• Updated monitoring tables for landfills to improve the description of some parameters and reduce confusion. Removed chemical oxygen demand (COD) and replaced it with dissolved organic carbon (DOC) for papermill sludge landfills because the analytical process for COD generates a hazardous waste. • Added a separate leachate recirculation monitoring table and a separate gas monitoring table for municipal solid waste landfills. NR 508 - Responses When a Groundwater Standard Is Attained or Exceeded
• Clarified that responses are required when a groundwater standard is attained or exceeded at any groundwater monitoring well or water supply well. • Linked ch. NR 508, Wis. Adm. Code, with other chapters of the Administrative Code that list existing response requirements. NR 509 - Initial Site Reports for Landfills
• As noted earlier under ch. NR 504, Wis. Adm. Code, related to landfill design, specified that when excavating soil designated to be used for a liner or final cover for the landfill, which has to meet certain performance criteria, an initial site inspection is not required at the soil borrow sources if a storm water discharge permit was previously issued. • Updated language to clarify what is meant when the department issues an initial site report opinion on a proposed property for a landfill. The department’s opinion will reflect whether the proposed property has potential for development as a landfill. If there is potential, it will identify any constraints on development and possible ways constraints could be addressed, such as removing impacts to wetlands or applying for a wetlands permit. NR 510 - Pre-feasibility Reports for Landfills
• Repealed ch. NR 510, Wis. Adm. Code, related to optional pre-feasibility reports for proposed new landfills or expansions of existing landfills. This option has not been used by a landfill applicant since the code language became effective in 1996. NR 512 - Feasibility Reports for Landfills
• Reduced requirements for locational criteria (listed in ch. NR 504, Wis. Adm. Code) and information submittals for vertical-only expansions of an existing landfill. For example, information from soil borings, new well installations, or bedrock descriptions would not need to be evaluated or submitted to the department because no additional land area will be impacted. • Clarified that the department may ask for explanatory information in addition to that required in ch. NR 512, Wis. Adm. Code, prior to determining if a submitted feasibility report is complete or to determine feasibility. • Updated language regarding geotechnical information required in a feasibility report, including establishing minimum site-specific information that a geotechnical investigation must obtain. The code retains the prescribed number of soil borings, monitoring wells, and piezometers that are required, depending on the proposed acreage of landfill development and soil type. The code also retains the minimum soil and rock tests that are required. The overall intent remains the same as current code, but some minimum qualitative standards are established and the rule codifies site-specific geotechnical information department review staff routinely request, if it is not already provided in the feasibility report. This information defines the physical characteristics of the proposed landfill's location that are needed to determine feasibility. • Clarified what should be described in a feasibility report as possible constraints on landfill development, such as meeting distances between proposed limits of waste and water supply wells and discussing the significance of any groundwater standard exceedances. NR 514 - Plan of Operation and Closure Plans for Landfills
• Codified current practice that the department may issue an initial site construction approval that allows initiation of construction prior to issuing the plan of operation approval. • Codified several elements of a plan of operation submittal that the department has been regularly requesting of applicants, such as engineering design features, dust and odor control plans, and a table of phased construction events. • Codified current practice that the department may approve delaying final cover placement for up to two years after a municipal solid waste landfill attains either final waste grades or maximum interim waste grades. This allows time for potential settling of the waste and adding new waste to the existing landfill footprint. • Clarified that a plan of operation for a contiguous landfill expansion must include evaluations of the existing leachate collection system, gas extraction system, litter control plan, odor control plan, leachate recirculation plan, organic stability plan, and revised storm water pollution prevention plan. • Allowed a municipal solid waste landfill to have waste placed temporarily up to 10 percent higher than the approved final waste grades when compared to the depth of waste at that location, which assumes that settling will occur before final closure and placement of a final cover. This would allow a landfill to accept additional waste and delay the need for an expansion or a new landfill. If more than 5 percent of the approved final waste grade is requested, the landfill owner or operator must establish financial responsibility for closure of the additional waste amount. • Specified that the plan of operation for a proposed landfill property that includes private water supply wells or groundwater monitoring wells must include methods for abandonment of water supply wells located within the proposed limits of waste of the landfill. • Codified that a plan of operation for any proposed landfill or expansion of an existing landfill that has wetlands or navigable waterways within the proposed limits of waste or in other areas proposed to be directly filled or excavated must include waterway and wetland permits or avoidance of wetlands. NR 516 - Landfill Construction Documentation
• Clarified that the construction documentation report must include elements of the construction relating to preparation of sub-base for an alternative liner design or in areas of unsuitable soil removal. • Required that testing be performed when constructing the sub-base of an alternative landfill liner that includes determining dry density and as-placed moisture content of the soil and the required samples per acre. • Removed the option for expedited construction documentation approvals. This is no longer needed in code because it was requested very infrequently, and it was difficult with available staffing resources to meet deadlines when it was requested, which will continue to be the case. NR 520 - Solid Waste Management Fees and Financial Responsibility Requirements
• Clarified that an applicant for initial licensing of a facility must pay the full annual license fee even if the license is applied for mid-year during the license period. • Adjusted the license fee surcharge paid to the department based upon the number of tons or equivalent volume of solid waste disposed of at each landfill during each quarterly reporting period (currently 15.0 cents/ton): 25.0 cents/ton effective January 1, 2026, 27.0 cents/ton effective January 1, 2031, and 30.0 cents/ton effective January 1, 2036. • Codified that the license fee surcharge does not apply to waste that was previously disposed of in a licensed landfill and is excavated and disposed of in another licensed landfill, waste generated as a result of a natural disaster that meets statutorily designated criteria, and waste created as a direct result of a one-time project paid for with state funds. • Specified that a landfill owner or operator shall maintain an active operating license until all closure activities are complete and a long-term care license is issued, if applicable, by the department. • Increased limit from $100,000 to $250,000, or the standard Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limit, for the amount of cash or certificates of deposit allowed for certain methods used for providing proof of financial responsibility. • Clarified that facilities located outside of Wisconsin must be included when determining the total cost of compliance under the net worth to closure, long-term care and remedial action cost ratio. • Clarified language related to costs that must be included when estimating long-term care costs. • Created language to allow closed landfills already in a long-term care period to adjust owner financial responsibility costs for leachate collection and management after assessing a minimum 10-year period of leachate generation rates. • Amended language to apply a five-year average inflation factor to future owner financial responsibility calculations, and to use a discount rate equal to the projected rate of inflation plus 1.5 percent for long-term care and remedial action owner financial responsibility estimates brought to a present value. All currently active and many closed landfills are required to designate a funding mechanism that the state can access to properly close a landfill or provide long-term care. The primary change proposed for OFR requirements in this rule is to apply a five-year average inflation factor to future OFR calculation rather than a single most recent year factor. The five-year average would effectively smooth the fluctuation of year-to-year increase or decrease when conducting annual calculations. Another proposed change is to use a discount rate equal to the projected rate of inflation plus 1.5% for long-term care and remedial action and estimate OFR to a present value. Reducing the discount rate from 2% to 1.5% would have minimal to no economic effect over time on overall OFR costs. It would likely increase the amount required for a landfill owner to set aside when newly calculated, but decreases the amount needed in future years. • Updated language related to certification reporting and payment of fees. • Replaced two fee tables with one consolidated table and moved some footnotes to code text. The new Table 3 includes updated plan review fees, most of which had not been changed since 2006, for municipal solid waste landfills and industrial solid waste landfills based on current assigned hydrogeologist and engineer plan review costs. NR 524 - Training and Certification Requirements for Solid Waste Disposal Facility Operators
• Clarified that certified managers and operators are not required at solid waste disposal facilities that have completed closure activities. 6. Summary of, and Comparison with, Existing or Proposed Federal Statutes and Regulations:
The proposed rule is consistent with and as protective as federal criteria under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 40 CFR Part 258). The department must obtain U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approval of the rule revisions and maintain its authority to regulate solid waste disposal facilities in Wisconsin. Statutes that provide authority for these proposed rules, current Administrative Code, and this proposed rulemaking include provisions that differ from federal regulations. That is because federal regulations are minimum, general requirements that apply nationwide. Wisconsin’s solid waste management code reflects needed environmental and public health safeguards specific to the climate and weather patterns, soil types, water resources and aquifers, and other characteristics of the state.
7. If Held, Summary of Comments Received During Preliminary Comment Period
and at Public Hearing on the Statement of Scope:
_Hlk952008The department held a virtual preliminary public hearing on the statement of scope on December 22, 2022, at 1 p.m. and 24 members of the public attended the hearing. Upon entering the hearing, three people registered in support of the scope statement and 21 people stated they were attending the hearing for information only. Four people provided public testimony, which is summarized below:
• Meleesa Johnson (Ringle, WI), Director of Marathon County Solid Waste Department (now former director), registered in support and stated that public and solid waste industry engagement throughout the rulemaking process is valuable. Having a broad representation of industry engaged and at the table will result in positive changes to rules. She looks forward to the rule change opportunity. • Craig Summerfield (Madison, WI), Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Director of Environmental and Energy Policy, registered for information only and stated that the subject matter of the scope statement is very broad and could have a large economic impact. The rule should not be overly burdensome and no more restrictive than what is required by federal law, noting that s. 289.05, Stats., states that the department shall promulgate rules necessary to ensure compliance and consistency with the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Summerfield said the department should consider forming an official technical advisory committee so stakeholders can provide input rather than relying only on the Department’s Waste and Materials Management Study Group, which does not include an industrial landfill operator. • Lynn Morgan (Germantown, WI), WM Public Affairs Manager, registered in support and stated that she supports changes in rule that would allow alternative landfill liner and cover requirements. The rule’s overarching concept should shift from prescriptive engineering requirements to performance-based requirements that allow applicants to bring in various designs that meet performance standards. With the current rulemaking process, it is difficult to conduct rulemaking frequently, which limits opportunity to update code for new technology and practices and requires variances or waivers. It would be a better use of department time to look at whether proposals meet performance standards than prescriptive standards. • Mark Torresani (Madison, WI) registered in support and stated updating landfill location criteria and design standards will require significant technical analysis and will take time. Technical information should be reviewed early in the process so decisions and rules are based on science and technology. Rulemaking should ensure that code still allows variances and room for new technology and improvements. Industry appreciates the opportunity to conduct rulemaking. The public comment period ended on December 22, 2022. The department received two written comments on the proposed statement of scope from Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and WM that reflected their spoken comments above.
8. Comparison with Similar Rules in Adjacent States:
Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa, as well as Wisconsin, all have solid waste management laws and permit programs based on federal law and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The landfill permitting and licensing for each state includes a technical decision-making process focusing on the ability of the proposed landfill design to meet all criteria and standards to protect public health and the environment. Each state regulates the construction, operation and closure of facilities and projects that manage, process and dispose of solid waste.
• The rule proposes to codify existing annual report requirements that are currently specified in each landfill’s plan of operation. Three states—Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota—require annual reports be submitted highlighting landfill operations from the previous year. • The rule proposes notification deadlines for landfills to send certain information to the department, such as notification of a landfill surface fire within one day, notification of a subsurface fire or elevated temperatures within five days of verification, and notification of a leachate seep or leachate spill outside the limits of waste within one day of discovery. Minnesota requires notification of ‘emergency situations’ such as landfill fires and spills. Michigan requires landfills to develop and maintain an ‘Emergency Response and Remedial Action Plan’ for situations such as landfill fires or spills. • The rule proposes changing the minimum inside diameter of all leachate collection or transfer pipes to be 6 inches, rather than the current 6-inch outside diameter requirement. This provides a minimum numerical standard. The four adjacent states require leachate pipes allow for sufficient flow and access for cleaning, but without a specific diameter. • The proposed rule allows for alternative final cover design proposals for municipal solid waste landfills. The design must meet certain performance-based criteria but is open to new design proposals. All four adjacent states also allow for alternative final cover design proposals. • The proposed rule codifies current practice that the department may approve delaying final cover placement for up to two years after a municipal solid waste landfill attains either final waste grades or maximum interim waste grades. This allows time for potential settling of the waste and adding new waste to the existing landfill footprint. Michigan allows delaying placement of final cover up to one year. • The rule proposes allowing a municipal solid waste landfill to have waste placed temporarily up to 10 percent higher than the approved final waste grades, which assumes that settling will occur before final closure and placement of a final cover. This would allow a landfill to accept additional waste and delay the need for an expansion or a new landfill. No information was found related to this type of allowance in adjacent states. • The proposed rule allows a specific alternative landfill liner design than what is currently required in code for composite lined landfills (composite liners consisting of a 60-mil HDPE geomembrane and four foot thick clay liner are currently required for all municipal solid waste landfills). This is an option, not a requirement, for design of a landfill in areas that may have limitations on obtaining the current minimum four foot clay component for a landfill liner. All four neighboring states have minimum liner design requirements similar to Wisconsin’s and allow for an alternative landfill liner design. •o In Michigan, municipal solid waste landfills must have: (a) a secondary (bottom) composite liner, made of two feet of compacted clay or a manufactured equivalent liner and a 60-mil plastic liner, and (b) a primary (top) composite liner, made of two feet of clay or a manufactured equivalent and a 60-mil synthetic liner. The secondary composite liner is not required if a proposed landfill location already has a natural soil barrier that is demonstrated to provide equal protection (such as 10 feet of natural low-permeability clay) or alternate system that is approved by the director and which prevents the migration of hazardous substances at least as effectively as the other options specified in Michigan rule. Additional leachate collection system components are also required along with a layer, typically two feet of sand, protecting those components. •o In Minnesota, the liner system in combination with the cover system must achieve an overall site efficiency of 98.5 percent collection or rejection of the precipitation that falls on the disposal area and minimize the amount of leachate leaving the site to the soil and groundwater system below the site. The liner must be four feet of natural soil (clay) barrier or a composite liner with two feet of clay and a 60-mil synthetic liner. An alternative liner system design may be used when approved by the MN agency’s commissioner, and is based on the ability of the proposed liner system to control leachate migration, meet performance standards, and protect human health and the environment. •o Illinois requires its landfill liners have at least five feet of clay in a natural soil liner, or three feet of clay and a 60-mil synthetic liner. Alternative liners may be proposed if the landfill operator demonstrates that alternative technology or material provides equivalent or superior performance to the standard requirements, the technology or material has been successfully utilized in at least one application similar to the proposed application, and methods for manufacturing quality control and construction quality control can be implemented. •o Iowa requires liner construction to include two feet of compacted soil with a synthetic liner, and has also approved four foot natural soil (clay) liners. Alternate liner designs may be proposed if evidence is provided that the liner can keep contaminant levels below state standards, as monitored downgradient of waste and within 50 feet of the waste boundary. Iowa code states that it must consider at least the following when approving an alternative liner design: the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility and surrounding land, the climatic factors of the area, the volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the leachate, the sensitivities and limitations of the modeling demonstrating the applicable point of compliance, and practicable capability of the owner or operator. • The proposed rule adjusts the license fee surcharge paid to the department based upon the number of tons or equivalent volume of solid waste disposed of at each landfill during each quarterly reporting period (currently 15.0 cents/ton): 25.0 cents/ton effective January 1, 2026, 27.0 cents/ton effective January 1, 2031, and 30.0 cents/ton effective January 1, 2036. These ‘tipping fees’ are assessed per ton of waste disposed of in Wisconsin landfills and are the only tipping fees in Administrative Code. All other tipping fees, totaling $13/ton when combined, are designated in statute and cannot be altered by this rule. Revenue from all tipping fees is used at multiple agencies for multiple purposes, including local government recycling grants; programs overseeing air, water, and soil clean up; and general department operations and debt service. The current 15.0 cents/ton license surcharge tipping fee goes directly to the department’s Waste and Materials Management Program to cover a portion of general operations expenditures. The rule also proposes updated plan review fees, most of which had not been changed since 2006, for municipal solid waste landfills and industrial solid waste landfills. Together these fees encompass a portion of funding that supports overall solid waste management work being done by the department; additional funds are provided through legislative appropriations in the biennial budget. It is difficult to compare funding mechanisms state by state because there are several different methods of assessing fees and determining how the revenue is allocated to one or multiple purposes or programs. The information below does not compare apples-to-apples information with the proposed rules, but is provided for general awareness. Each state is likely to have additional revenues not included here that are also applied to its solid waste work.
•o In Michigan, 36 cents is charged for each ton or portion of a ton of solid waste or municipal solid waste incinerator ash that is disposed of in a landfill. Michigan’s governor proposed budget recommendations in early 2024 to increase this solid waste surcharge from $0.36 to $5.00 per ton. This would generate funds for program oversight of contaminated site cleanup, brownfield redevelopment, recycling, and waste management. Other landfill fees found in Michigan law include permit application fees of $3,000 to construct a new landfill, $2,000 to construct a lateral expansion of an existing landfill, and $1,500 for a vertical expansion. •o In Minnesota, waste management services (waste haulers, transfer stations, incinerators, landfills, local governments) collect and submit to the state a solid waste management tax charged for the solid waste services they provide. The tax rate is 9.75 percent of the sales price charged by the service provider for residential waste, and 17 percent for commercial clients. 70 percent of tax collected goes into Minnesota’s Environmental Fund and 30 percent goes into the state general fund. •o Illinois does not charge fees for landfill plan reviews or inspections. The only fees are the tipping fees referenced in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act: if more than 150,000 cubic yards of non-hazardous solid waste is permanently disposed of at a site in a calendar year, the total fee per ton is $2.22. The fees provide funding for the delegated county enforcement program, various solid waste collection programs and the related staff support for each, as well as solid waste permitting programs. •o In Iowa, fees are paid on each ton landfilled. The base fee is $4.25 per ton; however, based on penalties and rewards for the landfill’s waste diversion efforts, each landfill pays slightly more or slightly less than the base amount. Landfill operators remit a portion of the fee to the state each quarter. The remaining funds are to be used for planning and environmental protection activities at the local level.
