ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
7,
1995
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF CONVERSION
)
AS 93-4
SYSTEMS,
INC.
FOR ADJUSTED
)
(Adjusted
St~ndard—L~nd)
STANDARD FROM 35 ILL.
ADM.
CODE PART 811
(Liner)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by C.A. Manning):
This matter
is before the Board on a petition for an
adjusted standard filed by Conversion Systems,
Inc.
(CSI)
on July
2,
1993.
CSI seeks adjusted standards from the requirements
of
35 Ill.
Adin. Code Part 811,
Standards for new solid waste
landfills, Sections 811.306,
811.314,
and 811.507,
as they apply
to its Poz—O—Tec® materials
(Poz—O-Tec).
These materials are
produced through
a patented stabilization process utilizing flue
gas desulfurization
(FGD)
sludges and ash produced by coal-
burning power generation facilities.
CSI seeks the adjusted
standard
in order to allow owners of chemical waste landfills
accepting only FGD sludges and coal combustion wastes to use Poz-
0—Tec as a liner and cap material.
Based upon the record before it and upon review of the
factors involved in the consideration of adjusted standards,
the
Board finds that petitioners have demonstrated that grant of an
adjusted standard is warranted.
Accordingly for reasons more
fully set forth below,
the Board hereby grants CSI an adjusted
standard from 811.306,
811.314,
and 811.507.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CSI originally filed
a petition for adjusted standard
concerning its Poz-O-Tec materials on August 24,
1992, which was
docketed as AS 92—9.
That petition was dismissed by the Board on
March
25,
1993,
pursuant to CSI’s request to voluntarily withdraw
the petition.
The petition before the Board in the present
proceeding was filed on July
2,
1993.
Concurrently with the
filing of this petition,
CSI filed a separate petition for
adjusted standard, docketed as AS 93—5, wherein CSI seeks relief
from the requirements
of 35
Ill.
Adin. Code Part 811 so as to
allow Poz-O-Tec materials to be disposed of in a monofill without
the
need
for
a
liner,
cap,
or
leachate
collection
system.
Also
on
July
2,
1993,
CSI
filed
a “Motion Regarding
Procedural Matters,” wherein CSI requested that it be allowed to
incorporate by reference the entire record from AS
92—9.
CSI
also requested that the Board rule
upon the
issue
of
whether
its
failure
to
include
site—specific
information
would
make
adjusted
standard relief unavailable.
On July 20,
1993, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed a response to this
motion
and
a
motion
to
dismiss,
and
CSI
filed
a
reply
to
the
2
Agency’s response.
The Board issued an order on July 22,
1993,
which granted CSI’s motion to incorporate the record in AS 92-9.
On August 26,
1993,
the Board issued an order, with two Board
Members dissenting, finding that CSI’s petition for adjusted
standard was an appropriate mechanism for seeking relief,
and
which accepted the petition for hearing.
(See Board Order of
August 26,
1993,
B.
Forcade and C.A. Manning dissenting.) In its
August 26,
1993 order, the Board expressed no opinion as to the
merits of the petition.
No appeal of that order was sought by
either the petitioner or the Agency.
The Agency filed two motions
for
extensions of time to file
its response in order to allow the Agency to substitute counsel,
and in order to allow negotiations between the parties.
The
Board granted both extensions of time,
the second of which
granted the Agency an extension until May 23,
1994 to file its
response.
The Board received CSI’s Certificates of Publication on
August
2,
1993, which indicated that notice of the proposed
adjusted standard was published in the State Journal-Register on
July 5,
1993, and in the Chicago Sun-Times on July
3,
1993.
No
requests for public hearing were received,
and no hearing was
held in this matter.
However,
on May 19,
1994,
the Board
assigned a hearing officer to this matter, and directed the
parties to hold a pre—hearing conference, which was held June 22,
1994.
Subsequently, because the parties wished to continue
negotiating, the hearing officer issued an order directing the
parties to file status reports on or before November
1,
1994.
The Agency filed
its response to the petition for adjusted
standard on November 3,
1994, recommending that the adjusted
standard be granted, subject to certain additions and amendments.
On November 14,
1994 CSI filed a motion for leave to file a reply
to the Agency response which the Board granted.
The reply
indicates that CSI is
in agreement with the Agency’s proposed
amendments to the adjusted standard.
On May 5,
1995, CSI filed a motion requesting that the Board
follow its August 26,
1993 order.
The Board finds the motion
moot for the reasons set forth below in the opinion.
THE ADJUSTED
STANDARD
PROCESS
-
SECTION 28.1 OF THE ACT
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.).
The
Board is charged therein to “determine, define and implement the
environmental control standards applicable
in
the State of
Illinois” (Section 5(b)
of the Act)
and to “grant
.
.
.
an
adjusted standard for persons who can justify such an adjustment”
(Section 28.1(a)
of the Act).
More generally, the Board’s
responsibility in this matter is based on the system of checks
3
and balances integral to Illinois environmental governance: the
Board is charged with the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory
functions,
and the Agency is responsible for carrying out the
principal administrative and enforcement duties.
Section 28.1 of the Act provides that a petitioner may
request, and the Board may adopt an individual adjusted standard
different from the standard that would otherwise apply to
petitioner pursuant to a rule of general applicability.
Such a
standard is called an adjusted standard.
The general procedures
that govern an adjusted standard proceeding are found at Section
28.1 of the Act and within the Board’s procedural rules
at
35
Ill.
Adin.
Code Part 106.
Where,
as here, the regulation of general applicability does
not specify a level
of justification required for a petitioner to
qualify for an adjusted standard, the Act at Section 28.1(c)
specifies four demonstrations that must be made by a successful
petitioner:
1)
Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially
and significantly different from the factors relied
upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation
applicable to that petitioner;
2)
The existence of those factors justifies an adjusted
standard;
3)
The requested standard will not result in environmental
or health effects substantially and significantly more
adverse than the effects considered by the Board in
adopting the rule of general applicability; and
4)
The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable
federal
law.
Instead of seeking relief that is specific to an individual,
or a site, CSI
is requesting that an adjusted standard be granted
from certain sections of Part 811,
so that those facilities which
produce FGD sludges and ash (approximately 45 coal burning power
generation facilities), may purchase CSI’s Poz—O-Tec process and
dispose of Poz-O-Tec material without having to comply with the
existing Part 811 liner and leachate requirements.
As stated previously the Board denied an Agency motion to
dismiss the instant petition and that of AS
93-5.
Since that
time, the Agency and CSI have come to agreement as to the
requirements that would be imposed on the purchasers of the Poz—
O—Tec process,
and the Agency has filed a recommendation to that
effect with the Board.
However,
in reviewing the language of the proposed adjusted
4
standard, the Board finds that it imposes requirements on the
purchasers and users of the Poz—O—Tec process, and not strictly
upon CSI, the individual company who sought and to whom we grant
this adjustment to the rules of general applicability. Therefore,
in order to ensure that the
users of the Poz—0—Tec materials for
which the adjusted standard is granted, clearly understand and
are legally and regulatorily committed to proper use of the Poz-
0-Tec process product, the Board will also open a rulemaking
docket to consider incorporating this adjusted standard into a
rule of general applicability governing the Poz-O-Tec process of
CSI, pursuant to Sections 27 and 28 of the Act.
The Board intends to use this docket to adopt the language
of the adjusted standard,
as agreed to and drafted by CSI and the
Agency,
as a new Part 816, entitled “New Utility Waste
Landfills.”
Additionally, we will propose amendments to Part
807,
810, and 811 in order to provide for consistency with a
proposed, new Part 816.
We also believe that it
is appropriate
for the Board, and we note that it is within our discretion, to
consider a rule of general applicability for the Poz—O--Tec
materials pursuant to Section
27 and 28 of the Act.
The following is the Board’s examination of the technical
merits of the requested adjusted standard.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS FROM WHICH CSI
SEEKS AN ADJUSTED STANDARD
CSI seeks an adjusted standard from the requirements of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code Sections 811.306,
811.314,
and
811.507.
These
rules are contained
in Subpart C of Part 811 of the Board’s
landfill rules.
Part 811 prescribes the standards applicable to
new solid waste
landfills,
and Subpart C of Part 811 prescribes
those standards specifically applicable to chemical and
putrescible waste
(chemical waste)
landfills.
Section 811.306
prescribes the liner requirements;
Section 811.314 prescribes the
final cover requirements,
including requirements for a
low
permeability layer or cap; and Section 811.507 prescribes
requirements for compacted earth liners,
including the
requirement that a test
liner be constructed.
Each of these is
discussed in greater detail below.
Section 811.306 prescribes the liner requirements applicable
to chemical waste landfills.
It contemplates use of two types of
liners:
compacted earth liners and geomembrane liners.
A
compacted earth liner must be at least
5 feet thick, with a
maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1x107 cm/sec., and must be
constructed in accordance with the quality assurance procedures
in 811.Subpart
E.
Geomembranes may be used only in conjunction
with
a compacted earth liner system,
and must meet certain
additional requirements specified in subsection 811.306(e).
A
5
leachate collection system must be used in conjunction with both
types of liners.
Alternatively, subsection 811.306(g)
specifies
that alternative technologies or materials may be used to serve
as liners if:
(1)
they provide equivalent or superior
performance;
(2)
the technology or material has been successfully
utilized in at least one other similar application; and
(3)
methods for manufacturing quality control and construction
quality assurance can be implemented.
Section 811.314 prescribes requirements for final cover
applicable to chemical waste
landfills.
It specifies that
chemical waste landfills must be covered by a final cover
consisting of a low permeability layer overlain by a final
protective layer.
The low permeability layer can consist of a
compacted earth layer at least three feet thick with
a
permeability
of
1xl07 cm/sec.,
or a geomembrane which provides
equivalent performance.
Subsection 811.314(3) (C)
allows
alternative techniques or materials to be used if they provide
equivalent or superior performance.
Section 811.507 requires that a test liner be constructed
prior to construction of
a full—scale compacted earth liner.
The
test liner must be constructed of the same design and materials
as the full
liner,
and must satisfy criteria specifying miniiiiuin
dimensions.
Subsection 811.507(b) (5)
specifies that the physical
properties of the test fill must be tested using field tests for
determining hydraulic conductivity,
and laboratory tests for
hydraulic conductivity and other engineering parameters,
including particle size distribution,
plasticity, water content,
and in-place density.
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
In this petition,
CSI seeks an adjusted standard to allow
landfills which accept only coal combustion and FGD wastes to use
Poz—O-Tec materials for their liners and caps.
CSI’s Poz—O—Tec
materials are produced through
a patented stabilization process
which uses forced—oxidized flue-gas desulfurization scrubber
sludge and coal combustion ash as raw materials.
(Pet. at 1.)
The scrubber sludge is directed to
a scrubber blowdown tank,
and
then to primary and secondary dewatering systems.
(Pet.
at 7.)
The dewatered sludge is then directed to
a mixer where fly ash
and lime are added.
The materials
are mixed and then stabilized,
producing a highly impermeable monolithic mass
(Pet.
at 7),
with
a high unconrifled compressive strength and load-bearing capacity,
and the capability for autogenous healing of small cracks and
fissures
(Pet.
at 2-3).
The material continues to cure over a
period of years, becoming stronger.
The P02—0—Tee materials meet
the classification criteria
for inert waste, with the exception
of concentration of total dissolved solids
(TDS)
and sulfates in
the leachate produced.
(Pet.
at 2.)
6
Poz—O—Tec materials have been used since 1977 as bases
for
highways, parking lots and airport runways.
(Pet. at 3.)
They
have been used to construct aquaculture ponds, artificial ocean
reefs, and have been formed into construction blocks and used as
a substitute for aggregate or stone for the production of
concrete blocks.
(Pet.
at
3)
They have also been used to
prevent erosion along coastlines and railway embankments,
as a
monolithic fill material, and to reclaim strip mines from coal
mining.
(Pet.
at 3.)
CSI is seeking this adjusted standard in order to market the
Poz—O—Tec process to approximately 45 coal combustion power
generation facilities in Illinois.
There presently are no such
purchasers in Illinois
(Pet. at 4); however,
this may be because
such use may not be permitted pursuant to current Board
regulations, and due to the cost differential between surface
impounding and landfilling FGD waste subjected to the Poz-O-Tec
process pursuant to the chemical waste landfill rules.
CSI
asserts that this
is because surface impoundments are largely
unregulated under current law.
(Pet. at 4.)
In this petition,
CSI does not seek an adjusted standard
applicable to a specific site; rather,
it seeks to allow an
adjusted standard applicable to its Poz-O-Tec process when used
throughout the state.
CSI states that there are approximately 45
coal combustion facilities
in Illinois which could take advantage
of the Poz-O-Tec process.
(Pet.
at 6.)
These facilities have
baghouses or electrostatic precipitators, and would be required
to operate FGD systems in order to use the Poz—O—Tec process and
material made available by this adjusted standard.
(Pet.
at
6.)
The adjusted standard would not affect any of the other
requirements in the chemical waste landfill rules of Part 811
other than those rules from which CSI’s Poz—O-Tec process and
material is receiving an adjusted standard today in AS93-5.
Pursuant to the relief requested by CSI in the instant
petition and the related petition of AS 93-5,
facilities which
have decided to utilize the Poz-O-Tec process would have two
available disposal options: inonofilling pursuant to the relief
requested by CSI in AS 93—5,
or constructing a liner and cap of
Poz-O—Tec materials, pursuant to the relief requested in the
instant petition.
A facility’s decision as to which option to
use would be dependent upon the ratio of flyash and sludge in its
waste stream.
CSI asserts that most facilities will be able to
consistently produce high quality Poz-O-Tec materials with a
permeability less than or equal to lx107 cm/sec.
(Pet.
at 8.)
These materials could be disposed of in a monofill, which is the
subject
of
CSI’s adjusted standard petition in AS
93—5.
However, some facilities will not generate sufficient fly
ash to consistently produce materials with a permeability less
7
than or equal to 1x107 cm/sec.
(Pet.
at 8.)
These facilities
would produce a sufficient quantity of Poz-0-Tec materials to
construct a liner and cap meeting the lxlO7 cm/sec.
standard.
This would be accomplished by storing fly ash until an adequate
supply is available to produce high quality Poz—O—Tec materials
(Pet. at 8.)
The landfill would then be constructed and operated
in accordance with the chemical waste landfill rules.
The
adjusted standard proposed in the instant proceeding would allow
facilities to pursue this second option.
The proposed adjusted standard would allow facilities to use
a Poz-O-Tec liner which
is at least five feet
thick, which has a
permeability of
1x107 cm/sec. or less and an unconfined
compressive strength of 150 psi or greater.
The permeability and
unconfined compressive strength must be verified through the
construction and field testing of a test pad.
The landfill must
receive for disposal only FGD sludges and coal combustion wastes,
and must be constructed at least five feet above the water table.
The cap could be constructed of the same material as the liner,
and must be at least three feet thick.
Site owners would be
required to do site-specific contaminant modelling,
groundwater
modelling and assessment and remedial action.
JUSTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF THE ADJUSTED
STANDARD
-
THE
SECTION
28.1(c) FACTORS
In support of its petition for adjusted standard,
CSI
asserts that the Board did not consider the specific properties
of the Poz-O-Tec materials when it adopted the liner rules.
(Pet. at 23.)
Additionally, although Section 811.306(g)
of the
Board’s landfill regulations specifies a procedure by which
alternative liner materials and technologies can be used,
CSI is
unable to use that procedure for liners constructed of its Poz—O—
Tec material.
Section 811.306(g)
specifies that when alternative
materials are used for
a landfill
liner, they are required to
show that they provide equivalent or superior performance to clay
or geotnembrane liners, that the technology or material has been
successfully utilized in at least one application similar to the
proposed application, and that manufacturing and construction
quality assurance can be implemented.
CSI believes that
it has demonstrated through its petition
that a Poz—O—Tec liner and cap would provide equivalent or
superior performance to a clay liner or geomembrane liner.
(Pet.
at 24.)
Though
CSI
cannot demonstrate the successful utilization
of Poz-O-Tec in at least one similar application,
this may be
because no such similar application yet exists.
(Pet.
at 25.)
Petitioner points out that, while Poz—O—Tec has not
been used as
the liner for a landfill,
it has been used successfully as the
liner for a surface runoff collection pond.
(Pet.
at 25.)
Although the materials used in that application were inferior to
8
those that would be required under the proposed adjusted
standard,
no leakage was reported over a period of nine years.
(Pet.
at
25.)
CSI further points out that the adjusted standard it seeks
would apply only to essentially inert
completely compatible with the liner.
contrast, the chemical waste landfill
applicable to a wide range of wastes,
of hazards to the environment.
(Pet.
requiring such landfills to install a
economically unreasonable burden upon
generation facilities.
(Pet.
at 23.)
the unreasonable burden,
CSI has also
alternatives available to coal burning power generation
facilities that produce FGD sludges and ash for disposal.
Compliance Alternatives
In its original petition in AS 92-9,
incorporated by
reference into this proceeding, CSI presented an analysis of
existing management alternatives for
FGI) by-products currently
available to coal burning power generation facilities.
This
analysis was based on a
study performed for CSI by Environmental
Resources Management
(ERM).
ERM investigated the following
management options for disposal of FGD by-products:
1) Wet Impoundment/Gypsum Stacking
—
This option consists of
directing the FGD slurry from
a scrubber system to
a
settling pond, where FGD solids are settled out.
Effluent
from the settling pond is either recycled into the scrubber
system or treated and discharged, while settled solids are
periodically removed.
The settled solids can be stacked
around the perimeter of the settling pond to increase its
height,
or
can be stored in
a
reclaim area for subsequent
landfill disposal;
2) Macroencapsulation
of Dewatered FGD Slud~e
—
This option
consists of dewatering the FGD sludge and placing
it into a
lined landfill.
The landfill would be capped upon closure.
The landfill could be used for either disposal of the FGD
sludge,
or co-disposal of the FGD sludge and fly ash;
3) Disposal of Dewatered FGD S1ud~ein an Unlined Cell
—
This option is
identical to option #2,
Ivlacroencapsulation or
Dewatered Sludge, with the exception that the materials are
disposed of in an unlined cell; and
4) Fixation and Stabilization of FGD Sludge
(Poz—0-Tec
process)
-
This option involves treating the FGD sludge with
the Poz—O-Tec process and disposing of
it in a lined or
unlined landfill.
wastes, which are
(Pet.
at 23.)
In
rules are generally
which pose a wide spectrum
at 23.)
CSI asserts that
clay liner would impose an
coal combustion power
As part of demonstrating
set forth the compliance
9
ERN
investigated each of these options using a theoretical
model power plant generating 600 MW or more of power,
burning 3
sulfur coal with 12
ash and a heat content of 11,000 Btu/1b,
and
using a 90
efficiency scrubber.
Options were investigated under
scenarios where the disposal site was unlined,
singly lined,
or
doubly lined,
and where the leachate was trucked or piped,
and
where FGD sludge was disposed of alone or co—disposed with fly
ash.
The ERM study analyzed the costs for each disposal
option,
including total capital cost, total yearly operation and
maintenance cost,
and total annualized cost.
C5I asserts that
all options using
a double liner are economically unreasonable,
and unlined options do not satisfy regulatory requirements.
The
ERN study estimated the total annualized
cost for each
option using a singly-lined landfill and piping for leachate as
follows:
Disposal Method
Total Annualized Cost
Wet Pond/Stacking
$22.95 million
Macroencapsulation
$16.60 million
(gypsum only)
(additional cost of $2.8
million for disposing of fly
ash)
Nacroencapsulation
$15.75 million
(gypsum and flyash)
Poz—O-Tec Process
$17.16 million
The ERN study found that the cost of disposal using the Poz-
0-Tec process with no liner was
$15.67
million.
CSI asserts that
disposal using the Poz—O-Tec process and a liner constructed
of
Poz—O-Tec which
meets the lxl0~cm/sec standard for permeability
would be somewhere between the $17.16 million cost when using a
liner and the $15.87 million cost for unlined disposal.
The
Agency is in general agreement with CSI’s discussion of the
various disposal options, although the Agency did not conduct a
separate investigation of these costs.
In the instant petition, CSI has addressed the issue of
compliance alternatives from the perspective or a facility which
has decided to use the Poz—O—Tec process for reasons other than
construction of a liner and cap materials.
(Pet.
at
10.)
For
these facilities,
CSI states that the
only cost differential
between compliance with the proposed adjusted standards and
compliance with the currently applicable regulations is the cost
of a clay liner versus the cost of Poz—O—Tec liner,
since the
10
cost to install either type of
liner would be similar.
(Pet. at
10.)
CSI estimates that for the ERN theoretical landfill,
a clay
liner and cap which meet the minimum requirements under the
regulations would cost $18 million.
(Pet.
at
11.)
In contrast,
for facilities which have decided to use the Poz—O—Tec process,
the cost of the additional materials needed to produce high
quality Poz-O-Tec for the liner and cap would be approximately
$2.7 million.
(Pet.
at
11.)
CSI thus estimates that these
facilities could save approximately $15.3 million.
Health and Environmental Effects
CSI asserts that liners
and caps made of Poz—O-Tec
materials,
when used at chemical waste landfills accepting only
FGD sludges and coal combustion wastes, will provide
environmental protection equivalent or superior to earthen or
geoxnembrane liners and caps.
(Pet.
at 29.)
CSI asserts that a
landfill using Poz—O-Tec materials will generate leachate which
is similar to that produced under any disposal option
investigated by ERN.
A landfill which uses Poz-O-Tec would
generate leachate which meet the Board’s inert waste standards,
except for total dissolved solids
(TDS)
and sulfates.
However,
a
landfill which uses Poz—O—Tec will generate significantly less
leachate than other disposal methods.
(Pet.
at 17.)
CSI asserts that the only difference between a clay liner
and a Poz—O—Tec liner concerning leachate production would result
from the ability of clay to attenuate contaminants.
(Pet. at
18.)
CSI asserts that many clays do not have such an ability,
and that such attenuation
is generally
not
applicable to TDS or
sulfates,
the only contaminants for which Poz—O-Tec leachate
exceeds the Board’s
inert waste standards.
Furthermore, CSI
points out that the landfill rules
do not require liners to
attenuate waste constitutents.
In its
petition,
CSI also addresses the
issue of cracking.
CSI asserts that while Poz-O-Tec materials are less plastic than
clay, they are far stronger.
CSI asserts that with an unconfined
compressive strength of greater than 150 psi as called for in the
proposed adjusted standard,
a Poz—O-Tec liner more than four feet
thick could span any void which may develop beneath
a landfill.
Furthermore, CSI asserts that if any small cracks or fissures
were to develop,
the autogenous healing properties of Poz—O—Tec
would heal
them.
Consistency with Federal Law
CSI
asserts
and the Agency
agrees that none of the
requirements from which relief
is sought were promulgated,
in
whole or in part, pursuant to federal requirements.
Therefore
the requested relief can be granted consistent with federal
law.
11
AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
In its response to the petition for adjusted standard, the
Agency states that it
generally agrees with the information
presented
in CST’s petition,
and r~comm~ndsthat the adjusted
standard be granted.
However,
the Agency raised concerns
regarding certain aspects of the proposed adjusted standard,
including curing of the test pad,
commencement of the full—scale
liner, and appropriate evaluation testing.
The Agency raised
these concerns to CSI and proposed amendatory language to address
them.
CSI has agreed to the inclusion of this amendatory
language in the adjusted standard.
The Agency proposed an amendment to the proposed adjusted
standard specifying additional criteria for construction of the
test liner.
The test liner must be completely constructed, such
that all that remains is curing,
before construction of the full—
scale liner can begin.
The test liner must be fully evaluated
and the results must be provided to the Agency.
If the liner
fails to meet the specified performance standards,
and if the
Agency so directs,
the user must excavate and properly dispose of
all Poz—O-Tec liners at the site,
and any waste deposited In and
around such liners.
The other amendments which the Agency proposed include a
requirement that the Poz-O-Tec liner material have an unconfined
compressive strength greater than or equal to
150 psi,
a
requirement that the user prepare an acceptable groundwater
impact assessment, and a requirement that the bottom liner and
low permeability layer of the cap be constructed according to a
quality assurance program in accordance with 35
Ill. Adm. Code
811. Subpart
E.
The Agency also proposes that the adjusted
standard include a provision specifying that the user comply with
the Act and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code to the extent not addressed by the
adjusted standard.
We find that the Agency’s proposed amendments clarify the
requirements applicable to those using the adjusted standard, and
we therefore will include them in the adjusted standard.
CONCLUSION
CSI
has demonstrated that there are factors relating to use
of the Poz-O—Tec materials for liners and caps at landfills
accepting only FGD and coal combustion wastes that are
substantially and significantly different from the factors relied
upon by the Board in adopting the regulation of general
applicability,
and that the
existence of those factors justifies
an adjusted standard.
Of course, CSI’s Poz—O—Tec process was not
considered by the Board when
it drafted the landfill rules since
CSI did not participate therein,
and while the landfill rules do
provide a procedure whereby alternative materials and
12
technologies can be used, that procedure cannot be relied upon
where,
as in the present case, there is not at least one other
similar application of the material or technology.
CSI has
demonstrated that use of Poz—O-Tec materials will provide
protection against environmental contamination as great or
greater than that provided by clay liners,
and that the proposed
adjusted standard may be granted consistent with any applicable
federal
law.
The Board hereby finds that petitioners have demonstrated
that an adjusted standard is appropriate in order to allow the
use of Poz—O—Tec materials for liners and caps at landfills which
contain solely FGD and coal combustion wastes.
Therefore, the
Board will adopt an adjusted standard for the use of CSI’s Poz—O-
Tec materials and process subject to the conditions agreed upon
by the Agency and CSI.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s conclusions
of law and
findings of fact
in
this
matter.
ORDER
The Board grants an adjusted standard pursuant to 415 ILCS
5/28.1,
to the Poz—0-Tec process and materials of Conversion
Systems,
Inc.
subject to the provisions and conditions set forth
below.
The Board directs the Clerk of the Board to open a
rulemaking docket to consider incorporating this adjusted
standard into a rule of general applicability.
Notwithstanding the liner and cap requirements set forth at
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 811.306, 811.314
(solely to the extent
that it may preclude
Poz—O—Tec
materials from being used as
a landfill cap)
and 811.507(a) (5),
FGD sludges and coal
combustion waste produced by coal combustion power
generating facilities utilizing
a
lime or limestone scrubber
system may be used for liner or cap construction for the
purposes of Subpart
C of Part 811 provided that:
1.
The materials have been processed using the Poz—O—Tec
stabilization process from Conversion Systems,
Inc.;
2.
The permeability of the liner material shall be
demonstrated to be less than or equal to
1xl07 cm/sec
after placement and curing based upon a geometric
average of the permeability testing results prior to
the placement of any waste upon the liner;
3.
The material has an unconfirmed compressive strength of
greater than or equal to
150
psi based upon an
arithmetic average of the strength testing results;
13
4.
The bottom liner shall have
a minimum thickness of five
feet but this thickness may be increased as necessary
to make the demonstrations required by 35
Ill.
Adin.
Code Parts 812 or 815;
5.
This base of the liner shall be constructed at least
five feet above the average historical groundwater
table;
6.
Only coal combustion wastes and FGD sludges. produced
from power generating facilities utilizing lime or
limestone scrubber systems
shall be placed into the
landfill;
7.
A final cover system shall be installed in accordance
with the requirements of
35 Ill. Adm.
Code
811.314
except that the low permeability layer of the cap shall
consist of Pox-O-Tec materials which are at least three
feet thick;
8.
The following material testing procedures will be
Implemented:
A.
Creation and Sampling of Test Pad
(1)
The owner/operator of the disposal site
shall
construct a test pad in accordance with
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 811.507(a),
unless waived by
the Agency pursuant to subsection(b)
of that
section;
(2)
The test pad shall be allowed to cure for 56
days at
730
Fahrenheit
(or equivalent cure);
(3)
After curing,
fifty samples will be taken
using
a
4 inch diameter coring bit; and
(4)
The specimens will be trimmed to proctor
cylinder size utilizing an abrasive blade
masonry saw,
and tested for unconfined
compressive strength and coefficient of
permeability as described in subsection
C,
below.
Of the specimens taken from the pad,
twenty will be analyzed for their coefficient
of permeability and thirty will be analyzed
for their unconfined compressive strength.
B.
Collection of Production Samples
Samples will be collected from the production of
Poz—0-Tec in the following manner:
14
(1)
Utilizing a large scoop,
five gallon buckets
of freshly produced material will be
collected at uniform intervals during
construction of the test pad and shipped to a
laboratory for analysis.
(2)
Five proctor cylinder specimens will be
prepared from each bucket of freshly produced
material.
Three of these five cylinders will
be tested for unconfined compressive strength
and the other two will be tested for
permeability.
(3)
Additional uncured samples will
be taken as
necessary for preparation and testing to
determine criteria for moisture content,
lime
content,
the ratio of fly ash to sludge and
in-place density.
Testing for these
parameters shall be conducted in accordance
with standard test methods appropriate for
the particular parameter.
The criteria shall
be established
so as to reasonably ensure
that the material disposed of will achieve
the permeability and strength requirements
set forth in subsection E,
below.
C.
Strength and Permeability Testing
(1)
Uncured samples will be taken to a
laboratory,
placed into proctor cylinders,
compacted to simulate field conditions
(ASTM
method D-1557—9l), cured in sealed containers
for 56 days at
730
(or equivalent cure)
and
tested for coefficient of permeability and
unconfined strength using the following test
methods:
U.S.
Army Corp.
of Engineers Engineering
Manual 1110—2-1906 Appendix Vii,
Falling—Heal
Permeability Test with Perineameter Cylinder.
ASTM
Method 05102; Standard Method for
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive
Soils.
(2)
Field samples will be tested using the same
methods
as specified
in subsection C91),
above.
D.
Data Correlation
15
Laboratory data and field data will be compared to
determine any statistically significant
differences using standard statistical correlation
methodologies.
E.
Subsequent Testing
Upon completion of field verification,
as
described above,
the owner/operator of the
site
shall conduct QC/QA testing by taking monthly
samples of freshly produced Poz-O-Tec materials,
and sending those samples to a laboratory where
they will be formed into proctor cylinder
specimens for testing.
Two of those samples will
be tested for their coefficient of permeability,
three for unconfined compressive strength,
and one
each for the parameters set forth in subsection
B(3),
above.
Laboratory testing for permeability
and strength must be conducted
in accordance with
the test methods referenced in Section C(l)
of
these procedures.
Test results must demonstrate
a
coefficient of permeability of
less than or equal
to lxlo7 cm/sec using a geometric average of the
permeability testing results, and an unconfined
compressive strength of greater than or equal to
150 psi using an arithmetic average of the
strength testing results.
9.
The landfill shall be designed, constructed and
operated
in compliance with all applicable requirements
of 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code Parts 811,
812
and 815 other
than
Section 811.306, 811.324 and 811.507; and
10.
The bottom liner and low permeability layer of the cap
shall be constructed according to
a construction
quality assurance program in accordance with 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 811, Subpart
E;
11.
The person or entity using the material
in this manner
shall prepare an acceptable groundwater impact
assessment pursuant to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 811.317(b),
812.316,
813.304,
or 815.203,
as appropriate
for the
given facility;
12.
The person or entity using the material in this manner
shall construct a Poz-O-Tec test liner,
such that all
that remains is the curing of the test liner, before
construction
of
the actual full—scale Poz—O—Tec liner
may commence
in accordance with
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
8ll.407(a)(l—4).
The test liner must be fully
evaluated with the results provided to the Agency.
If
16
the test liner evaluation results indicate a failure of
the test liner to meet any of the requisite performance
standards,
and if the Agency so directs,
the user must
excavate and properly dispose of all Poz-O-Tec liners
at the site,
as well a~any waste deposited in and
around such liners; and
13.
The person or entity using the material
in this manner
complies with the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(“the Agency”)
(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.)
and 35
Ill.
Adin.
Code 811,
to the extent those provisions are
not otherwise addressed herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS
5/41
(1992)) provides for the appeal of final Board orders within
35
days of the date of service of this order.
The Rules of the
Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(See
also
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 101.246.
“Motions for Reconsideration”.)
~i.Theodore Meyer,
R.C. Fiemal and J.
Yi concurred.
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above
pi ion and order was
adopted on the
‘7~
day of
..
,
1995,
by a
vote of
7—o
.
e
Dorothy M!/Gunn,
C~erk
Illinois 1~llutionControl Board
