BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
LERK’S
OFFICE
JUN
302004
IN THE
MATTER OF:
)
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
OIIutton
Controt Board
PETITION OF JOHNS MANVILLE
)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
35
ILL.ADM. CODE PART 814,
§~
811.3 10,
)
811.311,811.318
)
ASO4-
~
)
(Adjusted Standard-Land)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Attached Service List
Please take notice that on June 30, 2004, Johns
Manville has filed the attached
adjusted standard petition, a copy ofwhich is hereby served upon you.
Johns Manville, Petitioner.
By:
~
One ofIts Attorneys
Edward P. Kenney
Sidley Austin Brown
&
Wood LLP
Bank One Plaza
10 South Dearborn Street
Chicago,
Illinois 60603
(312) 853-7000
CHI
2987515v1
BEFOR~I~L2~P4~OIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
~
tt~t~Ofl
IN THE MATTER 4YF~
)
)
PETITION OF JOHNS MANVILLE
)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
35 ILL.ADM. CODE PART 814,
§~
811.310,
)
811.311,811.318
)
AS 04-
)
(Adjusted Standard-Land
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PETITIONER JOHNS MANVILLE’S PETITION FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD
FOR CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF 35 ILL.ADM.CODE, PARTS
814 AND 811
Statement Describing Standard From Which Adjusted Standard
is
Sought, Pursuant to 35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
104.406
Johns Manville (“JM”), a
Delaware corporation, comes by its
attorneys, and
pursuant to
Section 28.1 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“the Act”), 415
ILCS
5/28.1
and 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§~
104.400
Ct ~q.,
seeks an adjusted standard to
requirements
contained in 35
Ill.Adm.Code Part 814, which incorporates specific requirements of 35
Il1.Adm.Code
§~
811.310,
811.311,
,
and 811.318- concerning its onsite landfill.
These rules
became effective September
18,
1990.
Johns
Manville is requesting the concurrence ofthe
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) in this petition.
Statement That Regulation
of General Applicabifity Was Not Promulgated to Implement
Federal Requirements Pursuant to 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
104.406(b)
The regulations ofgeneral applicability that are the subject ofthis adjusted
standard petition were not promulgatedto implement the requirements ofthe-clean Water Act,
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMI1TED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Safe Drinking Water Act,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act, Clean Air Act, or the State programs
concerning RCRA, UIC, or NPDES.
The regulations
in question implement
State, not federal requirements.
Level of Justification
35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
104.406(c)
The regulations for which the adjusted standards are sought do not contain
specified levels ofjustification, so the factors
set forth in Section 28.1(c) ofthe Act apply to this
petition.
As will be described in more detail below, JM can establish that:
the factors relating to
its onsite landfill are substantially different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting
the regulations ofgeneral applicability;
the existence ofthese different factorsjustifies
an
adjusted standard;
the requested standard will not result in environmental health effects more
adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rules ofgeneral applicability;
and, the adjusted standard is consistent with applicable federal law.
The justification for this
adjusted standard is
set forth below.
BACKGROUND OF JOHNS
MANVILLE’S ONSITE
LANDFILL
Description of Petitioner’s Activities 35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
104.406(d)
JM Facifity Background and Regulatory History
JM owns a facility in Waukegan, Illinois
in Lake County at which JM previously
manufactured building materials, including roofing and insulation products.
The facility is
located on a tract consisting ofapproximately 350 acres on the shore of Lake Michigan.
The
facility began operations Ca.
1920,
and employed several thousand employees at its
peak.
Historically,
asbestos-containingbuilding materials were manufactured at the plant, but all such
manufacture ofasbestos-containing building materials ceased in
1985.
After a gradual
phaseout, all ofthe remaining manufacturing operations at the facility completely ceased in
2
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITFED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1998, and the manufacturing buildings (which represented over
1,700,000 square feet under
roof) were demolished in 2000-2001.
At present, only a few contract employees
associated with
maintaining the site are located at the facility.
As will be described below,
the on-site landfill at
issue in this proceeding began operations in
1992 and was not used to dispose
ofasbestos-
containing materials.
The Illinois Attorney General’s Office
and Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency have acknowledged that the landfill that
is subject to
this petition is an
“existing landfill” and therefore subject to
35 Ill.Adm.Code Part 814.
Specific requirements
contained in 35 Ill.Adm.Code Part 811, including the provisions for which the adjusted standards
are sought, are incorporated by 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
8 14.302.
In 1983, relying on its
authority in Section
105 ofthe Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 USC
§
9605,
the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
placed a portion of the facility
(consisting ofapproximately
120 acres) on the National Priorities List (NPL), which is set forth
in 40 CFR Part 300, Appendix B, by publication at 48 Fed.Reg. 40658 (September
8,
1983).
The
on-site landfill at issue in this petition is physically located on the tract identified on the NPL,
and it is located on and surrounded by units that were remediated under CERCLA.
On June 14,
1984, JM and USEPA executed an Administrative Order on Consent,
under which JM conducted
a Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study (RIFS), pursuant to 40 CFR
§
300.68.
The Remedial
Investigation Report was submitted on July 3,
1985,
and the Feasibility Study Report was
submitted to USEPA in December
1986.
USEPA adopted an Addendum to the Feasibility Study
Report on January 28,
1987.
After notice and public hearing, on June 30,
1987 USEPA issued
a
Record ofDecision (ROD) in which the
State ofIllinois concurred.
The ROD provided for the
placement ofcover over a number of areas at which asbestos containing waste materials had
3
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
been disposed ofat the JM facility.
JM, USEPA and the State ofIllinois executed a consent
decree that implemented the ROD, and that consent decree was entered by the United States
District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois on or about March
18,
1988,
in
United States
v. Manville Sales Corporation, C.A. No. 88C 630.
In addition to providing for cover ofhistorical disposal areas, the Consent Decree
contemplated that ongoing non-asbestos manufacturing operations at the JM site would continue.
The Consent Decree therefore provided for ongoing operation ofboth the wastewater treatment
system,
which consisted of a number ofsettling and retention basins, as well as
the onsite
landfill.
JM conducted substantial remedial actions at the facility, placing cover over the historic
areas where asbestos containing waste materials had been disposed.
JM’s remedial activities
were largely completed in
1991.
USEPA issued two
Explanations ofSignificant Differences (ESD), the first on
February 9,
1993, and the second on September 22, 2000.
The first ESD addressed primarily the
differences between the remedial action as described in the June 1987 ROD and the remedial
action actually constructed as
necessitated by field conditions. The second ESD provided, in
light ofcessation ofmanufacturing operations at the facility,
for closure ofboth the wastewater
treatment system and the on-site landfill which is the subject ofthis petition.
Description of Nature of Efforts Necessary to Comply With Regulations of General
Applicability, 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
104.406(e)
Because the onsite landfill is located in the midst ofthe CERCLA site, any
activities relating to it must be coordinated with both USEPA and IEPA.
The United States
Department ofJustice, USEPA, Illinois Attorney General’s Office, IEPA, and JM signed an
amended federal consent decree which was lodged with the United States District Court for the
Northern District ofIllinois
on February
11, 2004 (notice published at 69 Fed. Reg. 7982
4
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
(February 20, 2004)).
Comments have been filed, and a responsiveness summary is due to be
filed by July
16, 2004.
JM anticipates the federal amended consent decree will be entered by the
Court in the near future.
The Illinois Attorney General’s Office, IEPA and JM have also signed
a consent order which addresses this landfill.
This consent order should be submitted to the Lake
County Circuit Court for approval in the near future.
Both the federal amended
consent decree
and consent order provide for final closure of the landfill that is subject ofthis
petition, and this
adjusted standard petition should result in final closure in the most effective and expeditious
maimer.
JM advised the agencies ofthe probable need for an
adjusted standard in the
negotiations which resulted in the federal amended
consent decree,
and the
State Consent Order,
and each ofthese documents specifically provides for the filing ofan adjusted standards petition.
Therefore, this adjusted standard proceeding will not be contrary to either document when and if
they are entered; it will in fact, assist in implementation ofthese documents.
JM’s On-site Landfill
JM’s on-site landfill has always operated pursuant to the statutory permit
exception contained in Section 21(d) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(d);
since
JM has used the onsite
landfill to dispose ofonly that waste generated by its own activities
at this location, JM has
neither received nor been required to hold an IEPA solid waste operating permit.
Pursuant to 35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
8 15.200 et ~q.,
JM submitted
its initial facility report to IEPA in September
1992.
As described in the initial
facilityreport and
as operated, the onsite landfill consisted of
two areas:
1) the miscellaneous disposal pit, that was constructed on top of clean fill that had
been placed during CERCLA remedial activities and 2) a portion ofthe collection basin, which
had formerly been operated as part ofthe wastewater treatment system.
These units are depicted
in Figure
1
(Site Plan).
5
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
The initial facility report filed in
1992 indicated JM’s
intention to
operate the
onsite landfill as an inert waste landfill, based on leachate data for the wastes that were intended
to be placed in the onsite landfill.
During its operating history from
1992
to
1998, the
predominant waste that was placed in the landfill was calcium silicate, an
inert, nonhazardous
material used by JM to produce T-12, a high temperature calcium silicate block insulation
material.
JM also
disposed oflesser quantities ofroofing materials, wood, paper, and
cardboard, materials that IEPA considers to be putrescible wastes.
Because the onsite landfill
arguably meets the definition of“existing
facility or existing unit” contained in 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
810.103, the onsite landfill is subject to
the standards for existing landfills and units,
set forth
in 35Ill.Adm.Code Part 814, pursuant to
35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
814.101.
In order to accomplish the most efficient final closure that considers the landfill
contents and the landfill’s location on units previously remediated under CERCLA, JM is
seeking an adjusted standard for (i) the Monitoring Frequency for Landfill Gas Monitoring (35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.31 0(c)( 1)), (ii) the requirements for implementing a Landfill Gas
Management System, specifically,
the provisions relating to detection distance for implementing
such a system
(35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.31 l(a)(1)), and (iii) the Standards for the Location of
Monitoring Points found in 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.31 8(b)(4), specifically, the requirement that
monitoring wells shall be located within halfthe distance from the edge of the potential
discharge source to the edge of the zone of attenuation.’
The costs ofcomplying with the regulations are very difficult to quantify because, as described
below, compliance with the regulations as adopted would involve drilling gas monitoring devices
and groundwater monitoring wells through engineered cover that was built pursuant to the
Superflind remedial activities at the site.
The motivation for this adjusted standard is not to
provide for lower costs, but to
prevent the adverse effects that could result from installing the gas
monitoring and
groundwater wells in locations that would damage the cover ofthe remediated
6
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Narrative Description of Proposed Adjusted Standard, 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
104.406(I)
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD FOR LANDFILL GAS MONITORING
FREQUENCY REQUIREMENTS
In adopting its
comprehensive regulations
governing nonhazardous waste
landfills, the Pollution Control Board specifically addressed two broad types oflandfills:
landfills for inert waste,
and landfills for chemical and putrescible wastes.2
The Board later
adopted requirements formunicipal solid waste landfills in order to ensure that the state
regulations met the requirements for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Subpart D program. Because the landfill in question here is not a municipal
solid waste landfill
(and is therefore not addressed in the federal program), granting the petition sought here will in
no way be inconsistent with federal requirements3.
There are also no federal procedural
requirements that would apply to this petition.
As discussed above, JM originally contended that its on-site landfill was properly
characterized as an inert waste landfill, because the wastes placed in the landfill were primarily
inert
(calcium silicate materials, concrete, and
similar materials)4.
However, IEPA advised that
areas and potentially create pathways for migration of contaminants.
2
The Pollution Control Board has also adopted special requirements for other types oflandfills,
(e.g., landfills used for certain wastes from iron and steel manufacturing facilities and foundries
(see 35 Ill.Adm.Code Part 817)).
These regulations contain three classes ofwaste, and wastes
which present more potential to generate potentially harmful leachate are subject to more
stringent requirements.
~Moreover, both the federal amended consent decree and the State consent order described
above would require final closure ofthe landfill that is the subject of this petition.
~The requirements for inert waste landfills are considerably less stringent than those for
chemical and putrescible and municipal solid waste landfills,
due to significant differences
between the types ofmaterials disposed ofin each type oflandfill.
Unlike chemical or
putrescible landfills and municipal solid waste landfills, inert waste landfills need not have gas
collection systems, groundwatermonitoring systems or leachate collection systems, on the
theory that the leachate generated by inert waste landfills is so innocuous in terms ofquantity
7
THIS
DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
the presence of materials like wood, cardboard and paper in the landfill
in any amount
meant that
the landfill should be more properly characterized as a chemical and putrescible waste landfill.
The requirements
in 35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
81 l.310(c)(l) (applicable to chemical and
putrescible landfills but not to inert waste landfills) specify that landfill gas monitoring devices
shall be operated to obtain
samples on a monthly basis for the entire operating period and
for a
minimum offive years after closure. Given the nature ofthe wastes disposed in the On-Site
Landfill, studies were undertaken to determine the general physical properties within the landfill
and whether landfill gas was currently present within or outside the landfill limits in
quantities
that might warrant the required level ofmonitoring.
As
described in the Site Investigation Report for the On-Site Landfill, it was
determined that methane generation was more consistent with an inert waste landfill, rather than
a typical chemical and putrescible landfill.
Specifically, the following observations were made:
•
Measured landfill gas temperatures (approximately 50°F)were not typical oflandfill
gas temperatures in a solid waste landfill, which typically ranges from
100 to
130 °F
during substantial
anaerobic activity and between 130 and
160 °Fduring substantial
aerobic activity.
•
The vegetative grass cover over the landfill was intact, growing and healthy, and
showed no signs ofburn-out, which is indicative ofmethane release to
the landfill
surface. Moreover, there are no buildings, structures or utilities on or around the
landfill that could serve as a conduit for relieving methane pressures.
•
-
Landfill gas pressures measured in monitoring wells were typically extremely low
(less than 0.01” ofwater). This indicates negligible gas generation.
•
No malodors were noted within the landfill at any time, indicating little or no landfill
gas generation.
•
The carbon dioxide levels in the On-Site Landfill were measured to
be less than
1.
This is not consistent with an active chemical and putrescible landfill, where the
levels ofcarbon dioxide typically range from 40-48.
and constituents that such systems are not warranted.
Final cover for inert waste landfills
consists ofa minimum three foot thick layer ofsoil capable ofsupporting vegetation.
In
contrast, final cover for chemical and putrescible landfills and municipal solid waste landfills
must consist ofa low permeability layer with a thickness ofat least three feet-(or equivalent)
overlain by a protective layer with a thickness of at least three feet.
8
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
•
No methane was present above regulatory criteria
(50
ofthe Lower Explosive Level
(LEL)) outside the limits ofthe waste boundary, despite the lack ofany landfill gas
collection system. Given that wastes have not been added to the On-Site Landfill for
almost six years, and that very little additional
wastes, if any, are expected to be
added in the future, it is unlikely that the landfill gas generation rate would increase,
thereby resulting in an increased potential to detect migrating landfill gas.
These results were not particularly surprising, in light ofthe relatively low
percentage oforganic material disposed
in the landfill, and the relatively small size of the units.
While the on-site Landfill may technically meet the requirements for chemical
and putrescible
waste landfills, the above-described data confirm that the landfill is actually more similar to the
inert waste landfills considered by the Board in
adopting the regulations.
As a result, the
frequency oflandfill gas monitoring
as technically required by 35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.310(c)( 1)
is not necessary and would not provide any additional degree ofprotection to human health or
the environment as compared to
the proposed adjusted standard.
For all ofthese reasons, JM is proposing the following adjusted standard:
“In lieu of compliance with 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.310(c)(1) as applied to the
On-Site Landfill at its facility in Waukegan, Iffinois, Johns Manville shall
operate all gas monitoring devices, including the ambient air monitors, such
that samples wifi
be collected on
a semi-annual basis
for a period offive years
following approval of this adjusted standard. If, at the end of five years, the
requirements for implementing a Landfill Gas Collection System
(35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.311) are not met, no further monitoring wifi be
conducted.
Based on the data collected, compliance with the proposed adjusted standard will
not have a more adverse effect on the environment than would compliance with the regulations.
PROPOSED
ADJUSTED STANDARD FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A LANDFILL
GAS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
As shown on Figure 2 (Proposed Landfill Gas Monitoring Device Locations), the
miscellaneous disposal pit unit (Fill Area #1) is located within the aerial limits ofthe remediated
9
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
area ofthe CERCLA site.
The On-Site Landfill is
essentially a landfill constructed within and
overlying the “CERCLA” landfill that was previously closed through placement of a two-foot
engineered cover over both topographically flat areas, as well as the steeply sloping sides ofthe
original miscellaneous disposal pit. The lateral limits of the steeply sloping
sides are shown on
Figure 2. The regulations governing implementation of a Landfill Gas Collection System
(35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.311 (a)(1)) contemplate detection ofelevated methane levels below the
“ground surface” at a distance of 100 feet outside the edge ofthe unit, or at the property
boundary, whichever is closer. As the property boundary is further away, the distance of 100 feet
from the edge of the unit would appear to apply.
However, at this
distance (100 feet) from the
edge ofFill Area #1
within the On-Site Landfill, the monitoring locations would fall on the steep
side slopes
and covered areas within the now-closed CERCLA landfill.
Landfill gas monitoring at this location would require installation ofmonitoring
wells on the steeply sloping sides and through the engineered cover placed for closure ofthe
CERCLA landfill. Installation, monitoring,
and maintenance ofwells installed within this
steep
incline may result in compromising the integrity of the CERCLA cover and thereby trigger
maintenance obligations not otherwise required, as well as potentially expose the now-covered
asbestos materials to personnel collecting the air samples and/or cause the release of asbestos
fibers to ambient air. Furthermore, it is not clear whether monitoring for landfill gas beneath the
cover of an adjacent landfill meets the intention of “ground surface,” in that the goal is to detect
whether elevated levels ofmethane generated within the On-Site Landfill are migrating away
from that unit. As a result, locating the landfill gas monitoring devices at a distance of 100 feet
from Unit #1, as technically required by 35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.311 (a)( 1) would be very
burdensome, potentially harmful to the CERCLA remedy, and due to the extremely low levels of
10
THIS
DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
gas generated, would not provide any additional degree ofprotection to
human health or the
environment.
For all ofthese reasons, JM is proposing the following adjusted standard:
“In lieu of compliance with 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.311(a)(1) as applied to the
On-Site Landfill at its facffity in Waukegan, Iffinois, Johns Manville shall
install a gas management system if a methane concentration greater than 50
percent of the lower explosive limit in air,
is detected below
the ground
surface by a monitoring device or is detected by an ambient air monitor
located at 200 feet from the edge of the unit or the property line, whichever is
less.”
Based on the data collected, compliance with the adjusted standard proposed will
not have a more adverse effect on the environment than would
compliance with the regulations.
PROPOSED
ADJUSTED STANDARD
FOR THE LOCATIONS
OF
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
As shown on Figure
3
(Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations), the
miscellaneous disposal pit unit (Fill Area #1) is located within the aerial limits ofthe remediated
area ofthe CERCLA site. The On-Site Landfill is essentially a landfill constructed within and
overlying the “CERCLA” landfill that was previously closed through placement ofa two-foot
engineered cover over both topographically flat areas, as well as the steeply sloping sides. The
lateral limits ofthe steeply sloping sides are shown on Figure
3.
The regulation governing the
Design, Construction, and Operation ofGroundwater Monitoring Systems
(35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.31 8(b)(4)) contemplates locating the monitoring wells within halfthe distance from the
edge ofthe potential source ofthe discharge to the edge ofthe zone ofattenuation downgradient,
with respect to groundwater flow, from the source.
However, at this distance from the edge of
the On-Site Landfill
(50
feet), the monitoring locations would fall on the steep side slopes and
covered areas of the now-closed CERCLA landfill.
11
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Groundwater monitoring at this location would require installation ofmonitoring
wells on the steeply sloping sides
and through the engineered cover placed for closure ofthe
CERCLA landfill.
Installation, monitoring, and maintenance ofwells installed within this steep
incline may result in compromising the integrity of the CERCLA cover and
thereby trigger
maintenance obligations not otherwise required, as well as potentially expose the now-covered
asbestos materials to personnel collecting the air samples and/or cause the release ofasbestos
fibers to ambient air.
As a result, locating groundwater monitoring wells at a distance of50 feet
from Unit #1, as technically required by 35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.31 8(b)(4) would be very
burdensome, potentially harmful
to the CERCLA remedy, and would not provide any additional
degree ofprotection to human health or the environment.
For all of these reasons, JM is proposing the following adjusted standard:
“In lieu of compliance with 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.318(b)(4) as applied to the
-
On-Site Landfill at its facility in Waukegan,
Illinois, Johns Manville shall
install groundwater monitoring wells at a distance of no more than 200 feet
from the edge of the unit or the property line, whichever is less.”
Based on the data collected, compliance with the adjusted standard proposed will
not have a more adverse effect on the environment than would compliance with the regulations.
Description of Impact of Compliance With
General Standard As
Compared to Proposed
Adjusted Standard, and Justification, 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§~
104.4-6(g)-(h)
For the reasons described above, compliance with the Proposed Adjusted
Standard will be, at a minimum, equally protective ofthe environment as would
compliance with
the regulations ofgeneral
applicability.
JM believes that granting the adjusted standard would be
justified for the reasons set forth above, and would create
a lesser risk ofdamage to the
remediated areas at the Superfund site.
12
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Board May Grant Adjusted Standard Consistent With Federal Law, 35 Il1.Adm.Code
§
104.406(i)
As described above, if the Board were to grant the adjusted standard, it would in
no waybe contrary to federal
statutory or regulatory requirements.
Moreover, the federal
consent decree described above, expressly contemplated that an adjusted standard petition could
be filed, so granting the adjusted standard would not be inconsistent with any federal judicial
order or consent decree.
Hearing Requested 35 Ill.Adm.Code 104.406(j)
JM has discussed these proposed adjusted standards with the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency(IEPA), and is requesting the Agency’s concurrence.
If
Agency concurs with this petition, it may not be necessary to have a hearing (assuming that
members ofthe public do not request one.
Ifthe JEPA concurs with the petition, and there are
no requests for a hearing from the public or other interested parties, JM can waive its request for
a hearing.
Documentation to Be Relied Upon, 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
104.406(k)-(l)
As described above, JM has collected data which is in the form ofa Site
Investigation Report.
This document is very voluminous, and can be submitted
in the future.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, JM respectfully requests that the Pollution
Control Board grant the adjusted standards to 35
Ill.Adm.Code Part 814, incorporating 35
Ill.Adm.Code
§~
811.310, 811.311, and 811.318 as described in this petition, and as set forth
below:
13
THIS
DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
“In lieu of compliance with 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.310(c)(1) as
applied to the
On-Site Landfill at its facility in Waukegan, Illinois, Johns Manville shall
operate all gas monitoring devices, including the ambient air monitors, such
that samples will be collected on a semi-annual basis for a period of five years
following approval of this adjusted
standard. If, at the end of five years, the
requirements for
implementing a Landfill Gas Collection System (35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.311) are not met, no further monitoring wifi be
conducted.”
“In lieu of compliance with 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.311(a)(1) as applied to the
On-Site Landfill at its facility in Waukegan,
Illinois, Johns
Manville shall
install a gas management system if a methane concentration greater than 50
percent of the lower explosive
limit
in
air, is detected below the ground
surface by a monitoring device or is detected by an ambient air monitor
located at 200
feet from the edge ofthe unit or the property line, whichever
is
less.”
“In lieu of compliance with 35 Ill.Adm.Code
§
811.318(b)(4) as applied to the
On-Site Landfill at its facility in Waukegan, Illinois, Johns Manville shall
install groundwater monitoring wells at a distance of no more than 200 feet
from the edge of the unit or the property line, whichever is less.”
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNS MANVILLE,
Petitioner,
By:_________
One of Its Attorneys
Edward P. Kenney
Sidley,
Austin, Brown & Wood LLP
10 South Dearborn Street
BankOne Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312)853-2062
14
THIS
DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that he caused the foregoing notice
and petition for adjusted standard to be served upon:
Division ofLegal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Peter Orlinsky
Assistant Counsel, Northern Region
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
9511
West Harrison Street
Des Plaines, Illinois 60016
Elizabeth Wallace
Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Law
188
West Randolph Street,
20th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60601
by placing the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, this
30th
day of June,
2004.
Edward
P.
Kenney
CHI
2987523v1
