Division of Materials and Waste Management Response to ... · Response 1: The Ohio Legislative...

Division of Materials and Waste Management Response to Comments

Eight Solid Waste Rules: Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-27-02, 3745-27-05, 3745-27-06, 3745-27-07, 3745-27-08, 3745-27-09, 3745-27-11, 3745-27-14. Agency Contact for this Package Division Contact: Michelle Mountjoy, Division of Materials and Waste Management (DMWM), (614) 728-5372, [email protected] General/Overall Concerns Comment 1: Should ‘per cent’ be ‘percent’? (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini,

CEC; Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates) Response 1: The Ohio Legislative Service Commission publishes a rule drafting manual

that assists state agencies and universities in rule writing and ensures consistency across the Ohio Administrative Code. Chapter 5 section 5.7: NUMBERS, DATES, AND TIMES, 5.7.1: NUMERICAL EXPRESSION mandates the spelling of "per cent" as two words. Failure to do so would result in LSC issuing a “Notice of Non-Compliance” to the Agency. A copy of the “Rule Drafting Manual” can be found at: https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/documents/reference/current/membersonlybriefs/adminruledraftmanual06_06.pdf.

No changes were made in response to this comment. Comment 2: Wherever a signature and seal of a professional engineer is required,

add ‘registered in the state of Ohio.’ (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Ohio EPA held a comment period on eight solid waste rules. This document summarizes the comments and questions received during the comment period, which ended on July 31, 2019. Ohio EPA reviewed and considered all comments received during the public comment period. By law, Ohio EPA has authority to consider specific issues related to protection of the environment and public health. In an effort to help you review this document, the questions are grouped by topic and organized in a consistent format. The name of the commenter follows the comment in parentheses.

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/documents/reference/current/membersonlybriefs/adminruledraftmanual06_06.pdf


Rule Package: Eight Solid Waste Rules Response to Comments April 2020 of 41

Response 2: In response to this comment, DMWM has changed the rules to clarify that a professional engineer is required to be certified in the state of Ohio.

Comment 3: Based on the PowerPoint presentation related to the MSW rule

revisions, for existing facilities, we understand that the proposed rule revisions for OAC 3745-27-06 will not apply unless a permit is being obtained; OAC 3745-27-07 revisions will not apply unless a permit or permit alteration is being obtained; and 3745-27-08 revisions may impact existing facilities through a 10-year update and otherwise will only apply if a permit or permit alteration is obtained (with the exception of transitional cover). We suggest that Ohio EPA provide further clarification on the proposed revisions to OAC 3745-27-08 as they relate to alteration requests. For example, would a proposed revision to OAC 3745-27-08 only apply if the alteration request directly relates to that section of the rules? (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 3: The amendments to these rules will not change the procedure for

reviewing an alteration. A typical review of an alteration will involve solely that section of the rules. However, some revisions may result in more complex repercussions that would result in a more comprehensive review. No changes were made in response to this comment.

3745-27-02 Permit to install Comment 4: (E)(6) This should also reference 3745-27-02 (C). Current definitions

to "modify" or "modification" are different in each regulation, but all criteria that trigger a modification are required to conduct the public meeting and its requirements. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 4: The intent of the sub-paragraphs under paragraph (E)(6) is to duplicate

the statute for the purposes of identifying which modifications under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) section 3734.05 require a public meeting. In response to the comment, DMWM has deleted the sub-paragraphs.

3745-27-05 Applicability and relation to other laws. Comment 5: (C) Good to reference related regulations in this section. (Kathy

Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC) Response 5: No change is necessary in response to this comment. Comment 6: (D)[Comment] As proposed, elimination of “and/or” and replacing

with “or” would relieve remediation of ground water if clean-up of the site was accomplished or vice-versa. Was this the intent? (Amy Holinbaugh, Mahoning County District Board of Health)


Response 6: The Agency’s practice is to refrain from use of “and/or” because the

phrase can create unintended ambiguity. In the comment to paragraph (D) of OAC rule 3745-27-05, use of the word “and” would imply that both environmental site clean ups and remediation of ground water contamination are always required as a result of the open dumping of solid waste. Use of the term “or” recognizes that open dumping may result in an obligation on the owner or operator to only conduct an environmental site cleanup or remediate ground water contamination. Use of the word “or” however does not preclude the owner or operator from the requirement to complete both. Please note that this language is contained in a comment and is therefore not enforceable. No changes were made in response to this comment.

3745-27-06 Sanitary landfill facility permit to install application. Comment 7: We suggest adding “seepage” in front of “piping failure” to clarify

what type of piping failure. (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates) Response 7: In response to the comment, DMWM has changed the rule to add the

suggested language. Comment 8: (B)(2)(b)(iii) Is this the same as the 100 year floodplain which is the

regulatory floodplain? (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC) Response 8: In response to the comment, DMWM has amended the rule to remove the

suggested language. Comment 9: (B)(5)(a)(v) Is relevant to show underground leachate storage

structures on geologic cross sections. (Rick Buffalini, CEC) Response 9: No change is necessary in response to this comment. Comment 10: (C)(3)(f)(vii) Delete …’those located within fifteen feet of the

proposed depths of excavation.’ Units are susceptible only if the piezometric surface is higher than the depth of excavation. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 10: Removal of the language would require the owner or operator to sample

all units below the depth of excavation whenever the piezometric is above the depth of excavation. Those units greater than 15 feet from the depth of excavation are likely to have sufficient confining pressure to alleviate the risk of piping damage from seepage forces. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 11: (C)(3)(f)(vii) We suggest adding a testing frequency to this rule and

also clarify whether the tests are to be completed on undisturbed or


remolded samples. Additionally, if ASTM D4647 is to be performed on undisturbed samples, note that in the “6. Limitations” section of ASTM D4647, within 6.1.4, it states the following: “This test method was developed to test specimens of disturbed soil that are compacted into the test cylinder. This test method can also be used to test intact specimens when they are properly trimmed and sealed into the test cylinder; however, some investigators have found that these test methods are not applicable in evaluating the dispersive characteristics of intact specimens of highly sensitive clays. Such clays may be classed as dispersive from the pinhole test results but perform as nondispersive materials in nature.” As such, it may be helpful to allow remolding of the samples to representative in-situ conditions or other alternative methods for evaluating the potential for seepage piping failure. (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 11: In response to the comment, a testing frequency of three per unit was

added to the rule. This is the same frequency applied to the site investigation for the permit application.

The rules were not changed to address whether tests should be run on an undisturbed or remolded sample so that flexibility to encompass the variety of sampling conditions is retained.

Comment 12: (C)(4) “Stability analysis” could be “Geotechnical analysis” because

what is included in this section is more than stability. Hydrostatic uplift and bearing capacity are geotechnical issues but not stability. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 12: In response to the comment, DMWM has changed the rule to clarify the

intent. Comment 13: (C)(4)(f) This should only be required where the piezometric head is

higher than the limit of excavation/base of RSL. Is not a widespread issue. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 13: In response to the comment, the rule was changed to require a piping

failure analysis if the piezometric surface of an underlying aquifer or zone of saturation is above the landfill component.

Comment 14: (C)(4)(f) ...piezometric head higher than limit of excavation/base of

RSL or base of AGM...since AGM is an engineered fill. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 14: The risk of piping damage occurs if the piezometric head is above the

landfill component or layer, not the base of the component or layer. No change was made in response to this comment.


Comment 15: (C)(5)(b) We suggest adding “if necessary” to the end of the sentence, as a cushion layer may not be needed depending on the granular drainage material used. (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 15: In response to the comment, the rule was changed to specify the

calculation is necessary only if a geotextile cushion layer is needed. Comment 16: (C)(5)(b) Rephrase as “…from puncture by the granular or other

drainage layers…”. The cushion layer does not protect the FML from excessive strain due to the weight of the waste and interface shear forces are not a concern for strain on the FML. Recommend the reference to excessive strain be removed. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 16: A study by Abdelaal, Rowe, and Brachman titled “Brittle rupture of an

aged HPDE geomembrane at local gravel indentations under simulated field conditions” indicates that FML can experience long-term ruptures due to strain developed at gravel indentations. A cushion layer would protect against this. No change was made in response to this comment.

Comment 17: (C)(5)(h) and (C)(5)(i) It would be reasonable to allow the option to

calculate closure cost estimate and provide financial assurance for actual open area instead of worst-case scenario in the life of the site development. Would be updated annually as part of annual operations report. And to calculate post-closure costs based on current number of acres developed, monitoring wells installed, leachate sumps, etc. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 17: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle D, Part

285, Subpart G, requires the closure cost estimate for a municipal solid waste landfill to be calculated based on the cost of a third party conducting closure of the largest area of the landfill at the point in time when closure would be most expensive. To maintain an approved program, Ohio EPA’s rules must conform to the federal requirements. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 18: (C)(9) “Ground water detection monitoring plan for detection

monitoring…” seems unnecessarily redundant. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 18: In response to the comment, DMWM has changed the rule. Comment 19: (C)(9)(c)(iv) Installer qualifications should be consistent with the

proposed changes in Rule 08. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)


Response 19: In response to the comment, a comment was added to reference the FML installer qualifications contained in OAC 3745-27-08.

3745-27-07 Additional criteria for approval of sanitary landfill facility permit to install

applications. Comment 20: (C)(2)(a) Remove first “Comply” because it is duplicative. (Thomas

Jenkins, Eagon & Associates) Response 20: The comment is in reference to an error that occurred when the rule was

converted from the rule authorizing software to pdf. The first “comply” is meant to remain and the “comply” appearing in (C)(2)(a) is deleted.

Comment 21: (H)(1)(a)(iv) …national park or national recreation area would be

more precise, otherwise “recreation area” could be interpreted very broadly. (Thomas Jenkins, Eagon & Associates)

Response 21: In response to the comment, DMWM has changed the rule. Comment 22: (H)(2)(a) This is a very good change to require siting criteria from the

limit of waste instead of the “landfill facility”. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 22: No change is necessary in response to the comment. Comment 23: (H)(2)(a) Typo “or” vs “of”. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini,

CEC) Response 23: In response to the comment, DMWM has changed the rule. Comment 24: (H)(2)(e) We believe the formatting is not correct and that (i) and (ii)

should be moved to follow “Administrative Code”. (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 24: This error was displaying in the pdf version of 3745-27-07 due to a

formatting issue with the rule authoring software the Agency uses to draft regulations. The official version of the rule shows the sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) following the “of the Administrative Code” language. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 25: (H)(3) Should reference “in existence when the permit application is

submitted”. This is consistent with other siting criteria. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 25: The provision noted is added to certain siting criteria to protect the landfill

permitting process from landfill opponents who, upon discovering the permit application, might take advantage of siting setbacks to remove


otherwise viable property from use as a landfill. Because designating a public water supply source water protection area (SWAP) is a public process, affording the applicant and the public to provide input regarding community needs and land use, it is not necessary to add the noted provision. No changes were made in response to the comment.

Comment 26: (H)(3)(a) “Wet well.” This term is new to the regulations and must

have a regulatory definition in [OAC Rule 3745-27]-01. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 26: In response to the comment, the term “wet well” was changed to “leachate

lift station.” Comment 27: (H)(4)(b) The 300 foot offset to property line should not be required

for leachate pond. Just like it is not required for offset from domicile. (Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 27: The offset from the property line provides space in which to conduct

assessment and remediation activities should the landfill, or leachate pond, leak. The offset from domiciles provides a buffer from nuisance conditions (e.g. odors, blowing litter). Therefore, DMWM has deemed it appropriate to apply the property line offset to the leachate pond. No changes were made in response to the comment.

3745-27-08 Sanitary landfill facility construction. Comment 28: (B)(1)(f)(i) and (D)(21) Ohio EPA should consider eliminating the

requirement for recompacted soil barrier layer (RSB). Subtitle D 258.60(b) allows for an alternative final cover that provides equivalent reduction in infiltration as 18 inches of 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/s). A 40-mil geomembrane without a compacted soil layer underneath it easily provides a lower infiltration. Neighboring states have less stringent cap requirements. For example, PA and WV only require a geomembrane without a compacted soil layer. Indiana requires 1 foot of 10-5 cm/s below a geomembrane. This change would have a significant impact on the cost to cap landfills and would not have a significant increase in leachate generation, especially since almost all current landfills have relatively steep slopes resulting very little head buildup to infiltrate the geomembrane. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 28: Assessing a redesign of the cap system requires more time than is

available with this rule update. In response to the comment, the ability to propose optional engineered components for the cap system was added.

Comment 29: (C) We request that Ohio EPA include an allowance for an alternative

design for liner, leachate collection, final cover; if demonstrated that


it is equivalent to the specified rule components. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 29: In response to the comment, the option to propose alternatives acceptable

to Ohio EPA has been added to OAC 3745-27-08(B)(1) for leachate collection and cap systems.

Comment 30: (C)(1)(c) For vertical expansions constructed over a composite liner

that was constructed after December 31, 2003, the existing rule for composite liner system slopes requires at least a 2.0 per cent slope in all areas except along flow lines augmented by leachate collection pipes after settlement. Industry requests the flexibility of allowing for a slightly less slope under the Director’s approval.

Several facilities may have changed operators or owners which may be interested in a vertical expansion since the rule became effective. A reduction in slope, providing the head on liner does not exceed 12 inches would not have a significant effect on the operation and performance of a landfill, especially considering that at the time vertical expansions are typically permitted, significant waste thickness is in place and leachate generation volumes over that part of the landfill are therefore substantially reduced.

Therefore, the Industry requests adding “or have a slope acceptable to the Director” at the end of the paragraph. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 30: DMWM has decided to maintain this requirement. Slope is not the only

consideration to calculate the amount of head on the liner; decreased permeability due to clogging is also a significant, and difficult to quantify, factor. An applicant can request a variance to this rule for the director to consider for acceptability. No change was made to the rule.

Comment 31: (C)(8)(d) This staged loading method is typically used and is

reasonable. It does allow for staged loading scenarios. (Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 31: No changes were necessary in response to this comment. Comment 32: (C)(8)(e) We are unsure why this regulation is being changed from

determining a factor of safety value to calculating the seismic slope stability deformation in centimeters. We suggest that additional information be provided to interested parties as to how the allowable deformation values for the cap and bottom liner systems were determined by Ohio EPA. (Rick Buffalini, CEC, Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates; Kathy Trent, NW&RA)


Response 32: Sites that have calculated a seismic factor of safety of 1.00 or higher have also determined that zero deformation will occur, which verifies compliance with this regulation. Updates to Ohio EPA Geotechnical and Stability Analyses for Ohio Waste Containment Facilities (also known as the GeoRG Manual) are ongoing to further explain how these calculations can be performed. The rule was changed to allow the designer to use either a factor of safety (the existing method) or a maximum deformation (the new method).

Comment 33: (C)(8)(e)(i) This could cause a problem to have to use post-peak

strengths for seismic analysis on all slopes. Previously, we could use peak strengths on typical floor slopes. It will make it more difficult to achieve acceptable factor of safeties (but regulation is requiring deformation analysis). We are not certain that previously approved (and typical) 3:1 slope will meet required deformation. This regulation should also address that we should use large displacement shear strength for the interface with lowest peak strength. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 33: The rule changes to the seismic requirement for deep seated slope failure

analysis is similar to what is allowed in other states and should be easily achieved by the current landfill designs in the state. DMWM has evaluated the Ohio landfills in the most seismically active areas and determined that they meet the new requirements. The rule was changed to allow the designer to use either a factor of safety (the existing method) or a maximum deformation (the new method).

Comment 34: (D)(1)(a) Ohio EPA may want to consider anticipating the change of

existing reference standards in the next few years to replace the existing standards. We can provide more information, if necessary. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 34: The rule was revised to delete the year references. Comment 35: (D)(3)(a)(ii) With our experience, this has never been the controlling

factor for sedimentation basin design. Is always 10 year / 24-hour storm. Should this regulation be deleted in its entirety? (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 35: Changes to the sedimentation basin design are planned for the next rule

update. DMWM will take this comment for that future rulemaking. No change was made to the rule.

Comment 36: (D)(4)(b) Is reasonable to have some requirements for a groundwater

control structure. (Rick Buffalini, CEC) Response 36: No changes are necessary in response to this comment.


Comment 37: (D)(4)(b)(ii) and (iii) A one-hour timeframe for re-establishing power

or replacing a pump is not reasonable or necessary. No reason to think damage could occur in 1 hour. 24 hours is more reasonable period for re-establishing power or replacing a pump. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 37: The re-establishment of power or replacing a pump was determined to be

more suitable as an operational requirement (OAC 3745-27-19). These paragraphs were deleted and these concepts will be considered for future rulemaking.

Comment 38: (D)(5)(f) Related to seepage. Just a general requirement here. (Rick

Buffalini, CEC) Response 38: No changes are necessary in response to this comment. Comment 39: (D)(5)(g)(iii) Is reasonable since it is only required for zones

susceptible to seepage. (Rick Buffalini, CEC) Response 39: No changes are necessary in response to this comment. Comment 40: (D)(5)(g)(iii) We suggest adding a testing frequency to this rule and

clarifying whether the tests are to be completed on undisturbed or remolded samples. See our additional comments on rule 3745-27-06 relative to testing undisturbed samples. (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 40: In response to the comment, a testing frequency of three per unit was

added to the rule. This is the same frequency applied to the site investigation for the permit application.

The rules were not changed to address whether tests should be run on an undisturbed or remolded sample so that flexibility to encompass the variety of sampling conditions is retained.

Comment 41: (D)(6)(h), (D)(7)(h), (D)(8)(j) (C) Although rubber balloon and sand

cone methods have likely not been used in many years, we suggest that they remain in the rule in the rare case that a facility must use one of these methods. It is our understanding that these methods are still acceptable to Ohio EPA for testing purposes. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 41: The standard for citing an ASTM in rule is to cite only the method number

and to no longer include the year or subject. The rubber balloon and sand cone methods are still acceptable and remain in the rule. No changes were made in response to this comment.


Comment 42: (D)(7)(e) and (D)(8)(f) A dispersive clay soils classification by pinhole

test in accordance with ASTM D4647 should only be required when the hydrostatic head is above the top of the added geologic material layer and/or recompacted clay layer. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 42: In response to the comment, the rule was changed to only require

dispersive classification if the top of the landfill component is below the piezometric surface of an underlying aquifer or significant zone of saturation.

Comment 43: (D)(7)(f)(v) The proposed rule is now requiring in-situ samples of the

added geologic material at a frequency of one sample per acre per lift versus the existing rule which requires prequalification testing of the proposed soils. We believe prequalification testing has been and will be a better approach for these soil materials. There is much more potential for problems if we need to test the permeability in the field. Quality of sample collection, transporting, etc. There is a long tradition of doing proper prequalification and proper construction techniques per existing, prescriptive Ohio EPA rules resulting in low permeability layers. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 43: In response to the comment, paragraphs (D)(7)(e)(ii) and (D)(7)(f)(v) were

changed so permeability testing is only part of prequalification testing. In addition, the rule was changed to expand the list of soil classifications

which won’t need permeability testing. Comment 44: (D)(7)(f)(vi), (D)(8)(f)(v), (D)(8)(g)(v) we suggest adding “, unless

otherwise authorized by Ohio EPA.” to the end of the sentence, as the material may be able to be augmented or otherwise conditioned to reduce the naturally dispersive characteristics of the material, or engineering controls may be added to reduce and/or control the effects of seepage piping and allow the material to be used as added geologic material and/or recompacted clay layer. Additionally, we request technical information that supports the proposed regulation’s requirements of only using ND3, ND2 and ND1 classified material.

Also, we ask whether Ohio EPA has evaluated actual site conditions of landfills in Ohio to determine the implications that this requirement will have for landfills within the state and whether this data can be provided to interested parties for review. Specifically, has Ohio EPA performed a detailed cost-benefit evaluation as part of The Common Sense Initiative to determine possible costs of this proposed regulation and whether the perceived benefit supports


these increased costs? Based on Hull’s review of The Common Sense Initiative submitted with these proposed draft regulations, the estimated cost of compliance of the rule section (#14) does not explicitly list increased costs due to the proposed changes, but lists general cost ranges for permitting, construction, etc. We believe a breakdown of the estimated increased costs should be provided to interested parties. (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 44: Internal erosion causing backward erosion piping failures has been found

in the excavations for landfills across Ohio and are common at facilities that are excavated below the water table. The photo below shows a seepage piping failure that occurred through the recompacted soil liner (RSL) at an Ohio landfill. Similar damage is suspected at several other landfills. Preventing these failures from occurring through the added geologic material (AGM) and the RSL is imperative since a piping failure would provide a direct conduit for contaminates to flow through holes in the liner system and into the aquifer or significant zone of saturation. If dispersive soils are used as AGM or RSL the likelihood of internal erosion causing backward erosion piping failures is high. Research has found that “critical internal gradient that might lead to the initiation of internal erosion may be as low as 0.02 to 0.08 for particularly susceptible soils (like dispersive clays.)” (FEMA 2015). Gradients in this range are commonplace at landfills with AGM and RSL constructed below the water table. Hence, the non-dispersive soil criterion was added to the regulation. To narrow the scope of the requirement, DMWM has changed the rule to require dispersive classification only for those sites where the top of the landfill component is below the piezometric surface of an underlying aquifer or significant zone of saturation.

ASTM D 4647 Standard Test Method for Identification and Classification of Dispersive Clay Soils by the Pinhole Test describes dispersive soils D1 and D2 as well as moderately dispersive ND4 as showing dispersive characteristics under a head of 50 mm, slightly dispersive ND3 as showing


dispersive characteristics under a head of 180 to 380mm, nondispersive ND2 as showing barely dispersive characteristics under a head of 1020 mm and nondispersive ND1 as not showing dispersive characteristics under a head of 1020 mm. After evaluating these descriptions, DMWM decided to not allow dispersive soils D1 and D2 and moderately dispersive ND4 to be used as AGM and RSL. If added geologic material or the recompacted soil layer is determined to have dispersive characteristics it may be augmented (e.g. with 1 to 4% lime) to render it nondispersive and retested to verify that the augmentation was sufficient to classify the mixture as ND1, ND2, or ND3.

If the piezometric surface of an underlying aquifer or zone of saturation is

lowered sufficiently, then this test would not be required by this regulation. The cost of this test is estimated as being less than $50 per acre. The

cost of reconstructing added geologic material or recompacted clay layer after it is damaged and the cost of performing a corrective measure to rectify ground water contamination that has occurred though a piping failure is magnitudes greater.

FEMA 2015, Evaluation and Monitoring of Seepage and Internal

Erosionhttps://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/files/FEMA%20TM%20EvalMonitorSeepageInternalErosn%20P1032-2015.pdf

FEMA 2011 Filters for Embankment Dams https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1522783448418-8294f1e44e9509a1313f3930e5519d0e/filters_embankment_dams 508_update.pdf

USBR 1991 Characteristics of Dispersive and Problems Clay Soils https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/rec/R-91-09.pdf

Comment 45: (D)(8)(a)(i) We appreciate Ohio EPA efforts to simplify this regulation

for the recompacted soil liner thickness with a standardized three foot thickness. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC, Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 45: No changes are necessary in response to this comment. Comment 46: (D)(8)(a)(ii) We believe that the minimum RSL thickness of 2 feet

when used with the GCL may be excessive and a thinner RSL layer may be as protective to human health and the environment and an equivalency calculation could be used for comparison. We suggest that “, unless an alternate thickness is approved by Ohio EPA.” Should be added to the last sentence of OAC 3745-27-08(D)(8)(a)(ii). (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

https://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/files/FEMA%20TM%20EvalMonitorSeepageInternalErosn%20P1032-2015.pdf

https://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/files/FEMA%20TM%20EvalMonitorSeepageInternalErosn%20P1032-2015.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1522783448418-8294f1e44e9509a1313f3930e5519d0e/filters_embankment_dams%20508_update.pdf




https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/rec/R-91-09.pdf


Response 46: The Resource and Recovery Act, Subtitle D, contains a minimum RSL

thickness of 2 feet. A request for a thinner layer will require a variance or exemption and will need to meet the demonstration requirements in 40 CFR section 258.40(c). No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 47: (D)(8)(f) and (D)(21)(f) Is it necessary to submit the prequalification

test results to Ohio EPA prior to use? It seems the prudent approach would be to just include in the construction certification report. We do not need to submit geosynthetic prequalification test results (other than shear strength) or leachate collection layer prior to use. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 47: DMWM has decided to maintain this requirement. Pre-construction testing

of soils for liner and cap barrier layer avoids incidents of Ohio EPA’s inability to concur with construction because non-compliant soils were used. No change was made to the rule.

Comment 48: (D)(8)(j), (D)(21)(j), and (E)(8) For recompacted clay liners it might be

adventitious to define the types of bentonite allowed or put a size limit on it (other layers potentially as well pending purpose). 3/8” chunks will not work as good as powdered or granular. (Glen Toepfer, CQA Solutions)

Response 48: DMWM agrees it might be adventitious, however, selection of bentonite

appropriate to repair penetrations from construction quality assurance testing has not arisen as an issue. DMWM will take this comment for future rulemaking. No change was made to the rule.

Comment 49: (D)(9)(c)(i) At the time of the 2003 regulations, GCLs internal

strengths were often weaker than other interfaces, especially large displacement. Today’s GCLS are much stronger than other interfaces. No need to test every year UNLESS it is the weakest interface. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 49: No changes are necessary in response to this comment. Comment 50: (D)(10)(e), (D)(25) The Industry has been installing composite liners

since the mid-1990’s, and each landfill has its own solicitation and qualification requirements for geosynthetic installers. This proposed regulation will be difficult to enforce by each landfill depending upon the installation company’s employee turn-over and project timing. In addition, the International Association of Geosynthetic Installers (IAGI) only requires 5 million square feet (sf) for initial certification. Renewal is 2.5 million sf. Would this requirement apply to just a


multiple acre installation or to geosynthetic repairs where timing and availability become more of an issue for getting the work completed?

The Industry is not supportive of this requirement as it is currently written. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 50: In response to the comment, the rule was changed to apply to flexible

membrane liner (FML) installments exceeding 10,000 square feet and requiring at least one welding technician on the project to have seamed a minimum one million square feet (23 acres).

DMWM examined seaming data from sixteen separate landfill liner

construction events and found that large FML installation firms had a failure rate for destructive testing on fusion wields of 2% and a failure rate for destructive testing on extrusion wields of 6%. Where small FML installation firms had a failure rate for destructive testing on fusion wielded of 20% and a failure rate for destructive testing on extrusion wields of 43%.

Comment 51: (D)(10)(g) Perhaps would be better stated as “Seams shall be

prepared and continuously monitored such that they are free of materials negatively impacting seam quality (moisture, dirt, deleterious materials, etc.).” (Glen Toepfer, CQA Solutions)

Response 51: DMWM has deemed it adequate to monitor the seam area immediately

prior to seaming rather than to continuously monitor the seam area for deleterious materials. No change was made to the rule.

Comment 52: (D)(10)(h)(iii) This is a good item to relax, less holes in the liner with

extrusion welded patches. (Rick Buffalini, CEC) Response 52: No changes are necessary in response to this comment. Comment 53: (D)(10)(h)(iii) Reducing destructive test sample holes is important;

however, starting at a relaxed condition of 1000 feet could be too much. The GRI GM14 and/or GRI GM20 may be a better guideline. There needs to be some method of holding installers accountable – even CWT technicians – and unfortunately destructive sampling is the only way. As a protocol for any decrease in the frequency of sampling from 1/500 lf, it should be mandated the installers take end coupons. However, the pitfall here is that as part of our auditing services, I’ve literally watched operators adjust their machines for the last 5-6’ of weld because they knew end coupons were being taken and the QA personnel didn’t catch what the installer was doing.


If the 1000 feet increase is a result of the use of ELL surveys as is the case in some other states, it is really an apples to oranges comparison. The ELL surveys do not truly evaluate tensile properties of the seam – they only evaluate continuity. So reducing the frequency of sampling based on the premise that an ELL is being performed would be the wrong foundation upon which to make the decision. (Glen Toepfer, CQA Solutions)

Response 53: Reducing destructive test sampling to once every 1000 feet was based on

two main reasons. One since the flexible membrane liner (FML) installation firms will now have to meet minimum standards those preforming the seams will be more experienced. Which tends to result in less seam failures. Secondly decreasing the frequency of destructive samples reduces the amount of extrusion seams which tends to be a more problematic seaming method.

DMWM examined seaming data from sixteen separate landfill liner

construction events and found that large FML installation firms had a failure rate for destructive testing on fusion wields of 2% and a failure rate for destructive testing on extrusion wields of 6%. Where small FML installation firms had a failure rate for destructive testing on fusion wielded of 20% and a failure rate for destructive testing on extrusion wields of 43%.

Comment 54: (D)(10)(h)(iii), (v) The Industry is supportive of electrical leak

detection testing in the liner system after the overlying leachate collection layer has been installed. With the addition of this testing, it only makes sense to relax the peel frequency. Any defects, improper welds, or installation damages in the geomembrane will be detected by the electrical leak detection testing. Obviously, welds that fail the leak detection will reflect negatively on the installer and likely Owners will be passing along any non-routine charges resulting from membrane weld failures to the installers; therefore, installers will be motivated to weld geomembranes properly the first time. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 54: No changes were necessary in response to this comment. Comment 55: (D)(10)(h)(iv) Contingent upon knowing more about the

implementation of this proposed regulation, we may be able to support electrical leak location (ELL) testing of the geomembrane liners following installation of the leachate drainage layer only; however, it must be recognized that this proposed regulation is an additional quality control measure to those that have successfully protected the environment at solid waste landfills in Ohio for more than 25 years.


Testing immediately following geomembrane placement will only delay liner installations with minimal benefits to the environment. Please refer to Nosko’s findings published in 1996 with regards to probability of timing of liner defects or installation damage. We are not aware of other states requiring electrical leak testing twice after the geomembrane is installed in the liner system. The method of leak location survey required is dependent on the type of flexible membrane liner used, subgrade and other boundary conditions, site conditions, etc. As listed in ASTM D6747, the applicable leak location method may be limited based on these conditions and could make it necessary to use conductive geomembrane. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC; Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 55: In response to the comment, the rule was revised to require one, not two,

electrical leak location (ELL) survey. The survey is to be conducted after installation of the leachate collection system (after initial backfilling). However, if scrap tires are used as part of the leachate collection system or if construction is staged going up-slope, DMWM agrees the test is unable to be successfully performed or may cause damage which could go undetected. In such instances, ELL testing can be done prior to initial backfilling.

Preference for conducting ELL testing after initial backfilling is based on studies done on double lined landfills. The likelihood of leakage through a liner system exceeding a leakage rate of 5 gpd are as follows (Beck 2015):

• 62% if ELL testing is not done • 51% if ELL testing is only done on top of the drainage layer • 12% if ELL testing is done on top of the flexible membrane liner (FML)

and on top of the drainage layer ELL testing on top of flexible membrane liner (FML) that is in direct contact with recompacted soil liner (RSL) or geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) routinely finds holes in FML that are 1/16th of an inch. ELL testing on top of drainage layer routinely finds holes in FML that are 1/4th of an inch in areas where the FML is in direct contact with RSL or GCL. Much research over the last few decades has gone into determining the most likely source for leakage through landfill liners. This research has concluded that most leakage through landfill liners is through holes located on wrinkles in the FML. For example, a one centimeter hole in an FML that is in direct contact with a RSL would have a leakage rate of approximately 0.003 gallons per day (gpd), but the same size hole on a 400 foot long wrinkle would have leakage rate of approximately 35 gpd (assumes 7 inches of head). Studies have also shown that wrinkles will remain in place after waste placement. With the enhanced wrinkle management


requirements also proposed in this rule package, the probability of holes on encapsulated wrinkles will be reduced.

Comment 56: (D)(10)(h)(iv), (v) Has Ohio EPA performed a detailed cost-benefit evaluation as part of The Common Sense Initiative to determine possible costs of this proposed regulation and whether the perceived benefit supports the increased costs? Based on Hull’s review of The Common Sense Initiative submitted with these proposed draft regulations, the estimated cost of compliance of the rule section (#14) does not explicitly list increased costs due to the proposed changes, but lists general cost ranges for permitting, construction, etc. We believe a breakdown of the estimated increased costs should be provided to interested parties. (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 56: DMWM has been informed that the cost of mobilizing and conducting a

survey on 5 acres is approximately $12,000. The inclusion of electric leak location has enabled the decision to change the recompacted soil liner thickness from the standard five feet to three feet which reduced the cost of building a liner system by about $16,000 per acre.

Comment 57: (D)(10)(h)(iv), (v) Here is data for four impoundments constructed in

Arizona. It is important to note that this was a high profile job where the owner made their expectations clear to the installer; the installer was very good and took more care than typically seen, and the QA team was good, properly trained, and had multiple personnel on the geosynthetics the entire time. So, while there was a tremendous effort on everyone’s part, we still did find leaks that were not easily visible to our eyes. I would expect there to typically be more leaks found if the CQA effort is reduced/lacks training, and the installer is less skilled or concerned. (Glen Toepfer, CQA Solutions)

Response 57: No changes were necessary in response to this comment. Comment 58: (D)(10)(h)(iv), (v) When is the electrical leak location testing done if

an operator opts to construct the entire liner system and then construct the drainage layer over the base of the cell and part way up the interior slope. Waste is then placed in the cell, then later the rest of the drainage layer is constructed. Do the side slopes need the same level of construction quality assurance because there is limited


head and much higher gradients thus minimizing the potential for leakage? (verbal comment Chris Jaquet, NW&RA)

Response 58: In response to this comment, the rules were changed as follows:

• To clarify the applicability of the liner integrity survey, language was added to exclude repairs (e.g. discovered from ELL testing) from further electrical leak location testing.

• For staged construction, ELL testing can be conducted prior to initial infilling.

• To account for extended exposure of the liner cushion layer on the side slopes, language was added to (D)(11) to protect the cushion layer from solar degradation.

• To account for the extended lack of protection the drainage layer would provide for the geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) and recompacted soil liner (RSL) on the side slopes, language was added to (D)(12) to protect the GCL from desiccation and erosion. Swings in temperature can result in (1) condensate collecting under wrinkles and then drip-erode the RSL or bentonite in the GCL, (2) freeze-thaw damage to the RSL (already addressed in rule), and (3) desiccation of the GCL leading to shrinkage. The photo below is of damage found at a Virginia landfill after 5 months (May to October) under an exposed FML (Thiel 2005)

Comment 59: (D)(10)(h)(v) This is a best practice and improves the liner system.

But should not be required in the cap system. Also, Leak detection cannot be performed with tire shreds. In that case, perform prior to placement of tire shreds would be reasonable. (Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 59: In response to the comment, the rule was changed to remove the liner

integrity survey for the cap system. A provision was added to the rule to perform ELL testing prior to placement of tire shreds.

https://www.rthiel.com/uploads/ngrey/036%202005%20Thiel%20&%20Richardson%20GCL%20shrinkage%20paper.pdf


Comment 60: (D)(10)(h)(v) Electrical leak location testing on the entire flexible membrane liner (FML) is required “prior to initial backfill over the flexible membrane liner” per (h)(iv) and “ after initial backfilling over the flexible membrane liner” per (h)(v). For the (h)(v) requirement, does “backfill” mean the 12” leachate drainage layer or cushion layer, or does it reference additional material beyond this 12” layer? (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 60: The interpretation of “backfill” expressed in the comment is correct. No

change was made in response to this comment. Comment 61: (D)(10)(h)(v) Note that we believe the ASTM reference is incorrect, as

ASTM D6707 is entitled the following: “Standard Specification for Circular-knit Geotextile for use in Subsurface Drainage Applications.” We believe the correct ASTM reference may be ASTM 7007. (Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 61: In response to the comment, the rule was changed to cite the correct

ASTM method. Comment 62: (D)(11) With the use of shredded tires, the proposed regulation

language would appear to remove the allowance for a geotextile cushion. The Industry has excavated many test pits in tire shred leachate collection layers and never have found damage to the geomembrane. The proposed regulation language should be written to clearly allow for a cushion geotextile. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 62: In response to the comment, the rule was changed to delete the new

language regarding use of scrap tires. Scrap tires as a drainage material will continue to be regulated the same as any other aggregate material. Ohio EPA anticipates continued reliance on Policy #599 “Use of Shredded Tires in Landfill Construction” to address protection of the flexible membrane liner.

Comment 63: (D)(11) Beneficial reuse of tires is a great idea. However, tires in all forms pose a high-risk to geomembrane puncture because of the metal contained within them. To safely use tires above geosynthetics, they would need to have the metal completely removed. The size requirements contained within OEPA Policy Document #599 rarely seem to be met by 100% of the material being used, and those sizes allow for significant anomalies. For instance, a Tire Chip may indeed be 2” wide, but it could be 6” long. There also is no quantifier on “most” of the wire removed per the tire chip definition.


My biggest argument in using tire shreds comes from the following statement in OEPA Policy Document #599: “Tire shreds and chips have consistently been shown in the laboratory to lose from 60 to 65 percent of the loose thickness …” While the tires compress, what happens to the metal, since it is not likely to compress?

If tires are going to be allowed to be used, I think the guidance should require a test pad of some sort be constructed using the same materials, equipment, procedures and thicknesses to prove out that damage does not occur. This might need to be done with each project until there is a true comfort level developed. Each batch of tires could vary, so there would need to be constant monitoring for changes in the type of tires used. If a test pad method is performed, archives of the tire pieces should be obtained by regulatory personnel as well as the owner, for continuous reference throughout the project. (Glen Toepfer, CQA Solutions)

Response 63: The rule was changed to delete the new language regarding use of scrap

tires. Scrap tires as a drainage material will continue to be regulated the same as any other aggregate material. Ohio EPA anticipates continued reliance on Policy #599 “Use of Shredded Tires in Landfill Construction” to address protection of the flexible membrane liner.

Comment 64: (D)(12)(a)(vii) The 4” limitation on wrinkle height should be achievable in the field, but the realization is that any air-gap below the geomembrane will reduce the effectiveness of a leak location survey that uses the underlying subgrade for electrical conduction – unless of course the void is filled with a conductive liquid which we would hope would not be the case. Air is an insulator. For any geomembrane not in intimate contact with the subgrade (which must be void free itself for a hole to be found over the void), an ELLS will only work successfully if the geomembrane is conductive backed.

Wrinkles can successfully be mitigated through a combination of things: design (ensuring friction between materials – i.e. a smooth geomembrane interface with a geonet will have little friction), materials (white coated liner), time of cover placement (night shift), proper temporary ballast by the installer along key points such as toes of slopes, and proper mechanical placement procedures during cover placement. The latter, proper mechanical placement procedures during cover placement will be used for nearly all fill placement and is the hardest to control and maintain as it is significantly operator dependent.

The most successful method of maintaining wrinkle control is having laborers work with the operators during placement and as a wrinkle starts to form, the laborer works with the earthwork utilizing an


excavator to cast material out and either disperse the wrinkle or trap it before it can grow to a size deemed unacceptable (in this case, >4”). The operator of a spreading device such as a dozer must angle the material upward and allow it to roll onto the geosynthetics. However, there are several other considerations:

•The friction between layers is huge in mitigating potential issues with wrinkles that are caused by the energy transferred from equipment working on the cover placement. •Speed of equipment – I’ve observed wrinkle creation develop (where the liner was previously flat) as a result of haul trucks driving fast on sand/aggregate haul roads used during fill placement. Minimum speeds should be maintained to avoid creating the “wake” like appearance you would see behind a boat on a lake.

•Placement technique – rolling material down onto the geosynthetics works but it requires skill and patience. A dozer pushing material at all, anywhere, should be avoided as the energy gets transferred to the geosynthetics. This is extremely important to remember as haul trucks may not dump their load at the very end of an access ramp. If the dozer simply pushes this pile, often wrinkles can be created – I’ve seen this happen where 4’ ramps existed – and it is especially true if working over a “trapped” wrinkle as it can end up pushing the wrinkle and making it bigger or folding it over. A skilled laborer can work with an operator and see the point the bottom of the access ramp starts to move and alert the operator. Trapping wrinkles is also a skill and it takes much more soil to keep them trapped than most people think.

•Direction of the wrinkle – if wrinkles are present, ideally, they could be worked such that their direction does not impede flow to the collection area. Likewise, large wrinkles existing immediately adjacent, and parallel to a main collection pipe could be more problematic for the overall function of the system, so that also should be a consideration for the 4” maximum height requirement. (Glen Toepfer, CQA Solutions)

Response 64: The rules continue to require direct and uniform contact of the flexible

membrane liner (FML) to the recompacted soil liner (RSL) or geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). Attaining direct and uniform contact and not encapsulating wrinkles results in avoiding shear stress development on the crest which could develop into a crack, minimizing the volume of leachate trapped behind a wrinkle and leaking through a hole and then accumulating under the wrinkle, and not invalidating interface shear


results due to lack of contact which could then lead to a slope failure. To aid in meeting the “direct and uniform contact” requirement, and to aid in eliminating the air-gap so that ELL is more thorough, a wrinkle height of 4 inches was chosen for two main reasons:

(1) It is an easily achieved height using two laborers to control the wrinkle

height just in front of the dozer spreading the drainage layer. The two laborers can either stand on any large wrinkles to spread it into two smaller wrinkles, or hand shovel gravel in front of the leading edge of drainage layer placement. Although other methods are available, as mentioned in the comment, DMWM agrees that the use of two laborers are likely to be the most effective while also being the least disruptive of construction operations and for the lowest cost.

(2) It provides at least 8 inches of separation from the dozer blade which

should be sufficient to prevent equipment from damaging the FML. As stated in the comment, ELL testing on top of the drainage layer cannot find a hole that is on a wrinkle thus missing the most critical damage to the FML. Holes on wrinkles are not likely caused by rock damage during drainage layer placement, since there is an air gap between the RSL and the FML/drainage layer preventing the force from the rocks in the drainage layer from piercing the FML. Holes on wrinkles are likely either in existence before drainage layer placement, which would be found during ELL on FML or are caused by equipment contacting the liner, which should be prevented by the 8 inches of separation from the dozer blade.

No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 65: (D)(12)(a)(vii), (b)(ii) and (D)(23)(a)(ix) Existing technical specifications for the placement of flexible membrane liners and overlying layers and the associated quality assurance/control plans are achieving the regulatory requirement for uniform contact. Observations from double-lined facilities show that current technical specifications and quality assurance/quality control practices are effective in meeting a 20 gallons per acre per day leakage rate. Although a regulation to minimize wrinkles is understood, setting a maximum height, especially 4 inches, will be difficult to achieve. For example, FML selection may be restricted to only white geomembrane, or construction restricted to night hours. The explicit cost of this proposed regulation should be provided as part of the Common Sense Initiative. (Rick Buffalini, CEC, Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates; Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 65: Much research over the last few decades has gone into determining the

most likely source for leakage through landfill liners. This research has


concluded that most leakage through landfill liners is through holes located on wrinkles in the FML. For example, a one centimeter hole in an FML that is in direct contact with a recompacted soil liner (RSL) would have a leakage rate of approximately 0.003 gallons per day (gpd), but the same size hole on a 400 foot long wrinkle would have leakage rate of approximately 35 gpd (assumes 7 inches of head). Studies have also shown that wrinkles will remain in place after waste placement. Furthermore, performing electrical leak location (ELL) testing on top of the drainage layer cannot find a hole that is in a wrinkle thus missing the most critical damage to the FML. Since wrinkles can be flattened out during ELL on FML, holes on wrinkles can be located and repaired. Then with the wrinkle size being limited to less than 4 inches, there will be 8 inches of the drainage layer above it, thus making it is unlikely that a hole will be caused by equipment directly contacting the liner. DMWM staff has observed at least two effective low-cost methods used by facilities to manage wrinkle height. One method employs two laborers to stand on any large wrinkles, thus spreading it into two smaller wrinkles, just ahead of drainage layer placement. The other method employs two laborers who hand shovel gravel in front of the leading edge of drainage layer placement to keep wrinkles from growing taller than 4 inches.

The cost of two laborers maintaining wrinkle height below 4 inches should not greatly increase the cost of landfill construction and should fall well within the listed general cost ranges for permitting, construction, etc. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 66: (D)(12)(b)(iii) This is a good change. 50k sf required excessive

sampling. (Rick Buffalini, CEC) Response 66: No changes are necessary in response to this comment. Comment 67: (D)(17)(c) We suggest that one of the proposed liner systems be a

composite liner (RCL & geomembrane or GCL & geomembrane). In addition, a protection layer may be required based pond configuration and liner system design to allow cleaning. Leachate basins will require clean-outs from sediment build-up and the protective layer will provide a buffer for the clean-out equipment to prevent damage to the liner. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 67: In response to the comment, DMWM has added the following language to

the rule: “For a leachate pond, be provide with a layer capable of protecting the liner system from damage during cleanout.”


Comment 68: (D)(17)(d) This proposed regulation requires three feet of free-board. We would suggest that the regulation should require three feet of freeboard above the required basin capacity. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 68: In response to the comment, DMWM has added suggested language to

the regulation. Comment 69: (D)(17)(d) Rule 19 of the solid waste landfill rules requires “the owner

or operator shall operate the facility in such a manner that noise, dust, and odors are strictly controlled so as not to cause a nuisance or a health hazard.” Leachate storage tanks must be outfitted with vents, so it is unclear the rationale for specifically requiring odor controls on a leachate basin when it is not required specifically on a leachate tank. Odor control should not be a requirement for treated leachate stored in tanks. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 69: In response to the comment, DMWM has deleted the redundant

requirement. Comment 70: (D)(19), (D)(25) The proposed rules for transitional cover have been

revised to coincide with rules for a cap soil barrier layer. The OEPA stated goal of the rule revision is to unify the rules for cap soil barrier layer and transitional cover to the more stringent standard for cap soil barrier layer, to improve the robustness and protectiveness of the transitional cover, and to simplify the rules. While the industry applauds the goal, we feel it has missed the mark with the general industry application and use of transitional cover.

Generally, transitional cover is applied by the landfill operation personnel as areas reach final grade, or an interim final grade. Transitional cover may be placed by the operator and remain in place for years before the construction of final cover is undertaken. Transitional cover, under existing rule, allows an operator to easily place additional cover soil to restrict infiltration and further promote surface water runoff. Construction of transitional cover under the current rules allows the operator to place transitional cover as the operation proceeds using landfill personnel and equipment. Under the proposed rules, a facility will most likely use a contractor to place the transitional cover to the proposed specifications due to the placement and quality control requirements. This will likely delay construction of transitional cover to the summer months when landfills are more focused on new cell construction or final cover construction. It may also impact a landfill’s ability to comply with the requirement of placement of transitional cover within sixty days after a portion of the facility reaches final elevation.


The existing rule for transitional cover specifies a minimum of twenty-four inches of soil cover, as does the proposed rule. However, the existing rule simply allows an operator to place soils of low permeability, good “compactability”, cohesiveness, with relatively uniform texture, and capable of supporting vegetation. The rule then indicates “the soil shall be a well compacted loam, silt loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, or other soil types that can achieve the intended purpose”. These soil type designations are the only place in the landfill rules where the USDA classification of soils is used. The industry would support a rule revision of using the standard USCS soil classification system for transitional cover soils, such as CL, ML, CL-ML, SC, etc. to simplify the rules. The proposed rule revision making transitional cover and cap barrier layer requirements unified certainly has merit, however tying transitional cover construction to a permeability requirement along with protection from due to desiccation, freeze/thaw cycles, and wet/dry cycles is contrary to the existing rule and impracticable for transitional cover remaining in place potentially for years before composite final cover construction. The proposed rule appears to stress the importance of permeability of the placed cover in both pre-construction testing of soils and in construction quality control testing and documentation.

Constructed transitional cover remaining in place for six months or a year or more is likely to be impacted by desiccation, freeze/thaw cycles, and wet/dry cycles impacting the permeability of the soil layer. Certified transitional cover soils appear to be acceptable as cap soil barrier layer soils in the proposed rules, yet over time environmental conditions will likely negatively impact the compaction and permeability of the soil layer. In that case, the previously certified transitional cover layer may then not be certifiable as the cap soil barrier layer. The proposed rules are not clear in this respect. In conclusion, it is the opinion of the industry that unifying the requirements for transitional cover and cap soil barrier layer is a laudable goal yet has missed the mark as described herein. The proposed rules may put unnecessary time and financial burdens on sites to place transitional cover in compliance with the proposed rules during construction weather rather than the site personnel placing transitional cover during routine operation. The existing transitional cover rules has been adapted well by the industry by becoming part of normal operation of a facility. We believe the proposed rules will not provide any additional environmental or economic benefits or enhance operation. The proposed rules will


cause additional operational costs without gaining any overall benefits. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 70: In response to the comment, the rule was changed to restore the existing

transitional cover standards, with the additional changes of specifying a new soil classification standard, consequential streamlining of soil properties and testing requirements, and extending the timeframe to construct the transitional cover.

In addition, the rule was changed to restore the existing subbase

standards under GCL in the cap system. Comment 71: (D)(22) We do not support electrical leak testing immediately

following deployment and installation of the geomembrane liner or for the geomembrane in a composite cap system. We are not aware of other states requiring electrical leak testing for cap geomembranes. With regards to a cap system on side slopes (slopes greater than (10%), there is limited head and much higher gradients on cap geomembranes, and therefore minimizing the potential for leakage. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 71: In response to the comment, DMWM has decided to remove this

requirement for the cap system. Comment 72: (D)(23)(b)(iii) Good change. (Rick Buffalini, CEC) Response 72: No changes are necessary in response to this comment. Comment 73: (D)(24)(b) If Ohio EPA were to consider eliminating the cap soil

barrier layer, then the soil protective layer can be reduced to 24 inches. The cap soil protective layer thickness was driven by the need for freeze /thaw protection of the cap soil barrier layer. For example, PA and WV only require 2 feet thick cap protection layer and they have performed well in many installations. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 73: Assessing a redesign of the cap system requires more time than is

available with this rule update. DMWM will take this comment for future rulemaking. No change was made to the rule.

Comment 74: (D)(24)(c) Soil used in the cap protection layer should be chosen to grow vegetation and to protect underlying layers from erosion. Soils other than CL are better for vegetative growth. It is the permeability of the soil protective layer that should dictate the transmissivity requirements of the underlying drainage layer. This proposed rule is too prescriptive and may have very costly impacts to a landfill owner’s ability to utilize on-site soils. The costs should be provided


as a part of the Common Sense Initiative. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA; Rick Buffalini, CEC, Thomas Jenkins, Eagon & Associates; Bill Petruzzi, Hull and Associates)

Response 74: The requirement that the permeability of the protective layer meet slope

stability constraints was retained, but in response to the comment, the rule was changed to conduct pre-qualification permeability testing as evidence that the soil will meet the permeability specification once constructed.

Comment 75: (D)(25)(e)(i) Should not be in a regulation. Even NSPS does not

specify this. There are instances that we may want to install shallow wells to control gas migration. (Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 75: In response to the comment, the new gas well standards were removed. Comment 76: (D)(25)(e)(ii) This is only important for gas wells that have high temp

issues. Not needed everywhere. Not sure this is feasible. (Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 76: In response to the comment, the new gas well standards were removed. Comment 77: (D)(25)(e) Rewrite as: (e) Any gas extraction wells are constructed as

follows: (i) A typical vertical well casing comprised of both a solid and a perforated pipe section. Well boring annulus is backfilled with granular material along with general fill soils. Design may vary due to site specific conditions. (ii) Typical horizontal landfill gas collector is constructed of a shallow trench. Within the excavation is a perforated pipe. Trench excavation backfilled with granular media and general fill soils. Design may vary due to site specific conditions.

What is the health and safety issue and regulatory basis for requiring this well design? Flexibility in the installation of landfill gas collectors must exist to collect gas at all locations around the waste limits. Perimeter collectors would likely not have 20 feet of solid pipe as one example. Site specific considerations must be provided to collect gas in relatively shallow waste thicknesses. A “one size fits all” approach does not work in every application when it pertains to gas collection in every setting. A temperature profile cannot be developed in a gas extraction well which is under vacuum. The in-situ gas temperatures are washed out by the movement of the landfill gas through the well. Current well design/technology does not allow a site to take these measurements without removing the wellhead. So currently, it is not technically feasible to take measurements without removing the wellhead. Industry needs time to investigate technical feasibility to design


such a feature; this is not a short-term investigation as we must engage with vendors and manufacturers on feasibility and then at what cost and timing if design changes are feasible. We may find it is technically feasible but not economically feasible. Must be both technically and economically feasible before it can be considered for regulatory application. What is the basis for collecting the data? How will it inform the agency? The proposed revisions to OAC 3745-27-08 include the addition of a provision at 3745-27-08(D)(25)(e)(ii), which requires gas extraction wells to be constructed “To ensure liquid level and down-hole temperatures are capable of being measured without removal of the wellhead.” We recommend removal of the requirement to measure down-hole temperatures for the following reasons: It is not feasible to measure down-hole temperatures while the well is operating. Mixing of gas that occurs during extraction precludes accurate measurement of temperatures at specific locations in the well bore.

Similarly, we are not aware of a technology or design that would allow for measurement of downhole temperatures without removal of the wellhead.

USEPA’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and Technology Review (publication in the Federal Register is still pending) proposes a similar requirement to monitor the temperature of landfill gas at every 10 vertical feet of the well. This proposed requirement would only apply, however, to a small subset of wells for which enhanced monitoring is required. USEPA’s proposed requirement also presents numerous technological and operating challenges, and we are prepared to comment on this requirement once the comment period on the proposed requirements opens. Based on USEPA’s consideration of the comments received, the final rule requirement may differ significantly from the draft version or may be removed from the final rule entirely. We recommend that the requirement be removed from the proposed revisions to OAC 3745-27-08, since USEPA has yet to consider and weigh in on the technical and regulatory considerations of this matter.


If unchanged, it is highly likely that Ohio EPA’s rule would fundamentally differ from USEPA’s requirements in its final rule, resulting in inconsistencies that would make complying with both rules difficult, if not impossible. USEPA is considering this matter as part of the Landfill NESHAP, and such requirements would be appropriately contained in the applicable air rules for municipal solid waste landfills. Inclusion in Ohio EPA’s solid waste rules would unnecessarily create overlapping requirements for what is fundamentally an air issue. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 77: In response to the comment, the new gas well standards were removed. Comment 78: For interface friction testing of double-sided textured

geomembranes, it should somehow be noted what the geomembrane orientation is. Both sides are sometime not uniform. For instance, it is my understanding that Agru microspike has been stated by the manufacturer that one side is to be placed up. However, I have seen installers attempt to reverse this, and on a slope, that could have a significant impact. Same thing for any double-sided geomembrane. (Glen Toepfer, CQA Solutions)

Response 78: Many testing firms currently state the orientation of the FML and the

geocomposite and many facility owners and operators take steps to assure that this orientation is maintained during construction. DMWM will take this comment for future rulemaking. No change was made to the rule.

Comment 79: Appendix I This appendix should be deleted since no longer

referenced to determine RSL thickness (Rick Buffalini, CEC) Response 79: The interested party draft neglected to show that this appendix will be

deleted. 3745-27-09 Sanitary landfill facility operating record. Comment 80: The rule should allow for the maintenance of an electronic operating

record. Most documents are now created electronically and stored electronically. The rule should be clarified to allow for this. (Thomas Jenkins, Eagon & Associates)

Response 80: The rule does not specify a format and therefore allows for submittal of

either a hard copy or an electronic copy of the operating record. In practice, documents that are stamped “approved” by Ohio EPA are kept as hard copies. But scans of these documents can also be made and put


in the operating record. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 81: (B) By definition in OAC 3745-27-01(B)(5), “board of health” means

“the board of health of a city or general health district.” According to ORC 3709.02, the board of health consists of five appointed members. As proposed, the change would not allow the health department inspector to inspect the operating record. Should rephrase or add “or their authorized representative.” Also, the last sentence, “The owner or operator shall provide a copy of the operating record index upon request,” but does not specify who may request the index. May anyone request the index, and is this the intent? (Amy Holinbaugh, Mahoning County District Board of Health)

Response 81: In response to this comment, DMWM has changed the rules to clarify that

the board of health also includes the board of health’s authorized representative. The rule was restructured so that the copy of the operating record index is at the request of Ohio EPA or the board of health.

Comment 82: (B). The federal regulations specify the State Director for

accountability and program knowledge. We support changing the “Ohio EPA” language to “approved delegated authority” or “Director delegated authority.” (Camille Lukey, USEPA)

Response 82: In response to the comment, DMWM has amended the rule. Comment 83: (C)(2), (E). Revisions to documents are not required to be submitted

to OEPA or approved health department? Is the health department expected to maintain a complete copy of the operating record? This revision is going to make it difficult for the health department to maintain a complete copy of the existing operating record. (Amy Holinbaugh, Mahoning County District Board of Health)

Response 83: Though DMWM does recommend health departments keep current on

landfill activities within their jurisdiction, the onus of maintaining the operating record is on the owner or operator, not the health department. Most operating record documents are submitted to DMWM and uploaded into Ohio EPA’s eDoc system, making them available to the health department and public. For instances where a document may not be submitted to Ohio EPA, the owner or operator will be required to note the addition or revision in the operating record index. If the health department or DMWM desires to review the document, they can request a copy from the owner or operator. Paragraph (B) was changed to also apply to documents in the operating record, which includes the index.

3745-27-11 Final closure of a sanitary landfill facility.


Comment 84: Rule should provide for OEPA approval, authorization, or

certification that closure activities have been completed. (Amy Holinbaugh, Mahoning County District Board of Health)

Response 84: Ohio EPA is unable to supervise the completion of all closure activities,

and cannot approve, authorize, or certify activities which have not been witnessed by staff. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 85: (A)(2)(d) The federal regulations specify the State Director for


Response 85: This paragraph applies to facilities that ceased accepting waste prior to

June 1, 1994 and are therefore excluded from the requirements of RCRA Subtitle D (with the exception of final cover). No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 86: (C)(1)(d) Unless approved by the Ohio EPA. There are times that an

owner or operator may want to temporarily cease disposing waste at a particular site. (Rick Buffalini, CEC)

Response 86: To avoid mandatory closure, the owner or operator may choose to take a

load of waste once a year or request an exemption from this provision in accordance with ORC 3734.02(G). No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 87: (D)(3) No comma or hyphen is required between “generator” and

“exclusively.” (Amy Holinbaugh, Mahoning County District Board of Health)

Response 87: When a rule is being amended, existing principal text to be removed is

stricken and appears in red. Proposed new text is underlined in blue. The amendment referenced in this comment is proposing to remove the unnecessary comma that currently exists in paragraph (D)(3). No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 88: (H)(2), (J)(1)(c). The proposed rule changes the wording of “pond(s)”

to pond. Some facilities have more than one sedimentation pond. Should retain the word “pond(s).” (Amy Holinbaugh, Mahoning County District Board of Health)

Response 88: The Ohio Legislative Service Commission publishes a rule drafting manual

that assists state agencies and universities in rule writing and ensures consistency across the Ohio Administrative Code. Chapter 5 section 5.8 MATTERS OF FORM AND STYLE, 5.8.4 NUMBER states that the


singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular and that is generally preferable to draft rules in the singular, unless the plural is more appropriate to the context.

A copy of the “Rule Drafting Manual” can be found at: https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/documents/reference/current/membersonlybriefs/adminruledraftmanual06_06.pdf

No changes were made in response to this comment. Comment 89: (H)(2)[Comment] Permitting closure at less than minimum slope is

risking future major ponding problems during post-closure. Should keep design as approved in the closure plan or require OEPA approval of the slope change. (Amy Holinbaugh, Mahoning County District Board of Health)

Response 89: Due to the compressible nature of municipal solid waste and its continued

degradation over time, cap slopes often change by the time the closure certification is submitted. The minimum slopes specified in this rule account for such settlements. Therefore, the comment is necessary to provide an explanation as to the applicability of the slope standard. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 90: (I) The federal regulations specify the State Director for


Response 90: In response to the comment, DMWM has amended the rule. 3745-27-14 Post-closure care of sanitary landfill facilities. Comment 91: The Ohio Chapter of NWRA submitted comments on July 26, 2019 on

the Draft Guidance “Process for Ending Post-Closure Care at Solid Waste Facilities.” The guidance document provided an excellent framework for establishing a performance-based evaluation process to allow for a smooth transition to long-term maintenance and potential property reuse. Chapter 3745-17-14 should be revised to help incorporate the intentions outlined in the guidance. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 91: DMWM is required to complete the five-year review of the rules in this

package by April 17, 2020. Because the guidance was still in draft form when these rules were under development, it is DMWM’s intention to make additional rule changes to the criteria for ending post-closure care in the next rule update. No changes were made in response to this comment.




Comment 92: (A) Insert the following: …for a minimum of thirty years, ‘which can

be shortened or extended dependent on when, after completing a performance-based evaluation, the sanitary landfill no longer poses an unacceptable threat to human health and the environment at the point of exposure in the absence of active controls’ in accordance with… (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 92: In response to the comment, a new paragraph (C) was added to the rule

to allow for amendment and discontinuance of any of the post-closure activities during the post-closure care period that are unlikely to impact human health, safety, or the environment.

Comment 93: (A)(2) Access is certainly necessary at a closed landfill; however, not

all roads remaining after closure are necessary. If the road itself is contributing to cap run-on and run-off or instability, then one should be able to remove or change the road. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 93: OAC rule 3745-27-06(B)(6) requires the 6-series of plan sheets to show

the access roads present for each given phase of the landfill. The owner or operator may request to alter the permit at any time if the location of access roads is deemed unsuitable. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 94: (A)(4)(a) Is this requiring a back-up pump for each lift station? Not all

landfills have the facilities to store pumps on site. If the site has multiple lift stations utilizing the same specification of pump, you should not have to have multiple pumps on the shelf. At least one pump of a certain specification is adequate. The back-up pump should be readily available within 24 hrs. The storage location of the pump should not matter. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 94: The intent of the rule is to require only one back-up pump, not a back-up

pump for each lift station. If different pump types or sizes are used, the owner or operator may want to consider one backup for each type of pump.

In response to the comment, the rule was changed to require a replacement pump within 24 hours.

Comment 95: (A)(4)(b). This requirement should be removed from the rule.

Inspection of all of the collection piping at a facility on an annual basis would be a significant financial burden to the regulated community. The only practical way to inspect the entire network of collection piping would require expensive inspection techniques and even that may not be able to reach all of the piping in a system due to sharp bends in pipes, changes in collection pipe diameters, or


elevation changes, for example. Furthermore, if a section of collapsed or broken pipe is identified, depending on the location of the break or collapse, it may require excavation of a significant part of the landfill to repair the collection piping. Such an excavation could represent a larger potential for an environmental release and exposure than would be represented by a broken or collapsed section of a landfill liquid collection pipe. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 95: In response to the comment, the rule was changed to monitor leachate

generation and inspection of piping for clogs if there is a drop in leachate generation.

Comment 96: (A)(4)(c) This could be difficult for older facilities and should apply

only to landfills with a liner and in-waste landfill liquid collection system. For some older landfills, they could never meet this requirement (e.g. high ground water table) or be able to obtain the information. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 96: In response to the comment, DMWM changed the applicability of the rule

to sumps serving a leachate collection system across the bottom of the landfill.

Comment 97: (A)(5)(b) Replace ‘if necessary’ with ‘if practicable’ at the end of the

paragraph. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA) Response 97: The language in paragraph (A)(5)(b) details activities required to be

completed if the leachate generated by the leachate outbreak exceeds the storage capacity at the facility. The phrase “if necessary” is intended to clarify that the collection, treatment, and disposal of leachate may not be required for every leachate outbreak. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 98: (A)(5)(c) Add ‘if practicable’ at the end of the paragraph. (Kathy Trent,

NW&RA) Response 98: Addition of the language, “if practicable” to paragraph (A)(5)(c) would

make the requirement to “take action to minimize, control, or eliminate the conditions that contribute to the production of leachate” when a leachate outbreak occurs optional. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 99: (A)(6) Quarterly inspection reports should be submitted to both the

OEPA district office and the approved health department. (Amy Holinbaugh, Mahoning County District Board of Health)


Response 99: In response to the comment, DMWM has changed the rule to require quarterly inspection reports to be submitted to the Ohio EPA district office and the approved board of health.

Comment 100: (A)(6) The referenced section establishes a 15 day window after the

quarterly inspection date to submit the report to Ohio EPA; however, it doesn’t provide any window for when the quarterly inspection is to occur. I’ve been told each quarter’s inspection must be completed within the calendar quarter, e.g., the first quarter’s inspection must be completed by Mar 31.

There may be situations where in progress corrective actions extend right to the end of a quarter or a little beyond and may require a short time beyond the completion of the corrective actions to assess their effectiveness. If these situations come up I’d like the latitude to delay my quarterly inspection a reasonable time beyond the end of the quarter. Of course a quarterly inspection shouldn’t be completed significantly prior to the end of a quarter so a not earlier than limit might be a good idea as well. Accordingly, I recommend establishing a reasonable time interval around the end of a quarter for accomplishing each quarter’s inspection. For example, add: “…not earlier than 15 days prior to the end of the quarter and not later than 15 days after the end of the quarter…” If 15 days is deemed to be too much perhaps a 5 business day window would be acceptable. (Frank Barosky, City of Fairborn)

Response 100: The intent of paragraph (A)(6) is to ensure the owner or operator conducts

an inspection of the facility at a minimum of once within each quarter. In instances where completion of activities is not accomplished before the quarterly inspection is due, DMWM would expect the assessment of the effectiveness of the activities to be determined in the subsequent quarterly inspection. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 101: (A)(6) How is "operation" of the systems to be assessed? Is this

more than just a visual assessment? (Kathy Trent, NW&RA) Response 101: DMWM accepts that a visual assessment is satisfactory to fulfill the

requirements of this paragraph. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 102: (A)(6). Citing (A)(7) is redundant to all other site specific rule

requirements that are required during PC. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA) Response 102: In response to the comment, DMWM has changed the rule to remove the

redundant citation.


Comment 103: (A)(6)(b) If this is meant to apply to passive and active systems, and

include the gas control system, then replace ‘extraction system’ with ‘management system’. Tracking of maintenance for gas probes is understandable, but passive or active extraction is performance based at non‐NSPS sites based on preventing migration. For NSPS sites there are considerable system requirements and this rule would be redundant. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 103: Because the requirement applies to active and passive gas control

systems, the rule was changed to gas management system. For gas management systems subject to the NSPS, the NSPS inspection should suffice for the purposes of this rule, and an assessment of the condition and operation can be noted.

Comment 104: (A)(6)(c) The draft rule revisions require that the gas monitoring

probes be inspected for condition and operation. At a minimum, the requirement to inspect operation as part of the facility inspections should be removed. Explosive gas monitoring probes are accessed and operated during routine monitoring activities. Therefore, a separate quarterly inspection of the probes, including condition and operation, is not necessary. In addition, any changes deemed necessary would be better addressed in OAC 3745-27-12 as part of the monitoring program and does not need done more than annually. (Thomas Jenkins, Eagon & Associates; Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 104: The requirement to assess the condition and operation of the explosive

gas monitoring probes is largely redundant with the requirements contained in OAC rule 3745-27-12. In response to the comment, this paragraph has been deleted.

Comment 105: (A)(6)(d) The draft rule revisions require that the monitoring wells be

inspected for condition and operation. At a minimum, the requirement to inspect operation as part of the facility inspections should be removed. Well inspections and operation are performed in accordance with OAC 3745-27-10 (B)(3)(e) and as part of routine semiannual monitoring activities. Additional inspection of the wells on a quarterly basis is unnecessary. (Thomas Jenkins, Eagon & Associates; Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 105: The requirement to assess the condition and operation of the ground

water monitoring wells is largely redundant with the requirements contained in OAC rule 3745-27-10. In response to the comment, this paragraph has been deleted.

Comment 106: (A)(6)(g) How is clogging to be evaluated during these quarterly

inspections? Also, see preceding comment on (A)(4)(b). We


recommend that clogging be removed from this rule. The proposed language is also vague with regard to “excessive leachate depth”. Also see the previous comment on (A)(4)(c) regarding leachate depth at older landfills. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 106: In response to the comment, DMWM has changed the rule to require the

owner or operator to inspect the leachate depth in the sump. Comment 107: (A)(8) The language of this proposed rule is vague. What constitutes

“…a substantial threat of water pollution…” Seems to imply that NPDES permit would be required throughout PC period. Rewrite as: If leachate enters surface waters for a prolonged period and potentially represents a threat to the environment, monitoring of the surface water may be as required by the director or health commissioner. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 107: This provision reiterates the ability of the director or health commissioner

to require monitoring to assess whether the environment or public health and safety is at risk. It is not duplicative of NPDES requirements. This provision also exists in the operating rule OAC 3745-27-19. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 108: (A)(9)(a) Rewrite as: If a leachate collection system exists, a

summary of the quantity of leachate collected for treatment and disposal on a maximum schedule of monthly (or less frequent schedule as approved by the director), the location of leachate treatment or disposal, and copies of all testing results performed for disposal. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 108: The intent of paragraph (A)(9)(a) is to require that the owner or operator

report the amount of leachate collected on a monthly basis, not to require the owner or operator collect the leachate on a monthly basis. If no leachate is collected for treatment and disposal on a given month, the record would show 0 gallons. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 109: (A)(9)(c) The reporting of the maintenance of all systems seems

excessive. The only reason to agree would be if the information would assist with the certification of PCC. The guidance leans towards collecting data 5 years prior to the end of the 30 years. The system maintenance records does not necessarily provide the type of data you are looking for to certify PCC. Replace “any maintenance performed” with “the condition and operation of the”. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 109: In response to the comment, paragraph (A)(9)(c) was changed to include

the suggested language.


Comment 110: (A)(9)(e) The phrase “any changes in land usage” is broad and could

be interpreted to include things as minor as a change in crops planted, for instance. The draft rule should be revised to avoid uncertainties in what kind of changes should be noted in the annual reports due in April of each year. If the rule remains, clarification is needed as to how this is to be demonstrated - visual drive by? Satellite/aerial imagery? Etc. (Thomas Jenkins, Eagon & Associates; Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 110: In response to the comment, the rule was changed to be more precise on

what changes the report should identify. Comment 111: (A)(9)(e) 3745-27-12 currently requires confirmation of occupied

structures within one thousand feet of the limits of waste placement. Including this requirement in 27-14 is redundant. Including the investigation of water wells is an unnecessary burden on the closed landfill. 3745-27-10 addresses the groundwater monitoring program, assessment and corrective measures. Including this requirement in 27-14 is redundant. Requiring the closed landfill to investigate whether any significant excavation is occurring within 1000 feet of waste placement is also an unnecessary burden. How do you define a significant excavation? This requirement should be removed from the rule. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 111: Tracking the construction of occupied structures, installation of water

wells, and surface mining within 300 feet is necessary to supplement existing programs (explosive gas, ground water monitoring, Rule 13). DMWM has observed occurrences where owners and operators fail to note these changes in the course of implementing the programs identified above, especially if the owner or operator is not required to comply with the program until such activity occurs. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 112: (A)(9)(f) A signed certification statement is appropriate for this

report. Why does this report need to be notarized? (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 112: In response to the comment, DMWM has removed the requirement for

notarization. Comment 113: (A)(10) Proposed change from “health department” to “board of

health.” See comments for 09(B). Would prefer wording as in rule 14(D). (Amy Holinbaugh, Mahoning County District Board of Health)


Response 113: In response to this comment, DMWM has changed the rules to make it clear that the board of health also includes the board of health’s authorized representative.

Comment 114: (B) Rewrite this sentence as: Based on such factors as the

inspection or monitoring results or reports required by paragraphs (A)(6) and (A)(7) of this rule and that landfill stability has occurred where the facility no longer poses an unacceptable threat to human health and the environment at the point of exposure in the absence of active controls, the director will discontinue the post-closure care period. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 114: Changes to the language that specifies the post closure care timeframe is

one of many significant post-closure care rule changes being evaluated separately as part of the effort to finalize the guidance document titled, “Process for Ending of Post-Closure Care at Solid Waste Landfills.” Once the division has reviewed the comments received on that document and has completed the appropriate revisions, subsequent rule changes will result. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 115: (B) Delete “all” from ‘all post-closure care activities. (Kathy Trent,

NW&RA) Response 115: In response to the comment, DMWM changed the rule to remove the word

“all.” Comment 116: (C)(1) Rewrite as: Has completed ground water monitoring in

accordance with rule 3745-27-10 of the Administrative Code sufficient to demonstrate that, after completing a performance-based evaluation, the sanitary landfill no longer poses an unacceptable threat to human health and the environment at the point of exposure in the absence of active controls. (Kathy Trent, NW&RA)

Response 116: Changes to the language that specifies the post closure care timeframe is

one of many significant post-closure care rule changes being evaluated separately as part of the effort to finalize the guidance document titled, “Process for Ending of Post-Closure Care at Solid Waste Landfills.” Once the division has reviewed the comments received on that document and has completed the appropriate revisions, subsequent rule changes will result. No changes were made in response to this comment.

Comment 117: (C)(2) and (C)(3) Delete if (C)(1) is rewritten as suggested. (Kathy

Trent, NW&RA) Response 117: DMWM will take this comment for future rule-making. No change was

made to the rule.


End of Response to Comments

Division of Materials and Waste Management Response to ... · Response 1: The Ohio Legislative...

Documents

Transcript of Division of Materials and Waste Management Response to ... · Response 1: The Ohio Legislative...