Mmf0088z

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 16, 1995

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PETITION OF HEPWORTH U.S.

)

AS 94-19

HOLDINGS, INC., MANLEY

)

(Adjusted Standard - Land)

BROTHERS OF INDIANA, INC.,

)

AND THE SILICA SAND TRUST

)

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD

)

FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

)

620.410

)

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by M. McFawn):

This matter is before the Board on a petition for

adjusted standard filed by Hepworth U.S. Holdings, Inc.

(Hepworth) on December 27, 1994. Petitioners Manley Brothers

of Indiana, Inc. (Manley Brothers) and the Silica Sand Trust

were added as petitioners to this action by order of the Board

on October 5, 1995. The petitioners request an adjusted

standard from the Class I groundwater quality standards for

lead, nickel, and arsenic set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

620.410, for a 50-acre portion of a 550-acre facility located

southeast of Troy Grove in both Township 34N, Range 1E,

Section 2 and Township 35N, Range 1E, Section 35 of LaSalle

County, 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). More generally, the

Board's responsibility in this matter is based on the system

of checks and balances integral to Illinois environmental

governance: the Board is charged with the rulemaking and

principal adjudicatory functions, and the Agency is

responsible for carrying out the principal administrative

duties.

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 an adjusted standard is warranted. The adjusted standard

accordingly will be granted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

filed its initial response to the petition for adjusted

standard on February 9, 1995. By order dated February 16,

1995, the Board found that the Agency's response failed to

comply with the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.174.

The Agency filed a second response on March 6, 1995 correcting

the identified deficiencies.

The Board received two requests for hearing in this

matter: a January 24, 1995 request for hearing from Dale L.

Stockley on behalf of the Town of Dimmick; and a January 25,

1995 request for hearing from Gary L. Gearhart. The Board

therefore accepted this matter for hearing on February 16,

1995, and a hearing was held on June 14, 1995.

At hearing, Hepworth presented the testimony of three

witnesses: Mr. Ray Salt, President of Manley Brothers; Susan

Knight, Director of Industrial Compliance at Applied Science

and Technology, Inc. (ASTI); and Peter Collins, Director of

Ecological Services at ASTI. Additionally, statements were

made by three members of the public: Mr. Walter Kolodziej, a

Trustee on the Town Board of Dimmick Township; Nancy Jasiek,

Vice President of an organization called Save Our Little

Vermilion Environment, and a property owner along the Little

Vermilion; and Jim Crane, a farmer in the area. The majority

of information submitted into the record in this action was

provided by Hepworth and its consultant, ASTI.

On July 21, 1995, Hepworth filed its post-hearing

comments and a motion to correct the transcript, which we

hereby grant. On August 30, 1995, the Board received a public

comment from Mr. Joseph Lanuti, Trustee of the Silica Sand

Trust which owns the site, supporting grant of the requested

relief.

On October 5, 1995, the Board on its own motion added

Manley Brothers, the current operator at the site, and the

Silica Sand Trust, the owner of the site, as petitioners in

this action. The Board found them to be necessary parties to

this action pursuant to Section 103.121(c) of our procedural

rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.121(c)). On October 18, 1995,

Manley Brothers submitted a "Clarification" in response to the

Board's October 5, 1995 order. In its clarification, Manley

Brothers states that it is not the sole operator at the site,

since Technisand also operates at the site. Manley Brothers

does not contest its being made a party to the action.

Furthermore, Technisand has not participated in this

proceeding, and has not sought to be included in the terms of

the requested adjusted standard.

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 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:

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;

The existence of those factors justifies an adjusted

standard;

The requested standard will not result in

environmental or health effects substantially and

significantly more adverse than the effects

considered by the Board in adopting the rule of

general applicability; and

The adjusted standard is consistent with any

applicable federal law.

BACKGROUND

The 50-acre site for which the adjusted standard is

sought (the site) is a portion of a 550-acre sand mining

operation. (See Ex. 13.) The 50-acre site contains all

facilities and processing operations on the property,

including rail and truck loading areas, a sand washing area, a

sand drying area, and a sand processing area. (Tr. at 24.)

All structures are located and all processing operations are

conducted within the 50-acre site. (Tr. at 25.) The

remainder of the property consists of active quarries, former

quarries filled with water, and reclaimed vegetated areas.

(Tr. at 24-25.)

The property is bounded to the northwest by the Chicago

and Northwestern Railroad (C & NW), and bounded to the east by

County Road 13. The property is approximately 1 1/4 miles

long from north to south, and approximately 3/4 mile from east

to west. The Little Vermilion River crosses the property,

entering at the northeast of the property and exiting at the

southwest. The 50-acre sand processing site is in the

northwest corner of the facility, extending between the C & NW

tracks and the northernmost portion of the Little Vermilion

River. (Pet. at 1.)

Mining was begun at this site in the 1950s. Hepworth is

the former operator of the property, and operated the site for

approximately eleven years between 1980 and 1991. Manley took

over operations at the site from Hepworth in August, 1991.

(Tr. at 13.) Manley leases the property from Mr. Eggleston

and Mr. Lanuti, who have owned the property since at least

1954. (Tr. at 13.)

Manley operates a mining operation on the site, producing

a high quality silica sand. Manley processes and sells

various grades and mixes of the sand to a variety of

industries, including the foundry and glass industries. (Tr.

at 13-14.) Two acres of the site are sub-leased to a company

called Technisand, which operates a sand resin-coating plant

adjacent to the Manley processing operation, producing

specialty sand products. (Tr. at 13.)

Site Investigation.

In 1990, Hepworth hired Applied Science and Technology,

Inc. (ASTI) to perform an environmental audit of the property

in conjunction with the sale of its operations at the site to

Manley, a subsidiary of Hepworth. (Tr. at 23.) Because of

the site's operational history, ASTI's investigations focused

on the 50-acre site. In addition to being the location of all

processing operations and structures, this area was formerly

operated as a limestone quarry in the early 1950's. (Tr. at

26.) Discussions with past and current site personnel

indicated that there were potential concerns that off-

specification cans for foodpacking and debris from a fire

which occurred at the facility might have been used as fill

material at this location. (Tr. at 26.)

ASTI's initial investigation of the site was generally

positive, although it revealed several areas of elevated

levels of metals in the uppermost aquifer and identified

incidental contamination of soils by metals and petroleum

products. (Tr. at 23.) ASTI also discovered minor

polynuclear aromatic (PNA) contamination around the processing

area, which it believed was associated with truck activity at

the processing areas. (Tr. at 30, 35-36.)

Hepworth and Manley decided to proceed with the sale,

subject to the condition that Hepworth retain responsibility

for any further investigation and cleanup costs for property

conditions that existed prior to the sale. Hepworth therefore

continued its investigation of conditions at the property.

(Tr. at 24.)

Hepworth submitted the results of its initial

investigation to the Agency and entered the Agency's voluntary

cleanup program on November 6, 1991, seeking to obtain a

"clean letter" pursuant to Section 4y of the Act. (Tr. at 30,

Pet. at 7.) On March 20, 1992, the Agency sent Hepworth a

letter stating that it had determined that Class I groundwater

existed at the site, and requesting that Hepworth perform

additional investigations at the site. (Tr. at 30, Attachment

B to Pet.) Hepworth therefore proceeded with the second phase

of investigation, examining areas near the processing plant in

greater detail.

Hepworth sought to establish groundwater quality, flow

direction, and flow rate, and to determine whether a discrete

source of contamination was present. Hepworth conducted a

total of twenty-seven soil borings, installed nine monitoring

wells on the site, installed two monitoring wells off-site to

measure background, and conducted nine groundwater quality

surveys, including hydrogeological tests of the aquifer. (Tr.

at 32.) Hepworth completed its work in 1993 and on April 19,

1994 submitted its report to the Agency. (Pet. at 7, Appx. C

to Pet.)

ASTI's investigation indicated that groundwater at the

site generally flows towards the Little Vermilion River. (Tr.

at 36-37.) ASTI found no evidence of waste materials disposed

of at the site, or any evidence of a source of potential

contamination. (Tr. at 37.) There was no volatile organic

compound (VOC) or gasoline contamination of groundwater

anywhere at the site, and no evidence of groundwater

contamination by diesel fuel or other petroleum products.

However, ASTI's sampling did reveal levels of arsenic, lead,

and nickel which exceeded groundwater quality standards in

several sampling events at several locations throughout the

site.

Hepworth submitted the sampling results to the Agency,

seeking to obtain a 4y letter. However, while the Agency

acknowledged the results of the investigation, it believed it

could not issue a 4y letter approving conditions at the site,

due to the elevated levels of metals. (Tr. at 37.)

Site Operations.

Manley currently conducts active mining operations at the

southern end of the property. (Tr. at 14.) In conducting

these operations, Manley first uses heavy earthmoving

equipment to remove the clay till which overlies the sandstone

at the site. Manley then prepares the sandstone for

extraction by drilling and blasting with explosive charges, or

"fractioning." (Tr. at 15.) The prepared sandstone is then

blasted with high pressure water, with a pressure of

approximately 200 pounds per square inch. This creates a

slurry which is pumped to a discharge pipe line, which conveys

the slurry to the sand washing plant. (Tr. at 15.)

At the sand washing plant, the silica sand fraction is

separated from the water, which contains clay, small grains of

silica, and other minerals. The water is then piped to the

large quarry lake, where the sand, clay, and other minerals

settle out. (Tr. at 16.) The water is then piped to a second

lake, known as a clean water lake, and is reused in the

process. No water is withdrawn from or discharged to the

Little Vermilion River. (Tr. at 16.) Furthermore, no

chemicals are added to the sand or slurry. (Tr. at 16.)

The sand product is piped from the washing plant to a

stockpile area. (Tr. at 17.) From the stockpile area, the

sand is sent by conveyor to a dryer. The dry sand is sorted

by grain size and sent to storage silos. Manley creates 97

different blends of sand using varying amounts of the sorted

grains. (Tr. at 17.) Technisand, the subleasee at the site,

coats sand with resins and markets various grades of coated

sand to the oil exploration and foundry industries. (Tr. at

17-18.)

Manley has approximately 24 full-time employees. (Tr. at

18.) Manley estimates that mining and processing of sand will

continue at this location for approximately forty years. (Tr.

at 19.) Technisand employs approximately 30 people in its

sand resin-coating operations. (Pet. at 4.)

Surrounding Land Uses.

Troy Grove is located northwest of the site, across the C

& NW railroad tracks. (Pet. at 3.) It is a rural community

with a population of approximately 290, and its drinking water

is provided by individual wells. (Pet. at 3.) Northeast of

the site is the Moline Consumers Stone Quarry, a commercial

stone quarry. (Pet. at 3.) Southwest of the site, Unimin

Corporation operates a separate sand mining operation. (Pet.

at 3.) The land south and east of the site is agricultural

land. (Pet. at 3.) Illinois Water Survey well logs indicate

that six residential wells are located within Section 35 south

of the sandmining operation, which vary in depth from 30 to 72

feet. (Pet. at 3-4.)

RULE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY

The petitioners seek an adjusted standard from 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 620.410, Groundwater Quality Standards for Class I:

Potable Resource Groundwater, as they apply to lead, nickel,

and arsenic

at a 50-acre portion of the facility. This regulation

provides in relevant part:

Inorganic Chemical Constituents

Except due to natural causes or as provided in

Section 620.450, concentration of the following

chemical constituents must not be exceeded in

Class I groundwater:

Constituent

Units

Standard

Arsenic

mg/L

0.05

* * * *

Lead

mg/L

0.0075

* * * *

Nickel

mg/L

0.1

The Agency has determined that a Class I aquifer is

present at the site (Ex.

2), and petitioners do

not dispute the

appropriateness of this

classification.

JUSTIFICATION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD

Hepworth states that it conducted extensive groundwater

investigations at the site, conducting over 600 analyses for

metals and other inorganic compounds. (Tr. at 33.) These

investigations revealed sporadic, slightly elevated levels of

arsenic, lead, and nickel in the groundwater at various

locations throughout the site.

In seeking to identify a source of contamination at the

site, Hepworth also conducted extensive soil investigations,

including analyses of 27 soil borings. (Pet. at 10.) These

investigations revealed "spotty" soil contamination from

PNA's, but Hepworth discovered no discrete source of

contamination, and identified no signs of waste materials.

(Tr. at 37.) Furthermore, these investigations demonstrated no

relationship between soil contamination and metals identified

in the groundwater. (Tr. at 36.)

Arsenic.

Arsenic was found to exceed the groundwater standard at

two widely-separated locations: monitor well 4 (MW 4) and

monitor well 5 (MW 5). At MW 4, the average concentration was

found to exceed the Class I groundwater standard by ten

percent. At MW 5, four out of eight monitoring events

exceeded the Class I standard, but the average concentration

was below the standard. In the two most recent sampling

events, arsenic was below the standard in both wells. (Pet.

at 9.) No pattern of contamination was discovered.

Lead.

The average concentration for lead exceeded the Class I

standard by 65 percent. Most of these exceedences occurred at

two wells: monitoring well 1 (MW 1) and monitoring well 5 (MW

5). MW 1, an upgradient well, exceeded the standard in all

sampling events. MW 5 exceeded the standard in five out of

eight sampling events. (Pet. at 8.) Hepworth states that the

concentrations of lead in most cases significantly decrease

from upgradient to downgradient. (Pet. at 11.)

Nickel.

Nickel exceedences were detected consistently in one

upgradient well, monitoring well 2 (MW 2). However, there is

virtually no groundwater flow at this location, and

petitioners estimate that it would take approximately 2,000

years for contamination to reach the downgradient boundary of

the site. (Pet. at 8.) Petitioners therefore assert that the

nickel contamination is confined within the MW 2 area.

Petitioners state that the investigations conducted by

ASTI revealed no evidence of a plume or discrete source of

contamination at the site (Tr. at 35, 37), and that it would

therefore be pointless to conduct remediation (Tr. at 47).

Furthermore, petitioners emphasize that the recorded levels of

arsenic, lead, and nickel at the site only slightly exceed the

Class I standards. (Pet. at 8-9; Tr. at 52-53.)

Source of Metals.

Petitioners assert that mobilization of the naturally

present constituents by soil excavation, filling, and exposure

of the bedrock to weathering, including low pH precipitation

and on-site surface run-off, is the likely cause of the

elevated metals in the groundwater. (Ex. 3 at 72-73; Pet. at

11-12.) Mr. Collins testified that it appeared that the

groundwater quality at the entire site was slightly altered by

the exposure of soils and bedrock to weathering and

acidification by direct precipitation, and that this process

is sufficient to mobilize and elevate naturally-occurring

metals in soils and rock. (Tr. at 54.) Susan Knight further

testified that the limestone mining which previously occurred

at the site has affected the upper-most aquifer. Susan Knight

testified that the site is underlain by limestone, and that

elevated levels of lead are often associated with limestone.

(Tr. at 34.) Petitioners assert that these natural

disturbances make meeting Class I groundwater standards

unreasonable.

Surface Water Quality Standards.

Because the groundwater at the site discharges to the

Little Vermilion River, petitioners also compared its

groundwater sampling results to the general use surface water

quality standards. Petitioners found that the total metals in

the groundwater for the constituents of concern were

consistently below the general use surface water quality

standards for dissolved metals. Furthermore, the levels of

dissolved arsenic, lead and nickel at the river-side

monitoring wells met the general use water quality standards

for the river. (Tr. at 58.)

The following table summarizes the comparison between

Hepworth's sampling results and applicable water quality

standards, recorded in parts per million (ppm):

CONSTITUENT

CLASS I

GENERAL USE

SITE

GROUNDWATER

SURFACE WATER

GROUNDWATER

AVERAGE CONC.

(TOTAL METAL)

(DISSOLVED

METAL)(TOTAL/DISSOLVED)

ARSENIC

0.05

0.190

0.021/0.008

LEAD

0.0075

0.097

0.013/0.001

NICKEL

0.1

1.0

0.05/0.018

(Pet. Ex. 13; see Tr. at 67-72.)

Petitioners assert that, while it is technically feasible

to perform groundwater remediation, reductions in the levels

of metals in groundwater may not occur if the presence of the

metals is principally the result of natural processes.

Petitioners also assert that eliminating the slight

groundwater impact would not be economically reasonable

because the water is not being used for potable purposes, and

because no impact to any potable water supply is expected.

Additionally, since the Little Vermilion River intercepts the

groundwater at the site and the groundwater flow within the

watershed is toward the river, there are no groundwater wells

used for potable purposes downgradient from the site.

Additionally, petitioners assert that the adjusted standard

will not negatively impact the value of the property. (Pet. at

20.)

COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES

After investigating a variety of remediation systems,

petitioners determined that two remediation systems would be

most effective for use at the site: installation of an

engineered drain, or installation of a pump and treat system.

(Pet. Ex. 5 at E-1.) Both systems operate on the same

physical and chemical treatment principles. (Pet. at 21.)

Engineered Drain System.

The engineered drain system would involve excavating

along the river bed to intersect groundwater. A leachate

collection system would then be installed, and the groundwater

would be pumped to a metal hydroxide precipitation system.

The treated water would then be discharged to the river

pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit. (Pet. Ex. 5 at E-1.)

Pump and Treat System.

The pump and treat system would require the installation

of downgradient withdrawal wells. The groundwater would then

be pumped to a metal hydroxide precipitation system. The

treated water would then be discharged to the river pursuant

to a NPDES permit, or re-injected into upgradient wells.

(Pet. Ex. 5 at E-1.)

Cost of Remediation.

Petitioners assert that the total cost of remediation

depends on the number of years that the system must be

operated in order to achieve compliance. They estimate that

compliance could be achieved within 3 to 5 years. They

estimate that installing and operating a treatment system for

a period of five years would cost approximately

$2,275,000.00. (Pet. at 13.)

PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD

Petitioners propose that the following be adopted as an

adjusted standard applicable to the site:

Parameter

Proposed Standard

arsenic

0.15 mg/L

lead

0.15 mg/L

nickel

1.5 mg/L

(Pet. at 22.)

The proposed standards would be substituted for the

currently applicable Class I standards for the listed

constituents. All other Class I standards would remain

applicable to the site.

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

In support of its position that there would be minimal

environmental and health impacts from the grant of the

requested adjusted standard, petitioners presented the

testimony of two witnesses. First, Susan Knight testified

concerning groundwater conditions at the site. She testified

that there was no contamination of groundwater at the site by

volatile organic or petroleum compounds. (Tr. at 32-33.)

Second, she testified that, while there were elevated metals

in some of the wells, these elevated levels were sporadic and

localized. (Tr. at 33-35.) Furthermore, Knight testified

that these levels were only elevated when considering total

metals data; dissolved metals levels were consistently below

the Class I groundwater standard. (Tr. at 35.) Finally, she

testified there was no evidence of a plume of contamination.

(Tr. at 35.)

Knight also testified concerning soil conditions at the

site. She testified that sampling demonstrated the presence

of localized PNA contamination, which she associated with

vehicle activity. (Tr. at 35-36.) Knight asserted that this

PNA contamination did not impact the groundwater. Knight

further testified that there no plume of soil contamination at

the site. (Tr. at 36.) Finally, she testified that there

was no connection between soil contamination and groundwater

contamination at the site. (Tr. at 36-37.)

Peter Collins, director of Ecological Services for ASTI,

testified that there would be an environmental impact

associated with operating a pump and treat system of

remediation. He testified that such a system would require a

discharge pursuant to a NPDES permit, and that the filtered

materials would generate a waste stream of either hazardous or

special wastes. (Tr. at 48-49.)

Collins further testified that granting the proposed

adjusted standard would present no threat to the water quality

of the Little Vermilion River. (Tr. at 57.) He testified

that water quality in the wells immediately adjacent to the

river indicated levels of metals which were far below the

surface water quality standards set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Part 302, and that granting the proposed adjusted standard

would therefore not result in any impact to achievement of

water quality standards for the Little Vermilion. (Tr. at 57-

59.)

Collins also testified that granting the requested

adjusted standard would not impact surrounding drinking water

supplies. He testified that, because the groundwater gradient

from the site flows away from Troy Grove and toward the Little

Vermilion, the drinking water supply for Troy Grove would not

be impacted. (Tr. at 59-60.)

Collins also testified that the Little Vermilion would

act as a barrier to the transport of groundwater to residences

on the east side of the site. (Tr. at 61.) He further noted

that drinking water wells in the area are all at least 80 feet

deep, and that they therefore draw water from a deeper aquifer

than that for which petitioners are seeking the adjusted

standard. (Tr. at 61.) Mr. Collins concluded his testimony

by offering his opinion that there would be no impact to

groundwater away from the site. (Tr. at 62.)

CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW

Petitioners assert, and the Agency agrees, that none of

the requirements from which relief is sought were promulgated,

in whole or in part, pursuant to federal requirements. (Pet.

at 14, 26; 2nd Agency Response at para. 7.)

AGENCY RESPONSE

The Agency filed its initial response in this matter on

February 9, 1995. Pursuant to the Board's order, the Agency

filed an amended response on March 6, 1995. In its amended

response, the Agency states that it agrees that, due to past,

present and planned future use of the facility, the

groundwater at the site will not be used for potable purposes,

and that the levels of contaminants will therefore not cause

adverse environmental impacts or human health effects. (2nd

Agency Response at para. 10.) Furthermore, the Agency agrees

that the Little Vermilion River acts as a barrier which

prevents inorganics in the groundwater beneath the site from

migrating across the river. (2nd Agency Response at para. 11.)

Finally, the Agency agrees that the levels of contamination

at the site are low and that the water is not being used for

potable purposes. (2nd Agency Response at para. 14.)

Therefore, the Agency recommends that the adjusted standard be

granted. (2nd Agency Response, concluding paragraph.)

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that petitioners have demonstrated that

an adjusted standard is appropriate for the 50-acre northwest

portion of petitioners' 550-acre facility, located southeast

of Troy Grove in both Township 34N, Range 1E, Section 2 and

Township 35N, Range 1E, Section 35 of LaSalle County,

Illinois. The petitioners have demonstrated that there is no

evidence of a discrete source of contamination at the site,

and that the elevated metals at the site may be the result of

natural processes. We find that this constitutes a factor

which makes petitioner's situation substantially and

significantly different from the factors relied upon by the

Board in adopting the regulation of general applicability.

(

See

In the Matter of: Groundwater Quality Standards, R89-

14(B), adopted November 7, 1991, effective November 25, 1991.)

Additionally, petitioners have demonstrated that remediation

is impracticable and economically infeasible. (See discussion

of same at page 10 of this opinion.) Together these factors

justify the requested adjusted standard.

Furthermore, we find that petitioners have demonstrated

that granting the adjusted standard will not negatively impact

surrounding drinking water supplies or the Little Vermilion

River, or result in any other harm to the environment or human

health. Finally, we find that petitioners have demonstrated

that the requested adjusted standard will be consistent with

federal law. The proposed adjusted standard is therefore

granted.

This opinion constitutes the Board's findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Petitioners Hepworth U.S. Holdings, Inc., Manley Brothers

of Indiana, Inc., and the Silica Sand Trust are hereby granted

an adjusted standard, pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/28.1, applicable

to the 50-acre northwest portion of the 550-acre facility

located southeast of Troy Grove in both Township 34N, Range

1E, Section 2 and Township 35N, Range 1E, Section 35 of

LaSalle County, Illinois (the site), subject to the provisions

and conditions listed below.

Inorganic Chemical Constituents

Concentration of the following chemical constituents

must not be exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the

site:

Parameter

Adjusted Standard

arsenic

0.15 mg/L

lead

0.15 mg/L

nickel

1.5 mg/L

These standards shall be substituted for the

currently applicable Class I standards for the

listed constituents. All other Class I standards

remain applicable to the site.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS

5/41 (1994)) provides for the appeal of final Board orders

within 35 days of the date of service of this order. The

Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing

requirements. (See also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, "Motions

for Reconsideration".)

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order

was adopted on the _______ day of ___________________, 1995,

by a vote of _________.

________________________________

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board