RECE~VED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

JUL1

4

2OO~

IN THE

MATTER OF:

PO~t~~~d

PETITION OF

JO’LYN CORPORATION

)

and FALCON WASTE AND RECYCLING,

)

AS 04-02

INC. for an ADJUSTED STANDARD from

)

(Adjusted Standard

—

Land)

portions of 35

IIl.Adm.Code 807.103 and

)

35

Ill.Adm.Code 810.103, or

)

in the alternative, A FINDING OF

)

INAPPLICABILITY.

)

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

(See attached Service

List.)

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE that

on this

14th

day

of July

2004,

the

following

was filed

with the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board:

Supplement to

Amended

Petition for Adjusted

Standard, which is attached and herewith

served upon you.

JO’LYN CORPORATION

and

FALCON WASTE AND RECYCLING

~

orney for Petitione

Elizabeth S.

Harvey

SWANSON,

MARTIN & BELL

One IBM

Plaza,

Suite 3300

330 North Wabash Avenue

Chicago,

Illinois 60611

Telephone:

(312) 321-9100

Firm l.D.

No.

29558

CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE

I, the

undersigned

non-attorney,

state that

I

served

a copy

of the

above-described

document to

counsel of record

in the

above-captioned matter via U.S. Mail

at One

IBM Plaza,

Chicago,

IL

60611

on or

before 5:00

p.m. on July 14, 2004.

/~4I~t~

2?~

(

Je~h~tte

M.

x

Under penalties as provided by law

pursuantto

735 ILCS 5/1 -1 09,

I

certify

that the statements set forth

herein

are true and correct.

---

SERVICE LIST

AS 04-02

(Adjusted Standard

—

Land)

Mr. John J.

Kim

Division of Legal Counsel,

IEPA

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

IL 62794-9276

---

Background

On

April

21,

2004,

petitioners filed their petition

for

adjusted

standard,

or

in

the

alternative,

a finding

of

inapplicability.

Petitioners

seek

a

determination

that the

raw

material

used

in their production process

is not

a

“waste,” and that therefore they do

not

need waste permits pursuant to the

Board’s

regulations.

In the

alternative,

if the

Board

disagrees

that the

material

used

is

not

a

waste,

petitioners seek an

adjusted

standard

from

portions

of

the

Board’s

waste

regulations.

On

July

8,

2004,

in

response to

the

Board’s order,

petitioners filed an

amended petition.

This supplement to that amended

petition

clarifies

and

expands

upon

statements

regarding

the

composition

of

the

granulated bituminous shingle

material

(“GBSM”),

and

provides an additional exhibit.

Supplemental Information

One

sentence

in

petitioners’

amended

petition

is

misleading,

and

should

be

clarified.

On

page

12,

the

amended

petition states that

GBSM

contains

no fiberglass.

This

is

incorrect.

GBSM

usually contains a

very small amount

(about 2)

of fiberglass.

RECEWED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

JUN

142004

IN THE MATTEROF:

PoIlutionContr~I6oard

PETITION

OF JO’LYN CORPORATION

)

and FALCON WASTE AND

RECYCLING,

)

AS 04-02

INC. for

an ADJUSTED STANDARD from

)

(Adjusted

Standard

—

Land)

portions of 35 lll.Adm.Code 807.103 and

)

35 IIl.Adm.Code 810.103, or

)

in the alternative, A FINDING OF

)

INAPPLICABILITY.

)

SUPPLEMENT TO AMENDED PETITION FOR ADJUSTED

STANDARD

Petitioners Jo’Lyn

Corporation

(“Jo’Lyn”) and

Falcon Waste

and

Recycling,

Inc.

(“Falcon”)

(collectively,

“petitioners”)

hereby

submit this

supplement

to

their amended

petition for adjusted standard.

---

That

fiberglass

is

in

the

backing

(or

“mat”)

of

the

shingle.

Occasionally

the

manufacturer

will

do

a

run of shingles

which

uses

cardboard

or felt as

a

backing,

but

ordinarily the backing

is fiberglass.

The composition of the GBSM

is:

The asphalt used

in

shingles is harder than the asphalt used

in

pavement, which contributes to slower oxidation

I

longer life.

Crushed aggregate,

predominantly limestone.

Igneous rock or trap rock (a small cubical rock, top coat on

shingles).

Fiberglass or organic (cardboard).

This

further

explanation

of the

contents

of the

GBSM

demonstrates

the

point

already

made

by

petitioners:

that

GBSM

is

a

clean,

consistent

material

without

contaminants.

Additionally,

the

cash

values information

demonstrates that the

material

has

monetary value.

These figures

represent the cost to an

asphalt

plant to purchase

the

materials, so the figures are not directly applicable to petitioners’ process.

However,

the figures do show that the GBSM

has

a monetary value.

Percentage of Ingredients

in IKO

Chicago GBSM, per ton,

Shingle Analysis

Values

Lbs.

Dollars

Asphalt

18

360

$32.50

Filler

40

800

$2.80

Granules

40

800

$2.00

Mat

2

40

$2.00

Total ValUe

100

2,000

$37.50

Asphalt:

Filler:

Granules:

Mat:

2

---

In

addition

to

providing

this

additional

information,

petitioners

hereby

provide

Exhibit K.

This exhibit consists of nine color photos, demonstrating the

appearance and

durability of Eclipse Dust Control.

Respectfully submitted,

JO’LYN

CORPORATION and

FALCON WASTE AND RECYCLING,

INC.

By:

Michael J. Maher

Elizabeth S.

Harvey

Swanson,

Martin & Bell

One IBM

Plaza, Suite 3300

330 North Wabash Avenue

Chicago, IL 60611

312.321.9100

312.321.0990 (facsimile)

attorneys

3

---

EXHIBIT K

Photos of Eclipse Dust Control

Photo #1.

Petitioners’

first test

section,

August 2001.

This

is what

the

tab

material

looked

like

right

after

it

was

spread,

but

before

compaction.

There are many air voids which

need to be compressed.

---

Photos #2 and #3:

These two pictures are current

(2004) pictures of

petitioners’ first test section (applied

in

2001).

This

application

is over

3 years

old,

it

has weathered through heavy truck traffic and 3 winters

of

plowing.

The

pavement does

need

to

be swept.

Please

note

on

the

bottom

picture

the

bonding

of

the

material

and

the

lack

of

cracking.

---

Photo #4:

This is a current (2004)

photo of our first application.

This

demonstrates that the material bonds to black top

and shows the

darker color of Eclipse,

over the

blacktop pavement.

C

——

—

—

~

~

---

Photo #5:

This

photo

is

of a

road

(not

using

Eclipse

Dust

Control)

done

at the same time

as our first application (2001).

Please note the

cracking.

7.

---

Photo #6:

This

is a current

(2004) photo of the second application

(applied

in 2002).

It has bonded

next to the concrete

pad.

This

application has made

it through 2 winters with plowing.

r

L

---

Photo

#7:

This

is

also

a

current

(2004)

photo

of

the

second

application.

In

this

photo you

can

notice the hair line

cracking.

This

may

be

acceptable

for

blacktop

but

petitioners

have

learned,

from

their

first

test

section,

that

Eclipse

Dust

Control,

when

applied

in

larger pieces,

has greater cross bonding which

resists cracking.

Also

note the durability

by the skid mark!

---

Photos

#8

and

#9:

These

are

current

photos

of

mud

on

the

pavement, which could cause

a

hazardous condition and causes dust

once

it

has dried.

This

could

have

been

prevented

if the farm

lane

(the source of the mud) was applied with Eclipse Dust Control.