???????
???
?
???
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???
?
???
?????????
?????????????????
oard Adopts Toxic Air
Contaminants Amendments,
R96-4
On May 1,1997, the Board
adopted amendments to the toxic
air contaminants regulations. The
Agency filed its proposal on
October 13, 1995, to update the
existing Illinois Toxic Air Con-
taminant (ITAC) list at 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 232. The Board issued an
order on November 2, 1995, that
accepted the proposal and dis-
missed older subdockets relating to
toxic air contaminant reporting
requirements (R90-1(C)), and
adding styrene to the list of toxic
air contaminants (R90-1(D)). (See
issue 499, December 1995.) The
Board consolidated the subject
matter of the older subdockets into
R96-4.
First notice of the proposed
amendments was adopted by the
Board on (
?????? ?? ????
????????????????
Concerned Adjoining Owners, a
Concerned Citizen's Group and
Those Opposed to Area Landfills
(T.O.T.A.L.), a Concerned Citizen's
Group v. The Pollution Control
Board, The City of Salem, Roger
Kinney, City Manager of the City
of Salem, and Roger Friedricks,
No. 5-96-0244 (Fifth District April
18, 1997) (unpublished rule 23
order).
This case involves an appeal
from the Board decision in
T.O.T.A.L. and Concerned
Adjoining Owners v. City of Salem,
Roger Kinney, City Manager and
Roger Freidricks, PCB 96-79 and
PCB 96-82 (consolidated) (March
7, 1996) affirming the decision of
the City of Salem which granted
siting approval for an extension of
an existing landfill and for a new
landfill. On appeal the Concerned
Adjoining Owners (CAO) and
T.O.T.A.L. each argued that the
Board's decision should be reversed
because the hearing before the
Salem City Council (City Council)
was fundamentally
(Cont’d on p. 5)
???????????????
SEPA Finalizes Treatment
and Disposal Rule Amend-
ments
USEPA has finalized treatment
standards for hazardous wastes
generated from wood preserving
operations and is making a
conforming amendment to the
standard for wastes from produc-
tion of chlorinated aliphatics which
carry the F024 hazardous waste
code. (62 Fed. Reg. 25997 (May
12, 1997).) The USEPA believes
that these treatment standards will
minimize threats to human health
and the environment otherwise
posed by these wastes. In addition,
this final rule revises the land
disposal restrictions (LDR)
program to significantly reduce
paperwork requirements by 1.6
million hours. The rule also
finalizes the decision to employ
polymerization as an alternative
method of treatment for certain
ignitable wastes. The rule also
finalizes the decision not to ban
certain wastes from biological
treatment, because there is no need
to classify these
??????? ?? ????
?
????????????
?
???????
?
????? ???????
??? ???? ?? ????????? ??????? ??????
????? ??? ? ?????? ????????????? ?????????
?????????
????? ?????????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????
???? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ????
??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??????????
???????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????????
??????? ?????????? ????????
??? ???? ??????????? ?? ??? ?????????
??????? ???? ????????? ???????? ????
?????? ?? ???????????? ?? ??? ????
????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????????? ???
?????
?
?????????????????
?
??????????????? ??
?
????????? ???
?
??????? ??!?"?? ??#? ??$
?
?????????????????????????????? ?????????
?
?????????????????
??????? ???? ????
August 1, 1996, and published in the
Illinois Register
on
August 23, 1996, at 20 Ill. Reg. 11440. The Board
proposed the amendments for second notice on March 20,
1997. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
voted “no objection” to the Board taking final action on
this matter on April 15, 1997.
The amendments add several substances either designated
as federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to
section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) or designated
by USEPA as a concern under its "Great Waters" program
under section 112(m) of the CAA. The amendments also
require all sources that meet certain requirements to
submit an ITAC source report for calendar year 1996, and
corrects typographical errors in the existing ITAC list.
Direct questions to Charles M. Feinen, at 312-814-
3473 (internet address: cfeinen@pcb084r1.state.il.us).
Request copies of Board orders from Victoria Agyeman,
at 312-814-3620 (internet address: vagyeman@-
pcb084r1.state.il.us). Please refer to docket R96-4.
?
oard Adopts Amendments to Public Water Supply
and Groundwater Regulations, R96-18
On May 1, 1997, the Board adopted amendments to
the Subtitle F public water supplies regulations. First
notice was adopted by the Board on November 21, 1996,
and published in the
Illinois Register
on December 20,
1996 at 20 Ill. Reg. 15863. The Board proposed the
amendments for second notice on March 20, 1997. On
April 15, 1997, the Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules voted “no objection” to the Board taking final
action on this matter.
The Subtitle F regulations include the Illinois drink-
ing water rules, the federally-derived Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) rules, the groundwater quality rules, and the
groundwater protection rules. The opening of docket
R96-18 followed a June 20, 1996, request by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) that the
Board consider certain amendments requested in another
proceeding as a separate petition for rulemaking. The
amendments basically fall into three categories: (1)
amendments to update and correct several provisions
throughout the text, (2) amendments that would allow the
Agency to issue construction permits, notwithstanding the
fact that a supply is listed on "restricted status" for a
violation of the radium MCL, and (3) revision of the
authority note for the groundwater quality regulations, to
reflect that they were adopted pursuant to the Environ-
mental Protection Act. See issue 514, April 1997, for a
procedural history of the rulemaking.
Direct questions to Amy Muran Felton at 312-814-
7011 (internet address: amuranfe@pcb084r1.state.il.us).
Request copies of Board orders from Victoria Agyeman,
at 312-814-3620 (internet address: vagyeman@-
pcb084r1.state.il.us). Please refer to docket R96-18.
?
oard Revises April 17, 1997 Order in T.A.C.O.,
R97-12(B)
On May 1, 1997, the Board made a procedural cor-
rection and vacated its April 17, 1997 opinion and order
which opened docket R97-12(B). This docket was
reserved for the purpose of considering the adoption of a
“mixture” rule, a rule which requires that an applicant
consider the cumulative effect of similar-acting contami-
nants at a site when developing the appropriate remedia-
tion objectives. The April order had directed that the
proposed rule be filed with the Secretary of State for first
notice publication. After receipt of the proposal, how-
ever, the Secretary of State informed the Board that it
would not publish the proposal for first notice because the
amendments were being proposed to rules in the new Part
742, which has not been adopted. The new Part 742 is
proposed in R97-12(A), which the Board anticipates
finalizing during June 1997.
The Board vacated its order of April 17, 1997, re-
placing it with the May 1, 1997, opinion and order which
directs that this matter proceed to hearing as scheduled.
Two hearings on the amendments were scheduled, one on
May 21, 1997 in Chicago, and a second hearing on May
29, 1997 in Springfield. Please contact the hearing
officer, Amy Muran Felton at 312-814-7011 (internet
address: amuranfe@pcb084r1.state.il.us) to present
testimony or questions at the hearings.
Direct questions to Amy Muran Felton at 312-814-
7011 (internet address: amuranfe@pcb084r1.state.il.us)
or Charles Feinen at 312-814-3473 (cfeinen@pcb084r1.-
state.il.us). Request copies of Board orders from Victoria
Agyeman, at 312-814-3620 (internet address: vagye-
man@pcb084r1.state.il.us). Please refer to docket R97-
12(B).
?
hree Reserved Identical-in Substance Dockets
Dismissed (R97-18, R97-19 and R97-22); and
Reason for Delay Order in Consolidated RCRA
Docket, R96-10, R97-3 and R97-5
On May 1, 1997, the Board dismissed three identical-
in-substance rulemaking dockets that it had reserved for
any United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) amendments for the period of July 1 through
December 31, 1996. Pursuant to Sections 17.5, 13(c) and
22.4(d) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act), the
Board opens new dockets twice a year and proposes
?
?
?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?
amendments to the Illinois regulations for drinking water,
underground injection control and underground storage
tanks that are identical-in-substance rules. The identical-
in-substance rules, as defined in Section 7.2 of the Act,
propose amendments to the Illinois regulations that are
similar to those proposed by the USEPA.
The Board dismissed R97-18, Safe Drinking Water
Update because the USEPA did not amend 40 CFR 141
through 143 during the time period. USEPA did approve
the amendments to the Illinois Safe Drinking Water Act
program adopted by the Board through December 13,
1995. (61 Fed. Reg. 50485, September 26, 1996.) The
Board also dismissed R97-19, UIC Update because
USEPA did not amend 40 CFR 144 through 148 in any
way that would require Board action during the time
period. The Board also dismissed R97-22, UST Update
because USEPA did not amend its UST regulations at 40
CFR 281 through 283 during the time period.
In other business on May 1, 1997, the Board issued a
second reason for delay order in the consolidated RCRA
Update docket (R96-10, R97-3 and R97-5). In this
docket, the Board is preparing to propose amendments to
the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste and underground
injection control regulations. The docket includes
amendments to the RCRA regulations during the period
from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996 and amendments
to the UIC regulations from January 1 through June 30,
1996.
Section 7.2(a) of the Act requires the Board to com-
pete its identical-in-substance rulemakings within one-
year after the date of the USEPA action. Section 7.2(b)
allows the Board to extend the deadline by publication of
a reason delay notice in the
Illinois Register.
The Board
previously adopted a reason for delay order in this matter
on October 17, 1996. The Board anticipates preparing a
proposal for public comment in this matter in mid-June or
July and filing the adopted amendments by October 15,
1997.
Direct questions to Michael McCambridge at 312-
814-6924 (internet address: mmccambridg@pcb084r1.-
state.il.us). Request copies of Board orders from Victoria
Agyeman, at 312-814-3620 (internet address: vagye-
man@pcb084r1.state.il.us). Please refer to the corre-
sponding docket number: R97-18, Safe Drinking Water
Update; R97-19, UIC Update; R97-22, UST Update; R96-
10, R97-3, R97-5, RCRA Update.
?
oard Proposes Wastewater Pretreatment Amend-
ments (R97-23)
On May 1, 1997, the Board proposed identical-in-
substance amendments to the wastewater pretreatment
rules for public comment. The amendments will be
published in the
Illinois Register
and the Board will
accept comments on the amendments for a period of 45
days after the publication. Docket R97-23 includes
federal amendments that occurred in the period July 1
through December 30, 1996.
On July 8, 1996, USEPA by direct final rule modified
the pretreatment standards for certain facilities in the
leather tanning and finishing point source category that
conduct unhairing operations and that discharge process
wastewater to publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
(61 Fed. Reg. 35680). USEPA revised the existing
pretreatment standards to eliminate the upper (alkaline)
pH limits for four subcategories. These revisions apply to
the standards in Subparts A, B, F, and H of 40 CFR Part
425 at Sections 425.15, 425.25, 425.65 and 425.85.
These sections are incorporated in the pretreatment
regulations for the State of Illinois at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
307.3501, 307.3502, 307.3506 and 307.3508.
On November 6, 1996, USEPA promulgated
regulations that limit the discharge of pollutants into
POTWs by facilities that formulate, package or repackage
pesticide products (61 Fed. Reg. 57517). These
regulations cover facilities in the subcategories of the
Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category; Subcategory
C: Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging
(PFPR) and Subcategory E: Agricultural Refilling
Establishments. The Board incorporates the pretreatment
standards for pesticide formulating, packaging, and
repackaging facilities in Section 307.6503, and proposes
updating these sections to incorporate the standards as
amended. The Board proposes the creation of a new
section 307.6505 to incorporate the pretreatment
regulations adopted by USEPA for agricultural refilling
establishments.
On December 16, 1996 , USEPA promulgated rules
limiting the discharge of pollutants into waters of the
United States and the introduction of pollutants into
POTWs by facilities in the coastal subcategory of the oil
and gas extraction point source category (61 Fed. Reg.
66085). The Board proposes no amendments in response
to these regulations, since Illinois pretreatment regulations
do not contain regulations pertaining to these types of
facilities and the Board believes that no facilities in this
category are in operation in Illinois.
Direct questions to Diane F. O'Neill at 312-814-6062
(internet address: doneill@pcb084r1.state.il.us). Request
copies of Board orders from Victoria Agyeman, at 312-
814-3620 (internet address: vagyeman@pcb084r1.state.-
il.us). Please refer to docket R97-23.
?
?
?????????????????????????????? ?????????
?
ivestock Waste Regulations Adopted, R97-15(A)
On May 15, 1997, the Board adopted livestock waste
regulations to implement the provisions of the Livestock
Management Facilities Act (LMFAct) (510 ILCS 77/1
et
seq.
, adopted as P.A. 89-456, eff. May 21, 1996). The rules
set forth administrative requirements such as standards and
procedures that the Department of Agriculture must follow
in making various administrative determinations under the
rules. The rules also contain a section that mandates that
records be kept of all determinations, and that such records
are subject to public inspection.
Regarding setbacks, the regulations require that new
livestock management and livestock waste handling facilities
provide notification to the Department of Agriculture of their
intent to build, prior to construction. Further, the Board
rules provide a process that is designed to ensure that all
statutory setback distances are adhered to and that notice is
given to all owners of property located within the setback
area. The rules provide that, for measuring setbacks from
common places of assembly where the primary activity of the
place is outdoors, the setbacks be measured from the nearest
corner of the property line of the common place of assembly.
The Department of Agriculture is also required to certify that
the applicable setback distances have been complied with
before construction begins.
The LMFAct allows for the Department of Agriculture
to provide for a decrease of the statutory setbacks if
innovative designs are incorporated into the facility. In these
cases, the Board rules require that the owner or operator
attach to the request for decrease a certification by a
Licensed Professional Engineer that the innovative design
incorporated into the facility will achieve a greater amount of
odor protection than the waived setbacks. The rules also
substantially mirror the provisions of the LMFAct and
provide that setbacks may be decreased when waivers are
obtained from owners of occupied residences, non-farm
businesses, and common places of assembly that are located
within the setback area. The request for a setback decrease
must be in writing, and the owner or operator seeking the
decrease must attach to the request copies of the written and
notarized waivers from the owner(s) of the property located
within the setback area. The rules further provide that the
Department of Agriculture must notify the owner or operator
in writing of the setback decrease within 30 days after receipt
of the request for decrease.
Regarding design of lagoons, the rules require specific
design standards for livestock waste lagoons which are in
accord with established engineering practices. Specifically,
the rules require that the owner or operator of a new or
modified lagoon register that lagoon with the Department of
Agriculture and hire a Licensed Professional Engineer or
Licensed Professional Geologist to perform a site investiga-
tion prior to construction. The site investigation requires soil
borings to determine the distance of the lagoon bottom to
any aquifer material. Depending on the proximity of aquifer
material, liners and/or groundwater monitoring will be
required. Construction can only begin after proper licensed
professional certification is made to the Department of
Agriculture. The regulations also allow the Department of
Agriculture to require changes in design that might be
necessary to protect the groundwater. Moreover, the rules
direct the Department of Agriculture, as a condition of the
issuance of a livestock waste lagoon registration, to conduct
periodic site inspections to assess the degree of compliance
with the requirements of the LMFAct.
Regarding the management of livestock management
facilities, the rules provide that waste management plans be
prepared by certain facilities that meet the statutory threshold
animal unit requirement. The rules also set forth provisions
concerning the application of livestock waste to the land.
Moreover, the rules establish that a livestock waste handling
facility that serves a certain number of animal units be
managed by a certified livestock manager. Regarding
penalties, the rules provide that the Department of Agricul-
ture may issue cease-and-desist orders, and otherwise order
necessary penalties for the violation of any of the rules.
Regarding financial assurance and requirements for closure,
the rules recite the statutory language. Finally, where the
LMFAct allows the Department of Agriculture to grant an
alternative, modification, or waiver of the rules, the Board
rules set forth a specific process to ensure that any such
alternative, modification, or waiver is environmentally
protective.
The Board adopted the new rules for first notice on De-
cember 20, 1996. On March 20, 1997, the Board adopted
the rules for second notice review by the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules (JCAR). JCAR considered the rules at
its April 15, 1997 meeting. The Board thereafter made
certain changes to the rules in response to suggestions by
JCAR. These changes included clarifying the relationship
between the final rules and the emergency rules, changing
the definition of “occupied residence,” amending the
application rate of waste to the land, and clarifying who is an
owner for purposes of notification.
The rules became effective upon filing with the Secre-
tary of State’s Office on May 20, 1997, and replace the
emergency rules adopted in R97-14 on October 29, 1996,
and extended on March 20, 1997. The rules are to be
implemented by the Department of Agriculture and are
codified in new Part 506 in Subtitle E of the Illinois
Administrative Code, along with existing Board regulations
on agriculture-related pollution.
Direct questions to Cynthia Ervin 217-356-8509
(internet address: cervin@pcb084r1.state.il.us). Request
copies of Board orders from Victoria Agyeman, at 312-814-
3620 (internet address: vagyeman@pcb084r1.state.il.us).
Please refer to docket R97-15(A).
?
?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?
oard Adopts VOM Rule Exemptions, R97-17
On May 15, 1997, the Board adopted amendments to
the definition of VOM at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.7150 in
Docket R97-17. The amendment adds 3,3-dichloro-
1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropoane (HCFC 43-10mee), 1,2-
dichloro 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC 225ca), and
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-decafluorpentane (HCFC 225cb) to the
list of chemical compounds that are exempted from the
definition of VOM. This regulation exempts these
compounds from reasonably available control technology
(RACT) regulation due to their negligible contribution to
tropospheric ozone formation. These amendments are
identical to the revision in the federal amendment that
appeared at 61 Fed. Reg. 52848 on October 8, 1996.
On March 6, 1997, the Board proposed the amend-
ments for public comment. The amendments were
published in the
Illinois Register
on March 21, 1997, at 21
Ill. Reg. 3393. Hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois on
April 2, 1997.
Direct questions to Amy Muran Felton Felton at 312-
814-7011 (internet address: amuranfe@pcb084r1.state.-
il.us). Request copies of Board orders from Victoria
Agyeman, at 312-814-3620 (internet address: vagye-
man@pcb084r1.state.il.us). Please refer to docket R97-
17.
?
????????????????
??????? ???? ?? ??
unfair, and because the decision was against the manifest
weight of the evidence because the applicant did not meet
his burden of proof. Additionally, T.O.T.A.L. alone
argued that the City Council did not have jurisdiction to
rule on the siting application and CAO argued that the
Board improperly refused to consider its position.
In 1994, four days prior to the hearings on the siting
application, Salem purchased 40 acres of land outside of
the city limits and annexed it into the city. This land was
purchased for the new landfill. By annexing the property,
Salem became responsible for making the decision on
siting under the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415
ILCS 5/39.2(a).) If the property had not been annexed,
the Marion County Board would have been responsible
for the hearing and decision on the siting application.
At the hearing before the City Council, objectors ar-
gued that the City Council was biased since it had already
expended tax money on the property in contemplation of
the new regional pollution control facility being sited.
The objectors also argued that the hearing was funda-
mentally unfair since the siting decision was made by the
same City Council that had spent $120,000 for the
purchase of 40 acres of land for the landfill site. People
testified at hearing on behalf of the applicant and the
objectors. The objectors tried to call Mr. Kinney (the
applicant) as a witness at hearing, but since he objected
and the hearing officer ruled in his favor, he did not
testify. On September 11, 1995, the City Council
approved the siting applications for both the expansion of
the existing landfill and the new landfill.
The Fifth District began its analysis with considera-
tion of the objectors fundamental fairness argument. The
court recognized that in this case as in E and E Hauling v.
Pollution Control Board, 107 Ill. 2d 33 (1985), a govern-
mental body with an interest in the outcome of a siting
decision, even an economic one, may lawfully still decide
the siting issue. Therefore, the Fifth District affirmed the
Board and found that the siting hearing was not funda-
mentally unfair simply because the city officials had an
interest in the outcome of the decision.
The court also rejected the idea that the city officials
were biased and had formed an opinion on the siting prior
to the siting hearing. The court again turned to E and E
Hauling, reiterating that the city officials had not pre-
judged the siting criteria in the Act, simply by having
opinions about the proposed landfill prior to the filing of
the siting application. More specifically, the court found
that the decision makers in this case had not made
prejudgments about the siting criteria. The court based
this finding on the fact that the city officials had asked
relevant questions of the witnesses regarding the criteria
and did not demonstrate any bias for or against siting
approval.
The Fifth District then found that T.O.T.A.L. had
waived seven of its fundamental fairness arguments by
failing to support them with any authority. As to the
remaining three arguments, the court disagreed with
T.O.T.A.L.'s assertions that 1) the objectors were severely
limited in presenting evidence on economics and profit-
ability of the proposed landfill and expansion, 2)
T.O.T.A.L. was prejudiced by the applicant's failure to
disclose an expert witness who was not named in the
siting application, and 3) the City Council did not follow
its own rules regarding the conduct of the hearing; the
court disagreed.
The court found that T.O.T.A.L. was not prejudiced
by Kinney's failure to address economics, since economics
is not a specifically listed siting criterion in the Act.
Therefore, the court held that consideration of economics
is discretionary not mandatory. As for the non-disclosure
of the expert witness, the court found the argument
without merit. The court stated that no law required that
witnesses at siting hearings be disclosed. Additionally,
the court pointed out that the witness in question was the
first witness in a series of four days of hearings held over
a period of 16 days and that the objectors were given the
opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The objectors
also called three of their own witnesses to contradict his
?
?????????????????????????????? ?????????
?
testimony. The court also found that the procedures
followed at the siting hearing were fair.
The court elaborated that the objectors were given an
opportunity to be heard and to cross-examine witnesses.
The court further remarked that the record reflected
impartial rulings on evidence. The court also stated that
not all people who author reports which are relied upon in
a siting application must be called as a witness. Addition-
ally, the court pointed out that the right to cross-examine a
witness is not unlimited. The court explained that parties
cannot cross-examine people who submit written com-
ments and that all authors of reports need not be present at
hearing.
The Fifth District next addressed the arguments on
specific siting criteria and found that the city's decisions
on criteria (i) and (iii) were not against the manifest
weight of the evidence. The court also addressed
T.O.T.A.L.'s argument that the City of Salem did not have
jurisdiction to rule on the siting application. T.O.T.A.L.
argued that, because the City of Salem did not follow the
statutory requirements of the Municipal Code (65 ILCS
5/11-76.1-1 and, 11-76.1-3) when annexing the property
for the proposed landfill, Salem had no jurisdiction to rule
on the siting application.
The court found that the Board properly determined
that it did not have authority to decide whether the
annexation and purchase of the property was conducted in
accordance with the applicable standards. The court
stated that the Board's authority is limited to that granted
by its enabling statute, which does not extend to the
Municipal Code. Additionally, the Fifth District found
that the Board was correct in finding that since the Marion
County Circuit Court had dismissed the action before it
with prejudice dealing with this issue, the Board should
proceed with the case as if the City of Salem had jurisdic-
tion to hear the siting application. Finally, the court found
that the issue of proper jurisdiction was waived on review
since T.O.T.A.L. failed to cite any authority for the idea
that if the City of Salem failed to comply with the
Municipal Code when purchasing and annexing the
property that it would be deprived of jurisdiction at the
siting hearing.
Finally, the Fifth District rejected CAO's argument
that the Board failed to consider its position at hearing.
Stating that the claim was meritless, the court found that
the Board had clearly indicated that it had considered all
the evidence presented and the arguments made by both
CAO and T.O.T.A.L. The Board's decision was accord-
ingly affirmed in all respects.
?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?
???????????????????????????
??????? ???? ?? ??
wastes as “nonamenable.” The rule also clarifies an
exception from LDR requirements for
de minimis
amounts
of characteristic wastewaters. Finally, the rule excludes
processed circuit boards and scrap metal from RCRA
regulation which is intended to promote the goal of safe
recycling. These amendments are effective August 11,
1997, except for Sections 148.18(b) and 268.30(b) which
are effective May 12, 1999.
The Board will consider adoption of similar amend-
ments to Illinois’ regulations in the identical-in-substance
rulemaking which the Board will open to consider
amendments by USEPA to Subtitle C during the period of
January 1 through June 30, 1997.
?
ineral Processing & Metal Waste Disposal
Amendments Proposed
USEPA proposed a rule related to treatment stan-
dards for certain metal wastes and wastes from mineral
processing. (62 Fed. Reg. 26041 (May 12, 1997).)
USEPA is seeking comment on additional provisions and
on new data. The proposed rule would revise universal
treatment standards (UTS) for twelve metal constituents
when they are in hazardous waste. Affected wastes
include: TC metal wastes (those containing high levels of
certain metals), mineral processing wastes, and other
metal-bearing wastes. These treatment standards are
being revised to provide consistency in the Land Disposal
Restriction standards while minimizing threats to human
health and the environment. The proposed rule also
addresses the sampling method for compliance with
treatment standards. USEPA is seeking comment on a
conditional exclusion for secondary mineral processing
materials, on co-processing of materials in Bevill-exempt
mining units, and on whether certain mineral processing
and mining wastes currently excluded from federal
hazardous waste regulations warrant regulatory controls.
Also included is an exclusion from the definition of solid
waste for certain materials reused by wood preserving
operations, a clarified policy on USEPA-approved
variances from hazardous waste treatment, and a prohibi-
tion on the use of most hazardous wastes as fill material.
Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted to the
USEPA by July 11, 1997.
?
ioxin Related Amendments to Toxic Chemical
Release Reporting Requirements Proposed
USEPA is proposing to add a chemical category that
includes dioxin and 27 dioxin-like compounds to the list
of toxic chemicals subject to the reporting requirements
under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and
section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
(PPA). (62 Fed. Reg. 24887 (May 7, 1997).) USEPA
believes that dioxin and the dioxin-like compounds that
are included in the petition, meet the criteria for addition
to the list of toxic substances as established in EPCRA
section 313(d)(2)(B). USEPA is also proposing to modify
the existing EPCRA section 313 listing for polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs) in order to exclude those PCBs
that are included in the proposed dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds category. Comments on the proposal should
be submitted to the USEPA by July 7, 1997.
?
SEPA Seeks Comments On National Hazardous
Air Pollutants Policy & Standards
USEPA published a notice of data availability and
invitation for comment on May 2, 1997, on the following
information pertaining to the proposed revised standards
for hazardous waste combustors (61 FR 17358 (April 19,
1996)): report on the status of setting national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) based
on the revised emissions database; report on the selection
of pollutants and source categories, including area and
major sources; report on the status of various implemen-
tation issues, including compliance dates, compliance
requirements, performance testing, and notification and
reporting requirements; and report on the status of permit
requirements, including waste minimization incentives.
(The notice inadvertently omitted four paragraphs and
contained six incorrect numbers. Corrections to the notice
were published on May 12, 1997 at 62 Fed. Reg. 25877.)
?
mission Standards and Test Procedure Amend-
ments for Aircraft Engines Proposed
USEPA proposes amendments to the existing United
States regulations governing the exhaust emissions from
new commercial aircraft gas turbine engines. (62 Fed.
Reg. 25355 (May 8, 1997).) Under the authority of
section 231 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), USEPA is
promulgating new emission standards for oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) for newly
manufactured and newly certified commercial aircraft gas
turbine engines with rated thrust greater than 26.7
kilonewtons (kN). This action will codify into federal law
the current voluntary NOX (a two-staged NOX standard)
and CO emission standards of the United Nations
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and
thereby bring the United States emission standards into
?
?
?
?
?????????????????????????????? ?????????
?
alignment with the internationally adopted standards.
This rulemaking will also establish general consistency
between the United States and international standards,
requirements, and test procedures. These amendments are
effective July 7, 1997 unless notice of adverse comments
is received by the USEPA prior to June 9, 1997.
lutonium Packaging-Containment Requirements:
Amendment Being Considered
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is pro-
posing to amend its regulations to remove canisters
containing vitrified high-level waste (HLW) containing
plutonium from the packaging requirement for double
containment. (62 Fed. Reg. 25146 (May 8, 1997).) This
amendment is being proposed in response to a petition for
rulemaking submitted by the Department of Energy
(DOE). This proposed rule would also make a minor
correction to the usage of metric and English units to be
consistent with existing NRC policy. Comments should
be submitted to NRC by July 22, 1997.
?
ational Advisory Committee Publishes List of
Priority Chemicals for Guideline Development
The National Advisory Committee for Acute Expo-
sure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances
(NAC/AEGL), established by the USEPA under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), develops
exposure guidelines on an ongoing basis to assist federal,
state, and other organization needs for short-term
hazardous chemical exposure information. An initial
listing of 85 priority chemicals was published in the
Federal Register
(62 Fed. Reg. 27733 (May 21, 1997)) to
facilitate participation by the public in the AEGL process.
Sixteen (16) of these priority chemicals have already been
addressed by the NAC/AEGL and they anticipate that
proposed AEGL values and an accompanying rationale
for approximately 13 chemicals will be published in the
Federal Register
for comment within the next several
months. NAC/AEGL encourages the submission of acute
toxicology data or other pertinent information on these
chemicals and all other chemicals on the list to the
USEPA.
The list of 85 priority chemicals is a composite of
numerous priority lists of acutely toxic chemicals and
represents the selection of chemicals for AEGL develop-
ment by the NAC/AEGL during the next 2 to 3 years. The
list has been assembled from the individual lists of
chemicals nominated by NAC/AEGL member organiza-
tions for AEGL development. The NAC/AEGL intends to
address at least 30 chemicals per year in the AEGL
development process and, therefore, this list of chemicals
will be expanded as the NAC/AEGL continues to focus on
chemicals of interest to its member organizations.
?
ERCLA Prospective Purchaser Agreement
Proposed for Chicago Site
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601, et seq.,
USEPA provided notice that a proposed prospective
purchaser agreement for the autodeposition site in
Chicago, Illinois has been executed by Greenfield
Partners, Ltd. (Greenfield). (62 Fed. Reg. 26314 (May
13, 1997).) The agreement has been submitted to the U.S.
Attorney General for approval. The proposed prospective
purchaser agreement would resolve certain potential
claims of the United States under Sections 106 and 107 of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 9606 and 9607, and Section
7003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 6973, against Greenfield Partners. The
proposed settlement would require Greenfield Partners to
perform work at the site valued at approximately
$140,000. Comments on the proposed purchaser
agreement were to be filed with the USEPA by June 12,
1997.
?
ydrochloric Acid: Some Solutions Proposed to be
Removed from List of Regulated Substances and
Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention
Regulations
USEPA proposed modifications to the list of regu-
lated substances and threshold quantities of the accidental
release prevention regulations authorized by section
112(r) of the Clean Air Act as amended. (62 Fed. Reg.
27992 (May 22, 1997.)) USEPA proposes to vacate the
listing and related threshold for hydrochloric acid
solutions with less than 37% concentrations of hydrogen
chloride. The current listing and threshold for all other
regulated substances, including hydrochloric acid
solutions with 37% or greater concentrations and the
listing and threshold for anhydrous hydrogen chloride, are
unaffected by the proposed amendment. Entities poten-
tially affected by this action include those facilities having
more than the 15,000 pound threshold quantity of
hydrochloric acid solutions with concentrations of less
than 37% hydrogen chloride. Comments must be
submitted to the USEPA before June 23, 1997.
?
?
?
?
?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?
??????????????????????
96-262
People of the State of Illinois v. R. Frietsch and
Company, Inc. - The Board accepted a stipulation and
settlement agreement in this air action involving a
Tazewell County facility, ordered the respondent to pay a
civil penalty of $8,000, and ordered the respondent to
cease and desist from further violation.
97-126
Land and Lakes/Willow Ranch v. IEPA - Having
previously granted a request for a 90-day extension, the
Board dismissed the matter because no permit appeal was
timely filed on behalf of this Will County facility.
97-184
Berlin Industries v. IEPA - Upon receipt of an
Agency recommendation, the Board granted this DuPage
County facility a 4-day provisional variance, subject to
conditions, from certain air emission requirements of the
air pollution control regulations, as set forth in 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 218.407(a)(1)(E).
AC 97-48
Will County v. American Fly Ash - The Board
granted complaint’s motion for withdrawal of this
administrative citation involving a Will County facility.
AC 97-49
Will County v. American Fly Ash - The Board
granted complaint’s motion for withdrawal of this
administrative citation involving a Will County facility.
AC 97-50
Will County v. American Fly Ash - The Board
granted complaint’s motion for withdrawal of this
administrative citation involving a Will County facility.
AC 97-51
Will County v. American Fly Ash - The Board
granted complaint’s motion for withdrawal of this
administrative citation involving a Will County facility.
AC 97-52
Will County v. American Fly Ash - The Board
granted complaint’s motion for withdrawal of this
administrative citation involving a Will County facility.
R96-4
In the Matter of: Listing of Federal Hazardous Air
Pollutants, Great Lakes Commission Toxic Compounds
and Great Waters Program Toxic Air Compounds, and
Source Reporting for Illinois Toxic Air Contaminants:
Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 232 - The Board
adopted amendments to its existing air pollution control
rules.
See Rulemaking Update.
R96-18
In the Matter of : Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code Subtitle F (Parts 601 through 620) - The Board
adopted amendments to its existing public water supply
and ground water rules.
See Rulemaking Update.
R97-18
In the Matter of: Safe Drinking Water Update,
USEPA Regulations (July 1 through December 31, 1996)
- The Board dismissed this reserved identical-in-substance
docket because the USEPA did not amend its Safe
Drinking Water regulations during the update period of
July 1 through December 31, 1996.
See Rulemaking
Update.
R97-19
In the Matter of: UIC Update, USEPA
Regulations (July 1 through December 31, 1996) - The
Board dismissed this reserved identical-in-substance
docket as no USEPA amendments required Board action
to amend its underground injection regulations during the
update period of July 1 through December 31, 1996.
See
Rulemaking Update.
R97-22
In the Matter of: UST Update, USEPA
Regulations (July 1 through December 31, 1996) - The
Board dismissed this reserved identical-in-substance
docket as no USEPA amendments required Board action
to amend its underground storage tank regulations during
the update period of July 1 through December 31, 1996.
See Rulemaking Update.
?????????????????????????????? ?????????
??
???????????????????????
96-118
People of the State of Illinois v. Dennis Fults d/b/a
St. Clair Construction and Paving - The Board entered a
final order requiring the respondent to pay $3,304.38 in
costs. This order supplements the Board’s interim order
of March 20, 1997 which ordered this Madison County
respondent to pay a civil penalty of $10,000, and ordered
the respondent to cease and desist from further violation.
96-245
People of the State of Illinois v. Pamarco, Inc., -
The Board accepted a stipulation and settlement
agreement in this air action involving a Kane County
facility, ordered the respondent to pay a civil penalty of
$12,500, and ordered the respondent to cease and desist
from further violations.
97-86
Agribusiness, (formerly known as Beden/Vigoro
Industries) v. IEPA - The Board granted petitioner’s
motion for withdrawal of this underground storage tank
appeal involving a Clinton County facility.
97-105
Tri Star Marketing, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board
granted petitioner’s motion for withdrawal of this
underground storage tank appeal involving a Coles
County facility.
97-129
Pinewood Mobile Home Park v. IEPA - The
Board granted this Peoria 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 nitrate
content and hydropneuematic storage capacity.
97-155
Shell Oil Products Company v. IEPA - Having
previously granted a request for a 90-day extension, the
Board dismissed the matter because no underground
storage tank appeal was timely filed on behalf of this
DuPage County facility.
97-160
Browning-Ferris Industries of Illinois, Inc. v.
IEPA - Having previously granted a request for a 90-day
extension, the Board dismissed the matter because no
permit appeal was timely filed on behalf of this Ogle
County facility.
97-190
White Cap, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board granted
petitioner’s motion for withdrawal of this request for a 90
day extension of time in which to file a permit appeal
involving a Cook County facility.
97-200
City of Mattoon v. IEPA - Upon receipt of an
Agency recommendation, the Board granted this Coles
County facility a 45-day provisional variance, subject to
conditions, from certain effluent discharge requirements
of the water pollution control regulations, as set forth in
35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.120(c) and 304.141(a) and
imposed by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit (NPDES) No. IL0029831. Board Member
K.M. Hennessey abstained.
97-201
Fox Waterway Agency v. IEPA - Upon receipt of
an Agency recommendation, the Board granted this
McHenry County facility a 45-day provisional variance,
subject to conditions, from certain effluent discharge
requirements of the water pollution control regulations, as
set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.105, 304.106,
304.123(b), and 304.124 of the Board's water regulations
and imposed by Operating Permit No. 1993-EA-3060, for
effluent discharged from Project One Ackerman Island,
Fox Lake, Illinois. Board Member K.M. Hennessey
abstained.
97-202
Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Power
Station) v. IEPA - Upon receipt of an Agency
recommendation, the Board granted this Lake County
facility a 45-day provisional variance, subject to
conditions, from certain effluent discharge requirements
of the water pollution control regulations, as set forth in
35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.141(b) and 309.102 of the Board's
water regulations. Board Member K.M. Hennessey
abstained.
AC 96-57
County of Jackson v. Southern Illinois
Regional Landfill - The Board entered a final order
requiring the respondent to pay $121.65 in hearing costs
and to pay a civil penalty of $2,000. This order amends
and supplements the Board’s interim order of December
19, 1996 which found that this Jackson County respondent
had violated Sections 21(o)(1),(2),(5) and (12) of the
Environmental Protection Act.
AC 96-58
County of Jackson v. Gary Easton - The Board
entered a final order requiring the respondent to pay
$152.25 in hearing costs and to pay a civil penalty of
$2,000. This order supplements and amends the Board’s
interim order of December 19, 1996 which found that this
Jackson County respondent had violated Sections
21(p)(1),(2),(5) and (6) of the Environmental Protection
Act.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??
AC 97-53
County of Will v. Ernest Angelina - The Board
entered a default order, finding that this Will County
respondent had violated Sections 21(p)(1) and 21(p)(3) of
the Environmental Protection Act and ordering him to pay
a civil penalty of $1,000.
AC 97-54
County of Will v. Space Available Corporation
- The Board entered a default order, finding that this Will
County respondent had violated Sections 21(p)(1) and
21(p)(3) of the Environmental Protection Act and
ordering it to pay a civil penalty of $1,000.
AC 97-56
County of Will v. Alan Beemsterboer,
individually and d/b/a Dutch Barn Landscaping - The
Board granted complainant’s motion for withdrawal of
this administrative citation involving a Will County
facility.
AS 97-3
In the Matter of: Petition of Shell Wood River
Refining Company for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code Part 725.213 and 725.321 - The Board
granted an adjusted standard, with conditions, from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code Part 725.213 and 725.321, standards
pertaining to the closure and design of wastewater
treatment ponds.
R97-15(A)
In the Matter of : Livestock Waste
Regulations 35 Ill. Adm. Code 506 - The Board adopted
new regulations to replace existing emergency rules
implementing the Livestock Facilities Management Act .
Board Members R.C. Flemal and G.T. Girard dissented.
See Rulemaking Update.
R97-17
In the Matter of: Exemptions from the Definition
of VOM, USEPA Amendments (July 1, through
December 31, 1996; HFC 43-10mee and HCFC 225ca
and cb) - The Board adopted amendments to its existing
air pollution control rules.
See Rulemaking Update
.
????????????????
97-140
North Shore Sanitary District Citgo v. IEPA - The
Board accepted for hearing this appeal of a land permit on
behalf of a Lake County facility.
97-144
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board
accepted for hearing this appeal of a land permit on behalf
of a Coles County facility.
97-150
McKay Contractors, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board
accepted for hearing this underground storage tank appeal
on behalf of a Cook County facility.
97-176
Schuller International Corporation v. IEPA - The
Board accepted this request for 90-day extension of time
to file an underground storage tank appeal on behalf of a
Lake County facility.
97-182
Ingleside Citgo v. IEPA - The Board accepted this
request for 90-day extension of time to file an
underground storage tank appeal on behalf of a Lake
County facility.
97-183
Trust Number 5439, by its Trustee, The
Amalgamated Trust and Savings Bank v. Shell Oil
Company - The Board held this citizen's air enforcement
action against a Cook County facility for a frivolous and
duplicitous determination.
97-184
Berlin Industries v. IEPA
See Final Actions.
97-188
People of the State of Illinois v. Dan Loepker -
The Board received for hearing this water enforcement
action against a Clinton County facility.
97-189
Frederick Cooper Lamps, Inc. v. IEPA - The
Board accepted for hearing this air permit appeal on
behalf of a Cook County facility.
97-191
People of the State of Illinois v. Galva Foundry
Company - The Board received for hearing this RCRA
enforcement action against a Henry County facility.
AC 97-59
Montgomery County v. Envotech Illinois, Inc. -
The Board received an administrative citation against this
Montgomery County respondent.
AC 97-60
IEPA v. Stacy Hess - The Board received an
administrative citation against this Tazewell County
respondent.
AC 97-61
IEPA v. William Decker - The Board received
an administrative citation against this Livingston County
respondent.
AS 97-9
In the Matter: of: Petition of Recycle Technolo-
gies, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 720.131(c) - The Board acknowledged receipt of
this petition for a adjusted standard from certain require-
ments on behalf of a Lake County facility and held it
pending receipt of certificate publication.
R97-28
Site-Specific Petition of Mobil Oil Corporation
for Relief from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122, Ammonia
Nitrogen Effluent Standards - The Board held this
proposal for further review.
?????????????????????????????? ?????????
??
?????????????????
97-153
D & Landfill, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board accepted
for hearing this appeal of a land permit on behalf of a
Bond County facility.
97-162
Swearingin Services, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board
accepted for hearing this underground storage tank appeal
on behalf of a Jersey County facility.
97-163
Swearingin Services, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board
accepted for hearing this underground storage tank appeal
on behalf of a Jersey County facility.
97-164
Swearingin Services, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board
accepted for hearing this underground storage tank appeal
on behalf of a Jersey County facility.
97-165
Swearingin Services, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board
accepted for hearing this underground storage tank appeal
on behalf of a Jersey County facility.
97-166
Swearingin Services, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board
accepted for hearing this underground storage tank appeal
on behalf of a Jersey County facility.
97-185
Old Elm Country Club v. IEPA - The Board
accepted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file
an underground storage tank appeal on behalf of a Lake
County facility.
97-186
Elouisa Farrales v. Office of State Fire Marshal -
The Board accepted for hearing this underground storage
tank appeal on behalf of a Cook County facility.
97-187
Martin Oil Marketing, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board
accepted for hearing this underground storage tank appeal
on behalf of a Rock Island County facility.
97-190
White Cap, Inc. v. IEPA -
See Final Actions
97-192
People of the State of Illinois v. Sundale Sewer
Corporation - The Board received for hearing this water
enforcement action against a Tazewell County facility.
97-193
People of the State of Illinois v. Community
Landfill Company - The Board received for hearing this
land enforcement action against a Grundy County facility.
97-195
W. R. Meadow, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board
accepted for hearing this appeal of an air permit on behalf
of a Kane County facility.
97-196
People of the State of Illinois v. Di Mucci
Development Corporation of Round Lake, Inc. - The
Board received for hearing this water enforcement action
against a Lake County facility.
97-200
City of Mattoon v. IEPA
See Final Actions.
97-201
Fox Waterway Agency v. IEPA
See Final
Actions.
97-202
Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Power
Station) v. IEPA
See Final Actions.
97-203
People of the State of Illinois v. Spirco
Environmental, Inc. - The Board received for hearing this
air enforcement action against a Peoria County facility.
AC 97-62
Will County v. Crown-Trygg Corporation - The
Board received an administrative citation against this Will
County respondent.
AC 97-63
Will County v. Derrick Craig - The Board
received an administrative citation against this Will
County respondent.
AC 97-64
Wayne County Health Department v. John
Barnes - The Board received an administrative citation
against this Wayne County respondent.
AC 97-65
IEPA v. Peter Gomez and Teri Wakeland -
The Board received an administrative citation against
these Mercer County respondents.
?????????? ?????????????????????????????????????
??
????????????????????
??? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????????? ??? ????????????
??????? ??????? ???????????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??????????
???? ? ???? ???? ? ? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????????
???????
????? ??
?? ???? ?
??
???????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??????????
????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????????? ????????
???????
???? ??
?? ???? ?
??
???????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??????????
????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????????? ????????
?? ????
????? ??
??? ???? ?
???? ?????
???? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ? ????????????? ???? ??? ? ? ? ????? ??
???????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ????????
?? ????
????? ??
? ???? ?
?? ????
?? ??? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ?? ?? ????
???? ???? ??????? ? ???????? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????
??????? ???????????? ????????
?? ???
????? ??
????? ?
?????
?? ??? ?????? ??? ????????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????????? ??? ??????
???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ?
??????????? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????????????
????????
???????
???? ??
??? ?????
???????
?????????? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??????????
????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????????? ????????
???????
????? ??
??? ???? ?
???????
????????? ????? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ???????
????????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ????????
???????
????? ??
??? ??????
???? ????????
??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ? ???? ???? ????? ?????????? ?????
? ? ????? ??????? ????? ????????
?? ????
????? ??
????? ?
?? ?????
?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??????????? ?? ????
???? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ? ???????? ???? ????????? ?????????? ????? ???
????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????????
???????? ????
?? ? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????????????? ????????
??? ??? ??????????? ??? ???????? ????????
??? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????????
?? ??????????? ?? ?????? ???? ????????? ????? ?????????
??? ???? ??????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??????
??? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????????? ??????????
??? ????? ??????????? ??? ????? ????????
??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????????
????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ? ?????????? ??????????
???? ???????? ???????????? ??? ???????? ???
?????????? ?????????? ????? ?????
??
?
??
?
??????????? ????????? ??? ???? ????
???? ?? ? ??????
????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????????
? ??????? ????????????? ???? ??? ??? ??????????????
??? ????? ??????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ??????????
?????? ??????
????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ????
????????????? ?????????????
??? ????? ??????????? ??? ????? ????????
??? ?????????? ??????? ?????????
