S96009D.PDF

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 15, 1996

IN MATTER OF:

PETITION OF COMMONWEALTH

EDISON COMPANY FOR AN ADJUSTED

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

PARTS 811 and 814

)

AS 96-9

(Adjusted Standard - Land)

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C. Flemal):

This matter comes before the Board upon a “Petition for Adjusted Standards from

Certain Regulations Governing Existing Landfills” filed by Commonwealth Edison Company

(Edison) on April 1, 1996. The petition applies to Edison’s Joliet/Lincoln Quarry Site

(Lincoln Quarry or the Site).

The requested modifications apply to the following standards governing non-hazardous

solid waste landfill operations: (1) the standard prescribing a leachate collection and

management system; (2) the groundwater monitoring requirements for certain inorganic and

organic constituents; (3) the standards for location of monitoring wells; (4) the zone of

attenuation standards applicable to the Site; (5) the standard prescribing final cover for the

Main Quarry; and (6) miscellaneous additional standards that Edison asserts factually do not

apply to the mode of operation conducted at the Site.

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" (Act at

Section 5(b)) and to "grant . . . an adjusted standard for persons who can justify such an

adjustment" (Act at Section 28.1(a)). More generally, the Board's responsibility in this matter

is based on the system of checks and balances integral to Illinois environmental governance:

the Board is charged with the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory functions, and the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) is responsible for carrying out the principal

administrative duties.

The Act also provides that "the Agency shall participate in [adjusted standard]

proceedings". (415 ILCS 28.1(d)(3).) On May 3, 1996 the Agency filed a response and

recommended that the instant requested adjusted standard be granted

Edison’s April 1, 1996 petition for adjusted standard will be cited as (Pet. at __) and the

Agency’s May 3, 1996 response will be cited as (Res. at __).

Edison waived hearing in this matter pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.705(j). No

other person requested a hearing, and accordingly no hearing was held.

Based upon the record before it and upon review of the factors involved in the

consideration of adjusted standards, the Board finds that Edison has demonstrated that grant of

an adjusted standard in the instant matter is warranted for 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.302(b)(1),

811.319(a)(2), 811.319(a)(3), 811.318(b)(5), 811.320(c), and 811.314.

NATURE OF THE FACILITY AND DISCHARGE

The Lincoln Quarry, or Site, is located 1/4 mile south of the Des Plaines River in

incorporated Will County, southwest of the City of Joliet and adjacent to two of Edison’s coal-

fired generating stations, Joliet Stations 9 and 29. (Pet. at 2.) The Site is comprised of

former dolomite quarries that are now divided into three units: the Main Quarry, the North

Quarry, and the West Filled Area. (

.) Although the Joliet Stations generate fly ash, bottom

ash, and slag as byproducts of the coal burning process, this petition only concerns the

handling of bottom ash and slag. Fly ash is shipped off-site for disposal.

Edison deposited bottom ash and slag into the West Filled Area prior to 1975. The

West Filled Area has since been leveled and vegetated. Since 1975 Edison has deposited the

bottom ash and slag into the Main Quarry, which was permitted as a landfill for coal

combustion wastes in 1976. The bottom ash and slag are mixed with water from the Des

Plaines River (River) and then sluiced into the Main Quarry. Edison maintains the water level

in the Main Quarry between 549 feet and 555 feet above sea level, approximately 20 to 30 feet

below the adjacent groundwater table. The difference in water level generates a hydraulic

gradient that is directed into the Main Quarry. That is, the groundwater flows into the Main

Quarry from the surrounding aquifer. From the Main Quarry the water drains by gravity into

the North Quarry settling pond and finally the sluicing water is pumped back into the River

(under NPDES permit #IL0002216). (Pet. at 3.)

BACKGROUND

As required under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.103, Edison notified the Agency that it

would be closing the Lincoln Quarry by September 18, 1997. (Pet. at 3-4.) However, due to

the unanticipated capacity, Edison now believes that it can receive ash wastes from the Joliet

Stations well beyond the expected useful life of those Stations. (

.) As a result, Edison

amended its notification to extend the closure date of the coal combustion waste monofill at the

Lincoln Quarry beyond September 18, 1997.

As a result of Edison’s closure extension, it was required to show that the Lincoln

Quarry would satisfy the standards applicable to existing landfills under 35 Ill. Adm. Code

814, Subpart C. (Pet. at 4.) However, Edison states that as its mandatory application for

significant modification indicated, Lincoln Quarry cannot satisfy some of these standards.

(

In the instant adjusted standard, Edison argues that the generally applicable standards at

issue cannot rationally apply to the operations in the Main Quarry. In addition, it claims that

such compliance would require structural modifications to the Main Quarry which are

technically and economically impracticable for what amounts to a questionable environmental

benefit. (Pet. at 5.)

ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE

The Illinois Environmental Protection Act at Section 28.1 (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (1994))

provides that a petitioner may request, and the Board may impose, an environmental standard

that is different from the standard that would otherwise apply to the petitioner as the

consequence of the operation of 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. Adm. Code

Part 106.

The standards from which Edison seeks modification do not specify a level of

justification or other requirement for an adjusted standard for this matter. Therefore, Sections

28.1(c)(1) through (c)(4) of the Act are relevant in this proceeding. Petitioner has the burden

of proving the following for an adjusted standard from a rule of general applicability:

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 the petitioner;

the existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;

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

the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.

Edison originally filed a site-specific rulemaking with the Board, R94-30, which was

subsequently withdrawn after negotiations with the Agency determined that Edison no longer

needed relief from the groundwater quality standards. (Pet. at 5.)

REQUESTED ADJUSTED STANDARD

Section 814.302(b)(1)

Edison requests an adjusted standard from the rule-of-general applicability at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 814.302(b)(1), which states:

***

Units regulated under this Subpart shall be subject to the following

standards:

The unit must be equipped with a system which will effectively

drain and collect leachate and transport it to a leachate

management system.

***

Leachate is defined in the regulations as a “liquid which has been or is in direct contact

with a solid waste”. (35 Ill. Adm. Code 810.103.) Under this definition, Edison handles

approximately 8.5 million gallons of leachate per day through its current gravity flow system.

According to Edison this is a high volume of leachate, as compared to an average landfill

which handles approximately 1000 gallons per acre per day. (Pet. at 50.) It is this substantial

daily water inflow at Edison’s inward-gradient landfill that justifies its current tailored leachate

collection and management system.

Under the present regulations Edison would be required to drain, collect and transport

the approximately 8.5 million gallons per day of sluice water, groundwater, and precipitation,

all which flow directly or indirectly to the Main Quarry. (Pet. at 49.) Under the proposed

adjusted standard Edison would manage the water through its current gravity-flow drainage

system. This system includes drainage pipes which draw water from the Main Quarry into the

North Quarry and a pumping station which discharges that water from the North Quarry into

the River. (Pet. at 62.) This system captures all but 101,400 gallons per day, or 1.2% of the

water volume reaching the Site. (

.) According to Edison, installing any alternative leachate

collection and management system to capture only the incremental water would “result in

little, if any, discernible environmental benefit”. (Pet. at 63.) The cost of using the gravity-

flow system would be $150,000 per year at present value, including capital costs to replace

slag lines and pumps, and operating costs for the pumps. (

Any additional compliance system which Edison puts in place would address the

incremental water which bypasses its present gravity-flow system. Furthermore, Edison

claims that any alternative or additional leachate system would simply change the path of the

leachate, but it would still flow to the same destination. Specifically, the leachate which

would under the proposed adjusted standard flow from the bedrock directly into the River,

would instead flow first to its leachate management system and then discharge into the River.

(Pet. at 63-64.) According to Edison there are no known wells or other known environmental

receptors in the region of the Site. (Pet. at 63.)

Edison examined various alternatives to its current gravity-flow system (Pet. at 51-62)

and found those leachate collection and management systems to be “prohibitively expensive

and present significant technological challenges”. (Pet. at 51).

Initially Edison evaluated the traditional leachate collection systems and found them to

be incompatible with its current operating practices. Edison sluices its ash waste into the Main

Quarry and operates the Quarry as a surface impoundment. (Pet. at 51.) A traditional leachate

system requires restricting the amount of water that reaches the waste. Specifically, Edison

examined and rejected two traditional landfill methods to collect leachate: (1) an

underdrainage system located beneath the waste and above a low permeability bottom liner in

newer landfills, and (2) leachate recovery wells drilled into the waste from the top of existing

or older landfills.

First, the underdrainage system could be installed either above the existing waste to

collect and manage leachate for future waste placement, or below the existing waste.

Installing it above the current waste would not effectively address the groundwater which

would continue to enter the Main Quarry and migrate downgradient after flowing through the

waste. (Pet. at 52.) Edison could install the underdrainage system, which would involve

removing the existing waste, lining the fractured dolomitic rock base and walls of the Main

Quarry, and installing a low-permeability layer and leachate collection system. (Pet. at 52.)

Edison detailed the specifics of removing the ash, and cited the problems associated with

relocating the wet ash into not-yet constructed settling basins, including extensive dewatering

at the Quarry throughout the installing period, dredging the settling basin, and the possibility

of having to store the large volume of ash offsite. (Pet. at 52-56.) Once all of the ash was

finally removed, Edison would install a three-phase leachate control system consisting of a

groundwater gradient control layer, a low-permeability liner system, and a leachate system on

the sides and bottom of the Quarry bedrock. Any new ash deposited into the Quarry would

have to be under dry, and not wet, ash handling practices. When considering an

underdrainage system, Edison is unclear of the potential environmental harms. For example

risks associated with handling dry ash at the Site such as increased worker exposure to ash

waste, increased truck traffic between the settling basin and the Main Quarry, and dust

generated by dumping the dry ash into the dry Quarry. (Pet. at 56.)

Second, Edison examined the possibility of installing leachate recovery wells drilled

into the waste from the top of the landfill, at or near the downgradient boundary of the

disposal cell to pump leachate from the waste into a leachate management system. (Pet. at 57-

59.) Edison found such pumping wells not technically viable for the Site due to the fact it uses

a wet disposal method. Under the current wet disposal system, 8.6 million gallons per day of

sluice water, precipitation, and groundwater saturate the ash in the Main Quarry. It would be

impossible for Edison to remove such a large amount of leachate daily through collection

wells. (Pet. at 57.) Additionally, Edison believes such placement of the well would create a

localized inward hydraulic gradient which, through pumping, would draw additional sluice

water, precipitation, and groundwater through the ash to the well, increasing the amount of

leachate in the Main Quarry and suspended sediments which flow from the Main to the North

Quarry. (

Edison found that converting its system to dry ash collection, to take advantage of

leachate recovery wells would create a series of other associated difficulties. Those difficulties

include converting several other surrounding wells, adding additional wells, and maintaining

the water level below the River level. (Pet. at 58-59.) Both wet and dry systems face

significant obstacles to any installation of collection wells, such as dewatering the ash and

using barges to access the north wall of the Quarry for well installation.

Edison also examined a variety of other more advanced leachate management

technologies and likewise found them to be “technologically impracticable and cost prohibitive

at the Lincoln Quarry Site”. (Pet. at 59-62.) Those technologies included a leachate

collection trench, which proved to be prohibitively expensive to install, and a downgradient

drainage gallery tunnel, with drain holes to accumulate leachate seepage from fractures and

joints in rock walls, which may not even be technically feasible. (Pet. at 60-62.)

As an alternative to compliance with Section 814.302(b)(1) Edison proposes to operate

a leachate collection system at the Lincoln Quarry Site which assures that the water level in the

Main Quarry is maintained below the natural watertable level, assures that the leachate is

discharged to the Des Plaines River through Edison’s NPDES-permitted outfall, and assures

that Edison has properly complied with all effluent limitations in the NPDES permit. (Pet. at

12.)

The Board finds that, given the configuration of Edison’s Site, and the need to handle

almost 8.5 million gallons of water per day, it is impracticable to require compliance with 35

Ill. Adm. Code 814.302(b)(1). The Quarry configuration, including the differences in the flow

regime, mode of operations, and waste characteristics, are substantially different from the

factors upon which the Board relied in adopting this general regulation. Moreover, the

adjusted disposal system proposed by Edison does not appear to result in any environmental or

health effects substantially more adverse then those considered by the Board in initially

adopting Section 814.302(b)(1).

Section 811.319(a)(2) and Section 811.319(a)(3)

Edison requests an adjusted standard from the rule-of-general applicability at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 811.319(a)(2), which states:

Criteria for Choosing Constituents to be Monitored

The operator shall monitor each well for constituents that

will provide a means for detecting groundwater

contamination. Constituents shall be chosen for

monitoring if they meet the following requirements:

The constituent appears in, or is expected

to be in, the leachate; and

ii)

The Board has established for the

constituent a public or food processing

water supply standard, at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302, the Board has established a

groundwater quality standard under the

Illinois Groundwater Protection Act (Ill.

Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 111 1/2, par. 7451 et

seq. [415 ILCS 55/1 et. seq.]), or the

constituent may otherwise cause or

contribute to groundwater contamination.

One or more indicator constituents, representative of the

transport processes of constituents in the leachate, may be

chosen for monitoring in place of the constituents it

represents. The use of such indicator constituents must be

included in an Agency approved permit.

Along with subsection (a)(2) above, Edison requests an adjusted standard from 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 811.319(a)(3), which states:

Organic Chemicals Monitoring

The operator shall monitor each existing well that is being used as a part of the

monitoring well network at the facility within one year of the effective date of

this Part, and monitor each new well within the three months of its

establishment. The monitoring required by this subsection shall be for a broad

range of organic chemical contaminants in accordance with the procedures

described below:

The analysis shall be at least as comprehensive and

sensitive as the tests for:

The 51 organic chemicals in drinking water described at

40 CFR 141.40 (1988), incorporated by reference at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 810.104; and

ii)

Any other organic chemical for which a

groundwater quality standard or criterion has been

adopted pursuant to Section 14.4 of the Act or

Section 8 of the Illinois Groundwater Protection

Act.

At least once every two years, the operator shall monitor

each well in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(A).

The operator of a MSWLF unit shall monitor each well in

accordance with subsection (a)(1)(A) on an annual basis.

Edison argues that the concerns which underlie the monitoring requirements in the

Board’s landfill regulations do not apply to the Lincoln Quarry. Consequently, Edison

requests that the Board limit the groundwater monitoring requirements applicable to the Site.

Edison claims that the groundwater monitoring program was established to ensure that

constituents from landfill wastes do not migrate into and degrade the groundwater. This

migration is especially important when the wastes within the landfill vary significantly (i.e.

municipal landfill), or where the waste constituent or the constituent migration pathways are

poorly characterized. (Pet. at 65-66.)

However, Edison asserts that an adjusted standard is warranted because it has operated

the Lincoln Quarry as a coal combustion waste monofill for over 20 years, and has fully

characterized the ash waste and groundwater constituents derived from that waste (the

composition of combustion wastes deposited at the site has remained generally consistent,

although the specific percentages of each constituent in the ash varies somewhat). (Pet. at 65-

66.) Accordingly this should eliminate the Board’s primary concerns regarding characterizing

the groundwater composition or impact on the environment of leachate from the landfill. (

Edison also claims the Board’s requirement of broad based organic and inorganic

constituent monitoring is not necessary at the Site because studies show no organic parameters,

or volatile or semi-volatile organic compounds in the groundwater sampling. (Pet. at 65-67.)

The ash samples contained primarily silicon, iron, aluminum, calcium, potassium, magnesium,

sulfur, sodium, barium, and boron. (Pet. at 66.) Edison argues that it is economically

unreasonable to require it to monitor groundwater for organic and inorganic constituents that

could have no environmental impact. As stated, there are no organic constituents in its coal

combustion waste. (Pet. at 67.)

The cost for organic groundwater sampling and testing for all the regulatorily required

parameters would cost approximately $46,000 per year, as compared to the $1,000 per year

ash sampling proposed in Edison’s petition for adjusted standard which would sufficiently

examine the organic composition of its combustion waste to predict whether this waste could

impact the groundwater. (

.) According to Edison, the cost to analyze the groundwater for

the regulatory parameters regarding inorganic constituents would cost approximately $28,600

per year, versus the proposed testing at $16,640 per year cost to analyze only the potentially

impacted parameters plus alkalinity. (Pet. at 68.)

Edison’s proposed adjusted standard would waive the organic constituent requirement

of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.319, and would only require Edison to annually sample for semi-

volatile organic compounds which could remain in the bottom of ash and slag, and report these

results to the Agency, and to institute sample of the semi-volatile organic constituents if

necessary. (Pet. at 14 and 68.) Edison feels it is unnecessary to sample for volatile organic

compound because they are destroyed in the combustion process.

Edison’s proposed adjusted standard also limits the frequency of the groundwater

sampling for inorganic constituents. Edison proposes to quarterly monitor the inorganic

constituents of which it has detected statistically significant increases over background

concentrations in downgradient wells. (Pet. at 68-69.) The other inorganic constituents

regulated within 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(a)(2), those whose parameters were not detected

in the groundwater or were found not to have a statistically significant increase in parameter

concentrations over background levels, would be sampled annually simply to verify that the

groundwater composition remains constant. (Pet. at 68-71.) Specifically, Edison proposes to

sample, on an annual basis, all constituents for which the Board has established Class II

groundwater standards; if a statistically-significant increase in any of the concentrations is

shown, then Edison proposes to add those parameters in the sampling mode prescribed at

Section 811.391(a)(1). (Pet. at 13.)

Edison argues that its proposed monitoring plan, eliminating organic chemical

monitoring of groundwater and focusing primarily on inorganic monitoring of those potentially

impacted parameters at the Site, provides environmental protection comparable to the Board’s

generally applicable standards. (Pet. at 69-71.) It reasons that “[i]f those [organic]

constituents are absent, eliminating the monitoring requirement for those constituents would

have no environmental impact”. (Pet. at 70.) Edison also observes that, because of the

consistency and predictability of the groundwater concentrations of parameters attributable to

the Site, “if previous monitoring results did not detect a particular inorganic constituent in Site

groundwater, it is improbable that that constituent would appear in future sampling events”.

(Pet. at 70.) As for those inorganic parameters which have been detected at the Site, Edison

claims that the “groundwater concentrations should remain constant or decrease over time as

the leachable concentrations of those parameters in the ash decreases”. (Pet. at 70.)

Edison’s proposed monitoring plan, given the frequency and type of groundwater

monitoring, appears to be adequate to justify the grant of an adjusted standard. The Site

presents factors substantially and significantly different from the factors the Board considered

in adopting the landfill groundwater monitoring requirements with regard to choosing the

constituents to be monitored and organic chemical monitoring. Given the absence of organic

chemicals and consistency of constituents for almost 20 years in this monofill, the concerns

which underlie the monitoring requirements in the Board’s landfill regulations are not present

at the Lincoln Quarry. The Board accordingly believes Edison has demonstrated that the

instant groundwater monitoring requirements, Section 811.319(a)(2) and Section

811.319(a)(3), warrant an adjustment suitable to the Site. The Board also finds that Edison’s

proposed alternative standards provide environmental protection comparable to that

contemplated under the rule of general applicability.

Section 811.318(b)(3) and Section 811.318(b)(5)

Edison requests an adjusted standard from the rule-of-general applicability at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 811.318(b)(3), which states:

Standards for the Location of Monitoring Points

***

Monitoring wells shall be established as close to the potential

source of discharge as possible without interfering with the waste

disposal operations, and within half the distance from the edge of

the potential source of discharge to the edge of the zone of

attenuation downgradient, with respect to groundwater flow,

from the source.

Edison also requests an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.318(b)(5),

which states:

***

A minimum of at least one monitoring well shall be established at the

edge of the zone of attenuation and shall be located downgradient with

respect to groundwater flow and not excluding the downward direction,

from the unit. Such well or wells shall be used to monitor any

statistically significant increase in the concentration of any constituent,

in accordance with Section 811.320(e) and shall be used for determining

compliance with an applicable groundwater quality standard of Section

811.320. An observed statistically significant increase above the

applicable groundwater quality standards of Section 811.320 in a well

located at or beyond the compliance boundary shall constitute a

violation.

Edison claims that due to physical constraints at the Lincoln Quarry, it is unable to

install the large number of groundwater monitoring wells required in the above regulations.

Specifically, if the Board grants Edison its request to adjust the zone of attenuation for the

Site, Edison will be unable to install a well at the edge of the adjusted zone. (Pet. at 72.)

Edison argues that the landfill conditions relied upon the Board in adopting these

regulations are not the conditions which exist at Edison’s Site. First, the landfill regulations

assume a lined landfill located in a porous media, where groundwater flow rates and physico-

chemical processes of soil attenuation are consistent and the entire site can be easily modeled

with limited flow volumes. (Pet. at 73-75.) In contrast, the Site is located in fractured

dolomitic rock. The type of limited groundwater monitoring required in the regulations would

not present an accurate picture of the constituent transport. On the whole, the groundwater

flow rates through the rock at the Site are very slow; however, flow rates within individual

fractures and bedding planes can be very rapid. (

.) As a result of this widely divergent

ground formation, Edison believes an accurate representation of the Site’s water bearing

material can only be achieved through a large-scale modeling process, unlike that required in

Section 811.318.

Secondly, Edison argues that due to the terrain surrounding the Site, it would be

technically impracticable and economically unreasonable to install a groundwater monitoring

system which would comply with the Board’s landfill regulations. (Pet. at 76-78.) For

instance, there are physical obstacles (screening berms and security fencing) and natural

environmental barriers (sheer vertical dolomite faces and deep ponds) within 100 feet

downgradient of the Main Quarry boundary. Most significantly Edison explains that there

exists a narrow strip of land between the Main and North Quarries which provides insufficient

access for well drilling equipment and personnel safety to install a network of wells.

Regardless of the physical constraints preventing well installation, Edison claims that any

constituent migration or groundwater flow data would not likely be accurate. (Pet. at 76-77.)

Due to the quarrying and other land use activities which have altered the natural groundwater

flow patterns, and differences in the hydraulic gradients between the Main and North Quarries,

any wells installed in this area would give atypical information regarding the entire Site. (

Given the unlikelihood the required wells will provide meaningful monitoring data, Edison

argues that it should not be required to expend capital to install such wells.

Lastly, Edison states that if the adjusted zone of attenuation is granted, it would be

technically impracticable to install wells at the edge of the zone. The adjusted zone of

attenuation boundary is contiguous with the northern-most property boundary and is located at,

or sometimes beyond, the banks of the Des Plaines River. Because of its proximity to the

River and subsequent mixing of groundwater and River water, installing monitoring wells in

this area would not provide reliable data regarding the pertinent constituents, nor allow access

for drill equipment or personnel. (Pet. at 77.)

According to Edison, it would be required to install 30 new groundwater monitoring

wells to comply with the Board’s regulations, at an estimated total cost of $300,000. (Pet. at

77.) Edison proposes to install a groundwater monitoring network, which instead of placing

wells at or near the locations prescribed by the Board’s regulations, will place the wells

beyond the regulatory 100-foot standard and within the North Quarry. Specifically, Edison

will continue to use ten existing wells

at the Site.

Edison claims that although it cannot install all of the regulatorily required wells, it can

“establish a network of groundwater monitoring wells that protects the environment” (Pet. at

72), and which comprehensively and accurately depicts constituent migration at the Site.

Edison states that the River is the only significant environmental receptor for groundwater at

the Site. To accurately determine the groundwater flow to the River; Edison believes it is

necessary to install monitoring wells under the North Quarry (as proposed in its adjusted

standard request), as opposed to 100 feet from the Main Quarry (as required in the regulations)

The pre-existing wells are: upgradient wells 92-2S and 92-2D in the South Quarry, and

downgradient wells: nested wells R08S and R08D northwest of the Quarry, nested wells 92-

5S and 92-5D north of the Main Quarry, nested wells G20S and R16D northeast of the

Quarry, well 93-9 north of the Quarry, and well 93-11 northwest of the Quarry.

or as opposed to the northern boundary line of the proposed adjusted standard. (Pet. at 78-80.)

Only by installing wells under the North Quarry can Edison measure the water that bypasses

its pumping system and flows directly into the River. If the wells were placed under or near

the Main Quarry, it would primarily measure the groundwater which is flowing to the North

Quarry due to pumping. Edison argues that its proposed network of monitoring wells satisfies

the Board’s environmental objectives of monitoring environmentally relevant constituent flow

at the Site. (Pet. at 80.)

The Board finds that Edison has presented sufficient justification for an adjusted

standard from Sections 811.318(b)(3) and Section 811.318(b)(5). The conduits present in

such fractures provide for groundwater flow quite distinct from the flow in homogenous

porous media. Such a significantly different groundwater flow regime was not the type

considered by the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability. The Board

acknowledges that a altered groundwater monitoring network may be required. Indeed the

physical location of the Site with relation to the River in addition to the unique widely

divergent ground formation at the Quarries, justify an adjusted standard.

Section 811.320(c)

Edison requests an adjusted standard from the rule-of-general applicability at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 811.320(c), which states:

Determination of the Zone of Attenuation

The zone of attenuation, within which concentrations of

constituents in leachate discharged from the unit may

exceed the applicable groundwater quality standard of this

Section, is a volume bounded by a vertical plane at the

property boundary or 100 feet from the edge of the unit,

whichever is less, extending from the ground surface to

the bottom of the uppermost aquifer and excluding the

volume occupied by the waste.

Zones of attenuation shall not extend to the annual high

water mark of navigable surface waters.

Overlapping zones of attenuation from units within a

single facility may be combined into a single zone for the

purposes of establishing a monitoring network.

As alternative to compliance with Section 811.320(c), Edison proposes a zone of

attenuation that is 100 feet from the edge of the Lincoln Quarry on the upgradient side and at

the property boundary on the downgradient side. (Pet. at 14.) Edison believes this proposed

zone of attenuation, coupled with the proposed monitoring well location standards discussed

above, and an agreement with the Agency to establish a groundwater management zone (GMZ)

at the Site, will be consistent with the Board’s current definitions and regulations. (

The proposed zone is supported twofold: first, it places “all relevant site features that

potentially contribute to elevated constituent concentrations in groundwater within a single

zone of attenuation for the Site”; and the zone will be contiguous with the GMZ. (Pet. at

86.) The Agency has agreed to designate the Lincoln Quarry Site from the waste boundary to

the site boundary as a GMZ (apparently to address exceedences of background concentrations).

Edison states two reasons to justify a modification from the landfill standards relating

to the zone of attenuation. First, Edison argues that the Board did not consider water flow

conditions like those present at the Site in defining the generally applicable zone of

attenuation. (Pet. at 81-83.) Specifically, Edison claims the Site consists of fractured rock,

where, unlike in the Board’s models, groundwater flow rates vary considerably. Accordingly

the “degree to which attenuation and hydrodynamic dispersion can occur under these

conditions depends upon the existence, number, properties, and relationship between

discontinuities in the rock mass”. (Pet. at 82.) Edison argues that the “geochemical processes

of attenuation are of little or no significance at Lincoln Quarry because there is little

interaction between the chemical constituents and the rock mass”. (

Second, Edison argues that retaining the zone of attenuation at the 100 foot boundary

would cause it to incur tremendous expense for minimal environmental benefit. (Pet. at 83-

85.) Groundwater degradation over background concentrations already exists beyond the

Main Quarry

due to disposal of flyash in the West Quarry and lack of attenuation. Therefore

groundwater downgradient of the Site beyond the 100-foot zone of attenuation will continue to

exceed the Board’s non-degradation standard (particularly for boron and sulfate) regardless of

whether Edison takes additional precautions. (Pet. at 83-84.) As a result, Edison believes it

is “technically impracticable to establish the zone of attenuation as required by the generally

applicable standards”. (Pet. at 83.)

Edison examined several different options to bring the Quarry into partial or complete

compliance with groundwater standards at the edge of the zone of attenuation. The options

considered include: converting the facility from sluiced to dry disposal and constructing a new

landfill on the existing ash designed in compliance with the standards in Section

811; closing

the landfill and contracting for off-site ash disposal at existing facilities; closing the landfill

and the generating stations; or closing the landfill and constructing a new off-site landfill for

ash disposal. (Pet. at 84.) According to Edison each of the these compliance alternatives

present severe adverse economic and/or social impacts for limited, if any, environmental

benefit. (

, see also Exhibit 12)

Edison notes that none of the compliance alternatives studied would address the

groundwater impacts from prior waste operations which account for exceedences at the edge of

Ammonia, arsenic, boron, cadmium, chloride, fluoride, manganese, molybdenum, pH,

potassium, selenium, sodium, sulfate, total dissolves solids, total organic carbon and zinc.

the zone of attenuation. Edison believes those constituent concentrations would either remain

constant or decrease over time, but would not decrease significantly immediately. (Pet. at 85.)

Therefore, Edison would still need to request an adjusted zone of attenuation. If it desired to

reduce the existing concentrations it could excavate the waste currently in the Main Quarry and

West Filled Area (at a cost estimate $65-187 million) or install a leachate/groundwater

collection system. Edison believes neither option is economically reasonable.

Edison claims that the proposed zone of attenuation extension will adequately protect

the environment. (Pet. at 86-88.) It claims that the only environmental receptor affected by

the increase in the zone of attenuation is the River. The current constituent concentrations in

groundwater have “no discernible impact on water quality in the Des Plaines River”. (Pet. at

86.) Additionally, the contribution of constituents attributable to groundwater discharges

which enter the River are indistinguishable from natural incremental deviations which are

normally expected. Edison claims that “current discharges from the Site have no impact on

River concentrations of constituents”. (Pet. at 87.)

Edison also proclaims that the “proposed zone of attenuation does not impact any

known or potential environmental receptors”. (Pet. at 88.) It states there will be no

environmental impact on the area between the original and proposed zone, primarily because

there are no current uses for impacted groundwater downgradient of the Site. (Pet. at 87-88.)

In addition to current uses, the future use of this groundwater is also unlikely because Edison

owns or controls most of the pertinent land, the impacted surrounding land is industrialized

and unsuitable for residential development, and there exists an unimpacted, deeper acquirer to

be used in the future.

The Board’s rule of general applicability at Section 811.320(c) is premised on the

presence of an attenuating porous media, which differs from the fractured and jointed bedrock

that occurs at the Lincoln Quarry Site. In this circumstance, and in light of the chemistry of

the Lincoln Quarry waters and the local nature of the groundwater flow system, the Board

believes that adjusting the downgradient zone of attenuation to the northern property is

justified. Moreover, because Edison commits to controlling future use of the groundwater, it

appears granting the requested adjusted standard will not result in environmental or health

effects substantially more adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule

of general applicability.

Section 811.314

Edison requests an adjusted standard from the rule-of-general applicability at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 811.314, which states:

The unit shall be covered by a final cover consisting of a low

permeability layer overlain by a final protective layer constructed in

accordance with the requirements of this Section.

Standards for the Low Permeability Layer

Not later than 60 days after placement of the final lift of solid

waste, a low permeability layer shall be constructed.

The low permeability layer shall cover the entire unit and connect

with the liner system.

The low permeability layer shall consist of any one of the

following:

A compacted earth layer constructed in accordance with

the following standards:

The minimum allowable thickness shall be 0.91

meter (3 feet);

ii)

The layer shall be compacted to achieve a

permeability of 1x10

-7

centimeters per second and

minimize void spaces.

iii)

Alternative specifications may be utilized provided

that the performance of the low permeability layer

is equal to or superior to the performance of a

layer meeting the requirements of subsections

(b)(3)(A)(i) and (b)(3)(A)(ii).

A geomembrane constructed in accordance with the

following standards:

The geomembrane shall provide performance

equal or superior to the compacted earth layer

described in subsection (b)(3)(A).

ii)

The geomembrane shall have strength to

withstand the normal stresses imposed by the

waste stabilization process.

iii)

The geomembrane shall be placed over a

prepared base free from sharp objects and other

materials which may cause damage.

Any other low permeability layer construction techniques

or materials, provided that they provide equivalent or

superior performance to the requirements of this

subsection.

For a MSWLF unit, subsection (b)(3) notwithstanding, if the

bottom liner system permeability is lower than 1 x 10

-7

cm/sec.

the permeability of the lower permeability layer of the final cover

system shall be less than or equal to the permeability of the

bottom liner system.

Standards for the Final Protective Layer

The final protective layer shall cover the entire low permeability

layer.

The thickness of the final protective layer shall be sufficient to

protect the low permeability layer from freezing and minimize

root penetration of the low permeability layer, but shall not be

less than 0.91 meter (3 feet).

The final protective layer shall consist of soil material capable of

supporting vegetation.

The final protective layer shall be placed as soon as possible after

placement of the low permeability layer to prevent desiccation,

cracking, freezing or other damage to the low permeability layer.

Edison claims that the Board’s generally applicable cover requirements do not apply to

conditions at the Lincoln Quarry due to the mode of operation at the site. (Pet. at 88-94.)

Edison examined the following environmental objectives in coming to that conclusion:

minimization of water percolation and infiltration into the waste, control of water run-off from

the cover, maximization of evapotranspiration, control of landfill gas and prevention of cover

erosion, and minimization of maintenance.

For instance, minimizing water percolation and infiltration into the waste would not be

accomplished with a Section

811.314 cover because the water reaching the Quarry comes from

natural groundwater flows, not infiltration or percolation. (Pet. at 90.) The objectives of the

impermeable layer and the final cover include minimization of water percolation and

infiltration into the waste as well as controlling landfill gas and control of the runoff water. At

the Site the water infiltration through percolation is relatively small compared to the

groundwater infiltration into the waste area. Given the fractured rock and dolomite at the Site,

along with the difference in water level in the Quarry and the adjacent groundwater table, the

natural groundwater flows from the south through the Quarry to the River. A landfill cover

system would reduce, but not eliminate the amount of water which reaches the bottom ash and

slag due to precipitation. (Pet. at 91.) Maximizing evapotranspiration is not a factor at the

Site because the majority of the water reaches the waste through groundwater inflow and not

precipitation. (Pet. at 92.) The effect of the very small additional amount leachate through

precipitation on downgradient groundwater quality would be undetectable.

Because the wastes in the Quarry contain no organic constituents that might produce

gases through decomposition, the type of cover system required in Section 811.314 is not

necessary to control the gas. The waste at the Quarry contains only non-putrescible industrial

wastes consisting of inorganic constituents, primarily oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron and

calcium. (Pet. at 93.) Therefore, there is no need to control landfill gas because the coal

combustion byproducts do not produce methane through decomposition as organic constituents.

Another environmental objective examined, the prevention of cover erosion and

minimization of maintenance, would require significant upkeep and maintenance at the Site

because of the hydraulic conditions, particularly the fact that pressures caused by groundwater

flow into the landfill could degrade the required cap. (Pet. at 93-94.)

Edison argues that it would be technically impracticable and economically unreasonable

to install a final cover system satisfying the generally applicable requirements for the Main

Quarry. (Pet. at 94-98.) Edison examined the two alternatives which satisfy the Board’s final

cover requirements. First, the installation of a compacted earth low-permeability layer

covered by three feet of soil. And second, the installation of a geomembrane liner covered by

three feet of soil. Edison thoroughly examined the scenario of installing a cap using a wet

closure and a dry closure with a total closure cost of $20-28 and $8 million respectively.

Lastly, Edison describes the proposed “Closure and Post-Closure Care Plan”. (Pet. at

98-101.) Edison presents two possible options during closure, where the ash level in the Main

Quarry is below and above the water level. If the ash level is below the water level for the

groundwater table, Edison would close the landfill in its present “wet” condition. It would

place a fence around the Site to prevent access and maintain the water at a level in the Quarry

which supports the current inward hydraulic gradient. This would be the least costly

alternative providing comparable environmental benefits. If the level of ash in the Main

Quarry is above the natural groundwater table, Edison would install a two-stage cover system

consisting of a “compacted clay layer that performs equivalently to two feet of compacted soil

having a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10 -7 cm/sec, overlain by at least four inches of topsoil.

The cap would be sloped at no less than a two percent grade and would be seeded to prevent

erosion.” (Pet. at 100.)

Edison alleges that its proposed final cover standards in the request for adjusted

standard will provide environmental benefits that are comparable to those obtained under the

generally applicable final cover standards at a lower cost. (Pet. at 101-105.)

The Board agrees that Edison’s operation at the Site does not lend itself to compliance

with the Section 811.314 final cover requirements. The required impermeable layer and final

cover operate to minimize water percolation and infiltration into the waste, and to control

landfill gas and runoff water. At the Edison Site water infiltration through percolation is

relatively small compared to the groundwater infiltration into the waste area. It therefore

appears that there would be no environmental benefit to installing cover pursuant to this

section.

With regards to controlling landfill gas, Edison’s current discharges are only coal

combustion byproducts with no organic constituents that might produce methane through

decomposition. Therefore, there is no need to require control of landfill gas at the Quarry.

“Attachment A” Standards (Sections 811.105, 811.106, 811.107(a), 811.107(b), 811.107(i),

811.310, 811.311, 811.312, 811.313, 811.321, and 811.322)

Edison includes as part of its overall petition request that the Board find certain parts of

the Board’s landfill regulations be found to not apply to the Site. For the purposes of

discussion, these will be referred to the at the “Attachment A” standards, based on their

presentation in Attachment A of Edison’s petition. (Pet. at 110, Attachment A.) The

regulations at issue are 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 811.105 (compaction of waste), 811.106

(daily cover), 811.107(a) (phasing of operations), 811.107(b) (working face), 811.107(i)

(vector control), 811.310, 811.311, 811.312 (landfill gas monitoring and management

system), 811.313 (intermediate cover), 811.321 (waste placement), and 811.322 (final slopes

and stabilization).

The Board notes that Edison’s request regarding the Attachment A standards differs

from its request regarding the main portion of the instant adjusted standard in that Edison does

not seek to replace the Attachment A standards with alternate, site-specific standards. Rather,

Edison requests that the Board “confirm that these standards do not apply to Lincoln Quarry”

and to find that “Edison’s current management practices adequately satisfy the purposes behind

these requirements”. (Pet. at 110.)

In addition, Edison’s request regarding the Attachment A standards differs from its

request regarding the main portion of the instant adjusted standard in that Edison does not

attempt to make the demonstrations required at Section 28.1(c) of the Act for any of the

Attachment A requests.

AGENCY RESPONSE

The Agency believes that the factors relating to Edison with regards to the applicable

standards are substantially and significantly different from the factors upon which the Board

relied upon in adopting the regulations of general applicability. (Res. at 4.)

The Agency agrees that compliance with the applicable standards would be

economically unreasonable and, with respect to some of the standards, technically infeasible

for Edison to accomplish. (Res. at 3.) Moreover, the Agency states that it has “no basis for

challenging Edison’s cost analyses”. (

The Agency agrees with Edison that granting the adjusted standard will not have an

adverse impact on the environment and specifically will not result in environmental or health

effects substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by the Board

when adopting the rule of general applicability. (Res. at 1-5.)

The Agency agrees with Edison that the Board may grant the adjusted standard

consistent with applicable federal law. (Res. at 4-5.)

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that Edison has demonstrated that grant of the adjusted standard

requested by Edison is warranted.

Regarding the request for adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.302(b)(1),

811.319(a)(2), 811.319(a)(3), 811.318(b)(5), 811.320(c), and 811.314, the Board finds that

Edison has made the demonstrations required under Section 28.1(c) of the Act. In reaching

this decision, the Board finds it noteworthy that Edison proposes and agrees to abide with a

series of replacement standards. The Board believes these replacement standards will provide

environmental protection at least equivalent to that which flows from the current regulations.

The Board will accordingly condition grant of the adjusted standard upon Edison’s compliance

with the replacement standards.

As regards the Attachment A parameters, the Board will grant Edison’s request that we

determine “that these standards do not apply to Lincoln Quarry”. (cf. In the Matter of Wood

Energy, AS 94-1 (October 6, 1994), esp. footnote 3). We will not grant an “adjusted

standard” as such, since as we have noted above, Edison does not attempt to make the

demonstrations required by Section 28.1(c) of the Act, and we do not wish to establish a

precedent of acceptance of inadequate pleading in these cases. However, the Board believes

that none of these standards are reasonably applicable to the circumstances encountered in the

Lincoln Quarry disposal system. We will instead include in the order of adjusted standard a

statement that the attachment A standards do not apply.

This opinion constitutes the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law in this

matter.

ORDER

Commonwealth Edison Company is hereby granted an adjusted standard for the

Joliet/Lincoln Quarry Site with respect to the following regulations: 35 Ill. Adm. Code

814.302(b)(1), 811.319(a)(2), 811.319(a)(3), 811.318(b)(5), 811.320(c), and 811.314.

In addition, the following Board regulations do not apply to the Joliet/Lincoln Quarry

Site: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.105, 811.106, 811.107(a), 811.107(b), 811.107(i), 811.310,

811.311, 811.312, 811.313, 811.321, and 811.322.

In lieu of the standards above the following shall apply.

Edison shall dispose only bottom ash and slag from the combustion of coal in the Main

Quarry.

Edison shall operate a leachate collection and management system at the Joliet/Lincoln

Quarry Site that assures compliance with effluent limitations contained in an NPDES

permit duly issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. The leachate

collection and management system shall consist of:

A gravity flow drainage system that:

Channels supernatant liquid from the Main Quarry into the North

Quarry; and

ii)

Assures that the water level in the Main Quarry is maintained below the

natural water table level.

A permitted point source discharge from the North Quarry to the Des Plaines

River.

Groundwater Sampling.

Edison shall analyze groundwater from the monitoring well system at the

Joliet/Lincoln Quarry Site, in accordance with the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 811.319(a)(1), for the following constituents:

Ammonia

Fluoride

Selenium

Total Organic

Arsenic

Manganese

Sodium

Carbon

Boron

Molybdenum

Sulfate

Zinc

Cadmium

Total Dissolved

Chloride

Potassium

Solids

Except for the constituents monitored in accordance with a), Edison shall

sample its monitoring well system on an annual basis for all inorganic

constituents for which the Board has established Class II groundwater standards

under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.420(a).

If Edison detects, and confirms through replicate sampling, a statistically

significant increase above applicable groundwater standards for any

constituent monitored under this paragraph, Edison shall monitor that

constituent in accordance with the requirements of paragraph a).

ii)

If, after monitoring for five years in accordance with this paragraph,

Edison does not detect a statistically significant increase above applicable

groundwater standards for a constituent monitored under this paragraph

2), Edison may propose as a permit modification to discontinue

monitoring for that constituent.

Waste Sampling.

At least once annually, Edison shall determine the semi-volatile organic

constituent content of a representative sample of waste bottom ash and slag to be

disposed at the Joliet/Lincoln Quarry Site.

The results of such sampling shall be submitted to the Agency within 30 days

after Edison receives the analytical report.

If Edison detects one of the semi-volatile organic constituents listed under 35

Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(a)(3) in its ash samples, then Edison shall conduct

confirmatory sampling and analysis.

If the sampling and analysis conducted under c) above confirms the presence of

one or more of the listed semi-volatile organic constituents, then Edison shall

monitor its groundwater monitoring well system for those constituents in

accordance with the sampling and analysis plan contained in Volume II of

Edison’s Application for Significant permit Modification at Lincoln/Joliet

Quarry Ash Landfill [IL 197809001] (May 1994).

Standards for Monitoring Well Locations.

In consultation with Edison, the Agency shall establish a monitoring well

network for the Lincoln Quarry Site that achieves the monitoring objectives of

part 811. The Agency shall not impose more stringent well location standards

than the requirements in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.318(b).

If any of the wells in the monitoring network established by the Agency fails or

is rendered unusable, Edison shall request permission from the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency to replace the well with another well, located

as close as practicable to the non-functioning well and sampling the same

aquifer.

Zone of Attenuation.

For purposes of this paragraph f), the zone of attenuation at the Joliet/Lincoln

Quarry Site shall be defined as the volume bounded by a vertical plane

extending from the ground surface to the bottom of the uppermost aquifer,

excluding the waste, and located:

100 feet from the edge of Lincoln Quarry on the upgradient side with

respect to groundwater flow; and,

ii)

At the property boundary on the downgradient side with respect to

groundwater flow. If the property boundary extends beyond the annual

high water mark of the Des Plaines River at any location, the zone of

attenuation at that location will be reduced to satisfy the requirements of

35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.320(c)(2).

This zone of attenuation is depicted on [Figure SAP-5, Volume II of

Edison’s Application for Significant Permit Modification, attached to

Edison’s petition for site specific relief.]

Groundwater quality at or beyond the zone of attenuation for the Joliet/Lincoln

Quarry Site shall be maintained at each constituent’s background concentration.

Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit Edison from petitioning the Board

for an adjustment of the groundwater quality standards applicable to the Site, in

accordance with the procedures established in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.320(b).

Compliance Determination.

Any statistically significant increase above an applicable groundwater quality

standard that is attributable to the facility and which occurs at or beyond the

zone of attenuation within 100 years after closure of the last unit accepting

waste within such a facility shall constitute a violation.

Final Cover.

For purposes of b) and c) below, “maximum adjusted seasonal water table

level” means the maximum predicted water table level in the vicinity of the

Joliet/Lincoln Quarry Site, determined at the time of closure, plus sufficient

elevation to ensure the integrity of a cap.

Closure Below Water Table.

If, at the time of closure, the level of settled ash in Lincoln Quarry is at

or below the maximum adjusted seasonal water table level, no final

cover is required for the Quarry and the Quarry shall be maintained as

an impoundment.

ii)

Water levels in the Quarry shall be maintained at or below a maximum

elevation of 570 feet above sea level.

iii)

A chain link fence no less than eight (8) feet in height, topped by a no

less than three (3) strands of barbed wire, shall be installed around the

Joliet/Lincoln Quarry Site to prevent access and shall be maintained in

good condition at all times.

Closure Above Water Table.

If, at the time of closure, the level of settled ash in Lincoln Quarry is

above the maximum adjusted seasonal water table level, Edison shall

install a two-stage cover system, which shall consist of a compacted clay

layer that performs equivalently to a 2 foot layer of compacted soil

having a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10

-7

cm/sec, overlain by at least

four inches of topsoil. The cap shall be graded at no less than 2% grade

and shall drain to a collection area located on the cap. Stormwater

collecting on the cap shall be pumped to the North Quarry for settling

prior to discharge pursuant to the facility’s NPDES permit. The cap

shall be seeded to prevent erosion.

ii)

Water levels in the Main Quarry shall be maintained at no more than 570

feet above sea level through use of a gravel drainage blanket underlying

the stormwater collection area. Water collecting in the drainage blanket

shall drain by gravity to the North Quarry for settling prior to discharge

pursuant to the facility’s NPDES permit.

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/41 (1994)) 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”.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Board Member McFawn Concurred.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that

the above opinion and order was adopted on the _____ day of ___________, 1996, by a vote

of ______________.

___________________________________

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 15, 1996

IN MATTER OF:

PETITION OF COMMONWEALTH

EDISON COMPANY FOR AN ADJUSTED

STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

PARTS 811 and 814

)

AS 96-9

(Adjusted Standard - Land)

CONCURRING OPINION (by M. McFawn):

I agree with the judgment of the majority today that Commonwealth Edison (Edison) is

entitled to all the relief requested in its petition. However, I concur because I believe that the

relief granted from the regulations listed in Attachment A to Edison’s petition should have

been included within the terms of the adjusted standard, and that it is inappropriate for the

Board to merely state that those requirements do not apply.

The Board has in past cases issued judgments finding that site-specific relief was not

warranted because a regulation by its terms was inapplicable to a particular facility. However,

this is not the situation in the present case. By their terms, the Attachment A regulations do

apply to Edison’s facility. Therefore, the more appropriate means of granting relief would

have been to have specifically included an adjustment from the Attachment A regulations

within the terms of the adjusted standard.

For these reasons, I concur.

____________________________

Marili McFawn

Board Member

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that

the above concurring opinion was submitted on the _____ day of ___________, 1996.

___________________________________

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board