IN THE MATTER OF:

AMENDMENTS

TO

PERMITTING FOR

USED

OIL MANAGEMENT AND USED

OIL TRANSPORT

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

807 AND 809

\~\~

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS

)

)

)

)

R99-18

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

NOTICE

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

IL. Pollution Control Board

James R.

Thompson Center

100

W. Randolph, Ste

11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(FEDERAL EXPRESS)

Robert Lawley, ChiefLegal Counsel

Department ofNatural Resources

524

South Second Street

Springfield, Illinois

62701-1787

(FIRST CLASS)

Matthew

J. Dunn, Chief

Environmental Bureau

Office ofthe Attorney General

James R.

Thompson Center

100

West Randolph,

12th

Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(FIRST CLASS)

Service List

(FIRST CLASS)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat I havetoday filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe PollutionControl Boardihe FINAL

COMMENTS

OF

THE

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

AND

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED AT HEARING of the

Respondent, the Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency, a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

DATE: May6, 1999

Illinois EPA

Division of Legal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

RECEIVED

MP~Y 07 ~

MAY

0

7

1992.

STATE

OF

ILUIMUIS

,~TP4~4~l~Boar

BOA RD

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

MAY

0 7

1999

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control Board

Division of Legal Counsel

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

AMENDMENTS TO PERMITTING FOR USED OIL

)

MANAGEMENT AND USED OIL TRANSPORT

)

35

ILL. ADM. CODE 807 AND 809

)

FINAL COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVRIONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYAND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED AT HEARING

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”), by and through its attorney,

Kimberly A. Geving,

and pursuantto

35

Ill. Adm. Code

102.320, respectfully submits these FINAL

COMMENTS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED AT HEARING

in the above-captioned matter to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”).

It is the Illinois EPA’s contention that the proposed regulations filed

in this matter with the

Board and the correspondingErrata Sheet and proposed amendments set out

in these comments

constitute asolid and

well-supported proposal.

The

Illinois EPA believes that the Board should adopt

the proposal as submitted by the Illinois EPA, including changes that were made through Errata Sheet

Number

1 and additional amendments that will be addressed in these comments.

A.

Background

On November 2,

1998, the Illinois EPA filed a “Motion to Sever the Docket” and requested

that the Board sever the issues regarding permitting certain used oil management facilities and used

oil

RECEIVED

CL~~’S

oFFICE

MAY

0?

1999

STATE

OF ILUNO1S

poIlutiofl Control

Board

R99-18

(Rulemaking-Land)

THIS

FILING IS

SUBMWFED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

transporters from the remainder ofthe proposal in docket R98-29.

On December

17,

1998

the Board

granted the Illinois EPA’s motion and opened docket

R99-1 8 to address the used oil issues.

Hearings

were held February

25,

1999 and March

1,

1999.

During the course of the hearings on docket R99- 18

some issues were raised by

members ofthe regulated community concerning the effect of the proposed amendments on their

operations.

The

Illinois EPA believes that some of those concerns were adequately addressed during

the second hearing on March

1,

1999.

However, a couple of issues remainedoutstanding,

and the

Illinois EPA committed to address those issues in its FINAL COMMENTS by

suggesting some

language changes to the rules.

B.

Issues

of Concern at Hearing

The

issues that the Illinois EPA believes were left unsettled at hearing are as

follows:

1)

Which existing facilities will need local siting?; and 2) How will the Illinois EPA phase in the

permitting requirements?

1.

Local

Siting Approval

Currently, facilities that manage used oil (as defined by 35

Ill. Adm. Code 739.100) are

deemed “permitted-by-rule”

so long as they comply

with the Part 739 management standards.

Ifthe

proposed amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807 are enacted, they will require certain permitted-by-

THIS FILING IS

SUBMITFED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

rule

facilities that manage

used

oil (as defined by 35

Ill. Adm. Code 739.100) to obtain apermit

pursuant to Part 807.

Based on

the wording in Section 39(c) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”)

(415 ILCS

5/39(c)),

two conditions must be met before the Illinois EPA mayrequire proofof local

siting approval as a condition of apermit approval.

First, the application must be for a development

or construction permit (not an operating permit) and second,

the facility must meet the definition of

“new” pollution control facility.

Section 39(c) of the Actprovides that “no permit for the development

or construction of a new pollution control facility may be granted by the Agency unless the

applicant

submits proofthat the location of said facility has been approved” by

the relevant local governing

body

“in accordance with Section 39.2 of this Act.”

Taking that a step further, used oil management

facilities that are currently permitted-by-rule generally meet the definition of “pollution control

facility” found in Section 3.32(a) of the Act.

Looking at Section 3.32(b)(1), one sees that a “new

pollution control facility”

is defined as

“apollution control

facility initially permitted for development

or construction after July

1,

1981.”

There is no provision that requires all pollution control facilities

or even all ~

pollution control facilities to obtain local siting.

Therefore, eventhough Section 39(c)

ofthe Act limits

the Illinois

EPA’s ability to issue

development and construction permits to those

facilities that have local siting approval,

it is not ageneral prohibition against“un-sited” new pollution

control facilities.

THIS FILING ISSUBMITFED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

The Board has previously held that due to the language of Section

39(c) of the Act, an inquiry

as to local siting approval is unnecessary and immaterial in applications forpermits other than

development and construction permits--even ifthe facility never obtained local siting approval.

(See

Sushi, Ltd.

v. Illinois EPA)(November 15,

1989), PCB 89-150.)

Thus, used oil management facilities

permitted-by-rule may existand operate without ever having obtained local siting.

These facilities

would, of course, still be subject to any applicable zoning laws and restrictions.

2.

Phasing

In The Permit Requirement

Due to Section

10-65(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)(5 ILCS 100/10-65),

some phase-in period may be required for existing permitted-by-rule facilities to obtain their State

operating permits.

Without a phase-in period, upon the effective date of these amendments a used

oil

management facility that is currently operating lawfully without an Illinois EPA-issued operating

permit (i.e., permitted-by-rule) would be faced with the choice of either ceasing operations or risking

liability forpenalties associated with operating without apermit.

Fundamental fairness and due

process, in addition to Section 10-65(b) of the APA, will

likely require a phase-in period forexisting

facilities during which they will be allowed to continue operating ina permitted-by-rule status

until

they receivetheir Illinois EPA-issued permits (analogous to RCRA interim status).

The most logical approach seems to be accepting that a pre-existing permitted-by-rule used

oil management facility falls into

the category of an “existingsolid waste management site,”

and does

THIS PILING IS SUBMITFED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

not require a development permit.

This approach conforms to the plain meaning of the existing

regulations and

allows for much simpler

changes to the rules.

Those proposed changes follow in

Paragraph C below.

C.

Proposed Amendments

If existing (i.e., previously permitted-by-rule) used

oil management facilities will

not be

required to obtain an Illinois EPA development permit, and thus will

not needto provide proof of

local siting approval to obtain a permit pursuant to Section 39(c) of the Act, the following

amendments to 35

Ill. Adm. Code

807 should be adopted:

Section 807.104

Definitions (adding additional definitions)

“Existing used oil management facility” means a used oil management facility that managed used oil

as defined in 35

Ill. Adm. Code 739.100 in accordance with the applicable used oil management

standards of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 739 on DATE

of rule adoptioni, and on

or before DATE

90 days

after adoption of rulesi notified the Agency of its used

oil management activities on

forms prescribed

by the Agency.

An existing used oil management facility is an existing solid waste management site

as described

in

35

III. Adm. Code 807.202(b).

“Used oil management facility” means aused oil transfer facility, a used oil processor, a used oil

marketer who markets used

oil other than that generated by its own activities from the site where it

is

generated, a used

oil burner, and a petroleum refining facility, as defined in 35

Ill. Adm. Code

739. 100.

The first new definition identifiesthose used oil management facilities that were

in operation

pursuant to the “permit-by-rule” procedures of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 739 on the effective date of these

amendments as those who were in operation on that date, were

in compliance with the applicable

THIS FILING IS SUBMITFED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

management standards of Part 739, and who had notified the Illinois EPA of their used

oil activities

by use of the Illinois

EPA’s prescribed used

oil notification form.

By identifying existing

used oil

management facilities as existing solid waste management sites, such facilities who seek to continue

their existing

operation without modification

are not subject to

the requirement

it~

obtain a

Development Permit issued

by the Illinois EPA pursuant to 35

Ill.

Adm. Code

807.201.

The second new definition facilitates bringing under the permit requirements only those-used

oil facilities subject to 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 739 that

the Illinois EPA testified at hearing should be

regulated.

Section 807.105

Relation

to Other Rules

a.

Persons and facilities regulated pursuant to 35

Ill. Adm. Code 700

through

749 are not

subject

to the requirements of this Part or of 35

Ill. Adm. Code

811 through 815 and 817.

However,

if such a facility also contains one or more units used solely forthe

disposal of solid wastes,

as defined in 35

Ill. Adm. Code 810.103, such units are subject to requirements

oithis -Part

and 35 Ill. Adm. Code

811

through 815

and 817.

Used oil management facilities who

do not

manage used oil solely

in units subject to regulation pursuant to

35

Ill. Adm. Code 724 and

725 are also subject

to the requirements ofthis Part.

This amendment makes used oil management facilities as defined in 35

Ill. Adm. Code

807.104, except for those RCRA facilities who choose to manage used

oil solely in RCRA regulated

units, subject to the permit requirements in Part 807.

Section 807.202

Operating Permits

THIS FILING

IS SUBMITFED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

a.

New Solid Waste Management Sites.

Subject to such exemption as expressly provided in

Section 21(e) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1982, ch.

1111/2, par.

1021(e) 415 ILCS 5/21(e)) as

to the requirement of obtaining a permit, no person shall cause or allow the use or operation

of any solid waste management site for which aDevelopment Permit is required under

Section

807.201 without an Operating Permit issued by the Agency, except for such testing

operations as may be authorized by the Development Permit.

b.

Existing Solid

Waste Management Sites.

1.

Subject to such exemption as expressly provided in Section 21(e) ofthe Act

E414

Rev. Stat.

1982, ch.

111

1/2, par.

1021(e) 415 ILCS 5/21(e))

as to the requirement of

obtaining a permit, no person shall cause or

allow the use or operation of any existing

solid waste management site without an Operating Permit issued by the Agency

not

later than one year after the effective date of these Regulations.

2.

All applications for Operating Permits shall be submitted to the Agency at least

90

days prior to the date on which such permit is required; however, the Agency may

waive such provision when appropriate.

Existing used oil management facilities

must apply to the Agency for an initial operating permit, or, if already permitted

pursuantto this Part for management ofwastes other than used oil, for an initial

supplemental permit for management of used oil as defined by

35

Ill. Adm. Code

739.100, within

90 days of effective

date of these amendmentsl, and maycontinue

to operate as a used oil management facility in accordance with all ofthe applicable

management standards of35

Ill. Adm. Code 739 and any other applicable

provisions

ofthe Act and regulations thereunder, until

the final Agency decision on the

application has been made and any final Board decision on any appeal pursuantto

Section 40 of the Act has been made, unless a later date is fixed by order ofa

reviewing court.

To the extent that an application for an initial used oil management

operating permit, or an

application fora supplemental used oil management permit,

seeks authorization to engaged in used

oil management activities other than those

conducted

on effective

DATE of these amendments,

the facility

is not an existing

used oil management facility and is subject to the provisions of subsecüoir(a~

above.

THIS FILING IS

SUBMITFED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

This amendment allows those existing used

oil management facilities that have been

operating in accordance with the

“permit-by-rule” procedures of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 739 up to 90 days

followingthe effective date of this amendment to file an application for an operating permit with the

Agency,

and to continue operating pursuant to pursuantto pre-existing “permit-by-rule” status until

final disposition of the application.

The

latter portion of this amendment is similarto the provisions of

35111. Adm. Code 813.302, and is consistent with the requirements of Section

10-65(b) ofthe APA.

Section

807.202(b)(4)

4.

Notwithstanding the provisions of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 807.205(g), the Agency may, if

necessary to prevent an unmanageable workload, and upon

written notice to the

applicant,

extend the date fortaking final action on an application for an existing

used oil management facility’s

initial operating permit, or initial used oil management

supplemental permit for aperiod

not to exceed 180 days from the date of the filing

thereof.

Although there are not many used oil management facilities presently knownto the Illinois

EPA based upon the notification provisions of 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 739, this new subsection

807.202(b)(4) is being added to allow forthe possibility that alarge numberof used oil management

facilities claiming permit-by-rule status will notify, or register with, the Illinois EPA prior to the

effective date of these proposed amendments, thus achieving existing used oil management facility

status.

Allowing the extension of the Illinois

EPA’s applicationreview period will reduce the

THIS FILING IS SUBMITFED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

likelihood of an unmanageable workload and the resulting risk of granting apermit by default in

accordance with

35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.205(g).

D.

Response to Comments Filed by NORA

The

Illinois EPA received the comments

filed

by the National Oil Recyclers Association

(“NORA”) on April 20,

1999

and believes that many of their comments

deserve a response.

First, in response to NORA’s commentthat the regulations should not be more stringent than

the minimum federal standards,

it should be noted that there

is no requirement or restriction

prohibiting State waste management standards from being more stringent than their federal

counterpart.

Federal regulations under RCRA are intended to establish

minimum

national standards

defining acceptable waste management.

Section 3009 of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act, as amended

by

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments

of 1980, and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 6929, prohibits a state

from imposing requirements that are

less

stringent than the federal standards, but specificallyprovides

that,

“nothing

in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any State.

.

.from imposing any

requirements.

.

.which are

more

stringent than those imposed by such

regulations.”

(Emphasis added.)

Moreover,

it should also be noted that this proposal does not amend

or modify

any

federal standards.

The

State used

oil management regulations of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 739, which are identical-in-substance

to the federal Standards for the Management that are found in 40

CFR Part 279, are not being

9

THIS FILING IS

SUBMITFED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

amended by this proposal.

Rather,

this proposal amends

only the 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 807 regulations

establishing a State non-hazardous permit program.

Additionally, even though a State regulation may

properly

be so, the Illinois EPA contends that the proposed amendments to 35

III. Adm. Code 807 are

not more stringent than the federal standards.

The

federal used oil management standards of 40 CFR

Part 279 contemplate the possibility of a permit requirement for someuseitoilrnanagementfacilities.

For example, 40 CFR 279.31 (b)(2) providesthat owners or operators ofall

used oil collection centers

must be properly “registered/licensed/permitted/recognized by a state/county/municipal governmentt~

manage

used

oil.”

In its September 23,

1993

Opinion in R93-4, adopting the identical-in-substance

used

oil management standards as

(then) new

35

Ill. Adm. Code 739, the Board solicited comment as

to whether the federal regulations “contemplated the creation of a permit process.”

USEPA

responded, among other things, that the administrator had reserved the rightto require owners and

operatorsto obtain a permit ifnecessaryto protect human health and the environment.

(Inthe Matter

of RCRA Update, USEPA Regulations (7/1/92-12/31/92), R93-4, Adopted Rule, Final Order

(September 23,

1993),

p. 76.)

Thus there is nothing improper

or extraordinary about amendingPart

807 to make it clear that certain of the used oil management facilities regulated under Part 739 must

obtain permits from the Illinois EPA.

Second,

NORA claimedthat the proposed amendments would put

in-state facilities and

transporters at an economic disadvantage to their out-of-state competitors becausethe out-of-state

10

THIS

FILING IS

SUBMITFED ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

competitors would not be subject to transporter permit or manifestrequirements.

Currently, out-of-

state facilities are subject to the same requirements as in-state facilities when transporting

used oil to a

facility

in Illinois

or from an Illinois generator.

The special waste must be transported

by a licensed

special waste transporter and accompanied by a manifest unless an exemption in

35

III. Adm. Code

809.2 10

or 809.211

applies. None of the current

or proposed exemptions exclude from the regulatory

requirements out-of-state transporters transporting used oil to a facility or transporting from a

generator in Illinois.

The

proposed amendments to Parts

807 and 809

would exempt used

oil from the

manifest and special waste transporting requirements only when transporting in quantities less than

55

gallons to acollection facility or aggregation point operating in accordance with Part 739.

This

exemption would apply equally to both in-state and out-of-state facilities and transporters in the same

manner as the current regulations and would not

allow an advantage based upon whether or not the

transporters’

operations are based

in Illinois.

Third, NORA expressed concernthat the proposed amendments would require expensive

changes

to the used oil facilities’ operating procedures and equipment.

We do not agree.

A review of

those facilities that registered with Illinois EPA or USEPAlead

us to believe that the majority of those

facilities that would require a permit have previously operated under an Agency permit and would not

be subject to new operating conditions.

There is at least one permit, however, that was issued in the

THIS PILING IS SUBMITFED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

1980s

whose previously approved permit application does

not include the information necessary to

demonstrate compliance with the standards in Part 739.

NORA also contends that out-of-state facilities would have an advantage because of permit

conditions.

Permit conditions are used to ensure that the facility operator complies with the applicable

regulations.

Furthermore, permit conditions cannot be inconsistent with the Act or Board rule, and

they must be necessary.

Therefore, the Illinois EPA does not see how this favors out-of-state

competitors.

NORA also commented that the oil fuel marketers and burners should not be subject to

permitting, andon-specification used oil should

not be subject to the special waste regulations.

The

proposed regulations would not regulate burners or marketers -ofon-specification fuel if the used oil

met the definition of “re-refined

oil” in Section

3.36 of the Act.

Re-refined oil must meet substantially

the same standards as new oil.

Therefore, if the marketer or burner kept records demonstratingthat

the oil meets an industry standard for new oil, such

as those established by the American Petroleum

Institute, the facility would not be required to manage the oil as special waste.

In our previous

testimony we discussed the possibility that on-specification used oil maynot necessarily be a

marketable commodity since the used oil specification does not place a limit on

bottom sediment,

water,

or other contaminants.

Therefore,

determining whether the used oil is a special waste should

not

be based solely

on the specification found in Part 739.

NORA indicated they would not object toa

12

THIS FILING

IS SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

reasonable minimum BS & W,

but they did not

suggest one.

The proposed language requires the used

oil to be both on-specification (as defined in Part 739)

and re-refined oil (as defined in Section 3.36 of

the Act) before the used oil is exempt from the special waste regulati~s.These proposed

requirements are adequate to distinguish between used oil that is special waste and used oil that is

exempt from the waste management regulations as a commodity.

NORA also raised questions about the sampling requirements for used

GF’r shipments and

stated that certification

in lieu of analysis was

burdensome.

The regulations do not include specific

sampling or certification requirements.

Individual

permits may establish waste analysis requirements

for each facility.

These conditions are site-specific and are meant to ensure that the facility accepts

only those wastes that they are permitted to manage, and that the waste

is properly identified to ensure

it can

safely be managed at the facility.

If the applicant proposed other methods adequate to

accomplish these goals, they could be approved during the permit review process.

NORA was

also concerned about more stringent and restrictive regulatk~ns

on storage tanks,

but did not provide any specific examples of these issues.

Part 739 requires tanks to be in good

condition, not

leaking, and equipped with secondary containment.

Permit conditions are often

established on a case-by-case basis to ensure compliance with these requirements.

Industry standards,

such

as the standards of the American Petroleum Institute, recommend design standards and

inspection procedures for petroleum tanks and are commonly

used

by industry to design and develop

13

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

operating and

inspection procedures for oil storage tanks.

Both the standards in Part 739 and the

standards commonly employed by

industry

are also used

in other states -and- would not

subject Illinois

facilities to an unfair economic disadvantage when compared-toa properly -operated out-of-state used

oil facility.

Any conditions imposed

in a used

oil management facility permit are merely forthe

purpose of ensuringthe requirements ofPart 739 are met.

NORA urged the Board to adopt aregistration

system in lieu of permitting.

Many used

oil

facilities that accept large volumes of used oil have historically had environmental problems.

These

problems were the result ofmany factors including poor design, operation, maintenance, and waste

analysis.

We believe that permits provide aproactive approach to ensure-these types of environmental

problems do not occur in the future.

Finally, NORA commented that “We

initially inquired about this issue

on January 15,

1999 to

the Illinois EPA.

We never received aresponse until March

11.

This left us very little time to

respond before

the April 9th deadline.”

As aresult, NORA requested additional time to respond.

The

Illinois EPA did not receive a letter from NORA regarding this subject.

Rather, we received a letter

dated January

15,

1999

from Harris, Tarlow and Stonecipher, PLLC, but they did not indicate that the

inquiry was

on behalf of

NORA, nor did they use NORA’s letterhead.

Harris, Tarlow and

Stonecipher’s letter indicated that they were aware of the proposed changes regarding permits and

manifests and the fact that the Board oversees the rulemaking.

They asked to be enlightened on the

14

THIS FILING ISSUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

upcoming

proposal--specifically, whether used oil generators and processors would be subject to any

new permitting or manifest requirements.

At the time, there was no

further information available

beyond what was

already available through the Board.

Hearings were held on February 25, 1999

and

March

1,

1999.

On March 11,

1999, we responded with a very brief summary of the events and

referred them to the Board for further information.

This concludes the Illinois EPA’s comments in this matter.

The Illinois EPA has attempted in

these FINAL COMMENTS to address what

it feels were the primary areas of concern left at issue

during the hearings.

Furthermore, the Illinois EPA stands behind its proposal, including the

amendments proposed in these comments.

WHEREFORE,the Illinois EPA submits

its FINAL COMMENTS and PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS for the Board’s consideration andrespectfully requests that the Board adopt the

Illinois EPA’s proposal

in its entirety, including Errata Sheet Number I and the additional

amendments addressed in these comments.

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

~

Ki

berly A

eying

U

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal

Counsel

15

THIS

FILING IS

SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

Dated:

May 6,

1999

1021 N. Grand Ave. East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

16

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

)

COUNTY OF SANGAMON)

PROOF OF

SERVICE

I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have

served the attached FINAL

COMMENTS

OF

THE

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

AND

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO ADDRESS

ISSUES

RAISED

AT

HEARING

on

behalf of the

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency upon the person to whom it is directed, by placing a copy in an

envelope addressed to:

Dorothy

M. Gunn,

Clerk

Pollution Control Board

James R.

Thompson Center

100 West Randolph

St., Ste

11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(FEDERAL

EXPRESS)

-

Robert Lawley Chief Legal Counsel

Department ofNatural Resources

524

South Second Street

Springfield, Illinois 62701-1787

(FIRST CLASS)

Matthew

J. Dunn,

Chief

Environmental Bureau

Office ofthe Attorney General

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph,

1

2th

Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(FIRST CLASS)

Service

List

(FIRST CLASS)

and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois on3

&

/

~?

~

with sufficient postage affixed.

~~ZL

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME

this~dayof

((flt1~

-

TBfl~\à~~

~(~Q\&X\~JC

Notary

Public

Ii

a

dF~Fi~IA~EA

BRENDA

BOEHNER

NOTARY

PUBLIC,

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

~:MYCOMMISSION

EXPIRES

11-14-2001i:

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

ID’

PP,CE

2

•

Matthew

.1 r:unn, Chief

Environment

Bureau

Office of

the

Attorney General

100 West Randolph St.,

12th

Floor

Chicago,

IL

60601

Dorothy

M.

(unn,

Clerk

IL Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph

Street

Suite

I 1-500

Chicago,

IL

60601

Cynthia Hiltcrn, Executive Director

Assoc. of Waste Hazardous Materials Transporters

2200 Miii Road

Akxnndria,

VA 22314

Jefth~y

Jeep

EMCO Chemical Distributors, Inc.

2100 Commonwealth Avenue

worth Chicago,

IL 60064

Jennifer Marsh

Chemical industry

Council

of

Illinois

920 South

Spring

Springfield.

IL 62704

Sanjay K. Soihi

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

215 East Adams Street

Springfield,

IL 62701

Vi~kj

Thomas

JCAR

Win. 0.

Stratton

Bldg.,

Room 700

Springfield,

IL 62706

Kimberly A

Geving, Assistant

Counsel

rlliiiois ~.P.A.

Division

of

I

egal

Counsel

1021

North Grand Avenue

Fasi.

Springfield,

IL 62704-9276

Christopher 1-Jarris, General Counsel

National Oil

Rccyclers Association

1439

West Babcock

Bozeman, Ml’

59715

Katherine

1).

I lodge

Hodge &

Dwyer

808

South Second

Street

Springfield,

IL 62704

Robert Lawley. Chief I .egal

Counsel

Dept. ofNatural

Resources

524

South Second Street

Springfield, IL 62701.1787

Paul

Pike

(MC-602)

Aineren Services

P.O.

Box 66149

St.

Louis, MO 63166

Joel J. Sternstein, Ilcaring

Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph

Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago,

IL 60601

MAY—@S-99

10.02

FROM.

SERVICE

LIST

(R99-018)

R99-018s1

Revised 5/5/9lmh