BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
)
General of the State of Illinois
STATEOF!LUNO~S
PoUut~onContro’ Board
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 03-101
(Enforcement-Air)
WERNER CO.,
a Pennsylvania
corporation,
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Mr.
Charles Gering
McDermott,
Will
& Emery
227
W.
Monroe Street
Chicago,
Illinois 60606-5096
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February
4,
2005,
we filed with the
Illinois Pollution Control Board
a Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement and Motion for Relief From Hearing Requirement,
a true and
correct copy of which is attached and hereby served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General
State ~o~—’Illi~is
BY
isto
er P( 1~erzan
Assis
ant
tt¼~rr\eyGeneral
Environmental B~ikeau
.188
W.
Randolph St.,
20th Floor
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
(312)
814-3532
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDCLERK’S
OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
FER ~~20.05
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
General
of the State
of Illinois,
)
.
.
STATEOFILUNO~S
Po~Iut~on.Contro~
E~oard
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 03-101
(Enforcement-Air)
WERNER
CO.,
a Pennsylvania
corporation,
Respondent.
.
.)
STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney General of the State of Illinois,
on her own motion,
and at
the request of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”),
ansi Respond~nt, WERNER
CO.
(“Werner”),
do hereby submit this
Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement.
The parties agree that the
Complainant’s statement
of facts contained herein is agreed to only
for the purposes
of settlement.
The parties further state that
neither the fact that
a party has entered into this stipulation,
nor
any of the facts stipulated herein,
shall be admissible into evidence,
or used fo.r any purpose in
this,
or any other proceeding,
except to•
enforce the terms hereof,
by the parties to this agreement.
Notwithstanding
the previous sentence,
this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement,
and any Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Board”)
order accepting same,
may be used as evidence of
a past adjudicated
violation of the Act as alleged herein,
pursuant to Section 42~(h) of
the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
(“Act”),
415 ILCS
5/42(h) (2002),
in determining
appropriate civil penalties
for any
1
.
future violations of
the Act.
This Stipulation may also be used
in
any permitting adtion for the purposes
of Section 39(i)
of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/39(1) (2002)
.
This Stipulation and Proposal
f.or Settlement
shall be null and void unless
the Board approves and disposes
of this
matter on each and every one of the
terms, and conditions of the
settlement set forth herein.
I.
JURISDICTION
The Board has jurisdiction of
the subject matter herein and of
the parties consenting hereto pursuant to the Act,
415
ILCS
5/1
et
seq.
(2002)
.
II.
AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned representatives
for each party certify that they
are fully authorized by the party whom they represent
to enter, into’
the terms and condition’s of this Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement and to legally bind them to it.
III.
APPLICABILITY
This stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement shall apply
to,
and
be binding upon,
the Complainant and Werner,
and any officer,
shareholder,
director,
agent,
employee
or servant of Werner,
as well
as Werner’s successors and assigns.
Werner shall not raise as’a
2
defense to any enforcement action taken pursuant
to this settlement
the failure of
its officers,
shareholders,
directors,
agents,
servants
or employees to take such action as shall be required
to comply with
the provisions
of this settlement.
Iv.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.
The Illinois EPA is an administrative agency of the State of
Illinois,
created pursuant
to Section 4 of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/4
(2002),
and is charged,
inter alia,
with the duty of enforcing the
Act.
2.
Respondent Werner,
at all times relevant to the Complaint in
this matter, was and is a Pennsylvania corporation in good standing
and authorized to do business in Illinois.
3.
Respondent Werner,
at all times relevant
to the Complaint
in
this matter, has owned and operated a facility located at 10800 West
Belmont Avenue,
Franklin Park,
Cook County,
Illinois
(“facility”).
4.
Werner conducts extrusion fabrication and manufacturing
operations at the facility.
Werner fabricates ladders,
scaffolding,
stages and planks.
Among other things,
Werner operates punch presses
and rail piercers
in its operations.
5.
Werner obtained a joint construction and operating permit
for emissions sources and air pollution control equipment at the
facility on February
18,
1998.
The Illinois EPA further issued a
Clean Air Act Permit Program Permit
to Werner on April
21,
2000.
6.
The Illinois EPA issued a violation notice
to Werner dated
3
September
21,
1999.
Werner submitted
to’ the Illinois EPA a proposed
Compliance Commitment Agreement
(“CCA”)
dated January 24,
2000.
By
letter of February
23,
2000,
the Illinois EPA rejected the CCA.
The
Illinois EPA further issued a Notice of Intent to Pursue Legal Action
letter dated April
5,
2000.
7.
Werner has substantially reduced its use of lubricants
containing volatile organic material
(“VOM”)from greater than 31 tons
to less than 1 ton per year.
V.
ALLEGATIONS OF NONCOMPLIANCE
Complainant contends that the Respondent has violated the
following provisions of the Act and Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Board”)
Air Pollution Regulations:
Count
I:
AIR POLLUTION
violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/9(a),
and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 201.141 and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 218.986.
Respondent emitted VOM pollutants in violation of
applicable control requirements for VOM.
Count
II:
FAILURE TO OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
violation of
Section 9(b)
of
the Act,
415
ILCS 5/9(b) (2002)
and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 201.142.
Respondent failed to obtain
a construction permit
from the Illinois EPA before constructing new emission sources
and air pollutioi~control equipment.
4
Count
III: FAILURE TO OBTAIN AN OPERATING PERMIT
violation
of
Section 9(b)of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(b) (2002),
and
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 201.143.
Respondent failed to obtain an operating
permit before operating new emission sources and air pollution
control equipment.
VI.
NATURE OF RESPONDENT’S
OPERATIONS
Respondent operates
a ladder manufacturing facility.
Respondent
operates equipment including rail piercers and pultruders,
along with
associated pollution control equipment.
Respondent historically
employed lubricants containing VOM in the course of these operations.
VII.
EXPLANATION OF PAST FAILURES
TO COMPLY
1.
Respondent submitted
a
permit application to the Illinois
EPA on or about December
23,
1997.
The permit application identified
emission sources and air pollution control equipment that were
constructed without authorization.
2.
Respondent further operated emission sources and air
pollution control equipment without permit authorization.
3.
Werner failed to comply with the applicable emission control
requirements
of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 218.986.
VIII.
FUTURE PLANS OF COMPLIANCE
5
Werner shall comply with all requirements
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/1
et seq.
(2002),
and the Illinois Pollution Control Board
Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code Subtitles A through H.
IX.
IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC RESULTING FROM ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE
Section 33 (c)
of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/33 (c)
(2002)
,
provides
as
follows:
In making its orders and determinations,
the
Board shall take
into consideration
all
the
facts
and
circumstances
bearing
upon
the
reasonableness of the emissions,
discharges,
or
deposits
involved
including,
but
not
limited
to:
1.
the character and degree of injury to,
or interference with the protection of
the
health,
general
welfare
and
physical property of the people;
2.
the
social
and
economic
value
of
the
pollution source;
3.
the suitability or unsuitability of the
pollution
source
to
the area
in which
it
is located,
including the questions
of
priority
of
location
in
the
area
involved;
4.
the,
technical
practicability
and
economic reasonableness
of reducing or
eliminating
the
emissions,
discharges
or
deposits
resulting
from
such
pollution source;
and
5.
any subsequent
compliance.
In response
to these
factors,
the parties
state as follows:
1.
‘
The impact to the public resulting from Werner’s
noncompliance was that the Illinois EPA and the public were
not privy
to information that is important to
the control
of air pollution in
6
Illinois.
The permit process
is the only method available
for the
State to identify possible air pollution
sources and their control and
to ensure that those sources will not contribute
to or cause
the
deterioration of air quality in Illinois.
Werner also failed to
comply with emission control requirements for its punch presses and
rail piercing operations.
2.
The Parties agree that the Respondent’s facility has social
and economic value.
3.
The Parties agree
that
the Respondent’s facility is suitable
to the area in which
it
is located.
4.
The Parties agree that
the reduction of emissions from the
facility required by the applicable regulations was both technically
practicable and economically reasonable.
5.
The Parties agree that the Respondent has achieved
compliance with the regulatory requirements
cited in the Complaint.
X.
CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 42(h)
FACTORS
Section 42(h)
of the Aát,
415 ILCS
5/42(h) (2002), provides
as
follows:
In determining the appropriate civil penalty
to be imposed under subdivisions
(a),
(b) (1),
(b) (3),
or
(b)
(5)
of this Section,
the Board
is
authOrized
to
consider
any
matters
of
record
in
mitigation
or
aggravation
of
penalty,
including
but
not
limited
to
the
following factors:
1.
the
‘duration
and
gravity
of
the
violation;
2.
the
presence
or
absence
of
due
7
diligence on the part of the respondent
in
attempting
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
Act
and
regulations
thereunder
or
to
secure
relief
therefrom
as provided
by
this
Act;
3.
any
economic benefits
accrued
by
the
respondent
because
of
delay
in
compliance with requirements;
4.
the
amount
of monetary penalty which
will serve to deter further violations
by the respondent and to otherwise aid
in
enhancing voluntary compliance with
this Act
by
the
respondent
and other
persons similarly subject
to the Act;
and
5.
the
number,
proximity
in
time,
and
gravity
of
previously
adjudicated
violations
of
this
Act
by
the
respondent.
6.
whether
the
respondent voluntarily
self-disclosed,
in
accordance
with
subsection
(i)
of
this
Section,
the
non-compliance to the Agency;
7.
whether
the
respondent
has
agreed
to
undertake a “supplemental environmental
project,”
which
means
an
environmentally beneficial project that
a
respondent
agrees
to
undertake
in
settlement
of
an
enforcement
action
brought under this Act,
but which the
respondent
is
not
otherwise
legally
required to perform.
In response to these factors,
the parties state
as follows:
1.
The Complainant contends
that the violations that are
the
subject of the Complaint occurred over an approximately five-year
period,
from 1995 until 2000.
2.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent was not
diligent
in acquiring permit authorization to construct and operate
8
the emission sources and air pollution control equipment as alleged in
the Complaint and complying with applicable emission control
requirements.
Werner did subsequently respond to the issuance of a
Violation Notice and Notice of Intent to Pursue Legal Action letter.
The Respondent notes that it acquired the necessary permits and
achieved the requisite 81
control for the VOM sources as of October
2,
2000.
3.
The Respondent did not accrue an appreciable measure of
economic benefit by operating emission sources without achieving the
required control.
4.
The parties believe that the civil penalty as set out in
Section XI will deter Werner from committing further violations,
and
will aid in enhancing voluntary compliance by Werner and others
similarly subject to the Act.
5.
The State
is not aware
of any other adjudicated violations
of the Act by Werner.
6.
Respondent did not self-disclose the noncompliance pursuant.
to the requirements
of Section 42(h) (6)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/42(h) (6) (2002)
7.
Respondent has performed a Supplemental Environmental
Project and the Complainant has mitigated its penalty demand
accordingly,
as further detailed in Section XI.
XI.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
1.
The Respondent represents that
it has entered into this
9
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement for the purpose
of settling
and compromising disputed claims without having to incur the expense
of contested litigation.
By entering into this Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement and complying with its terms,
the Respondent
does not affirmatively admit the allegations of violation within the
Complaint,
and this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement shall not
be interpreted as including such admission.
2.
a.
The Complainant believes a civil penalty in the amount
of $85,000.00 is appropriate based on the estimated gravity and
duration of the violations,
lack of due diligence,
deterrence impact
and the economic benefit of noncompliance.
b.
In order to promote the goals of the Act to restore,
protect and enhance the quality of the environment,
the Complainant
agrees to mitigate its civil penalty demand by approximately sixty-two
per cent
(62),
based on Respondent’s implementation
of. a Supplemental
Environmental Projects at its facility as set forth in this
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
-
c.
Accordingly,
Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of
$32,000.00
into the Environmental Protection Trust Fund within thirty
(30)
days after the date the Board adopts a final opinion and order
approving this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
Payment shall
be made, by certified check or money order, payable to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency,
designated to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Trust
Fund,
and shall be sent by first class
mail to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Section
10
1021 North’ Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794
A copy of
the check shall be
sent
to:
Christopher
P.
Perzan
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph Street,
20th Floor
Chicago,
IL 60601
Werner shall write
the case caption and number,
and its Federal
Employer Identification Number
(“FEIN”)
,
25-1754435,
upon the
certified check or money order.
3.
For purposes
of payment and collection,
the Respondent may
be reached at the following address:
-
Werner
Co.
c/o Geoffrey
R.
Hartenstein
93 Werner Road
Greenville,
Pennsylvania 16125
With a copy to:
Charles N.
Gering
McDermott, Will
& Emery
227 West Monroe Street
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
4.
Pursuant
to Section 42(g)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
4/42 (g) (2002),
interest shall accrue on any amount
not paid within the
time period prescribed herein,
at the maximum rate allowable under
Section 1003(a)
of the Illinois Income Tax Act,
35 ILCS 5/1003 (a)
(2002)
.
a.
Interest on unpaid amounts shall begin to accrue from
the date
the penalty is due and continue
to accrue
to the date payment
is received.
b.
Where partial payment
is made on any payment amount
11
that is
due,
such partial payment shall be first applied to any
interest on unpaid amounts then owing.
c.
All interest
on amounts owed the Complainant,
shall be
paid by certified check payable to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency for deposit in the Environmental Protection Trust
Fund and delivered in the same manner as described in Section XI.2.
herein.
5.
The
SEP implemented by the Respondent consists of the
conversion of an open bath pultrusion machine to
a pre-form resin
injection machine.
Capital cost of the SEP was approximately
$139,000.00.
Werner began implementation of the SEP in 2001.
The
SEP
resulted in the following environmental benefits:
a.
A reduction in air emissions
of approximately 3,500
pounds
(i.e.,
1.75
tons)
of styrene per year.
Styrene is both a
volatile organic material and a hazardous air pollutant.
-
This
emission reduction
is based on current production levels and may
increase to
as much
‘as
5,400 pounds
(2.7
tons)
per year as production
increases.
-
b.
An overall reduction in ambient air concentrations
of’
styrene in the workplace attributed to the reduced volume of resin
used and smaller resin surface area
that comes into contact with the
air.
‘6.
No VOM emission reductions associated with the
SEP shall be
used to demonstrate, compliance with the Emission Reduction Market
System
(“ERMS”)
or otherwise made available
for sale,
trade or banking
in the ERMS.
12
7.
Respondent
shall at all times’operate and maintain all
equipment
and systems relating to the SEP
so as to ensure that the
resulting VOM emission reductions
are permanent and continuous.
In
the event that the Respondent determines that the SEP or its
associated equipment or systems must be altered, modified or replaced,
the Respondent shall. ensure that the alterations, modifications or
replacements result in equal or greater emission reductions than those
obtained from the approved SEP pursuant to this Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement.
The Respondent shall provide written notice
to the Illinois EPA at least
30 days prior to the start of
construction of any alteration, modification or replacement.
The
notice shall include a detailed explanation of the planned
alterations,
modifications or replacements and a demonstration ‘of
associated emissions reductions.
8.
Respondent certifies,
by signature to this Stipulation and
Proposal
for Settlement,
that
it has not, and will not ever,
sell
emission offsets or accept any kind of emissions credit under the New
Source Review programs
(i.e.,
the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program of 40 C.F.R.
§52.21 and the Illinois Pollution
Control Board’s non—attainment area program at 35
Ill. Adm.
Code Part
203)
that relate to or derive from the emissions reductions achieved
by the implementation of the above-referenced SEP.
9.
Any
public statement,
oral or written, made by or on behalf
of Respondent,
concerning any SEP required by this, Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement,
shall
include the following language:
“This
‘project was undertaken in connection with the settlement of
13
enforcement actions initiated by the State of Illinois.”
10.
Respondent hereby certifies that,
as of the date of filing
of this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement, Respondent
is not
required by any federal, state or local law,
regulation, permit or
order to perform any actions required herein; nor is Respondent
required to perform any of the actions required herein by any other
agreement, grant or as injunctive relief in any other
case.
Respondent further certifies that it has not received, and is not
presently negotiating to receive credit,
penalty offset, or other
benefit in any other enforcement action for any actions required by
this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
11.
Werner shall cease and desist from future violations of the
Act,
415 ILCS 5/1
et seq.
(2002), and the Board Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code Subtitles A through H,
including, but not limited to,
those sections
of the Act and Doard Regulations
that were the
subject matter of the Complaint as outlined in Section V. of this
Stipulation and Proposal, for Settlement.
XII.
.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS
AND
REGULATIONS
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in no way affects
the Respondent’s responsibility to comply with any federal,
state
o,r
local laws and regulations.
14
XIII.
RIGHT OF ENTRY
In addition to any other authority,
the Illinois EPA,
its
employees and representatives, and the Attorney General, her agents
and representatives,
shall have the right of entry into and upon the
Respondent’s facility which is the subject of this Consent Order,
at
all reasonable times for the purposes of carrying out inspections.
In
conducting such inspections,
the Illinois EPA,
its employees and
representatives, and the Attorney General, his employees and
representatives may take photographs,
samples, and collect
information,
as they deem necessary.
The Respondent reserves its
rights to assert claims
as to trade secrets or other nondisclosable
information pursuant
to
2
Ill. Adm.
Code
Part 1828,
35
Ill. Adm. Code
Part 130 or other applicable law.
XIV.
RELEASE FROM LIABILITY
In consideration of the Respondent’s payment of
a $32,000.00
civil penalty, its commitment to implement the aforementioned SEP and
its commitment to refrain from further violations of the Act and the
Board Regulations,
upon receipt by Complainant of the payment required
by Section XI of this Stipulation,
the Complainant releases, waives
and discharges Respondent and its officers,
directors,
employees,
agents,
successors and assigns from any further liability or penalties
for violations which were the subject matter of the Complaint herein.
However, nothing in this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement shall
15
be construed as a waiver by Complainant of the right to redress future
violations
or obtain penalties with respect thereto.
16
WHEREFORE,
Complainant and Respondent request that the Board
adopt and accept the foregoing Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
as written.
AGREED:
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
WERNER CO.
LISA
MADIGAN
,~
Attorney General
By:
______________________
State of Illinois
-
Its
~-~~Z-
~‘L4~t__.—
MATTHEW J.
DUNN
Chief,
Environmental
/
Asbestos
Litigation Division
-1)
(
By:
~
~
RO~EMARIEtCAZEAU,~Cha~f
Env3I’6nmehtal
~
Assistant
Attorney
Generã”~
Dated:__________________
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
A
CY
By:_______________________
JOSE H
E.
SVOBODA
Chief Legal Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
Dated:
/Z
~._~5?
~C
17
ECE ~J
~
D
CLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
FEB ~
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
ex
rel.
LISA. MADIGAN,
Attorney
)
STATEOFjJ~\;c~3
General
of the State
of Illinois
)
Pout~onControI~)o~’rd
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 03-101
•
)
(Enforcement-Air)
WERNER CO.,
a Pennsylvania
corporation,
Respondent.
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM HEARING REQUIREMENT
NOW COMES the Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,
and requests
relief from the hearing requirement
in this case pursuant
to Section
31(c) (2)
of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”),
415 ILCS
5/31(c)
(2)
(2002),
and Section 103.300 of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
(“Board”)
Procedural
Rules,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 103.300.
In support thereof,
the Complainant states
as follows:
1.
Section 31(c)
(2)
of the Act allows the parties
in certain
enforcement
cases
to request relief from the mandatory hearing
requirement where the parties submit
t.o the Board
a Stipulation and
Proposal
for Settlement.
Section
31(c) (2) provides
as follows:
Notice;
complaint; hearing.
*
*
*
(c)
(2)
Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision
(1)
of
this subsection
(c)
,
whenever
a complaint has been filed on
behalf
of the Agency or by the People
of the State
of
Illinois,
the parties may file with
the Board
a stipulation
and proposal
for settlement accompanied by a request for
relief from the requirement of a hearing pursuant to
subdivision
(1)
.
Unless
the Board,
in its discretion,
concludes that
a hearing will be held,
the Board shall cause
notice
of the stipulation, proposal and request for relief
to be published and sent in the same manner
as
is required
for hearing pursuant
to subdivision
(1)
of this subsection.
The notice shall include
a statement that any person may
file
a written demand for hearing within
21 days after
receiving the notice.
If any person files a timely written
demand for hearing,
the Board shall deny the request for
relief from a hearing and shall hold a hearing in accordance
with the provisions
of subdivision
(1)
2.
Board Procedural
Rule 103.300 provides,
in relevant
part,
as
follows
(emphasis in original)
Request for Relief from Hearing Requirement
in State
Enforcement
Proceeding.
(a)
Whenever
a
complaint
has
been
filed
on
behalf
of
the
Agency
or
by
the
People
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
the
parties
may
file
with
the
Board
a
proposed
stipulation
and
settlement
accompanied
by
a
request
for
relief
from
the
requirement of
a hearing
pursuant
to Section 31(c) (2)
of
the
Act
415
ILCS
5/31(c) (2)
3.
On the same date as this Request,
the Complainant
is filing
a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement with Respondents with the
Board.
4.
No hearing is currently scheduled in this case.
WHEREFORE,
the Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General of
the State of Illinois,
respectfully
requests relief from the requirement
of
a hearing pursuant
to Section
31(c)
(2)
of the Act.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
by
LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney General
of
Suite
2001
.1
STOPHE~
Assista~k~orne~
Environmental Bui~
188 West Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
(312) 814-3532
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
CHRISTOPHER
P.
PERZAN,
an Assistant Attorney General,
certify
that
on the 4th day of February,
2005,
I caused to be served by U.S.
Mail the foregoing documents to the parties named on
the attached
notice
of’ filing,
by depositing same
in postage prepaid envelopes with
the United States Postal Service located at
100 West Randolph Street,
Chicago,
Illinois 60601.
CHRISTO~~~)PE~~~)
I
\Werner\notice .wpd
