1
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 6, 2007
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF JOHNS MANVILLE FOR AN
ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM: 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 811.310, 811.311, 811.318,
811.320 and 814
)
)
)
)
)
)
AS 04-4
(Adjusted Standard – Land)
EDWARD P. KENNEY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER; and
PETER E. ORLINSKY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
Johns Manville (JM) seeks an adjusted standard from specific landfill closure
requirements for monitoring groundwater and gas at an on-site landfill in Waukegan, Lake
County. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) recommends that the adjusted
standard be granted.
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the Environmental Protection Act
(Act) (415 ILCS 5/1
et seq.
(2006)). The Board is charged to “determine, define and implement
the environmental control standards applicable in the State of Illinois” (415 ILCS 5/5(b) (2006)),
and to “grant . . . an adjusted standard for persons who can justify such an adjustment” (415
ILCS 5/28.1(a) (2006)). More generally, the Board’s responsibility in this matter is based on the
checks and balances integral to Illinois environmental governance: the Board is charged with the
rulemaking and principal adjudicatory functions, and the IEPA is responsible for carrying out the
principal administrative duties.
The Board finds that JM has demonstrated that the factors relating to JM are substantially
and significantly different from the factors considered by the Board in adopting the rules of
general applicability. Further, the Board finds that JM has justified the grant of the adjusted
standard and the request is consistent with federal law. The Board also finds that 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.
Therefore the Board grants the adjusted standard as set forth in the Board’s order.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 30, 2004, JM filed a request (Pet.) for an adjusted standard pursuant to Section
28.1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2006)). JM seeks relief from the landfill closure requirements
pertaining to landfill gas monitoring and management, and groundwater monitoring under 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 814, 811.310(c)(1), 811.311(a)(1), 811.318(b)(4), and 811.320.
2
Section 28.1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2006)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408 require
publication of a notice of an adjusted standard proceeding in a newspaper of general circulation
in the area affected by the petitioner’s activity. The notice must be published within 14 days of
filing a petition for an adjusted standard with the Board.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408(a). As
required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.410, the petitioner timely filed a certificate of publication
with the Board on July 15, 2004. The notice of petition was published in the
News-Sun
on July
7, 2004.
Although JM had met the notice requirements, on August 5, 2004, the Board asked for
additional information regarding the request for adjusted standard and declined to accept the
petition. On September 30, 2004, petitioner filed an amended petition (Am. Pet.). The amended
petition addressed most of the deficiencies cited by the Board, changed Section 811.318(b)(4) to
Section 811.318(b)(3), and also requested relief from an additional provision set forth under 35
Ill. Adm. Code 811.320(c)(1). On November 4, 2004, the Board accepted the amended petition
for hearing and directed JM to address the two issues concerning leachate characteristics and
groundwater quality that were not addressed in the amended petition at hearing. During 2005-
2006, the petitioner was working with the IEPA to address informational deficiencies and resolve
IEPA concerns.
See
Joint Status Report (Sept. 29, 2006).
On May 22, 2007, the IEPA filed a recommendation (Rec.) and a motion to file the
recommendation
instanter
. The Board grants the motion and accepts the recommendation. The
IEPA recommends that the adjusted standard be granted as requested by JM.
On July 18, 2007, hearing was held before Board Hearing Officer Bradley Halloran (Tr.
at @). The hearing was held in Waukegan, Lake County. At the hearing, JM presented the
testimony of William Bow. The IEPA did not present witnesses and no members of the public
attended the hearing.
ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE
In both a general rulemaking and a site-specific rulemaking, the Board is required to take
the following factors into consideration: the existing physical conditions; the character of the
area involved, including the character of the surrounding land uses; zoning classifications; the
nature of the receiving body of water; and the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness
of measuring or reducing a particular type of pollution. 415 ILCS 5/27(a) (2006). The general
procedures that govern an adjusted standard proceeding are found at Section 28.1 of the Act and
the Board's procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104. Section 28.1 also requires that the
adjusted standard procedure be consistent with Section 27(a) of the Act.
Id
.
JM seeks an adjusted standard from rules of general applicability, which do not specify a
level of justification for an adjusted standard. Therefore, in determining whether an adjusted
standard should be granted from a rule of general applicability, the Board must consider, and JM
has the burden to prove, the factors at Section 28.1(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2006)):
3
1)
factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly
different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general
regulation applicable to the petitioner;
2)
the existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;
3)
the requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects
substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by
the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and
4)
the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 104.426(a) and 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2006).
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
JM’s facility is located in Waukegan, Lake County and is a 350-acre tract on the shore of
Lake Michigan. Am. Pet. at 2. JM previously manufactured building materials including
roofing and insulation products at the site. Am. Pet. at 8. The facility began operation in 1920
and employed several thousand people at the peak of manufacturing. Am. Pet. at 8-9. During
the plant’s operation, asbestos-containing building materials were manufactured until 1985 when
manufacture of asbestos-containing building materials ceased. Am. Pet. at 9. JM gradually
phased out manufacturing at the site until all manufacturing ceased in 1998 and the
manufacturing buildings were demolished in 2000-2001.
Id
. Currently only a few contract
employees are located at the facility.
Id
.
In 1983, pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. § 9605), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) placed a portion of the JM facility on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Am. Pet. at 9. The NPL is set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix B
and was published at 48
Fed. Reg.
40658 (Sept. 9, 1993).
Id
. The portion of the facility placed
on the NPL consists of approximately 120 acres.
Id
.
On June 14, 1984, JM and the USEPA executed an “Administrative Order and Consent
Decree” that required JM to conduct a “Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study” which was
submitted on July 3, 1985. Am. Pet. at 9. On June 30, 1987, the USEPA issued a decision and
the State of Illinois concurred with that decision.
Id
. On March 18, 1998, USEPA, JM, and the
State of Illinois entered the consent decree in the United States District Court of the Northern
District of Illinois.
Id
. The consent decree required placement of cover over a number of areas
where asbestos-containing waste had been disposed of at the JM facility.
Id
.
USEPA issued two “Explanations of Significant Differences” to the consent decree. The
first, in June 1987, addressed differences in remedial actions taken and the second, on September
22, 2000, provided for the closure of the wastewater treatment system and the on-site landfill.
Am. Pet. at 10. The on-site landfill was no longer required due to cessation of manufacturing
activities.
Id
. This adjusted standard and an amended federal consent decree are intended to
4
implement the provisions of the second “Explanation of Significant Differences” issued by
USEPA.
Id
.
After completion of the CERCLA action in 1992, JM filed an initial facility report to
provide for the disposal of non-asbestos waste generated from manufacturing activities at the
facility. Tr. at 22-23. The report provided that non-asbestos containing materials would be
disposed of in the former miscellaneous disposal pit that had been created as a result of the
surrounding area being built up during the CERCLA landfill work (Fill Area #1). Tr. at 23. The
former collection basin would also be used for disposal of non-asbestos containing materials (Fill
Area #2). Tr. at 23. The on-site landfill is physically located on the NPL tract and is on and
surrounded by the CERCLA units. Am. Pet. at 10; Tr. at 28.
The landfill was intended to accept inert waste but also received some putrescible waste.
More specifically, the waste deposited in the landfills was calcium silicate, which is crushed lime
and sand (limestone) used in the insulation material, roofing materials, some granules, and
miscellaneous smaller amounts of paper, cardboard, and occasional pieces of wood. Tr. at 23.
The main materials were however calcium silicate and roofing materials.
Id
. No asbestos-
containing materials were disposed of in the either of the two fill areas.
Id
. Furthermore, the
consent decree specifically prohibited disposal of asbestos-containing materials in the two fill
areas. Tr. at 24.
In preparing this adjusted standard, JM’s consultants performed additional work to
evaluate and verify what was in the on-site landfill. Tr. at 24. One method used for evaluation
was well drilling which showed that the materials disposed of in the pit were consistent with the
items JM had indicated were disposed in the landfill.
Id
., and Petitioner’s Group A at Exh. 7,
pgs. 20-21. Work was also performed to establish that how much landfill gas was being
generated and that work indicated very low pressure. Tr. at 25. Gas monitoring continued from
April 2003 until the present on a monthly basis. Tr. at 25-26. The monthly monitoring shows
very low gas pressure and no detections of landfill gas migrating. Tr. at 26.
REQUESTED RELIEF
The IEPA and the Illinois Attorney General have acknowledged that the on-site landfill is
an existing landfill subject to the Board’s rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.
Id
. Part 814
incorporates the provisions of Part 811 from which JM seeks an adjusted standard. Specifically
JM seeks and adjusted standard from:
1.
the requirements of Section 814.302 to the extent that the provisions of Sections
811.310(c)(1), 811.311(a)(1), 811.318(b)(4), and 811.320 are incorporated by
reference;
2.
the monitoring frequency for landfill gas monitoring (35 Ill. Adm. Code
811.310(c)(1));
5
3.
the requirements for implementing a landfill gas management system, specifically
the provisions relating to detection distance from the edge of the unit for
implementing such a system (35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.311(a)(1)); and
4.
the standards for the location of monitoring points found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
811.318(b)(3) and 811.320(c)(1), specifically the requirement that monitoring
wells shall be located within half the distance form the edge of the unit to the edge
of the zone of attenuation. Am. Pet. at 13.
JM is specifically seeking two types of relief. Tr. at 26. First, JM is seeking reduction in the
frequency of landfill gas monitoring from a monthly period to semi-annual for a total of five
years. Tr. at 26-27. Secondly, JM is seeking relief from the location requirements for
monitoring wells for groundwater and monitoring for gas that are currently required 100 feet
away from the edge of the waste. Tr. at 27.
The specific language requested by JM for landfill gas monitoring frequency is:
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 will be conducted. Petitioner’s Group A, Exh. 8.
And for installation of a landfill gas management system, JM offers this specific language:
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 as close as possible to, but
outside the boundary line shown on Figure 7 or the property line, whichever is
less.
Id
.
The specific language requested by JM for determination of the zone of attenuation:
In lieu of compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.320(c)(1) as applied to the On-
Site Landfill at its facility in Waukegan, Illinois, the zone of attenuation, within
which concentrations of constituents in leachate discarded from the unit may
exceed the applicable groundwater quality standard of this Section is a volume
bounded by a vertical plane located as shown on Figure 8, extending form the
ground surface to the bottom of the uppermost aquifer and excluding the volume
occupied by the waste. Petitioner’s Group A, Exh. 9.
And for the location of the groundwater monitoring points, JM offers the following:
6
In lieu of compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.318(b)(3) as applied to the On-
Site Landfill at its facility in Waukegan, Illinois Johns Manville shall install
groundwater monitoring wells at the locations specified on the attached Figure 8.
Those monitoring wells located along the proposed zone of attenuation boundary
shall be considered “AGQS” wells consistent with the requirements of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 811.318(b)(5).
Id
.
JM offers additional clarification, based on discussion with the IEPA as follows:
The location of the bottom of the uppermost aquifer shall be determined in a
manner consistent with the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.311(c)(2)(B).
Compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.317(b) shall be assessed by modeling all
applicable zone of attenuation distances, as shown on Figure 8.
It is recognized that no Maximum Allowable Predicted Concentrations or
“MAPC” wells are being proposed; all monitoring pints are considered
Applicable Groundwater Quality Standards or “AGQS” locations. As such, the
obligations described in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 319(b)(3) immediately apply, if the
concentration of one or more constituents monitored at or beyond the zone of
attenuation, as shown on Figure 8, is above the applicable groundwater quality
standards of Section 811.320 and is attributable to the On-Site Landfill. Am. Pet.
at 20.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
JM seeks and adjusted standard from the requirements contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
814 which incorporate specific requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.310(c)(1), 811.311(a)(1),
811.320(c)(1), and 811.318(b)(3). Also, JM references 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.318(b)(5) in the
requested adjusted standard.
Section 814.302 is in Subpart C, which is entitled “Standards of Existing Units Accepting
Chemical or Putrescible Wastes that Remain Open for more than Seven Years”. Section
814.302(a), in relevant part provides:
All of the requirements for new units described in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811 shall
apply to units regulated under this Subpart . . .. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.302(a).
Section 811.310(c)(1) provides:
c)
Monitoring Frequency.
1)
All gas monitoring devices, including the ambient air monitors
must be operated to obtain samples on a monthly basis for the
7
entire operating period and for a minimum of five years after
closure. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.310(c)(1).
Section 811.311(a)(1) provides:
a)
The operator shall install a gas management system if any one of the
following conditions are met:
1)
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 or beyond the property boundary or 30.5 meters (100 feet) from
the edge of the unit, whichever is less, unless the operator can
demonstrate that the detected methane concentration is not
attributable to the facility. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.311(a)(1).
Section 811.320(c)(1) provides:
c)
Determination of the Zone of Attenuation
1)
The zone of attenuation, within which concentrations of
constituents in leachate discharged from the unit may exceed the
applicable groundwater quality standard of this Section, is a
volume bounded by a vertical plane at the property boundary or
100 feet from the edge of the unit, whichever is less, extending
from the ground surface to the bottom of the uppermost aquifer
and excluding the volume occupied by the waste. 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 811.320(c)(1).
Section 811.318(b)(3) and (5) provide:
b)
Standards for the Location of Monitoring Points
3)
Monitoring wells shall be established as close to the potential
source of discharge as possible without interfering with the waste
disposal operations, and within half the distance from the edge of
the potential source of discharge to the edge of the zone of
attenuation downgradient, with respect to groundwater flow, from
the source.
* * *
5)
A minimum of at least one monitoring well shall be established at
the edge of the zone of attenuation and shall be located
downgradient with respect to groundwater flow and not excluding
the downward direction, from the unit. Such well or wells shall be
used to monitor any statistically significant increase in the
8
concentration of any constituent, in accordance with Section
811.320(e) and shall be used for determining compliance with an
applicable groundwater quality standard of Section 811.320. An
observed statistically significant increase above the applicable
groundwater quality standards of Section 811.320 in a well located
at or beyond the compliance boundary shall constitute a violation.
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.318(b)(3) and (5).
DISCUSSION
Before granting an adjusted standard, the Board must find that the factors delineated in
Section 28.1(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2006)) have been addressed such that JM is
entitled to the relief sought. The Board will summarize JM’s arguments on each of those factors,
then the Board will summarize the IEPA’s position. The Board will also summarize the
comment received. Then the Board will set forth the Board’s findings on the requested adjusted
standard.
Substantially Different Factors
The Board will first discuss generally the reasons why JM believes that the on-site
landfill is substantially different than those considered by the Board in adopting the rules of
general applicability. Next, the Board will discuss the specifics concerning the gas monitoring
requirements, then the gas management system requirements. Finally, the Board will discuss the
placement of the groundwater monitoring wells.
Generally
Mr. Bow testified that because of the characteristics of the waste disposed in JM’s on-site
landfill, the on-site landfill is much more similar to an inert waste landfill than a chemical and
putrescible waste landfill. Tr. at 53. JM states, “much of the waste in the landfill is virtually
inert, being composed primarily of calcium silicate and fiber glass-based roofing materials.”
Am. Pet. at 4. Technically, the on-site landfill is classified as a chemical and putrescible waste
landfill; however, the limited amount of landfill gas generation is much more like an inert waste
landfill. Tr. at 53. Mr. Bow testified that the difference between treating the on-site landfill as
an inert waste landfill rather than a chemical and putrescible waste landfill would have made a
difference in the adjusted standard. Tr. at 56-57.
Additionally, JM states “unlike most landfills in Illinois, the JM site was under intense
federal and state oversight since before the adoption of the Pollution Control Board’s solid waste
landfill regulations as a result of its inclusion on the Superfund National Priority List in 1983.”
Pet at 5. JM asserts that the landfill rulemaking record does not indicate that the Board
considered situations similar to JM’s on-site landfill facility, “where the [JM] facility as a whole
was subject to a Superfund consent decree which required the construction of cover to isolate
asbestos that had been historically disposed of on-site” and the on-site landfill is “surrounded by
units that were remediated under CERCLA.” Am. Pet. at 5, 10.
9
Gas Monitoring
JM points out that the Board’s statewide regulations on landfills specifically address two
types of landfills: landfills for inert waste and landfills for chemical and putrescible wastes.
Am. Pet. at 13. JM initially characterized the on-site landfill as an inert waste landfill but the
IEPA indicated that the presence of materials like wood, cardboard and paper in the landfill in
any amount meant the landfill should more properly be characterized as a chemical and
putrescible waste landfill. Am. Pet. at 14.
JM notes that Section 811.310(c)(1) of the Board’s rules applies to chemical and
putrescible waste landfills and requires landfill gas monitoring devices to be operated to obtain
samples on a monthly basis for the entire operating period of the landfill and for five years after
closure. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.310(c)(1); Am. Pet. 14-15. However, JM asserts that
investigation of the on-site landfill has found that the methane generation is more consistent with
an inert waste landfill rather than a chemical and putrescible waste landfill. Am. Pet. at 15.
JM’s investigation resulted in the following observations:
1.
measured landfill gas temperatures (approximately 50°F) were not typical of
landfill gas temperatures in a solid waste landfill, which typically range from 100
to 130°F during substantial anaerobic activity and between 130 and 160°F during
substantial aerobic activity;
2.
the vegetative grass cover over the landfill was intact, growing and healthy, and
showed no signs of burn-out, which is indicative of methane release to the landfill
surface;
3.
landfill gas pressures measured in monitoring wells were typically extremely low
(less than 0.01” of water);
4.
no malodors were noted within the landfill at any time;
5.
the carbon dioxide levels in the on-site landfill were measured to be less than 1%.
6.
no methane was present above regulatory criteria (50% of the Lower Explosive
Level (LEL)) outside the limits of the waste boundary, despite the lack of any
landfill gas collection system. Am. Pet. at 15.
These observations, according to JM, indicate negligible gas generation.
Id
.
JM maintains that while the on-site landfill may technically meet the requirements for
chemical and putrescible waste landfills, the landfill characteristics for methane are more like an
inert waste landfill. Am. Pet. at 16. JM argues that the frequency of landfill gas monitoring
required by Section 811.310(c) is not necessary and would not provide additional protection to
human health or the environment as compared to the requested adjusted standard.
Id
.
Gas Management System
10
JM notes that Section 811.311(a)(1) of the Board’s rules contemplates detection of
elevated methane levels below the ground surface 100 feet from the edge of the unit or the
property boundary, whichever is closer. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.311(a)(1); Am. Pet. at 16. JM
indicates that the property boundary is more than 100 feet from the edge of the unit, so the 100
feet mark applies to JM’s on-site landfill.
Id
. However, JM states that 100 feet from the
boundary of the on-site landfill is the area of the CERCLA landfill.
Id
.
JM states that within the area adjacent to Fill Area #1, the lateral limits of waste material
are substantially defined by the toe of the steep side slopes of the CERCLA landfill. Am. Pet. at
16-17. As to Fill Area #2, JM advanced seven soil borings between the eastern limit of the on-
site landfill and the perimeter road. Am. Pet. at 17. The soil borings indicate that roofing
materials, transite, and white granular materials are present in the area; however based on the site
history are not likely present below the surface east of the perimeter road.
Id
.
JM asserts that landfill gas monitoring, west of the perimeter road, would require
installation of wells through the engineered cover placed for closure over the CERCLA landfill
and into the underlying waste. Am. Pet. at 17. JM argues that installing, monitoring and
maintaining wells in these locations compromises the integrity of the CERCLA cover and
triggers maintenance obligations.
Id
. JM further argues that such placement also potentially
exposes the now-covered asbestos-containing waste materials to personnel collecting the air
samples.
Id
.
JM notes that whether monitoring gas beneath the cover of an adjacent landfill meets the
intention of “ground surface” as used in the rule is not clear. Am. Pet. at 17. JM opines that the
intent of the monitoring is to detect whether elevated levels of methane are generated by the
landfill and are migrating away from the unit.
Id
. JM asserts that locating landfill gas
monitoring devices at a distance of 100 feet from the on-site landfill would be very burdensome,
potentially harmful to the CERCLA site and would not provide any additional protection to
human health or the environment than the proposed adjusted standard due to extremely low
levels of gas being generated by the on-site landfill.
Id
.
Groundwater Monitoring
JM points out that Section 811.318(b)(3) of the Board’s rules provides for the placement
of Maximum Allowable Predicted Concentration (MAPC) wells within one-half the distance
from the edge of the potential source of the discharge to the edge of the zone of attenuation
downgradient, with respect to groundwater flow, from the source. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
811.318(b)(3); Am. Pet. at 18. Further, JM notes that Section 811.318(b)(5) requires at least one
monitoring well as an Applicable Groundwater Quality Standard (AGQS) well at the
downgradient limit of the zone of attenuation. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.318(b)(5); Am. Pet. at 18.
Additionally, Section 811.320(c)(1) sets forth that the horizontal extent of the zone of attenuation
as the vertical plane at the property boundary or 100 feet from the edge of the unit, whichever is
less. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.320(c)(1). JM indicates that the property boundary is more than 100
feet from the edge of the unit, so the 100 feet mark applies to JM’s on-site landfill. Am. Pet. at
16.
11
JM asserts that placement of monitoring wells at locations specified in the rules,
i.e.
50
feet for “MAPC” wells and 100 feet for “AGQS” wells, would result in the wells being located
in the areal limits of where subsurface waste materials are present as part of the CERCLA
landfill. Am. Pet. at 18. JM maintains that groundwater monitoring at the locations required in
the rules of general applicability would require either placement of the wells on the steeply
sloping sides of the CERCLA landfill or through the engineered cover placed for closure of the
CERCLA landfill. Am. Pet. at 18. Further, such placement could result in the wells being
placed through the underlying CERCLA waste materials before actually entering the underlying
groundwater-bearing zone. Am. Pet. at 18-19.
JM argues that installation, monitoring and maintenance of wells at the locations required
in the rules of general applicability is not desirable for several reasons. First drilling through
waste prior to installing monitoring wells can increase the risk of cross-contamination either by
carrying contaminants vertically downward during drilling or providing a conduit for downward
migration. Am. Pet. at 19. JM acknowledges that there are methods that can minimize the
possibility of cross contamination; however, the practices are not without risk.
Id
. JM asserts
that the use of these methods is not consistent with good environmental management practices.
Id
.
A second reason for concern is that in the case of Fill Area #1, ongoing and repetitive
operations on the steeply sloping, more erosion-prone sides of the CERCLA landfill increases
cover maintenance obligations. Am. Pet. at 19. Also such operations increase the risk of
ambient release of asbestos fiber and subsequent exposure to surrounding populations from
incremental erosion events or catastrophic slope failure.
Id
. A third concern is that any activities
that result in penetration or damage to the existing CERCLA cover must be pre-approved by
USEPA and IEPA and must adhere to health and safety protocols for the site.
Id
.
JM argues that for all these reasons locating groundwater monitoring wells as required by
the rules of general applicability would be very burdensome and would increase the risk of
contaminating the underlying groundwater. Am. Pet. at 19. Furthermore, JM asserts that the risk
of ambient release and human exposure to asbestos fiber through inadvertent and potential
catastrophic failure of the CERCLA remedy would be increased.
Id
. JM maintains that the
increased risk would not be offset by any additional degree of protection to human health or the
environment than the requested relief.
Id
. Therefore, JM argues the Board should grant the
requested relief.
Id
.
Justification
JM argues that because of the presence of the adjacent CERCLA landfill, strict
compliance with the rules of general applicability for monitoring of both gas and groundwater
could result in drilling through an engineered cover into asbestos-containing waste. Am. Pet. at
22. Such drilling could compromise the CERCLA site and the CERCLA remedy.
Id
. In
contrast, JM asserts that compliance with the proposed adjusted standard should meet the goals
of the Board regulations and be equally protective of the environment.
Id
. JM states that
12
granting the adjusted standard is justified due to the uniqueness of the site and the granting of the
adjusted standard will create a lesser risk for the CERCLA site.
Id
.
Environmental Effect
The following discussion of JM’s reasoning regarding the environmental effect of the
adjusted standard begins with a general discussion. Then the Board will discuss the gas
monitoring and gas management system requirements. Finally, the Board will discuss the
placement of the groundwater monitoring wells.
Generally
Mr. Bow testified that if both the gas management system and the groundwater
monitoring wells were placed as required by the rules of general applicability, there would be
health and safety issues. Tr. at 34. Specifically, Mr. Bow testified that the wells would be
installed halfway up the slope of a now closed CERCLA landfill and not only the actual drilling
but the equipment needed for the drilling could cause disturbances of the CERCLA landfill. Tr.
at 34-35. Furthermore, IEPA, USEPA and JM would prefer to avoid drilling through a CERCLA
cap as much as possible. Tr. at 35. Mr. Bow further testified that in his opinion the adjusted
standard requested is equally protective of the environment as the rules of general applicability.
Tr. at 54.
Gas Monitoring and Gas Management
JM contends that the intent of the gas monitoring is to detect whether elevated levels of
methane generated by the landfill are migrating away from the unit. Am. Pet. at 17. JM
concedes that the on-site landfill may technically meet the definition of a chemical and
putrescible waste unit; however, the on-site landfill is really more similar to an inert waste
landfill. Am. Pet. at 16; Tr. at 53. Thus, JM maintains that the frequency of the gas monitoring
and location of the wells as required by the rules of general applicability would not be more
protective of the environment or human health than the adjusted standard.
Id
.; Tr. at 53-54. JM
further argues that this is especially true given the potential disturbance of the CERCLA landfill.
Am. Pet. at 17.
Groundwater Monitoring
JM is requesting an adjusted standard from the groundwater monitoring requirements,
because compliance with Sections 811.318(b)(3) and 811.320(c)(1) could result in inadvertent
impacts to groundwater and exposure to asbestos fiber present beneath the CERCLA cap. Am.
Pet. at 19 and 21. JM asserts that “[a]ny adjustment to the compliance boundary would not
impact groundwater that is or may be used for human consumption” because there are no
existing users of groundwater in the area.
Id
. Further, JM opines that any adjacent properties
would not use the groundwater given the proximity of Lake Michigan.
Id
.
JM also points to factors such as the native soils, which due to the nature of the soils will
minimize the number of potential migration pathways that contamination will follow. Am. Pet.
13
at 21. JM notes that the groundwater flow and data developed about the flow indicates that
moving the zone of attenuation laterally will not result in the masking of contaminant transport
due to an unexpected change in the groundwater flow characteristics. Am. Pet. at 21-22.
Finally, JM notes that the adjusted standard will still have the edge of the zone of attenuation
located on JM’s property. Am. Pet. at 22.
JM states that the implementation of a groundwater monitoring program under Part 811 is
intended to provide for detection, assessment and potentially corrective action if a regulated unit
is adversely affecting the groundwater. JM asserts that the groundwater monitoring program
proposed in the adjusted standard petition will similarly provide for detection of potential issues
in a timely fashion, allowing officials to make decisions as to how to protect the groundwater.
Am. Pet. at 7.
Consistency with Federal Law
JM opines that because the on-site landfill is not a municipal solid waste landfill as
defined by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 6921
et. seq.
) (RCRA),
granting the adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. Am. Pet. at 13. Further JM notes
that the federal consent decree expressly contemplated the potential need for an adjusted
standard from Illinois regulations. Am. Pet. at 22-23. Thus, the granting of the adjusted
standard would not be contrary to the federal court case. Am. Pet. at 23.
IEPA Recommendation and Brief
The IEPA recommends that the adjusted standard be granted to JM. Resp. at 4. The
IEPA agrees that the adjusted standard requested is consistent with federal law and that JM has
provided sufficient justification to warrant the adjusted standard.
Id
. The IEPA also believes
that the requested adjusted standard is “at least as protective of the environment” as the rules of
general applicability.
Id
.
More specifically, the IEPA notes that on January 6, 2005, the State of Illinois and JM
entered into a consent decree that included an agreement by JM to close the on-site landfill.
Resp. at 1. The consent decree “contemplated the possibility that JM would have to obtain an
adjusted standard from the Board” to complete closure.
Id
. The IEPA has met with JM and
asked questions at hearing and as a result recommends that the adjusted standard be approved.
Id
.; Br. at 1.
The IEPA has no knowledge of the costs associated with JM’s complying with the rules
of general applicability; however, the IEPA is aware of non-monetary problems. Resp. at 3. The
IEPA agrees that very little gas is being generated and that semi-annual monitoring for gas will
be sufficient.
Id
. Further, the IEPA acknowledges that in order to locate the monitoring wells,
pursuant to the rules of general applicability, JM would need to drill through the CERCLA
engineered barrier.
Id
. The IEPA therefore agrees that the alternative locations required by the
requested adjusted standard are preferable.
Id
.
Public Comment
14
On November 23, 2004, the Board received one public comment from Jeffery C. Camplin
on behalf of the Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society (Society) (PC 1). The Society notes that
groundwater flows from the JM site to the “Federally Protected Critical Habitat and State
Dedicated Nature Preserve of Illinois Beach State Park (Nature Preserve)” and the Society is
currently seeking re-classification of the groundwater at the Nature Preserve. PC 1. In addition,
the Society points out that the JM site is bordered by property used for public access and
recreation. The Society asks that the Board consider the special protection afforded the Nature
Preserve and the surrounding land uses when considering the adjusted standard.
Id
.
The Society also has concerns that the JM site has additional pollution which could be
contaminating the groundwater and that the groundwater in the Nature Preserve could be
contaminated. PC 1. The Society asks that the Board “review” the testing done of contaminants
in the “soils, sludges, sediments, and groundwater” on the JM site and that proper testing be
performed before the adjusted standard petition is considered.
Id
. The Society commented on
the consent decrees and asked that the Board delay any decision on the petition until the State
and Federal court rule.
Id
.
Board Findings
The Board agrees that the rules of general applicability from which JM is seeking an
adjusted standard do not include a level of justification. Therefore, JM must prove the criteria of
Section 28.1(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2006)) to establish that an adjusted standard is
warranted. JM is seeking relief from the Board’s landfill regulations regarding gas monitoring,
implementation of gas management system, and location requirements for groundwater
monitoring wells. In this section of the opinion, the Board will evaluate JM’s petition, expert
testimony, and supporting documentation to determine whether JM has demonstrated compliance
with the Section 28.1(c) criteria.
As noted above, JM contends that its on-site landfill is different from the landfills
considered by the Board because: the waste contained in the landfill is virtually inert; and the
JM facility as a whole was subject to a Superfund consent decree which required the construction
of cover to isolate asbestos that had been historically disposed of on-site. Am. Pet. at 4-5.
Landfill Gas Monitoring Frequency (Section 811.310(c)(1))
Substantially different factors.
The Board’s landfill regulations under Parts 811 and
814 set forth appropriate requirements for inert waste landfills, chemical waste landfills,
putrescible waste landfills and municipal solid waste landfills. The Board’s rules do not require
gas monitoring and placement of gas monitoring systems for an inert waste landfill (
see
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 811.201-207). The Board rules also do not require monitoring of landfill gas for
“chemical waste” landfills because by definition “chemical waste” is non-putrescible,
i.e.
the
waste is not subject to biological processes that result in emission of landfill gas.
See
35 Ill.
Adm. Codes 810.103 and 811.310(a). In this regard, there appears to be some misunderstanding
of the Board rules by the petitioner when it states that the gas monitoring requirements under
Section 811.310 apply to chemical and putrescible waste landfills. Am. Pet. at 14. However,
15
because of the placement of a small amount of materials such as wood, cardboard and paper,
JM’s on-site landfill cannot be classified as either an inert waste landfill or a chemical waste
landfill, but rather a putrescible waste landfill. Therefore, gas monitoring and placement of gas
monitoring systems is required (
see
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.310, 811.311) and JM must comply
with those regulations or seek relief when appropriate.
The Board notes that gas-monitoring requirements under Part 811 are intended mainly to
apply to putrescible or municipal solid waste landfills, which emit significant amounts of landfill
gas. While the Board regulations address wastes that do not produce landfill gas, the Board did
not consider situations where a landfill would be classified as a putrescible waste landfill because
of small amount putrescible waste being placed in an otherwise inert or chemical waste landfill.
Therefore, the Board finds that the factors applicable to JM’s request for relief from landfill gas
monitoring requirements are substantially and significantly different from those considered by
the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(1) (2006).
Justification for Relief.
As to the requested relief from the gas monitoring
requirements, JM’s justification for seeking a lower monitoring frequency is that the on-site
landfill generates little gas due to the fact that the on-site landfill is more representative of an
inert waste landfill than a putrescible waste landfill. The Board notes that the results of monthly
gas monitoring data are consistent with JM’s assertions that methane production is low. Am.
Pet. Exh. 1. Some of the other observations made by JM regarding landfill gas temperature,
vegetative cover and malodor are also indicative of low landfill gas production. The Board finds
that the petitioner has provided sufficient information to justify the granting of the adjusted
standard. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(2) (2006).
Environmental Impact.
JM’s testimony at hearing is that semi-annual monitoring is
equally protective of the environment and the IEPA agrees. Again, the Board notes the monthly
monitoring frequency required by the rule of general applicability at Section 811.310(c) is
intended to address putrescible or municipal solid waste landfills where landfill gas is produced
at higher rates. The record shows that JM’s on-site landfill has very low gas production due to
the inert characteristics of the waste contained in the landfill. In light of this, the Board finds that
the requested adjusted 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. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(3) (2006).
Consistency with Federal Law.
Finally, both JM and the IEPA agree that the granting
of the adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. The Board finds that the proposed
adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(4) (2006).
Finding.
The Board finds that JM has demonstrated that an adjusted standard from the
gas-monitoring requirement at Section 811.310(c)(1) is warranted and the Board will grant the
adjusted standard.
Implementation of Landfill Gas Management System (Section 811.311(a)(1))
16
Substantially Different Factors.
The landfill gas management system provision at
Section 811.311(a)(1) requires the implementation of a gas management system if a methane
concentration greater than 50% of the lower explosive limit is detected below the ground surface
or in the ambient air at 100 feet from the edge of the unit or the property boundary, whichever is
less. Since the property boundary is at a greater distance, the 100-foot distance from the edge of
the unit applies to JM’s landfill. JM asserts that the factors that apply to its on-site landfill are
substantially different than those considered by the Board because JM’s site includes a
Superfund site that has been remediated pursuant to CERCLA and includes a closed landfill with
an engineered barrier. The CERCLA areas surround the on-site landfill at issue in this
proceeding.
According to JM, compliance with Section 811.311(a)(1) would require the placement of
the gas monitoring devices or monitoring wells approximately half way up the side slope of the
closed CERCLA landfill. Clearly, the Board’s landfill rules requiring placement of gas and
groundwater monitoring wells did not contemplate placement of such wells that would result in
significant disturbance of a closed Superfund site. Thus, the Board finds that there exist
substantially and significantly different factors for JM than those considered in adopting the rules
of general applicability. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(1) (2006).
Justification for Relief.
JM has submitted detailed information including topographic
maps to show the location of the CERCLA landfill with respect to the on-site landfill and
demonstrate that the placement of gas monitoring devices or wells in accordance with Section
811.311(a)(1) would compromise the integrity of the closed RCRA landfill. The Board notes
that JM also provided additional information and a revised Figure 8 to address concerns about
the zone of attenuation. Finally, as noted above, JM has provided sufficient information to show
that the on-site landfill does not produce significant quantities of landfill gas. The Board finds
that the existence of the substantially different factors and the supporting data justifies granting
the adjusted standard. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(2) (2006).
Environmental Impact.
As to the environmental impact of the requested adjusted
standard, the Board agrees with the petitioner that the placement of gas monitoring devices that
affect the integrity of the closed CERCLA landfill is potentially hazardous. Further, the Board
notes that under the adjusted standard, JM will continue to monitor landfill gas levels at locations
farther away from the edge of the on-site landfill. Given the inert nature of the wastes contained
in the on-site landfill and continued monitoring of landfill gas at or within the property boundary,
the Board is convinced that the proposed adjusted standard from the gas management system
requirements are at least as protective of the environment as the rules of general applicability.
Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed adjusted 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.” 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(3) (2006).
Consistency with the Federal Law.
JM and the IEPA agree that the proposed adjusted
standard is consistent with federal law. Further, both JM and the IEPA indicate that the consent
decree in federal court contemplated this adjusted standard. The Board has reviewed the record
and finds that the proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. 415 ILCS
5/28.1(c)(4) (2006).
17
Finding
. The Board finds that JM has demonstrated that an adjusted standard from the
implementation of a gas monitoring system requirement at Section 811.311(a)(1) is warranted
and the Board will grant the adjusted standard.
Location of Groundwater Monitoring Wells (Sections 811.318(b)(3) and 811.320(c)(1))
Substantially Different Factors.
JM seeks relief from groundwater monitoring well
location requirements to avoid drilling monitoring wells through the engineered cover of the
closed CERCLA landfill. Specifically, JM requests relief from Section 811.318(b)(3), which
requires placement of monitoring wells within half the distance from the edge of the potential
source of discharge to the edge of the zone of attenuation, downgradient with respect to
groundwater flow. JM also seeks relief from Section 811.320(c)(1), which sets forth, in part, that
the extent of the zone of attenuation is a volume bounded by a vertical plane at the property
boundary or 100 feet from the edge of the unit, whichever is less. JM seeks relief from Section
811.320(c)(1) because Section 811.318(b)(5) requires the placement of at least one monitoring
well at the edge of the zone of attenuation, downgradient with respect to groundwater flow.
As noted earlier, for JM’s on-site landfill, the edge of the zone of attenuation is located at
100 feet from edge of the unit, since JM’s property boundary is at a distance greater than 100
feet from the edge of the unit. The placement of monitoring wells at 100 feet from the edge of
the unit, and at a distance halfway from the edge of the unit and the edge of the zone of
attenuation, would involve the installation of wells: 1) on the steeply sloping sides of the
CERCLA landfill (Fill Area #1); 2) through the engineered cover placed for closure of the
CERCLA landfill (Fill Areas #1 and #2); and/or 3) into and through the underlying “CERCLA”
waste materials, prior to penetrating the underlying groundwater-bearing zone (Fill Areas #1 and
#2). Am. Pet. at 18-19.
The Board rules pertaining to location of monitoring wells at Section 811.318 (b)(3) are
intended to be part of the early warning groundwater monitoring requirements for chemical and
putrescible waste landfills.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.318(c) and 811.319(a)(4)(A)(ii). The
zone of attenuation requirement at Section 811.320(c)(1) is intended “to provide a buffer area
between the source of the discharge and the point at which the applicable groundwater standards
are enforced.”
See
Development, Operating And Reporting Requirements For Non-Hazardous
Waste Landfills, R88-7 (Aug. 17, 1990) at Exh. 1 pg. 76. While the groundwater monitoring
well location provisions at issue are intended for addressing groundwater contamination issues in
a timely manner, the landfill rules did not contemplate drilling wells through closed CERCLA
landfills. Thus, the Board finds that there exist substantially and significantly different factors
for JM than those considered in adopting the rules of general applicability. 415 ILCS
5/28.1(c)(1) (2006).
Justification for Relief.
JM has submitted detailed information including topographic
maps to show the location of the CERCLA landfill with respect to the on-site landfill and
demonstrate that the placement of monitoring wells in accordance with Sections 811.318(b)(3)
and 811.320(c)(1) would compromise the integrity of the closed CERCLA site. The Board notes
that JM also provided additional information and a revised Figure 8 to address concerns about
18
the zone of attenuation. The revised Figure 8 shows the zone of attenuation under the proposed
adjusted standard along with alternative locations of the monitoring wells. The Board finds that
the existence of the substantially different factors and the supporting data justifies granting the
adjusted standard. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(2) (2006).
Environmental Impact.
Regarding the environmental impact of the proposed adjusted
standard, the Board agrees with the petitioner that the placement of groundwater monitoring
wells that affect the integrity of the closed CERCLA site is potentially hazardous. As noted by
JM, compliance with the rule of general applicability would increase the risk of: contaminating
underlying groundwater; and ambient release and human exposure to asbestos fiber through
inadvertent and potentially catastrophic failure of the CERCLA remedy. Further, the Board
notes that under the adjusted standard JM is still subject to the groundwater monitoring and
compliance requirements. As clarified by the petitioner, the requirements of Section
811.319(b)(3) “immediately apply, if the concentration of one or more constituents monitored at
or beyond the zone of attenuation, as shown on Figure 8, is above the applicable groundwater
quality standards of Section 811.320 and is attributable to the On-Site Landfill.” Am. Pet. at 20.
In light of this, the Board finds that the proposed adjusted 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.” 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(3)
(2006).
Consistency with the Federal Law.
As noted above, JM and the IEPA agree that the
proposed adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. Further, both JM and the IEPA
indicate that the consent decree in federal court contemplated this adjusted standard. At hearing,
JM added that there has not been any development associated with either the State consent order
or the federal consent decree that would affect the adjusted standard proceeding. Tr. at 44. The
Board has reviewed the record and finds that the proposed adjusted standard is consistent with
federal law. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(4) (2006).
Finding.
The Board finds that JM has demonstrated that an adjusted standard from the
location requirements for groundwater monitoring wells at Sections 811.318(b)(3) and
811.320(c)(1) is warranted and the Board will grant the adjusted standard.
Requested Adjusted Standard from Part 814
Although JM seeks an adjusted standard from Part 814, the Board finds that JM’s request
for relief from Part 814 is unnecessary. Section 814.302(a) requires JM to comply with the
provisions of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811, with a few exceptions. In this proceeding, JM has
demonstrated that relief from the provisions discussed more thoroughly above is warranted.
Therefore, the Board is granting an adjusted standard to JM from specific sections in Part 811
and the Board finds that an adjusted standard from Part 814 is not necessary.
CONCLUSION
19
The Board finds that JM has proven that the factors in Section 28.1(c) of the Act (415
ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2006)) support granting the adjusted standard. Therefore, the Board will grant
JM an adjusted standard from the following requirements:
1.
the monitoring frequency for landfill gas monitoring set forth at 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 811.310(c)(1);
2.
the requirements for implementing a landfill gas management system, specifically
the provisions relating to detection distance for implementing such a system
found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.311(a)(1);
3.
the standards for the location of monitoring points found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
811.318(b)(3), specifically the requirement that monitoring wells shall be located
within half the distance from the edge of the potential discharge source to the
edge of the zone of attenuation; and
4.
the horizontal extent of the zone of attenuation specified at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
811.320(c)(1).
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ORDER
Johns Manville is hereby granted an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code
811.310(c)(1), 811.311(a)(1), 811.318(b)(3) and 811.320(c)(1). Pursuant to this adjusted
standard, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.310(c)(1), 811.311(a), 811.318(b)(3) and 811.320(c)(1) shall not
apply to Johns Manville’s on-site landfill located at its facility at 1871 North Pershing Road in
Waukegan, Illinois. The granting of this adjusted standard is contingent upon the following
conditions:
1.
Johns Manville must 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 must be conducted.
2.
Johns Manville must 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 as close as possible to, but outside the
boundary line shown on Figure 7 of the amended adjusted standard
petition (attached to and made a part of this order) or the property line,
whichever is less.
20
3.
Johns Manville must install groundwater monitoring wells at the locations
specified on Figure 8 (Rev. 1, July 19, 2007) (attached to and made a part
of this order) of the amended adjusted standard petition. Those
monitoring wells located along the proposed zone of attenuation boundary
(see condition 4) shall be considered “Applicable Groundwater Quality
Standard” (AGQS) wells consistent with the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 811.318(b)(5).
4.
The zone of attenuation for Johns Manville’s on-site landfill, within which
concentrations of constituents in leachate discharged from the unit may
exceed the applicable groundwater quality standard set forth at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 811.320, is a volume bounded by a vertical plane located as
shown on the amended adjusted standard petition Figure 8 (Rev. 1, July
19, 2007) (attached to and made a part of this order), extending from the
ground surface to the bottom of the uppermost aquifer and excluding the
volume occupied by the waste.
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41(a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board orders may
be appealed directly to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days after the Board serves the
order. 415 ILCS 5/41(a) (2006);
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906, 102.706.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois
Appellate Court, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 Ill. 2d R. 335. The
Board’s procedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final
orders may be filed with the Board within 35 days after the order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
101.520;
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, 102.700, 102.702.
I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that
the Board adopted the above opinion and order on December 6, 2007, by a vote of 4-0.
___________________________________
John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
