BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF AMEREN ENERGY
GENERATING COMPANY FOR ADJUSTED
STANDARDS FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
PARTS 811, 814, AND 815
)
)
)
)
)
)
AS 09-
---
(Adjusted Standard Land)
To:
John Therriault, Acting Clerk
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph St.
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
NOTICE OF FILING
William Ingersoll
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19267
Springfield, IL 62795-9276
Kyle Davis
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19267
Springfield, IL 62795-9276
Please take notice that on August
11,
2008, we filed electronically with the Office of the Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board, the attached Petition of Ameren Energy Generating
Company for Adjusted Standards from 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Parts 811, 814, and 815, Certificate of
Service, and Appearance, copies of which are served upon you.
Ameren Energy Generating Company
August
11,
2008
Amy Antoniolli
Schiff Hardin LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-258-5550
Email: aantoniolli0>schiffhardin.com
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned attorney, certify that I have filed the documents described above electronically
with the Illinois Pollution Control Board and served the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency with the same documents by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on August 11, 2008.
August 11, 2008
Amy Antoniolli
Schiff Hardin LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago,
IL 60606
Telephone: 312-258-5550
EmaIl: aantoniolli@schifthardin.com
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF AMEREN ENERGY
GENERATING COMPANY FOR ADJUSTED
STANDARDS FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
PARTS 811, 814, AND 815
)
)
)
)
)
)
AS 09-__
(Adjusted Standard - Land)
APPEARANCE
Schiff Hardin LLP,
by its attorneys, Amy Antoniolli and Joshua More, files its
appearance on behalf
of Ameren Energy Generating Company.
Amy
a~~~t4~
An 101h
Amy Antoniolli
Telephone: 312-258-5550
Email: aantoniolli(cl)schiffhardin.com
Joshua More
Telephone: 312-258-5769
Email: jmore@schiffhardin.com
Schiff Hardin LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF AMEREN ENERGY
)
GENERATING COMPANY FOR ADJUSTED
)
STANDARDS FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
)
PARTS 811, 814, AND 815
)
AS 09-
---
(Adjusted Standard Land)
PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARDS FROM
CERTAIN REGULATIONS GOVERNING EXISTING LANDFILLS
Submitted on behalf of
Ameren Energy Generating Company
St. Louis, Missouri
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF AMEREN ENERGY
GENERATING COMPANY FOR ADJUSTED
STANDARDS FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
PARTS 811, 814, AND 815
)
)
)
)
)
)
AS 09-
----
(Adjusted Standard - Land)
PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARDS
Ameren Energy Generating Company ("Ameren" or "the Company"),
by and through its
attorneys, Schiff Hardin, LLP, and pursuant to Section 28.1
of the Environmental Protection Act,
415 ILSC 5/28.1 (the "Act"), and
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104, requests that the Illinois Pollution
Control Board (the "Board") adopt adjusted standards from certain solid waste landfill standards
set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 811,814, and 815 as those Parts apply to closure
ofa former
ash impoundment located at
the.. Hutsonville Power Station (the "Facility" or "Station").
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Station contains a coal-fired electrical generating plant and a wastewater disposal
system for management
of coal-combustion wastes, including fly ash. The wastewater disposal
system consists of five surface impoundments, denominated Pond A, Pond B, Pond C, Pond D,
and the bottom ash pond. Pond D, the subject
of this petition, was constructed as a surface
impoundment in 1968, and was operated and permitted
as such.
Ameren seeks this relief in order to complete the closure
of Pond D. The pond is no
longer receiving coal combustion wastes and has been dewatered. According to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (the "Agency"), the pond must now be closed consistent with
the landfill regulations contained in
35
Ill.
Adm. Code Parts 811 through 815, as they apply to
the closure
of Pond D. Because Pond D was created, operated, and managed throughout its
operating life as a surface impoundment, no landfill permit was required pursuant to Section
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
2l(d) of the Act. 415 ILCS
5121
(d) (2006); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 810.103;
see
In re: Conversion
Systems, Inc., PCB AS 93-4, slip op. at
1, fn. 3 (Aug. 26, 1993), ("the definition oflandfill in the
Board's landfill regulations presently does not include the surface impoundments commonly
used
by utilities for disposal").
Upon final disposition
of this petition, Ameren will initiate closure of Pond D. Ameren
considers Pond D at closure
as an "existing" facility under the applicable landfill regulations
because it accepted wastes prior to September 18, 1990, the effective date
of the landfill
regulations. 415 ILCS
5/810.103
(2006); Development, Operating and Reporting Requirements
for Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills, R88-7 (Aug. 17, 1990). Because Ameren operated Pond D
as a water pollution treatment facility and Pond D has received only wastes generated
by Ameren
within the Site, no landfill permit is required pursuant to Section
21 (d) of the Act at closure. 35
Ill. Adm. Code 810.103. As an existing facility exempt from permitting requirements under
Section 21(d)(1)(i)
of the Act (415 ILCS
5/21
(d)(1)(i», Pond D is subject to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
8l4.302(a) and (b), as well as the applicable Part 811 and Part 815 requirements, at closure.
Because these regulations were drafted to manage solid waste landfills, many
of the
landfill regulations are not applicable to a previously operated surface impoundment, permitted
as a water pollution control facility. Plainly, the circumstances applicable to this ash pond are
very different from those contemplated
by the Board in adopting Parts 811 through 815.\
As discussed below, granting the proposed
relief will not result in any environmental or
health effects substantially or significantly more adverse than the effect considered by the Board
The need for regulatory relief for the closure of ash ponds is not unique to Ameren's Hutsonville Power
Station. Many more coal combustion electric generating facilities throughout Illinois will face a similar
need for relief as their on-site ash ponds reach capacity and are taken out of operation.
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
in adopting the landfill regulations. For the reasons discussed in this Petition, Ameren
respectfully requests that the Board grant this relief.
II.
REGULATIONS FROM WHICH
ADJUSTED STANDARDS ARE SOUGHT
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(a»
Ameren requests adjustments to the following sections
of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code Parts 811
2
,
814, and 815:
(1)
Final cover requirements (35 Ill. Admin Code 811.314(b)(3);
(2)
Standards prescribing a leachate collection and management system (35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 814.302(b» and 811.309;
(3)
Groundwater impact assessment requirements (35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.317 and
319(c»;
(4)
Maximum allowable predicted concentration ("MAPC") requirements (35 Ill.
Adm. Code 811.318 and 811.319);
(5)
Groundwater quality standards as applied to boron, sulfate, manganese, pH and
total dissolved solids ("TDS") and the groundwater quality standards as they
define the zone
of attenuation (35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.320);
(6)
Groundwater monitoring requirements for selected inorganic and all organic
constituents (35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.319);
(7)
Monitoring well location requirements(35
Ill. Adm. Code 811.318(b»;
(8)
The following operating conditions do not apply:
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.105 - compaction of waste
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.106 - daily cover
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.1 07(a) - phasing of operations
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.1 07(b) - working face
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.1 07(i) - vector control
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.310, 811.311, 811.312 - landfill gas monitoring and
management
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.313 - intermediate cover
As amended by Proposed Amendments to Solid Waste Landfill Rules, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811 and 814,
R07-8 (Nov.
15,2007) (eff. Dec. 7, 2007, 31
Ill.
Reg. 49,16167,16172).
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.321 - waste placement
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.322 - final slopes and stabilization
35 Ill. Adm. Code 8l5.202(a) - Initial facility report filing deadline
35 Ill. Adm. Code 8l5.302(b) - Permit information requirements
35 Ill. Adm. Code 8l5.303(a) - Annual report information requirements
II.
THE REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
DO NOT IMPLICATE STATE IMPLEMENTATION
OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
(35
Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(b))
The regulations described above do not implement the requirements of the Clean Water
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act or the state Resources Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"),
Underground Injection Control ("UIC"), or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") programs.
See
415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2006).
III.
THE LEVEL OF JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED
FOR THESE ADJUSTED STANDARDS
(35
Ill. Adm. Code l04.406(c»
The regulations from which Ameren seeks the adjusted standards do not specify a level of
justification. Therefore, the level ofjustification specified by Section 28.1 of the Act applies:
(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.
4l5ILCS
5/28.l(c) (2006).
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Ameren must also justify all of the requested adjustments consistent with Section 27(a) of
the Act. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a) (2006). Section 27(a) of the Act requires the Board to consider the
following factors in promulgating regulations:
[T]he Board shall take into account the existing physical
conditions, the character
of the area involved, including the
character
of surrounding land uses, zoning classifications, the
nature
of the existing air quality, or receiving body of water, as the
case may be, and the technical feasibility and economic
reasonableness
of measuring or reducing the particular type of
pollution. 415 ILCS 5/27(a) (2006).
V.
DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE
OF PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES
(35 Ill. Adm. Code l04.406(d))
For more than sixty years, Ameren or its corporate predecessor
3
has generated electricity
at a power plant known as the Hutsonville Power Station ("the facility" or "the Station"). The
Station is located in Crawford County, near Hutsonville, Illinois, on approximately 205 acres
(the "Site"). The Wabash River forms its eastern border while farmland comprises the southern
and western borders. The northern border is undeveloped, wooded land. The closest residence
is
approximately one-half mile from the Station.
(See
Site Map, attached hereto and incorporated
herein
as Exhibit 1). Fifty-eight employees work at the Station which is staffed twenty-four
hours per day, seven days per week. The Station
is part of Ameren's generation system which
provides electricity to residential and commercial customers in Illinois.
Principal equipment at the Station includes coal-fired boilers for steam production and
steam driven turbine generators. The facility draws water from the Wabash River through a
On May I, 2000, as required by and pursuant to the terms of a sale transfer agreement, Central Illinois
Public Service Company d/b/a AmerenCIPS transferred its generating assets, including the Hutsonville
Power Station, to Ameren Energy Generating Company. Both AmerenCIPS and Ameren Generating
Company are subsidiaries
of Ameren Corporation.
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
circulating water system that is used in the boiler and turbine equipment systems. Ash, a by-
product
of coal combustion, is removed from the boilers and sluiced to an ash impoundment
system via pipelines. This current impoundment system is comprised
of a series of Ponds (Ponds
A-C) and the bottom ash pond in which solids settle and sluicewater decants from pond to pond
before discharging to the Wabash River via
an NPDES permitted outfall. The ash ponds accept
only coal combustion waste (fly ash and bottom ash) and low-volume waste from the Hutsonville
facility. A diagram depicting the various site features is appended hereto as Exhibit
2.
The subject of this petition, the unlined ash impoundment ("Pond D"), is located in the
center
of the S 1/2 of Section 17, Township 8N, Range llW, Crawford County, Illinois, on the
west bank
of the Wabash River, and is as close as one hundred (100) feet to the river.
It
covers
an area
of approximately twenty-two (22) acres. Pond D was constructed from indigenous
earthen materials in 1968 and operated
as the Station'swastewater treatment unit (receiving
bottom and fly ash transport water and miscellaneous low-volume wastes) until the construction
of a synthetically-lined pond ("Pond A") in 1986. In 2000, Ameren excavated all coal ash from
the former laydown area and constructed two lined ponds ("Ponds
Band C") to supplement the
ash management capabilities and to improve surface water management at the property. Upon
completion
of Ponds Band C, Pond D was removed from service and allowed to dewater.
Because Ameren intends to leave the ash in Pond D it intends to close Pond D in accordance
with applicable landfill regulations
as set forth more fully in this Petition. Ameren estimates that
during its 30- years
of active operation, Pond D accumulated approximately 750,000 cubic yards
of ash and approximately one-third of this volume (280,000 cubic yards) lies below the water
table.
4
An additional 200,000 cubic yards of ash were added to Pond D since it was taken out of
4
See
Exhibit 3, Table 3-2.
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
service (with Illinois Environmental Protection Agency approval) to establish an acceptable
grade in anticipation
of constructing the proposed cap at closure.
VI.
DESCRIPTION
OF THE IMPACT OF PETITIONER'S
ACTIVITIES ON
THE ENVIRONMENT
(35 Ill.
Adm. Code l04.406(g»
The following discussion summarizes relevant technical details concerning site geology
and groundwater quality and the environmental impacts of Pond D. More comprehensive
descriptions
of geology and groundwater conditions are provided in the August 1999
Hydrogeologic Assessment Report attached and incorporated as Exhibit 4, the January 2000
Groundwater Model Evaluation Report of Impoundment Closure Options attached and
incorporated as Exhibit 5, the 2005 Alternative Analysis Report, Section 2 (Exhibit 3), and the
proposed groundwater monitoring plan (Exhibit 11).
A.
SITE GEOLOGY
Site geology consists of four hydrostratigraphic units: (1) unlithified sand overlying
lithified Pennsylvanian-age sandstone, present in upland areas, with a combined thickness that is
typically between
15 and 35 feet; (2) unlithified fine-grained alluvial sediments within the
Wabash River bedrock valley that are approximately 20 feet thick; (3) coarse-grained alluvial
sediments within the Wabash River bedrock valley that are as much as 70 or more feet thick; and
(4) Pennsylvanian-age shale that underlies the sandstone in the upland areas and the coarse-
grained alluvium in the bedrock valley. The western portion
of Pond D overlies the upland sand.
The eastern portion of Pond D overlies the fine-grained alluvium in the Wabash River Valley.
The upland sand and underlying sandstone beneath the western portion
of Pond D and thin sand
lenses within the fine-grained alluvium that lies under the eastern portion
of Pond Dare
collectively referred to as the "upper migration zone." The coarse-grained alluvial deposits at
7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
depth in the Wabash River bedrock valley are referred to as the "deep alluvial aquifer." Included
in Exhibit
11 are cross-section diagrams that illustrate the stratigraphic relationships of these
formations.
The fine-grained alluvial deposits overlying the deep alluvial aquifer occur over an
elevation range that overlaps the upland shale
(see
Exhibit 11, Figure 2), combining to form a
confining layer that restricts vertical migration
of groundwater between the upper migration zone
and deep alluvial aquifer. As a result, the uppermost aquifer at the Site is the upper migration
zone. The efficacy
of the confining layer is supported by the concentration data because, as
explained below, the only ash leachate impacts observed in the deep alluvial aquifer are highly
localized, and at concentrations lower than Class I standards and much lower than in the upper
migration zone, despite the fact that Pond D was fist placed in service more than 40 years ago.
Groundwater flow direction in both the upper migration zone and the deep alluvial
aquifer is eastward, toward the Wabash River. Maps depicting groundwater flow in these units
over four consecutive quarterly measurements are provided in Exhibit
11.
The upper migration zone is not used for water supply at or downgradient of the Site,
because this zone is not sufficient for power plant operational uses, agricultural irrigation
purposes or domestic uses.
5
Only the deep alluvial aquifer at depth in the Wabash River bedrock
valley has sufficient thickness and hydraulic conductivity to yield adequate groundwater supplies
for power plant and agricultural irrigation purposes.
Shallow sandstone provides limited groundwater yield adequate for domestic uses in other parts of the
county, but there are no such wells at or downgradient
of Pond D, and deep formations are saline (see the
ISWS State Aquifer Map, a copy
of which is attached and incorporated here as Exhibit 7).
8
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
B.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
1.
Parameters of Concern
Coal ash is comprised of non-combustible inorganic materials (aluminum, clay, iron,
limestone, silica sand and trace quantities
of oxidized naturally occurring elements
6
)
that are
impurities within the coal. Since 1984, and
as a condition of its State Operating Permit
(currently Permit #
2005-EO-3689\ Ameren's permit requires monitoring for the following
constituents around Pond
A: boron, sulfate, manganese, pH, and TDS.
8
All of these constituents
occur naturally in Illinois groundwater to varying degrees. Boron and sulfate are considered
primary indicators
of coal ash leachate due to their consistently high concentrations in coal ash
leachate, persistence in the environment, and mobility in groundwater.
9
As set forth more fully
below, groundwater samples reflect elevated levels
ofboron and sulfate at discrete locations at
the Site.
2.
Groundwater Monitoring Network
The Company has monitored groundwater quality at the Site, via a monitoring well
network, since 1984 to define groundwater flow direction, monitor groundwater quality, and to
characterize hydrogeologic conditions. In addition to the well network, Ameren collected
direct-push (GeoProbe) samples near the ash impoundments and at off-site locations and
collected soil, leachate, and groundwater samples. Exhibit 2 depicts the well and direct-push
locations. As a result
of these activities, the Company is able to fully characterize and delineate
American Coal Ash Association, 2003, "ACAA Glossary of Terms," found at the following address:
http://acaa.affiniscape.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=8.
7
9
NPDES Permit
#
2005-EO-3689, effective June 14,2005.
Groundwater monitoring commenced prior
to initiation of ash management operations in Pond A.
Environmental Performance ofCCPs, Murarka, 2002, http://www.mcrcc.osmre.govIPDF/Forums/CCB3/4-
6.pdf
9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
hydraulic properties, groundwater flow, and the extent of groundwater impacts associated with
Pond D at the Site.
(See
Exhibits 3 and 4).
3.
Localization of Upper Migration Zone Impacts
Groundwater within the upper migration zone immediately surrounding and adjacent to
Pond D shows evidence
of ash leachate impacts. 10 Monitoring well data from the upper
migration zone along the southern property line suggest the potential for off-site migration.
Ameren investigated the extent
of off-site impact by obtaining direct-push samples as close to
Pond D as possible (approximately 1,300 feet) in the actively farmed agricultural field
immediately south
of the property line and determined that the upper migration zone was not
impacted at these locations because the concentrations
of boron and sulfate reflected expected
background concentrations. (Exhibit 4, Table 6). Because access to the neighboring property
was limited, Ameren, used a calibrated groundwater flow and transport model to estimate the
extent
of off-site contamination in the upper migration zone. The modeling results suggest that
the extent
of off-site impacts in the upper migration zone extends approximately 500 feet from
the southern property line downgradient
of Pond D. (Exhibit 5, Figure 7) As set forth more fully
in this petition, the past dewatering together with the future capping
of the unlined pond will
result in a dramatic improvement
of groundwater quality south of Pond D: meeting Class I
groundwater standards.
4.
Description of Deep Alluvial Aquifer Impacts
Groundwater in the deep alluvial aquifer of the Wabash River valley has been minimally
impacted from Pond
D. Sulfate and boron concentrations at MW-14 are higher than background
10
In particular, boron and sulfate concentrations exceed 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 620 groundwater quality
standards.
See
Exhibit 4, Figure
10.
10
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
concentrations calculated for the deep alluvial aquifer
(see
Exhibit 11 for the background
calculation), yet lower than their respective Class I standards. Because sulfate is a mobile
indicator parameter for coal ash impacts, the elevated concentrations at MW-14 suggest localized
impact from Pond D. No other well screened in the deep alluvial aquifer shows evidence
of
impacts from coal ash operations. Accordingly, groundwater quality impacts to the deep alluvial
aquifer are minimal and localized to an area near MW-14 (immediately southeast
of Pond D).
Groundwater data from the deep alluvial aquifer reveal elevated concentrations
of
manganese. These concentrations are consistent throughout the deep alluvial aquifer and are
attributable to natural geochemical conditions, which cause a release
of manganese from the
aquifer soils.
II
C.
IMPACTS TO THE WABASH RIVER
Ameren has determined potential impacts of groundwater discharge to the Wabash River
by two different methods and determined that it is unlikely to result in a measurable change in
river water quality. First, the Company used a calibrated groundwater flow and transport model
to calculate the boron loading rate to the Wabash River, which is the regional destination for
groundwater flow in the basin. The model calculations determined that when in service (prior to
2000), Pond D discharged twenty-five (25) pounds
of boron daily into the Wabash River.
(Exhibit
5, Figure 14) The model calculation further indicated that dewatering of Pond D, would
decrease the boron loading rate to the Wabash River
by approximately eighty-five percent (85%)
(Exhibit
5, p. 17) reducing the estimated daily loading rate for boron from twenty-five (25)
pounds to less than five (5) pounds. These loading rates were used to conservatively estimate the
II
See Table 2 for a comparison of background concentrations of contaminants in the deep alluvial aquifer to
Class I standards.
11
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
effect of groundwater discharge on river water concentrations under worst case, low flow,
conditions.
The results
of this calculation indicate that the boron loading rate both before and after
dewatering was not sufficient to significantly increase the boron concentration in river water
(Ameren prepared a spreadsheet showing concentration change at low flow, a copy
of which is
attached and incorporated as Exhibit
8).
Second, river water quality data obtained from the USEPA STORET database for the
closest downstream monitoring station (at Hutsonville, one-mile south
of the impoundment)
confirm the model calculation. The STORET data indicate boron concentrations lower than
median concentrations in the upper migration zone upgradient
of Pond D, suggesting little or no
impacts to the river (Ameren attaches and incorporates a copy of a memo regarding this finding
as Exhibit
9).
D.
GROUNDWATER USAGE
Groundwater usage near the Station is limited. A review of Illinois State Geological
Survey water well records within one-mile
of Pond
D
identified 20 water well logs pumping
groundwater from depths
of 14 to 105 feet
(see
Exhibit 4, Appendix
D).
A follow-up search was
performed using the Illinois State Geological Survey ILWATER database, which identified six
wells within
12 mile of Pond D. Two of these wells are the plant production wells, and the other
four are irrigation wells
(see
Well Survey Report, attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit
7).12 All six wells pump from the deep alluvial aquifer, which as discussed above, shows only
minimal and highly localized impacts from Pond
D
(at MW-14). In addition, the City of
12
Exhibit 8 was created in 2005. The database was rechecked on February 26,2008 and no changes were
noted.
12
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Hutsonville'spublic water supply wells draw groundwater from the deep alluvial aquifer
approximately one mile south
of Pond D. However, considering the relatively large distance to
these wells, the observed easterly groundwater flow direction in the deep alluvial aquifer at the
Site, and the fact that only one monitoring well in this aquifer has experienced ash leachate
impacts, and those impacts have been low-level after 40 years
of operation, it seems unlikely that
the Hutsonville wells could ever be impacted
by ash leachate from Pond D.
There are no wells drawing groundwater from the upper migration zone downgradient or
sidegradient
of the Site. The Station'snearest residential neighbor to the south, who owns the
field above the area
of impacted groundwater, is connected to the City of Hutsonville'spublic
water supply system.
VII.
DESCRIPTION OF EFFORTS TO COMPLY
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(e))
The Board regulations require Ameren to describe the efforts necessary to comply with
the regulations
of general applicability. Ameren discusses various compliance alternatives
below. Costs corresponding to the cover system and leachate management alternatives are
discussed and set forth in more detail in Exhibit 3.
A.
THE COMPANY'S CLOSURE PLANS AND COVER SYSTEMS
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.314
Section 811.314 prescribes a process of final cover. Acceptable technologies include
compacted earth, geomembranes, or similarly performing material. 35
Ill.
Adm. Code Part
811.314(b)(3)(A)(iii) allows Ameren to use alternative low permeability layer construction
techniques or materials, provided that they provide equivalent or superior performance to the
Section 811.314 requirements. Part 816 (Alternative Standards for Coal Combustion Power
Generating Facilities Waste Landfills) contains alternative standards for coal combustion power
13
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
generating facility waste landfill. In promulgating 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 816, the Board
approved a proprietary process called Poz-O-Tec as an alternative means for satisfying liner and
cap requirements for coal ash monofills, such as Pond D upon closure. Part 816 allows coal
combustion waste landfills to utilize a pozzolanic cap instead
of those required by Section
811.314. Under Part 816, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sludge and coal combustion waste may
be used for cap construction
to meet Section 811.314 requirements. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 816.510.
Ameren proposes to use an alternative low permeability layer construction material and
seeks an adjusted standard to 811.314(b)(3)(A)(iii) to construct a pozzolanic cap that
substantially complies with the strength and permeability standards set forth in
35 Ill. Adm. Code
Part 816.
Ameren'sproposed cap is a variation
ofthe conceptual process endorsed by the Board in
Part 816. Under Ameren's approach, ash from Pond A is mixed with stabilizing reagents to form
a material that can
be used to construct a final cover for Pond D. As documented in Exhibit 10,
Ameren performed extensive laboratory research to evaluate cap performance for coal ash from
Pond A when mixed with different stabilizing reagents: Portland cement; Class C fly ash;
fluidized bed residue; quicklime; FGD scrubber sludge; and native soils. The various mixes
were cured for eighty-four (84) days and evaluated for unconfined compressive strength,
hydraulic conductivity, economics and constructability issues. Four (4) optimal mixes were then
tested for leachate characteristics using the TCLP leaching procedure.
Results
of this research indicated that hydraulic performance of the mixes varied
considerably; while leaching performance, as determined using the TCLP procedure, resulted in
low or non-detectable metals concentrations for all mixes (Exhibit 10, Table 4). Based on these
results, Ameren has determined that a mix containing at least five percent (5%) Portland cement
14
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
best meets perfonnance, workability, and economic criteria. Perfonnance characteristics of the
selected mix (Mix 2 in Exhibit 10) include an 84-day laboratory hydraulic conductivity value
of
4.7 x
10-
6
centimeters per second (cm/s) and a compressive strength of 165 pounds per square
inch (psi).
Part 811.314(b)(3)(A)(iii) allows for alternative specifications provided that the
perfonnance
of the low penneability layer is equal to or superior to the perfonnance of a three-
foot
(3 ft) thick cap with hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 x 10-
7
cm/s based upon a geometric
average
of penneability testing results. Part 816.51 O(g) requires that a Poz-O-Tec cap be at least
three feet thick. 35
IlL Adm. Code 816.510(g). Ameren proposes to construct a cap with a low
penneability pozzolanic layer at least three feet thick. The hydraulic conductivity
of this
pozzolanic layer, as constructed in the field, will be lower than 5.0 x
10-
6
cm/s. While this value
is greater than 1.0 x
lO-
7
cm/s, it will provide equivalent protection as discussed below and as
documented in Exhibit 3.
Ameren perfonned groundwater transport modeling using hydraulic conductivity values
ranging from
of 1.0 x lO-
5
to 1.0 x 10-
7
cm/s for the pozzolanic layer
(see
Exhibit 3, Appendix D,
Figures D-4a and D-4b, graph lines CO-3a, CO-3b, and CO-3c). While there were differences in
cap percolation predicted for this range
of hydraulic conductivity values, there was no significant
difference in predicted concentrations for groundwater downgradient
of Pond D. The similar
perfonnance
of the modeled cap scenarios under a range of cap hydraulic conductivity values
reflect the following facts: (1) the volume
of water percolating through the cap, regardless of its
modeled hydraulic conductivity value, is less than five percent (5%)
of the volume of water that
15
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
percolated through Pond D when it was active and receiving sluicewater; 13 and (2) the dominant
mechanism for leachate generation, since dewatering
of Pond D in 2000, is groundwater seepage
through saturated coal ash (i.e., ash below the water table), rather than percolation
of surface
water (precipitation, snow melt) through the cap.
Once a cap is installed, the relatively minor changes in cap percolation will have little
effect
on the volume of leachate generated in Pond D, and subsequently, little effect on
downgradient concentrations in groundwater. Moreover, because Pond
D
has no underlying
barrier liner, and the hydraulic conductivity
of the coal ash contained in Pond
D
is estimated to
be greater than 5.0 x
10-
6
crn/s, the proposed cap will not result in accumulation of water
(i.e.,
"bathtub effect") within Pond D. In summary, the cap constructed over Pond D will not
influence the primary mechanism
of leachate generation: groundwater seepage through saturated
ash. Accordingly, the hydraulic characteristics
of the cap will have minimal effect on
downgradient groundwater quality.
Finally, Ameren recognizes that the hydraulic conductivity values
of the test mixes are
laboratory derived, and a field-derived value may be higher. Ameren, therefore, seeks an
adjusted standard from
8l1.314(b)(3)(A)(iii) to construct a pozzolanic cap that will meet a
performance standard hydraulic conductivity
of 5.0 x
10-
6
cm/s. This hydraulic conductivity is
based upon a geometric average
of permeability testing results and a performance standard of
150 psi based upon an arithmetic average of the strength testing results as determined during
construction
of a test pad using a testing methodology substantially equivalent to that outlined in
Part 816. If the five percent (5%) cement mix does not achieve the performance standard, then
13
Percolation for the active, ponded Pond D was estimated at 360 inches per year (Exhibit 4, Table 3), while
percolation for the Pond D with a pozzolanic cap is estimated at less than
10 inches per year (Exhibit 11,
Table D-2).
16
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
up to 10% cement will be added to the mixture to achieve a 5.0 x 10-
6
cmls
hydraulic
conductivity.
For final cover, Section 816.51
O(g) defers to the low permeability layer requirement of
Section 811.314. Accordingly, the cap will be covered with three feet of soil to support
vegetative growth and function as a final protective layer as required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code
811.314(c). Exhibit 10 (a report prepared
by VFL regarding the construction of the cap is
attached and incorporated here) includes a diagram of a representative cross-section of Pond
D
and depicting the top soil cover, granular drainage layer
l4
and pozzolanic cap. (Exhibit 10,
Figure 1.)
Overall capital costs as well as the annualized capital and operating costs of the closure
alternatives investigated for Pond D are set forth in Exhibit 3, Table 5-1.
B.
LEACHATE MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 814.302(b) and 811.309
Section 814.302(b) requires a "system which will effectively drain and collect leachate
and transport it to a leachate management system." 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.302(b). Section
811.309 establishes the standards generally applicable to the leachate management system. The
landfill regulations define leachate as any "liquid that has been or in direct contact with a solid
waste."
35 Ill. Adm. Code 810.103.
Because Pond D has been operated
as a surface impoundment, rather than as a landfill,
Pond D has not been subject to the leachate standards of the landfill regulations. Accordingly,
no leachate control, transport or management system currently exists at Pond D. As described in
14
The granular drainage layer was not considered in the modeling of pozzolonic cap performance
documented in Exhibit
3. This was a conservative assumption because a drainage layer would reduce the
volume
of water percolating through the cap.
17
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
more detail below, the implementation of new leachate control, transport and management
system at Pond D at closure is unnecessary and prohibitively expensive. Accordingly, Ameren
asks the Board to find that compliance with the leachate standards
of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.309
and 8l4.302(b) is not required for Pond D at closure.
1.
Leachate Monitoring
The regulations require leachate monitoring to '''helpdetermine the degree to which a
landfill poses a threat to the groundwater by ascertaining what types
of contaminants are
leaching out
of the wastes that have been disposed in the landfill and in what concentrations. '"
Proposed Amendments to Solid Waste Landfill Rules, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 810 and 811, R07-8,
slip op. at 3 (Oct. 4, 2007). Leachate monitoring requirements address monitoring parameters,
locations, and frequency. The materials disposed in Pond D are exclusively coal-combustion
waste material, the contaminants from which have been documented. Further, because Pond
D
is
unlined, there is no separation between the coal ash leachate and groundwater at the Site. As
discussed in more detail below, Ameren has a network
of wells in place at the Site to monitor
groundwater quality. For these reasons, Ameren requests that the proposed groundwater quality
monitoring plan apply in lieu
of the leachate monitoring requirements of Section 811.309.
2.
Leachate Management
In promulgating its leachate drainage, collection, and management standards, the Board
did not prescribe a specific system that must be used to collect and manage leachate at an
existing landfill.
IS Rather, the Board'srules are premised upon the goal of "preventing a
discharge to groundwater by using the best economically available containment and leachate
removal technology."
See
Recommendations For a Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Program in
15
Leachate is defined as "liquid that has been or is in direct contact with solid waste."
18
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Illinois and Back Ground Report. Scientific/ Technical Section (STS Recommendations), R84-17
Docket D, slip
op. at 8 (Mar. 7, 1988). At the time the Board issued its regulations, the best
available containment and leachate removal technology was the installation
of a "compacted
earth liner three feet thick with a leachate drainage layer and collection system."
!d.
With such a
design, leachate
is contained by the bottom liner, directed through a system of drains to a
collection system from which it could be routed to a treatment system. Such a design is
inapplicable to Pond D at closure.
The Board recognized that, due
to the technical impracticability, existing units are not
required to comply with the requirements set forth in Sections 811.306, 811.307 and 811.308.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.302(a)(1);
see also
STS Recommendations, (Mar. 7, 1988). As the
Scientific/ Technical Section
of the Board noted: "[a]n existing facility cannot retrofit a
foundation or liner."
!d.
at p.
110.
Part 814 does not prescribe specific standards for leachate
management systems. Rather, existing facilities must implement a system that will "effectively
drain and collect leachate and transport it to a leachate management system." 35 Ill. Adm. Code
814.302(b)(1). A leachate management system can consist
of any combination of storage,
treatment, pretreatment and disposal options. Treatment
of leachate is not necessary if the
leachate constituents do not exceed wastewater effluent standards. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
811.309(h)(2).
Approximately 280,000 cubic yards
of coal ash in Pond D are in continual contact and
saturated
by groundwater. As described more fully herein, it is not possible to "effectively drain
and collect leachate" from Pond D at closure. Dewatering the impoundment reduced the volume
of leachate discharged to the Wabash River by more than 80 percent, and capping will further
19
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
reduce this volume, although to a much lesser extent than dewatering. Exhibit 3, Appendix D,
Figure D-3.
For the reasons set forth below, Ameren seeks an adjusted standard from the leachate
management and disposal requirements
of Section 811.309 because they are technically
impracticable and unwarranted at the Site.
a.
Leachate At The Site Complies With Wastewater Effluent Standards
As a preliminary matter, and given the various closure and monitoring activities proposed
in the Company's Petition, it is simply unnecessary to treat leachate associated with Pond
D. All
point source discharges from the Site must comply with effluent standards set forth in the
Station'sNPDES permit and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124,304.125 and 304.126. The Company
has analyzed groundwater that would be extracted near Pond D
as part of an extemalleachate
collection system and determined that it would not cause exceedences
of effluent standards at the
NPDES discharge. Accordingly, assuming that the leachate could be collected and managed at
the Site, it could be discharged without treatment and meet effluent standards.
Moreover, given the relatively low toxicity associated with Petitioner's coal combustion
waste,16 the collection and management
of any incremental amount of leachate generated below
the water table would result in little, if any, discemable environmental benefit. In effect, the
leachate would be collected from groundwater flowing toward the Wabash River, channeled
through the existing ash pond wastewater management system, and discharged into the Wabash
River, along with the Station's sluice waters, via the NPDES outfall. As the Board'stechnical
section noted:
"[I]f leachate is approximately the same as any other treated effluent, then there is
16
Relevant portions of the USEPA's detennination that coal ash is not a hazardous waste is attached as
Exhibit
12. Final Regulatory Detennination on Four Large-Volume Wastes from the Combustion of Coal
by Electric Utility Power Plants,
58 FR 42466 (Aug. 9, 1993).
20
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
no logical reason to pump it out of the ground, only to discharge it directly to a surface water
body." STS Recommendations, at
p. 45.
b.
Traditional Leachate Drainage and Collection Technologies Will Not
Work At the Site
In attempting to comply with Section 814.302(b)(1) requirements, Ameren examined the
following technologies and/or strategies: ash removal (both on-site redeposition and off-site
disposal), perimeter trenching, and barrier wall containment. These compliance alternatives
were rejected for the reasons set forth below.
(i)
Ash Removal And On vs. Off-Site Disposal
As part
of its analysis, Ameren considered the traditional leachate drainage and collection
technologies, including ash removal. Two strategies
of ash removal were reviewed: temporary
ash removal and installation
of an underdrainage system17, and ash removal with off-site
disposal. Both strategies require removal
of the saturated ash and the result would be a reduction
in leachate and an improvement in groundwater quality. The alternative requiring ash removal
and off-site disposal would eliminate the need to comply with the landfill requirements at Pond
D. However, an analysis of alternatives by NRT concluded that ash removal, regardless of its
end use, is neither technically feasible nor economically reasonable. Exhibit 3, Table 3-1.
Whether considering on-site redeposition after drainage system installation or off-site
disposal, removal
of the approximately 750,000
18
cubic yards of ash from the unlined pond
creates significant logistical hurdles. The saturated ash alone would require unconventional
17
18
Installing an underdrainage system above the ash waste would not effectively address leachate escaping
from waste already placed in the impoundment. Groundwater would continue to generate leachate from the
saturated ash. Thus, such an underdrainage system would have no impact on leachate generated at the Site.
An
additional 200,000 cubic yards of ash have been added to Pond D since the pond was dewatered per
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency approval.
21
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
excavation techniques such as dredging, or mechanical sluicing
(i.e.,
mudcat auger excavation).
The physical configuration of the Site and the narrow access around the impoundment
significantly limit implementation
of these unconventional excavation techniques. Such
techniques would
be ineffective in removing the ash. The on-site disposal alternative poses an
additional technical feasibility challenge because there is insufficient land on the Site to
construct dewatering and storage facilities large enough to handle the ash. Use
of the lined pond
(Pond A) is not feasible because it would completely fill Pond A causing Hutsonville to cease
burning coal, and generating electricity.
Also importantly, ash removal is not economically reasonably for Ameren. The cost
of
excavation and off-site disposal of the total volume of ash is estimated to cost approximately $34
million. Exhibit 3, Appendix B. Further, the replacement
of excavated ash on top of clean fill is
estimated at approximately $22 million.
Id.
The latter estimate does not even include the cost of
installing an underdrainage system which could cost well over $1 million, nor does it include the
cost
of temporary storage of ash at some location because on-site temporary storage is not
feasible. Further, the cost analysis was completed in 2005 and noted that
if general fill or ash
disposal costs increase, the capital costs for these alternatives could double. Exhibit 3, Table 3-
1. Thus, although considered, ash removal does not present a viable strategy for closure of Pond
D.
(ii)
Perimeter Leachate Collection Trench
or Recovery Wells
Under appropriate circumstances, a perimeter collection trench
or recovery wells (Exhibit
3, p. 3-3) could
be used to collect leachate from a landfill to reduce the off-site migration of
contaminants. Such a trench is typically constructed by excavating downgradient of a
contamination source, and installing a drainage pipe surrounded
by permeable granular soil
backfill. Ameren considered the construction
of a trench system along the southern border of
22
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Pond D to mitigate off-site impacts to the neighboring property to the south, and performed
groundwater transport modeling
to evaluate its effectiveness. Exhibit 3, Section 4, Table 4-2,
and Appendix D of Exhibit 3. A leachate collection trench, however, is not economically viable
or environmentally justified because it would not remove the contaminants from the
environment. Rather, such a system would simply divert groundwater, which currently slowly
discharges to the Wabash River, immediately and directly
to the river via the NPDES outfall.
Ameren has concluded this alternative is not economically reasonable given the lack
of
environmental benefit of pumping water out of the ground only to discharge it directly to the
Wabash River. Further, Ameren expects groundwater offsite will meet Class I standards within
16 years
of dewatering and installing the proposed cover system (Exhibit 3, Table 4-2).
(iii)
Containment Using a Barrier Wall
Ameren also evaluated the alternative
of constructing a low-permeability barrier wall
around the impoundment to prevent lateral migration
of ash leachate. Construction of a vertical
barrier or "slurry wall" is dependent upon keying into a geologic formation with low hydraulic
conductivity such as shale bedrock or clay that would prevent vertical migration
of contaminants.
As the Board'stechnical staff noted: "[t]he slurry wall must extend into the lower confining
layer to a depth necessary to maintain a continuous hydraulic barrier and prevent seepage." STS
Response to Comments, p. 37. The sandstone bedrock beneath the western portion
of Pond D
does not provide a sufficient key-in layer for an impermeable barrier wall. Without a low
permeability formation in which to key the barrier wall, proper containment cannot be achieved.
(See
Exhibit 3, pp. 3-5). This alternative is, therefore, technically infeasible.
23
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
c.
Description of Ameren's Proposed Leachate Management System
Alternative
Ameren has designed a final cover and surface water management system that will limit
the amount
of leachate generated from Pond D. The percolating effect of precipitation will be
reduced
by designing and constructing a final cover system for Pond D with low hydraulic
conductivity to limit vertical infiltration, and with a slope sufficient to divert runoff from the
final cover surface. Such a system should divert the vast majority
of controllable water from the
closed impoundment and reduce the amount
of leachate generated at the Site.
Under these circumstances, the proposed surface water collection system and pozzolonic
cap will effectively drain and control precipitation into Pond D and thus reduce leachate volume.
The incremental costs and technical hurdles associated with installing a leachate collection
system far outweigh any discernable environmental benefit. Accordingly, Ameren requests that
the Board issue an adjusted standard that allows the closure
of Pond D through the construction
of a pozzolanic cap to divert surface flow without the construction of a leachate collection
system,
as outlined more fully herein.
C.
GROUNDWATER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
&
PREDICTIVE CONTAMINANT
TRANSPORT MODEL - Section 811.317
The regulations envision that before designing and constructing a landfill, "an integrated
evaluation
of the entire landfill site and design be performed using site-specific data, a
contaminant transport model, and reasonable operational assumptions. A point
of compliance
some distance away from the edge
of a unit is specified, as are maximum contaminant levels
acceptable at the compliance point." STS Recommendations,
p. 60. If the assessment shows
that the design and performance standards in Part
811 are inadequate to prevent contamination of
the groundwater outside the zone of attenuation ("ZOA"), then additional protection can be
24
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
considered such as multiple collection or liner systems or even relocation to a more suitable site.
Id.,
at 61.
Section 811.317 requires a person seeking a landfill permit to predict the potential
impacts caused
by leachate seepage from the landfill. The regulation requires a groundwater
impact assessment using a groundwater contaminant model incorporating site-specific
hydrogeologic information, and landfill design standards (liners, leachate collection system, final
cover, etc.) to demonstrate that concentrations
of all constituents in groundwater outside the
ZOA will be less than the groundwater quality standards
of35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.320. Based
on this model, the permittee determines the leachate amount, the constituent concentrations in
the leachate, and the constituent concentrations over time.
This regulation is inapplicable here because the groundwater impact assessment is
intended as a tool to aid in conceptual design
of a new landfill, rather than closure of an existing
site. Furthermore, impacts to the groundwater and the migration
of contaminants from Pond
D
have already occurred, and as a result a groundwater impact assessment, as prescribed by the
landfill regulations, cannot be performed. The pond was constructed long before the regulations
were in place and Ameren has conducted sampling to characterize groundwater adjacent to Pond
D
as a result ofthose operations
(see
Exhibits 3 and4). Further, Ameren has performed
modeling, calibrated using this sampling, to predict the movement
of the plume under different
closure scenarios. Thus, Ameren has performed modeling consistent with the technical
requirements
of Section 811.317 but with the purpose of identifying closure scenarios rather than
developing maximum allowable predicted concentrations ("MAPCs") which would not be
relevant to the Site's current conditions.
25
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Ameren has determined the impacts of leachate seepage from Pond D following
implementation
of final cover and slope configuration by using techniques different than those
specified in Section 811.317
(see
Exhibit 3). Ameren has also analyzed leachate from Pond D
and determined the constituents found within that leachate
(see
Exhibit 4, Table 6).
See
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 811.317(a)(2). Ameren must seek relief from Section 811.317 because that section
requires the operator to predict contaminant concentrations in leachate when no release has yet
occurred in order
to derive MAPCs.
The purpose
of the groundwater contaminant transport model ("GTM") is to predict
whether leachate from the landfill will result in a statistically significant increase over
background concentrations beyond the ZOA for 100 years after the close
of the landfill. 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 811.3l7(b). In adopting the groundwater impact assessment and predictive
modeling requirements, the Board clearly intended the groundwater impact assessment be
performed prior to the placement
of waste in a landfill unit. Petition of Carns Chemical Co.for
an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814, Subpart D, AS 98-1, slip op. at
12 (Sept. 19
1997). "In this regard, the Board noted that it would be inappropriate to assess the potential for
contamination
of landfill design after the landfill is placed into operation and contamination
occurs."
!d.;
see also,
In the Matter of: Development, Operation and Reporting Requirements
for Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills, R88-7, Appendix A-I at
65 (Aug. 17, 1990)
("It
would be
inappropriate to assess the potential for contamination
of a design after the landfill is placed in
operation and the contamination occurs. The opinion should show that the facility is unlikely
to
cause groundwater contamination before a permit is issued, not after contamination has
occurred.").
26
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Predictive modeling is unnecessary where the conditions sought to be predicted have
occurred and actual data are available. Ameren has performed modeling to evaluate the
reduction in leachate volume, and its migration in groundwater under different closure scenarios
and proposed monitoring to demonstrate that the closure scenario approved here will conform to
the modeling predictions. Rather than predictive modeling, Ameren proposes to use a
monitoring network to assess constituent data and transport from Pond
D. Ameren proposes that
in lieu
of the specific requirements set forth in Section 811.317, the Company will continue to
gather actual groundwater data from the monitoring network proposed in this petition to measure
the impact to groundwater.
D.
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF GROUNDWATER
MONITORING SYSTEMS - SECTIONS 811.318 and 811.319
The regulations envision that in selecting a new site a landfill operator will develop a
groundwater monitoring program that identifies and compares upgradient (background) water
quality to downgradient water quality. Monitoring wells are to be established both within and
outside the ZOA. The specific requirements
of these regulations are not necessary at a surface
impoundment in existence prior to the time the regulations were adopted and in operation for
many years before those regulations became applicable. Ameren has already characterized the
groundwater contamination from Pond D and proposes to implement the groundwater
monitoring program described below.
Ameren has maintained a monitoring well network on Site and has sampled wells
periodically over many years. As described above and in Exhibits 3, 4, and
13 this sampling has
allowed Ameren to characterize the extent
of the plume. Ameren has also performed modeling
to identify the impacts
of various closure scenarios. Ameren has dewatered Pond D, thus
removing the hydraulic head causing mounding and subsequent migration
of constituents to the
27
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
south of Pond D. Finally as described below, Ameren proposed a groundwater monitoring
program to document the diminished plume over time. While this plan generally complies with
the requirements
of Sections 811.318, Ameren requests relief from parts of that Section.
1.
Monitoring Well Locations
Set forth in Exhibit
11
is a groundwater monitoring plan for Pond D which Ameren
believes substantially complies with Section 811.318 monitoring requirements. Ameren requests
adjusted standards from Sections 811.318(b)(3) to allow the continued use
of the current
monitoring well network:
Section 811.318(b)(3) requires that
***
Monitoring wells shall be established as close to the potential
source
of discharge as possible without interfering with the waste
disposal operations, and within
half the distance from the edge of
the potential source of discharge to the edge of the zone of
attenuation downgradient, with respect to groundwater flow, from
the source.
The physical configuration
ofthe Site precludes compliance with this particular location
requirement because
ofburied utilities and access necessary for plant operations.
Additional monitoring wells outside the current coverage area is also not feasible because
areas east
of the current monitoring system are in the flood plain of the Wabash River where
monitoring wells are subject to flooding and damage
by flotsam during flood period, and the area
south
of the impoundment is an actively farmed agricultural field for which the land owner has
refused to allow Ameren to install permanent monitoring wells on their property.
2.
Maximum Allowable Predicted Concentrations - Section 811.318(c)
Under the typical landfill setting envisioned by the Design, Construction and Operation
of Groundwater Monitoring Requirements, groundwater monitoring wells are to be installed at
28
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
various downgradient locations within a ZOA, to identify the migration of contaminants
approaching the edge
of the ZOA. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.318(b). The landfill operator must
then calculate MAPCs for each monitoring point.
Id.
at 811.318(c); STS Recommendations, at
70. MAPCs may be thought
of as breakthrough points - concentrations below which there will
be no groundwater quality violations at the ZOA's edge.
Id.
"The maximum allowable
concentration at any monitoring point is established
by predicting the concentrations at that point
and time with a groundwater containment model."
Id.
As for the groundwater impact assessment, MAPCs are factually inapplicable because
Site conditions defeat the purpose
of MAPCs. Section 811.318(c) requires that MAPCs be based
on the "same methods, data, and assumptions as used in the groundwater impact assessment." 35
Ill. Adm. Code 811.318(c). An MAPC is a trigger point, above which assessment monitoring
must be implemented. The goal
of MAPCs is to predict groundwater exceedences outside the
ZOA. STS Recommendations, at 70. Because Pond D is only becoming regulated as a landfill
at the closure stage, there is nothing to predict. Ameren already possesses actual monitoring
data. Establishing MAPCs would not serve the predictive function envisioned by the Board in
adopting Section 811. Accordingly, Ameren requests relief from Section 811.318(c).
Instead,
the Company proposes to implement the monitoring plan set forth in Exhibit
11,
extend the ZOA
eastward to the Wabash River and eastern property boundary, and request adjusted standards for
boron and other constituents that do not meet applicable groundwater quality standards at
specified wells.
The MAPC-related requirements
of Section 811.319 are equally inapplicable. Instead,
Ameren proposes that monitoring wells MW-6, MW-7, MW-8,
MW-llR, MW-14, MW-1l5s,
29
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
and MW-115d serve as points for determining compliance with the applicable groundwater
quality standard ("AGQS")
as required by 811.318(b)(5)
(see
Exhibit 2 for well locations).
3.
Constituent Monitoring
Section 811.319 of the generally applicable landfill standards requires Ameren to monitor
the Site groundwater for:
(1)
Constituents that appear in, or are expected
to be in, the leachate (35 Ill. Adm.
Code 811.319(a)(2)(A)(i));
(2)
A list
of 14 indicator contaminants (35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(a)(2)(A)(ii));
(3)
For facilities collecting more than 50%
by volume non-municipal waste,
additional indicator parameters based upon leachate characteristic and waste
content (35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(a)(2)(A)(iv));
(4)
Fifty-one (51) organic chemicals in drinking water described at 40 C.F.R. 141.40
(1988) and 40 C.F.R. 258.Appendix I (2006),
as incorporated by 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 810.104 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(a)(3)(A)(i)); and
(5)
A specific list
of organic chemicals for which groundwater must be monitored (35
Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(a)(3)(A)(i)). 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.319.
The Board'sgroundwater monitoring program
is intended to ensure that constituents
from waste deposited in a landfill
do not migrate into and degrade groundwater. The Board's
regulations require broad-based organic and inorganic constituent monitoring. While such
an
approach is appropriate for municipal landfills where wastes originate from a variety of sources,
it is unnecessary at monofill facilities such
as Hutsonville's Pond D, where there has only been
one generator and the waste constituents have been characterized.
In lieu of broad-based
monitoring, one or more indicator constituents that are representative ofleachate transport may
be chosen for monitoring.
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(a)(2)(B). Ameren proposes that boron and
sulfate be utilized as the primary indicators for coal ash leachate due
to their consistently high
concentration in coal ash leachate and due
to their persistence and high mobility in groundwater.
30
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Based upon the ash and groundwater sampling results, Ameren seeks an adjusted
standard from Section 811.319(
a) and proposes that it sample only those constituents identified
in its groundwater monitoring plan described below. Ameren asserts that there is no need to
sample for organic constituents since the combustion process destroys volatile organic
compounds that exist in the coal before burning (Exhibit 11). Ameren believes that the
homogenous nature
ofthe ash disposed in the impoundment supports this request for reduced
monitoring. Similarly, Ameren asserts that sampling for boron and sulfate is sufficient to
document the extent
of the plume for all other inorganic constituents. Since these constituents
are the most mobile
ofthe constituents expected to be associated with coal ash combustion
leachate, Ameren believes that they serve
as valid indicators. As described more fully in Exhibit
11, Ameren proposes to monitor for the constituents required in the Facility's State Operating
and NPDES Permits (pH, temperature, specific conductance, groundwater depth, boron, sulfate,
manganese, and TDS) at the following monitoring well locations: MV/-1, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8,
MW-10, MW-11R, MW-7D, MW-14, MW-115s, MW-115d, MW-121.
The cost for the full monitoring required
by the Board'srule is expected to be
approximately $29,000 per year. The cost for Ameren's proposed monitoring is $4,300.
Ameren believes the monitoring program required by Section 811.319 is not economically
reasonable given the known content
of the ash in Pond D.
E.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
- SECTION 811.320
Landfills regulated under 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 811 are subject to the applicable
groundwater quality standard.
35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 811.320(a). The AGQS has been
interpreted to mean "the ambient concentration determined by a statistical analysis
of the
existing groundwater quality." Solid Waste Landfill Rules, R07-8, slip op. at 6 (Nov. 15,2007).
Further, the AGQS applies
"'atthe edge of the zone of attenuation or compliance boundary (l00
31
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
feet from the edge of the waste or the property boundary, if closer).' If natural background
concentrations are lower that those allowed
by any standard, then the landfill must meet the
lower concentration.,,19
Id.
1.
Zone of Attenuation Around Pond D
Groundwater within the ZOA is Class IV groundwater that must meet Class II
groundwater quality standards "except for concentrations of contaminants within leachate
released from a permitted unit." 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.320; 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.440. Pond
D
qualifies as a "permitted unit" because it was permitted under a water pollution control permit
until dewatering in 2000. Furthermore, Section 811.320(c) confirms that leachate within the
ZOA may exceed the AGQS:
The zone
of attenuation, within which concentrations of constituents in leachate
discharged from the unit
may exceed the applicable groundwater quality standard
of this Section, is a volume bounded by a vertical plane at the property boundary
or 100 feet from the edge
of the unit, whichever is less, extending from the
ground surface to the bottom
of the uppermost aquifer and excluding the volume
occupied
by the waste. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.320(c).
Any other reading
of the landfill regulations and Part 620.440 would contravene the
intent
of the ZOA: "to provide a buffer area between the source of the discharge and the point at
which the applicable groundwater standards are enforced.,,2o STS Recommendations, at 76.
19
20
In conflict with this testimony, however, Appendix C to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's
Landfill Development Permit Application form (LPC-PA2) states:
"If the background concentration for a
groundwater constituent exceeds a 'Boardestablished standard' as defined in 8l1.320(a)(3)(B) an adjusted
groundwater quality standard is not required. The background concentration
is the applicable standard."
LPC-PA2, Appendix C at C-5.
If the approach set forth in the landfill application form applies, then
Ameren would need less relief from the groundwater quality standards.
In the event that the Board determines that groundwater within the ZOA must meet Class II groundwater
quality standards, Ameren also requests that the constituent concentrations at the monitoring wells as
identified in Table 3 apply in lieu
of the AGQS.
32
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Ameren seeks to extend the ZOA eastward to the property boundary along the Wabash
River. Pond D was constructed in 1968, prior to promulgation
of modern landfill and
impoundment design standards, and as a result leachate has been released from the unit.
However, attenuation is occurring within the ZOA, as demonstrated
by boron and sulfate
concentrations in MW-7 that are a factor
of two or more lower than in downgradient monitoring
wells closer to the facility
(see
Figures 5a and 5b, Exhibit 11). Extending the ZOA eastward to
the Wabash river will allow for continued attenuation. Finally, the proposed AGQS wells would
then lie near, at, or beyond the proposed boundaries
of the ZOA in appropriate locations for
determining compliance.
2.
Background Concentrations of Constituents
Groundwater outside of the ZOA must be maintained at each constituent's background
concentration or the applicable groundwater quality standard set forth in Part 620, whichever is
lower?'
See
STS Response to Comments on Proposed Parts 807 Through 815, R88-7, slip op. at
160-61 (Mar.
1, 1990). Alternatively, the applicable standard could be a Board adjusted
standard.
Id.
In promulgating the landfill regulations, the Board has highlighted the importance of
establishing background concentrations of contaminants: "[b]ecause a non-degradation
groundwater standard is applied at the compliance point it is in the operator'sbest interest to
establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, the background water quality. All groundwater down to
the uppermost aquifer should be evaluated to determine stratigraphic variations." STS
Recommendations, at 90. Accordingly, Ameren has calculated background for both the upper
migration zone and deep alluvial aquifer. The background concentrations
of constituents, Class I
21
See, however, footnote 19 above for a conflicting Illinois Environmental Protection Agency interpretation.
33
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
standards, and AGQS22 outside of the ZOA for each constituent as required by Section 811.320
are set forth in the following tables.
Table 1: AGQS in the Upper Migration Zone
Constituent
Background*
Class
I
Standard**
AGQS
Concentration
Boron, Total (mg/L)
0.22
2.0
0.22
Manganese,
Total
1.9
0.15
0.15
(mglL)
pH, field, (SU)
6.7 - 7.7
6.5 - 9.0
6.7 - 7.7
Sulfate,
Total (mg/L)
97
400
97
TDS (mg/L)
566
1,200
566
*
See Exhibit 11 for explanation of background concentratIOns.
Table 2: AGQS in the Deep Alluvial Aquifer
Constituent
Background*
Class
I
Standard
AGQS
Concentration
Boron,
Total (mg/L)
0.27
2.0
0.27
Manganese,
Total
2.4
0.15
0.15
(mglL)
pH, field, (SU)
7.0- 7.8
6.5 -9.0
7.0- 7.8
Sulfate,
Total (mg/L)
84
400
84
TDS (mg/L)
500
1,200
500
*
See Exhibit 11 for explanation of background concentrations.
3.
Requested Relief
from Groundwater Quality Standards
Several constituents exceed the AGQS that apply outside of the ZOA. As discussed
above, Ameren proposes
to use MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, MW-IIR, MW-14, MW-115d, and MW-
115s
as AGQS wells. Accordingly, Ameren seeks adjustments to the AGQS for boron,
22
See footnote 19 above.
34
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
manganese, pH, sulfate, and TDS at some of these wells. Ameren acknowledges that all ofthe
wells that Ameren proposes as AGQS wells, except MW-14, MW-115d, and MW-115s, lie
within the ZOA. Ameren nonetheless requests that for the purposes
ofthis petition, these wells
serve as AGQS wells as required
by Section 811.318(b)(5). Therefore, a confirmed exceedence
of the constituent concentrations in the following table (Table 3) triggers the assessment
monitoring requirements
of Section 811.319(b). 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(a)(4)(B). MW-115d
and MW-115s are not included in the table below because data from these two wells show that
groundwater meets the AGQS. The limits included in the table are based on 99 percent tolerance
intervals (Exhibit 11).
Table 3: Requested Relief from Applicable Groundwater Quality Standards (mg/L)
Constituent
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
MW-llR
MW-14
Boron, Total
21.5
2.6
16.2
11.6
2.30
Manganese,
3.6
1.9
6.1
9.5
0.67
Total
pH, (Field)
6.1 7.9
6.4
7.7
none
6.0
7.7
6.8 7.8
Sulfate,
Total
576
416
1241
720
305
TDS
1,128
1262
1800
1300
830
Within the ZOA (MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, and
MW-IIR), fewer than half of the proposed
adjusted standards are more than 10 percent higher than the applicable Class
II
standard.
23
Outside of the ZOA (MW-14), the adjusted standard for boron is slightly higher (2.29 vs 2.0
mg/L) than the Class
I
standard, the adjusted standards for sulfate and TDS are lower than the
Class
I
standard, and the adjusted standard for manganese is based on a background
concentration that is higher than the Class
I
standard.
23
Seven of the proposed adjusted standards are lower than or within 10% of the Class II standard, the four
adjusted standards for pH do not have a Class II standard, and eight are higher than the Class II standard.
35
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Ameren requests that these wells will serve as compliance points required by the landfill
regulations because they will provide the necessary mechanism for detecting groundwater
exceedences in lieu
of calculating and monitoring for MAPCs.
The requested relief is justified for several reasons. Elevated concentrations are highly
localized and discharge to the Wabash River. The impacted groundwater does not effect the
nearest public water supply in Hutsonville and the only offsite groundwater impacts are limited
to shallow groundwater. No groundwater supply wells, including the plant wells that are in the
deep alluvial aquifer within 100 feet
of Pond D, are impacted even though the impoundment was
in service for more than 40 years.
Ameren proposes that the Board approve the groundwater quality standards for
parameters in Table
3. These parameters have been monitored at this facility, and are
incorporated within the current monitoring plan approved with the recent operating permit for
Pond A (Pennit # 2005-EO-3689).
F.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING STANDARDS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO POND D
Because Ameren's Pond
D
becomes subject to Section 811,814, and 815 regulations
only upon closure, certain operating standards simply do not apply to the facility. Compliance
costs for these activities cannot
be estimated since these tasks cannot be performed at the Site.
These regulations are as follows:
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.105 - compaction of waste
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.106 - daily cover
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.1 07(a) - phasing of operations
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.107(b) - working face
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.1 07(i) - vector control
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.310,811.311,811.312 -landfill gas
monitoring and management
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.313 - intermediate cover
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.321 - waste placement
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 811.322 - final slopes and stabilization
36
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
35 Ill. Adm. Code 815.202(a) - Initial facility report filing deadline
35 Ill. Adm. Code
8l5.302(b) - Permit information requirements
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 8l5.303(a) - Annual report information requirements
In Petition
of Commonwealth Edison Co. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm.
Code Parts 811 and 814 (Petition of Commonwealth Edison Co.), AS 96-9 (Aug. 15, 1996), the
Board found that "none of these standards are reasonably applicable to the circumstances
encountered in the Lincoln Quarry disposal system." Likewise, these requirements do not apply
to
Ameren's closed Pond D. These rules were intended to apply to a working landfill handling
putrescible waste
which would create issues regarding vectors and landfill gas to be addressed by
cover, vector control and landfill gas management. Pond
D
is being closed and has been
operated as a monofill containing only coal combustion waste. As with the Lincoln Quarry,
there is no need at
Pond
D
for these requirements to apply. Accordingly, Ameren requests an
adjustment from these standards
or a determination from the Board that these regulations do not
apply.
VIII.
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED
ADJUSTED STANDARD
(35
Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(1))
Petitioner requests that the Board grant the following relief.
(1)
Pursuant to Section 28.1
of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS
5/28.1 (2006)), the Board grants Ameren Energy Generating
Company (Ameren)
adjusted standards from the following Sections
of the Board's landfill regulations
as they apply to the closure
of Pond D at the Hustonville facility: 35 Ill. Adm.
Code Sections; 814.302(b)(1); 811.309; 811.314(b)(3)(A)(ii); 811.317;
811.318(b), (c); 811.319(b)(4) and (c); 811.320(a), (b), (c); and 811.319(a) as
applied to organic constituents.
(2)
The regulations described above are replaced with the following standards:
(a)
In lieu
ofthe cap and cover requirements provided for in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 811.314, Ameren
must construct a pozzolanic cap as described in
Exhibit 10 to cover the former ash impoundment,
Pond D. The pozzolanic
37
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
cover will substantially comply with the performance requirements set
forth
in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 816.
(b)
The existing leachate monitoring, management, and disposal requirements
of35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.302(b)(l) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.309 are
replaced with the monitoring plan described
in Exhibit 11.
(c)
In lieu
of calculating maximum allowable predicted concentrations
(MAPC), the following groundwater monitoring points are considered
applicable groundwater quality standard locations: MW-6, MW-7, MW-8,
MW-11R, MW-14, MW-115d, and MW-115s. A confirmed exceedance,
based
on an analysis of assessment monitoring data, at the monitoring
wells as set forth
in the following table will constitute a violation.
Constituent
MW-6*
MW-7*
MW-8*
MW-11R*
MW-
MW-
MW-
14*
115s**
115d**
Boron, Total
21.5
2.6
16.2
11.6
2.30
0.27
0.27
Manganese,
3.6
1.7
6.1
9.5
0.67
0.15
0.15
Total
pH, (Field)
5.4-8.6
6.5-7.4
6.9-7.4
4.1-9.4
6.8-7.3
7.0 7.8
7.0- 7.8
Sulfate, Total
576
416
1241
720
305
84
84
TDS
1,128.0
1262
1800
1300
830
500
500
*
**
Requested adjustments from the groundwater qualIty standards reqUIred pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 811.320.
The applicable groundwater quality standard for the deep alluvial aquifer calculated in
accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.320.
(d)
The existing groundwater impact assessment requirements of 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 811.317 and 811.319(c), groundwater sampling requirements
of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(a)(1), and groundwater monitoring program
provided in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 811.319(a)(2) and (3) are replaced with the
groundwater monitoring program described
in Exhibit 11.
(e)
The groundwater monitoring plan described in Exhibit 11 applies in lieu
of the groundwater monitoring locations set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
811.318(b)(5).
(f)
The zone of attenuation for Ameren's Pond D, within which
concentrations of constituents in leachate discharged from the unit may
exceed the applicable groundwater quality standards set forth at 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 811.320, is a volume bounded by a vertical plane at the
property boundary to the east
of the unit, the property boundary to the
south
of the unit, and 100 feet from the unit to the north and west of the
unit, and extending from the ground surface to the bottom
of the
uppermost aquifer and excluding the volume occupied
by the waste.
(3)
The following operating conditions do not apply:
38
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.105 - compaction of waste
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.106 - daily cover
35 Ill. Adm. Code
81 1. 107(a) - phasing of operations
35 Ill. Adm. Code 81 1. 107(b) - working face
35 Ill. Adm. Code
81 1. 107(i) - vector control
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.310, 811.311, 811.312 - landfill gas monitoring and
management
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.313 - intermediate cover
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.321 waste placement
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.322 - final slopes and stabilization
35 Ill. Adm. Code
8l5.202(a) - Initial facility report filing deadline
35 Ill. Adm. Code
8l5.302(b) - Permit information requirements
35 Ill. Adm. Code
8l5.303(a) - Annual report information requirements
IX.
STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION
(35 Ill. Adm. Code l04.406(h»
Consistent with Section 28.l(c) of the Act, Petitioner has demonstrated that it is entitled
to adjusted standards from the
Board's landfill regulations. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (c) (2006). In 1990,
the Board promulgated new regulations that imposed stringent design and operating
requirements
on non-hazardous waste landfills.
A.
Factors Relating to Petitioner are Substantially Different from Factors Relied Upon
by
Board in the General Landfill Rules
Pond
D
was designed and constructed to function as a water treatment impoundment
more than twenty years before the Board promulgated its landfill regulations. Since the pond
predated solid waste regulations, design and engineering criteria set forth in the regulations were
not and could not
be taken into account during construction. Retrofitting the impoundment to
comply with current regulatory requirements is both technically infeasible and cost-prohibitive.
Many of the operating standards for existing landfills were formulated to regulate units that
accept dry waste for disposal in engineered cells, rather than to address the sluicing
of coal ash to
a surface impoundment. Accordingly,
many miscellaneous operating standards relating to vector
control, etc., are inapplicable to the Station'soperations.
39
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Further, the landfill regulations only become applicable to Pond D after the end of its
active life and upon closure
of the unit. Therefore, many of the landfill regulations that would
ordinarily serve the purpose
of predicting compliance or an impact to groundwater in
anticipation
of accepting additional waste at the facility are equally inapplicable. Pond 0 no
longer accepts ash and has already been dewatered.
The Agency and the Board have recognized that factors relating to an ash pond closure
are substantially and significantly different from factors relied on
by the Board in adopting the
generally applicable Parts 811, 814, and 815
of the Board'slandfill regulations, and that those
factors warrant an adjusted standard. Petition
of Commonwealth Edison Co., AS 96-9 slip op. at
18 (Aug. 15, 1996).
B.
The Requested Standard Will Not Result in Substantially and Significantly More
Adverse Environmental or Health Effects
As a result ofhistorical operations at the Site, concentrations of various constituents in
excess
of the Section 811.320 Groundwater Quality Standards have been documented in the
shallow groundwater inside and outside
of the ZOA defined by 35 Adm. Code 811.320(c). Yet
these concentrations have no impacts to human health because there are no users
of the impacted
groundwater, nor is there evidence
of vegetative impacts, since the area supports crops in the
upland and woody vegetation in the lowland. Further, neither the Wabash River nor the Village
of Hutsonville show impacts from the elevated levels of constituents at Pond D. All of the
leachate collection systems evaluated have proven economically unreasonable given the minimal
environmental benefit they could provide. This is true especially because meeting the ground
water quality requirements is possible without installing an expensive, inefficient and ineffective
leachate collection and management system.
40
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
The coal ash generated at the station does not contain organic constituents for which
many drinking water or other groundwater quality standards have been established.
Furthermore, the composition
ofthe ash material and associated constituents are well-defined
and the extent
of the plume can be determined and monitored with certain indicator constituents.
The requested cap also does not result in environmental or health effects any more
adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the Section 811.314 cap
requirements. The proposed pozzolonic cap does not achieve the same hydraulic conductivity as
a Section 811.314 cap, yet it provides equivalent protection. The existence
of ash below the
water table will continue to produce leachate, though at greatly reduced rates, regardless
of
whether a Section 811.314-equivalent or the proposed pozzolonic cap is used. The pozzolonic
cap provides the added environmental benefit
of utilizing ash that would otherwise be disposed
of in a landfill.
x.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
(35 Ill. Adm. Code l04.406(i))
Ameren'sproposed standards are consistent with federal law. The standards which
Ameren seeks to adjust
do not implement federal or federally delegated regulatory programs as
applied to the Site. Hutsonville does not accept municipal waste and, therefore, federal standards
pertaining to municipal landfills
do not apply. Furthermore, ash and slag byproducts from the
combustion
of coal by electric utilities are not subject to regulation under Subtitle C RCRA or
other federal standards and fall within the hazardous waste exemption set forth in RCRA Section
3001 (b)(3)(c).
65 Fed. Reg. 32214 (May 22,2000). Accordingly, the Board can grant the
requested adjusted standard consistent with federal law
41
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
XI.
WAIVER
OF RIGHT TO A HEARING
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(j»
Ameren believes that this Petition and attached documents will suffice to apprise the
Board of the issues involved in this matter without the need for a hearing. Pursuant to the
Board'sprocedural rules, Ameren conditionally waives its right to a hearing before the Board on
this Petition. Should the Agency file a negative recommendation or the Board require additional
information, however, Ameren reserves its right to request a hearing at that time.
XII.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(k»
Ameren has either provided web addresses for or attached as exhibits relevant portions of
the sources relied upon in this petition. Ameren will provide hard copies upon request should
any of the electronic sources become unavailable.
42
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons Ameren Energy Generating Company respectfully
requests that its Petition for adjusted standards
be granted and the Board provide Ameren the
relief requested herein.
Respectfully submitted,
AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING
COMPANY
Amy Antoniolli
Joshua R. More
Schiff Hardin LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-258-5500
43
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit
11
Exhibit 12
EXHIBIT LIST
Site Map
Site Diagram
Alternatives Analysis Report July 19, 2005
8/99 Hydro Assessment Report
1/00 NRT Groundwater Report
State Aquifer Map
Well Survey Report
Boron Mixing Calculations
NRT memo regarding Ambient Water Quality
VFL Report
Hutsonville Pond D Monitoring Program 2008
USEPA Determination Regarding CCW from Electric Utility Power Plants
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 11, 2008
* * * * * AS 2009-001 * * * * *
Back to top
