BEFORE TIlE ILLlNOiS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
Complainant,
v.
HAMMAN FARMS"
Respondents.
)
)
)
j
)
)
)
j
PCB No. 08-96
(Enforcement-Land,
Air,
Water)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 30, 2009, we electronically filed with the Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Conttul Board, Respondent Hamman Farms' Brief in Support of Motion to
Dismiss Counts I-III of Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby
served upon
you.
Dated:
June 30, 2009
Charles F. Helsten
Nicol. Nelson
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson LLP
100 Park Avenue
P.O.
Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
815-490-4900
Respectfully submitted,
Ou
behalf of HAMMAN FARMS
IslCharles
F. Helsten
Charles
F. Helsten
Oue
ofIts Attorneys
70566463vl 890522 66799
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2009
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, a municipal
corporation,
Complainant,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, and HAMMAN
FARMS,
Respondents.
)
)
)
l
)
)
l
l
)
PCB No. 08-96
RESPONDENT HAMMAN FARMS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNTS I-ill OF AMENDED COMPLAlNT
NOW COMES Respondent HAMMAN FARMS, by and through its attorneys
IIlNSHA W
&
CULBERTSON LLP and MUELLER ANDERSON, P.C., and in support of its
Motion to Dismiss Couuts I-III
of the Amended Complaint, pursuant to 35 Ill.Adm. Code §
101.500(.) and 735 !LCS
5/2-615,
states as follows:
Background
The Amended Complaint, in similar fashion to the original Complaint, alleges various
violations with respect to the farming operations of Haounan Farms LLC in Oswego, Kendall
County, Illinois ("the Site"). The original Complaint alleged liability against Hamman
Fanns
alone. The Amended Complaint now adds the Illinois Enviromnental Protection Agency
("Agency') as a Respondent, though the allegations in the Amended Complaint appear directed
only at Hanunan Fanns ("Hamman'). On October 16, 2008, the Pollution Control Board
("Board") granted Hamman's motion to strike allegations from the original Complaint that the
Agency had violated the Enviromnental Protection Act ("Act")
by approving Hamman's
application
of landscape waste at greater than the default agronomic rate.
In
so doing, the Board
concluded it did not have jmisdiction to entertain such an allegation. The Board simultaneously
70601589vl 890522 66799
dismissed a separate action (pCB No. 08-95) for the same reasons. Yet now, despite removing
the stricken allegations from the Complaint, Complainant has inexplicably added the Agency as
a Respondent in this action.
In
addition to striking allegations over which it had no jurisdiction, the Board also
granted Hamman's Motion to Dismiss Count III of the original Complaint on October 16, 2008,
which alleged air pollution, as Complainant failed to plead sufficient factual allegations to
support
that count. The Board also struck as frivolous Complainant's request for attorneys' fees
and costs in each
of its prayers for relief. Finally, on April 2, 2009, the Board denied Hannnan's
Motion to Reconsider portions
of its October 16, 2008 order, and also denied Hamman's Motion
to Dismiss Counts I and II
of the original Complaint as "duplicative" of an enforcement action
initiated by the State
of illinois in Kendall County Circuit Court case number OS-CH-Sl1.
Complainant
has
now filed its Amended Complaint, again containing four counts.
Counts I and II, alleging "Open Dumping" and "Landscape Waste Violations," respectively,
allege violations
of the sarne sections of the Act with only one difference. Both counts must be
dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a cause of action, as outlined below. Count
ill
again alleges air pollution, but is an insufficient attempt to cure the pleading failures of the
original Complaint. Moreover, Illost of the allegations in Count III fall outside of the two year
statute
of limitations period, and are thus barred as a matter of law. Count III must again be
disntissed in its entirety.
Hamman Farms Is Not a Landscape Waste Composting Operation
Complainant continues to allege that Hannnan Farms is an "On-Site Compost Landscape
Waste Compost Facility," pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/21(q)(3)
(see
~4
of Amended Complaint),
despite the fact that the very allegations
of the Amended Complaint squarely and directly negate
2
70601S89v1
890522 66799
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2009
the applicability of this designation. The relevant regulations define a "composting operation" as
"an enterprise engaged in the production and distribution of end-product compost." 35 Ill.Adm.
Code 830.102 (emphasis added). End-product compost is defined
to be "organic material that
bas been processed to maturity and classified as general use compost or designated use compost
in accordance with [Part 830]." 35 m.Adm. Code 830.102 (emphasis added).
Here, the Amended Complaint pleads no facts that would suggest Hannnan Farms is
engaged
in processing to maturity "end product compost."
In
fact, to the contrary, the Amended
Complaint expressly aclrnowledges that the landscape waste received at Hamman Fanns is
simply ground and then directly land-applied to the farm's fields, not processed into a product.
(See
Amended Complaint, ,5). Most importantly, the law expressly provides that "Land
application is not composting." 35 Ill.Adm. Code 830.102 (emphasis added). Thus, the facts
pled in the Amended Complaint preclude, as a matter
of law, a finding that Hanunan Farms is
engaged in any type
of "composting operation."
Complainant's allegation that Hamman receives and grinds landscape waste and then
applies the landscape waste to farm fields flatly concedes that Hannnan Farms is not engaged in
the production
of compost, and instead, directly land-applies landscape waste to its fields, an
activity which is expressly excluded from the statutory definition of composting.
See
Amended
Complaint,
,5;
see also
35 m.Adm. Code 830.102 (excluding land application from the
definition
of composting). Thus, any alleged violation conditioned upon Hannnan Fanus
operating a landscape waste compost operation must be precluded given Complainant's
admission that Hatnman Farms meets the statutory exemption.
Standard of Review
-735
ILCS
5/2-615
Section 101.500
of Title 35 of the minois Administrative Code allows the Board to
3
7060t589vl 890522 66799
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2009
entertain any motion the parties wish to file that is pennissible under the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure. A motion under 735 ILCS
512-615,
part of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure,
attacks the legal sufficiency
of the Complaint.
Platson v. NSM America, Inc.,
322 lll.App.3d
138,748 N.E.2d 1278 (2d Dis!. 2001). The Complaint is viewed in a light most favorable to the
non-moving party, however, conclusions of law or fact that are unsupported by specific factual
allegations are not entitled to deference.
Id.; First Bank of Roscoe
v.
Rinaldi,
262 IlLAppJd
179, 634 N.E.2d 1204 (2d Dist. 1994).
A
defendant is entitled to dismissal where the complaint
fails
to sufficiently set forth every essential element of fact to be proved.
Id.
Count I
Fails
to State a Claim for
Open
Dumping
Since July I, 1990, the State of Illinois
has
prohibited the depositing of landscape waste
in municipal solid waste landfill facilities. In addition to creating a system
to establish and
regulate
commercial landscape
waste disposal sites, the Legislature has also recognized that it is
in the public interest to encourage recycling and reuse of materials that would otherwise end up
in landfills and other coonnercial disposal sites.
(See
415 ILCS 5/20(0),(0)).
The State facilitates the re-use
of landscope waste material by,
inter alia,
encouraging
farmers
to apply such material to their fields as a soil conditioner and fertilizer. Contrary to
Complainant's suggestion, no pennit is required for Illinois farmers to make agronomic use of
landscape waste by applying it to their fields
to
condition the soil and improve crop yields,
See
415 ILCS 5/21(q); 35 D1.Adm. Code 830.102. Haonnan Farms is an Illinois farming operation
that makes agronomic use
of landscape waste by plowing such material directly into its fields to
condition and fertilize the soil.
See
35 IlLAdm. Code 830.102 (noting the benefits of land
application in agriculture).
4
70601589vl S905l2 66799
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2009
The Environmental Protection Act defines the agronomic rate of application of landscape
waste to be either the default rate, or the rate appropriate to a farm's crop needs or soil
characteristics. 415 !LCS 5/21 (q) (emphasis added).
In
May 2008, after reviewing the technical
and scientific data concerning Hamman Fanns' soil and crops, the Agency issued its fannal
detemrination of the appropriate anoual agronomic rate of application for Hamman Farms.
(See
Amended Complaint at Count lV,
~22).
The Agency detemrined that the soil characteristics
and/or crop needs at Hamman Farms justify application of landscape waste at a rate substantially
higher than the default rate that appears at 415 ILCS 5/21( q). Complainant admits this.
Count I
of the Amended Complaint alleges that, on October 23, 2007, the Agency
in..o;;pected Hamman fanus and '"found refuse mixed in with landscape waste," and that, "On
several occasions since Hamman began applying landscape waste, garbage has been mixed with
the landscape waste on Hanunan fields." (Amended Complaint,
~~
34, 36). The gravamen of
Count 1'5 "Open Dumping" violation is a finding that miscellaneous garbage, refuse, andlor
"litter" (see
~40)
became scattered on and aronod the Site after landscape waste was plowed into
the farm's fields in or about October 2007.
The Act, however, specifically defines uOpen Dumping" as a defendant's "Qonsolidation
of refuse from one or more sources at a disposal site that does not fulfill the requirements of a
sanitary landfilL" 415 !LeS 5/3.305 (emphasis added);
see also
1[27 of Amended Complaint.
ALthough the Act does not define the tenn "consolidation," when a statutory tenn is left
nodefmed, courts may tum to the dictionary for assistance.
Alvarez v. Pappas,
22911L2d 217,
225,890 N.E.2d 434, 440, 321 m.Doc. 712, 718 (2008) (citing
People ex reI. Daley v. Datacom
Systems Corp.,
146lll.2d I, 15, 165 IILDec. 655, 585 N.E.2d 51 (1991)).
The Merriam Webster Dictionary (online edition) defmes the term "consolidstion" as
5
70601589vl 890522 66799
"the act or process of consolidating: the state
of being
consolidated," and defines "consolidating"
as "(I) to join together into one whole; (2) to make finn or secure, strengthen; (3) to form into a
compact mass."
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consolidating. accessed on
November 14, 2008). The statutory prohibition against consolidating refuse at an Wlperrnitted
site,
which is defined as "Open Dumping," is clearly intended to prohibit the creation of piles of
waste or refuse on sites that have not been properly pennitted tor waste disposal.
Count
I,
however, does not al1ege facts suggesting there was a consolidation
of refuse
at
Hamman Fanns. Rather, to the contrary, Count I alleges that in
the
course of plowing landscape
waste into its fields, Hamman Farms allowed bits of garbage, refuse or litter to become scattered
in its fields.
(See generally,
Amended Complaint at Count
I).
The allegation that Hamman
Farms caused
or allowed garbage, refuse or litter to be disposed of and remain on its fields does
not show that Hamman Farms consolidated refuse
on its property, and so does not aUege the
fads necessary to state an
nOpen
Dumping" vioJation. Count I, therefore, alleging Open
Dumping, should be dismissed for failure to plead the necessary facts to support the cause of
""tion aUeged.
It
should be noted that the Amended Complaint appears to suggest that Hamman Farms
also "openly dumped" laod,cape waste when it applied landscape waste to its fields. However,
as Complainant acknowledges, 415 !LCS 5/21(q) expressly authorizes the land application of
landscape material in an agricultural setting, aod Complainant further admits, at paragraph 22 of
the Amended Complaint, that the minoi, Enviromnental Protection Agency
has
expressly
authorized Hammao
Fanns' laod application of landscape material to its fields. Therefore, the
allegation that Hamman Fanns utilized landscape material as a fertilizer or soil enhancement
6
70601S89vl 890522 66799
agent
by
plowing the material into its fields cannot state a cause of action for "Open Dumping."
1
Because Count I fails to allege facts showing that Hammao Fanns caused Or allowed the
consolidation
of refuse at its fann, Count I fail, to plead facts necessary to state a cause of action
for Open Dtunping. Count I should accordingly be dismissed
as a matter oflaw.
Despite being labeled "Open Dtunping Violations," Count 1 further alleges that Hammao
conducted a waste-storage and waste-disposal operation, for pnrposes
of 415 !LCS 5/21(d)(1)
and
(2) and 5/21(e), without a permit and in violation of the Act and regulations.
(See
Amended
Complaint.
1M[ 38-39). The Amended Complaint, both in Count I and Count II, cites Sections
2I(d)
and (e) of the Act for the proposition that no person shall conduct waste-storage, waste-
treatment, or
waste~disposal
operations without a
permit~
and that no person shall "Dispose, treat,
store or abandon allY waste ... except at a site or facility which meets the requirements
of this
Act
and of regulations and standards thereunder." (Amended
Complain~
Count I, 123, Count II,
1M[50-51). However, these provisions ufthe Environmental Pmtection Act and their associated
regulations are inapplicable
to Hamman Farms.
"Solid waste management" is defined in the regulations
as "waste management." 35
IlLAdm. Code 807.104.
In
turn, "waste management" is defined as ''the process of storage,
treatment or disposal
of waste, not including hauling or transport." 35 I11.Adm. Code 807.104.
The "disposal"
of waste is defined in Part 807 of the regulations as:
the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling. leaking or
1
Nor,
by
implication, can
it
state a cause of action for
u
open
dumping"
of"litterj'~
in violation of
415
!LCS 5/21(P)(1), as also alleged in Count I.
(See
~40).
In failing to state a cause of action
for <lopen dwnping" in the generic sense, Complainant has also failed to state a Cause of action
for "open dumping" of "litter" specifically, as ooe cannot openly dtunp litter specifically without
openly dtunping generally. For the same reasons outlined above, this allegation must
also be
dismissed.
7
70601589vl 890522 66799
placing of any waste into or on any land or water or into any well
so that such waste or any constituent thereof may enter the
environment or be emitted into the
air
or discharged into any
waters, including groundwater.
35 TIl.Adm. Code 807.104.
Although both Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint allege that Hanunan Farms'
use of landscape material to condition and fertilize its fields constitutes "conducting a waste
storage operation," again, the Act expressly authorizes farms to use landscape waste for
agronomic purposes to improve soil structure and crop productivity, through land application to
fields.
See
415 ILCS 5/2l(q) and 35 ll1.Adm. Code 830.102. Hanunan Farms' use oflandscape
material in its farming operation is, therefore) a statutorily-authorized use of landscape material
to improve agricultural productivity, specifically exempted from the statutory and regulatory
definitions relied upon by Complainaot.
The statutorily-auiliorized usc
of landscape waste material in farming is entirely
inconsistent with the conduct prohibited by the laws invoked by Complainaot in Counts I and II,
which were enacted to prevent unauthorized persons from developing and operating waste-
storage,
waste~treatment.
or
waste~disposal
facilities.
Plowing landscape material into farm
fields to enhance crop yields and improve soil quality, all as specifically authorized by the
Environmental Protection
Act~
carmot, as a matter of law, be equated with the
"storage:~
'treatment," or "disposa1" of waste. What Complainant is essentially asking this Board to do,
under the guise of its misconstrued "open dumping" and "permitting" violations, is to second
guess the Illinois legislature, which made a public policy decision that the application of
landscape material to farm fields at either the default or site-specific agronomic rate (as here) is
actually good for the environment, as
has becu born out at Hanunan Farms.
8
70601589v1
890$22 66799
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2009
Because such agricultural practices do not, as a matter of law, constitute the "storage,"
"treatment," or "disposal" of waste, the agricultural use of landscape material as a soil additive
does not fall within the ambit
of "waste management." As a result, the provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act regulating waste management, and the accompanying solid waste
management
(part 807) regulations do not, as a matter of law, apply to Hamman Farms. The
allegations of permitting violations in Counts I aod II, purs\UUlt to Sections 21(d)(I) aod (2) and
21(e)
of the Act should, accordingly, be dismissed.
Count II Falls to State a Caus. of Action for "Landscape
Waste Violations"
Count II
of the Amended Complaint alleges "Laodscape Waste Violations," including the
same "Open Dumping" violation (Section 21(a», and the same pennitting violations (Sections
21(d)(I) and (2) and 21(e» as are contained
in
Count 1, which should be dismissed for aU of the
same reasons outlined above with respect to Count I. The only real difference between Count I
and Count II is the added "allegation" that Hanunao
has
violated Section 21(q)(2), a legal
impossibility.
In
Couot II of the Amended Complaint, Complainant alleges that "[i]n applying
landscape waste at rates greater than the agronomic rate
of twenty (20) tons per acre per year,
Hamman does not meet the penrtit exemptions found in sections 21(q)(2) and (3) of the Act,"
and has thus "violated section 21(q)
of the Act." (Amended Complaint, Count II, 11'1152-53). As a
threshold matter, 415 !LCS 5/21(q)(2) does not mandate or prohibit anything, but instead simply
sets forth an exception to the pennitting requirements that apply to landscape waste composting
operations, which as discussed ahove Hamman Farms is not. Section 21(q)(2) explains that the
application
of landscape waste material to fields at agronomic rates does not require a pennit.
415 ILCS 5/21(q)(2). Section 21(q)(2) does not, therefore, require a person to do,
or to refrain
9
70601589vl 890522 66799
from doing, anything. Thus, one cannot ''violate'' Section 21(q)(2}. COWl! II should accordingly
be dismissed
for failing to allege a ''violation'' which is actionable under Illinois law.
However, even
if Count
II did not fail for this reason, Complainant's theory that Hamman
Farms ''violated'' Section 21(q)(2) is predicated on alleged observations at a visit to the farm in
October 2007, during which inspectors allegedly observed that landscape material had been
applied
to the farm's fields at a rate greater than the default agronomic rate of20 tons per acre.
(Ameoded Complaint, Geoeral Allegations,
,13) (providing no specific factual allegations to
deroonstrate that
the default rate was exceeded). Moreover, and quite notably, the Amended
Complaint
also acknowledges that the Agency has determined that the appropriate, site-specific
agronomic rate for Hamman Farms' use of such maLeriai is substantially l!ii.Jlg than the default
rate. (Ameoded Complaint, Geoeral Allegations, ,
22). The rate at which landscape material
was applied to the fields at Hanwtan Farms in 2007 is, bowever, irrelevant to the theory that
Hamman Farms allegedly violated
the law by allegedly operating a landscape waste composting
operation without a permit.
Assuming,
arguendo,
that COWlt II seeks a finding that Hamman Farms violated the law
by operating a landscape waste composting operation without a permit (despite the fact that the
Hamman Fanns operation is not a landscape waste composting operation), the facts alleged in
the Ameoded Complaint do not support a finding that Hamman Farms
has
operated or now
operates a landscape waste composting operation, because there is no allegation that Hamman
Farms processes landscape waste into end-product compost.
(See
discussion above at pp. 2-3).
Therefore, the alternative theory that
Hamman
Farms illegally operated a landscape waste
composting operation without a permit also fails as a matter of law, since the Amended
Complaint fails to plead the facts necessary to show that Hamman Farms was or is engaged in
10
70601589v1 890522 66799
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2009
the activities that constitute the operation of a "landscape waste composting operationh as
defined by Dlinois law.
(See
3511l.Adm. Code 830.102).
Count
ill
Falls to Plead Sufficient Facts to State a Cause of Action
Complainant still has not cured the defects which led the Board to dismiss Connt
m,
alleging aIT pollution, on October 16, 2008. This Board's procedural rules require complaints to
contain "[t]he dates, location, events, nature, extent, and strength of discharges of emissions and
consequences alleged to constitute violations of the Act and regulations." 3S 1ll.Adm. Code
103.204(c). Complainant has again only made sweeping legal assertions which lack the
specificity demanded
by the Rule.
Complainant has now included the names and addresses
of persons who have allegedly
noticed an unspecified and non-quantified Hodor" at various and sundry scattered points between
1994 and 2008.
See
Amended
Complain~
Count
m,
1M[60-65. The Amended Complaint does
not even contain an allegation that these unspecified and non-quantified "odors" are similar, or
that they have in any way been consistent at the various points alleged between 1994 and 2008.
In
fact, the allegatioos show the ""act opposite to be true. For example, paragraph 60 simply
suggests that Joann Gilbert has noticed
an "offensive" odor at various points between 1994 and
2008, and makes no allegation as to the source
of the odor. Paragraph 61 does not describe the
odor that Diane Pobol allegedly noticed at various points sometime between 2006 and 2008.
Paragraph
62 again only aUeges "the odor," without further description, and alleges that Todd
Milliron has noticed it at various points between 1996 and 2007. Paragraph
63 simply says that
Robert and
Lynn Smith have noticed "the odor" (described as ". sour smell that is worse than
typical farm smells'j "within the last ten years." Paragraph 64 alleges that Larry Alex has
noticed "the odor" (no further description) for the last two years. And fmally, paragraph 65
11
70601589vl 890522 66799
alleges that William Fowler has noticed "the odor" (described as "a fowl, moldy grass smell that
is not typical
of fanns") since 1998.
Hamman cannot be expected to respond to such nebulous allegations. This Board's rules
require specificity. There is nothing specific in these vague allegations of some undefined
"odor" that is as internally inconsistent within the Amended Complaint as this. The dstes alleged
by Complainant are far too broad and wide-ranging for Hamman to fashion a plausible response.
Moreover, Complainant has failed to sufficiently allege the location, events, and nature with
respect to each of the alleged "odors," and has not included any allegation with respoet to the
extent and strength
of the alleged "odors." Simply put, the Amended Complaint is not
sufficiently specific under this Board's procedural rules
to advise Harrunan of the extent and
nature
of the alleged violations to reasonably allow preparation of a defense. As this Board
stated
in its October 16, 2008 Order, "absent the ultimate facts on the dates or frequency and
dnration of the allegod odor emissions and the nalore and extent of the allegedly resulting
interference, Yorkville's complaint does not meet the pleading requirements, including the
requirement to advise Hamman so as to reasonably allow Hamman to prepare a defense."
10116/08 Order at 21. Complainant's vague aod non-specific allegations do not meet this
standard. As such, Count
1II must be dismissed.
In
addition to lacking the required specificity, most of Complainant's air pollution
allegations, stretching
as far back as fifteen years, are barred by the Illinois statute of limitations,
and must be stricken. Illinois law requires that actions for a statutory penalty, as here
j
be brought
within two years afler the cause of action accrued.
See
735 ILCS 5/13-202. All allegations
outside this two year period are thus barred as a matter of law. Moreover, Complainant cannot
meet the «continuing violation" exception to the limitations period under Illinois law, inasmuch
12
70601S89v1 890522 66799
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2009
as it has made no allegations in that regard in the Amended Complaint, and given the fact that
the Hamman Farms operation is seasonal, shutting down between November and April every
year.
See Carey v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation,
999 p.supp. il09, 1117 (N.D.
Ill.
1996)
(holding that under Dlinois law. a continuing violation for which the statute of limitations
governing property damage does not begin
to
run until the date of the last injury or when the
tortious activity ceases, is occasioned by continuing unlawful acts and conduct, not by continual
ill
effects from an initial violation). Beeaose most of Complainant's
air
pollution allegations are
time
barred, they must be stricken.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Defendant, DON HAMMAN FARMS LLC, prays that this Court
dismiss
COllOts I.m of the Amended Complaint, and grant such other and further relief as the
Court deems appropriate.
Dated: June
30, 2009
Charles F. Helsten
Michael F. I.sparro
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson LLP
100 Park Avenue- P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105.1389
HAMMAN FARMS
By:
"'/s/'--__________ _
One of Their Attorneys
George Mueller
Mueller Aaderson, P.C.
609 Elna Road
Ottawa,
IL 61350
815/431.1500
Phone:
815-49~0·:::4~90"'O'_
_______ '_ _____________ _'
13
70601589vl 890522 66799
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2009
AFF1DA VIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 of the minois Code of Civil
Procedure, hereby under penalty
of peJjury under the laws of the United States of America,
certifies that on June 30, 2009, she caused to be served a copy of the foregoing upon:
Mr.
Jobn T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois PoIlution Control Board
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago,lL 60601
(via .l.<lronic filing)
Bradley P. Halloran
Hearing Officer
minais Pollution Control Board
James
R.
Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 w. Randolph Street
Chicago,IL 60601
(via .man: hallorab@ipcb.state.ll.us)
Via electronic filing and/or e-mail delivery.
PCB No. 08-96
Charles F. Helsten
Nicola
A. Nelson
HJNSHA W
&
CULBERTSON
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box
1389
Rockford, IL 61 105-1389
(815) 490-4900
Thomas G. Gardiner
Michelle M. LaGrotta
GARDINER KOCH
&
WEISBERG
53 W. lackson Blvd., Ste. 950
Chicago,
IL
60604
tgardiner@gkw-Iaw.cQUl
mlagrotta@gkw-law.com
.'
70567539vl 890522 66799
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 30, 2009