ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 24,
1995
IN THE MATTER OF:,
)
)
PETITION OF THE METROPOLITAN
)
WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF
)
GREATER CHICAGO FOR ADJUSTED
)
AS 95-4
STANDARD
FROM 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code
)
(Adjusted Standard
-
Land)
811,
812, and 817 (Sludge
)
Application)
)
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by G.
T. Girard):
This matter is before the Board on a petition for an
adjusted standard filed by Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago (District).
The District asks that
the Board grant an adjusted standard to the Board’s rules of
general applicability found at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 811.204,
811.314(c) (3), 812.313(d),
817.303 and 817.410(c) (2) and
(3).
Those sections of the Board’s regulations set forth requirements
for the use of soil as final cover at landfills in Illinois.
The
District is seeking an adjusted standard so that the District’s
air—dried sludge material can be used at nonhazardous waste
landfills in lieu of soil material for the top protective layer
for final cover to support vegetation.
The District filed its petition on March 31,
1995.
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a
response to the petition on May 2,
1995.
The District sought
leave to file a reply, which was granted, and filed such reply on
May 8,
1995.
The Agency also sought leave and was granted a
reply which was filed on June 12,
1995.
The petitioner filed an
amended response to the Agency’s reply on June 12,
1995.
The
District waived hearing and the Board did not receive a request
for a hearing.
Therefore no hearing was held.
Based upon the record and upon review of the factors
involved in the consideration of adjusted standards, the Board
finds that the District has demonstrated that factors relating to
the District are “substantially and significantly different from
the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general
regulation”.
Accordingly, the request for adjusted standard is
granted with conditions for the reasons discussed below.
ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE
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”
(415 ILCS 5/5(b))
and to “grant
**~
an adjusted
standard for persons who can justify such an adjustment”
(415
2
ILCS 5/28/1(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 Agency is responsible for carrying out the principal
administrative duties.
The Act 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 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 or 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.
RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.204, Final Cover:
A minimum of 0.91 meter (three feet)
of soil material that
will support vegetation which prevents or minimizes erosion
shall be applied over all disturbed areas.
Where no
vegetation is required for the intended postclosure land
use, the requirements of Section 811.205(b)
will not apply;
however, the final surface shall still be designed to
prevent or minimize erosion.
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.314(c) (3):
3
The final protective layer shall consist of soil material
capable of supporting vegetation.
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 812.313(d):
A description of final protective cover,
including a
description of the soil and the depth necessary to maintain
the proposed land use of the area;
35
Ill. Adm. Code 817.303:
Unless otherwise specified in a permit or other written
Agency approval,
a minimum of 0.46 meters
(1.5 feet)
of soil
material that will support vegetation which prevents or
minimizes erosion shall be applied over all disturbed areas.
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 817.410(c) (2) and
(3):
2)
The thickness of the final protective layer shall be
sufficient to protect the low permeability layer from
freezing and minimize roof penetration of the low
permeability layer, but shall not be less than 0.46
meter
(1.5 feet).
3)
The final protective layer shall consist of soil
material capable of supporting vegetation.
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The District is located within the boundaries of Cook
County,
Illinois, and serves an area of 872 square miles
including the city of Chicago and 124 suburban communities with a
combined population of 5.1 million people.
(Pet.
at
2.)1
In
addition,
a waste load equivalent to 4.5 million people is
contributed by industrial sources.
(Id.)
On a daily basis,
the
District treats an average of about 1500 million gallons per day
(MGD)
of wastewater.
(Pet. at 2-3.)
This wastewater flow is
treated at the District’s seven water reclamation plants that
range in size from 3.4 MGD to 1200 MGD.
(Pet.
at 2-3,
15.)
Initial treatment at the water reclamation plants consists
of coarse and fine screens and grit chambers followed by primary
1
The petition for adjusted standard will be cited as “Pet.
at
_;
the petitioner’s reply to the Agency’s response will be
cited as “Pet.
R. at
_“;
the petitioner’s amended response to
the Agency’s reply,
filed on June
12,
1995 will be cited as “Pet.
RR at_”; the Agency’s response to the petition will be cited as
“Ag.
Resp.
at
_“;
the Agency’s reply to the petitioner’s reply
will be cited as “Ag. RR at
“.
4
settling tanks.
(Pet.
at 16.)
Next the water reclamation plants
employ the activated sludge process for secondary treatment.
(Id.)
Tertiary treatment is employed at the John E. Egan and
Kirie water reclamation plants using dual media filters, while
the Hanover Park water reclamation plants employs single media
filters.
(Id.)
The final effluents from the Hanover Park, John
E. Egan and Kirie water reclamation plants are first chlorinated
and then dechlorinated before discharge.
(Id.)
The District generates yearly about 200,000 dry tons of
sludge.
(Pet. at
3,
16.)
Although each water reclamation plant
handles its sludge in somewhat different ways depending upon
local factors, the District generally processes its sludge using
the following sequence of unit operations:
1.
Gravity Thickening
2.
Centrifuge Thickening
3.
Anaerobic Digestion
4.
Centrifuge or lagoon dewatering
5.
Lagoon storage
6.
Air-drying
(Pet.
at 17.)
Solids processing at the District begins with the
concentration of primary and secondary sludge in gravity
concentration tanks.
(Id.)
The sludge is then anaerobically
digested in heated (95°±1°F)high rate digesters for
approximately 20 days, to reduce odor potential and destroy
pathogens.
(Id.)
After anaerobic digestion,
the liquid sludge
(approximately four percent solids)
is either mechanically
dewatered using high speed centrifuges to approximately 25 to 30
percent solids or lagoon dewatered to produce
15 percent solids.
(Id.)
Both the liquid sludge and the dewatered centrifuge sludge
is stored in lagoons to reduce its odor potential and further
destroy pathogens.
(Pet.
at 17.)
The sludge stored in lagoons
is air-dried on asphalt paved drying beds,
using a mechanical
agitation process to accelerate drying and further reduce
pathogens.
(Id.)
All air-dried sludge has a high solids content
of about 60 percent,
is soil—like in appearance,
low in pathogens
and high in plant nutrients.
(Id.)
The District ultimately utilizes the majority of its sludge
as a fertilizer,
soil amendment, or soil substitute.
(Pet.
at
17.)
After years of planning, the following are the options
which the District presently has chosen for final disposition of
its sludge product:
1.
Sludge application to land in Fulton County,
Illinois.
2.
Sludge application to land at the Hanover Park water
reclamation plant, Hanover Park,
Illinois.
5
3.
Landscaping at district water reclamation plants.
4.
Distribution to large—scale users for landscaping
purposes (e.g., Underwriters Laboratories, Worth Park
District, Russell Road Interchange for the Illinois
Toliway Commission).
5.
Final protective layer for landfills.
6.
Daily cover for landfills.
(Pet.
at 17—18.)
RELIEF REOUESTED
The District is seeking an adjusted standard which would
allow the District to use its air-dried sludge product as “an
innovative technology for certain applications at nonhazardous
waste landfills”.
(Pet.
at 5.)
Specifically, the District is
asking the Board to allow the use of the air-dried sludge in the
final protective layer supporting vegetation.
(Id.)
The
specific language of the requested adjusted standard is as
follows:
A.
Pursuant to the authority of Section 28.1 of the
Environmental Protection Act, the Board hereby
adopts the following adjusted standard.
This
adjusted standard applies only to the air-dried
sludge product generated by the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(District).
B.
District sludge that complies with the conditions
in paragraph C below
is approved as an alternative
to the soil material standard at the inert waste,
the putrescible
(NSWLF) and chemical waste
landfills, or the steel and foundry industry
potentially usable and low risk waste classes of
landfills regulated at
35 Ill. Adm. Codes 810-815
and 817, for application as the final protective
layer, as the final cover.
The sections where the
soil material standard is used are:
35 Ill. Adm.
Codes 811.204, 811.314(c) (3), 812.813(d),
817.303
and 817.410(c) (2)
and (c)(3).
C.
When providing sludge for the applications
enumerated in Paragraph B, the District shall
provide air-dried sludge as described in its
petition for adjusted standard and processed in
accordance with the following conditions:
6
1.
Anaerobic digestion at 95°±1°Ffor a
minimum of 15 days or longer, as
necessary to ensure that the District’s
air-dried sludge product will meet the
USEPA’s Part 503 pathogen requirements
for a Class B sludge; and
2.
Storage in lagoons for a minimum of
1
and 1/2 years after the final addition
of sludge; and
3.
Air—drying for a minimum of
4 weeks,
or
as necessary to achieve a solids content
of
60 percent.
D.
When providing sludge for the applications
enumerated in Paragraph B,
the District shall
limit the amount provided to what it estimates is
sufficient to comply with the minimum depth
required in the Board regulations, or in greater
amounts as needed to accommodate the intended
land—use including appropriate contours, final
slopes, vegetation, drainage and erosion controls,
and to protect the final low permeability layer
against such threats as freezing and root
penetrations.
(Pet.
at 28—29.)
AGENCY RESPONSE
The Agency generally supports the District’s request for an
adjusted standard.
The Agency points out that all regulatory
informational requirements have been fulfilled by the District.
(See generally Ag. Resp. at 4-7.)
The Agency states that it “is
not concerned about the District management of their sludge” and
the Agency “has no technical problem with the proper use of the
District sludge as a soil alternative”.
(Ag. RR at 2.)
The
Agency does, however, have one area of concern remaining.
Specifically, the Agency is concerned about the ability of the
Agency to monitor the use of the District’s sludge at landfills
which need not be permitted pursuant to Section 21(d)
of the Act.
(Ag. Resp.
at 4.)
The Agency is concerned that the use of sludge
could be abused at permit exempt facilities.
(Id.)
Therefore,
the Agency asks that the following conditions be added:
D.
Any facility utilizing District sludge for final
cover is limited to a final depth of
3 feet of
sludge compacted using normal landscaping
practices;
7
E.
The District will report to the Agency the start
up, discontinuance,
and quantity of sludge
deliveries to each facility;
F.
District sludge, when used in compliance with this
adjusted standard,
is not a waste.
(Ag. RR at 2.)
COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES
The District indicates that it believes a discussion on
compliance alternatives is inapplicable as no amount of effort
would result in compliance with the regulation of general
applicability on the part of the District.
(Pet. at 25.)
The
material generated by the District is air-dried sludge which is
not soil.
The District does not assert that the air-dried sludge
is soil; rather the District maintains that the sludge can comply
with the same regulatory design and performance requirements
expected of soil.
(Id.)
The District maintains that an adjusted standard allowing
substitution of sludge for soil material in landfill closure as
final protective layer would result in substantial cost savings
to the District.
The District indicated that in 1991,
1992 and
1993 the District utilized 115,118 dry tons,
25,415 dry tons and
167,053 dry tons of sludge for final protective layer for
landfills in the Chicago area.
(Pet.
at 24.)
If the District
had been precluded from utilizing its sludge during that time,
the District would have been required to dispose of the sludge at
a cost of approximately $22 per dry ton.
(Pet.
at 25.)
Thus,
the use of sludge in 1991,
1992 and 1993 saved the District an
expenditure of 6.77 million dollars.
(Id.)
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
District sludge has been routinely analyzed by both the EP
toxicity test and, subsequently, the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure
(TCLP)
test,
and has always been found to be
nonhazardous.
(Pet.
at 34.)
The District has found that air—
drying to 60 percent solids produces a material with no free
water as demonstrated by results of the paint filter test and,
according to the District, its sludge meets all the analytical
requirements for use at nonhazardous waste landfills, and it is
soil-like in appearance.
(Pet.
at 34.)
Weekly, the District
analyzes sludge from each of its water reclamation plants to
monitor metal content.
Sludge quality has generally met the
federal
(40 CFR 503)
high quality sludge regulation limits for
land application since 1993,
as a result of rigorous monitoring
and enforcement conducted by the District’s Industrial Waste
Division.
(Pet.
at 34.)
8
The District’s sludge production and management activities
are covered by the federal regulations
(40 CFR Part 503),
as well
as the Agency’s sludge management permits.
(Pet. at 35.)
The
District, therefore,
routinely reports sludge analyses to both
the Agency’s Bureau of Water, Division of Water Pollution
Control, and Region V of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
(Id.)
In 1982,
the District began to participate in the closure of
the municipal solid waste landfill at 103rd and Doty Avenue in
Chicago.
(Pet.
at 35-36.)
Closure was performed by contouring
the site,
establishing surface runoff controls, covering with a
two—foot clay seal, and then applying sludge.
(Pet.
at 36.)
As
each area was completed,
grass and shrubs were planted to control
erosion.
The result has been an aesthetically pleasing site with
environmental safeguards.
(Id.)
Part of the closure plan called
for installation of four monitoring wells installed in the
limestone aquifer underlying the sites; the wells are sampled
quarterly, and results are sent to the Agency Division of Land
Pollution.
(Pet.
at 36.)
There has been no significant change
in groundwater quality in the ten years of monitoring.
(Pet.
at
36.)
The District has also been using sewage sludge for
establishing a final protective
layer on three coal refuse piles
at its Fulton County,
Illinois,
land reclamation site since 1987.
(Pet.
at 36.)
Initial reclamation activity started in 1987 at
the St.
David,
Illinois, coal refuse pile.
(Pet.
at 36.)
The
approved reclamation procedure consisted of preliminary grading,
application of agricultural limestone,
application of sludge at
the rate of 1,000 dry tons per acre,
planting of a vegetative
cover, and mulching the planted area.
(Pet.
at 36-37.)
Planting
of vegetative cover consisted of seeding with cereal rye grass as
a cover crop followed by seeding with alfalfa, alsike clover,
bromegrass, and tall fescue.
(Id.)
The St.
David,
Illinois,
coal refuse pile was completely reclaimed with excellent
vegetation cover using the described procedure by 1990.
(Id.)
Reclamation of a second coal refuse pile at the Morgan Mine site,
consisting of 27 acres, was completed in 1991 with the approval
of the Agency.
(Pet.
at 37.)
And a third coal refuse pile known
as United Electric coal refuse pile,
consisting of 125 acres, was
reclaimed.
(Pet.
at 37.)
The District’s petition also addressed the potential concern
that utilizing municipal sludge for productive purposes at
nonhazardous waste landfills could produce leachate which would
have a negative impact upon the quality of groundwater.
(Pet.
at
38.)
Obviously,
leachate can affect the groundwater under these
9
landfills.
However, there has been a USEPA study2 of the quality
of leachate, where both municipal sludge and municipal solid
waste were placed in a landfill, which should alleviate these
concerns.
(Id.)
The USEPA study reported that the addition of
municipal sludge to landfills
in fact improved the quality of
leachate.
(Pet. at 38.)
During
a 20-month study,
test cells
containing municipal sludge, and municipal solid waste produced a
leachate exhibiting a chemical oxygen demand
(COD)
of 1500 mg/L
in comparison to a leachate COD of 30,000 mg/L produced from test
cells which did not have the municipal sludge.
(Pet.
at 38.)
This represents a COD reduction of 95 percent.
In addition,
as
shown in Attachment
12 to the District’s petition, concentrations
of metals such as cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead,
nickle,
iron,
and zinc were lower in the leachate from the cells containing
municipal sludge than those which did not.
The reductions
in
metals ranged from a low of 19 percent in the case of copper to a
high of 97.5 percent for zinc.
(Pet.
at 38-39.)
The USEPA study concluded:
It
is a common misconception that introducing sludge into
landfills degrades leachate quality.
This study shows the
reverse to be true.
Results of this investigation should be
made widely available to EPA and state authorities concerned
with landfill regulations to improve the scientific bases
for their decisions.
(Pet.
at Attachment 11.)
The District asserts that using the District’s sludge at
landfills for final protective cover would produce results
consistent with the conclusions of the USEPA study.
(Pet. at
39.)
The District also believes that the groundwater and surface
water protection requirements of the Board’s landfill regulations
ensures that the use of District sludge will not adversely impact
surface and groundwater quality at rionhazardous waste landfills.
(Pet.
at 39.)
Any surface water runoff from the final protective
layer containing sewage sludge should be classified as storm
water runoff that can be captured in control structures built for
a 25—year storm.
(Id.)
2
Farrell et al.
“The Effects of Sewage Sludge on Leachates
and Gas from Sludge Refuse Landfills”,
Presented at the Residuals
Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Atlanta,
Georgia, April
19,
1988.
(Pet.
at Attachment
11.)
10
JUSTIFICATION
Substantially and Significantly Different Factors
The District maintains that the use of the District’s air-
dried sludge was “never discussed in the landfill regulatory
proceedings and,
thus, those factors relating to the use of
District sludge are substantially and significantly different
from those relied on in relation to the soil requirement.”
(Pet.
at 55.)
The District argues that during the time the Board was
developing landfill regulations the District was uncertain how
ongoing state and federal regulatory proceedings would address
management of landfills and sludge.
(Pet. at 55-56.)
Existence of the factors lustifies an adiusted standard
The District maintains that the petition demonstrates the
District’s long—time investment in innovative technologies in
order to put sludge to productive uses.
(Pet.
at 56.)
The
District argues that the loss or the beneficial productive uses
of the District’s air-dried sludge would be significant both
environmentally and in economic terms.
(Id.)
The District
asserts that air—dried sludge is “at least environmentally
equivalent to soil, and is economically superior, and is
consistent with both state and federal stated beneficial use
policies”.
(Pet.
at 56.)
Environmental and Health Effects
The District maintains that the petition has “amply”
demonstrated that there are no substantially or significantly
more adverse environmental or health effects from the rule of
general applicability.
(Pet.
at 57; see
infra
pgs 7-9.)
Consistency with Federal Law
The District points out that sludge and use of sludge for
final cover are regulated under two federal programs.
The first
is the RCRA Subtitle D program, under which an “alternative final
cover design” which meets certain criteria may be allowed.
(Pet.
at
4, citing 40 CFR 258.60(a)(3).)
The second is the under 40
CFR 503 which sets forth regulations for “the use and disposal of
municipal sludge”.
(Id.)
In the preamble to the final
promulgation of the Part 503 regulations the USEPA specifically
endorses the use of municipal sludge as
a cover material in
nonhazardous waste landfills.
(Id.)
The preamble states:
While the use of sewage sludge for beneficial purposes
is primarily related to farm and home garden use, use
of sewage sludge to aid in the growth of a final
vegetative cap for municipal solid waste landfills is
also considered a beneficial use of sewage sludge and
should be encouraged.
By taking advantage of the
nutrient content and soil amendment characteristics of
sewage sludge,
a vegetative cover or cap can be quickly
grown to facilitate the municipal solid waste closure
plan.
(58 Fed. Reg. 9258.)
(Pet.
at 4.)
Thus, the District maintains that the adjusted standard is
consistent with federal law.
(Pet.
at 58.)
DISCUSSION
First,
the Board notes that this adjusted standard request
by the District is somewhat unique.
Rather than request an
adjusted standard for the use of sludge as a soil alternative at
a specific site in Illinois, the District is seeking an adjusted
standard which would apply throughout the State.
However, the
Board is convinced that the adjusted standard mechanism is
appropriate to this proceeding.
Although the standard is not for
one specific “site”, the standard is for the use of the
District’s air-dried sludge.
The sludge will be subject to
specified criteria before leaving the District’s management for
use as a soil alternative at landfills in Illinois.
Further, the
standard will only apply to sludge managed by the District and
not to municipal sludge in general.
Therefore,
the Board
believes an adjusted standard is the appropriate mechanism for
relief.
The District and the Agency agree that the adjusted standard
mechanism is appropriate.
In fact, the Agency supports granting
the adjusted standard, but is asking that certain conditions be
included.
(~
infra
6-7.)
While the District accepts two of
the conditions as written, the District is concerned over the
suggested condition “D”.
(Pet. BR at 3.)
The Agency’s condition
D states:
D.
Any facility utilizing District sludge for final
cover is limited to a final depth of
3 feet of
sludge compacted using normal landscaping
practices.
(Ag.
BR
at 2.)
The Agency is seeking imposition of this condition because of
concerns about the ability of the Agency to monitor the use of
the District’s sludge at landfills which need not be permitted
pursuant to Section 21(d)
of the Act.
(Ag. Resp.
at 4.)
The
District objects to the Agency’s proposed condition “D” because
it would impose requirements on the operator of the facility
using the sludge.
(Pet.
BR at 2.)
The District states:
12
The Condition D in the District’s petition and the
amended condition D in the District’s Reply are
limitations the District voluntarily place on itself,
not arbitrarily place on the landfill operator choosing
to use sludge.
(Pet.
BR at 2.)
The District proposes that the condition be amended to state:
When providing sludge for the applications enumerated
in Paragraph B, the District shall limit the sludge
provided to amounts that are sufficient for a final
depth of three feet as compacted using normal
landscaping practices.
(Pet. BR at 3.)
The Board is persuaded that the District’s condition D is
more appropriate.
Condition D as offered in the petitioner’s
amended response should alleviate the concerns expressed in the
Agency’s reply,
while at the same time placing the limitation on
the District.
As the District is the party seeking the adjusted
standard and the District is the party which
is responsible for
the management of its sludge, limiting the amount of sludge the
District can provide to an amount sufficient for a final depth of
three feet of compacted sludge is more suitable.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the District has demonstrated that the
adjusted standard is warranted.
The District has established
that the use of the District’s air—dried sludge is a viable
alternative to soil cover at landfills
in the State of Illinois.
The use of the sludge will not result in substantially or
significantly more harmful health and environmental effects.
In
fact,
the District has provided information that the use of
sludge may even reduce the potential for leachate contamination
of surface and groundwater at landfills by improving the quality
of any leachate generated.
The District has also established that the Board did not
consider the use of sludge as final cover in adopting the
regulation of general applicability.
Thus,
the Board finds that
the factors surrounding this request are substantially and
significantly different from those considered by the Board in
adopting the rule of general applicability.
Further, the
District has demonstrated that the use of sludge
is beneficial
and cost-efficient.
Therefore, the Board finds that the factors
relating to the adjusted standard request justify such an
adjusted standard.
13
This opinion constitutes the Board findings of facts and
conclusion of law.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts the following adjusted standard,
pursuant to the authority of Section 28.1 of the Environmental
Protection Act:
1.
This adjusted standard applies only to the air-dried
sludge product generated by the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(District).
2.
District sludge that complies with the conditions
in paragraph
3 below is approved as an alternative
to the soil material standard at the inert waste,
the putrescible
(MSWLF) and chemical waste
landfills,
or the steel and foundry industry
potentially usable and low risk waste classes of
landfills regulated at
35
Ill. Adm. Codes 810—815
and 817, for application as the final protective
layer, as the final cover.
The sections where the
soil material standard is used are:
35 Ill. Adm.
Codes 811.204,
811.314(c) (3), 812.813(d),
817.303
and 817.410(c) (2) and (c)(3).
3.
When providing sludge for the applications
enumerated in Paragraph 2, the District shall
provide air-dried sludge as described in its
petition for adjusted standard and processed in
accordance with the following conditions:
a.
Anaerobic digestion at 95°±1°Ffor a
minimum of
15 days or longer, as
necessary to ensure that the District’s
air-dried sludge product will meet the
USEPA’s Part 503 pathogen requirements
for a Class B sludge; and
b.
Storage in lagoons for a minimum of
1
and 1/2 years after the final addition
of sludge; and
c.
Air—drying for a minimum of
4 weeks,
or
as necessary to achieve a solids content
of 60 percent.
4.
When providing sludge for the applications enumerated
in Paragraph 2, the District shall limit the sludge
provided to amounts that are sufficient for a final
depth of three feet as compacted using normal
landscaping practices.
14
5.
The District will report to the Agency the start
up, discontinuance, and quantity of sludge
deliveries to each facility;
6.
District sludge, when used in compliance with this
adjusted standard,
is not a waste.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS
5/40.1) provides for the appeal of final Board orders within 35
days of service of this decision.
The Rules of the Supreme Court
of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(But see also,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.)
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certi~ythat the abo~eopinion and order was
adopted on the
~‘~9~-
day of
____________________,
1995,
by a
voteof
7ô.
‘~~
I
Control Board
