813.403 Termination of the Permit

This section outlines the procedures for terminating thepermit for a facility. A permit termination relieves the opera-tor of all monitoring and maintenance standards. The operatormust demonstrate that the facility meets all requirements forleachate quality, gas migration, surface stabilisation and sur-face water quality. Although listed together, it is entirelypossible to satisfy these postclosure requirements on an item byitem basis. For example, the landfill gas monitoring program mayhave been terminated years before the affidavit for closure isfiled.

loe

SOBPART EREPORTS TO BE FILED WITH THE AGENCY

Section SI3.501 Annual Report*All permitted facilities must submit annual reports. Such

reports contain waste volume summary data and Monitoring re-sults. This is intended to be a review for completeness. TheAgency has 45 days to review the report and ask Cor Moreinformation.

Section 813.502 Quarterly Groundwater ReportsThis section requires the operator to submit the results .of

the quarterly groundwater monitoring data to the Agency. The 'annual report is intended to be a summary of this data/ withappropriate statistical analysis and calculations.

Section 813.403 Acceptance Reports

Before a structure such as a liner and leachate drainage and*aUAatAan. s S-tem is placed into service the operator must sendan acceptance report to the Agency, documenting the constructionquality and confirming the design criteria. The Agency nay at-tach conditions to the operation of the structure or deny theacceptance report. le effect, the issuance of an operatingauthorization by the Agency is a permit action. The sectionspertaining to permit actions are referenced. All denials, condi-tions, and requests for more information may be appealed as apermit denial.

Section 813.404 Information to be Retained at or Near theFacility

This section is intended to apply to information such asdaily inspection reports and other monitoring results that willbe compiled and sent in an acceptance report or an Annual reportto the Agency. An inspector may request access to these docu-ments, so they should be available at near the facility.

E. Discussion of Part 614;Regulations tor Existing Operations

: StmPAKT AOniERAI. UQOIRMEMTS

*S«ction B14 .Itfl Scope anfc AppTicaDiVicy

These regulations are intended to apply to existing units.Units exempt froir. permitting requirements in accordance withSection 21 (d) of the Act are subject to the standards but neednot apply for a perir.it.

107

Section 814.102 Definition of • Mew Unit

An existing unit is defined as a unit accepting waste as ofthe effective date of these regulations. Units under con-struction (that have not yet accepted waste) as of that date areconsidered new units. Expansions to existing units are alsoconsidered new units.

Section 814.103 Information to Be Submitted In a PermitApplication

The intent of this requirement is to utilise Part 812 to the•aximum extent possible. Additional information to demonstratecompliance with Subpart 6 is necessary. The sections of Part 812that are not applicable to existing operations need not be sup-plied.

Section 814.104 Procedures for Obtaining a lew Permit to Operate

This section is intended to accomplish three objectives.First, it requires the Agency to modify all permitted operationswithin fojr years of the effective date of these regulations.Second, existing facilities which are unable to comply with thenew requirements or are planning to close in the near future canclose under their existing permit within two years of theeffective date of these regulations. Third, this section allowsthe procedures and time periods in Part 813 to be used to reviewand approve new applications.

Section 814.105 Standards for Inert Waste Disposal Units

This section is intended to clearly specify that all exist-ing inert waste disposal facilities are subject to all of the newstandards of Part 811. All of the standards in Part 811 SubpartsA and B can be implemented without redisturblng previously placedwaste and without drastic operational modifications.

SUBPART BSTANDARDS POR BUSTING OMITS ACCEPTING

CHEMICAL AND POTUSCIBLB WASTES TBAT HATREMAIN OPBN POX MOM THAN SBVBN TEARS

Section 814.201 Applicability

The requirements of this Subpart apply to all existingunits, including onsite, that accept putrescible and chemicalwastes. Units meeting the requirements of this Subpart may re-main open for more than seven years after the effective date ofthese regulations.

108

Section 814.202 Applicable StandardsThe primary requirement for units in this category is a

leachate collection system. It does not have to »eet the re-quirements of 35 111. Adm. Code 811.307, but it should be capableof collecting some leachate. This leachate collection system•ust be operated.

Existing units in this category are also subject to thegroundwater standards in Part 811. Enough site specific informa-tion should be developed to implement a monitoring program. Allexisting units must be in compliance with the existing federal.criteria.

Some requirements in Part 811 may be waived because of thedifficulty in retrofitting a liner or a foundation. Also, itwould be inappropriate to apply the location standards of 35 111.Adm. Code 611.302 (a), (c), (d), and (e) to existing units.

In response to comments received by several operators wehave proposed a modification of the design period to ease thetransition to a 30 year design period. The existing statutoryrequirement for postclosure care is five years, and we presumethat most, facilities have given financial assurance to the Agencyreflecting a five year postclosure care period. The pricescharged by operators presumably reflect the cost to maintain thisfinancial assurance for five years. It would be a burden toimmediately require a sudden increase (approximately a factor ofsix) in the requirements for financial assurance withojtproviding the operator with sufficient time to adjust prices. Itis proposed that the design period coincide with the length oftime a unit will remain open after the effective date of theseregulations. The regulations would require the operator toincrease the design period by three years for every year afterthe effective date of these regulations that the facility willremain open, up to a maximum of thirty years. Table 5 shows howthe design period will increase.

SOBPART C: 8TAHDARDS FOR EXISTING OKITSACCEPTING CHEMICAL MID POTUSCIBLE

WASTES TEAT MUST CLOSEVITRIH BEVW TEARS

Section 814.301 ApplicabilityMany existing facilities are not equipped with leachate

collection systems and are located in geologic areas that may beunsuitable for solid waste disposal. This Subpart is intended toallow facilities that meet the existing federal guidelines forsolid waste disposal to operate for up. to more than five years onpreviously disturbed areas.

Table 5: Increase in Design PeriodFor Biisting Operations

Years of Operation Remaining an.Ty«(years) (yearc)

1 or less ' 52 - 63 94 - 125 156 167 218 249 27

ID or more 30

nc

Section 814.302 Applicable Standards

Certain requirements of Part 811 are not applicable to thesefacilities. An existing facility cannot retrofit a foundation orliner. Some operators have attempted to retrofit • leachatecollection system (Knight et al., 1983) but we recommend thatthis practice be optional, not required. As above, the locationstandards of 811.302 (a), (c), (d), and (e) do not apply toexisting facilities. Although it is not stated explicitly, anoperator nay retrofit a leachate collection system to continueoperating .past the the five year, deadline. The operator would besubject to all of the requirements of Subpart B, however.

The groundwater standards for this class of existing facili-ties are less ambitious than for new facilities. The standardsin Section 814.302 (b) (3) are taken from the federal criteria.They apply at the edge of the unit and are applicable only inaquifers used for drinking water. The Board may adjust the stan-dards based upon site-specific conditions and a petition from theapplicant.

The limitations placed upon existing units in this categoryare intended to discourage their use and encourage all unitswithout leachate collection systems to close as soon as pos-sible. The area disturbed prior to the effective date of theseregulations defines the limit of this class of existing units.Haste may only be placed over existing lifts, not on newly dis-turbed areas. The limitations on special waste streams are in-,tended to-drive special wastes to more modern facilities equipped,with leachate collection systems.

Facilities that fail to demonstrate compliance with theseregulations are, technically, open dumps and must close withintwo years of the effective date of these regulations inaccordance with the requirements of Subpart 0.

SOBPART OSTANDARDS FOR EXISTING OMITS ACCEPTING

CHEMICAL AND POTRESCIBLE WASTES THATMOST CLOSE WITHIN TWO TEARS

Section 814.401 ApplicabilityThis Subpart requires facilities that do not meet existing

Subtitle D criteria or are scheduled to close .within two years ofthe effective date of these regulations to close under itsexisting Agency permit within two years.

The intent of this Subpart is to ease the work burden of theAgency and encourage borderline facilities to close as soon aspossible.

.11

F. Discussion of Part 835;Procedural Requirements for FacilitiesExempt froif Agency Permit Requirements'

80BPAKT AGENERAL •BQUIRSMENTS

Section BIS.101 Applicability

This Part requires the operators of onsite facilities toreport their ongoing activities to the Agency. While these re-quirements will be useful in collecting data and monitoring on-site activities they should no_t bt mistaken for a permittingrequirement. Nothing less than a permitting program equal tothat of nonexempt facilities will assure the protection of publichealth and safety froir, the land"disposal of solid waste.

The exemption for onsite facilities comes from Section 21(d) of the Illinois Environmental Act which reads:

No person shall conduct any waste -storage, waste-treatment, or waste-disposal operation :

1. without a permit granted by the Agency or in vio-lation of any conditions imposed by such permit,including periodic reports and full access to ade-quate records and the inspection of facilities, BEmay be necessary to assure compliance with thisAct and with regulations and standards adoptedthereunder; provided, however, that no permitshall be required for any person conducting awaste-storage, waste-treatment, or waste disposaloperation for wastes generated by such person'sown activities which are stored, treated, ordisposed within the site where such wastes aregenerated; or,

2. In violation of any regulations or standardsadopted by the Board under this Act.

Facilities which dispose wastes generated at the site withinthe boundaries of the site are exempt from the requirements toobtain a permit from the Agency. However, these facilities arenot exempt from the responsibility for properly disposing'allsolid wastes in a manner consistent with the Act and all Boardregulations. In order to assure that all facilities are in com-pliance the Agency must be aware of the existence of a facilityand must be assured access to monitoring data. The requirementsof this Subpart are intended to provide the Agency and the publicwith a report on each onsite waste disposal facility in Illinoisand ongoing monitoring reports on groundwater and other environ-mental monitoring systems.

112

Tr.is Pa:: does no; apply to facilities holding a perr.it fora landfill issued by the Agency. The requirements of this Pertmay be applicable to facilities holding other Agency issuedpermits, such as wastewater discharge permits'.

Section 815.102 Required Signature*

This section is similar to the requirement for permittedfacilities. A duly authorized agent Bust sign all reports filedwith the Agency

SOBPART BINITIAL FACILITY REPORT

Section 815.201 Applicability

The initial facility report is a complete description of afacility inclocing its design, operation, location, mo.-.i tor ing ,postclosure care, final contours, and land use. The operator isrequired to describe how compliance with all regulations will beachieved.

Section 81S.202 Piling Deadline

This section gives an existing exempt facility two years toprepare the initial facility report and submit it to the Agency.

New exeirpt facilities will be required to file the initialfacility report prior to the time waste is accepted.

Section 815.203 Information to be Piled

This section draws on the requirements in Part 612 to ex-plain the detail and types of information necessary to a facilityreport. In general, all of the information that would normallyappear in a peririt application must be placed into a facilityreport. The only exceptions are procedural requirementsspecifically aimed at permitted facilities: permit applicationfees, postclosure care cost estimates, local government sitingapproval, and signatures.

Existing facilities may be subject to less stringent stan-dards; the information to be submitted is adjusted in accordancewith the requirements of Part 814.

SOBPART CAHNDAL REPORTS

Section 815.301 Applicability

These requirements are applicable to exempt facilities. Therequirements are a slight modification of those for permittedfacilities.

113

Section 615.302 Reporting Period

All exer.pt facilities must subir.it an annual report for ear-year waste is accepted and the entire postclocure care period.

Section 815.303 Information to be SubmittedThe requirements in this section are similar to the require-

ments specified for permitted facilities. Instead of filing eachsignificant modification separately, each facility will berequired to provide a summary of all significant modifications inthe last year •

SOBPART DQUARTERLY GROOMDHATER REPORTS

This Subpsrt requires the operator to submit grcjndwatermonitoring dare or. a quarterly basis throughout the tiir.e thatgroundwater is monitored.

SOBPART EINFORMATION TO BE RETAINED ONSITE

This Subpart also tracks the requirements for permittedfacilities. Reports and data which has yet to be forwarded tothe Agency or information that is not required to be submitted tothe Agency but irjst bs retained nevertheless (such as construc-tion quality assurance reports) must be available at the site forAgency inspsctior.

III: REFERENCES

Adams, Barry J., Hugh G. Fr-aser, Charles D.D. Howard and-K.Sami Hanafy; "Meteorological Data Analysis for Drainage SystemDesign," Journal of Environmental Engineering 112 (5)f October1986, pp. 827-826.(Exhibit 2A, Docket D)

Ainsworth, C. C., R. A. Griffin, I. G. Krapac, «nd <W. R. *oy;"Use of batch .adsorption procedures .for designing earthen linersfor landfills," in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ResearchSymposium of the Solid and Hazardous Haste Research Division,U.S. Environmental Protection.Agency, Cincinnati, OH, Pt.-Mitchell, KY, April 3-5, 1984. (Exhibit 9, Attachment D, DocketA. )

American Foundrymen's Society; Foundry Landfill Leachates froirSolid Waste; Des Plcines, Illinois, 1976.(Exhibit 36, Docket D)

Anonymous; "Bentonite Slurry Walls Seal Off Landfill," Highwayand Heavy Construction, October 1986, pp. 44-45. (Exhibit 2E,Docket D)

Anonymous; "Design Considerations for Landfill Gas HandlingEquipment," Public Works, August 1986, pp. 56-58. {Exhibit 2D,Docket D)

Anonymous; "Drain system is installed to collect leachate fromLove Canal 'bathtub'," Solid Wastes Management Refuse RemovalJournal 23 (2), Feb 1980, pp. 20-36.(Exhibit 2C, Docket D)

Anonymous; "Oilfield Gas Processor Hunts Methane on Landfill,"olid Wastes Management/Refuse

p. 52. (Exhibit 2E, Docket D)Solid Wastes Management/Refuse Removal Journal 16 (5), May 1975,

2E,

Anonymous; "Oregon Landfall Seeks to Control Leachate UnderDifficult Conditions," Solid Wastes Management Refuse RemovalJournal -22 (9), pp. 20-H6~. (Exhibit 2C, Docket D)

Ansari, Antjad and Joseph Oven; "Comparing Ash/PGD Waste Dispos-al Options," Pollution Engineering 12 (5), May, 1980, pp 66-70.(Exhibit 2F, Docket D)

Arthur, J.J., I.A. Leone, and F.B. Flower; "Flooding andLandfill Gas Effects on Red and Sugar Maples,* Journal ofEnvironmental Quality, 10 (4), 1981, pp. 431-433. (Exhibit 2G,Docket D)

Ballew, Walter W. Ill; "Groundwater Laws: Opportunities forManagement and Protection," Journal of the American Mater WorksAssociation; June 1963, pp. 280-267.(Exhibit 2H, Docket D)

Barbour, R., S. Panter and . Taliacozzo; "HELP Rescues Leach-ate Calculations," Pollution T .oineering 17 (9), September 19loPF- 30r32. (Exhibit 21, Docket D)

115

Barcelona, Michael J., James P. Gibb and Robin A. Miller; £Guide to the Selection of Materials for Monitoring Hell Construc-tion and Ground-Water Sampling, Illinois State Water Survey Con-Samp

7, Altract Report Number 327, August 1983. (Exhibit 2J, Docket D)

Berg, Richard C., 'Siting of Municipal Solid Waste Sites;*Prepared Testimony Presented to the Illinois Pollution ControlBoard Novenber 14, 1965. (Exhibit 4B, Docket A)

Berg, Richard C., John P. Kempton and Keros Cartwright;Potential for Contamination of Shallow Aquifers in Illinois;Department of Energy and Natural Resources, State GeologicalSurvey Division; Circular 532 (1984). (Exhibit 4E, Docket A) '

Boqardus. Ellen R.: 'Gas Recovery: Hill It Soan &tAll Landfill Operators?" Haste Age 16 (3), March 1985, p. 79(Exhibit 2K, Docket D)

Bogardus, Ellen R.; 'Landfill Gas Regulatory Issues,' Presentedat National Solid Haste Management Association Convention, April29, 1986, New Orleans, LA. (Exhibit 2L, Docket D)

Bookter, Todd J. and Robert K. Ham; 'Stabilization of SolidHaste in Landfills," Journal of Environmental Engineering 106(6), 1982, pp. 1089-1T6T5T(Exhibit 14B, Docket A)

Booz, Alien ( Hamilton, Inc.; Source, Availability, and Reviewof RCRA Subtitle D Land Disposal' Data Published Since 19BO; Un-dated EP*> Draft Report.(Exhibit 2M, Docket D)

Boutwell, Gordon P. and R.'Kenneth Derick; 'Groundwater Protec-tion for Sanitary Landfills in the Saturated Zone,' presented atWaste Tech '86, Chicago, Illinois, October 20-22, 1986. (Exhibit2N, Docket D)

Bowders, John J., David E. Daniel, Gregory P. Brodervck andHoward M. Liljestrand; 'Methods for testing the Compatibility ofClay Liners with Landfill Leachate,' Hazardous and IndustrialSolid Haste Testing; Fourth Symposium, ASTM STP 888. J. k.——Petroi, Jr., K. J. Laeey and R. A. Conway, Eds.; American Societyfor Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1985; pp. 233-250.(Exhibit 13B, Appendix B, Docket A)

Brown, K. w. and K. C. Donnelly; 'The Occurrence andConcentration of Organic Chemicals in Hazardous and MunicipalHaste Landfill Leachate,' Draft Report, Texas A * M University,Soil and Crop Sciences Department, College Station, 1985.(Exhibit 16C, Docket A)

Bryant, John and Andrew Bodocsi; Precision and Reliability orLaboratory Permeability Measurements EPA ReportOctober i98£.(Exhibit 20 Docket D)

lie

Bucciarelli, William C.; "Pennsylvania Uses Liners to ControlGround Water Contamination from Landfill Operations," Journal ofEnvironmental Health 39 (3), 1976, pp. 184-185-. (Exhibit 2F,Docket D)

Buivid, M.G., D.L. Wise, M.J. Blanchet, E.G. Remedies, B.tl.Jenkins, K.F. Boyd and J.G. Pacey; 'Fuel Gas Enhancement by Con-trolled Landfilling of Municipal Solid Waste,* Resources andConservation 6, 1981, pp. 3-20. (Exhibit 20, Docket 0)Byers, H. William; Written Comment* Presented to the Illinois

Pollution Control Board, August 6, 1984. (Exhibit 3, Docket A)

Cadwallader, Mark W.; 'Selecting a Landfill Liner to Meet NewEPA Demands," World Wastes, pp. 6-14. (Exhibit 2R, Docket D)

Cartwright, K., R. A. Griffin, and R. H. Gilkenson; "Migrationof Landfill Leachate through Glacial Tills," Croundwater 15,1977, pp. 294-304. (Exhibit 16C, Docket A)

Cartwright, Keros and Frank B. Sherman; "Evaluating SanitaryLandfill Sites in Illinois," Illinois State Geological Survey,Environmental Geology Notes No. 27 (1969). (Exhibit 41, DocketA)

Casnoff, D.M. and J.B. Beard; "Assessment of the InterspecificRooting Potentials of Eleven Harm Season Perennial Turfgrassesunder Non-limit in? Moisture Conditions," undated manuscript.(Exhibit 2, Docket D)

Cherry, John A. , K.T.B. MacQuarrie and W.W, Ruland; "Hydrogeo-logical Aspects of Landfill Impacts on Groundwater and Some Regu-latory Implications;' Presented at PCAO/MOE Seminar on ProposedMunicipal Landfill Regulations, Toronto, Ontario, May 13, 1987.(Exhibit 2DL, Docket 0)

Clark, Thomas P.; "Survey of Groundwater Protection Methods forIllinois Landfills," Ground Hater 13 (4), July-August 1975, pp.321-331. (Exhibit 2S, Docket D)———

Clerici, John F. and Gary B. Collison; 'Analysis of underdrainfor waste disposal leachate control," Proceedings University ofWisconsin Municipal I Industrial Waste 5th Conference, MadisonSept 22-24, 1982, pp 255-271. (Exhibit 2T, Docket D)Colenutt, B.A. and D.N. Davies; 'The sampling and gas

chromatographic analysis of organic vapours in landfill sites,"International Journal of Environmental and Analytical Chemistry 7(3) 1979 pp 223-229.(Exhibit 2V, Docket D)

Colenutt, B.A.; "The sampling and gas chromatographic analysisof fatty acids froir. landfill sites," International Journal ofEnvironmental and Analytical Chemistry 7,(1) 15^9, pp 71-77. .(Exhibit 2U, Doci . D)

117

Cooper, H. H., J. D. Bredehoeft, and I. S. Papadopulos;•Response of a Finite-Diameter Well to an Instantaneous Charge ofWater,' Mater Resources Research 3, (1), 1967, pp. 263-269.(Exhibit 16C,. Docket A).

Cosier, Douglas J. and Robert E. Snow; "Leachate Collectionysto performance Analysis,* Journal of the Ceotechnical Ereering Division 110 (8), August 1984, P-1025(17).(Exhibit

Crooks, Valerie E. and Robert M. Quigley; 'Saline LtachateMigration through Clay: A Comparative Laboratory and FieldInvestigation,* Canadian Ceotechnical Journal 21, (2), 1964, pp.349-362. (Exhibit 16C, Docket A)

Crutcher, Anthony J., Edward McBean and Frank A. Rovers; "TheImpact of Gas Extraction on Landfill-generated Methane GasLevels" Hater, Air, and Soil Pollution 16 (1) 1981, pp 55-66.(Exhibit 2Y, Docket D)

Crutcher, Anthony J., Frank A. Rovers and Edward A. McBean;•Temperature as an Indicator of Landfill Behavior,* Water, Airand Soil Pollution 17 1982, pp. 213-223. (Exhibit 2X, Docket D)

Daniel, David E. and Stephen J. Trautwein; 'Field PermeabilityTest for Earthen Liners' Proceedings, In-Situ '86, ASCE SpecialtyConference on Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and S.tate University, Blacksburg,June 22-25, 19S6. (Exhibit 22, Docket D)

Daniel, David E. and Stephen J. Trautwein; 'Field PermeabilityTest for Earthen Liners,* 1905. (Exhibit 13B, Appendix G, DocketA)

Daniel, David E., David C. Anderson and Stephen S. Boynton;"Fixed-wall Versus Flexible-Hall Perneameters;* HydraulicBarriers in Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 874, A. I. Johnson, R. K.Frobel, N. J. Cavalli and C. B. Pettersson, Eds.; AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1985a; pp. 107-126. (Exhibit 13B, Appendix A, Docket A).

Daniel, David E., Stephen J. Trautwein and David C. McMurtry;*A Case History of Leakage from a Surface Impoundment,"Proceedings, Symposium on Seepage and Leakage from Dans andImpoundments, R. L. Volpe and M. M. Kelly, Eds.; Denver, May 5,1985b; American Society of Civil Engineers, New York City: pp.220-235. (Exhibit 13B, Appendix C. Docket A)

Daniel, David E.; 'Predicting Hydraulic Conductivity of ClayLiners.' Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 110, (2), 1984, pp.28S-300. (Exhibit 13B, Appendix E, Docket A)

116

Daniel, David E.; "Summary of Testimony Before the IllinoisPollution Control Board,' December 18, 1985. (Exhibit 13B,Docket A)

Day, Steven R. and David E. Daniel; "Hydraulic Conductivity ofTwo Prototype Clay Liners,• Journal of Ceotechnical Engineering111 (8), 1985; pp. 957-970. (Exhibit 13B, Appendix F, Docket A)

DeSaulniers, Donald E. , John A. Cherry and Peter Pritz;•Origin, .Age and Movement of Pore Water in ArgillaceousQuaternary Deposits at Four Sitea in Southwestern Ontario,"Journal of Hydrology 50, 1981, pp. 231-257. (Exhibit 16C, DocketA)

DeHalle, Foppe B. and Edward. S. K. Chian; "Detection of TraceOrganics ,in Well Water near a Solid Haste Landfill,' Journal ofthe America-. Water Wsr'<s Association, 1961, pp. 206-211.(Exhibit ,16C, Docket A)

•& A . Vif*v>fi•Gas Production from Solid Haste in Landfills," Journal of theEnvironmental Engineering Division 104 ( 3 ) , June 1978, p. 415.ir

i(Exhibit 2AE, Docket D)

DemetracopouloE, Alexander C., George P. Korfiatls, Edward G.Nawy and Efstathios L. Bourodimos; "Modeling For Design Of Land-fill Bottom Liners," Journal of the Environmental EngineeringDivision 110 ( 6 ) , December 1984, pp. 1084. (Exhibit 2AA, DocketD)

Deroe tracopojlos, Alexander C., George P. Korfiatis, EfstathiosL. Bojrodimos, and Edward G-. Nawy; "Unsaturated Flow ThroughSolid Haste Landfills: Model and Sensitivity Analysis," WaterResources Bulletin 22 (4), August 1966, pp. 601-609. (Exhibit2AC, Docket DJ

Demetracopoulos, Alexander C., Lily Sehayek and Raydar Erdogan;"Modeling Leachate Production From Municipal Landfills,* Journalof Environmental Engineering 112 (5), 1986, pp. S49-866.(Exhibit '2AD, Docket D)

Deaetracopoulos, Alexander C.; Sehayek, Lily; "Design consider-ations for a novel landfill liner," Journal of EnvironmentalEngineering 111 (4) 1985, p. 528. (Exhibit 2AB, Docket D)

Dixon and Bensel; "Statewide Landfill Inventory ProgressReport," Department of Energy and Natural Resources, HazardousHaste Research and Information Center Report RR 003, 1985.(Exhibit 5, Docket A)

Dixon, William G., Bruce R. Bensel, Edward Mehnert, DavidBrutcher and Donald A. Reefer; The Development of the IllinoisState .e Inventory of Land Based Disposal Sitea,Illinois Haz-

Report Numb9r HHRIC

119

Duell, R.K., I.A. Leone and F.B. Flower; 'Effect of LandfillGases on Soil and Vegetation," Pollution Engineering, June 1986,pp. 38-40. (Exhibit 2AG, DockeTTTi

Duggan, j. Carroll, and David B. Scanlon; 'Effects of Decomp-osition Gases on Landfill Revegetation at TVA's Land Between theLakes,* Proceedings of the Third Annual Municipal Solid WasteResearch Symposium, EPA Report Number 600/9-77-026, September1977, pp. 275-278. (Exhibit 2AB, Docket D)Dunlap, K. J., D. C. Shew, M. R. Scalf, R. L. Cosby, and J. M.

Robertson; 'Isolation and Identification of Organic Contaminantsin Groundwater,' in Identification/Analyses of Organic Pollutants___ter, L. B. Keith, ti., Ann.Arbor Science Publication, 1979,pp. 453-477. (Exhibit 16C, Docket A)

Dupont, R. Ryan; 'Measurement of volatile hazardous organicemissions from land treatment facilities,* Journal of the AirPollution Control Association 37 (2) February 1987, pp 168-176.(Exhibit 2AI, Docket D)

Dwyer, John, John Halton, Wendy Greenberg and Ron Clark;•Evaluation of Landfill Cover Designs," Draft Report to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, February 1985. (Exhibit 2D«,Docket D)

EHCO". Associates; Field Verification of Liners from SanitaryLandfills, EPA Report Number 600/2-83-046, June 1983.(Exhibit2AJ, Docket D)

Esmaili, Hojshang; "Control of Gas Flow from Sanitary Land-fills," Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division 101(4), August 1975, p. 555.(Exhibit 2AK, Docket D)

Fero, Rick L., R.K. Ham, and C.W. Boyle; "An Investigation ofGroundwater Contamination by Organic Compounds Leached from IronFoundry Solid Hastes;" Report to the American Foundrymen'sSociety, September 1986. (Exhibit 37, Docket D)

Findikakis, A. N.; Leckie, J. 0.; 'Numerical Simulation of GasFlow in Sanitary Landfills,' Journal of the Environmental Engin-eering Division 105 (5), Oct 1979, pp. 927-945.(Exhibit 2AL,Docket D)

Finno, Richard J., and William R. Schubert; 'Clay Liner Compat-ibility in Waste Disposal Practice,' Journal of EnvironmentalEngineering 112 (6), 1986, pp. 1070-1084.(Exhibit 2AM, DocketD)

Foreman, David E.; 'The Effects of Bydraulic Gradient andConcentrated Organic Chemicals on the Bydraulic Conductivity ofCompacted Clay,' Geotechnical Engineering Thesis GT 84-2,Geotechnical Engineering Center, Civil Engineering Department,The University of Texas at Austin, 1984. (Exhibit 16C, Docket -A)

120

Forseth, James M. and Peter Krnet; "Flexible membrane liners forsolid and hazardous waste landfills—a state of the art review,'Proceedings University of Wisconsin Municipal * Industrial Waste*th Conference, Madison, Sept 14-15, 1963, pp 138-166. {Exhibit2AN, pocket 0)

Puller, Wallace H., and Arthur W. Narrick; Boils in WasteTreatment and Utilization, Volume II Pollutant Containment,Monitoring and Closure, CRC Press, Inc., Boea Raton, Florida,1985.(Exhibit 2AO, Docket 0)

Ghasseiri, Masood, Rimm Crawford, and Michael Baro; LeachateCollection , Gas Migration and,Emission Problems at Landfills andSurface Impoandinents, EPA Report Number 600/2-86/017, January1966.(Exhibit ZAP, Docket D)

Ghassemi, Masood; "Leachate Collection Systems,' Journal ofEnvironmental Engineering 112 (3), June 1986, pp. 613-622.(Exhibit 2AQ, Docket D)

Gibb, James P., Rudolph M. Schuller and Robert A. Griffin;Procedures for the Collection of Representative Water QualityData from Monitoring Wells, Illinois State Water Survey and Illi-nois State Geological Survey Cooperative Groundwater Report Num-ber 7, 1981. (Exhibit 2AR, Docket D)

Giroud, J.P. and 3.S. Goldstein; 'Geonembrane Liner Design,*Haste Age 13 (9) Sept. 1982, pp 27-30. (Exhibit 2AS, Docket D)

Goodall, D. C. and R. M. Quigley; 'Pollutant Migration from twoSanitary Landfill Sites near Sarnia, Ontario,* CanadianGeotechnical Journal 14, 1977, pp. 223-236. (Exhibit 136,Appendix D, Docket Aj

Gordon Hark t., Hue brier Paul H., Kmet Peter; 'An Evaluation ofthe Performance of Four Clay-lined Landfills In Wisconsin,•Proceedings of the University Of Wisconsin 7th Municipal t Indus-trial Waste Conference, Madison, September 11-12, 1984; pp. 399-362. (Exhibit 2AT, Docket D)

Gordon, Mark E., Paul M. Buebner, and Peter Kaetr *AnEvaluation of the Performance of Four Clay-Lined Landfills inWisconsin,* "Seventh Annual Madison Waste Conference, September11-12, 1984, Department of Engineering Professional Development,University of Wisconsin - Madison. (Exhibit 16C, Docket A)

Gordon, Mark E., and Paul M. Huebner; *An Evaluation of thePerformance of Zone of Saturation Landfills in Wisconsin,* Pre-sented at the Seventh National Groundwater Symposium, September26-28, 1964, Las Vegas, Nevada. (Exhibit 2AU, Docket D)

12;

Grefe, Robert P., Paul M. Huebner and Mark C. Gordon;•Multilayered Cover Design and Application to WisconsinLandfills," Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Madison WasteConference, September 29-30, 1987, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 1-33. (Exhibit 2DN, Docket D)Griffin, R. A., B. L. Herrog, T. M. Johnson, W. L. Morse, R. E.

Hughes, S. F. J. Chou, and L. R. Foll»er» 'Mechanisms ofContaminant Migration through a Clay Barrier - Case Study,Wilsonville, Illinois," Proceedings of the Eleventh AnnualResearch Symposium of the Solid .and Hazardous Waste ResearchDivision, 0. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,Ohio, April 29-May 1, 19856. -(Exhibit 16C, Docket A)

Griffin, R. A., N. t. Shimp, J. D. Steele, R. R. Ruch, W. A.White, and G. M. Hughes; "Attenuation of Pollutants in MunicipalLandfill Leachate by Passage through Clay," Environmental Sriencoand Technology 10, (13), 1976, p. 1262-1268.(Exhibit 16C,Docket A)

Griffin, R. A., K. A. Sack, H. R. Roy, C. C. Ainsworth, and I.G. Krapac; "Batch-type 24-hour Distribution Ratio for ContaminantAdsotption by Soil Materials," American Society for Testing andMaterials Symposium on Environmental Test Method Development,ASTM Committee D-34 on Waste Disposal, Colorado Springs, CO,1985a. (Exhibit 9, Attachment B, Docket A)

Griffin, R.A. and W.R. Roy? Feasibility of Land Disposal ofOrganic Solvents; Preliminary Assessment Illinois StateGeological Survey Report Number 10, 1986. (Exhibit 2AV, DocketD)

Griffin, Robert A. and William R. Roy; 'Feasibility of LandDisposal of Organic Solvents: Preliminary Assessment,"Environmental Institute for Waste Management Studies, Universityof Alabama, 1985c. (Exhibit 12, Docket A)

Ham, Robert K. and Todd J. Bookter; "Decomposition of SolidWaste in Test Lysimeters," Journal of Environmental Engineering108 (6), December 1982, pp. 1147-1170.(Exhibit 14B, Docket A).

Bam, Robert K.; "Recent University of Wisconsin Studies on theLeaching Characteristics of Ferrous Foundry Wastes," presented atthe Foundry Solid Waste Disposal Conference, Ptnnsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, December S, 1984. (Exhibit 14B,Docket A)

Bam, Robert K., W.C. Boyle, F.J. Blaya, D. Trainor, D. Oman,T.J. Kunes, D.G. Nichols and R.R. Stanforth; "Leachate andGroundwater Quality in and Around Ferrous Foundry Landfills andComparisons to Leach Test Results;" January 1985. (Exhibit 38,Docket D)

122

Hair,, Robert K.; *The Generation and Characteristics of Leachateand Gas from Sanitary Landfill*,* Testimony presented to theIllinois Pollution Control Board, January 17, 1986. (Exhibit14B, Docket A)

Banashima, Masataka, Koreyoshi Yamasaki, Takeni Kuroki andKazuei Onishi; 'Heat and Gas Plow Analysis in Semiaerobic Land-fill,' Journal of Environmental Engineering 107 (1), 1981, pp. 1-9. "(Exhibit 2AW, Docket D)

Bart, John F.; "Using Flyash as • Bulking Agent,* Biocycle 20(1), January 1986, pp. 28-29. (Exhibit 2AX, Docket D)

Baxo, B.E., Jr., J.A. Miedena and N.A. Nelson; 'Permeability,of Polymeric Membrane Lining Materials for Waste Management Fac-ilities,? Elastomerics 117 (5), May 1985, pp. 29-36, 66.(Exhibit 2AY, Docket D)

Hemminger, Thomas E.; "Coal Conibust'ion "As'n "D'lsposa'i 'inIllinois," Testimony Presented to the Illinois Pollution ControlBoard, December 10, 1985. (Exhibit 3A, Docket B)

Herbst, C.M., G. Torres, Jr. and J.W. Richards; 'RegulatoryStrategy Governing the Discharge of Hazardous and NonhazardousWaste to Land in California,* Proceedings of the Seventh NationalGroundwater Quality Symposium,Las Vegas, September 26-28, 1984,pp. 345-357, EPA-600/9-85-012. (Exhibit 2AZ, Docket D)

Huang, Yang H.; Stability Analysis of Earth Slopes, New York,NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., 1983, p. 25. (Exhibit2BA, Docket D)

Bughes; Hydrogeology of Solid Waste Disposal Sites inNortheastern Illinois, United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Report 5502-0034, 1971. (Exhibit 45, Docket A)

Ruyakorn, Peter S., Everett P. Springer, Varut Guvanasen, andTerry D. Wadsworth; "A Three-dimensional Finite-element Model forSimulating Water Flow in Variably Satuated Porous Media,* WaterResources Research 22 (13) Dec. 1986, pp 1790-1808. (Exhibit2BB, Docket D)

Hvorslev, K. J.j 'Time Lag and Soil Permeability in GroundwaterObservations,* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterway ExperimentStation Bulletin 36, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1951. (Exhibit 16C,Docket A)

ICF, Inc.; 'Technical Resource Document for Obtaining variancesfrom the Secondary Containment Requirement of Hazardous WasteTank Systems;" OSEPA Report EPA/530-SW-87-002-B, February 1987.(Exhibit 2DO, Docket D)

Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources; TechnicalConsidera*inns Relating to the Siting of New Regional Pollution~Control Facilities; October 1, 1S64. (Exhibit 4B, Docket A)

123

Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission; Landfilling ofSpecial and Hazardous Waste in Illinois. A Report to the GeneralAssembly, August 1961.(Exhibit 2BC, Docket D)

Illinois Utilities; Croundwater Monitoring at Ash DisposalPonds and a Quarry Lanflfiii in Illinois, •ubmitted to cneIllinois Environmental Protection Agency, December 1983, in twovolumes. (Exhibits 3C and 3D, Docket B)

Illinois Utilities? Proposal for the Regulation of UtilitySolid Haste in Illinois, November 1, 1982.(Exhibit 3B, DocketnJennings, Aaron A. and David J. Kirkner; 'Instantaneous

Equilibrium Approximation Analysis,* Journal of HydraulicEngineering 110 (12), 1984, pp. 1700-1717.(Exhibit 176,Appen'dix D, Docket A)

Jennings, Aaron A., David J. Kirkner and Thomas L. Theis;"Multicomponent Equilibrium Chemistry in Groundwater QualityModels," water Resource* Research 18 (4), August 1982, pp. 1089-1096. (Exhibit 17B, Appendix C, Docket A)

Jennings, Aaron A.; "Croundwater Contamination Modeling forLand Disposal Regulation," Summary of Testimony and SupplementalDocumentation, June 13, 1986a. (Exhibit 17B, Docket A)

Jennings, Aaron A.; "Notes on the Quantification ofDispersion," in Improved Pathway Descriptions for Finite ElementModels of Subsurface Solute Transport, 1980.(Exhibit 17B,Appendix A, Docket A)

Jennings, Aaron A.; "Pfile - Concentration Profile Solutions ofthe Convective, Dispersive Mass Transport Equation,• 1986b.(Exhibit 17B, Appendix B, Docket A)

Jennings, Roberta L.; "Hydrogeology of Clay Soils as a CriticalFactor in Landfill Siting and Regulation," 1986. (Exhibit 16B,Docket A)

Johnson, B.; "System Manages Leachate After Landfill Closure,"World Wastes 27 (12), pp. 16-17, 1984 (Exhibit 2BD, Docket D)

Johnson, Bruce; "Gypsum Hallboard Creates Landfill Odor Prob-lem," Morld Hastes , July 19*6, pp. 53-54. (Exhibit 2BE, DocketD)

Johnson, David I.; "Caps: The Long Haul," Waste Age. March1986, pp. 83-89. (Exhibit 2BF, Docket D) —————

Johnson, Thomas M.; "Factors in the Design and Construction ofCovers for Municipal Haste Disposal Systems," A Summary ofTestimony for Presentation to the Illinois Pollution ControlBoard, Novembe. ?.4, 1965. (Exhibit 7P, Docket A) «n«oi

124

Johnson, Richard L., John A. Cherry and Janes F. Pankov;•Diffusive Contaminant Transport in Natural Clay; A FieldExample and Implications for Clay-Lined Haste Disposal Sites,'Submitted for publication in Environmental Science andTechnology, November 1986. (Exhibit 2DP, Docket D)

Keenan, John D.; "Landfill Leachate Management,' Journal ofResource Management and Technology 14 (3), January 1986,pp. 177-180.(Exhibit 2BG, Docket D)

Kinman, Riley N., Janet Rickabaugh, David Nutini and MarthaLambert; Gas Characterisation.-'Microbiological Analysis and Dis-posal of Refuse in ORJ Lanatiil simulators, CFA Report Number^~600/2-86/041, April 1986. (Exh'ibit 2BB, Docket D)

Kinman, Riley K., Janet Rickabaugh, Jean Donnelly, Martha Lam-bert and David Nutini; 'Effects of Industrial-Municipal Co-Dis-posal," Proceedings of the 1986 Specialty Conference of the Envi-ronment aT~E~ngTneerTng Division, American Society of Civil Engin-eers, July 1986, pp. 127-132. (Exhibit BI, Docket D)

Kmet, Peter, Gene Hitchell and Mark Gordon; "Leachate Collec-tion System Design and Performance—Wisconsin's Experience,'Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Madison Waste Conference, Miscon-sin, September 9-10, 1986. (Exhibit 2BL, Docket D)

Kmet, Peter, Kenneth J. Qjinn and Cynthia Slavik; 'Analysis ofDesign Parameters Affecting the Collection Efficiency of ClayLined Landfills,' Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Madison Con-ference of Applied Research.and Practice on Municipal and Indus-trial Waste, Wisconsin, September 28-30, 1981. (Exhibit 2BJ,Docket D)

Kmet, Peter, and David E. Lindorff; "Use of Collection Lysi-neters in Monitoring Sanitary Landfill Performance,' Presented atthe National Water Well Association Conference on the Character-ization and Monitoring of the Vadose Zone, Las Vegas, Nevada,December 8-10, 1983. (Exhibit 2BK, Docket D)

Kmet, Peter; 'EPA's 1975 Mater Balance Method - Its Ose andLimitations,' October 6, 1982. (Exhibit 14B, Docket A)

Knight, Stephen K., Lawrence R. Molsather, and Martin D.Bonne11; "Retrofitting an Existing Sanitary Landfill with aLeachate Collection System: A Case Study* Proceedings Universityof Wisconsin Municipal ( Industrial Haste 6th Conference,Madison, Sept. 14-15, 1983, pp 295-310. (Exhibit 2BM, Docket D)

Korfiatis, George P., and Alexander C. Demetracopoulos; 'FlowCharacteristics of Landfill Leachate Collection Systems and Lin-ers," Journal of Environmental Engineering 112 (3), June 1986,PP. 538-550.(Exhibit 2BS, Docket D)

125

Lake County Health Department—Bruce F. Sypniewski; "Monitori-.?for Water Pollution at Closed Solid Waste Landfill Site* in LakeCounty—Project Report September 1983," pp 48-52. (Exhibit 2BO,Docket D)Lake County Health Department—Michael Kuhn, Kenneth Bardo and

Gregorio Millan; 'Environmental Assessment of Fifteen ClosedLandfills in Lake County,* Lake County Health Department,Division of Environmental Realth, Haukegan, Illinois, June1986. (Exhibit 280, Docket D)

Lake County Health Department—Michael Kuhn, and GregorioMillan; "Illinois Department of Public Health and Health ServicesBlock Grant Project Report: Hater Quality at Fifteen Closed 'Landfills in Lake County," April 1, 1985 pp 54-62. (Exhibit 2BP,Docket D)

Leckie, J. 0.; Pacey, J. G.; Balvadakis, C.; "Landfill Manage-ment With Moisture Control," Journal of the Environmental Engin-eering Division 105 (2), April 1979, pp. 337-355.(Exhibit 2BR,Docket D)

Lee, G. Fred, Anne Jones and Chittaranjan Ray; "Sanitary Land-fill Leachate Recycle," Biocycle 20 (1), January 1986, pp. 36-38. (Exhibit 2BS, Docket D)

Lofy, Ronald J.; "Landfill Gas Condensate and Its Disposal."(Exhibit 2BT, Docket D)

Lu, An-Hua and Charles 0. Kunz; "Gas-flow Model to DetermineMethane Production as Sanitary Landfills," Environmental Scienceand Technology 15 (4), April 1981, p. 436. (Exhibit 2B'J, DocketD)

Lu, James C.S., Robert J. Stearns, Robert D. Norrlson, and BertA. Eichenberger; A Critical Review of Wastewater Treatment PlantSludge Disposal by Landfilling EPA Report EPA/600/2-82-092,October 1982.(Exhibit 2BK, Docket D)

Lu, James, Bert Eichenberger and Robert Stearns; Leachate fromMunicipal Landfills; Production and Management, Park Ridge, KJ:Noyes Publications, 1985, pp 144-161.(Exhibit 2BV, Docket D)

Lue-Hing, Cecil; Case History of Landfill Leachate Treatment ata Publicly pyned Treatment Works, Testimony Presented to theIllinois Pollution Control Board, June 6,1986. (Exhibit 15B,Docket A)

Lutton, R. J.; Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and HazardousWaste; United States Environmental Protection Agency, SW-B67,198J. (Exhibit 7C, Docket A)

126

•Massmann, Joel and R. Allan Freeze; 'Groundwater Contaminationfrom Waste Management Sites: The Interaction between Risk-basedEngineering Design and Regulatory Policy,—1. Methodology" HaterResources Research 23 (2) Feb. 1987, pp 351-367. (Exhibit IBX,Docket D)

Massnann, Joel and R. Allan Freeze; 'Groundwater Contaminationfrom Waste Management Sites: The Interaction between Risk-basedEngineering Design and Regulatory Policy—2. Results* WaterResources Research 23 (2) Peb. 1987, pp 368-360. (Exhibit 2BY,Docket D)

McBean E.A and G.J. Farquhart *An Examination of Temporal/Spa-tial Variations in Landfill-Generated Methane Gas,* Water. Air,and Soil Pollution 13 (2), June 1980, p. 157. (Exhibit 2CA,Docket D)

McBean, E.A.; Poland, R.; Rovers, F.A.; Crutcher, A.J.; 'Leach-ate Collection Design for Containment Landfills,* J. Environ.Eno. Djv. 108 (D.January 1982, pp. 204-212. (Exhibit 2CB,Docket D);McBean, Edward A., Anthony J. Crutcher, and Frank Rovers

Influence Assessment of Landfill Gas Pumping 'Water. Air, andSoil Pollution 22 (3) 1984 pp 227-239. (Exhibit 2B2, Docket D)

HcDowell-Boyer, Laara M., James R. Hunt, and Nicholas Si tar;'Particle Transport through Porous Media,* Water ResourcesResearch 22 (13) Dec. 1986, pp 1901-1921. (Exhibit 2CC, DocketD> i

McGinley, Paul M. and Peter Kmet; Formation, haracteristi.es,Treatment and Disposal of Leaehate from Municipal Solid WasteLandfilIs,A Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources SpecialReport. (Exhibit 2CD, Docket D)

Merritt, C.A., and F.G Pohland; "Leachate Recycle Investigationat an Industrial Landfill,* Presented at the 1985 Water PollutionControl Federation National Conference, Kansas City, October1985. (Exhibit 2CE, Docket D)

Miller, David H.; Prepared Testimony Presented to the IllinoisPollution Control Board, January 16, 1986. (Exhibit 5A, DocketB)

Mohsen, M.F.N.j "Gas Migration and Vent Design at LandfillSites,* Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 13 (1), March 1980, p.79. (Exhibit 2CF, Docket D)

Montgomery, Robert H., and Jim C. Loftisj "Applicability of thet-Test for Detecting Trends in Water Quality Variables,* WaterResources Bulletin 23 (4), August 1987 (a), pp. 653-662. ————(Exhibit 2D2, Docket D)

Montgomery, Robert J., Laurie J. Parsons, Stephanie H. Vrabecand ThoMas C. Phillippi; 'The Onega Hills Final Covet Test PlotStudy: Project Update and Data Summary,' Proceedings of theTenth Annual Madison Waste Conference, September 29-30, 1987 (b),Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 34-50. (Exhibit 2DR, Docket D)

Murarka,, Ishwar P; Solid Waste Environmental Research at EPRI.Electric Power Research Institute, Research Project 2485, 1985.(Exhibit 3E, Docket B)

Murphy, Piancis J.) 'Landfilllng Alone Would Bankrupt Us...andOur Farmland,' Biocycle 27 (1), January 1986, pp. 20-21.(Exhibit 2CG, Docket D)

Maber, Thomas; 'Mot a Closed Subject" Waste Age, March 1966, •pp. 33-39. (Exhibit 2CR, Docket'D)

Natale, Bruce R., and William C. Anderson; 'Evaluation of aLandfill with Leachate Recycle;* prepared for the Office ofSolid Haste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; December1985. (Exhibit 2DS, Docket D)

National Research Council, Ground Water Quality Protection:State and Local Strategies, National Academy Press, WashingtonDC, 1986.(Exhibit 2CI, Docket D)

Nordquist, James E., G. Stephen Mason, Jr. and Gerald L. Olson;•Clay Liner Hydraulic Conductivity: Comparison of Field and La-boratory Tests,* Proceedings of the 1986 Specialty Conference ofthe Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of CivilEngineers, July 1986; pp. 401-406. (Exhibit 2CJ, Docket D)

Ollis, David T.; 'Contaminant Degradation in Water,*Environmental Science t Technology 19 (6) 1985, pp 480-484.(Exhibit 2CK, Docket D)

PEI Associates; 'State Subtitle D Regulations on MunicipalSolid Haste Landfills,* United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Final Draft Report, March 1986. (Exhibit 2CL, Docket D)

Papadopulos, S. S., J. D. Bredehoeft, and B. B. Cooper; "On theAnalysis of 'Slug Test* Data,' Water Resources Research 19, (4),1973, pp. 1087-1089. (Exhibit 16C, Docket A)——————— —

Paul, Mark P.; 'Things You Might Hot Know About Landfill GasCondensate Disposal,' Waste Age 16 (2), February 1*85, p. 64.(Exhibit 2CM, Docket Ol————— ———

Peters, Nathaniel, Richard C. Warner and Anna L. Coates; "FieldVerification of the HELP Model for Multilayer Basardous WasteLandfill Covers,* Presented at the Seventh National SuperfundConference and Exhibition, December 1-3, 1986, Washington D.C.(Exhibit 2CO, Docket D)

126

Peters, Nathaniel, Richard C. Warner, Anna L. Coates, David S.Logadon and Walter E. Grube» 'Applicability of th* HELP Model inMultilayer Cover Design: A Field Verification and Modeling As-•essment,' Proceeding* of the Twelfth Annual Research Symposiumon Land Disposal. Remedial Action, Incineration and Treatment ofHazardous Waste, EPA Report Number 600/9-86/022, August 1966, pp.65-72. (Exhibit 2CN, Docket D)

Pohland, Frederick G.» 'Leachate Recycle as a Management Op-tion,' Presented at the Leachate Management Seminar, Universityof Toronto, November 20-21, 1980. (Exhibit 2CP, Docket D)

Quigley, Robert M. and Valeric E. Crooks* 'Chemical Profiles inSoft Clays and the Role of Long-term Diffusion,' preprint copy ofinvited paper accepted for A.S.C.E. Session, Geologic Environmentand Soil 'Properties, Houston, October 17-21, 1983. (Exhibit 16C,Docket A!

Quigley, Robert M., Valeric E. Crooks and Ernest Yanful;•Contaminant Migration through Clay below a Domestic WasteLandfill Site, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada,' International Symposiumon Groundwater Resources Utilization and ContaminantRydrogeology, Montreal, May 21-23, 1984. (Exhibit 16C, Docket A)

Reades, Dennis K.J 'Laboratory and Field Permeability Tests onClay Liners," Proceedings of Waste Tech '86, Chicago, Illinois,October 20-22, 1986. flTithibit 2CO, Docket D)

Reddy, K. R.; Special Waste Categoritation_Study, IllinoisDepartment of Energy and Natural Resources, Hazardous WasteResearch and Information Center, Report No. HWR1C RR 005, October1985, in two volumes. (Exhibits 7A and 7B, Docket B)

Reinhard, Martin, Naomi L. Goodman, and James F. Barker;"Occurrence and Distribution of Organic Chemicals in Two LandfillLeachate Plumes," Environmental Science and Technology 18, (12),1984, pp. 953-961.(Exhibit 16C, Docket A)

Rovers, Frank A., and Grename J. Farquhar; 'Infiltration and•tamtAVi\ V*hAH.w.-.* Journal of Environmental Engineering 99 (5),1973, pp. 671-691. (Exhibit 2CR, Docket D)

Roy, W. R., C. C. Ainsworth, ft. A. Griffin, and I. G. Krapac;•Development and Application of Batch Adsorption Procedures forDesigning Earthen Landfill Linersi 'Seventh Annual Madison WasteConference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Sept. 11-12, 1984,p. 390-398. (Exhibit 9, Attachment C, Docket A)

Roy, K. R., C. C. Ainsworth, S. F. J. Chou, R. A. Griffin, andI G. Krapac; 'Development of Standardized Batch AdsorptionProcedures: Experimental Considerations,* Proceedings of theEleventh Annual Research Symposium of the Solid and HazardousWaste Research Division, U.S. Environmental Pre1- ition Agency,Cincinnati, OH. April 29 -May 1, 1985, U.S. E. 600/9-85/013.(Exhibit 9, Attachment A, Docket A)

12?

Fey, William R.; "Batch-Type Adsorption Procedures forEstimating Soil Attenuation of Pollutants,* An Overview of aPresentation to the Illinois Pollution Control BoardInformational Hearing, November 15, 1985. (Exhibit 9, Docket A)

Sable, Gretchen V. and Thomas P. Clark; 'Volatile OrganicCompounds as Indicators of Municipal Solid Waste Lea c hateContamination," "waste Management and Research 2. 1984, pp. 119-g130. (Exhibit 14B, bocket A)Sallfors, C., and J.J. Peirce;' "Reverse-flow landfill design

for waste chemicals," Journal of Environmental Engineering 11 o(2), 1984, pp. 495-500"! (Exhibit 2CS, Docket D]

Sawhney, B. L. and R. P. Kozloski; "Organic Pollutants inLeachates from LansJfill Sites," Journal of Environmental Quality13 (3), 1984, pp. 349-352. (Exhibit 16C, Docket A) "

Schevon, George R. , and Guy Damas; "Municipal Landfills UsingDouble Liners: Seven Case Studies," Waste Age, October 1985, pp.61-70. (Exhibit 2CT, Docket D)

Shiraek, Steven J. and Douglas J. Hermann; "Effect of AcidicLeachate on Clay Permeability," Proceedings of the Eighth AnnualMadison Waste Conference, September 18-19, 1985, Wisconsin, pp.303-314. (Exhibit 2CU, Docket D)

Sowers, George B. and George F. Sowers; Introductory SoilMechanics and Foundations New York, NYs MacMillan Publishing Co.,Inc., 1970, p. 517. TExTTibit 2CV, Docket D)

Stanfield, Rochelle I.; "Dumps Are All Around Us, But NobodyKnows What Hazards They May Create," National Journal 17 (15),April 13, 1985, pp. 790-793. (Exhibit 2CK, Docket Dj

Stegen, Richard L. William J. Gresham and Michael E. Carlson;"Unified Ground Water Monitoring Program," Proceeding of theConference on Midwestern Ground water Issues, April 21-23, 1987,Indianapolis, Indiana, pp. 377 405. (Exhibit 2DT, Docket D)

Stone, Robert; "Reclamation of Landfill Methane and Control ofOff-site Migration Hazards," Solid Wastes Management Refuse Re-moval Journal 21 (7), July 1978, pp. 52-54, *». (Exhibit 2CX, ——Docket D)

Streng, D.R.; "The Effects of Industrial Sludges on LandfillLeachates and Gas," Proceedings of the Third Annual MunicipalSolid Waste Research Symposiuit, EPA Report Number COO/9-77-026,September 1977, pp. 41-54. (Exhibit 2CY, Docket D)

Swartsendruber, D., "Non-Darcy Plow Behaviour in Liquid-saturated Porous Media," Journal of Geophysical Research C1962, pp. 5205-5213. (ExhiHt lie, Docket A)——————————

130

Tansel, Berrin, James J. Noble and Thelma Munez-McNally; 'NovelCover Materials and Alternatives to Daily Covet,* Proceedings ofthe Tenth Annual Madison Waste Conference, September 29-30, 1987,Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 51-70. (Exhibit 2DO, Docket D)

Thomas, David R; Testimony presented to the Illinois PollutionControl Board dated March 10, 1916. (Exhibit 6A, Docket B)Thorburn, S., B.A Colenutt and S.G. Douglas; "The Sampling and

Gas Chromatographic Analysis of.Cases from Landfill Sites,*International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 6 (3)1979, pp 245-254. (Exhibit 2C2, Docket D)

Tittlebaum, Marty E.; 'Organic Carbon Content StabilizationThrough Landfill Leachate Recirculation,* Journal of the WaterPollution Control Federation 54 (5), May 1982, pp. 428-433.(Exhibit 2DA, Docket D)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of SolidWaste; Permit Writers' Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste LandStorage and Disposal Facilities! Phase One; Criteria for LocationAcceptability and Existing Applicable Regulations, final Draftno AppI

(ExhibiReport, February 19657 Exhibit 2DE, Docket D)

United States Environmental Protection Agency; *RCRA Ground-Hater Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document;*September 1986. (Exhibit 2DV, Docket D)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office os SolidHaste and Emergency Response; Technical Guidance Document:Construction Quality assuranee~lor Hazardous Waste Land DisposalFacilities EPA Report EPft/5JO-8vt-86-031, Oct. 1986. (Exhibit2DF, Docket D)

United States Environmental Protection Agency; 'Guidance onImplementation of the Minimun Technological Requirements of HSWiof 1984, Respecting Liners and Leachate Collection Systems,' EPAReport Number EPA/530-SW-8S-012. (Exhibit 208, Docket D)

United States Environmental Protection Agency; "Minimum Techno-logy Guidance on Double Liner Systems for Landfills end SurfaceImpoundments—Design, Construction and Operation," Draft ReportNumber EPA/530-SW-85-014, Hay 1985. (Exhibit 2DD, Docket D)

United States Environmental Protection Agency; "MinimumTechnology Guidance on Single Liner Systems for Landfills,Surface Impoundments, and Waste Piles—Design, Construction, andOperation,* Draft Report Number EPA/530-SW-85-013 Nay 1985.(Exhibit 2DC, Docket D)

Venkataramani, E.S., Robert C. Ahlert and Patricia Corbo;"Biological Treatment of Landfill '• -ehates,* CRC CriticalReviews in Environmental Control 1' (4), pp. 333-376.(T«i ibit15B, Appendix A, Docket A)

131

Hang, H.C., and C.C. Huang; "Soil Compaction and PermeabilityModels," Journal of Environmental Engineering 110 (6), December1984, pp. 1063-1081.(Exhibit 2DG, Docket 0)

Warner, Richard C., Janes E. Wilton, Nathaniel Peters, Harry j.Sterling and Walter E. Grube; "Multiple Soil Layer HazardousWaste Landfill Cover: Design, Construction, Instrumentation andMonitoring," Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Research Symposiumon Land Disposal or Hazardous Waste, EPA Report Number 600/9-84-007, April 1984, pp. 211-221. (Exhibit 2DB, Docket D)

Wong, J.i 'The Design of a System for Collecting Leachate Proma Lined Landfill Site, Water Reseurcei Research 13 (2), April1977, P404 (7). (Exhibit 2DI, Docket D)——————

Wood, John *. and Michael L. Porter; "Hazardous Pollutants inClass II Landfills," JAPCA 37 (5), May 1987, pp. 609-615.(Exhibit 2DW, Docket Dl

Wright, Thomas D.; "To Cover or Not To Cover?" Waste Age, March1986, pp. 41-44. (Exhibit 2DJ, Docket D)

Wuellner, William W., Douglas A. Wierman, and Henry A. Koch;•Effect of Landfill Leachate on the Permeability of ClaySoils," Presented at the Eighth Annual Madison Waste Conference,September 18-19, 1985; Department of Engineering ProfessionalDevelopment, University of Wisconsin, Madison. (Exhibit 16C,Docket A)

young, P.J. and A. Parker; "The Identification and PossibleEnvironmental Impact of Trace Gases and Vapours in Landfill Gas,*Waste Management and Research 1, 1983, pp. 213-226. (Exhibit14B, Docket A)

Zirschky, J., D. Deemer and R.E. Thomas; "Ground WaterMonitoring at Land Treatment Sites," Biocycle 20 (1), January1986,pp. 52-53. (Exhibit 2DK, Docket D ) — — —

(132

IV. INDEX

A. IU»es Index

Mane fages

Dr. Richard C. Berg...............................57, 79, 86, 115Dr. David E. Daniel..................!, 35, 37, 96, 115, 117, lieDr. Robert Griffin................60, 69, 114, 116, 120, 121, 126•Dr. Robert K. Ham..............1, 14, 19, 23, 29, 30, 39, 42, 43,

44, 46, 49, 115, 119, 121, 122•Dr. Aaron A. Jennings..........;..1, 62, 66, 67, 66, 69, 104, 123Or. Charles Johnson............................................20Thomas M. Johnson....................................55, 121, 123Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing..........................................6, 43Dr. William Roy................ r.......68, 69, 114, 121, 126, 129

B. Subject Index

Pages

Acceptance Reports, construction quality Assurance....12, 95, 106Access, limiting access to site................................22Adjusted Standards.............................................76Admixtures.....................................................13Admixtures, standards..........................................38Air pollution, use in malodorous odor..........................15American Foundrymen's Society..................................23applicant......................................................13Aquifer, definition of.........................................13Aquifers, standards for sole-source aquifers...................27Attenuation, soil properties...................................68

B

Benign wastes...................................................8Boundary control...............................................21

C

Carbon dioxide, in landfill gas................................46Chemical wastes............................................10, 45Clean Water Act.................................7, 17, 18, 42, 59Compacted earth liners, design and construction............14, 32Compaction

earth siaterials for liners.................................33field testing of soils.....................................35waste Baterials............................................19

Compatibility ......................................6, 35, 36, 40Construction Quality As -ranee.................................94Construction Quality Ai ..ranee Of ficer........................ .94