Dated: June 29, 2006
Gardner Carton & Douglas LLP
191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago,
312)
312 569-1441
569-3441
Illinois
(Office)(Fax)60606
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDFiECrE1VED
CLERK'S OFFICE
Des Plaines River Watershed
Alliance, Livable Communities
Alliance, Prairie Rivers Network,
and Sierra Club,
Petitioners
)
v.
)
Illinois Environmental Protection
)
Agency and Village of New Lenox, )
Respondents
)
NOTICE OF FILING
Bradley P . Halloran
Albert F . Ettinger
Hearing Officer
Senior Staff Attorney
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Environmental Law & Policy Center
James R
. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Sanjay K. Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 2 ,2006 e Village of e Lenox has fil d
the attached Respondent Village of New Lenox ost
Brief.
JUN 2 9 2006
PCB 04-88
STATE OF ILLINOIS
(Third party NPDES Permit Appeal
Control Board
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA
CLERK'S
MC
EOFFICEIV
E D
Des Plaines River Watershed
)
JUN 2
9
2006
Alliance, Livable Communities
)
PCB 04-88
Pollution OF
ILLINOIS
Alliance, Prairie Rivers Network,
)
and Sierra Club,
)
(Third party NPDES Permit Appeal Water)
Petitioners
)
v.
)
Illinois Environmental Protection
)
Agency and Village of New Lenox, )
Respondents
)
RESPONDENT VILLAGE OF NEW LENOX'S, POST-HEARING BRIEF
NOW COMES the Respondent, the VILLAGE OF NEW LENOX ("Village"), by and
through its attorney, Roy M . Harsch, of Gardner Carton & Douglas, and hereby files its post-
hearing brief in the above-captioned matter .
I.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Have Petitioners met their burden of proof that the permit as issued by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") to the Village for the expansion of the Village's
existing wastewater treatment plant was issued in violation of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act ("Act") and the Illinois Pollution Control Board's ("Board") regulations such that
an appeal from the IEPA's decision should be granted?
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Board should disregard Petitioners' arguments in this third party appeal of the
National Discharge Elimination System Permit ("NPDES") issued to the Village and therefore,
the Board should uphold the NPDES Permit as issued by IEPA on October 31, 2003 for the
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
following reasons. First, Petitioners bear the burden to prove that the permit as issued violates
the Act or Board regulations . 415 ILCS 5/40(a)(1)(2004) ; 35 111. Adm. Code § 105 .112 (a).
Petitioners have failed to meet their burden, as was evidenced on November 17, 2005, when the
Board denied Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment . Second, the record shows that the
IEPA complied with the applicable statutes and regulations as set forth in the Act and Board
regulations . The IEPA determined that the NPDES permit application and supporting
information demonstrated that the Village was entitled to the issuance of the NPDES permit for
the expansion of its wastewater treatment plant . Third, the IEPA considered Petitioners'
comments to the Village's draft permit concerning nutrient treatment, offensive conditions,
dissolved oxygen, pH and copper, as well as the Board's antidegredation regulations in issuing of
the NPDES permit
. In response to such comments, the IEPA changed the Village's draft permit
to incorporate ammonia limits during the spring/fall months, total dissolved solids, and dissolved
oxygen limits .
Finally, notwithstanding the above arguments, Respondent further submits that its due
process rights have been violated . This is because Respondents' discovery requests were denied,
and Petitioners did not make their witnesses available at the adjudicatory hearing before the
Board
. The Board has already determined that there are unresolved issues of material facts as was
concluded when the Board denied Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment . Thus, if this
Board renders a decision that Petitioners have met their burden of proof by relying upon the
public comments at the IEPA public hearing, the Board would be relying upon unswom
comments made with no opportunity by Respondents to question the commentators, no ability to
seek discovery to clarify such arguments, and no ability to examine such comments at the
adjudicatory hearing
. Such a determination made under these circumstances would contravene
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
2
the Board's procedural rules at 35 111. Adm. Code §§ 101 .610 and 101 .612, past Board decisions,
the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, Illinois Court decisions, and the Illinois Constitution .
For these reasons, Petitioners appeal should be denied and the Board should defer to the permit
as issued by the IEPA .
III. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In this matter, Petitioners seek to challenge the NPDES Permit issued to the Village by
the IEPA for the expansion of the Village's existing wastewater treatment plant that will serve
the growth in population occurring in the Village . The relevant case history is as follows .
On June 10, 2002, the IEPA received the Village's application for expansion of its
existing waste water treatment plant built in 1973 from 1 .54 million gallons per day ("MGD")
design average flow to 2 .516 MGD. This expansion was needed to provide sanitary waste
treatment to service projected population growth and because the existing plant was operating at
85 percent capacity (Record at 354 and 424) . The IEPA gave public notice of the draft NPDES
permit on January 5, 2003 (Record at 598) . At Petitioners' request, the IEPA held a public
hearing on April 24, 2003 where Petitioners were provided the opportunity to comment on the
draft NDPES permit (Record at 61-104). Following the public hearing, the Petitioners provided
written comments (Record at 107-322)
. Thereafter, the IEPA prepared a responsiveness
summary to these public comments (Record at 339-376) . IEPA issued a final NPDES permit
with changes in response to the Public Comments on October 31, 2003 (Record at 353) .
On December 2, 2003, Petitioners filed this present appeal of the NPDES permit issued to
the Village. On December 18, 2003, the Board accepted the third party NPDES permit appeal
as required by 35 Ill . Adm. Code 105 .210 and Section 40(e)(2) of the Act
. On January 5, 2004
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
3
the IEPA filed the Record . On August 24, 2005, the Hearing Officer granted the IEPA's motion
to amend the record and therefore, accepted the Second Amended Record
.
On March 2, 2004 the Hearing Officer directed the parties to file a discovery schedule,
and on March 11, 2004 the Village proposed a 240-day schedule
. The IEPA proposed a
discovery schedule closing on January 10, 2005 and a proposed hearing date of March 10,
2005.' Petitioners stated that they did not believe any discovery was necessary
. As requested
by the Hearing Officer's Order dated April 1, 2004, the parties submitted briefs addressing the
need for and justification of the proposed discovery
. The discovery issue was thoroughly
briefed by the parties by the end of April of 2004
. On November 17, 2005, the Board found that
neither the IEPA nor the Village had justified the discovery sought and directed the Hearing
Officer to proceed with holding a hearing consistent with the November 17, 2005 Board order .
During the pending of the discovery dispute, Petitioners filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on February 4, 2005 . The Board rejected the Village's Motion to Stay the Motion for
Summary Judgment, and the parties were ordered to file briefs regarding the Motion for
Summary Judgment . On May 25, 2005, the Village filed its Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and its Response to Petitioners
Statement of Relevant Facts from the Agency Record . The IEPA filed its Agency's Response to
Petitioners Motion for said Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary Judgment .
Petitioners' Reply Regarding Relevant Facts in the Agency Record was filed on June 8, 2005 .
On November 17, 2005, the Board found there were significant factual disputes and
genuine issues of material fact with respect to each of the issues raised by Petitioners and
'The actual hearing was held on March 30, 2006 which is more than one-year after a hearing would have
been held pursuant to both discovery schedules
.
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
4
therefore, denied the requested summary judgment with respect to each issue . In its conclusion
(found on page 40 of the November 17, 2005 order), the Board directed the appeal to proceed to
hearing. A hearing was held on March 30, 2006. Petitioners chose not to present any witnesses
or evidence at the hearing
. In response, neither the IEPA nor the Village presented any
witnesses . On April 21, 2006, Petitioners filed their Post Hearing Memorandum
. Pursuant to
the extensions granted by the Hearing Officer, the Village files this Post Hearing Brief.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
In order to facilitate and coordinate the Board's review of the record, the Village requests
that the Village of New Lenox's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for
Summary Judgment and Response of Village of New Lenox to Petitioners' Statement of
Relevant Facts from the Agency Record filed on May 25, 2005 and the IEPA's Agency's
Response to Petitioners' Motion for and Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary
Judgment filed on May 25, 2005 be incorporated into this Post Hearing Brief as though fully set
forth herein . The Board has previously reviewed and relied upon these pleadings which contain
extensive references to the record as part of its basis for denying the Petitioners' Motion for
Summary Judgment in its November 17, 2005 order .
V. ARGUEMENT
A. PETITIONERS HAVE NOT MET THEIR BURDEN AND THEREFORE,
THE BOARD SHOULD UPHOLD THE PERMIT AS ISSUED BY IEPA
In this case, Petitioners, as third party appellants, bear "the burden of proving that the
permit, as issued to the Village, would violate the act or Board regulations ." Prairie Rivers
Network v. IPCB, 269 Ill . Dec. 575, 582, 335 Ill . App. 3d 391, 400-401 (Ill . App . 4th 2002)
appeal denied 273 Ill. Dec . 143, 203 Ill .2d 569 (Ill. App. 4`h 2002) .
As set forth in the
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
5
November 17, 2005 order, "the Board has previously concluded that Section 40(e)(3) of the Act
unequivocally places the burden of proof on Petitioner, regardless of whether the Petitioner is a
permit applicant, an applicant or a third party ."
Prairie Rivers Network v
. IEPA and Black
Beauty Coal Co .,
PCB 01-112, Slip Op
. at 8 (August 9, 2001), (citing 415 ILCS 5/40(e)(3)
(2000))
. The Board then stated that "IEPA's decision to issue the permit in this instance must
be supported by substantial evidence
.
This does not, however, shift the burden away from
Petitioner, who alone bears the burden of proof in this matter
."
Prairie Rivers Network v. IEPA
and Black Beauty Coal Co.,
PCB 01-112, Slip Op
. at 9, (August 9, 2001), (citing Waste
Management v. IEPA,
PCB 84-45, PCB 84-61, PCB 84-68 (consolidated) Slip Op
. at 3-10
(November 26, 1984)) .
Arguments raised by Petitioners that the Village has failed to show that its requested
permit would not violate the Act or Board regulations, should be rejected by the Board as an
improper attempt to shift what is clearly Petitioners' burden
.
While the Village respectfully disagrees with certain of the Board's rulings in this
proceeding, as set forth below in Section B, the November 17, 2005 decision of the Board
denying Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment, coupled with Petitioners decision not to
present any case at the hearing held on March 30, 2006, should be dispositive of this appeal
.
The Board's November 17, 2005 order provides a thorough examination of the arguments
raised by Petitioners in their Motion for Summary Judgment concerning all of the issues raised
in this NPDES Permit appeal
:
nutrient loadings, offensive water conditions standard and
copper water quality standard
. Before denying the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Board
examined on an issue-by-issue basis the arguments presented by Petitioners in support of their
Motion for Summary Judgment, followed by an analysis of the IEPA's responses, and then the
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
6
Village's response which was then followed by Petitioners' reply
. (November 17, 2005 Board
Order, 8-40) .
As set forth in page 8 of the November 17, 2005 order, "The Board will then conclude
each section with an analysis of findings on that issue before reaching its conclusion on the
Motion for Summary Judgment and issuing its order." With respect to each issue presented by
Petitioners the Board found that it "cannot conclude that there is no genuine issue of material
fact" and concluded that "significant factual issues remain unresolved with regard to the
matters" and therefore, the Board denied Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment on each of
the three issues
. (November 17, 2005 Board Order, 40)
The Board has found that there exists in the record facts that support the IEPA's decision
to issue the permit in question with respect to each of the issues raised by Petitioner in its appeal
.
The denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment put Petitioners on notice of the Board's
recognition that such material facts supporting the issuance of the permit exist in the record
.
Nevertheless, Petitioners chose not to present any case at the hearing and relied solely on the
record before the IEPA . Having lost its Motion for Summary Judgment and electing not to
proceed with any additional testimony at the hearing in this matter, Petitioners have not met their
burden to show that IEPA's decision to issue the permit in question is not supported . The very
facts that the Board has cited and relied upon in denying Petitioners' Motion for Summary
Judgment are controlling . Petitioners have not met their burden of showing that the NPDES
permit as issued, violates the Act or Board's regulations
. Therefore, the Board should defer to the
IEPA decision in issuing the NPDES permit and uphold the permit as issued on October 2003 .
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
7
B. THE BOARD HAS VIOLATED RESPONDENTS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
AND CONTRAVENED ITS OWN REGULATIONS BY DENYING
RESPONDENTS DISCOVERY REQUESTS
1 .
Discovery is consistent with Board's rules and purpose
The Village respectfully disagrees with the Board's November 17, 2005 decision to deny
the Village's and IEPA's request for discovery
. The purpose of an adjudicatory hearing is to
provide the Board with all the evidence necessary to make an informed decision in the specific
case before it, subject to the Act's limits to the kind of information the Board can consider
.' As
argued by the IEPA and the Village in their briefs in support of their request discovery and as
noted in pages 36 and 37 of the November 17, 2005 Board Opinion, discovery is authorized by
the Board's procedural rules pursuant to 35 Ill
. Adm. Code §105
.100 and is consistent with past
Board NPDES Permit appeal cases, (including third party permit appeal cases), where discovery
has been allowed
(See Prairie Rivers Network v. IEPA and Black Beauty Coal Co
., PCB 01-112,
(August 9, 2001))
. The IEPA and the Village presented arguments and examples of where
discovery could be useful in attempting to resolve the material issues of fact that were found by
the Board in reviewing Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment
. (November 17, 2005 Board
Order, 33-40)
. Thereby, providing the necessary evidence to effectuate an informed decision by
this Board.
In presenting this position, the Village readily admits and understands that the appeal is
based upon the record amassed before the IEPA at the time of final permit decision pursuant to
Section 40(e)(3) of the Act
. The Board's statement on page 38 of its November 17, 2005 order
that discovery was inappropriate because the Board review is limited to the record before IEPA at
at
2
also,
See
:<http35
"Citizens
III:www
. Adm.ipcbGuide
. Code
.stateto
§
.ilthe
101.us/AboutTheBoard/CitizensGuidetotheBoardIllinois
.610.
Pollution Control Board- Adjudicatory
.asp?Section=HearingsHearings
." Available
. See
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
8
the time of permitting decision and is not based on information developed by the permit
applicant, or the IEPA after the IEPA's decision, misses the point made by the IEPA and the
Village.
As acknowledged by IEPA, the public hearing on a proposed NPDES Permit decision is a
legislative informal hearing to inform the public of the proposed agency decision and to garner
public comments prior to the IEPA's final decision
. (IEPA Brief at 7 citing 35 111
. Adm. Code
§ 166 .120)
. In agreeing with Petitioners that discovery is not allowed in this third party NPDES
Permit Appeal, the Board is in effect rewriting its procedural rules
. The appropriate reading of
the requirements of the Act is set forth in IEPA and the Village's pleadings
. The review before
the Board is based upon the record before the IEPA at the time of permit issuance
. However,
factual issues presented in the record may be, and should be, subject to discovery to assist the
Board in makings its determination
. Discovery therefore serves the purpose of allowing any
party to the proceeding to present clarifying testimony, including expert testimony, regarding
such facts raised before the IEPA and included in the record
.
At the time of the original adoption in of the NPDES rules, IEPA told the Board that its
resources did not allow for holding two contested adjudicatory hearings, one at the Board and
another before the IEPA
. Harsch, Roy M
. and Gail C . Ginsberg,
The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System in Illinois,
27 DePaul L .Rev
. 739, 747-750 (1978)
. The Board
concurred and provided that the hearing at the IEPA would be an uncontested public
informational hearing with the opportunity for a contested formal adjudicatory hearing at the
Board on appeal, as provided in sections 32 and 33(a) of the Act
. Id. ILL
. REV. STAT
. ch
. 111
'/2 §§ 1032, 1033(a) (1975)
. This decision was in accordance with the then current USEPA
regulations mandating what must be in a State program to support delegation of the NPDES
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
9
permit program . While the USEPA has since changed its rules to reflect its current system of
uniform appeals to the Environmental Appeals Board ("EAB")(See 65 Fed . Reg. 30,886 (May
15, 2000)), no changes to the Board's procedural rules have been made that alter the nature of
informal IEPA hearing and the Board's Adjudicatory hearing .
In not allowing for discovery in this third party NPDES appeal, where the Board has
found material issues of fact exist in the record, the Board has ignored its own rules, the Illinois
Administrative Review Act, and Illinois case law, and the Illinois Constitution . In this case,
there was no forum to cross-examine or even question those who spoke at the IEPA's public
hearing
. Moreover, with the Board's decision denying Respondents request for discovery and
Petitioners choosing not to present these people to testify at the Board's formal hearing, the IEPA
and the Village were not afforded the opportunity to explore the basis for and validity of public
comments that are set forth in the record and what the Board may possibly will rely upon in
making its determination.
If the Board chooses to rely upon these public comments made at the uncontested IEPA
informal hearing prior to the permit issuance, the Board will have determined that these "facts"
outweigh the facts supported in the record notwithstanding the Board's analysis when it denied
Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment . Given that the Appellate Court defers to the
Board's finding of facts, such Board action effectively denies Respondent the opportunity to seek
meaningful review of such public comments either before the Board or at the Appellate Court .
2.
The Board has infringed upon the Respondents' Due Process rights because
discovery is necessary to effectuate an accurate determination of the facts in
the record .
The Village raises this issue in order to preserve this argument for purposes of appeal and
as a means to convey to the Board the importance of allowing discovery before the Board in
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
10
future proceedings as is permitted in Board rules found at 35 Ill
. Adm. Code § 105 .100 and
consistent with Illinois law as found in
Prairie Rivers Network v. IEPA and Black Beauty Coal
Co., PCB 01-112, Slip Op
. at 8 (August 9, 2001)
. In the event that the Board agrees to uphold
the permit as issued by IEPA, this issue is moot .
The Illinois Supreme Court has recognized and this Board has confirmed that "The
safeguards of a due process hearing are absent until the Hearing before the Board
." Village of
Lake Barrington et
. al v. IEPA and Village of
Wauconda, PCB 05-55, slip
op. at 18 (April 21,
2005) (citing IEPA v
. PCB, 115 Ill. 2d 65, 70 (1986))
. Moreover, the Illinois Supreme Court has
stated that when government agencies adjudicate or make binding determinations which directly
affect the legal rights of individuals, it is imperative that those agencies use procedures which
have traditionally been associated with the judicial process
. Village ofLake
Barrington, slip op .
at 19 (citing Klaeren II v
. Village of Lisle, 202 Ill
. 2d 164, 184 (2002))
. The process before the
IEPA is a fact-finding investigation, while the process before the Board is an adjudication that
directly affects the legal rights of an individual
. Id.
The Illinois Administrative Procedure Act supports the same conclusion
.
In Borg-
Warner Corporation v. Mauzy, 100 Ill .
App . 3d 862, 872 (Ill
. App. 3`d 1981), the court held that
under the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act, no adjudication was required for the NPDES
permit applicant under either State or Federal law, prior to the time the IEPA makes its
determination to issue or deny a NPDES permit
. However, once the IEPA issues the NPDES
permit as occurred in the present case, an applicant or third party is afforded an adjudicatory
hearing before the Board as provided under sections 16 (a) and (c) of the Illinois Administrative
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
11
Procedure Act . Id. at 872.' Moreover, the hearing before the IPCB is conducted under the Rules
for adjudicatory cases . Id. at 868
. Applying such law to this case, the Village, while not entitled
to an adjudicatory-type hearing before the IEPA issued the Village's Permit, is entitled to an
adjudicatory hearing that comports to the due process requirements as incorporated into rules for
adjudicatory cases once the Village was before the IPCB .
In this NPDES permit appeal, as noted above, the Board's decision as to whether
Petitioners have met their burden of proof directly affects whether and in what manner the
Village will expand its wastewater treatment plant as allowed in the permit issued by IEPA .
Therefore, as stated by the Illinois Supreme Court and this Board, the Village must be afforded
due process in this present adjudication .
Petitioners have made assertions in their Post-Hearing Memorandum pages 10-14, based
upon statements presented at the public hearing held on April 24, 2003 . These public comments
are now in the record before the Board and are cited as support in the briefs and memorandum
that Petitioners have submitted since its request for third party NDPES permit appeal was
granted. The Village respectfully submits that the Board must proceed with caution in relying on
these statements because these statements were never subject to cross-examination by the Village
or IEPA and nor where these statements given under oath . Furthermore, this Board has
determined that there are unresolved issues of material fact as cited when they denied Petitioners'
Motion for Summary Judgment . The Village's rights are directly affected by this proceeding,
and to permit the requested discovery would provide the Board with a more complete and
clarifying record of the evidence . However, this request was denied by the Board
. As a result,
' In Borg-Warner,
the court cited to what was then the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act as
I11.Rev.Stat.1977, ch .127, par . 1016
. However, since then the cited Illinois Administrative Procedure Act
provisions have been codified under 5 ILCS 100/10-65
(a), (d), and (e).
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
12
the Village's rights may be impinged by the Board's use of these public statements that were not
subject to the due process requirements that this Board and the Illinois courts have recognized
should exist in adjudicatory cases before the Board
.
Consequently, if this Board makes its final determination based upon the record by
relying specifically on these public comments as facts, the Board will have erred by not affording
Respondents the protections of an adjudicatory hearing as required by the Board's rules, previous
Board decisions, Illinois Case law, the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, and the Illinois
Constitution.
VI
. CONCLUSION
The Petitioners have the burden of proof in this third-party NPDES appeals
. The Board in
denying its Motion for Summary Judgment on all of the issues has found facts that support the
IEPA's decision on each factual issue contained in the appeal
. The November 17, 2005 Board
order put Petitioners on notice that the Board had found facts in the Record that support the
permit issued by IEPA
.
At the hearing, Petitioners were given the opportunity to present
evidence to support what the Board already found questionable in their arguments
. Yet,
Petitioners made the decision not to present any case at the hearing
. Petitioners have therefore
not met their burden of proof
Both IEPA and Petitioners have provided the Board with
references to facts in the record in their respective pleadings in opposition to the Motion for
Summary Judgment
. These facts show that IEPA properly considered the comments of
Petitioners' and revised the NPDES permit in response to those comments
. Finally, the permit as
issued by IEPA is consistent with the law and therefore, the Board should defer to the expertise
of the IEPA and reject the Petitioners' appeal of a permit that was clearly issued in conformance
with the Act and Board regulations
.
A decision in favor of Petitioners where Respondents
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
13
request for discovery was denied would be a decision in violation of the Boards procedural rules,
past Board decisions, the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, Illinois case law, the Illinois
Constitution, and Respondent's due process rights.
Respectfully Submitted,
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Roy M
. Harsch, certify that on June 29, 2006, filed the attached
NOTICE OF FILING FOR
THE VILLAGE OF NEW LENOX
an original was filed, on recycled paper, with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, James R
. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500,
Chicago, Illinois 60601, and copies were served via United States Mail to those individuals on
the included service list
.
Dated
: June 29, 2006
Gardner Carton & Douglas LLP
191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago,
(312) 569-1441
Illinois
(Office)60606
(312) 569-3441 (Fax)
Gardner Carton & Douglas
191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 569-1441
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Bradley P . Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Albert F
. Ettinger
Senior Staff Attorney
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Sanjay K. Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
CH01/ 12478369 .1
SERVICE LIST
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
