ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

August

15,

1996

IN MATTER

OF:

)

PETITION OF COMMONWEALTH

)

96-9

EDISON COMPANY

FOR AN

ADJUSTED

)

(Adjusted

Standard

Land)

STANDARD

FROM

ILL. ADM. CODE

)

PARTS811and814

)

OPINION

AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C.

Flemal):

This matter comes before the Board upon

“Petition for Adjusted

Standards

from

Certain Regulations

Governing

Existing

Landfills” filed by

Commonwealth Edison Company

(Edison)

on April

1996.

The petition applies to

Edison’s

Joliet/Lincoln Quarry Site

(Lincoln Quarry or the

Site).

The requested modifications

apply

the following standards governing non-hazardous

solid waste

landfill operations:

(1) the standard prescribing

leachate

collection and

management system;

(2)

the groundwater monitoring

requirements for

certain

inorgailic and

organic constituents;

(3) the standards for location of monitoring

wells;

(4) the zone of

attenuation standards

applicable

the Site;

(5)

the standard prescribing finatcover for-the

Main Quarry;

and

(6) miscellaneous additional

standards

that Edison assertsi&ctualiydo

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

“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

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

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

1996 petition for adjusted standard will be cited as (Pet.

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).

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,

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.

(Id.)

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

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

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

30 feet

below

the adjacent groundwater table.

The difference

in water

level

generates

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 #1L0002216).

(Pet.

at 3.)

BACKGROUND

required under

Ill.

Adm.

Code

814.103,

Edison notified the Agency that

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.

(Id.)

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.

result of Edison’s

closure extension,

it was required

show that the Lincoln

Quarry would

satisfy the standards applicable

to existing

landfills under

Ill.

Adm.

Code

814,

Subpart C.

(Pet.

at 4.)

However, Edison

states

that as its mandatory

application for

significant modification indicated, Lincoln

Quarry caimot satist~some of these standards.

(Id.

In the instant adjusted standard, Edison

argues that the generally applicable

standards

issue caimot rationally apply

the operations

in the Main Quarry.

In addition,

it claims

that

such compliance

would

require structural modifications

the Main Quarry which are

technically and economically

impracticable for what amounts to

questionable environmental

benefit.

(Pet.

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

different from the standard that would

otherwise apply

the petitioner as the

consequence

of the operation of a rule of general

applicability.

Such

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

Ill.

Adm.

Code

Part

106.

The standards

from which Edison seeks modification do

not

specify

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

rule of general

applicability:

factors relating

to that petitioner are substantially

and

significantly

different from the factors relied upon by the Board

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.

5.)

REOUESTED 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

defined in

the regulations

as a

“liquid which has been or

is in

direct contact

with

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

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

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.

(Id.)

According

Edison,

installing

any alternative leachate

collection and management

system to

capture only

the incremental water would

“result

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.

(Id.)

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

Edison there are no

known wells or other known environmental

receptors

in the region of the Site.

(Pet.

at 63.)

Edison examined various

alternatives

its current gravity-flow system

(Pet.

5 1-62)

and

found those

leachate collection

and

management systems

“prohibitively expensive

and present significant technological challenges”. (Pet.

at 51).

Initially

Edison evaluated the traditional leachate

collection

systems and

found them to

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.

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

store

the large volume of ash offsite.

(Pet.

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

the Main Quarry and

suspended sediments

which flow from the Main to

the North

Quarry.

(Id.)

Edison

found that converting its

system to dry ash collection,

take advantage of

leachate

recovery wells

would

create

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.

58-59.)

Both

wet

and dry systems

face

significant obstacles to any

installation of collection wells,

such as dewatering the ash and

using

barges

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

“technologically

impracticable and cost

prohibitive

at the Lincoln Quarry Site”.

(Pet.

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.)

an alternative to

compliance

with

Section 814.302(b)(1) Edison proposes

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

discharged to the Des Plaines River through

Edison’s

NPDES-permitted outfall,

and

assures

that Edison has properly complied

with all

effluent limitations

the NPDES permit.

(Pet.

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

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 811.3 19(aX2) and Section 811.3 19(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

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

groundwater quality

standard under

the

Illinois

Groundwater Protection

Act (Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1991,

ch.

111

1/2,

par.

7451

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

the leachate,

may be

chosen for monitoring

in place of the constituents

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

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

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

accordance with

subsection (a)(l)(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

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.

(Id.)

Edison also claims

the Board’s requirement of broad based

organic and

inorganic

constituent monitoring

not necessary at the

Site because studies

show no

organic parameters,

or volatile

or semi-volatile

organic compounds

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.

stated, there are

organic constituents

its

coal

combustion waste.

(Pet.

at 67.)

The

cost for organic groundwater sampling and

testing

for all

the regulatorily tequired

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.

(Id.)

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

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

811.3 19(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

sampled annually

simply

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 ofthe concentrations is

shown, then Edison proposes to add

those parameters in

the sampling

mode prescribed at Section

811.39l(a)(l).

(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

“if

those organici

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

the

Site,

“if previous

monitoring

results did

not detect a particular inorganic

constituent

Site

groundwater,

it is

improbable that that constituent would

appear

in future

sampling

events”.

(Pet.

at 70.)

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

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

811.3 19(a)(2) and

Section

811.3 19(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 811.3 18(b)(3) and

Section 811.3 18(b)(5)

Edison requests

an adjusted standard from the rule-of-general applicability

Ill.

Adm.

Code

811.318(b)(3),

which states:

Standards

for the Location of Monitoring Points

Monitoring wells

shall be established as close

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

the

edge of the zone of

attenuation downgradient,

with respect to

groundwater flow,

from the source.

Edison also

requests an

adjusted standard from

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

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

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

located

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.

(Id.)

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

Section 811.318.

Secondly, Edison argues

that due to the terrain surrounding the Site, it would be

technically impracticable

and economically unreasonable

install

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

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.

(Id.)

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

located at,

or sometimes

beyond,

the banks of the Des Plaines

River.

Because of its proximity

the

River and subsequent mixing

of groundwater and River water,

installing monitoring

wells

this

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

for drill equipment or personnel.

(Pet.

at 77.)

According

Edison,

it would

required to

install

30 new groundwater monitoring

wells

comply with the Board’s regulations,

at an estimated total

cost of $300,000.

(Pet.

77.)

Edison proposes

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

wells3

at the

Site.

The pre-existing

wells

are:

upgradient wells

92-2S

and 92-2D in the South Quarry,

and

downgradient wells:

nested wells RO8S

and

RO8D northwest of the Quarry, nested

wells

92-

5S and 92-SD

north of the Main Quarry, nested wells

G205

and R16D northeast of the

Quarry, well 93-9 north of the Quarry, and

well

93-11 northwest of the Quarry.

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.

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.

accurately

determine the groundwater flow to the River;

Edison believes it

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) 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

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

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

Ill.

Adm.

Code

811.320(c), which states:

Determination of the Zone of Attenuation

The zone of attenuation,

within which concentrations of

constituents

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

less,

extending from

the ground surface

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.

alternative to

compliance

with Section 811.320(c),

Edison proposes

zone of

attenuation that

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

groundwater management zone (GMZ)

at the Site,

will be

consistent with

the Board’s current definitions and

regulations.

(Id.)

The proposed zone

is supported

twofold:

first,

it places

“all relevant site features that

potentially contribute

elevated constituent concentrations

in groundwater within a

single

zone of attenuation for the Site”;

and the zone

will be contiguous

with

the GMZ.

(Pet.

86.)

The Agency has agreed to designate

the Lincoln Quarry Site from the waste

boundary-to

the site boundary as

GMZ (apparently to address exceedences of background

concentrations).

Edison states

two

reasons to justify

a modification

from the landfill

standards relating

the zone of attenuation.

First,

Edison

argues that the Board

did not consider water flow

conditions

like those present at the

Site

defining the generally applicable

zone of

attenuation.

(Pet.

at 81-83.)

Specifically,

Edison

claims the

Site

consists

of fractured

rock,

where,

unlike

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”.

(Id.)

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 Quarry4 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 attenuatiuwwilltontinue

exceed

the Board’s non-degradation standard (particularly for boron and

sulfate) iregardiesrof

whether Edison takes additional precautions.

(Pet.

at 83-84.)

a result,

Edison believes

“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

“

Ammonia,

arsenic, boron, cadmium, chloride,

fluoride, manganese,

molybdenum,

PH,

potassium, selenium,

sodium,

sulfate, total dissolves

solids,

total

organic carbon and

zinc.

considered include:

converting

the facility from sluiced to dry disposal andconstructing

new

landfill

on the existing

ash designed in

compliance with the standards

in Sectium8it

closing

the landfill and contracting for off-site ash disposal at

existing facilities; closing theiandflll

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.

(Id,

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

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

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

the increase

in the zone of attenuation

the River.

The current constituent concentrations in

groundwater have “no discernible impact on water quality

in the Des Plaines

River”.

(Pet.

86.)

Additionally, the contribution of constituents

attributable

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

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

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

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

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

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 inadoptingthetufe

of general

applicability.

Section 811.314

Edison requests

an adjusted standard from

the rule-of-general applicability at35 IlL

Adm.

Code

811.314,

which

states:

The unit shall be covered by

a final cover consisting of a low

permeability layer overlain by

final protective layer constructed

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

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

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 lxi

centimeters per second and

minimize

void spaces.

iii)

Alternative specifications

may be utilized

provided

that the performance of the low permeability layer

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

subsection (b)(3)(A).

ii)

The geomembrane shall have strength to

withstand the normal stresses imposed

the

waste

stabilization process.

iii)

The geomembrane shall

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

1ff7 cmlsec.

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

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

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

not apply

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

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.

the Site the water infiltration through

percolation is

relatively

small compared

the

groundwater infiltration into the waste area.

Given the fractured

rock

and dolomite at the Site,

along

with

the difference

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

not

factor at the

Site because the majority of the water reaches

the waste

through groundwaterinflowandnot

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

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 erosionnd

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

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

million respectively.

Lastly,

Edison describes the proposed

“Closure

and Post-Closure Care Plan”.

(Pet.

98-101.)

Edison presents two

possible options

during closure, where the ash level

in theMain

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

its present “wet”

condition.

It would

place

fence around the

Site to prevent access and maintain the water at

level

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

two-stage cover system

consisting of a

“compacted

clay layer that performs equivalently

to two

feet of compacted soil

having a hydraulic

conductivity

-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

prevent

erosion.”

(Pet.

100.)

Edison alleges

that its

proposed final

cover standards

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.

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

control

landfill gas and

runoff water.

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

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.

“Attachnent 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.

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 standardin thatEdisx,ndoes

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

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

Edisoirdoesmot

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”.

(Id.)

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.

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

abide with

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.

regards

the Attachment A parameters, the Board will grant Edison’s

request that

determine

“that these standards

not apply

Lincoln Quarry”.

(cf. In the Matter of Wood

Energy,

94-1

(October 6,

1994), esp. footnote 3).

We will

not grant an

“adjusted

standard”

such, since as we have noted above,

Edison does not attempt

make the

demonstrations

required by

Section 28.1(c) of the Act,

and we do

not

wish to establish

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

the

Lincoln Quarry disposal

system.

We will instead include

the order of adjusted standard

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:

Ill.

Adm.

Code

814.302(b)(1),

811 .319(a)(2),

811 .319(a)(3),

811 .318(b)(5), 811.320(c),

and 811il4.

In addition,

the following Board regulations

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 coalinthcMain

Quarry.

Edison shall operate a leachate collection and management

system

at the Joliet/Lincoln

Quarry Site that assures compliance with effluent

limitations contained

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,

accordance with the requirements of 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

811.3 19(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

III. Adm.

Code 620.420(a).

If Edison detects,

and

confirms through

replicate

sampling,

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

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

Ill.

Adm.

Code

811 .319(a)(3)

its ash samples, then Edison shall conduct

confirmatory

sampling and analysis.

If the sampling

and analysis conducted under

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

accordance with the

sampling

and

analysis plan contained in

Volume II of

Edison’s

Application for Significant pennit Modification at LincolnlJoliet

Quarry Ash Landfill

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

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

811.318(b).

If any of the

wells

the monitoring

network established

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 I),

the zone of attenuation

at the Joliet/Lincoln

Quarry Site

shall be defined

the volume bounded by

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

Ill.

Adm.

Code

811.320(c)(2).

This

zone of attenuation is depicted on Figure

SAP-S, 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,

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

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

below,

“maximum adjusted seasonal water

table

level” means the maximum predicted water table

level

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

good

condition at all times.

Closure

Above Water

Table.

If, at

the time ofclosure, 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

1ff7 cmlsec,

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

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

Ill.

Adm.

Code

101.246

“Motions for Reconsideration”.)

IT IS

ORDERED.

Board Member McFawn Concurred.

I, Dorothy

the above opinion

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution Control Board,

hereby certify

that

and

order

was adopted on the

/5~

day of

___________,

1996,

a vote

inn,

Clerk

Control Board

Illinois