GROUNDWATER MONITORING AT SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES – A POST-SUBTITLE D RETROSPECTIVE
States differ in their approach to implementing Subtitle D requirements, thus the use of certain approaches may be precluded by a State's rules. A challenge faced by industry and regulatory agencies is utilizing these tools effectively within the often regimented framework of a state-regulated Subtitle D monitoring program. In many instances, these tools may be effective alternatives to the monitoring prescribed by Subtitle D.
In the time since Subtitle D was passed, much has been learned about the geochemistry of landfills, potential sources of environmental impacts, chemical signatures, and the effectiveness of Subtitle D liner systems. In some instances, deviation from the strict Subtitle D model is warranted to attain monitoring goals. Variation in state approaches has resulted in inconsistent interpretation of monitoring results. For example, facility data for a site in one state may places a site in detection monitoring whereas that same data could result in assessment monitoring in another state.
Two areas of Subtitle D monitoring which have generated much discussion over the years are (1) approaches to data analysis such as statistics; and (2) the so-called alternate source demonstration (ASD). Statistical procedures for detection monitoring have evolved significantly since 1993, and has even spawned landfill-specific statistical analysis software. Experience has shown that statistical analysis is not an effective tool in many circumstances and alternative approaches not discussed in Subtitle D need to be considered. Performing an ASD will often provide better information regarding the cause of anomalous monitoring data than the assessment required by State rules.