No. 505

   

    

A Publication of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

    

    

June, 1996

A

A

PPELLATE UPDATE

PPELLATE UPDATE

R

R

ULEMAKING UPDATE

ULEMAKING UPDATE

ourth District Affirms

Board Decision in Stroh Oil

Stroh Oil Company v. The Of-

fice of the State Fire Marshal

and The Illinois Pollution Con-

trol Board, Fourth District Slip

Opinion May 9, 1996.

On July 20, 1995, the Illinois

Pollution Control Board (Board )

affirmed the Office of the State

Fire Marshal’s (OSFM) final

eligibility/deductibility

determination on Stroh Oil

Company’s (Stroh) application.

The determination found Stroh

eligible to access the Underground

Storage Tank Fund (Fund) but

imposed the $100,000 deductible

against Stroh. In the appeal

before the Fourth District, Stroh

argued that it had registered one

of its underground storage tanks

(UST) prior to July 28, 1989 and

therefore, was subject only to the

$15,000 deductible. Additionally,

Stroh argued that the OSFM’s

failure to comply with the Forms

Management Act (20 ILCS 435/1

et seq. (1994)) relieved Stroh from

having to submit registration

forms. Finally, Stroh argued that

the Fund’s deductible scheme

violated the special legislation

clause of the Illinois Constitution

and the equal (Cont’d on p. 3)

overnor Edgar signs

Management Act

On May 21, 1996, Governor

Edgar signed the Livestock

Facilities Management Act (HB

3151) into law as Public Act 89-

456. Present at the bill signing

ceremony were the bill's lead

sponsors, State Senator Laura Kent

Donahue and State Representative

Rich Myers, as well as Pollution

Control Board Chairman Claire

Manning, (Cont’d on p. 2)

riennial Water Quality

Adopted, R94-1(A)

On May 16, 1996, the Board

adopted amendments to the

Illinois water quality regulations.

The amendments are based on a

mandatory triennial review of

the Illinois stream water quality

regulations conducted by the

Illinois EPA (Agency), as required

under the federal Clean Water Act

(33 U.S.C. §§ 1251

et seq.

). The

larger Agency proposal would

amend Parts 302 and 304 of the

Water Pollution Control

regulations to revise the standards

for ammonia nitrogen, mercury,

and lead general water quality

standards; secondary contact and

indigenous aquatic life standards;

and other regulations. The

segment of the proceeding

involved in subdocket R94-1(A)

relates to mercury and lead. The

segment (Cont’d on p. 4)

Inside This Issue

Significant Federal Actions

p5

Final Decisions

p14

New Cases

p16

Calendar of Hearings

p17

E

NVIRONMENTAL

R

EGISTER

E

NVIRONMENTAL

R

EGISTER

F

F

G

G

T

T

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 505

June, 1996

2

overnor Edgar Signs Livestock Facilities Man-

agement Act

(Cont’d from p. 1)

Dept. of Agriculture Director Becky Doyle, IEPA Direc-

tor Mary Gade, and DNR Director Brent Manning. In

signing the bill, Governor Edgar noted that the bill goes

a long way to assure that large livestock facilities will

operate as responsible and friendly neighbors to the pub-

lic, notably the residents that live nearby such facil

ities.

HB 3151 was passed to the Governor by the Illinois

Senate on Thursday May 2 by a vote of 55-0-0. The bill

was previously passed in the Illinois House on Friday,

April 19, 1996. Passage of the bill followed a week of

negotiations that concluded with a compromise agree-

ment worked out between State Agencies, environmen-

talists, the livestock industry, and the Go

vernor's Office.

HB 3151 creates the Livestock Management Facilities

Act to require owners of large livestock management

facilities (feed lots) that build, expand, or modify their

waste lagoons to first register their facilities with the De-

partment of Agriculture (Department). The bill sets forth

fees to be paid to the Department, plus penalties for fail-

ure to register. Further, the bill directs the Department to

investigate any complaints stemming from such facilities

and, if necessary, turn such complaints over to the Illi-

nois Environmental Protection Agency. Any enforce-

ment action would be handled through the adjudication

process before the Pollution Control Board.

HB 3151 expands the current residential set-back re-

quirements for larger feed lots, based upon the number of

animals handled at the facility. The bill also requires feed

lots with 1,000 or more animals to submit waste man-

agement plans to the Department. The bill further re-

quires owners of livestock facilities to purchase insurance

or a surety bond whose amount is to be determined by the

Department, to cover the cleanup costs of any potential

environmental spill or contamination, and requires the

Department to conduct investigations of new or expanded

facilities during the preconstruction, construction, or

post-construction phases. HB 3151 requires such facili-

ties to practice odor control methods as set forth in the

Environmental Protection Act and related Board and/or

IEPA rules, as well as to comply with all other Board and

IEPA rules covering agricultural-related waste. Finally,

the bill clarifies that nothing in the bill prohibits the

IEPA from investigating or pursuing any enforcement

action against any livestock facility suspected to be or

found in violation of any provision of the Environmental

Protection Act.

Specific to the rulemaking provisions, the bill creates

a special Advisory Committee made up of the IEPA, the

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Department

of Public Health (DPH), and the Department of Agricul-

ture (Department) to make recommendations to the De-

partment for the proposed rules. The Department (which

would chair the Advisory Committee) would propose the

rules to the Pollution Control Board. The Department

would have 6 months from the effective date of the bill to

propose rules to the Board, after which the Board would

have 6 months to hold public hearings and adopt final

rules.

The genesis of this bill began with the creation of a

task force earlier this year to study and make

recommendations to the Department regarding

management of very large hog, cattle, turkey, and

chicken operations such as those already proposed in

Cass County near Beardstown, Pike County near

Kinderhook, Champaign County near Mahomet, and

others. When the Task Force completed its report earlier

this spring, the Department introduced two identical

bills, SB 1777 (Donahue) and HB 3151 (Myers). Early

on, both bills were amended to clarify that the new Act

would not limit or preempt any authority over livestock

management facilities provided for in the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act, current enforcement

authority by the IEPA, Attorney General, and State's

Attorneys, and all adjudicatory responsibilities by the

Board for any environmental violations and odor

complaints will remain as they are.

Pollution Control Board Chairman Claire Manning

outlined the rulemaking process the Board will be in-

volved with in implementing P.A. 89-456. The process

begins with the Department of Agriculture meeting with

the special Advisory Group created by the Act and made

up of the IEPA, DNR, and the Dept. of Public Health

(DPH) to take their input on what the rules should in-

clude. The Dept. of Agriculture may also be involved in

a series of public hearings over the summer and the fall

to take additional input from the public on the rules. The

Dept. of Agriculture then has until November 21, 1996 to

propose rules to the Pollution Control Board.

Once the Pollution Control Board receives proposed

rules from the Dept. of Agriculture, it will publish them

in the Illinois Register. The Board will then hold formal

public hearings on the proposed rules, during which the

Dept. of Agriculture will offer testimony and evidence as

to why the rules should be adopted in their proposed

form. Members of the livestock industry, the environ-

mental community, and any other members of the public

will be invited to participate and offer additional testi-

mony or evidence as to why the rules should be adopted

as proposed, or why the rules should amended. The

Board will then take all the testimony, evidence, and

public comments into consideration before voting to

adopt final rules to implement P.A. 89-456 (most likely

in April of 1997). These rules will again be published in

the Illinois Register. The rules are then sent to the Joint

Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) for its final

G

G

---

June, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER NO. 505

3

review. The statutory deadline for final rules to be in

place (including final action by JCAR) is May 21, 1997,

exactly 1 year from the date the Governor signed the bill.

Prior to final rules being adopted, all other provisions of

P.A. 89-456 will be in effect.

While the Board will continue to operate in its cur-

rent role in adjudicating citizens odor complaints as well

as any alleged violations of existing environmental laws

or regulations by such facilities that may arise, IPCB

Chairman Manning stated that the Board's role in the

rulemaking is intended to address any and all "gray ar-

eas," plus any other concerns that may be raised regard-

ing the construction and operation of livestock manage-

ment facilities to hopefully put in place a balanced sys-

tem that works for the interests of all, the livestock in-

dustry, the environmental community, and the general

public.

A

A

PPELLATE UPDATE

PPELLATE UPDATE

(Cont’d from p. 1)

protection clauses of the Illinois and United States Con-

stitutions (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, Sec. 13, art. I, Sec.

2; U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The Fourth District af-

firmed the Board’s decision.

The site in question in this case contained three

USTs and Stroh operated as a petroleum retailer at the

site from 1936 to 1990. In 1988, Stroh decided to re-

place one of the existing USTs at the site with a larger

UST and the OSFM approved the installation plan and

issued a permit for the work. Additionally, a OSFM

inspector supervised the installation. In 1989, during an

inspection by the OSFM the registration status of the

USTs at the site was questioned. Stroh believed the

tanks had previously been registered, however a check

of the records indicated that the USTs were not regis-

tered. On or about October 28, 1989, Stroh submitted

registration forms to the OSFM.

In May of 1991, Stroh received permission to re-

move all USTs on the site and in September of 1991, all

the tanks were removed. At the time of the removal

Stroh realized that a petroleum release had occurred at

some point in the past and Stroh notified the Emergency

Services and Disaster Agency (ESDA) of the release. In

April of 1994, Stroh submitted an eligibility-

deductibility application to the OSFM seeking reim-

bursement for its corrective action costs from the Fund.

The applicable law on April 19, 1994, provided that

Fund eligibility and deductibility determinations be

made by the OSFM. The Environmental Protection Act

(Act) (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (1994).) set a minimum

deductible of $10,000 for all reimbursement cases, and

if all USTs at the site were registered with the OSFM by

July 28, 1989 the minimum amount was to be applied.

If one but not all the USTs at the site were registered by

July 28, 1989, the applicable deductible was $15,000.

Finally, if no USTs at the site were registered, a de-

ductible of $100,000 was applied. (See, 415 ILCS

5/57.9(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) (1994).)

Stroh in its application for access to the Fund as-

serted that the 1988 OSFM supervised installation-

replacement of the UST constituted registration of the

UST and that therefore, the applicable deductible should

be $15,000. The OSFM rejected Stroh’s assertion and

found that the $100,000 deductible was applicable since

none of the tanks was registered by July 28,1989. The

Board affirmed the OSFM’s ruling and the instant ap-

peal followed.

Stroh’s first argument before the Fourth District was

that it had registered one of its USTs prior to July 28,

1989 and therefore, was subject only to the $15,000

deductible. However, the court rejected Stroh’s argu-

ment that the OSFM’s supervision of Stroh’s 1988 tank

installation constituted registration within the meaning

of the Gasoline Storage Act. (Gas Act) (430 ILCS 15/4

(1994).)

In ruling against Stroh, the court stated that the Pub-

lic Act which first required registration of USTs re-

quired registration to be “on the form provided by the

[Illinois Environmental Protection Agency] Agency.”

(See. Pub. Act 84-1072 Sec. 1, eff. July 1, 1986.) Ad-

ditionally, Public Act 85-861 which transferred the re-

sponsibility of maintaining UST records from the

Agency to the OSFM required UST owners to register,

“on forms provided by the [OSFM].” (See. Pub. Act

85-861 eff. September 24, 1987.) The court was further

persuaded by the testimony of Keith Immke, legal coun-

sel for the OSFM, who testified that forms had always

been required which asked for basic information about

the UST and which required certification that the infor-

mation which was provided was true and accurate.

The court held that the inspection report filled out by

the OSFM inspector during the 1988 installation of the

UST was “separate and distinct” from the registration

form which was to be filled out and certified to be true

and accurate by the UST owner-operator. The Fourth

District also agreed with the Board that although much

of the information on the inspection report was identical

to the information required on a registration form, the

OSFM should not be required to “cull” the information

from the inspection report when the owner-operator is

required by statute to provide it to the OSFM. The

Fourth District also rejected Stroh’s argument that the

newest UST (installed in 1988) was registered because

Section 4(b)(6) of the Gas Act requires new tanks to be

registered prior to installation. Instead, the court saw

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 505

June, 1996

4

the failure to register the tank as “another example of

Stroh’s failure to comply with its statutory obligations.”

Stroh’s next argument centered on the contention

that the OSFM failed to comply with the Forms Man-

agement Program Act (Forms Act) (20 ILCS 435/1 et

seq. (1994)). Stroh contended that the OSFM’s failure

to comply with the Forms Act relieved Stroh of the ob-

ligation to register the USTs and thus, made Stroh eligi-

ble for the $10,000 deductible. This issue was one of

first impression before both the Board and the Fourth

District. The Fourth District agreed with Stroh that the

OSFM was in violation of the Forms Act in that the

OSFM relied on a federal form for state registration

which failed, among other things, to indicate the poten-

tial state penalties for failure to complete the form.

However, the Fourth District went on to find, that al-

though the Forms Act protects the public from penalties

or fines associated with failure to respond to a form

which does not comply with the Forms Act, the higher

deductible imposed in the instant case did not constitute

a penalty within the meaning of the Forms Act.

Stroh’s final argument was an attack of the deducti-

ble scheme and the Fund. Stroh argued that the de-

ductible scheme and the Fund violate the special legis-

lation prohibition and the equal protection clause of the

Illinois Constitution and the equal protection clause of

the United States Constitution. The court held that both

the issue of violation of the special legislation prohibi-

tion and the equal protection clauses turned on one

question: were the deductible levels rationally related to

a legitimate state interest? In looking for an answer to

that question, the court found that Stroh failed to meet

its burden in showing that the deductible scheme was

irrational or arbitrary. The Fourth District stated that,

“the State has a legitimate interest in determining the

population of USTs within its borders through the reg-

istration process, and establishment of a deductible

scheme which encourages registration is certainly a ra-

tional approach to this end.” In addition, the court re-

jected Stroh’s argument that the July 28, 1989 date for

imposition of higher deductibles was arbitrary since no

“lead in” period was allowed. In doing this the court

stated that Stroh had been in statutory noncompliance

for over two years prior to the introduction of the new

scheme and that Stroh knew or should have known that

it was subject to penalties for failing to register its

USTs.

R

R

ulemaking Update

ulemaking Update

(Cont’d from p.1)

of the proceeding involved in subdocket R94-1(B)

relates to ammonia nitrogen.

The Agency filed the proposal, docketed by the

Board as R94-1, on February 24, 1994, and the Board

accepted it on March 17, 1994. The Board decided to

proceed on the proposal as a Section 28.2 federally

required rule on May 5, 1994. The Board proposed

amendments based on the R94-1 proposal for First

Notice publication in the

Illinois Register

on September

15, 1994, and Notices of Proposed Amendments

appeared in the

Register

on September 30, 1994. The

Board held a pre-hearing conference on the proposal in

on November 10 and 22, 1994 and January 26 and

November 8, 1995. The Board severed the docket on

January 4, 1996, when it proposed the subdocket R94-

1(A) amendments for First Notice publication in the

Illinois Register

. A Notice of Proposed Amendments

appeared in the January 26, 1996

Register

. The 45-day

public comment period ended on March 11, 1996. The

Board proposed the amendments for Second Notice

review by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

(JCAR) on March 21, 1996. The Second Notice period

ended on March 23, 1996, when JCAR voted no

objection to the amendments.

The amendments became effective on May 24, when

filed with the Secretary of State. A Notice of Adopted

Amendments appeared in the June 7, 1996 issue of the

Illinois Register

(at 20 Ill. Reg. 7682). Direct questions

to Diane F. O'Neill, at 312-814-6062 (Internet address:

doneill@pcb016r1.state.il.us). Request copies of Board

orders from the Board's Chicago receptionist, at 312-

814-3620. Please refer to docket R94-1(A).

M

10

Cleanup Amendments Adopted, R96-5

On May 16, 1996, the Board adopted amendments

to the Illinois air pollution control rules pertaining to

particulate matter having a diameter of less than 10

microns (PM

10

). The amendments address USEPA

concerns over the existing state PM

10

rules. The

amendments make a number of clarifying amendments

to the regulations. They also add discrete opacity limits

for basic oxygen furnace shop, coke oven combustion

stack, and electric arc furnace roof ventilator emissions.

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in

1990, requires the submission of a state implementation

plan (SIP) for PM

10

for all areas classified by USEPA as

moderate nonattainment for PM

10

. The Lake Calumet,

McCook, and Granite City areas in Illinois are so classi-

fied by USEPA. Based on an Agency proposal, the

Board adopted the PM

10

regulations for those areas on

April 9, 1992, in docket R91-35.

(See issue 450, Apr.

22, 1992.)

The Agency submitted the rules to USEPA

for SIP review, and USEPA granted its conditional

P

P

---

June, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER NO. 505

5

approval of the SIP on November 18, 1994 (at 59 Fed.

Reg. 59653), after receiving a March 2, 1994 commit-

ment letter by the Agency to correct certain deficiencies

in the program within one year. USEPA conditioned

the approval because it perceived certain deficiencies in

the Illinois PM

10

SIP submittal. These deficiencies were

described by USEPA in the

Federal Register

as

summarized below:

1.

Illinois had underestimated certain emissions of

Granite City Steel, Acme Steel, LTV Steel,

CWM Chemical Services, CPC International,

and GM Electromotive Division;

2.

Illinois' submittal had not adequately addressed

maintenance of the national ambient air quality

standard (NAAQS) for PM

10

in the

nonattainment areas;

3.

Section 212.443(a) of the rules exempted coke

ovens from the opacity limitations, which

served to delay enforcement of mass loading

violations by LTV Steel;

4.

The rules that apply to electric arc furnace roof

vents of American Steel Foundries were unen-

forceable because the stacks could not be

tested;

5.

Section 212.107 of the rules could have been

misinterpreted as requiring the use of Method

22 to test opacity limits;

6.

The measurement methods set forth in each of

Sections 212.107 through 212.110 were not

always consistent (and should have been

integrated into Section 212.110); and

7.

Several exemptions from mass limitations

intended for small, well-controlled sources with

no visible emissions could have been

misinterpreted to exclude other sources (and

should be clarified as to what sources and when

they apply in the opinion of USEPA).

The Agency proposed and the Board accepted these

amendments pursuant to the "fast-track" provisions of

Section 28.5 of the Act. Section 28.5 requires the

Board to proceed within set time-frames toward the

adoption of the proposed amendments. The Board lacks

any discretion under the statute to adjust these time-

frames under any circumstances. Under Section

28.5(o), the Board must have adopted the proposal for

Second Notice within 130 days on receipt of the

proposal from the Agency. Section 28.5(p) requires

that the Board must adopt and file final rules based on

the proposal within 21 days of when it receives a

Certificate of No Objection from JCAR.

On November 14, 1995, the Board proposed the

amendments to the Illinois PM

10

regulations for First

Notice and scheduled hearings on the proposed rules. A

Notice of Proposed Amendments appeared in the

December 1, 1995

Illinois Register

. The 45-day First

Notice public comment period expired on January 15,

1996. A public hearing occurred on January 5, 1996

and two subsequent scheduled hearings were canceled

because the level of public interest did not warrant

proceeding with them. The record closed on January

31, 1996. The Board proposed the amendments for

Second Notice review by the Joint Committee on

Administrative Rules (JCAR) on March 7, 1996. JCAR

voted no objection to the amendments on April 23,

1996, leaving the Board free to adopt them without

substantive revision.

The amendments were effective when filed with the

Secretary of State on May 22, 1996. Notices of

Adopted Amendments appeared in the June 7, 1996

issue of the

Illinois Register

(at 20 Ill. Reg. 7590 and

7605, for Parts 211 and 212, respectively. Direct

questions to Marie E. Tipsord, at 312-814-4925 or 618-

498-9803 (Internet address: mtipsord@pcb016r1.state.-

il.us). Request copies of Board orders from the Board's

Chicago receptionist, at 312-814-3620. Please refer to

docket R96-5.

ir Permit Requirements Proposal Filed,

Accepted By Board, R96-17

The Illinois EPA (Agency) filed a rulemaking

proposal on May 10, 1996 that seeks to amend the

Illinois air permit regulations. Specifically, the

proposal would amend the list of emission units and

activities that are exempt from the permit requirements.

It would also amend the rules to enhance consistency

between the exemptions and the insignificant activities

provision under the federally-mandated Clean Air Act

Permit Program (CAAPP). The Board found that the

petition fulfilled the applicable procedural requirements

and accepted it by an order dated May 16, 1996.

Direct questions to Marie E. Tipsord, at 312-814-

4925 or 618-498-9803 (Internet address: mtips-

ord@pcb016r1.state.il.us). Request copies of Board

orders from the Board's Chicago receptionist, at 312-

814-3620. Please refer to docket R96-17.

S

S

IGNIFICANT FEDERAL ACTIONS

IGNIFICANT FEDERAL ACTIONS

A

A

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 505

June, 1996

6

The Board continues its series of reports on recent

federal actions from the Federal Register that are of

interest to the Board and the regulated community.

Below are highlighted 34 such actions that occurred in

May, 1996:

dvance Notice of Proposed HSWA Corrective

Action Rules for Releases of Hazardous Waste

at Solid Waste Management Facilities

On May 1, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 19431), USEPA

published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for

corrective actions for releases at hazardous waste

management facilities. USEPA stated that it proposed

the advance notice to outline its strategy for establishing

the regulations, to provide a context for the corrective

action program by setting forth the evolution since a

1990 proposal, and to describe program improvements

under consideration and highlight areas of flexibility.

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of

1984 (HSWA) mandates that USEPA require corrective

action for releases of hazardous waste and hazardous

waste constituents at all solid waste management

facilities seeking RCRA permits. Where corrective

action cannot be completed prior to permit issuance,

HSWA requires USEPA to impose corrective action

conditions in issuing the permit. HSWA further

requires off-site corrective action unless the permit

applicant demonstrates that it was unable to obtain the

necessary authorizations for such action. USEPA

codified corrective action requirements on July 15, 1985

(50 Fed. Reg. 28702) that reiterated the statutory

language and modified those requirements on December

1, 1987 (52 Fed. Reg. 45788). USEPA proposed

detailed corrective action requirements on July 27, 1990

(55 Fed. Reg. 30798), which would have set forth the

technical and procedural requirements for remedial

actions, similar to the National Contingency Plan (NCP)

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).

USEPA stressed the need for site-specific flexibility in

selecting remedial actions. USEPA finalized only

limited segments of the 1990 proposal in the corrective

action management unit (CAMU) rules adopted on

February 16, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 8658).

(See item in

issue 504, May, 1996 re proposal relating to

contaminated media.)

roposed Exclusion of HFC-43-10mee and HCFC-

225ca and cb from the CAA Definition of VOM

On May 1, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 19231), USEPA

proposed the exemption of two additional compounds

from the definition of volatile organic compound (VOC,

the same as "volatile organic material" or "VOM" in the

Illinois regulations). One compound is a hydrofluoro-

carbon, HFC-43-10mee, whose chemical name is

1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-decafluoropentane (CASE number

138495-42-8). The other is two isomers of a hydro-

chlorofluorocarbon, HCFC-225ca, whose chemical

name is 3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane

(CASE number 422-56-0), and HCFC-225cb, whose

chemical name is 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoro-

propane (CASE number 507-55-1). The exclusions

would be based on USEPA's determination that these

compounds participate negligibly in the formation of

tropospheric ozone. The hydroxyl ion formation

reaction rate constants for these compounds are one to

two orders of magnitude lower than the constant for

ethane. USEPA undertook this action in response to

petitions from Asahi Glass America, Inc., on behalf of

HCFC-225ca and HCFC-225cb, and E.I. DuPont

DeNemours & Co., on behalf of HFC-43-10mee.

Pesticide Uses for Propargite

On May 3, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 19936), USEPA

granted the voluntary withdrawal of 10 registered uses

of the pesticide propargite (trade names Omite,

Ornamite, and Comite) under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). USEPA had

expressed concerns over the cancer risks for persons

eating treated foods. USEPA classified it as a B

2

human

carcinogen. The overall lifetime risk of cancer from

consuming propargite-treated commodities was rated by

USEPA as 1.6 x 10

-5

. Propargite was registered for use

in 1969 for the control of mites on agricultural

commodities and ornamental plants. Uniroyal Chemical

Company, the registrant, petitioned for the deletion of

the 10 uses: apples, apricots, cranberries, figs, green

beans, lima beans, peaches, pears, plums, and

strawberries.

roposed Amendments to CAA Perchloroethylene

Dry Cleaning Facilities NESHAP

On May 3, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 19887), USEPA

proposed amendments to the 40 CFR 63, subpart M

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) applicable to perchloroethylene dry cleaning

facilities. The proposed amendments would allow the

continued use of solvent transfer machines installed

between December 9, 1991, when USEPA proposed the

NESHAP, and September 22, 1993.

USEPA adopted the NESHAP under the federal

Clean Air Act (CAA) on September 22, 1993 (58 Fed.

Reg. 49354) and amended it on December 20, 1993 (58

Fed. Reg. 66287). The International Fabricare Institute

sued USEPA in the District of Columbia circuit court

because the original proposed rule did not prohibit the

use of transfer machines for emissions control; the final

A

A

P

P

N

N

P

P

---

June, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER NO. 505

7

rule would have required these facilities to purchase a

second system, dry-to-dry machines. USEPA stated

that it did not believe that new transfer machines were

going into use, so it did not propose to ban them.

USEPA entered into a settlement agreement that

promised to allow the transfer machines installed during

the pendency of the regulation--i.e., between December

9, 1991 and December 20, 1993--to continue to operate.

The proposed amendments would allow their continued

use on a basis similar to transfer machines in existence

prior to December 9, 1991. The proposal would not

affect the status of transfer machines installed after

adoption of the final rule on December 20, 1993; those

are still prohibited from operation.

(Note: Under Section 39.5 of the Act, the Agency

may implement federal NESHAP requirements directly

through permitting without rulemaking action by the

Board. That means that these amendments will become

pproval of Madison County CAA SO

2

SIP

Revision

On May 6, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 20147), USEPA

adopted a direct final rule approving a revision to the

Illinois federal Clean Air Act (CAA) sulfur dioxide state

implementation plan (SO

2

SIP) for Madison County.

The subject matter is SO

2

emissions from three

industrial facilities in Granite City: the Nestle Beverage

Company, Reilly Industries, and the Granite City Steel

Division of the National Steel Corporation. The SIP

revision approval is effective on July 5, 1996 unless

expressly withdrawn before that time. The

accompanying notice of proposed rule appeared in the

same issue of the

Federal Register

(61 Fed. Reg.

20201).

USEPA proposed to designate portions of Madison

County as nonattainment for SO

2

on September 22,

1992 (57 Fed. Reg. 43846) based on emissions

modeling. USEPA announced its intent to defer air

quality designation of the area on December 21, 1993

(58 Fed. Reg. 67336) while the state sought to revise

the area SO

2

SIP. The Illinois EPA (Agency) issued

federally-enforceable state operating permits (FESOPs)

for the three facilities in February and March, 1995.

The Agency then submitted a SIP revision to USEPA on

March 14, 1995. After review of the SIP submittal,

USEPA determined that the FESOPs issued to the

facilities rectify the modeled SO

2

ambient air quality

violations for the area and approved the SIP revision.

onditional Approval of Metro East CAA VOM

Emissions Regulations

On May 7, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 20455), USEPA

issued a direct final rule that granted conditional

approval of the Illinois federal Clean Air Act (CAA)

volatile organic material (VOM, the same as "volatile

organic compound" or "VOC" in the federal

regulations) emissions regulations for the metropolitan

East St. Louis (Metro East) area. The Illinois EPA

(Agency) submitted the rules to USEPA for approval on

October 21, 1993 and revised the submission on May

26, 1995. The approval is effective July 8, 1996 unless

expressly withdrawn before that date. USEPA

conditioned the approval. The accompanying notice of

proposed rule appeared in the same issue of the

Federal

Register

(61 Fed. Reg. 20504).

The approved regulations are the 35 Ill. Adm. Code

219.Subparts PP, QQ, RR, and TT, as amended by the

Board in R93-9, the omnibus RACT cleanup

rulemaking, and in R94-21, the Part IV 15% reduction

of pollution (ROP) proceeding. They are applicable to

major sources having a potential to emit 100 tons per

year or more of VOC that are not covered by federal

control technology guidelines (non-CTG sources).

USEPA faulted the rules because they exempt bakeries

and sewage treatment plants. The R94-21 regulations

included provisions expressly applicable to bakery

ovens, but P.A. 89-79 explicitly preempted those rules

effective June 30, 1995. USEPA would require that

Illinois establish non-CTG source requirements

applicable to these entities. USEPA noted further that

the rules allow a facility to use an alternative control

strategy by capacity or production limitations. It

deemed these provisions approvable because USEPA

has the prerogative of deeming a permit "not federally

enforceable" in a letter to the Agency, which would

remove the protection of the operating permit from the

source.

PCRA Extremely Hazardous Substance and

Reportable Quantity Lists Amended

On May 7, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 20473), USEPA

amended the Emergency Planning and Community-

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) extremely hazardous

substance (EHS) and reportable quantity (RQ) lists.

USEPA raised the RQs for 204 EHSs in implementing

one of its regulatory reform commitments in its June 1,

1995 Report to the President. Accompanying

amendments delete four chemicals from the list in

response to a judicial order.

Under EPCRA and the implementing 40 CFR 355

regulations, any facility that manages an EHS above its

threshold planning quantity (TPQ) must notify certain

state and local governmental entities and engage in

emergency planning. If a release of a quantity of an

EHS above its RQ occurs, EPCRA requires immediate

reporting of that fact to federal, state, and local

officials. EHSs are acutely toxic substances that cause

severe short- and long-term toxic effects after a single,

A

A

C

C

E

E

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 505

June, 1996

8

brief exposure. EPCRA provides that the RQ is one

pound for any EHS for which USEPA has not assigned

an RQ. USEPA had not yet established RQs for 204

EHSs. On August 30, 1989 (54 Fed. Reg. 35988),

USEPA proposed RQs for 232 EHSs. The amendments

adopt RQs for the 204 substances at their TPQs.

USEPA initially published the list of EHSs on

November 17, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 4150). It

simultaneously proposed the deletion of 40 substances

from the list, but announced on April 22, 1987 (52 Fed.

Reg. 13388) that it was deferring further action on the

deletions pending further evaluation of their toxic

effects. As a result of litigation, in

A.L. Laboratories,

Inc. v. EPA

, 674 F. Supp. 894 (D.D.C. 1987), the

court ordered USEPA to remove several chemicals from

the EHS list. USEPA proposed the deletions of the four

chemicals, phosphorus pentoxide, diethylcarbamazine

citrate, fenitrothion, and tellurium, on October 12, 1994

(59 Fed. Reg. 51816).

eeting on the Development of a Screening

Program for Environmental Endocrine

Disruptors

On May 8, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 20814),

USEPA announced a meeting on May 15 and 16, 1996

on developing a program for screening environmental

endocrine disruptors. USEPA stated that it has invited

20 members of industry, the environmental community,

academia, and government to the meeting. USEPA

noted that the Senate had recently passed a bill that

would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require

the establishment of a screening and testing program for

environmental estrogens within two years, with

discretion to open the program to other environmental

endocrine disruptors. S. 1316 specifically targets active

and inert ingredients in pesticide products for screening.

USEPA stated that it had recently proposed test

guidelines for reproductive and developmental toxicity,

but called the screening of all the existing 600 pesticide

products and 80,000 chemical products "an enormous

challenge.”

equirements for State CWA Programs Amended

to Require Jurisdiction for Third Party Appeals

On May 8, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 20971), USEPA

amended the minimum federal requirements for state

Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit programs. The

amendments require a state seeking authorization or

continued authorization of its NPDES permit program to

provide an opportunity for judicial review on permit

decisions, including permit approvals, "that is sufficient

to provide for, encourage, and assist public participation

in the permitting process."

USEPA stated that it issued the amendments because

it was aware of instances where citizens were barred

from challenging state-issued permits. USEPA stated

that the ability to participate in appeals of permit

decisions "will promote effective and meaningful public

participation and will minimize the possibility of unfair

and inconsistent treatment of similarly situated people

potentially affected by State permit decisions.” USEPA

said that a state must give a right to seek review that is

equivalent to the right available in a federal court. This

means that a state cannot narrowly restrict the class of

persons who may seek review, such as by requiring a

demonstrable injury or a particular property interest that

the discharge may effect. USEPA noted that the

amendments leave the states free to impose reasonable

requirements for exhaustion of administrative remedies

before a court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an

NPDES permit decision.

(Note: Legislative action will be required to confer

this third-party right of appeal in Illinois. In

Citizens

Utilities Co. of Illinois v. PCB

, 265 Ill. App. 3d 773,

639 N.E.2d 1306 (3d Dist. 1994), the Third District

Appellate Court determined that a third party cannot

appeal an Illinois EPA (Agency) determination to grant

a permit. The court held that the Board lacked subject

matter jurisdiction because the Environmental

Protection Act does not authorize appeals of an Illinois

EPA (Agency) grant of a permit. The court followed the

Supreme Court's conclusion to this effect in

Landfill,

Inc. v. PCB

, 74 Ill. 2d 541, 387 N.E.2d 258, (1978)

which held that the act confers no authority for the

Board to hear a third party appeal of a grant of a land

permit. Former Board procedural rule 105.102

provided for third-party appeals of Agency NPDES

permit decisions, but the court held that a Board

procedural rule was inadequate to confer jurisdiction on

mendments to Small Steam Generating Unit

NSPS

On May 8, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 20734),

USEPA amended the standards of performance for new

stationary sources (NSPS) for small industrial,

commercial, and institutional steam generating units.

The amendments exclude certain units from the small

steam generating unit category for sulfur dioxide (SO

2

)

and particulate matter (PM) when used for combustion

research. USEPA undertook this action after

reexamination after the filing of litigation in

Babcock

and Wilcox Co. v. EPA

, no. 90-1509 (D.C. Cir., in

which an exemption was sought for units of 14.6

megawatts (MW; 50 million Btu/hr) capacity or less.

USEPA examined the possible exclusion and concluded

M

M

R

R

A

A

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER NO. 505

9

that the use of these units for combustion research has a

limited environmental effect.

ix-Month Delay Adopted for CAA Title V Permit

Applications

On May 10, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 21370), USEPA

adopted a direct final rule that delays the deadline for

submission of Title V permit applications by about six

months, until November 15, 1996. USEPA adopted the

delay to avoid unnecessary paperwork for owners and

operators of major sources and for the state agencies

that process the applications. The accompanying notice

of proposed rule appeared in the same issue of the

Federal Register

, at 61 Fed. Reg. 21414. USEPA

stated that it would withdraw the rule if it receives

significant adverse public comment.

The section 112(j) permit would impose equivalent

emissions limitations by permit. Under section 112(e)

of the CAA, USEPA was to have established maximum

achievable control technology standards for hazardous

air pollutants (HAPs) from 40 of certain listed source

categories by 1992, for another 25% of the listed

categories by 1994, for 50% of the categories by 1997,

and for the remaining categories by 2000. These are

called 2-year, 4-year, 7-year, and 10-year standards.

Under section 112(j) of the federal Clean Air Act

(CAA) required owners and operators of major category

sources in states with approved CAA Title V permit

programs to file an application for a Title V permit

within 18 months of the date when USEPA was required

to adopt a section 112(d) emission standard for the

category of sources but failed to do so. The extension

of the application deadline applies to the 4-year sources,

for which USEPA stated it intends to complete

developing MACT standards within 18 months of the

statutory deadline--i.e., by May 15, 1996. USEPA

stated that if the sources subject to the original deadline

had submitted permit applications, an unnecessary

burden would have resulted when it adopts the MACT

standard for those sources.

pproval of Illinois Vehicle I/M Program

On May 10, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 21405), USEPA

proposed approval of portions of the Illinois vehicle

inspection and maintenance (VI/M) program. USEPA

proposed conditional approval of various other portions

of the program based on the commitment of the Illinois

EPA (Agency) to provide additional documentation

within specified times. The program involved is the

enhanced VI/M program for the metropolitan Chicago

and East St. Louis areas. The state is required under

the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) to implement the

program for the Chicago area by 2007; the required

implementation date for the Metro East area is 1996.

The program is part of the state's ozone implementation

plan. USEPA stated that the enhanced VI/M program

will reduce volatile organic material (VOM)

emissions by 38 tons per day in both areas.

The Board adopted regulations pertaining to the

vehicle inspection and maintenance program under

the Environmental Protection Act (Act; 415 ILCS 5)

and the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law of 1995

(VEIL; 625 ILCS 5). In docket R94-19, using the "fast-

track" procedure of Section 28.5 of the Act and Section

13B-20 of VEIL, the Board adopted vehicle engine

exhaust emission standards on December 1, 1994. In

docket R94-20, using the "identical-in-substance"

procedure of Sections 7.2 and 28.4 of the Act and

Section 13B-20(a) of VEIL, the Board adopted fuel

system evaporative emissions standards on the same

date. The Agency submitted the regulations to USEPA

for SIP review, together with other required elements of

the Illinois VI/M program, on June 29, 1995. On April

22, 1996, the Agency submitted a letter of commitment

to submit the required further documentation within one

year of when USEPA grants final conditional approval

for the program.

(Note: Issue 504, May, 1996 reported in error that

the April 9, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 15715) direct final rule

approving the state implementation plan (SIP) for the

Illinois vehicle inspection and maintenance program

(VI/M) was related to the R95-19/R95-20 amendments.

Reexamination of the April 9 notice indicates that that

approval, which became effective on June 10 and was

based on a June 26, 1995 submittal by the Agency,

related to the VI/M regulations as they stood after the

April 7, 1992 amendments in R90-20, the diesel exhaust

opacity proceeding; the June 29, 1990 adoption of P.A.

86-1433; and the June 15, 1992 adoption of procedural

rules by the Agency (at 16 Ill. Reg. 10230, June 26,

1992). That program was in partial response to a 1989

agreement among USEPA, the State of Illinois, and the

oard of Scientific Counselors Established to

Study USEPA Research Efforts

On May 10, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 21463), USEPA

announced the formation of a federal advisory

committee, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC),

to provide USEPA with expert scientific and

engineering advice. BOSC will evaluate USEPA's

scientific and engineering research programs,

laboratories, and research management practices and

make specific recommendations to USEPA for

improvements. The first meeting of BOSC was to occur

in mid-June, 1996.

S

S

A

A

B

B

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 505

June, 1996

10

ederal Grants Available for Lead Abatement

Program Development

On May 10, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 21463), USEPA

announced the availability of grants funds for the

development of state accreditation and certification

programs for lead-based paint abatement professionals.

Approximately $12.5 million is available to states to

develop programs for training and certifying persons

involved in lead abatement. This is the third year that

funds have been made available for this purpose.

USEPA stated that there are no matching share

requirements to obtain funds. The funds are available

pursuant to section 404(g) of the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA).

On May 14, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 24407), the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

similarly announced the availability of funds for state

lead abatement programs: $50 million for abatement in

eligible housing units (Category A) and $4 million for

abatement in eligible housing units on Superfund sites

(Category B). HUD will award 10 to 12 grants under

section 1011(a) of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard

Reduction Act of 1992 of between $1 and $6 million

each for Category A sites and a maximum of 8 grants of

a half to $2 million each for Category B sites. The

maximum allowable project duration is 36 months.

Like the USEPA grant program, the HUD program is

intended to help build national lead abatement capacity.

HUD stated that this was its fourth round of grants; it

also awarded $279 million in 64 lead abatement grants

to 56 grantees in fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994.

inal Draft Permit Improvement Team

Recommendations Available

On May 10, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 21855), USEPA

announced the availability of the final draft

recommendations of the Permits Improvement Team

(PIT) and published the full text of the "PIT Concept

Paper on Environmental Permitting and Task Force

Recommendations.” USEPA formed PIT in July, 1994

to evaluate its various permitting programs (RCRA,

UIC, NPDES, etc.), both those programs its

administered directly and those administered through

the states. After further review by other federal

advisory committees to determine consistency with such

organizations as the Common Sense Initiative and the

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council and

making any changes, the final recommendations will be

submitted to USEPA Secretary Browner for

consideration. USEPA will implement the

recommendations upon her endorsement.

nvironmental Impact Statements Available for

Federal Projects in Illinois

On May 13, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 22057), USEPA

announced the availability of a draft economic

impact statement relating to the federal aid for the

Route 310/U.S. 67 Expressway from Godfrey to

Jacksonville (EIS no. 960207). On May 24, 1996 (61

Fed. Reg. 26177), USEPA announced the availability of

a final supplement to the economic impact statement

relating to the construction of the Sugar Creek

municipal water supply reservoir (EIS no. 960230).

rinking Water Information Collection Rule for

Monitoring Microorganisms and Disinfection

Byproducts Requirements Adopted

On May 14, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 24353), USEPA

adopted an information collection rule (ICR) under the

federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) relating to

monitoring for microorganisms and disinfection

byproducts in drinking water. USEPA is requiring the

monitoring for, among other things, specific pathogenic

microorganisms (cryptosporidium, giardia, and viruses)

and disinfections byproducts (DBPs) and submission of

data on plant operations. USEPA will use the

information together with current research to determine

whether amendments are necessary to the existing

drinking water filtration and disinfection regulations or

whether new rules are necessary. Surface water supply

systems that serve 100,000 or more persons and

groundwater systems that serve 50,000 or more persons

must engage in the monitoring and submit the required

information. USEPA will fund surveys of smaller

supply systems. The ICR is effective June 18, 1996,

and it will expire at the end of 2000.

USEPA estimated that the total cost of the regulation

will be $129 million. USEPA broke the estimated costs

down into five categories:

Startup cost

$18,000 per system (average)

$7.6 million nationally for

422 systems

Microbial monitoring

$39,000 per system (average)

$17.2 million for 440 systems

DBP monitoring

$50,000 per groundwater

treatment site (average)

$69,000 per surface water

treatment site (average)

$37.5 million for 292 systems

that treat water and 24

systems that purchase treated

water

Data Reporting

$14,000 per treatment plant

(average)

$9.4 million

F

F

F

F

E

E

D

D

---

June, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER NO. 505

11

TOC Monitoring and

$150,000 to $750,000 per

study

Treatment Studies

$57 million

(Note: The Board will include this action in the list

of federal actions covered by the SDWA update docket

isting of FY 96 Candidate Pesticides for FIFRA

Reregistration

On May 15, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 24490),

USEPA published a listing of 50 candidate pesticide

reregistration cases, of which USEPA intends to

complete reregistration eligibility decisions (REDs) for

40. USEPA sought public comment and data on the

cases. It seeks to prioritize its efforts to concentrate

first on those that pose the greatest risk or high

exposure. The list of 50 cases for FY 1996 included,

among others, alachlor, aldicarb, chlorpyriphos, DEET,

gibberellic acid, parquat, phorate, and strychnine. The

candidate list for FY 1997 included 2,4-D, acrolein,

carbofuran, endosulfan, formaldehyde, malathion,

methomyl, pentachlorophenol, pine oil, pipronyl

butoxide, and pyrethrin. USEPA indicated that it had

already begun to assemble scientific assessments on 17

other candidates.

USEPA explained that 1988 amendments to the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA) mandate reregistration of pesticides containing

an active ingredient originally registered before

November 1, 1984. In 1988 there were about 600

groups of related active pesticide ingredients, or

"cases,” which represented 1,150 active ingredients and

45,000 formulated products. Since then, over 200 cases

representing 20,000 products have been canceled either

because the registrants failed to support the registrations

or through USEPA actions to cancel them. Of the 382

remaining cases for which there is support, USEPA has

rendered eligibility decisions on 129 cases. In FY

1995, USEPA completed 40 REDs, including ones for

aliphatic alcohols, benzocaine, diquat, metolachor, and

picloram.

IFRA Experimental Use Permits Affecting

Illinois

On May 15, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 24495), USEPA

announced the issuance of two experimental use permits

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that apply in Illinois. One,

granted to AgrEvo USA Company, will allow the use of

about 4,000 pounds of an herbicide, monoammonium 2-

amino-4-(hydroxyethylphosphinyl)-butanoate on about

5,000 acres of corn and 400 acres of soybeans in 34

states, including Illinois, to evaluate the control of

perennial grass and broadleaf weeds. The other,

granted to Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, will allow the

use of about 1,600 pounds of the insecticide 5-amino-1-

2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl-4-((1,R,S)-

(trifluoromethyl)sulfinyl)-1-H-pyrazolecarbonitrile on

about 240 acres of field corn in seven states, including

Illinois, to evaluate control of corn rootworm.

cientific Advisory Board Meetings Scheduled

On May 16, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 24791), USEPA

announced meetings for two of its Scientific Advisory

Board's (SAB). The Human Exposure and Health

Subcommittee (HEHS) of the Integrated Risk Project

was scheduled to meet in Washington, D.C. on June 13

and 14, 1996 to discuss human exposure to

environmental pollutants and the potential for risk

reduction. USEPA has charged the SAB with

developing a scientifically-based ranking system for

environmental problems, for identifying which

emerging risks warrant specific attention, for assessing

the risk reduction potential of strategies for dealing with

environmental problems, and for identifying the

uncertainties relating to risk rankings. HEHS is one of

several SAB panels working on this project. The

Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) was

scheduled to meet June 11 through 13, 1996 in

Cincinnati, Ohio to evaluate the technical aspects of the

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)

Program. The objective is to review the SITE program,

evaluate how well program objectives were achieved,

identify the impact of the program, determine how well

the program has supported commercialization of

technology, and to make specific recommendations to

USEPA.

xpanded FIFRA Pesticide Use for Oil of

Mustard

On May 17, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 24893), USEPA

amended its regulations to exempt allyl isothiocyanate,

a component of oil of mustard, from the requirement for

a tolerance for residues in raw agricultural commodities

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The exemption will allow

the expanded use of oil of mustard for food and feed

uses. USEPA noted that allyl isothiocyanate is on the

Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Generally

Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list, and that it is a

component of household mustard products in

concentrations up to 1.8 percent by weight. USEPA

first registered it as a dog and cat repellent in 1962 and

for non-food and non-feed uses as an insecticide and

repellent in 1991. The exemption will allow the use of

allyl isothiocyanate on fruits, vegetables, nuts, berries,

L

L

F

F

S

S

E

E

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 505

June, 1996

12

and grains up in concentrations to 0.2 percent by

weight.

ield Testing of Genetically-Engineered Microbial

Pesticides

In response to a request filed by DuPont Agricultural

Products, on May 17, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 24934),

USEPA sought public comment on small-scale field

testing of a genetically-engineered microbial pesticide.

DuPont proposed testing the efficacy of a baculovirus,

Autographa Californica Multiple Nuclear Polyhedrosis

Virus (AcMNPV), that has been engineered to encode

the insect-specific toxin from a scorpion, Leiurus

quinquestriatus hebraeus. The field testing would occur

in seven states, including Illinois, on cotton and cabbage

against the cabbage looper, tobacco budworm, cotton

bollworm, beet armyworm, and diamondback moth

insect pets.

(Note: As described in issue 504, May, 1996,

USEPA published a similar notice in response to a

request filed by American Cyanamid Company, on

March 22, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 11838). In that notice

USEPA sought public comment on small-scale field

testing of AcMNPV that has been engineered to encode

the insect-specific toxin from a different scorpion:

Androctonus australis. That field testing would occur in

12 states, including Illinois, on cotton, tobacco, and

leafy vegetables against the cabbage looper and tobacco

inal CAA CTG Released for the Wood Furniture

Manufacturing Category

On May 20, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 25223), USEPA

released a final control technology guideline (CTG) for

emissions for volatile organic material (VOM) from

wood furniture manufacturing operations located in

ozone nonattainment areas. The CTG represents

reasonably available control technology (RACT) for

control of these emissions from wood furniture

finishing, cleaning, and washoff operation sources.

USEPA noted that it adopted the wood furniture

manufacturing operations national emission standards

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) on December 7,

1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 62930).

(See issue 501, Feb.,

AA NAAQS for Sulfur Dioxide Unchanged

On May 22, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 25566), USEPA

determined to make no substantive revision in the

primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO

2

). However,

USEPA did make "several minor technical changes.”

Section 109 of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA)

requires USEPA to establish primary and secondary

national ambient air quality standards for specified

contaminants, including SO

2

. A primary standard is

directed at protection of human health, and a

secondary standard is based on effects on the public

welfare (including the environment). Section 109

also requires periodic review and possible revision

of the established standards.

USEPA stated that it adopted the existing primary

and secondary NAAQSs for SO

2

on April 30, 1971 (36

Fed. Reg. 8186). The primary NAAQS for SO

2

is 365

mg/m

3

(0.14 part per million (ppm)) on a 24-hour

average basis or 80 mg/m

3

(0.030 parts per million

(ppm)) annual arithmetic mean. The secondary NAAQS

for SO

2

is 1300 mg/m

3

(0.50 ppm) on a 3-hour average

basis, not to be exceeded more than once per year. The

national annual average SO

2

levels range from less than

0.004 ppm in remote rural areas to over 0.03 ppm in the

most polluted urban areas. Local maximum levels can

exceed 0.4 ppm on a 24-hour average basis, 1.4 ppm on

a 3-hour basis, and 2.3 ppm on a 1-hour basis.

The technical amendments clarify that the averaging

periods are sequential and do not overlap, the standards

are now expressed in ppm rather than mg/m

3

, and

USEPA incorporated express data completeness and

rounding conventions into the standards. In determining

not to revise the NAAQS for SO

2

, USEPA further

determined that existing SO

2

emission standards are

sufficient so that a program for regulating short-term

peak ambient concentrations under section 303 of the

CAA is not necessary. Nevertheless, USEPA plans to

propose section 303 program standards to help guide the

states in dealing with episodic events. It intends to

propose a 0.60 ppm 5-minute "concern level" and a 2.0

ppm 5-minute "intervention level" to aid in state

remedial responses.

(Note: As stated in issue 498, Nov., 1995, USEPA

published a similar determination not to revise the

identical primary and secondary NAAQS for nitrogen

dioxide (NO

2

) on October 11, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg.

52874). The primary and secondary NAAQSs for NO

2

were established on April 30, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 8186)

and reviewed and reaffirmed by USEPA on June 19,

1985 (50 Fed. Reg. 25532). The present NAAQS for

NO

2

is 100 micrograms per cubic meter of air (mg/m

3

),

or 0.053 parts per million (ppm), annual arithmetic

average. Typical peak NO

2

levels across the country

range from 0.007 to 0.061 ppm, the highest hourly

values range from 0.04 to 0.54 ppm. All areas of the

country are currently in compliance with the NAAQS for

NO

2

. Los Angeles is the only area that has any history

tratospheric Ozone: Significant New

Alternatives Policy (SNAP)

F

F

F

F

C

C

S

S

---

June, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER NO. 505

13

On May 22, 1996 (at 61 Fed. Reg. 25585), USEPA

amended the Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) listings in the stratospheric ozone protection

rules. The amendments incorporated an updated listing

of restrictions and prohibitions for substances used to

substitute for ozone-depleting substances. Under the

SNAP program, adopted under section 612 of the Clean

Air Act, this listing indicates the acceptable and

unacceptable substitutes and conditions on substitution

for ozone-depleting substances in particular uses.

USEPA evaluates risks to human health and the

environment in assembling the listings. In the same

issue of the

Federal Register

(61 Fed. Reg. 25604),

USEPA proposed additional revisions to the lists.

USEPA established the SNAP policy and issued its

first listing of acceptable substitutions on March 18,

1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 13044). It has since amended the

listings a handful of times, on June 13, 1995 (at 60 Fed.

Reg. 31092), July 28, 1995 (at 60 Fed. Reg. 38729),

and February 8, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 4736).

(See 495,

June-July, 1996; 496, Aug.-Sept., 1995; and 502, Mar.,

ntegrated Report on the Urban Soil Lead

Abatement Demonstration Project

On May 22, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 25669), USEPA

announced the availability of a final report, "Integrated

Report on the Urban Soil Lead Abatement

Demonstration Project.” The report is an integrated

assessment of the technical data from separate studies

that occurred in Boston, Baltimore, and Cincinnati.

The Urban Soil Lead Abatement Demonstration Project

was authorized in 1986 under section 111(b)(6) of the

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. The

results of the three individual studies appeared in 1993

final reports. USEPA assembled the latest release, an

integrated assessment, in the belief that interested

persons would benefit. USEPA stated that the

integrated assessment concludes that abatement of soil

lead levels will result in lowered blood lead levels in

children when soil is a significant environmental source

of lead. The assessment finds four factors are important

for reduction in blood lead levels: (1) the child's past

history of lead exposure, (2) the magnitude of the

reduction in the soil, (3) the magnitude of other sources

of lead relative to soil, and (4) a direct exposure

pathway between the child and the soil.

nternal Guidance for Deriving Superfund MRLs

and Existing MRLs for Hazardous Substances

Published

On May 23, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 25873), the

Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)

published its internal guidance for development of

minimum risk levels (MRLs) for hazardous substances

occurring at Superfund sites (i.e., sites designated by

USEPA as on the National Priorities List (NPL) for

remedial action). With the guidance, ATSDR published

a listing of the several hazardous substances for which

MRLs have already been developed.

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization

Act (SARA) requires that ATSDR and USEPA work

jointly with regard to hazardous substances found at

Superfund sites. They are to derive a listing of the

hazardous substances most commonly found at these

sites and prepare toxicological profiles of these

substances to determine significant human exposure

levels (SHELs). ATSDR developed the MRLs in the

course of fulfilling the mandate to develop SHELs.

ASTDR stated that it used the "no-adverse-effect-

level/uncertainty factor approach" and considered "the

people most sensitive to such substance-induced effects"

in deriving the MRLs. The MRLs are derived for acute

(1-14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic

(365 or more days) exposure durations and the oral and

inhalation routes of exposure.

ettlement Proposed in CAA HAPs Guidance

Litigation

On May 24, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 26176), USEPA

announced that a proposed partial consent decree was

filed on May 9, 1996 in

Sierra Club Legal Defense

Fund v. EPA

(D.D.C.). The lawsuit challenged

USEPA's failure to develop the guidance required

within the schedules set forth in the hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) provision, section 112(g) of the federal

clean Air Act (CAA). The proposed decree would

require USEPA to develop the guidance no later than

December 15, 1996.

inal Paper Products Recovered Materials

Advisory Notice Available

On May 29, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 26985), USEPA

announced the availability of a final recovered material

advisory notice (RMAN) for paper products. Under

section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, which established a "buy recycled"

program for federal agencies, USEPA designates items

made from recovered materials and establishes

recommendations for government procurement of these

items. USEPA explained that the intent is to expand

and maintain markets for recycled paper. The new final

RMAN amends the 1988 recommendations relating to

paper products. The RMAN defines various terms,

recommends recovered fiber and postconsumer fiber

contents for various paper products, and explains how to

determine the contents for the products.

S

I

I

I

F

F

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 505

June, 1996

14

inal CAA NESHAP Adopted for HAP Emissions

from the Printing and Publishing Industry

On May 30, 1996, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 27131),

USEPA adopted final national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for sources in the

printing and publishing industry. The NESHAP applies

the maximum available control technology (MACT) for

control of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from

these sources. The final NESHAP includes standards

for control of xylene, toluene, ethylbenzene, methyl

ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, methanol,

ethylene glycol, and glycol ether emissions from

publication and product and packaging rotogravure and

wide-web flexographic printing facilities. USEPA

estimated that the NESHAP will nationally reduce

baseline HAP emissions by 31 percent, or 6,700 tonnes

(7,400 tons) per year. It will apply to "major" sources

in the industry--defined as those that have the potential

to emit 10 toms per year of any single HAP or 25 tons

per year of any combination of HAPs. USEPA further

estimated that implementation of the NESHAP will cost

printers an aggregated $40 million per year.

ixth Meeting of Small Town Task Force

On May 31, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 27347), USEPA

announced the sixth meeting of the Small Town Task

Force. USEPA organized the task force to identify

environmental regulations that pose significant

compliance problems for small towns and means for

improving the relationship between USEPA and those

towns. The task force was also to identify means of

regionalization of environmental compliance treatment

systems and infrastructure. The purpose of the June 17,

1996 meeting was to discuss the task force's final

recommendations to the Administrator of USEPA.

oil Screening Guidance Available

On May 31, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 27349), USEPA

announced the availability of solid screening guidance.

The guidance provides a framework for developing soil

screening levels (SSLs) to expedite evaluation of

contaminated soils at Superfund sites (i.e., sites

designated by USEPA as on the National Priorities List

(NPL) for remedial action). USEPA explained that the

guidance presents three recommended methods for

developing risk-based soil screening levels emphasizing

a site-specific approach. USEPA stated that the

formulae and exposure assumptions underlying the

screening levels under the guidance have been widely

accepted for years in the area of Superfund program.

Areas of the site are evaluated using these levels and

those below them are immediately removed from

further consideration. Further evaluation would

generally result for areas above the screening levels.

USEPA stated that the screening levels should not be

used as soil remediation objectives. The guidance is

available from the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS).

F

F

inal Decisions 5/2/96

inal Decisions 5/2/96

95-48

Kathe’s Auto Service Center v. EPA - The Board

granted voluntary withdrawal of this

underground storage

tank fund reimbursement determination appeal

involving a

Cook County facility.

96-22

Mr. Lew D’ Souza and Mrs. Patricia D’ Souza v.

Mr. Richard Marraccini and Mrs. Joanne Marraccini -

The Board found that the Cook County respondents had

violated Section 24 of the Environmental Protection Act

and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102 and ordered them to

relocate the offending air conditioning unit to the rear of

their house within 60 days cease and to desist from

further violation.

96-149

People of the State of Illinois v. Wittridge

Builders, inc., an Illinois corporation - The Board

accepted a stipulation and settlement agreement in this

air enforcement action against a Cook County facility,

ordered the respondent to pay a civil penalty of $500.00,

and ordered it to cease and desist from further violation.

96-154

Village of Oswego v. EPA - The Board granted

this Kendall County facility a variance, subject to

conditions, from the standards of issuance and restricted

status provisions of the public water supplies regulations,

as they would otherwise relate to the radium content of

its drinking water.

96-163

Land and Lakes/Wheeling # 5 v. EPA - Having

previously granted a request for an extension of time to

file, the Board dismissed this reserved docket because no

land permit appeal was timely filed on behalf of this Lake

County facility.

96-165

Borg-Warner Automotive Automatic

Transmission Systems Corporation v. EPA - The Board

granted voluntary withdrawal of this

underground storage

tank fund reimbursement determination appeal

involving a

Cook County facility.

96-172

Envotech-Illinois, Inc. (Litchfield/Hillsboro

Landfill) v. EPA - Having previously granted a request

for an extension of time to file, the Board dismissed the

F

F

S

S

S

S

---

June, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER NO. 505

15

matter because no land permit appeal was filed on behalf

of this Montgomery County facility.

96-190

Norfolk Southern Corporation v. EPA

-

The Board

granted voluntary withdrawal of this

underground storage

tank appeal

against a

Madison

County facility.

AS 94-4

In the Matter of: Joint petition of Chase Products

Company and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for an

Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218, Subpart DD

-

The Board granted this Cook County Facility an adjusted standard,

subject to conditions, from certain of the volatile organic material

emissions requirements of the air pollution control regulations

applicable in the Chicago metropolitan area.

AS 96-1

In the Matter of: Illinois Power Corporation (Baldwin

Power Plant) petition for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm.

Code Part 208 and 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 304.105

- The Board

granted this Randolph and St. Clair County facility an adjusted,

subject to conditions, from certain of the boron effluent requir

e-

ments of the water pollution control regulations standard for its

discharges into the Kaskaskia River.

F

F

inal Decisions 5/16/96

inal Decisions 5/16/96

94-27

Marathon Oil Company v. EPA - The Board

found that this Crawford County facility had failed to

prove that immediate compliance would impose an

arbitrary and unreasonable hardship and denied it a

variance from certain of the air pollution control

regulations pertaining to particulate emissions and

opacity. Board member J. T. Meyer dissented.

95-106

People of the State of Illinois. v. Claude F. Perry

and Martha Perry - The Board accepted a stipulation and

settlement agreement in this land enforcement action

against a St. Clair County facility, ordered the

respondents to pay a civil penalty of $23,666.41, and

ordered them to cease and desist from further violation.

95-150

Marathon Oil Company v. EPA - The Board

granted this Crawford County facility a variance from

certain carbon monoxide emission requirements of the air

pollution control regulations, subject to conditions,

denying retroactive applicability and at an emissions

level different from that requested. Board members J. T.

Meyer and G. Tanner Girard dissented, with Member

Meyer concurring in part.

96-183

Recycler, Inc. v. EPA - Having previously

granted a request for an extension of time to file, the

Board dismissed this reserved docket because no water

permit appeal was timely filed on behalf of this Piatt and

Macon Counties facility.

96-186

Mr. & Mrs. Don Williams, Mr. & Mrs. Thomas

Morris, and Mr. & and Mrs. Peter Bizios v. Schaumburg

Park District - The Board found that the complained-of

noise source was an “organized amateur or professional

sporting activity,” which deprived the Board of

jurisdiction, and it dismissed this citizen's noise

enforcement action against a Cook County facility.

Chairman Manning, and Board members M. McFawn

and J. T. Meyer concurred.

96-197

Maggio Truck Center, Inc. v. EPA - Having

previously granted an extension of time to file, the Board

dismissed this reserved docket because no underground

storage tank appeal was timely filed on behalf of this

Winnebago County facility.

96-211

People of the State of Illinois. v. Classic Mold

Company, Inc., an Illinois corporation, and Larry

Caldrone - The Board accepted a stipulation and

settlement agreement in this air enforcement action

against a Cook County facility, ordered the respondents

to pay a civil penalty of $10,000.00, and ordered them to

cease and desist from further violation.

96-212

People of the State of Illinois. v. Egyptian

Community School District Unit #5 - The Board accepted

a stipulation and settlement agreement in this Water

enforcement action against a Alexander County facility,

ordered the respondent to pay a civil penalty of $500.00,

and ordered it to cease and desist from further violation.

96-232

Taracorp Industries, Inc. v. EPA - Upon receipt

of an Agency recommendation, the Board granted a four

(4)-day provisional variance from the 90-day limitation

on the accumulation of hazardous waste at this Madison

County facility.

96-234

North Shore Sanitary District Waukegan Sewage

Treatment Plant v. EPA - Upon receipt of an Agency

recommendation, the Board granted this Lake County

facility a 45-day provisional variance from certain of the

phosphorus effluent limitations and discharge point re-

quirements of the water pollution control regulations.

AC 96-41

EPA v Dwight W. Davis d/b/a D & L Rubber

Works - The Board entered a default order, finding that

this Perry County respondent had violated Section

21(p)(1) of the Act and ordering them to pay a civil

penalty of $500.00.

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 505

June, 1996

16

AC 96-42

EPA v John Sharp d/b/a John’s Auto Salvage

- The Board entered a default order, finding that this

Montgomery County respondent had violated Section

21(p)(1) of the Act and ordering him to pay a civil

penalty of $500.00.

AC 96-43

EPA v Envirofil of Illinois, Inc. - The Board

entered a default order, finding that this McDonough

County respondent had violated Section 21(o)(5) of the

Act and ordering it to pay a civil penalty of $500.00.

AS 94-4

In the Matter of: Joint petition of Chase

Products Company and the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Part 218, Subpart DD - The Board granted

this Cook County facility an adjusted standard, subject to

conditions, from certain of the organic material emission

requirements of the air pollution control regulations

applicable to aerosol can filling operations operating in

the Chicago metropolitan area.

R94-1(A)

In the Matter of: Triennial Water Quality

Review: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208 and

302.407 (Lead and Mercury)

-

See Rulemaking Update

R96-5

In the Matter of: Visible and Particulate Matter

Emissions-Conditional Approval and Clean-Up

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 212 -

See Rulemaking Update

N

N

ew Cases 5/2/96

ew Cases 5/2/96

96-189

Lucent Technologies, Inc., (for and in place of

AT & T Corporation) v. EPA - The Board accepted this

underground storage tank fund reimbursement

determination appeal involving a DuPage County facility

for hearing.

96-219

People of the State of Illinois. v. McLaughlin Body

Company - The Board received this RCRA Subtitle C enforcement

action filed against a Rock Island County facility for hearing.

96-220

People of the State of Illinois. v. Allied Signal, Inc.

- The

Board received this water enforcement action involving a

Sangamon County facility for hearing.

96-221

Hydrosol, Inc. v. EPA - The Board accepted this air permit

appeal involving a Cook County facility for hearing.

96-222

Koppers Industries, Inc. v. EPA

- The Board accepted this

NPDES permit appeal involving a Knox County facility for

hearing.

96-223

People of the State of Illinois v. Tucker

Properties, Inc. d/b/a Rollins Crossing Shopping Center -

Upon receipt of a proposed stipulation and settlement agreement

and an agreed motion for relief from the hearing requirement in

this water enforcement action against a Lake County facility, the

Board ordered publication of the required newspaper notice.

96-224

D’Arcy Oldsmobile v. EPA

- The Board accepted notice

of extension of time to file an underground storage tank fund

reimbursement determination appeal on behalf of a Will County

facility.

96-225

Dalee Oil Company, Inc. v. EPA - The Board

accepted this underground storage tank fund reimburse-

ment determination appeal involving a St. Clair County

facility for hearing.

AC 96-45

EPA v. James Deisher - The Board received

an administrative citation against a Lawrence County

respondent.

AC 96-46

Montgomery v. Envotech-Illinois - The Board

received an administrative citation against a Montgomery

County respondent.

AS 96-9

In the Matter: of: Commonwealth Edison Company

petition for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 814

- The Board received a petition filed on behalf of a Will County

facility for an adjusted standard from certain of the leachate colle

c-

tion, groundwater monitoring, well location, zone of attenuation,

final cover, and other requirements of the land pollution control

(nonhazardous solid waste landfill) regulations.

N

N

ew Cases 5/16/96

ew Cases 5/16/96

96-192

Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. EPA - The Board

accepted this land permit appeal involving a Coles

County facility for hearing.

96-226

Shell Oil Company v. EPA - The Board accepted

this underground storage tank appeal involving a Cook

County facility for hearing.

96-227

Raytheon Aircraft Services v. EPA

- The Board accepted

this request for a 90-day extension of time to file an underground

storage tank fund reimbursement determination appeal on behalf

of a Will County facility.

96-228

Graham Oldsmobile v. EPA

- The Board accepted this

request for a 90-day extension of time to file an underground

storage tank fund reimbursement determination appeal on behalf

of a Will County facility.

96-229

People of the State of Illinois. v. James Tull, individually

and as President of Cepco, Inc., and Cepco, Inc., d/b/a Chief

---

June, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER NO. 505

17

Paving & Excavating Company

- The Board accepted this air

enforcement action against a Champaign County facility for

hearing.

96-230

The Clorox Company v. EPA

- The Board received a

petition for review of an Agency denial of trade secret status for

certain air pollution control information pertaining to a Cook

County facility.

96-231

  

The U.S. Department of Energy and the

University of Chicago

v. EPA - The Board accepted this

request for 90-day extension of time to file an underground storage

tank appeal on behalf of a DuPage County facility.

96-232

Taracorp Industries, Inc. v. EPA

-

See Final Actions.

96-233

  

People of the State of Illinois v.

v. ESG Watts, Inc. -

The Board accepted this land and groundwater quality

enforcement action against a Mercer County facility for hearing.

96-234

  

North Shore Sanitary District Waukegan Sewage

Treatment Plant

v. EPA

-

See Final Actions.

C

C

ALENDAR OF HEARINGS

ALENDAR OF HEARINGS

All hearings held by the Board are open to the public. Times and locations are subject to cancellation and rescheduling

without notice. Confirmation of hearing dates and times is available by calling the Clerk of the Board at 312- 814-6931.

24-Jun-96

10:30 A.M.

R96-003

R, Land

In the Matter of: Illinois Cast Metals Association Proposed Amendments to

for Existing Landfills Accepting Potentially Usable Steel or Foundry Indu

s-

try Waste: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.902 (Standards for Operation and Cl

o-

sure)--James R. Thompson Center, Room 9-040, 100 West Randolph , Ch

i-

cago, Illinois

26-Jun-96

10:00 A.M.

R96-003

R, Land

In the Matter of: Illinois Cast Metals Association Proposed Amendments to

for Existing Landfills Accepting Potentially Usable Steel or Foundry Indu

s-

try Waste: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.902 (Standards for Operation and Cl

o-

sure)--Madison County Administrative Building, Board Room, 157 North

Main Street, Edwardsville, Illinois

27-Jun-96

10:00 A.M.

AC 96-031

AC

IEPA v. Fred Honaker (Lovington/Honaker) IEPA Docket No. 790-95-AC

--

Moultrie County Courthouse, County Board Room, Sullivan, Illinois

28-Jun-96

11:00 A.M.

PCB 96-147

W, Mine-E

People of the State of Illinois v. Illinois Cement Company

--LaSalle County

Courthouse, Courtroom 206, 119 West Madison, Ottawa, Ill

inois

01-Jul-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 96-053

N-E, Citizens

David and Susi Shelton v. Steven and Nancy Crown

--James R. Thompson

Center, Suite 11-500, 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois

09-Jul-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 96-075

A-E

People of the State of Illinois v. Harvey Cash, d/b/a Cash Oil Co

mpany--

Illinois Pollution Control Board, Suite 402, 600 South Second Street,

Springfield, Illinois

16-Jul-96

09:30 A.M.

PCB 96-238

L-S-R, Third Party

Citizens United for a Responsible Environment v. Browning-Ferris Indu

s-

tries of Illinois, Inc. and Village Board of the Village of Davis Junction, Ill

i-

nois--Davis Junction Village Hall, 106 North Elm, Davis Junction, Illinois

17-Jul-96

10:30 A.M.

PCB 96-191

A-V

White Cap, Inc. v. IEPA

--James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500, 100

West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois

19-Jul-96

09:30 A.M.

PCB 96-151

L-E, Citizens

Keith F. Boyer v. Felecia Harris, a/k/a Felecia Dawkins, and Chicagoland

Mortgage Corporation

--James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500, 100 West

Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois

19-Jul-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 96-110

N-E, Citizens

Sara Scarpino and Margaret Scarpino v. Henry Pratt Company

--Old Kane

County Courthouse, Courtroom 110, 100 South Third Street, Geneva, Ill

i-

nois

22-Jul-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 96-243

L-S-R, Third Party

Residents Against A Polluted Environment and The Edmund B. Thornton

Foundation v. County of LaSalle & Landcomp Corporation

--LaSalle County

Courthouse, Room 300, 119 West Madison Street, Ottawa, Illinois

---

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 505

June, 1996

18

23-Jul-96

06:00 P.M.

PCB 96-243

L-S-R, Third Party

Residents Against A Polluted Environment and The Edmund B. Thornton

Foundation v. County of LaSalle & Landcomp Corporation

--Coolies Banquet

Hall, 909 West Norris Street, Ottawa, Illinois

23-Jul-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 96-185

N-E, Citizens

Douglas and Barbara Oltman v. Terry and Kelly Cowan

--Rock Island

County Building, County Board Room, 1504 Third Avenue, Rock Island,

Illinois

23-Jul-96

10:00 A.M.

R96-017

R, Air

In the Matter of: Exemptions from State Permit Requirements, Amendments

to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201 and 211

--Regional Headguarters Complex, 1102 E.

Port Plaza Drive, Classroom, Collinsville, Ill

inois

26-Jul-96

02:00 P.M.

PCB 93-250

A-E

People of the State of Illinois v. Clark Oil & Refining Corporation

--James R.

Thompson Center, Suite 11-500, 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Ill

i-

nois

26-Jul-96

10:30 A.M.

PCB 96-198

L-V

Land and Lakes Company (River Bend Prairie Facility) v. IEPA

--James R.

Thompson Center, Suite 11-500, 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Ill

i-

nois

29-Jul-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 93-015

N-E, Citizens

Dorothy Furlan and Michael Furlan v. University of Illinois School of Med

i-

cine--Administration Bldg., Room 501, 504 Elm Street, Roc

kford, Illinois

31-Jul-96

10:00 A.M.

PCB 95-158

L-E

People of the State of Illinois v. City of Herrin

--Herrin City Hall, City Cou

n-

cil Chambers, 300 North Park Street, Herrin, Illinois

16-Aug-96

10:00 A.M.

R96-017

R, Air

In the Matter of: Exemptions from State Permit Requirements, Amendments

to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201 and 211

--James R. Thompson Center, 100 West

Randolph, Room 9-040, Chicago, Illinois

Calendar Code

3d P

Third Party Action

A-C

Administrative Citation

A-E

Air Enforcement

A-S

Adjusted Standard

A-V

Air Variance

CSO

Combined Sewer Overflow Exception

GW

Groundwater

HW Delist

RCRA Hazardous Waste Delisting

L-E

Land Enforcement

L-S-R

Landfill Siting Review

L-V

Land Variance

MW

Medical Waste (Biological Materials)

N-E

Noise Enforcement

N-V

Noise Variance

P-A

Permit Appeal

PWS-E

Public Water Supply Enforcement

PWS-V

Public Water Supply Variance

R

Regulatory Proceeding

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act proceeding (hazardous waste only)

S0

2

S0

2

Alternative Standards (35 ILL.

ADM. CODE 302.211(f))

SWH-E

Special Waste Hauling Enforcement

SWH-V

Special Waste Hauling Variance

T

Thermal Demonstration Rule

T-C

Tax Certifications

T-S

Trade Secrets

UST-Appeal

Underground Storage Tank Corrective

Action Appeal

UST-E

Underground Storage Tank Enforcement

UST-FRD

Underground Storage Tank Fund Reim-

bursement Determination

W-E

Water Enforcement

W-V

Water Variance

WWS

Water-Well Setback Exception