ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 1,
1994
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF ALUMAX INC.
)
AS 92-13
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
(Adjusted Standard)
FROM 35 ILL: ADM. CODE
)
PART 218
)
KATHERINE D. HODGE OF HODGE
AND
DWYER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER, ALUNAX INC.;
SHEILA G. KOLBE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER,
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by M. McFawn):
This matter is before the Board on a joint petition for
adjusted standard filed by Aluniax Inc.
(Alumax) and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) on December 20,
1993.
The petitioners request that Alumax be given an adjusted standard
from the air emission control requirements of 35 Iii.
Adni.
Code
Part 218 Subpart TT for its aluminum sheet manufacturing facility
located in Morris,
Illinois.
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”
(Section 5(b)
of the Act)
and to “grant
.
.
.
an
adjusted standard for persons who can justify such an adjustment”
(Section 28.1(a)
of the Act).
Thus,
the Board is charged with
the rulemaking functions under the Act, including the authority
to grant individual adjusted standards which are different from
the Board’s generally applicable regulations.
Although usually
granted as permanent relief, the adjusted standard is not adopted
as
a rule.
Rather,
the opinion and order granting, and
oftentimes conditioning, the relief requested serves as the
regulatory and enforcement vehicle.
Based upon the record before it and upon review of the
factors involved in the consideration of adjusted standards, the
Board finds that petitioners have demonstrated that grant of the
adjusted standard sought
is warranted.
The adjusted standard
accordingly is granted.
ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE
Section 28.1 of the Act provides that a petitioner may
request, and the Board may adopt,
an environmental standard that
is:
(a) applicable solely to the petitioner,
and
(b) different
2
from the standard that would otherwise apply to petitioner
pursuant to a rule of general applicability.
Such a standard
is
called an adjusted standard.
The general procedures that govern
an adjusted standard proceeding are found at Section 28.1 of the
Act and within the Board’s procedural rules at 35
Ill. Adm. Code
Part 106.
Where, as here, the regulation of general applicability does
not specify a level of justification required for a petitioner to
qualify for an adjusted standard, the Act at Section 28.1(c)
specifies four demonstrations that must be made by a successful
petitioner:
1)
Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially
and significantly different from the factors relied
upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation
applicable to that petitioner;
2)
The existence of those factors justifies an adjusted
standard;
3)
The requested standard will not result in environmental
or health effects substantially and significantly more
adverse than the effects considered by the Board
in
adopting the rule of general applicability; and
4)
The adjusted standard
is consistent with any applicable
federal law.
(415 ILCS 5/28.1(c).)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Alumax originally filed a petition for adjusted standard on
November
25,
1992.
On January 7,
1993,
the Board issued an order
finding this petition deficient, and directing Alumax to submit
an amended petition by March
8,
1993.
On March
6,
1993, Alumax
submitted an amended petition.
By order dated March 25,
1993,
the Board found the amended petition to be deficient as well, and
ordered Alumax to submit an additional amended petition by
April
16,
1993.
On April
5,
1993, Alumax filed a motion
requesting an extension of time to file
a second amended
petition, and the Board granted a 30-day extension until May 16,
1993.
Subsequently, Alumax requested
3 additional extensions
while engaged in negotiations with the Agency, which the Board
granted.
During that time, Alumax requested the Agency to join as co-
petitioner in this adjusted standard proceeding,
and the Agency
agreed.
On December 13,
1993, Alumax and the Agency jointly
requested a 21-day extension until January
3,
1994 to file a
joint petition, which the Board granted by order dated December
3
16,
1993.
Alumax and the Agency submitted
a joint petition for
adjusted standard on December 20,
1993.
Petitioners included
proposed language for the adjusted standard as Exhibit
8.
Hearing was held in this matter on March
1,
1994 in Morris,
Illinois, before hearing officer Deborah Frank.
At hearing,
Mr.
Walter
3.
Hawkins and Mr. Michael P. MacDonald testified on
behalf of Aluinax, and Mr. Chris Romaine testified on behalf of
the Agency.
No members of the public attended.
On May
31,
1994,
the parties jointly filed a motion to correct the transcript,
which is hereby granted.
Simultaneously,
the parties filed
amended proposed language for a Board order granting the adjusted
standard, which replaced the language previously submitted as
Exhibit
8.
RULE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Petitioners seek an adjusted standard from the air emission
control requirements of
35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218.
These
regulations became applicable to the Alumax facility as a result
of the Board’s adoption of amendments to the reasonably available
control technology
(RACT)
rules in R9l-28.
These amendments
expanded the Chicago ozone non—attainment area to include Goose
Lake and Aux Sable Townships in Grundy County and Oswego Township
in Kendall County.
These regulations became effective November
15,
1992,
and affected stationary sources of VON emissions in
these townships, including the Aluinax facility, were required to
demonstrate compliance by November 15,
1993.
RACT is defined as
“the lowest emission limitation that an emission unit is capable
of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.”
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.5370.)
Alumax is subject to the requirements in Subpart TT of the
RACT rules,
entitled “Other Emission Units.”
Pursuant to Section
218.980(b) (1), the applicability threshold for Subpart TT is
potential to emit 25 tons per year.
The applicable emission
control requirements are set forth in Section 218.986, which
states in pertinent part:
Every owner or operator of an emission unit subject to this
Subpart shall comply with the requirements of subsection
(a),
(b),
(C),
(d),
or
(e)
below.
(a)
Emission capture and control equipment which achieve an
overall reduction in uncontrolled VON emissions of at
least 81 percent from each emission unit,
or
(C)
An alternative control plan which has been approved by
the Agency and the USEPA in a federally enforceable
4
permit or as a SIP revision.
Alumax thus seeks an exception from the requirement that it
reduce its VON emissions by 81 percent.
Additionally, Alumax’s facility is subject to Section
218.108, which states in relevant part:
(a)
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Sections of
this Part, any exemptions, variations or alternatives
to the control requirements, emission limitations, or
test methods set forth in this Part shall be effective
only when approved by the Agency and approved by the
USEPA as a SIP revision.
Alumax does not believe that it needs to obtain relief from
Section 218.108.
Based on language in the Board’s second notice
opinion in R93-l4, entitled “In the Matter of Reasonably
Available Control Technology for Major Sources Emitting Volatile
Organic Materials in the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area:
25
Tons”
(November 18,
1993), Alumax believes that, while it will
ultimately be necessary to obtain USEPA’s approval of the
adjusted standard from Section 218.986 as a State Implementation
Plan
(SIP)
revision, the adjusted standard will be effective at
the state level immediately upon granting by the Board.
In our second notice opinion in R93-14, the Board affirmed
the Agency in interpreting Section 218.108 as follows:
Section 218.108
is intended to assure the regulated
community and to inform USEPA and the public that variations
from adopted rules are available from the
Board), while
assuring USEPA that such an action by the state will not
unilaterally alter the SIP approved by USEPA.
The Agency
states that subsection
(a)
of Section 218.108 simply
reiterates the Board’s grant of an adjusted standard, site
specific rule, or variance does not protect a source from
federal enforcement until that relief
.
.
.
is approved by
the USEPA as a SIP revision
.
.
.
.
In sum the Agency
states that Section 218.108 reiterates relief already
available to sources and applies generally to the rules, and
thus has no particular relationship to any particular
subpart.
(Id.
at 5—6.)
The Board agrees with Alumax that it is not necessary for
Alumax to receive an adjusted standard from 218.108(a)
for the
adjusted standard from Section 218.986 to become effective on the
state level.
The adjusted standard from Section 218.986 will be
effective immediately when granted by the Board.
Ultimately,
it
will have to be approved by the USEPA as a SIP revision.
5
BACKGROUND
Alumax operates an aluminum sheet manufacturing facility in
Morris, Aux Sable Township, Illinois which produces a wide
variety of coiled and flat aluminum sheet.
The facility has been
in operation since 1968 and employs approximately 350 people.
(Am. Pet. at 7.)’
The plant’s manufacturing process includes a hot rolling
mill and two cold rolling mills.
The hot rolling mill is used to
reduce 22—inch thick cast ingots to aluminum sheet between two
tenths of an inch thick and a quarter inch thick.
A cold rolling
mill is then used to further reduce the thickness of the aluminum
sheet as necessary to meet customer needs and to produce superior
finished surfaces.
(Am. Pet. at 7.)
During both the hot and cold rolling processes, the aluminum
sheet is sprayed with rolling lubricant, which cools and
lubricates the metal during the rolling operations.
In both
processes, the lubricant is sprayed on in large volumes, and the
excess is collected in a sump and recirculated.
(~)
The
rolling lubricants are a source of VON emissions for both the hot
and cold rolling processes.
(Exh.
1 at
8;
Exh.
2 at 7.)
The lubricant used in the hot rolling process consists of an
oil in water emulsion, typically maintained at
6 percent oil, but
no more than 10 percent oil.
(Exh.
1 at
6; Am.
Pet.
at 13.)
This is the minimum practical amount of oil which can be used in
the rolling mill fluid.
It is necessary to use an oil in water
emulsion for the hot rolling process since it is operated at
approximately 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit,
and the oil would burn if
used by itself.
Some of the water from the emulsion vaporizes
upon contact with the surface of the aluminum, creating a “steam
blanket” above it.
The steam blanket is collected by the hood
system
as described below.
(Exh.
1 at 6.)
The hot mill
lubricant reservoir is maintained at a maximum temperature of 150
degrees Fahrenheit in order to minimize VON emissions through
vaporization from the reservoir.
(Exh.
1 at
6,
12.)
During the cold rolling process, which is performed at room
temperature with metal temperatures below 265 degrees Fahrenheit
(Exh.
2 at 2), the lubricant used is a highly paraffinic oil with
additives.
(Exh.
2 at
5; Am.
Pet. at 8.)
Additionally, during
fifteen percent of the passes through the cold rolling mill,
Stoddard Solvent,
a highly paraffinic solvent,
is applied to the
aluminum to remove excess lubricant,
in a process called solvent
1
The amended petition will be cited as “Am.
Pet. at
“,
exhibits will be cited as “Exh.
#
at
“,
and the hearing
transcript will be cited as
“Tr. at
“.
6
washing.
(Tr. at
16; Am. Pet. at 8.)
This
is necessary to
prevent staining during the annealing process, which follows the
rolling process.
The Stoddard Solvent is also a source of VOM
emissions for the cold rolling process.
The excess solvent is
captured in the coolant sump and becomes an additive to the
rolling lubricant.
(Exh.
2 at
4; Tr. at 17.)
A hood system is employed at both the hot mill and cold
mills, which collects the fumes generated.
The collected fumes
are treated with a Busch cyclonic unit that separates out and
collects particulates and droplets of oil for reuse.
(Exh.
1 at
8 and 13;
Exh.
2 at
2 and 16.)
The remainder, which has been
vaporized,
is vented to the atmosphere.
The rolling operations
thus result in emissions of volatile organic materials in vapor
and aerosol forms.
Alumax performed emission testing at its facility from
August 31 through September
2,
1993, the results of which were
attached to the amended petition as Exhibit
3.
Based on this
testing, Alumax estimates that its actual VON emissions are as
follows:
1)
for the hot rolling mill,
the estimated emissions are
approximately
6 tons per year (0.02 tons per day);
and
2)
for the cold rolling mills, the estimated emissions total
approximately 88 tons per year (0.24 tons per day).
(Exh.
4; see calculations in Exh. 5.)
The facility’s emissions,
actual and potential,
thus exceed 25
tons per year, the threshold for applicability of control
requirements.
COMPLIANCE EFFORTS
In November 1992,
Alumax conducted studies of potential VON
control technologies for its hot rolling
(Exh.
1)
and cold
rolling
(Exh.
2) processes.
No add—on control technologies were
found at any facility.
Alumax investigated control technologies
used at sources with similar emissions.
The technologies
investigated for both the hot rolling process and the cold
rolling process included incineration, oil absorption,
and carbon
adsorption.
For the cold rolling process only, Alumax also
investigated the use of stream concentration with additional
controls.
Subsequently, after Alumax performed its emissions
tests in August
-
September 1993, Alumax recalculated the costs
of various control methods using the updated data.
The results
of these investigations are discussed below.
Incineration.
Alumax investigated the installation and
operation of an incinerator for both its hot and cold rolling
7
mill emissions.
The estimated annual cost of installing and
operating an incinerator for the hot rolling process is $174,500
per ton, assuming a capture and control efficiency of 81 percent,
although such efficiency is not guaranteed by the equipment
vendor.
(Exh.
6.)
The estimated annual cost of installing and
operating an incinerator for the for the cold rolling process is
estimated to be $25,811 per ton.
(Exh.
7.)
Alumax asserts that
these costs render the technology economically unreasonable.
Alumax also asserts that incineration is technologically
infeasible for the hot rolling process, due to low-level,
variable VON concentrations and high water concentration in the
hot rolling mill emissions.
(Exh.
1 at 13
-
15.)
These
conditions would require the use of supplemental fuel, which
would increase operating costs, and could result in incomplete
combustion, which would generate additional VON emissions and
nitrogen oxides emissions.
(~~)
Alumax also asserts that incineration is an unsafe
technology for use on either the hot or cold rolling mills.
The
variable nature of the emissions from the rolling processes can
lead to a buildup of an explosive level of fumes in the exhaust
system.
An incinerator would introduce a flame source into this
environment, creating an unwarranted risk of mill fires.
Alumax
points out that incineration is not used as an emission control
technology on rolling mills anywhere in the world.
(
Exh.
2 at
16.)
Oil Absorption.
Alumax also investigated the use of oil
absorption for both its hot and cold rolling processes.
(Exh.
1
at 15; Exh.
2 at 18.)
This technology uses a scrubber system
wherein the mill exhaust gas stream is exposed to a wash oil that
absorbs the VON.
The VON is then separated from the wash oil by
use of a continuous vacuum distillation system, and the wash oil
is recirculated for reuse.
For the hot rolling process, Alumax asserts that the varying
vapor pressures that result from the use of the oil in water
emulsion as a rolling lubricant render this technology
ineffective.
(Exh.
1 at 16-17.)
There are no vendors which have
such a treatment system available for a hot rolling process or
any oil and water emulsion.
Alumax therefore has found this
process to be technologically infeasible for the hot rolling
process.
While oil absorption has been used as a treatment technology
for new cold rolling mill installations,
it has not been used as
a retrofit technology.
(Exh.
2 at 18
-
20.)
Retrofitting an
existing plant for application of this technology would be
constrained by many site specific factors, due to the size of the
control units and the complex ductwork required.
The structures
necessary to treat one large rolling mill would occupy an area of
8
approximately 40 by 55 feet,
and would weigh at least 50 tons.
(Exh.
2 at 20.)
This would need to be constructed adjacent to
each of the existing mills, and would require establishment of a
suitable foundation for each unit.
Alumax determined that the
annual cost of retrofitting its cold rolling mills with oil
absorption technology would be $40,200 per ton.
(Exh.
7.)
Therefore, Alumax asserts that this technology is economically
unreasonable.
Carbon adsorption.
Carbon adsorption is a two—phase process
wherein hydrocarbons and other compounds are selectively
attracted to the surface of an adsorbent material, generally
activated carbon.
The adsorbent material is then subject to
regeneration, usually through steam or a vacuum.
(Exh.
1 at
17;
Exh.
2 at 20.)
Alumax investigated the use of both fixed-bed
carbon adsorption and fluidized—bed carbon adsorption systems.
Alumax found that the high vapor content of emissions from
the hot rolling mill makes this technology infeasible for its hot
rolling process.
The water would be preferentially adsorbed by
the adsorption bed, which would prevent the carbon from removing
a substantial amount of VON.
(Exh.
1 at 19.)
This technology
therefore has never been installed on hot rolling mills.
(~~)
For the cold rolling process, Alumax found that this
technology has been installed on only a single new rolling mill
in the United States, and that it has never been used as a
retrofit technology.
(Exh.
2 at 22.)
Alumax asserts that this
technology is not appropriate for its facility due to the high
potential for rapid fouling of the carbon beds by the heavy
lubricant compounds.
Additionally, due to this heavy lubricant
fouling, Alumax would be unable to regenerate the carbon on—site,
and would have to frequently change the carbon.
(Exh.
2 at 22
-
23.)
Stream concentration.
Stream concentration with additional
controls was also investigated as a potential emission control
only for the cold rolling process.
This technique uses activated
carbon to concentrate a dilute waste stream prior to ultimate
disposal through incineration.
(Exh.
2 at 23
-
24.)
Alumax asserts that,
similar to carbon adsorption,
application of this technique would be technologically infeasible
due to heavy fouling of the carbon.
(Exh.
2 at 24.)
The expense
and downtime caused by frequent fouling make this process
infeasible for the Alumax facility.
Additionally, even if the
waste stream was concentrated 10—fold, the inlet concentration
would be low, requiring the use of supplemental fuel.
(~)
The
risks associated with operation of a flame source are also
present.
(~~)
Alumax thus asserts that this technology is
infeasible for its facility.
9
As a result of its studies, Alumax determined that there is
no add-on control technology that is proven to be technologically
transferable or commercially available for its aluminum hot or
cold rolling mill operations.
Therefore, both Alumax and the
Agency agree that the proposed alternative control requirements
would result in the highest possible limitations on potential VON
emissions, and constitute RACT for both the hot and cold rolling
mills.
(Am.
Pet. at 12.)
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
The co—petitioners have proposed an adjusted standard which
consists of the control and treatment practices currently
employed by Alumax.
The proposed practices include the use of
low volatility lubricants,
use of a low volatility solvent, and
temperature controls to minimize VON emissions.
These practices
are combined with the use of a hood system and Busch cyclonic
unit to collect and treat emissions.
The proposed adjusted
standard also includes additional monitoring and record keeping
requirements.
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The co-petitioners assert that there will be no significant
difference in impact to the environment whether Alumax complies
with the 81 percent capture and control standard set forth in
Subpart TT or with the proposed alternative control requirements.
The total combined difference in emissions will be approximately
76 tons per year,
or approximately 0.2 tons per day.
(Am.
Pet.
at 14.)
The VON emissions from the hot and cold rolling
operations represent less than one percent of the of the 1990
point source emissions for the two designated townships in Grundy
County, and far less than one/half of one percent of the 1990 VON
point source emissions for the Chicago nonattainment area.
(Am.
Pet. at 17.)
Thus, Alumax and the Agency assert that application
of the proposed alternative requirements would not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
The co-petitioners assert that the proposed adjusted
standard would be consistent with federal law.
They assert that
the proposed alternative standard constitutes RACT for the
facility, and is therefore consistent with the federal Clean Air
Act.
Furthermore,
the proposed alternative requirements are
consistent with a site-specific rule recently proposed by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA)
for
aluminum rolling operations at the Reynolds Metals facility in
McCook,
Illinois.
(Exh.
12.)
10
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the joint petitioners have demonstrated
that an adjusted standard is appropriate for the Alumax facility
in Norris,
Illinois.
The co-petitioners have demonstrated that
there is no other technologically transferable and economically
feasible control technology, and have demonstrated that the
proposed alternative standard will not significantly impact human
health or the environment.
Because petitioners have demonstrated
that there is no add-on technology which can be applied as RACT
to the Alumax facility which would enable it to meet the 81
percent VON emissions reduction mandated by Section 218.986, we
find that petitioners have demonstrated that factors relating to
Alumax are substantially and significantly different from those
relied upon by the Board in adopting the rule of general
applicability, and that these factors warrant the granting of an
adjusted standard.
Furthermore, petitioners have demonstrated
that the proposed alternative standard will be consistent with
federal law.
The proposed adjusted standard will accordingly be
granted, subject to conditions as suggested by the parties.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Alumax Inc.
is hereby granted an adjusted standard from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 218.986, pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/28.1,
for its
facility located in Morris, Grundy County,
Illinois,
subject to
the provisions and conditions listed below:
A)
The adjusted standard pertains to VOM emissions from
the operation of Alumax’s aluminum hot rolling mill and
two aluminum cold rolling mills.
B)
The alternative control requirements proposed in the
December 20,
1993 petition for adjusted standard, based
upon current operating procedures of the VON emission
sources identified in paragraph
(A)
above, represent
Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT)
and no
additional controls are required to meet the
requirements of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 218.986
(a),
(b),
(c),
(d), or
(e).
C)
Alumax shall comply with the following requirements at
its aluminum hot rolling mill:
1)
Rolling lubricants shall consist of oil-in—water
emulsions, with formulations of no more than 10
percent, by weight,
of petroleum-based oils and
additives.
Records shall be maintained of such
emulsion formulations, with identification of all
11
oils and additives.
2)
A grab sample of the as-applied rolling lubricant
shall be taken on a monthly basis during any month
that the mill is in operation and each such sample
shall be tested,
using ASTN method D95-83, to
determine the percent,
by weight, of petroleum-
based oils and additives.
3)
The inlet sump rolling lubricant temperature shall
not exceed 200°F and such temperature shall be
monitored at all times that the mill is in
operation by the use of thermocouples and measured
values shall be automatically recorded at least
every five
(5)
minutes by means of a computer data
system.
4)
All records of emulsion formulations, percent oil
tests,
and rolling lubricant temperatures shall be
retained for a period of at least three
(3) years
and be available for inspection by the Agency.
D)
Alumax shall comply with the following requirements at
each of its aluminum cold rolling mills:
1)
Rolling lubricants shall consist of low vapor
pressure lubricants composed of highly paraffinic
oils and additives.
Records shall be maintained
of rolling lubricant formulations, with
identification of all oils and solvent additives.
2)
The initial and final boiling points of the as—
received oils shall be between 440 and 650°F.
All incoming shipments of oils shall be sampled
and a distillation range test shall be performed,
using ASTM method D86-90, on each such sample to
determine the initial and final boiling points.
3)
Stoddard solvent shall be the only solvent
additive used in rolling lubricants.
The initial
and final boiling points of the as-received
Stoddard solvent used shall be between 310 to 390°
F.
All incoming shipments of Stoddard solvent
shall be sampled and a distillation range test
shall be performed,
using ASTN method D86—90, on
each such sample to determine the initial and
final boiling points.
4)
The initial boiling point of the as—applied
rolling lubricants shall be greater than 310°F,
and no more than 10.0 percent of the as-applied
12
rolling lubricants shall boil off between the
initial boiling point and 440°F.
A grab sample
of the as-applied rolling lubricants shall be
taken on a monthly basis from each mill during any
month that a mill is in operation and a
distillation range test, using ASTM Method D86—90,
shall be performed on each such sample to
determine the initial boiling point and the amount
boiled off between the initial boiling point and
440°F.
5)
The inlet sump rolling lubricant temperatures at
each mill shall not exceed 150°F and such
temperatures shall be monitored at all times that
a mill is in operation by the use of thermocouples
and measured values shall be automatically
recorded at least every five
(5) minutes by means
of a computer data system.
6)
All records of rolling lubricant formulations,
distillation tests for oils,
Stoddard solvent, and
as-applied rolling lubricants, and rolling
lubricant temperatures shall be retained for a
period of at least three
(3) years and be
available for inspection by the Agency.
E)
A written report shall be submitted to the Agency
indicating any deviations from the requirements of
paragraphs
(C) (1)
—
(3)
and D(l)
-(5)
above.
The
written report shall provide a description of the
deviation,
the date and time of the deviation,the
measured or monitored data, the cause of the deviation,
if known, and any corrective action taken.
Unless more
frequent or detailed reporting is required under other
provisions,
including permit conditions,
such written
report shall be submitted,
for each calendar year, by
February 15 of the following year.
(F)
This Adjusted Standard is effective upon granting by
the Board.
Aluinax shall comply with the provisions and
conditions listed above within 60 days of the Board’s
Final Order in this matter.
G)
In the event that Alumax ceases to own and operate this
facility, the above requirements shall apply to any
subsequent owners and operators of the facility.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS
5/41
(1992))
provides for the appeal of final Board orders within
35 days of the date of service of this order.
The Rules of the
Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(See
also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246.
“Motions for Reconsideration.”)
I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
adopted on the
/~
day of
~
,
1994,
by a
vote of
~
.
Illinois
Control Board
