ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 27,
1992
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF OLIN CORPORATION
)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 724
and 725
)
AS 90—8
Related to Closure and Post
)
(Adjusted Standard)
Closure of RCRA Regulated
)
Surface Impoundments)
)
JEFFREY C. FORT OF SONNENSCHEIN NATH
& ROSENTHAL. APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
JOHN P. WALIGORE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on. the filing of a
petition for adjusted standard by Olin Corporation
(Olin).
Olin
seeks an adjusted standard allowing delayed closure of its RCRA
regulated surface impoundment pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code
724.213(e)
and.725.2l3(e).
This is a case of first impression
before the Board as it involves the first use of the adjusted
standard proceeding for delayed closure.
Procedural History
On November 20,
1990,
Olin filed a petition for adjusted
standard pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 724.213(e)
and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 725.213(e)
for its Zone
6 Emergency Holding Lagoon
(Lagoon)
located at Olin’s East Alton Plant in Madison County,
Illinois.
The petition requested that the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency)
join Olin as a co-petitioner.
In
addition, Olin filed a motion for leave to file a single copy of
voluminous technical documents supporting the petition.
On December 11,
1990, the Agency filed its response to the
petition.
The response stated that the Agency declined to join
as co—petitioner because of several other proceedings concerning
the Lagoon in which the Agency and Olin are adverse parties.
In
addition, the Agency response pointed out several deficiencies in
the petition and stated that there was no objection to the
granting of the adjusted standard under certain conditions.
On December 20,
1990,
the Board granted the motion to file a
single copy and requested that the Agency file a more detailed
response.
In addition, the Board order stated that a hearing
would be held to discuss the conditions proposed by the Agency.
The Agency filed its amended response on February
4,
1991.
In
130—349
2
the amended response the Agency declined to specify any terms or
conditions which should be imposed on the adjusted standard.
On February 28,
1991, the Board accepted the matter for
hearing.
Olin submitted prefiled testimony to the Board on July
17,
1991.
Two
hearing officer orders were issued prior to the
hearing requesting both Olin and the Agency to address certain
questions at the hearing.
Hearing was held on July 31,
1991 in
Edwardsville with two members of the public in attendance.
On
September 13,
1991, Olin and the Agency filed a joint motion with
agreed
sc.iggested language for the adjusted standard.
Prior to the filing of this adjusted standard petition, Olin
initiated several related proceedings with the Agency.
In June
of 1988, pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
requirements that hazardous waste surface impoundiu~ntsbe
closed or retrofitted, Olin submitted to the Agency a closure
plan for the Lagoon.
The Agency approved the closure plan
subject to conditions in January,
1989.
Olin appealed the
conditions to the Board on February 10,
l989.~
During this same
period, Olin had applied to the Agency for a Part B Permit for
the entire East Alton facility.
The Agency approved part and
denied part of the application.
Olin appealed the Agency’s
decision to the Board on November 3,
1989.2
According to both
Olin and the Agency the present proceeding affects both the
closure plan and Part B permit proceedings.
BACKGROUND
Olin is a Virginia corporation that owns and operates an
East Alton,
Illinois facility manufacturing explosives and copper
alloys.
The process wastewater from the manufacturing
operations,
sanitary wastewater,
and stormwater is treated in the
Zone 6 wastewater treatment facility
(WWTF) which has a capacity
of 6.25 million gallons per day.
The Zone
6 WWTF has an
additional 1,000,000 gallon capacity when the Zone
6 Emergency
Holding Lagoon (Lagoon)
is used to hold excess flow caused by
heavy rainfall or temporary flow diversions.
Treatment of the
excess waters in the Lagoon occurs gradually through controlled
discharge to the Zone
6
WWTF.
The treated wastewater of some, of the manufacturing
operations generates wastewater treatment sludges which are
listed as hazardous wastes.
Olin’s petition states that
wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations (EPA
Olin has waived the decision due date of this case, PCB 89-
30, until July 31,
1992.
2
Olin has waived the decision due date of this case, PCB 89—
178, until September 16,
1992.
130—350
3
Hazardous Waste No. F006)
and wastewater treatment sludge from
the manufacturing, formulation and loading of lead—based
initiating compounds
(EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K046)
are produced
by certain of its manufacturing processes.
Pet.
at
2..~j
F006
waste
is listed as a hazardous waste from nonspecific sources at
35 Ill. Adm. Code 721.131.
K046 waste is listed as a hazardous
waste from specific sources at 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 721.132.
The Lagoon was constructed in approximately 1973.
Between
1973 and, November of
1988, the Lagoon accepted all process
wastewaters and stormwater generated at Olin’ s facility.
In’ that
time an estimated three percent of the process wastewater flow
through the Lagoon was the type which generates hazardous sludges
after treatment.
Pet.
at 3.
In June of 1988,
Olin removed and
disposed
of the listed hazardous sludge from the Lagoon and
cleaned the Lagoon liner.3
Pet.
at 3-4.)
After November of
1988 the Lagoon did not accept any more process wastewaters which
generate listed hazardous wastes.
Those process wastewaters
which generate listed hazardous sludges have been sent to a
separate treatment facility since November,
1988.
Pet.
at
2.
REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
Between
mid-1988
and
August of
1989
tJSEPA
proposed
and
finalized rules which allowed delayed closure of land disposal
units
like the Lagoon.
54 Fed.
Reg. 33393, August 14,
1989.
In R90—2,
the Board adopted,
in an identical in substance
rulemaking,
these USEPA rules allowing hazardous waste management
units which have received the final volume of hazardous waste to
continue receiving non—hazardous wastes under certain conditions.
In the Matter of:
RCRA Update, USEPA Regulations,
R90-2,
113 PCB
131, July 3,
1990.
The rules are found in the Board’s
regulations at 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 724.213 and 725.213.
Part 724
contains standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste
treatment,
storage and disposal facilities;
Part 725 contains
interim status standards for owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities.
The format and
language of both of these Parts is very similar.
The regulations governing closure and post—closure of
hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities bare
lengthy.
For an overview of the regulations, portions of Section
724.213(a),
(b),
(d), and
(e) will be reproduced below.
The
language in Section 725.213(a),
(b),
(d), and
(e), governing
interim status,
is similar in substance and will not be
~ At hearing Olin asserted that the material removed from the
Lagoon,
although not hazardous by characteristic,
was treated as
hazardous because it might have contained solids from “a wastewater’
process from a listed source.”
Tr.
at 71.
130—35 1
4
reproduced here.
The differences between Sections 724.213 and
725.213 will be identified in the Board’s discussion.
Section 724.213
Closure; Time Allowed for Closure
(a)
All permits must require that, within 90 days after
receiving the final volume of hazardous wastes,
or the
final volume of non—hazardous wastes,
if the owner or
operator complies with all the applicable requirements.
of subsections
(d) and
(e), at a hazardous waste
management unit or facility, the owner or operator
treat,
remove from the unit or facility, or dispose of
on—site, all hazardous wastes
.
.
.
The
Agency
shall
approve a longer period if the owner or operator
demonstrate certain
conditions.
*
*
*
(b)
All permits must require that the owner or operator
complete partial and final closure activities
in
accordance with the approved closure plan and within
180 days after receiving the final volume of hazardous
wastes, or the final volume of non—hazardous wastes,
if
the owner or operator complies with all the applicable
requirements in subsections
(d)
and
(e), at the
hazardous waste management unit or facility, unless the
owner or operator makes the following demonstration
The Agency shall approve a longer period if the
owner or operator demonstrate certain
conditions.
*
*
‘*
(d)
Continued receipt of non-hazardous waste.
The Agency
shall permit an owner or operator to receive only non—
hazardous wastes in a landfill,
land treatment unit or
surface impoundment unit after the final receipt of
hazardous wastes at that unit if certain
conditions.
*
*
*
(e)
Surface impoundments.
In addition to the requirements
in subsection
(d),
an owner or operator of a hazardous
waste surface impoundment which is not in compliance
with the liner and leachate collection system
requirements in Section 724.321(c),
(d) or
(e)
shall
receive non—hazardous wastes only as authorized by an
adjusted standards pursuant to this subsection.
35 Ill. Adm. Code 724.213.
iiU—iDZ
5
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
Olin’s petition for adjusted standard is filed pursuant to
those subsections of Section 724.213(e)
and Section 725.213(e)
governing the contents of the ad~justedstandard petition and the
procedures to be used in filing.
Subsection
(e) (1) requires
that a petition for adjusted standard include a plan for removal
of hazardous wastes and a contingent corrective measures plan.
Subsection
(e) (2) details what the removal plan must provide, and
subsection
(e)
(3)
details
the
requirements
of
a
contingent
correctii’e
measures plan.
Olin has submitted both a Hazardous
Waste Removal Plan and a Contingent Corrective Measure Plan with
its petition for adjusted standard.
Pursuant to subsection
(e) (8) (A), Olin has followed the
Board’s procedural rules in 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 106.Subpart
G.
Olin has stated the standard from which the adjusted standard is
sought and the nature of the applicable regulations as required
by Section 106.705
(a) and
(b).
Pursuant to Section 106.705(c),
Olin has submitted plans to meet the level of justification
specified in the regulation of general applicability.
Olin has
described the facility and its processes as required by Section
106.705(d)
and this information is summarized in the Background
section of this opinion.
Section 106.705(e)
requires that a petitioner discuss
compliance with the governing regulation, compliance alternatives
and the cost of the alternatives.
Olin asserts that it has three
compliance options which are
1)
closure of the present lagoon and
construction of a new one,
2)
clean closure of the present lagoon
and restoration of the lagoon in the same place, and
3) delayed
closure of the present lagoon.
Olin calculated the relative
costs using Office of Management and Budget guidance documents.
Olin’s present worth cost estimates show that the first two
options would cost over
1 million dollars each while delayed
closure
is less than $200,000.
Olin also states that the first
two options require Olin to pay twice “in order to end up with
what it now has” by paying to close and then paying to rebuild or
restore.
To satisfy the requirement of Section 106.705(f), the Board
requested at hearing that Olin and the Agency work together to
draft proposed language for the adjusted standard.
On September
13,
1991,
the parties submitted a joint motion with agreed
suggested language for the adjusted standard.
‘~
The two sections are nearly identical except for language
differences in subsections
(e) (4) and
(e) (9) and the addition of an
(e) (10)
in Part 724.
130—353
6
Olin’s petition states,
in response to Section 106.705(g),
that it believes that there will be no difference in the impact
on the environmental quality between closing the Lagoon now or in
forty years.
Because the Lagoon is fenced in on the company’s
property, there are no visitors or nearby residents, and the
hazardous sludges have been removed, Olin contends that there is
no
increased
threat to human health,
safety or the environment in
response to Section 106.705(h).
Olin asserts, pursuant to
Section 106.705(1),
that a grant of the adjusted standard would
be consistent with federal law.
Olin requested a hearing and
attached’ various supporting documents to its petition pursuant to
Section 106.705
(j)
and
(k).
AGENCY RESPONSE
The Agency filed its response on December 11,
1990,
and an
amended response on February
4,
1991.
The Agency states that it
does not oppose the granting of the adjusted standard from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 725 but does oppose the granting of one from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 724 “since Olin does not have a Part B Permit
currently in effect.”
The Agency stated that its response was
filed pursuant to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 106.414 instead of pursuant
to the procedures in 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 106.Subpart G as required
by subsection
(e) (8).
Even so, the Agency appears to have
reviewed most of the petition.
Pursuant
to
subsection
(e)
(1),
(e)
(2),
and
(e)
(3),
the
Agency reviewed the plan for removing hazardous wastes and the
contingent corrective measures plan included in the adjusted
standard petition.
In its original response, the Agency stated
that it had negotiated with Olin about terms for an acceptable
removal plan and contingent corrective measures plan,
and,
on the
basis of those negotiations, the Agency supported granting the
adjusted standard from Part 725.
In its amended response, the
Agency stated that Olin’s removal of hazardous waste residues
from the Lagoon “appeared)
to satisfy” subsections
(e) (1) (A)
and
(e) (2).
The Agency also stated that
it
had
reviewed
the
contingent
corrective
measures plan which also appeared to be “in
general conformity with the requirements of” subsection
(e) (3)
and
(e) (5).
The Agency responses state that it has no terms or
conditions to impose on the adjusted standard.
The Agency states
that the adjusted standard will be incorporated into the interim
status closure plan and Part B permit and believes that terms and
conditions should be imposed on the plan and the permit.
The
Agency also pointed out that Olin did not provide factual support
for its assertions that continued use of the Lagoon is essential
for compliance with its NPDES permit, that there
is no increased
threat to humans or the environment, that environmental quality
will not be affected in the future, and that its estimates of the
compliance options were accurate.
The Agency does not assert
130—354
7
that the adjusted standard be denied on this basis or that the
alleged
deficiencies
should
be.
corrected.
BOARD
DISCUSSION
This adjusted standard petition for delayed closure of
surface impoundments of hazardous wastes is the first of its kind
before the Board.
Therefore,
several of the issues that have
arisen in this proceeding seem to stem from the parties
unfamiliarity with the process.
Some of these issues relate to
the
proc~dures
and
methods
of
the adjusted standard proceedings.
The Agency and any potential adjusted standard petitioners are
advised
to
refer
to
the
Board’s
February
6,
1992 opinion and
order in AS91-l,
In the Matter
of:
Petition of Keystone Steel
and Wire Co. for Hazardous Waste Delisting,
for a complete
discussion on the history, purpose, and procedures of the
adjusted standard process.
One issue arose from the Agency’s response recommending that
the
adjusted
standard
be
granted
only
from
the
interim
standard
regulations because Olin did not yet have a Part B permit.
The
delayed closure provisions of the RCRA regulations provide relief
for and are most likely to impact on several identifiable
situations.
The most likely situations are where
1)
an owner or
operator of a surface impoundment has been requested by the
Agency to apply for a Part B permit and closure is
a major issue
in the permit negotiations,
2)
an interim status facility wishes
to
convert
prior
to
filing
an application for a Part B permit, or
3)
a facility with a Part B permit wishes to convert a surface
impoundment to receive non—hazardous waste and delay final
closure.
The relief offered by the delayed closure regulations
often impacts the above situations
in the middle of a proceeding.
For this reason, the Board’s procedures contemplate a concurrent
petition for adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 724 and 725
and are patterned after the USEPA procedure which allows granting
of delayed closure within the application proceedings for a Part
B permit.
In addition, the measure of the sufficiency of the
contingent corrective measures plan to meet the level of
justification required in the Board’s regulations
is identical in
both 35
Ill. Adm. Code 724 and 725.
Therefore, requiring
separate
adjusted
standard
petitions
would
be,
in
part,
repetitious and uneconomical.
A second issue stemming from the parties’ unfamiliarity with
the proceedings is that of the Agency’s stated reluctance to
propose terms and conditions for the adjusted standard.
This
matter was briefly discussed at hearing and will be explained
more fully here.
On August
9,
1990,
in R90-2,
the Board issued
an order which discussed the comments submitted to the Board
during the post-adoption comment period.
The Agency had
submitted comments raising questions about the use of the
130—355
8
adjusted
standard
procedure.
The
Board
stated
in
response
to
the
comments:
“The adjusted standard will be incorporated into the
RCRA
permit, and all reporting pursuant to the adjusted
standard will be directed to the Agency.
*
*
*
The, Agency cannot issue a
RCRA
permit for continued
operation of such units without an adjusted standard.
*
*
*
The
Agency will need to actively participate in the
adjusted standard proceeding to assure that the permit
staff reviews the plan submitted to the Board,
and
provides timely input into the Board’s decision
process.
Following approval of the adjusted standard,
the Agency will be required to modify any RCRA permit
in accordance with the adjusted standard.”
In the Matter of:
RCRA Update, USEPA Regulations, R90-2,
114 PCB 477, August
9, 1990.
The Board’s statements were intended to help avoid the
situation which briefly occurred in this matter.
That situation
arose when the Agency’s responses indicated its intent to refrain
from negotiating terms and conditions of the adjusted standard in
favor of imposing terms and conditions during its permit review
process.
The Agency clearly has the authority to impose
conditions on a permits pursuant to Section 39 of the
Environmental Protection Act,
Ill. Rev. Stat.
1991.
ch.
111 1/2,
par.
1039.
But, the Agency could not impose conditions which
might conflict with the adjusted standard; the conditions would
have to be based on the Board’s regulations as modified by the
adjusted standard.
The potential for conflict between conditions
in the permit and those in the adjusted standard can be avoided
by the Agency’s early review and participation in the adjusted
standards proceedings.
For these reasons, the Board encouraged
Olin and the Agency to work together on the language for this
adjusted standard.
A third issue, concerning certain terminology in the
regulations, was raised by the Agency at hearing.
The Agency
noted that the regulations used the terms “corrective measures
plan”
and “contingent corrective measures plan”
in subsection
(e)
without identifying if the terms were identical or different.
For clarification purposes, the Board here finds that these terms
are identical in meaning.
130—356
9
Two
additional
issues
arose
in this proceeding because of a
release from the Lagoon prior to the initiation of this
proceeding.5
The Agency’s amended response states that it has
knowledge “that a release or releases have occurred from the
surface impoundment unit.”
At hearing, Olin stated that it had
“made a determination of a release of something from some
facility, but
it
did not appear to be from
the lagoon.”
Tr.
at 91.
The first issue arising from the release is that,
pursuant to subsection
(e) (5), an additional level of
justification is imposed requiring that the owner or operator
must beg~Lnto implement the contingent dorrective measures plan.
The requirements of a contingent corrective measures plan
are governed by subsection
(e) (3).
Pursuant to
(e) (3) (A),
a
contingent corrective measures plan “must meet the requirements
of
a corrective action plan under Section 724.199, based upon the
assumption that a release has been detected from the unit.”
Therefore, as discussed in the opinion for R90-2, when the
contingent corrective measures plan is implemented after a
release, the plan actually becomes the corrective action plan.
The Agency’s amended response states that Olin’s contingent
corrective measures plan “appears to be in general conformity
with the requirements
of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 725.213(e) (3) and
725.213(e)(5).”
The Board notes that the language of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 724.213
(e)(3)
and 724.213(e) (5)
is identical to the
sections of Part 725 mentioned by the Agency.
Therefore,
the
Board finds that Olin has met the additional level of
justification based on a release event at the Lagoon for both
Part 724 and Part 725.
The second issue stemming from the release concerns
subsections
(e) (5)
and
(e) (8) (C).
Subsection
(e) (5) governs the
actions of an owner or operator after a release and requires that
an owner or operator;
“A)
Within 35 days,
file with the Board a petition for
adjusted standard.
If the Board finds that it is
necessary to do so in order to protect human health and
the environment, the Board will modify the adjusted
standard
.
.
.“
Subsection
(e)
(8) (C) (iv)
states
that;
“C)
The Board will include the following conditions in
granting an adjusted standard pursuant to subsection
(e) (1):
~
A release from a permitted facility is defined at
35
Ill.
Adm.Code 724.213(e)(4).
A release from an interim status facility
is defined at 35 Ill. Adm.Code 725.213(e)(4).
The two definitions’
are different.
130—357
10
iv)
A requirement that,
in the event of a release,
the
owner or operator shall: within 35 days,
file with
the
Board
a
petition for adjusted standard;
implement the corrective measures plan;
and,
file
semi—annual-reports with the Agency.”
The problem is how these statutory requirements that contemplate
a future event should be implemented in an adjusted standard
where the event has already occurred.
The’ parties addressedthis issue in their joint motion filed
September 13,
1991.
The parties stated:
The parties have previously stated their positions that
this provision is either not applicable to the Olin
situation since a release has already occurred, or if
the provision is applicable,
that the contingent
corrective measures plan submitted by Olin assures a
proper response given conditions known at this time.”
In addition, the joint motion expresses the intent of the parties
to tailor the requirements for adjusted standard for delayed
closure to the specific circumstances of Olin.
The parties
further state that they “recognize that the filing of subsequent
petitions
.
.
.
may become necessary” and have provided for such
occurrences
in the proposed suggested language.
Based on the information before it,6 the Board finds that
Olin has made a sufficient showing to fulfill the justification
requirements for an adjusted standard pursuant to 35 Ill.
Adni.
Code 724.213(e)’ and 725.213(e).
Specifically, Olin has shown
that its removal plan and contingent corrective measures plan
meet the requirements of
35 Ill. Adm. Code 724.213(e) (2)
and
(3)
and the requirements. of
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 725.213(e) (2) and
(3).
Additionally, Olin has provided the information necessary to
fulfill the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.Subpart G.
The
language of the order granting an adjusted standard is based
largely on the joint motion to file agreed suggested language.
Some
format
and
nonsubstantive
changes
were
made
by
the
Board.
Lastly, even though Olin has already carried out its Hazardous
Waste Removal Plan, to fulfill the requirements of subsection
(e) (8) (C) (i)
and
(ii) the adjusted standard retains a condition
requiring removal pursuant to a hazardous waste removal plan.
6
We
suggest
that
the
parties
review
the
delayed
closure
adjusted standard petition as amended and the Agency response in AS
91-4, Amoco Oil Company, with respect to the regulations from which
an adjusted standard
is sought.
We also note that the Board
is
placing AS 91-4 on the decision agenda at its March 12, 1992 Board
meeting.
130—358
11
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
A.
Pursuant to the authority of Section 28.1 of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act, the Board hereby adopts the
following Adjusted Standard.
This Adjusted Standard becomes
effective on February 27,
1992 and is subject to the
conditions stated in
(C) through
(I) below.
B.
Olin Corporation (“Olin”)
is hereby granted an adjusted
standard in accordance with 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 724.213(e)
and
35 Ill. Adm. Code 725.213(e).
Subject to the conditions set
forth below, Olin is permitted to operate Olin’s Zone 6
Emergency Holding Lagoon
(the “Lagoon”)
located at Olin’s
East Alton Plant in Madison County,
Illinois,
for receipt of
only non—hazardous wastewater until the year 2039,
at which
time the lagoon shall be permanently closed in accordance
with I
(a) and
(b).
C.
Olin must remove hazardous wastes from the Lagoon in
accordance with the Hazardous Waste Removal Plan submitted
as part of Olin’s Petition for an Adjusted Standard
(“Olin’s
Petition”) which was filed on November
20,
1990.
D.
In the event of a release requiring implementation of the
Contingent Corrective Measures Plan submitted as part of
Olin’s Petition, Olin shall
(a)
implement the measures called for in the Contingent
Corrective Measures Plan;
and
(b)
file semi—annual reports, pursuant to Section
724.213(e) (6) or 725.213(e) (6)
as applicable, with the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”).
E.
In the event that the Agency determines that Olin has failed
to make substantial progress in implementing the Contingent
Corrective Measures Plan and achieving the facility’s
groundwater protection standard for the Lagoon,
it may
petition the Board to modify the Adjusted Standard.
The
action levels set out in Olin’s Contingent Corrective
Measures Plan shall be the groundwater protection standards
for the lagoon.
F.
Any party hereto may petition at any time the Board to
modify the terms and conditions of this Adjusted Standard.
G.
Termination of the Adjusted Standard.
130—359
12
(a)
This Adjusted Standard shall terminate if Olin fails to
implement
the
Contingent
Corrective
Measures
Plan
when
required by Condition D.
(b)
This Adjusted Standard shall automatically terminate if
Olin fails to implement the Hazardous Waste- Removal
Plan submitted in conjunction with Olin’s Petition.
I.
In
the
event
that
this
Adjusted
Standard
is
terminated,
Olin
shall commence closure of the Lagoon in accordance with,
(a)
the Amended Plan for Delayed Closure as approved by the
Agency and
-
(b)
35
Ill. Adm. Code 724 or 725,
as applicable.
Section 41 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111 1/2,
par.
1041, provides for appeal
of final orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the
Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I., Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certif
that the abov
pinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
-
day of
_________________,
1992,
by
a
vote of
-7--,~’
.
~
~..-
Dorothy N.
G)41n,
CThrk’
Illinois Po~utionControl Board
130—360
