ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 7,
1995
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION OF CONVERSION
)
AS 93-5
SYSTEMS,
INC. FOR ADJUSTED
)
(Adjusted Standard-Land)
STANDARD FROM 35 ILL.
ADM.
)
CODE PART 811
(Monofill)
)
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 811.105, 811.306—309,
811.313,
811.314,
and
811.321,
as they apply to its Poz—O-Tec®
(Poz—O—Tec)
materials.
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 Poz—O—Tec materials to be
disposed of in a inonofill without the need for a liner, cap or
leachate collection system.
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 Sections 811.105,
811.306—309,
811.313,
811.314,
and 811.321.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CSI originally filed
a petition for adjusted standard,
docketed as AS 92-9, concerning its Poz-O-Tec materials on August
24,
1992.
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 93-4, wherein CSI seeks relief
from the requirements of
35 Ill. Adm.
Code Part
811 so as to
allow owners or chemical waste landfills accepting only
FGD
sludges and coal combustion wastes to use Poz—O—Tec as a liner
and cap material.
Also on July 2,
1993,
CSI filed a “Motion Regarding
Procedural Matters,3’ 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
2
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, which argued that the Adjusted
Standard process was an inappropriate vehicle for the relief
requested by CSI.
CSI filed a reply to the 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,
which allowed CSI’s petition to proceed as an adjusted standard.
(See Board Order of August 26,
1993,
B. Forcade and CA.
Manning
dissenting.)
In its August 26,
1993
order,
the Board expressed
no opinion as to
the merits of the petition.
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
OP THE ACT
ThG Board’s rosponsibility
in this inattsr arisas
from tha
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
3
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
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. Adm. 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 statad praviously the Board denied an Agency motion to
dismiss the instant petition and that of AS 93-4.
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
4
effect with the Board.
However,
in reviewing the language of the proposed adjusted
standard, the Board finds that it imposes requirements on the
purchasers and
users
of the Poz—O—Pec 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-
O—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
Aqency, 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 adjusted standard.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS PROM WHICH CSI
SEERS AN ADJUSTED STANDARD
CSI seeks an adjusted standard from the requirements of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code Sections 811.105,
811.306—309,
811.313,
811.314,
and 811.321.
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 811.105 sets forth the compaction requirements.
811.306
prescribes the liner requirement.
811.307-309 prescribes the
standards and protocol for leachate.
811.313 and 811.314 set
forth intermediate and final cover requirements.
Each of these
is discussed in greater detail below.
Section 811.105 provides, among other requirements, that
wastes shall be deposited at the lowest part of the active face
and compacted to the highest achievable density.
Among the requirements of Section 811.306, this section sets
forward the regulatory requirements for liner systems including
that units shall be equipped with a leachate drainage and
collection system and compacted with an earth liner.
The earth
5
liner standards are to have a minimum allowable thickness of 1.52
meters (or five feet)
and that it shall be compacted to have a
maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1x107 centimeters per second.
Sections 811.307 through 811.309 provide the requirements
for the leachate drainage,
collection and treatment and disposal
systems.
These requirements provide for drainage layers
overlaying
a liner system. They set forth the drainage layer
thickness. The rules provide for the design of the collection
pipes of the leachate collection system, how the system shall be
constructed and of what material.
Section 811.309 provides for
leachate storage and treatment standards for on—site treatment,
disposal, for the facilities’ tank,
pond,
lagoon and basin
design,
recycling, monitoring, discharge to off-site treatment
works,
and leachate management systems.
Sections 811.313 and 811.314 set forth the requirements for
intermediate and final cover.
The intermediate cover rules
consists of grade and thickness requirements. The final cover
rules contain standards for thickness,
area to be covered,
permeability, compaction standards, material requirements and
timing for placement.
Section 811.321 contains the waste placement rules at a
landfill requiring that waste be placed at the lowest portion of
the landfill and shall be moved to the highest portion.
The rule
also allows for placing the waste in other areas depending the
existence of certain conditions such as climate,
topography and
the placement of groundwater monitoring wells.
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
In this petition, CSI seeks an adjusted standard to allow
Poz-O—Tec materials to be disposed of in a inonofill without the
need for a liner, cap or leachate collection system. 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 unconfined 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
periodof years, becoming stronger.
The Poz—O-Tec 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 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.
C5I
believes 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 wherever
used throughout the state.
(Pet.
at 8.)
All potential users
are all coal burning facilities that have either baghouses or
electrostatic precipitators, and would be required to operate FGD
systems
in order to use the Poz-O—Tec process made available by
this adjusted standard.
(Pet. at 8.)
The proposed adjusted
standard would allow each of the coal burning facilities that
produce combustion waste and FGD to inonofill Poz—O—Tec material.
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 AS93-4.
Pursuant to the relief requested by CSI in the instant
petition and the related petition of AS 93—4, facilities which
have decided to utilize the Poz—O—Tec process would have two
available disposal options: monofilling pursuant to the relief
requested by CSI herein, or constructing a liner and cap of Poz—
O—Tec materials, pursuant to the adjusted standard relief we are
granting in AS93-4.
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 1x107 cm/sec.
(Pet.
at 11.)
These
materials
could
be
disposed
of
in
a
monof ill
and
would
ultimately result in a large, monolithic block of disposed
7
material.’
According to the petitioner, upon the Poz-O-Tec materials’
production, the material would be placed into a stockpile where
it would begin to cure and form into a cementitious material.
(Pet.
at
9.)
It would then be placed upon or adjacent to Poz-O-
Tec materials already in the landfill.
(Pet. at
10.)
The
materials would be spread into lifts, rolled to smooth,
compacted
and graded so that rainfall would run off and be collected
without puddling.
(Id.)
The monofill would be designed to allow
for surface run—off from the monofill toward an open end of the
fill.
(Pet.
at 6.)
The Poz—O-Tec materials, which under AS 93-
4,
are predicted to allow for no leachate permeation would
substitute as a liner, and therefore no liner or leachate
collection system is required.
(Pet. at 6.) CSI also seeks relief
from the requirement that a soil cover be placed on the landfill
because one of the benefits of Poz-O-Tec materials is that it
forms bonds with new material as
it is added to the landfill, and
does so without seams.
(Pet.
at
6.) Therefore,
leachate pathways
are avoided which would otherwise form between lifts of other
types
of materials.
Placing an intermediate cover over the
materials would jeopardize the structural integrity of
the
monofilled material and create a leachate pathway in itself.
(Pet.
at
6.)
CSI also requests relief from the requirement that
there be
final cover placed on the landfill because the material
itself will serve as
a low permeability layer.
(Pet.
at 7.)
JUSTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OP THE ADJUSTED
STANDARD
-
THE SECTION 28.1(c) FACTORS
In support of its petition for adjusted standard, CSI states
that the chemical waste landfill rules in Part 811, which are
general rules covering a wide range of wastes,
are designed to
1Some facilities will not generate sufficient fly ash
to
conBistently
produce materials with a permeability less than or equal to lx10~’cm/sec. and
it is these facilities which would instead be producing a sufficient quantity
of Poz—O-Tec materials
to construct a liner and cap meeting the
lxlO’ 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.
(AS93—4 Pet.
at 8.)
The landfill would then be constructed and operated in
accordance with
the chemical waste landfill rules.
The adjusted standard relief in AS93-4
allows facilities to use a Poz—O—Tec liner which is at least five feet thick,
which has a permeability of
lxlO1 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.
8
protect the environment regardless of the degree of hazard of the
wastes.
CSI points out the adjusted standard it seeks applies
only to generally inert wastes.
According to CSI, requiring a
monofill consisting of Poz-O-Tec materials,
to comply with the
liner, cap and leachate collection and treatment requirements
would impose a unreasonable burden upon coal combustion power
generation facilities.
(Pet.
at 27.) As part of demonstrating
the unreasonable burden,
CSI
has also set forth the compliance
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 FGD by—products currently
available to coal burning power generation facilities.
This
analysis was based on a study performed for CSI by Environmental
Resources Management
(ERN).
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 Sludge
—
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 POD
sludge, or co—disposal of the FGD sludge and fly ash;
3) Disposal of Dewatered FGD Sludge in an Unlined Cell
-
This option is identical to option #2, Nacroencapsulation of
Dewatered Sludge, with the exception that the materials are
disposed of in an unlined cell; and
4)
Fixation and Stabilization of FGD Sludge (Poz—O-Tec
process)
-
This option involves treating the FGD sludge with
the Po~-O—Tecprocess and disposing of
it in a lined or
unlined landfill.
ERM
investigated
each of these options using
a theoretical
model power plant generating
600
NW
or more of power,
burning
3
sulfur coal with 12
ash and a heat content of 11,000 Btu/lb, and
using a 90
efficiency scrubber.
Options were investigated under
scenarios where the disposal site was unlined, singly lined, or
9
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
ERN
study analyzed the costs for each disposal option,
including total capital cost, total yearly operation and
maintenance cost,
and total annualized cost.
CSI asserts that
all options using a double liner are economically unreasonable,
and unlined options do not satisfy regulatory requirements.
The
ERM
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)
Macroencapsulation
$15.75 million
(gypsum
and flyash)
Poz—O—Tec Process
$17.16 million
The
ERM
study found that the cost of disposal using the Poz-
0-Tec process with no liner was $15.87 million.
CSI asserts that
disposal using the Poz—O-Tec process and a liner constructed of
Poz—O—Tec which meets the ixio7 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 of a facility which
has decided to use the Poz-O-Tec process.
(Pet. at 13.)
For
these facilities,
CSI states that the only cost differential
between compliance with the chemical waste landfill rules and the
monofill relief sought is that a facility benefiting form the
adjusted standard would not be required to construct a liner,
a
cap or a leachate collection system.
Though CSI also requests
relief from the compaction,
intermediate and waste placement
rules,
this relief is of a technical nature and has no
significant impact on costs.
(Pet. at
13,
n.5.)
Using the
ERM
report,
CSI estimates the savings to be the following:
Assuming
that waste disposal needs for 30 years, the capital costs for
10
liner construction would be $4,356,250
(Pet.
at 14); A cap, which
would be approximately 60
of the liner costs because it would be
three feet thick versus five feet for the liner,
would then costs
$2.6 million
(Pet.
at 14);
and,
a leachate system would cost
approximately $264,000
(Pet. at 14—15.)
CSI thus estimates that
these facilities could save approximately $7.2 million under the
adjusted standard versus, the compliance alternative.
(Pet.
at
19.)
Health and Environmental Effects
—
Section 28.1(c) (3)
According to the petition, allowing for the disposal of Poz-
0—Tec materials in a inonofill without using
a liner,
or a cap
will provide the following environmental advantages:
1)
The Poz—O—Tec process reduces the volume of the total amount
of material disposed of by at least 40
through
densification as compared to surface impounding of the
unstabilized materials, thereby reducing the disposal area;
2)
Due to the greater compressive strength and lesser
liquefaction qualities of the stabilized material
as
compared to the unstabilized material, the Poz—O—Tec
materials can be stacked higher with steeper slopes than the
unstabilized material, again reducing the disposal area
needed;
3)
There are some viable markets for the sale of stabilized
material, thereby reducing the amount of material which must
be disposed of, and the in—place stabilized material is more
readily available for beneficial uses should more viable
markets become available; and
4)
It preserves clays which form a natural protective barrier
for groundwater where it is naturally located from mining
for use as liner or cap material.
(Pet.
at 22—23.)
Additionally, when Poz-O-Tec materials are disposed of
in
monofill material, according
to
CSI, they provide environmental
protection equivalent or superior to earthen or geomembrane
liners and caps.
(Pet.
at 22—23.)
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 meets
the Board’s Inert waste standards,
except for total dissolved
solids
(TDS)
and sulfates.
(Pet.
at 20)
However,
a landfill
which uses Poz-O-Tec will generate significantly less leachate
than those using other materials.
(Pot.
at 20.)
While Poz—O-Tec
materials are less plastic than clay, they are far stronger.
(Pet. at 22.)
If any small cracks or fissures were to develop,
the autogenous healing properties of Poz—O—Tec would heal them.
(Pet. at 22.)
11
Consistency with Federal Law
CSI states, 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.
(Pet. at 29.)
Therefore the requested relief can be granted consistent with
federal law.
AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
In its response to the petition for adjusted standard, the
Agency generally agrees with the information presented in CSI’s
petition, and recommends that the adjusted standard be granted.
The Agency made several recommendations to CSI’s proposed
adjusted standard language, with which CSI is in agreement.
The
recommended language changes are consistent with those adopted by
the Board today in AS93-4 and are included herein in our order.
CONCLUSION
CSI has demonstrated that there are factors relating to the
disposal of Poz—O—Tec materials in a monofill without the
use
of
a liner,
cap or leachate collection system which are
substantially and significantly different from the factors relied
upon by the Board in adopting the regulation of general
applicability.
In this case, these factors justify an adjusted
standard.
CSI’s Poz-O-Tec process was not considered by the
Board when it drafted the landfill rules
(and as an aside,
CSI
did not participate in that rulemaking proceeding).
Further,
this 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
monofilling of Poz—O-Tec materials pursuant to Part 811, without
the required use of a liner, cap or leachate collection system.
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
ELCS
5/28.1, to the Poz-O—Tec process and materials of Conversion
Systems, Inc. subject to the provisions and conditions set forth
below.
The Board directs the Clerk or the Board to open a
rulemaking docket to consider incorporating this adjusted
standard into a rule of general applicability.
12
I.
Any monof ill consisting solely of flue gas desulfurization
sludges and coal combustion wastes produced by coal
combustion power generating facilities utilizing a lime or
limestone scrubber system shall be exempt from the
requirements
of
35 Iii.
Adin.
Code 811.105
(solely as
it
relates to the placement of wastes at the lowest part of the
active face), 811.306,
811.307,
811.308,
811.309,
811.313
(solely as it relates to soil cover),
811.314(b) (3) (C)
(solely to the extent that
it may preclude Poz-O-Tec
materials from being used as a landfill cap)
and 811.321
(relating solely to waste placement), 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 1x107 cm/sec
after placement and curinq based upon a qeometric
average
of
those cylinders tested for permeability
which were formed from a single sample;
3.
The material has an uncontined compressive strength of
greater than or equal to 150 psi using an arithmetic
average of the strength testing results;
4.
The base of the monofill shall be constructed at least
five feet above the average historical groundwater
table.
5.
A monof ill liner and low permeability cap shall be
constructed from the Poz-O—Tec materials as described
in
the Board’s order in AS 93-4;
6.
A drainage layer shall be constructed atop the nionofill
liner which has a permeability greater than or equal to
1x10~3cm/sec which extends over the entire liner system
of the nionofill;
7.
The material shall be placed in such a manner that
it
will form a monolithic block through placement of the
material in one to two foot lifts, which are compacted,
rolled to smooth and graded and sloped such that any
rainfall rapidly runs off the upper surface without
puddling;
8.
At all times a berm shall be maintained around three
sides of the landfill mass and the grading shall be
such that the run-off shall be directed toward the open
side where it shall be collected for reuse or treated
(if necessary)
and discharged pursuant to an NPDES
permit;
13
9.
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 shall be allowed to cure for 56 days at
73”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 and
thirty will be analyzed for their unconfined
compressive strength.
B.
Collection of Production Samples
Samples will be collected from the production of
Poz—O-Tec in the following manner:
(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.
14
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-
1557-91), cured in sealed containers for 56 days
at
730
Fahrenheit(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—Head
Permeability Test with Permeameter Cylinder.
-
ASTM
Method D5l02; Standard Method for
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive
Soils.
(2)
Field samples will be tested using the same
methods as specified in subsection C(l),
above.
0.
Data Correlation
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 uncorifined 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 unconrinect compressive strength of greater
than or equal to 150 psi using an arithmetic average of
the strength testing results.
10.
Construction of the full scale inonofill may commence
immediately upon completion of the test pad.
15
11.
The person or entity using the material in this manner
shall prepare an acceptable groundwater impact
assessment pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.371(b),
812.316, 813.304,
or 815.203, as appropriate for the
given facility; and
12.
The person or entity using the material in this matter
shall comply with the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act (the
“Act”)
(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.) and 35 Ill.
Adm. 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”.)
J. Theodore Meyer, R.C.
Flemal and J.Yi concurred.
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abov
pinion and order was
adopted on the
7tZ
day of
_________________,
1995, by a
vote of
7—o
.
4.
/L
orothy N.
Gji/rn,
Clerk
Illinois Po~7utionControl Board
