CLERK’S OFFICE
)
)
IN THE MATTER OF:
REVISIONS TO ANTIDEGRADATION RULES:
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.105, 303.205, 303.206, AND
106.990
—1
06.995
)
)
)
RO1-13
(Rulemaking-Water)
)
)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on
this date, August
10,
2001,
I filed with Dorothy Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, James
R.
Thompson
Center, 100
West Randolph,
Suite
11-500,
Chicago, IL
60601,
the enclosed Memorandum
Regarding the
Proposed
Rules,
First Notice, ofthe Environmental Law and
Policy Center, Friends ofthe Chicago River, Prairie
Rivers Network, and Sierra Club; the Pre-filed Testimony ofJack Darin; the Pre-filed Testimony
ofRobert J. Moore; and the Pre-Filed Testimony ofCynthia
L. Skrukrud.
AlbertF
Ettinger(
C#3125045)
Counselfor EnvironmentalLaw & Policy
Center, Friends ofthe Fox River, Prairie
Rivers Networkand Sierra Club
August
10, 2001
35
East Wacker Drive, Suite
1300
Chicago, IL
60601-2110
(312)
795
3707
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AUG
10
201111
STATE OF
ILLINOIs
~
0’1011
C’ontrol Board
VIi~
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
116
1
0
2001
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Po”uti~,~ Control Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
Revisions to Antidegradation Rules:
)
RO1-13
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 302.105, 303.205,
)
303.206 and
106.990-106.995
)
MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE, FIRST NOTICE,
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER, FRIENDS OF
THE FOX RIVER. PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORI( ANT) SIERRA CLUB
The Environmental Law and Policy Center ofthe Midwest, Friends ofthe Fox River,
Prairie Rivers Network and the Illinois Chapter ofthe Sierra Club (collectively “Environmental
Groups”) submit this memorandum regarding the Proposed Rule, First Notice, issued by the
Board with its
Opinion and Order ofJune 21, 2001.
General Comments
The Environmental Groups believe that the rules proposed by the Board on first notice
should be adopted as proposed, except as to a few provisions that should be clarified or
strengthened.
Generally the proposed rules create sound antidegradation standards and
regulations for Illinois that should workably protect Illinois waters from injury to existing uses
and unnecessary degradation. The Board has wisely rejected efforts to create arbitrary
exceptions from the coverage ofthe rules that would have allowed Illinois waters to be degraded
in a piecemeal fashion.
The proposed provisions for designation and protection ofOutstanding
Resource Waters (“ORW”) arealso sound.
Specific Comments on Certain Provisions of the Proposed Rule
The Board did not adopt a number ofthe proposals made by the Environmental Groups in
earlier memoranda and testimony in theseproceedings. No purpose would be served by
repeating herein arguments, suggestions orcomments that the Board has already seen and
presumably factored into its First Notice proposal or rejected. Some comment regarding certain
provisions ofthe Board’s FirstNotice Proposed Rule, however, is
useful or necessary.
Proposed Section
102.810
The Environmental Groups believe that the notice provisions for petitions relating to the
designation ofan ORW is adequate.
Proposed Section 102.830(b)(1)
This provision contains language for designation ofan ORW that speaks of“uniquely
high” biological or recreational value.
As was pointed out in one ofthe Board’squestions to the
Agency, see December 6, 2000 Tr.
at 42-3, the term “unique” is somewhat ambiguous.
The
Board would improve the clarity ofthe proposed rule if it substituted “outstanding”or “very
high”
for “uniquely high”. The most preciselanguage to use, however, would be the federal
language which is “ofexceptional recreational or ecological
significance.” See 40
CF.R.§131.12(a)(3).
Proposed Section 302.105(d)(6)
The Environmental Groups
appreciate that reconciling use ofgeneral permits witirproper
anti-degradation policy
is difficult. We are pleased that the Board has seen fit to
give direction to
the Agency against the use of general permits
for activities that may affect waters of“particular
biological significance.”
2
The Environmental Groups believe further that, particularly given the submissions and
testimony offered by the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources
at the third hearing, the term
“particular biological significance” can be more precisely set forth in the rules.
The testimony of
Rob Moore states proposed language to do this.
Proposed Section 302.105(1)
The Board was wise to adopt this section regarding performance of
antidegradation
assessments as part of the Board standards rather than leaving this matter for later Agency rule-
making.
It is critical that clear procedures be established forthe Agency as soon as possible
given the ongoing need to consider permit applications.
Proposed 302.1 05Q)(2)(B)
The meaning ofthis provision is unclear.
Perhaps there
is a misprint in this language.
In
any
event, applicants should be required to go through the permitting process before taking any
appeal to the Board.
Notice to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Consultation by the Agency with other state agencies with biological expertise
(particularly the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources) regarding permitting matters is of
great importance to the process. This is recognized by the Board in proposed
§302.105(f)(3)(C)
where it is requiredthat the comments ofIDNR and certain other bodies be summarized in the
fact sheet accompanying the public notice ofthe draft permit.
However, the proposed rule does
not clearly require that IDNR or other bodies with biological expertise be informed ofpermit
applications or the assessment process.
Obviously, there will never be any comments by IDNR
3
summarized in the public notice if IDNR receives no notice ofthe propose&permit prior to
the
time ofthe public notice.
Accordingly, wepropose that a new subsection 302.105(f)(2)(E) be added stating that:
(E) After review pursuant to subsection (f)(2)(A)(i) or receipt ofan application
pursuant to subsection (f)(2)(A)(ii), the Agency shall notify the Illinois
Department ofNatural Resources ofthe review or application as soon as
practicable to allow IDNR an opportunity to prepare comments or
recommendations prior to
issuance ofthe public notice required by
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 309.109 or CWA Section 401.
Proposed Section
303.205
Again the term “uniquely high”is used. For the reasons given above in our comment on
proposed Section 102.840, “outstanding,” “very high” or useofthe federal language is
preferable.
4
CONCLUSION
The Board should adopt in final the antidegradation standards proposed by the
Board on First Notice with the minor changes and clarifications presented and discussed in this
memorandum.
Respectfully submitted,
Albert F. Etti~ger
125045)
Counselfor Environmental Law and Policy
Center, Friends ofthe Fox River,
Prairie Rivers Network,
and Sierra
Club
35
E.
Wacker Dr. Suite
1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601-2110
312 795 3707
Jack Darn, Director
Illinois Chapter
-
Sierra Club
200 N. Michigan Ave. Suite
505
Chicago, Illinois, 60601
Robert Moore, Executive Director
Prairie Rivers Network
809 South Fifth Ave.
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Cynthia L. Skrukrud, President
Friends ofthe Fox River
4209 W.
Solon Rd.
Richmond, Illinois 60071
5
RECEIVED
CLERK’S
OrFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
~UG
1
0
2001
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
Pollution
Control
Board
)
Revisions
to Antidegradation Rules:
)
ROl-13
35
Ill. Adm. Code 302.105, 303.205,
)
303.206
and 106.990-106.95
)
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF
JACK DARIN
DIRECTOR,
SIERRA CLUB, ILLINOIS CHAPTER
Sierra Club submits the following Pre-filed Testimony ofJackDarn forpresentation to the
tb
Pollution Control Board ofthe State ofIllinois
at the August 24 hearings scheduled in the
above-referenced matter:
Testimony ofJack Darn, Director, Sierra Club, Illinois
Chapter
My name
is Jack Darn, and I am the Director ofthe Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter. The Sierra
Club, Illinois Chapter consists
ofapproximately 25,000
Sierra Club members in Illinois who are
committed to protecting
Illinois’environment for our families and for our future.
Sierra Club
members rely on Illinois’ rivers,
lakes, and
streams for drinking water, recreation, and aesthetic
value, and support efforts to protect and
enhance aquatic wildlife habitat.
In general, the Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter supports the rule as proposed by the Board.
If
enacted, the Board’sproposed rule will constitute a substantial and long overdue improvement in
protection for Illinois water quality.
Current non-degradation procedures implemented by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency are insufficient to protect Illinois waters, and fall short
ofthe protections required by the federal Clean Water Act.
We applaud the Agency for their
proposal to
initiate this proceeding to
remedy these shortcomings in existing procedures.
We believe the Board is correct in rejectingproposals to weaken the Agency’s proposal. Any
provision, such as a “de miimis” exemption or a “significance determination,” that would allow
for new increases in pollution to Illinois waters without review, would undermine the
effectiveness ofthe rule proposedby the Board and be inconsistent with the federal Clean Water
Act.
In addition, we believe that the procedures proposed by the Board for nominating Outstanding
Resource Waters will allow for sufficient notification and involvement ofaffected parties,
without unnecessarily inhibiting efforts by citizens to protectwaters that may qualify for ORW
status.
However, we are somewhat concerned that the phrase “uniquely high biological or
recreational quality” may be interpretedto
exclude unusually high quality waters from ORW
protection if they share some
fundamental characteristic with
another Illinois waterbody. We
suggest that “exceptionally”or “unusually” may be a better word in this
context than “uniquely”.
In summary, we applaud the Board for proposing what would be a substantial
improvement in
Illinois water quality standards, and urge you
to approve and move forward with your proposal
so that Illinois’rivers, lakes, and streams may soon enjoy the many societal and ecological
benefits of effective antidegradation procedures.
Jack Darin
Director
Sierra Club, Illinois
Chapter
200 N. Michigan, Suite
505
Chicago, IL
60601
CLFRg’~ OF~rc~
~
I
~2001
BEFORE THE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD OF THE STATE OF I~4f*l~3~
ILLINO[S
Pollutiop-,
Control Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
Revisions to
AntidegradationRules:
)
ROl-13
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 302.105, 303
.205,
)
303.206 and 106.990-106.95
)
PRE-FILED TESTiMONY OF ROBERT J. MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK
Prairie Rivers Network submits the following Pre-filed Testimony ofRobert J. Moore for
presentation to the Pollution Control Board ofthe State of Illinois at the August
24th hearings
scheduled in the above-referenced matter:
Testimony ofRobert J. Moore, Executive Director, Prairie Rivers Network
Myname is Robert J. Moore and I am the Executive DirectorofPrairie Rivers Network (Prairie
Rivers), a position I have held since April,
1997. I represent Prairie Rivers Network at public
meetings, hearings, and discussions ofissues dealing with water quality policy and river
conservation in the State ofIllinois.
My responsibilities include reviewing, commenting,
and
testif~’ingon NPDES permits issued in Illinois and also reviewing and participating in
discussions concerning water quality standards in Illinois.
I am a currently member ofthe
Illinois Department ofPublic Health’s Onsite WastewaterDisposal Commission, the Illinois
Department ofAgriculture’sNutrient Management Task Force, and also serve on several Illinois
EPA workgroups including ones addressing the Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis and
the impending modification ofIllinois’ Subtitle D regulations, which address water pollution
from mining activities. In addition, I represented Prairie Rivers
on the Antidegradation
Workgroup convened by Illinois EPA and whose efforts have led to the matter now before the
Board.
The mission ofPrairie Rivers Network is to protect and preserve the rivers and streams ofIllinois
and to promote the lasting health and beauty ofthe state’swatershed communities.
Founded in
1967, Prairie Rivers Network is a statewide organization that works on river conservation issues.
Our organization is concerned about the protection ofhigh quality waters throughout Illinois and
the restoration ofthose waters whose quality has been degraded.
Comments on the June
21st
Opinion ofthe Board
Prairie Rivers Network and others who value clean water and healthy lakes and streams would
like to
acknowledge the Board for their careful consideration ofthis important matter. Judging
1
from the number ofpublic comments received by the Board on this matter, this issue is
obviously a priority for members ofthe public who value the
state~s rivers. Today, Prairie Rivers
would like to provide some specific comments on the Board’sJune
21st
Opinion and Order.
Signficance Determination
The Board’sdecision to not adopt a significance determination is one which Prairie Rivers
Network fully supports.
The proposals put forth for determining the significance of a discharge
would have limited the Agency’s abilityto review alternatives that might reduce or eliminate a
proposed discharge and been more burdensome, time consuming, and costly to the Agency and
the discharger than conducting an antidegradation review. Adoption of a significance
detennination would have led to the deterioration ofwater quality in Illinois’ waters.
The Board’sdecision to not adopt a significance test allows the Agency to determine the
appropriate level ofantidegradation review, with suitable input from the permittee and other
interested parties. This is the best approach to
take.
De minimis Exception
By not
adopting the proposed language for a de minimis exception the Board has preserved the
scope and intent ofthe Clean Water Act as well as the enabling federal regulations that
specifically address the issue ofantidegradation (40 CFR 130.12).
De minimis provisions
undermine the intent of antidegradationby allowing increases ofpollutants into waters ofthe
United States without any review
and without any consideration ofthe necessity ofthat
pollution.
The Board correctly pointed out that the proposed de minimis exception would have
allowed discharges of“bioaccumulativeor persistent chemicals without an Agency review”and
would allow discharges ofpollutants which “may not be advisable in certainwater bodies.”
Prairie Rivers would also like to point out that the use of a de minimis provision, like the
proposed significancetest, could be more burdensome than an
antidegradation review and could
lead to the degradation ofIllinois’ waters.
To
determine if a discharge is
indeed de minimis the
discharger and the Agency must determine the “assimilative capacity” ofthe receiving waters
and the impact a proposed discharge would have relative to other dischargers in the vicinity.
According to the Agency, such a task would require resources which it does not have available
(Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s Answersto Pre-filed Questions received March,
2001, page 6).
Designation of Outstanding Resource Waters
Prairie Rivers Network also agrees with the Board’s decision to make theprocess ofdesignating
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) consistent with the scope and procedural requirements of
otherBoard proceedings.
By simplifying the requirements for filing the petition and public notice the Board has made the
process for designation more accessible to non-governmental organizations and has also made
2
the procedures for ORW designations consistent with similar proceedings that the Board
administers.
Other Issues Considered by the Board Opinion
Prairie Rivers agrees with the Board’s decisionto include the Agency’sproposed
implementation rules as part ofthe Board’s rulemaking. Thereis
a need to have documented
procedures for conducting antidegradation reviews in place at the time ofthe final rule’s
adoption.
This will enable the Agency to immediately implement the final rule as it reviews
pending and future applications forNPDES permits and 401
water quality certifications.
Prairie Rivers also
appreciates the Board’srecognition ofthe potential ecological significance of
streams with 7Q10 flows ofzero.
As pointed out by Dr. David Thomas and Kevin Cummings of
the Illinois Natural History Survey, there is little, if any reason to exclude these low flow streams
from consideration as ORWs. As the Board observed, three ofthe four streams recommended
for immediate designation as ORWs have 7Q10 flows of zero. The Board correctly struck the
proposed language which made designation ofa zero or low flow stream as an ORW more
difficult.
Comments on the June
21St
Order ofthe Board
Proposed 102.820(e)
Prairie Rivers does not object to inclusion ofa statement ofthe
scope described in 102.820(e),
given that it is consistent with similar Board proceedings. However, the more detailed
requirements described in subparagraphs (1)-(4) will be extremely difficult to provide to the
Board.
An analysis ofthese factors is difficult, if not impossible,
to
complete with data that
would be reasonably available to members ofthe public, or government agencies for that matter.
Proposed 102.830(b)
The use ofthe phrase “uniquely highbiological or recreational quality” in 102.830(b)(l) raises
some questions as to what is meant by a waterbeing “unique”.
This could be interpreted to
mean that the waterbody is individually unique, or one-of-a-kind, in its biological or recreational
value.
We suggest that more general language be used that is consistent with the federal
regulation on Outstanding National Resource Waters found at 40 CFR 131.1 2(a)(3) which states
that ORWs be “ofexceptional recreational or ecological significance.”
We are also uncertain ofhow the Board will be able to judge the criteria described by
102.830(b)(2).
The provision can be read to
say that the Board will designate, ornot designate, a
water as an ORW based on the relative future
environmental benefits ofdesignation
against the
future economic benefits that would be lost as a result ofdesignation.
The Board will make this decision based on information supplied by the petitioner under the
proposed 102.820(e) as well as evidence entered into the record by other interested parties. As
3
we stated earlier, this type ofregional economic analysis is
inherently difficult. In addition it is
exceedingly difficult to
weigh environmental impacts against economic impacts. Dr. David
Thomas ofthe Illinois Natural History Survey stated, “I have aparticular concern because I’m
not sure that ecological functioning has ever [been] taken into account economically.” (Thomas
Testimony, Feb.
6, 2001, Tr.
170-171)
Obviously weighing the
future
environmental impacts
against the
future
economic impacts is even more difficult.
In order to make a decision based on this criteria, the Board must somehow forecast the future
environmental and economic conditions in the area proposed for ORW designation.
This type of
prognostication is very difficult to do on a regional scale.
Moreover, the federal regulations indicate the designation ofan ORW is to be based solely on a
water’secological and/or recreational significance.
There is no mention ofthe economic impacts
of ORW designation.
Prairie Rivers does see the value ofincluding a statement on the economic
impacts in the petition in order to make the ORW designation proceeding consistent with similar
Board proceedings. We believe the decision of ORW designation should not be tied to a balance
between uncertain future economic forecasts and the benefits ofwater quality and habitat
protection.
Proposed 302.105(b)(1)(B)
It is unclear why degradation ofan ORW is
allowable as long as it is caused by an “existing site
stonnwater discharge” that meets state and federal stormwater regulations and does not violate
“anywater quality standards.”
The proposed antidegradation rule itself is a waterquality standard, so the proposed language of
302.105(b)(l)(B) is circular in its
logic.
The proposed 302.105(b)(1)(B) allows degradation of
an ORW as long as it does not violate the antidegradation water quality standard which does not
allow degradation ofan ORW, unless ofcourse the degradation is caused by a stormwater
discharge that would not violate a waterquality standard.
This is a bit confusing.
It is also unclear why existing stormwater discharges should be allowed to contribute to the
degradation ofan ORW.
If stormwater quality deteriorates over a period oftime, to
the point
that it causes, or threatens to cause, the extirpation of a rare aquatic species or elimination ofan
existing use in an ORW, why should that degradation be allowable? Just because the
degradation is caused by an existing
stormwater discharge does not mean that the degradation is
better orworse than degradation caused by any other source ofpollution.
The purpose of
designating an ORW is to protect and preserve waters ofexceptional ecological or recreational
value, not to protect those waters from all sources ofpollution except stormwater.
We therefore request that 302.1
05(b)(1
)(B) be struck.
It is inconsistent with the concept ofan
ORW, it is inconsistent with the intent ofthe proposed 302.105 and it is inconsistent with the
federal antidegradation requirements found at 40 CFR
131.1 2(a)(3).
Proposed 302.105(d)(6)
4
We agree with the Board’sinclusion oflanguage that activities covered by general permits or a
general CWA, Section 401
certification in waters of“particularbiological significance” should
not be exempted from an antidegradation review.
For purposes of clarification, it may be helpful
to define better what is to
be interpreted as a water of“particular biological significance”.
Prairie Rivers Network suggests the following language:
(6)
Discharges permitted under a current general NPDES permit as provided by 415 ILCS
5/39(b)
or a general CWA, Section
401
certification are not subject to facility-specific
antidegradation review; however, the Agency must assure that individual permits or
certification are required prior to all new pollutant loadings or hydrological modifications
that necessitate a new, renewed or modified NPDES
permit or CWA, Section 401
certification that affect water ofparticular biological
significancewhich include waters
identified by the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources to be biolo~icallv significant
waters known to contain state or federally listed threatened or endangered species. or
waters identified as having hinh levels ofbiodiversitv;
or
This proposed amendmentwould give more specific direction to
the Agency about what is
considered to be a “biologically significant”waterbody.
General Comment
In some parts ofthe proposed rule there is reference to
a “CWA, Section 401
certification” but in
other parts ofthe proposed rule the comma has been dropped.
To maintain consistency, this
should be corrected.
We would also like to submit for exhibits
to the Board five pictures ofIllinois streams which
illustrate the natural beauty and qualities which the final rule adopted by the Board is intended to
safeguard.
This concludes my testimony on the Amendments to 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 302.105, 303
.205,
303 .206 and 106.990 throughl06.95.
I thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the
Board on this important matter.
Robert J. Moore
Executive Director
Prairie Rivers Network
809 South Fifth Street
Champaign, Illinois 61820
5
RE
C E
IV
ED
CLER1V~~
~
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
P~UG
1
0
ZOOl
OF
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
Revisions to
Antidegradation Rules:
)
RO1-13
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105, 303.205,
)
303.206 and
106.990-106.995
)
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA L.
SKRUKRUD
The Friends ofthe Fox River submits the following Pre-Filed Testimony ofCynthia L.
Skrukrud forpresentation at the August 24, 2001
hearing scheduled in the above-referenced
matter:
Testimony of Cynthia L. Skrukrud, Ph.D.
My name is Cindy Skrukrud and I am the President ofFriends ofthe Fox River.
I have
held the position as President since December 1999, previously having served as Vice-President
since my election to the board in 1994.
I chair the Friends’ Water Quality Committee.
In that
capacity, I review NIPDES permit applications within the Fox River watershed.
I am also a
member ofthe Fox River Ecosystem Partnership’sWater Quality Commitee.
I also
serve on the
Nippersink Creek Watershed Planning Committee and am active with the Kishwaukee River
Ecosystem Partnership.
Friends ofthe Fox River is a
11
year-old, non-profit organization dedicated to protecting
and improving the health ofthe Fox River, the third largest tributary to the Illinois River with a
watershed in Illinois
covering 1720
square miles and encompassing
11
counties. The mission of
the Friends ofthe Fox River is to
Build a
Watershedof Caretakers
so our efforts involve not
only the Fox River, but also
the many high quality tributaries which drain to the Fox River and
the high quality lakes found in the watershed.
Comments on June
21, 2001
Proposed Rule- First Notice
The Friends
ofthe Fox Riverbelieve the amendments proposed by the Illinois Pollution Control
Board to update the “nondegradation”rules satisfy the federal Clean Water Act’srequirements
for the State ofIllinois
to
implement the concepts ofantidegradation and outstanding resource
waters.
We support the Board’s decision to reject anumber ofchanges suggested to the amendments
initially proposed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Specifically, we support the
rejection ofa
de minimis
exception to the antidegradation requirements.
We also support the
rejection ofthe concept ofa ‘significancedetermination’.
We believe that the Agency’s
proposal to subject all increases in pollutant loading to
a case-by-case antidegradation review,
with the level ofreview to be determined by the nature and amount ofthe pollutant-in-question,
is
appropriate.
Friends ofthe Fox River are in favor of a number of changes that the Board did make to the
amendments proposedby the Agency.
We support the Board’s proposalto
make the service ofa
petition for an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) consistent with that required ofother
rulemakings.
We also support the decision to strike the language that suggested that streams
with zero 7Q10 flow would not be eligible for ORW designation.
We support that language which
directs the Agency to require individual permits or certification,
instead ofgeneral permits
or certifications, when waters of particular biological significance are
affected.
We believe the language suggested in the testimony of Rob Moore ofPrairie Rivers
Network would further clarify this
section (Section 302.105 (d)(6)).
Friends ofthe Fox River also support the Board’s decision to place theAgency’ssuggested
procedures for implementing the antidegradation policy into the proposed rules (Section 302.105
(f)).
The Friends ofthe Fox River appreciate the work undertaken by many parties to update the
Board’sAntidegradation Rules for the waters ofthe
State ofIllinois.
We have welcomed the
opportunity to participate in the process.
We look forward to receiving the Board’sFinal Rule
on this
matter and to implementation ofthe new rules to help achieve the goals ofmaintaining
the high quality waters and preventing unnecessary deterioration ofall waters ofthe
State of
Illinois.
Cynthia
L.
Skrukrud
President, Friends ofthe Fox River
4209 W.
Solon Rd.
Richmond, IL
60071
815-675-2594
cskrukrud@earthlink.net
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Albert F. Ettinger.
certify that I have filedthe above Memorandum Regarding the
Proposed Rules, First Notice, ofthe Environmental Law and Policy Center, Friends ofthe
Chicago River, Prairie Rivers Network, and Sierra Club; the Pre-filed Testimony ofJack Darin;
the Pre-filed Testimony ofRobert J. Moore; and the Pre-Filed Testimony ofCynthia L.
Skrukrud
with an original and 9 copies on recycled paper, with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, James
R. Thompson Center,
100
West Randolph, Suite 11-500, Chicago, IL 60601, and served all the
parties on the attached Service List by depositing a copy in a properly addressed,
sealed envelope
with the U.S. Post Office, Chicago, Illinois, with proper postage prepaid on August 10, 2001.
Albert
Albert F. Ettinger, Senior Attorney
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL
60601
(312) 673-6500
aettinger@elpc.org.
SERVICE
LIST
ROI-13
Fred Andes, Esq.
Barnes and Thornburg
2600 Chase Plaza
10 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL
60603
Richard J.
Kissel, Esq.
Gardner, Carton &
Douglas
321 North Clark Street;
Quaker Tower
Ste 3400
Chicago, IL
60610-4795
Bill Compton
Caterpillar Inc.
100 North East Adams
Peoria,
IL
61629-3315
Paul Pederson
Nalco Chemical Company
6216 West 66th Place
Chicago, IL 60638-0000
Jack Darn
Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter
I North LaSalle Street
Ste
505
Chicago, IL 60606-0000
Susan Frenzetti, Esq.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
Sears Tower
233
South Wacker Drive
Ste 8000
Chicago, IL
60606-0000
Christine
S. Bucko, Esq.
Environmental Control Division
100 West Randolph Street
12th Flr.
Chicago, IL
6060 1-0000
Ron Hill
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
100 East Erie
Chicago, IL 60601-0000
James T. Harrington, Esq
Ross & Hardies
150 North Michigan Avenue
Ste 500
Chicago, IL
6060 1-0000
Nancy
Rich, Esq.
Katten Muchin & Zavis
525
West Monroe Street
Ste
1600
Chicago, IL
6066 1-3693
Jeffery P.
Smith,
Abbott Labs
1401
Sheridan Road
D-72N/P14
North Chicago, IL 60064-4000
Marie E. Tipsord, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James
R. Thompson Center;
100 West
Randolph
Ste 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601-0000
Connie Tonsor
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Charles Wesselhoft, Esq.
Ross & Hardies
150 North Michigan Avenue
Ste. 2500
Chicago, IL
6060 1-0000
Jack Welsch
Stateside Associates
2300
Clerdon Boulevard
Suite 407
Arlington, Virginia
22201
SERVICE
LIST
ROi-13
Jay Anderson
American Bottoms RWTF
One American Bottoms Road
Sauget,
IL
62201-0000
JohnM.
Heyde
Sidley & Austin
Bank One Plaza;
10 south Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL
60603-0000
Irwin Polls
Metropolitan Water Reclamation;
Environmental
6001
West Pershing Road
Cicero, IL
60804-4112
Sharon Neal
ComEd-Unicom
Law Dept.
125 South Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60603-0000
Cindy Skrudkrud
4209
West Solon Road
Richmond, IL 60071-0000
Georgia Vlahos
Department ofthe Navy
Naval Training Center
2601A Paul Jones Street
Great Lakes, IL
60088-2845
Jeny Paulson
McHenry County Defenders
804 Regina Court
Woodstock, Illinois
60098
Karen L. Bernoteit
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
215 East Adams Street
Springfield, IL 62701-1199
Katherine Hodge
Hodge &
Dwyer
808 South Second Street
Springfield, IL
62704
Jerome I. Maynard
Dykema Gossett
55
East Monroe Street
Suite 3250
Chicago, IL 60603-5709
Richard Acker
Openlands Project
25 East Washington Street
Suite 1650
Chicago, IL
60602
Chris Bianco
Chemical Industry Council
9801
West Higgins Road
Suite
515
Rosemont,IL
60018
Stanley Yonkauski, Jr.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
524
5.
Second Street
Springfield,
IL
62701—1787
Daniel J. Goodwin
Goodwin Environmental Consultants, Inc.
400 Bruns Lane
Springfield,
IL
62702
Philip Twomey
Admiral Environmental Services
2025 South Arlington Heights Road
Suite
103
Arlington Heights, IL
60005
