LATE BREAKING NEWS:

No. 519

A Publication of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

September 1997

?????????????????

Update on R97-29, Amendments

to Location Standards for

Landscape Waste Compost

Facilities, 35 Ill. Adm. Code

830.203(c)

On May 6, 1997, two citizens

filed a proposal with the Board to

amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code

830.203(c). Section 830.203(c)

contains location standards for

certain landscape waste composting

areas. Generally, the proponents

request in their proposal that the

Board amend Section 830.203(c) to

prohibit composting areas from

being located within one-half mile

of the property line of a hospital,

school, athletic field, or public

park, and to require that existing

composting areas located within

that setback distance be relocated.

The Board accepted this matter for

hearing by its order of June 19,

1997. The docket number for this

matter is R97-29.

Two hearings were scheduled

for R97-29. The first hearing was

held on Monday, September 8,

1997, at the James R. Thompson

Center, Room 9-040, 100 West

Randolph, Chicago, Illinois 60601.

The second hearing is scheduled for

10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 7,

1997, at the Illinois State Library,

300 South Second Street, Room

403, Springfield, Illinois 62756.

(Cont’d on p.2)

????????????????

Bevis,

et al.

v. Illinois Pollution

Control Board, and Wayne

County Board, 283 Ill. App.

3d 807; 670 N.E.2d 1157; 219

Ill. Dec 269 (Fifth District

September 19, 1996 substi-

tuted opinion June 30, 1997).

This case involves a Board

dismissal in Bevis, et. al v.

Wayne County Board, (May 18,

1995), PCB 95-128 of the

petitioners appeal of Wayne

County's grant of siting ap-

proval. On September 19, 1996,

the Fifth District found that it

lacked jurisdiction to hear the

case and dismissed the appeal before it in its order. On June 30, 1997, the court

on a petition for rehearing vacated and held for naught its prior opinion in this

case. In the new opinion, the Fifth District affirmed the Board's decision

denying the petitioners' request for leave to amend their appeal.

In April 1993, Daubs Landfill Inc. (Daubs) applied for vertical and hori-

zontal expansion of its landfill in Wayne County Illinois. In May 1993 the

Wayne County Board determined that the siting application was incomplete.

Daubs filed an amended application on May 24, 1993. The Wayne County

Board then held a hearing on the amended application in August 1993.

However, in September, Daubs filed a second amended application. Wayne

County held hearings on the second amended application

(Cont’d on p.4)

NVIRONMENTAL

EGISTER

LATE BREAKING NEWS:

On September 10, 1997, in an unpub-

lished Rule 23 order, the Illinois Appellate

Court, Third District, affirmed the Board’s

decision in it’s entirety in International

Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and

Agricultural Implement Workers of

America, UAW Local 974; and Citizens

for a Better Environment v. Illinois

Pollution Control Board, Illinois Environ-

mental Protection Agency, and Caterpillar,

Inc. (No. 3-96-0931). For a complete

summary of this Rule 23 order, visit the

Board's web site at:

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/appeal.htm

Inside This Issue

Federal Actions p6

Final Decisions p8

New Cases p10

Calendar of Hearings p11

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 519 September 1997

?????????????????

(Cont’d from p.1)

The purpose of these hearings is to allow the Board to

receive testimony from the proponents and other

interested persons on the merits and economic impact of

this proposal, time permitting. The Board is also

accepting written public comment.

The hearing officer in this matter issued an order on

September 11, 1997. The order allows, in certain

circumstances, the filing of prefiled questions for the

second hearing and the filing of requests for a third

hearing and. The order also sets deadlines for such

filings. Copies of the hearing officer order are available

from the Board at 312/814-3620, and on the Board’s Web

page at http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/proposal.htm

Any questions regarding this rulemaking may be di-

rected to the hearing officer, Richard McGill, at 312/ 814-

6983; email address: rmcgill@pcb084r1.state.il.us

oard Proposes for Public Comment Amendments

to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Subtitle D Regulations, R97-20

On August 7, 1997, the Board proposed for public

comment amendments to the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (42 U.S.C.

6944, 6949(a) (1976))

(RCRA) Subtitle D municipal solid waste landfill

(MSWLF) regulations. In the Matter of: RCRA Subtitle

D Update, USEPA Regulations (July 1, 1996 through

December 31, 1996) (August 7, 1997), R97-20. The

federal RCRA Subtitle D regulations are found at 40 CFR

258 and reflect those amendments made during the period

from July 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996.

Section 22.40(a) of the Illinois Environmental Pro-

tection Act (415 ILCS 5/22.40(a) (1996)) provides for

quick adoption of regulations that are identical-in-

substance to federal RCRA Subtitle D regulations adopted

by the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) to implement Sections 4004 and 4010 of the

RCRA. 42 U.S.C.

6944, 6949(a) (1976). Because this

rulemaking is not subject to Section 5 of the Administra-

tive Procedure Act, this rulemaking is not subject to first

notice or to second notice review by the Joint Committee

on Administrative Rules.

The proposed amendments incorporate revisions to

the federal financial assurance requirements applicable to

local units of government that own or operate MSWLFs.

Specifically, the proposed amendments provide that local

units of governments that own or operate MSWLFs may

apply for a financial test for self-assurance, and that they

may guarantee the costs of corrective action, closure,

and/or post-closure care on behalf of an owner or operator

of a MSWLF. Additionally, the proposal allows the State

to extend the deadline for financial assurance for a facility

up to April 9, 1998. The owner or operator must demon-

strate that it could not timely comply because it could not

obtain financial assurance for the site by the April 9, 1997

compliance deadline and that the lack of financial

assurance would not adversely affect human health or the

environment. The proposed amendments are found at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 810 and 811.

The proposed regulations also incorporate a recent

federal amendment that essentially allows the State to

relax certain requirements for small landfills,

i.e.,

on-site

landfills (See

Federal Actions).

These amendments do

not apply, however, if the facility is a RCRA Subtitle C

hazardous waste disposal facility or a RCRA Subtitle D

MSWLF. The proposed amendments are found at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 811.

Finally, the proposed regulations include amendments

in response to Pub. Act 89-200 (Pub. Act 89-200, eff. July

21, 1996). These proposed regulations include amend-

ments to the federal deadline for landfill financial

assurance and qualifications for an insurer providing

financial insurance.

The 45-day public comment period shall commence

upon publication of these proposed regulations in the

Illinois Register

. All public comments shall be addressed

to Dorothy Gunn, Clerk of the Board, 100 W. Randolph,

Suite 11-500, Chicago, Illinois 60601.

Any additional questions and comments regarding

this rulemaking may be directed to Michael McCambridge

at 312/814-6924; e-mail: mmccambr@pcb084r1.state.il.us

oard Adopts Amendments to Wastewater Pre-

treatment Regulations, R97-23

On August 7, 1997, the Board adopted amendments

to the wastewater pretreatment regulations pursuant to

Section 13.3 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act)

(415 ILCS 5/13.3 (1996)). These amendments were

proposed for public comment in the Board’s proposed

opinion and order of May 1, 1997. No public comments

were received during the 45-day public comment period.

The adopted amendments update the wastewater pretreat-

ment regulations to cover regulations adopted by the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

from July 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996. The

Illinois wastewater pretreatment rules are contained in 35

Ill. Adm. Code 307, 309 and 310.

The wastewater pretreatment rules govern discharges

by industrial users to publicly owned treatment works

(POTW). The rules are intended to prevent pollutants

from industrial discharges from passing through POTWs

without adequate treatment to waters of the State, and to

prevent industrial discharges from interfering with the

operation of the treatment plant. Specifically, the

September 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 519

modifications are applicable to certain facilities in the

leather tanning and finishing point source category that

conduct unhairing operations and that discharge process

wastewater to POTWs. Additionally, the revisions

eliminate the upper (alkaline) pH limits for four subcate-

gories. These sections are incorporated in the pretreat-

ment regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 307.3501,

307.3502, 307.3506, and 3078.3508. This modification

should allow affected facilities to reduce the use of

pretreatment chemicals, resulting in lower operating costs

and reducing potential risks for worker safety and health.

The Board also adopted amendments to the pretreat-

ment standards for pesticide formulating, packaging, and

repackaging facilities at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 307.6503.

Finally, the Board created a new section at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 307.6505 to incorporate pretreatment regulations

adopted by USEPA for agricultural refilling establish-

ments.

Questions and comments regarding this rulemaking

may be directed to Amy Muran Felton, 312/814-7011; e-

mail: amuranfe@pcb084r1.state.il.us

oard Dismisses Reserved Dockets, R98-1, R98-4,

R98-6, R98-7

On August 7, 1997, the Board dismissed rulemakings

in reserved dockets R98-1 entitled In the Matter of:

Definition of Volatile Organic Material Update (January

1, 1997 through June 30, 1997), R98-4 entitled In the

Matter of: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,

Subtitle D Update (January 1, 1997 through June 30,

1997), R98-6 entitled In the Matter of: Underground

Storage Tank Update (January 1, 1997 through June 30,

1997), and R98-7 entitled In the Matter of: Wastewater

Pretreatment Update (January 1, 1997 through June 30,

1997) as the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) did not amend its rules during the

period from January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1997.

Section 9.1(e) of the Environmental Protection Act (415

ILCS 5/9.1(e) (1996)) requires the Board to adopt

regulations which are identical-in-substance to regulations

adopted by the USEPA. The term identical-in-substance

has been defined in Section 7.2 of the Act (415 ILCS

5/7.2 (1996)).

oard Accepts for Hearing a Proposal for Amend-

ments in the Matter of Livestock Waste Regula-

tions: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 506, R97-15(B)

On August 21, 1997, the Board accepted for hearing

a proposal for amendments to the livestock waste

regulations found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 506 to add rules

regarding financial responsibility for closure of livestock

waste lagoons. The Board also granted the Department of

Agriculture’s request for a waiver from 35 Ill. Adm. Code

102.121(h) which requires a proponent of a rule to

provide a petition signed by at least 200 persons. The

Board also accepted as a public comment a “Proposal of

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for Proce-

dures and Criteria to Implement the Level of Surety for

Closure of Livestock Waste Lagoons.” Hearings in this

matter are expected to be scheduled in the near future.

Any questions or comments regarding this matter may

be directed to Charles King at 312/814-6926; e-mail

address: cking@pcb084r1.state.il.us

oard Accepts for Hearing a Proposal for Amend-

ments to the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

Rules, Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811, 813

and 848, R98-9

On August 21, 1997, the Board accepted for hearing

a joint proposal for amendments to the Board’s municipal

solid waste landfill rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code 811 and 813)

filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and

the National Solid Waste Management Association

(collectively, proponents). The proponents’ statement of

reasons indicates that there are four reasons for the

amendments: (1) to ease certain requirements that drive

up costs without a commensurate environmental benefit;

(2) to modify or eliminate requirements that the propo-

nents believe are no longer technically defensible; (3) to

ensure uniformity in the Board’ rules; and (4) to remain

consistent with the federal Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act Subtitle D program. The proposal seeks to

amend only two sections of the rules: 35 Ill. Adm. Code

811 and 813. In response to proponents’ motion to limit

the scope of the rulemaking, the Board agreed to limit the

scope of the proceeding in that it will not entertain

requests from other parties to expand the list of sections

proposed for amendment.

By its own motion, the Board also opened 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 848.104 to add three statutory definitions and

amend four definitions with the language from P.A. 89-

200, eff. January 1, 1996. This change is merely ministe-

rial and is not intended to expand the scope of the

rulemaking. Hearings in this matter will be scheduled in

the near future.

Any questions or comments regarding this rulemaking

may be directed to Marie Tipsord at 312/814-4925; e-mail

address: mtipsord@084r1.state.il.us

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 519 September 1997

????????????????

(Cont’d from p.1)

in November 1993.

On March 10, 1994, the Wayne County Board denied

Daubs' second amended application for expansion and

Daubs filed a timely appeal with the Board. During the

pendancy of the appeal, Daubs proposed a settlement to a

Wayne County Board Member. On February 9, 1995, the

Wayne County Board adopted the settlement and on

March 9, 1995, the Board approved the settlement. Daubs

then withdrew its appeal.

Several citizens then appealed the March 9, 1995

expansion decision by the County Board to the Board

naming the Wayne County Board as a respondent. On

May 19, 1995, the Board dismissed the appeal for failure

to name Daubs as a respondent as required by Section

40.1(a) of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS

5/40.1(a)) (Act) because since Daubs received local siting,

Daubs was the applicant. Additionally, the Board denied

the petitioners' request for leave to amend their appeal.

The petitioners' filed a motion for reconsideration which

the Board denied on July 7, 1995.

On appeal the Fifth District first resolved the issue of

whether the terms "recipient" and "applicant" are

synonymous as terms relating to siting under the Act (415

ILCS 5/

et. seq

.). The petitioners argued that applicant

means one who applies. Additionally, they argued that

because by local ordinance the Wayne County Board

cannot reconsider a final decision, the settlement proposal

could not relate back to the original application and must

have therefore been a new application. The petitioners

then argued that because Daubs did not comply with

hearing and notice requirements, Daubs could not be an

applicant under the Act even though ultimately Daubs

received siting approval. Simply put, the petitioners

argued that one can only be an applicant if he complies

perfectly with all application process requirements.

The Fifth District rejected the petitioners' arguments,

finding that one can only obtain siting approval by filing

an application. Finding that the petitioners did not cite

any authority to the contrary, the court held that Daubs

was the applicant for siting approval pursuant to the Act

and that to find otherwise would require the court to

"ignore logic." Citing Section 40.1(b) of the Act as

authority, the court next found that, because Daubs was

the applicant, the petitioners were required to name Daubs

as a respondent in their appeal to the Board (415 ILCS

5/40.1(b).) Thus, failure to name Daubs, who was a

necessary party, meant that the Board did not have

authority to hear the case.

Petitioners next argued that the Board should have

allowed them to amend their petition. The court, how-

ever, disagreed finding that even if Section 40 allowed the

petitioners to amend their petition, they had not shown a

good-faith effort to comply with the requirement that the

applicant be named on appeal.

Based on the reasoning discussed above, the Fifth

District affirmed the decision of the Board to denying the

petitioners request for leave to amend their appeal.

ounty of Kane v. The Illinois Pollution Control

Board

et al.

consolidated with Waste Management

of Illinois Inc. v. The Illinois Pollution Control

Board

et al.

, Nos. 2-96-0652 and 2-96-0676 slip ops.

Dist. September 4, 1997) (unpublished rule 23

order)

This case was before the appellate court for the Sec-

ond District on an appeal by Kane County (County) and

Waste Management of Illinois Inc. (WMII) from the

Board's decision in PCB 96-85 (February 1, 1996), which

upheld the Agency's denial of their permit application for

the expansion of the Settler's Hill landfill facility. In an

earlier case, The City of Geneva v. Illinois Pollution

Control Board, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

County of Kane, and Waste Management of Illinois, No.

2-96-0560, slip op. (Second District April 11, 1997)

(unpublished Rule 23 order) the Second District affirmed

the Board's denial of the City of Geneva's (Geneva)

petition for intervention, upholding a prior Board hearing

officer ruling.

This case involved the Settler's Hill Landfill which is

located in part within unincorporated Kane County and in

part within the corporate limits of Geneva. The Settler's

Hill facility was approved in 1982 by both the County and

Geneva. The landfill is owned by the County and WMII

operates the facility. In 1986 WMII got siting approval

from the County to expand the facility but did not seek or

obtain approval from Geneva.

In 1993, WMII submitted a siting application to the

County to expand the landfill. The area of expansion was

outside of Geneva's corporate boundaries and WMII did

not submit a siting application to Geneva. However, the

road to the landfill, the entrance gate, and administrative

buildings for the landfill were located in Geneva and even

under the expansion plan would still be used by WMII.

After the County approved the siting application, and

WMII and the County submitted a permit application to

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA).

The IEPA denied the permit on the grounds that WMII

and the County had failed to obtain siting approval from

Geneva. WMII and the County then filed a petition for

review with the Board. Geneva filed a motion to inter-

vene in the case before the Board which was denied by the

Board's hearing officer. On February 1, 1996, the Board

upheld the IEPA's denial of the permit application. The

Board's decision was the subject of the instant appeal.

September 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 519

In the appeal, the County and WMII argued that sit-

ing approval by Geneva is not required because the

proposed expansion did not include any acreage located

within Geneva. They contended that siting approval is

required for a "new pollution control facility" and that

since in this case the "new facility" was defined as the

area of expansion beyond the existing facility, that only

the body with siting jurisdiction over the expansion area

must grant siting approval. The Board rejected this idea

in its opinion stating instead, that the "new pollution

control facility" included not only the new area which was

to be expanded but also the area where continued use was

planned. The Board found that the definition of "facility"

encompassed the structures and administrative buildings

located within Geneva's corporate limits.

The Second District disagreed with the Board, finding

instead that the plain language of Section 3.32(b) of the

Act limits new pollution control facilities for which siting

approval must be obtained to the area beyond the

boundary of the currently permitted facility. The court

found that, by including the language "area beyond the

boundary" in the statute, the legislature did not intend to

include any of the existing facility in the definition of a

"new pollution control facility."

Although the court conceded that, "the reasoning of

the Board in making its findings in this case has a certain

logical appeal," it concluded that, since the proposed

expansion of the Settler's Hill Landfill included only land

within the County, that WMII was required to obtain

siting approval only from the County. The decision of the

Board was accordingly reversed.

oncerned Citizens of Williamson County,

et al.

Illinois Pollution Control Board,

et al.

, No. 5-96 -

0194 slip op. (Fifth District July 10, 1997)

(unpublished rule 23 order)

This case was heard by the appellate court for the

Fifth District on an appeal by the Concerned Citizens of

Williamson County

et al.

(Citizens) from the decision of

the Board in PCB 96-60 (formerly docketed as PCB 94-

262) (February 15, 1996) the Board had affirmed the

approval by the Williamson County Board (County) of the

siting application of Kibler Development Corporation

(Kibler) for a regional pollution control facility. The

court affirmed the Board's decision in its unpublished rule

23 order.

In PCB 94-262 the first appeal before the Board in-

volving these parties, the Board found that the proceed-

ings before the County were fundamentally unfair because

there had been an

ex parte

contact between the County

and Mr. Bill Kibler. This occurred when the witness

provided information to the County but was not available

for cross-examination by the public. Therefore, the Board

reversed the County's decision granting siting and

remanded the case to the County for further proceedings.

More specifically, the Board ordered the County to

hold a new public hearing and comment period on the

application. The hearing was to include a presentation of

the

ex parte

statements and any rebuttal regarding the

statements. After the Board decision, both parties filed a

motion to reconsider with the Board. In response to the

motions, which expressed confusion about how the

proceedings should continue after the remand, the Board

issued a clarification order. In the clarification order the

Board required notice of the new hearing pursuant to

Section 39.2 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act)

(415 ILCS 5/39.2) and a post hearing comment period.

Additionally, the Board directed that the County's

decision should be based upon the entire record and be

rendered within 120 days beginning 35 days after the

entry of the clarification order. The parties appealed the

Board's order in PCB 94-252 to the Fifth District and the

appeals were dismissed as being premature.

On August 17, 1995, after the new hearing and public

comment period, the County met to act on Kibler's

pending application. However, the County adjourned

without taking any action. On August 18, 1995, the 120

decision period expired without the County taking any

action. By statute, failure to act means the application is

approved (415 ILCS 5/39.2(e).)

In PCB 96-60, the Citizens again appealed the

County's grant of siting approval to the Board. This time,

the Board affirmed the County's grant of siting approval.

This decision was the basis for the Citizens’ appeal.

The Citizens first contended that the County erred by

finding the proposed facility was compatible with the

surrounding area in accordance with Section 39.2(a)(3) of

the Act. In examining this criteria the court found that,

"given the timing of the special meeting related to Kibler's

application, the PCB could have easily assumed that the

County's failure to act was an implicit finding of criteria

satisfaction." However, the court went on to point out that

even overlooking the "County's tacit approval," the record

contained enough evidence to satisfy the criterion.

The Citizens next argued that the County failed to

conduct a new public hearing pursuant to Section 39.2 of

the Act. More specifically, the Citizens argue that Kibler

should have had to start the application process anew,

instead of the County's additional public hearing on the

original application. The court disagreed finding that the

Board order was clear that the County needed to open Mr.

Bill Kibler's testimony to the public and that he should be

available to the public for questions concerning his prior

statements at the new hearing. The court also found that the

record did not show that the Citizens were in any way

prejudiced by the limited nature of the new hearing. Thus,

the court found that the Board's decision that the hearing

satisfied its prior order was not erroneous.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 519 September 1997

The Citizens additionally argued that the Board erred in

affirming the County hearing officer's rulings limiting the

Citizens' cross-examination of Mr. Bill Kibler. The Citizens'

arguments related to three instances. In one of the instances

at issue on appeal, the attorney for the Citizens withdrew his

question before the hearing officer ruled on the objection. In

the other two instances, the Board overruled the County

hearing officer and accepted the offer of proof thus allowing

the information into evidence. The Fifth District found that

there was no evidence that the Citizens were in any way

prejudiced by the County hearing officer's cross-examination

restrictions and that the restrictions did not result in a

fundamentally unfair proceeding. The court also found that

on this issue, the Board's affirmance of the County's decision

was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Citizens also argued on appeal that Mr. Bill Kibler's

remarks at the new hearing did not sufficiently address the

information which was part of the

ex parte

discussion with

the County and that, because of this, the new hearing was

fundamentally unfair. The court again disagreed finding

that, even though the testimony was vague and generalized,

the Citizens were not substantially prejudiced.

Finally, the Citizens contended that the hearing notice of

the new hearing was insufficient and that the Board's

affirmance of the notice was against the manifest weight of

the evidence. Specifically, the Citizens argued that the

notice should have specifically stated that witnesses and

parties could present re-creation testimony. The court

disagreed, finding that as long as the notice was not

confusing, "it need not be completely accurate.” Addition-

ally, the court went on to say that the Citizens did not

establish that they were prejudiced by the notice's wording.

The court noted that the Citizens chose not to call witnesses

at the new hearing because they adopted the position that

they were not obligated to call witnesses. They did not argue

that they were unable to or unprepared to call witnesses. The

court found the notice was legally sufficient and resulted in a

fundamentally fair hearing. The court also found that the

Board's finding that the notice was sufficient was not

contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

???????????????

Revisions to Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills

The United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) adopted final rules at 40 CFR 258 affecting

municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF). 62 Fed. Reg.

40707 (July 29, 1997). Specifically, the Land Disposal

Program Flexibility Act of 1996 directed the Administrator

of the USEPA to provide additional flexibility to approved

states for any landfill that receives 20 tons or less of

municipal solid waste per day. The additional flexibility

applies to alternative frequencies of daily cover, frequencies

of methane monitoring, infiltration layers for final cover, and

a means for demonstrating financial assurance. The

additional flexibility will allow the owners and operators of

small MSWLFs the opportunity to reduce their costs of

MSWLF operation while still protecting human health and

the environment. This direct final rule recognizes that these

decisions are best made at the state and local level and,

therefore, offers this flexibility to approved states. The

Board has included this rule in its proposal in the pending

identical-in-substance update In the Matter of: RCRA

Subtitle D Update, USEPA Regulations (July 1, 1996

through December 31, 1996) (August 7, 1997), R97-20.

evised Requirements for Designation of Reference

and Equivalent Methods for Particulate Matter 2.5

and Ambient Air Quality Surveillance for Par-

ticulate Matter

This final rule revises 40 CFR 58 ambient air quality

surveillance regulations to include provisions for particulate

matter (PM) 2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers), as

measured by a new reference method being published in 40

CFR 50, Appendix L, elsewhere in the same issue of the

Federal Register

. (62 Fed. Reg. 38763 (July 18, 1997)), or

by an equivalent method designed in accordance with

requirements being promulgated in 40 CFR 53. In addition,

this rule also revises existing ambient air quality monitoring

requirements for PM10 (particles with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers). These

revisions address network design and siting, quality

assurance, quality control, operating schedule, network

completion, system modifications, data reporting, and other

monitoring subjects. The Board would expect that the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency will propose

adding these requirements to State air rules pursuant to the

fast track rulemaking procedure of Section 28.5 of the Act.

415 ILCS 5/28.5 (1996).

September 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 519

roposed Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act Prospective

Purchaser Agreement for the Rock Island Plating

Works Site

In accordance with the Comprehensive Environ-

mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA) (42 U.S.C.

9601), as amended, a proposed

prospective purchaser agreement (PPA) for the Rock

Island Plating Works Site (site) located in Rock Island,

Illinois, has been executed by the City of Rock Island. 62

Fed. Reg. 43100 (August 12, 1997). The proposed PPA

has been submitted to the United States Attorney General

for approval. The proposed PPA would resolve certain

potential claims of the United States under Sections 106

and 107 of CERCLA (42 U.S.C.

9606, 9607), against

the City of Rock Island. The proposed PPA would

require the City of Rock Island to pay the United States

$3,990 to be applied toward outstanding response costs

incurred by the United States in conducting federally

funded removal activities at the site. The site is not on the

National Priority List. The United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) completed the removal

action in August 1997. USEPA does not anticipate taking

further remedial action at the site after the completion of

the removal action.

pproval and Promulgation of State Implementa-

tion Plan for Ozone in Illinois

The United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is approving the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision request submitted by the State of Illinois on

May 14, 1996, for the purpose of making a change to the

regulatory control period established for Illinois’ 7.2

pounds per square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)

regulations currently required for the Metro-East St. Louis

moderate ozone nonattainment area which includes

Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties. 62 Fed. Reg.

43100 (August 12, 1997). In addition, USEPA is

approving a correction to the identification number for the

Clark Oil Company listed in Illinois’ Marine Vessel

Loading rule. The rationale for the approval is set forth in

this rule (see 62 Fed. Reg. 43100 (August 12, 1997));

additional information is available by contacting the

USEPA, Region V, 77 West Jackson, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

otice of Consent Decree with Pierce Waste Oil

Services Springfield Site Under the Comprehen-

sive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act

On July 25, 1997, three proposed consent decrees in

United States v. Alcan Aluminum,

et al.

, No. 97-3094

(C.D. Ill.), were lodged with the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois. 62 Fed. Reg.

43103 (August 11, 1997). In this action, the United States

sought to recover costs incurred in conducting response

activities as a result of releases or threatened releases of

hazardous substances at the Pierce Waste Oil Services

Site (site), located in Springfield, Sangamon County,

Illinois. The proposed settlements are set forth in three

consent decrees that address the liability of all 26

defendants in this action, each of which has been named

as a generator of hazardous substances sent to the site.

Together, the settlements will recover $1,307,280, not

including interest.

The Department of Justice accepted comments relat-

ing to the consent decrees until September 11, 1997. The

consent decrees may be examined at the Office of the

United States Attorney, Room 312 Federal Building, 600

East Monroe Street, Springfield, Illinois and at the

USEPA Region V, 77 West Jackson, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

roposed Clean Water Amendments to Effluent

Limitation Guidelines, New Source Performance

Standards, and Pretreatment Standards

On May 2, 1995, the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed Clean Water Act

(CWA) effluent limitation guidelines, new source

performance standards, and pretreatment standards for the

introduction of pollutants from the pharmaceutical

manufacturing industry (60 Fed. Reg. 21592 (May 2,

1995)). A recent publication (62 Fed. Reg. 42720 (August

8, 1997)) describes new information the USEPA has

obtained since the May 2, 1995 proposal, provides

detailed information concerning regulatory options under

the CWA which were identified in the April 2, 1997, (62

Fed. Reg. 15753 (April 2, 1997)) maximum achievable

control technology standard Clean Air Act proposal, and

presents the results of analyses of old and newly acquired

data and suggested modifications to the proposal. USEPA

solicits public comments until October 1, 1997, regarding

any information presented in this document.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 519 September 1997

mendments to Air Emission Requirements

Applicable to New Nonroad Spark Ignition

Engines and New Marine Spark Ignition Engines

This final rule amends the regulations to spark-ignition

nonroad engines at or below 19 kilowatts and spark-ignition

marine engines to address situations that have arisen

regarding the implementation of regulations applicable to

these nonroad engines. 62 Fed. Reg. 42637 (August 7,

1997). The United States Environmental Protection Agency

expects that no significant air quality impact will result from

these amendments. Specifically, these amendments will

allow engine manufacturers to provide uncertified engines to

replace older engines when major engine failures occur and

no suitable certified engine is available and will fit in the

nonroad equipment or marine outboard or personal water-

craft. These amendments will also broaden a provision in

the existing regulations which permits the use of two-stroke

engines to power lawnmowers, subject to a phase-out

schedule described in the regulations. The amendments will

extend this provision to other types of non-handheld

equipment subject to appropriate constraints. The Board

would expect that the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency will propose adding these requirements to State air

rules pursuant to the fast track rulemaking procedure of

Section 28.5 of the Act. 415 ILCS 5/28.5 (1996).

ransportation and Conformity Rule Amendments

On August 15, 1997, the United States Environmental

Agency (USEPA) promulgated a clarified and more flexible

transportation conformity rule (conformity rule). 62 Fed.

Reg. 43779 (August 15, 1997). The conformity rule requires

that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to

state air quality implementation plans (SIPs) and establishes

the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not

they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation

activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen

existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national

ambient air quality standards. Specifically, the conformity

rule gives state and local governments more authority in

selecting performance measures used as tests of conformity

and more discretion when a transportation plan does not

conform to a SIP. For example, the conformity rule allows

motor vehicle emissions budgets in a submitted SIP to be

used to determine conformity instead of the “build/no-build”

test, and rural areas can choose among several conformity

tests to address the time period after that covered by the SIP.

The conformity rule results from the experience that

USEPA, the Department of Transportation, and state and

local air and transportation officials have had with imple-

mentation since the rule was first published in November

1993. While these changes clarify the rule and in some cases

offer increased flexibility, they will not result in any negative

change in health and environmental benefits.

??????????????????????

97-64

People of the State of Illinois v. Unique Marble

Products, Inc. - The Board dismissed this Emergency

Planning Community Right to Know Act enforcement action

involving an Effingham County facility for failure to

properly serve the respondent. Chairman C.A. Manning

dissented.

97-206

Sky-View Wholesale Nursery Sales 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 Cook County facility.

97-209

Land and Lakes Company v. IEPA - The Board

denied as unnecessary petitioner’s request for a land variance

on behalf of this Cook County facility.

97-221

Debra Conway v. Edward and Winona Johnson, Sr. -

The Board dismissed this citizen’s air and water enforcement

action involving a Cook County facility.

97-236

People of the State of Illinois v. Village of Bartlett -

The Board accepted a stipulation and settlement agreement

in this water enforcement action involving a DuPage County

facility, ordered the respondent to pay a civil penalty of

$25,000, and ordered the respondent to cease and desist from

further violations. Board Member K.M. Hennessey

abstained.

98-25

City of Fulton v. IEPA - Upon receipt of an Agency

recommendation, the Board granted this Whiteside 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) of the Board's water

regulations and imposed by National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permit No. IL0028860. Board Member

K.M. Hennessey abstained.

AC 97-70

IEPA v. Sharon Tondina - The Board entered an

order finding that this Iroquois County respondent had

violated Sections 21(p)(1), (p)(3), and (p)(4) of the

Environmental Protection Act and ordered her to pay a civil

penalty of $1,500.

R97-23

Wastewater Pretreatment Update, USEPA

Regulations (July 1, 1996 through December 31,1996) - The

Board adopted identical-in-substance amendments to the

water pollution control pretreatment regulations. Board

Member K.M. Hennessey abstained.

See Rulemaking

Update

September 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 519

R98-1

Exemptions from Definitions of VOM, USEPA

Amendments (January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1997) - The

Board dismissed this reserved identical-in-substance docket

because the United States Environmental Protection Agency

did not amend its regulations pertaining to exemptions from

the definition of volatile organic material during the update

period of January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1997.

See

Rulemaking Update

R98-4

RCRA Subtitle D Update, USEPA Regulations

(January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1997) - The Board

dismissed this reserved identical-in-substance docket

because the United States Environmental Protection Agency

did not amend its municipal solid waste landfill regulations

during the update period of January 1, 1997 through June 30,

1997.

See Rulemaking Update

R98-6

UST Update, USEPA Regulations (January 1, 1997

through June 30, 1997) - The Board dismissed this reserved

identical-in-substance docket because the United States

Environmental Protection Agency did not amend its

underground storage tank regulations during the update

period of January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1997.

See

Rulemaking Update

R98-7

Wastewater Pretreatment Update, USEPA (January 1,

1997 through June 30, 1997) - The Board dismissed this

reserved identical-in-substance docket because the United

States Environmental Protection Agency did not amend its

wastewater pretreatment regulations during the update period

of January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1997.

See Rulemaking

Update

???????????????????????

94-284

Illico Independent Oil Company v. IEPA - The Board

granted petitioner’s motion for withdrawal of this

underground storage tank appeal involving a Will County

facility.

96-57

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

granted petitioner’s motion for withdrawal of this land

permit appeal involving a Coles County facility.

96-192

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

granted petitioner’s motion for withdrawal of this land

permit appeal involving a Coles County facility.

97-88

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

granted petitioner’s motion for withdrawal of this land

permit appeal involving a Coles County facility.

97-144

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

granted petitioner’s motion for withdrawal of this land

permit appeal involving a Coles County facility.

97-175

People of the State of Illinois v. Circuit International,

Inc. - The Board granted complainant’s motion for summary

judgment in this Emergency Planning Community Right to

Know Act enforcement action involving a DuPage County

facility and ordered the respondent to pay a civil penalty of

$17,400. Board Member M. McFawn concurred.

97-177

People of the State of Illinois v. ESS L.P., Inc. - The

Board granted complainant’s motion for summary judgment

in this Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act

enforcement action involving a DuPage County facility and

ordered the respondent to pay a civil penalty of $60,200.

Board Member M. McFawn concurred.

97-224

Emro Marketing 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 Cook County

facility.

97-227

Dwight Correctional Center 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 Livingston

County facility.

97-231

People of the State of Illinois v. Graftek Press, Inc. -

The Board accepted a stipulation and settlement agreement

in this air enforcement action involving a McHenry County

facility, ordered the respondent to pay a civil penalty of

$5,000, and ordered the respondent to cease and desist from

further violations.

97-232

Frank Shirey Cadillac 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 Cook County

facility.

98-27

Marathon Oil Company v. IEPA - Upon receipt of an

IEPA recommendation, the Board granted a 30-day

provisional variance from the 90-day limitation on the

accumulation of hazardous wastes at this Crawford County

facility.

98-28

Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company v. IEPA - Upon

receipt of an IEPA recommendation, the Board granted a 30-

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 519 September 1997

day provisional variance from the 90-day limitation on the

accumulation of hazardous wastes at this Will County

facility.

98-29

Scott Air Force Base v. IEPA - Upon receipt of an

IEPA recommendation, the Board granted this St. Clair

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, 304.141(a), and 302.212 and imposed

by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

No. IL0026859. Board Member K.M. Hennessey abstained.

98-30

City of Oregon v. IEPA - Upon receipt of an IEPA

recommendation, the Board granted this Ogle 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

and 304.141(a) and imposed by National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permit No. IL0020184. Board Member

K.M. Hennessey abstained.

AC 98-1

County of Will v. Edward Fogarty - The Board

entered an order finding that this Will County respondent

violated Sections 21(p)(1) and (p)(4) of the Environmental

Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (p)(4) (1996)) and

ordered him to pay a civil penalty of $1,000.

????????????????

98-21

Rohrman Midwest Motors v. Office of State Fire

Marshal - The Board accepted for hearing this appeal of an

underground storage tank decision on behalf of a Cook

County facility.

98-22

Village of Matteson v. IEPA - The Board accepted for

hearing this appeal of an underground storage tank decision

on behalf of a Cook County facility.

98-23

L. Keller Oil Properties, Inc. and Charles F. Keller

(Effingham/Keller Oil) v. IEPA - The Board accepted for

hearing this appeal of an underground storage tank decision

involving an Effingham County facility.

98-24

White Cap, Inc. v. IEPA - The Board accepted this

request for an air variance on behalf of a Cook County

facility.

98-25

City of Fulton v. IEPA -

See Final Actions

AC 98-4

County of Sangamon v. ESG Watts, Inc. - The

Board received an administrative citation against this

Sangamon County respondent.

AC 98-5

County of Will v. Edward Fogarty - The Board

received an administrative citation against this Will County

respondent.

AC 98-6

IEPA v. R. Frietsch & Company, Inc. - The Board

received an administrative citation against this Peoria County

respondent.

AC 98-7

IEPA v. USA Waste Services, Inc. - The Board

received an administrative citation against this Woodford

County respondent.

?????????????????

98-26

Dean Foods Company v. IEPA - The Board accepted

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

permit appeal on behalf of a Winnebago County facility.

98-27

Marathon Oil Company v. IEPA -

See Final Actions

98-28

Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company v. IEPA -

See

Final Actions

98-29

Scott Air Force Base v. IEPA -

See Final Actions

98-30

City of Oregon v. IEPA -

See Final Actions

AC 98-8

County of Will v. William Hunter - The Board

received an administrative citation against this Will County

respondent.

AC 98-9

County of Vermilion v. Emery Johnson - The

Board received an administrative citation against this

Vermilion County respondent.

AC 98-10

County of Vermilion v. Darrell Grant - The Board

received an administrative citation against this Vermilion

County respondent.

R98-09

In the Matter of: Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

(MSWLF) Rules; Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

811.309. 811.310, 811.312, 811.319, 811.321, 813.103,

813.501, 813.502, and 813.503; New Section 813.504 - The

Board accepted for hearing the joint proposal of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency and the National Solid

Waste Management Association to amend the Board’s solid

waste regulations. -

See Rulemaking Update

September 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER No. 519

CALENDAR OF HEARINGS

Date &

Time

Docket

Number

Case Name Location of Hearing

9/17/97

10:00am

PCB 97-156 Village of Fox River Grove v. IEPA Village Hall Conference Room, 408

Northwest Highway, Fox River Grove, IL,

60021

9/23/97

9:30am

PCB 96-84 Forest Preserve District of DuPage County v.

Land Resources Corporation, Southwind

Financial, Ltd.

DuPage County Courthouse, Courtroom

2004, 505 North County Farm Road,

Wheaton, IL, 60187

9/23/97

1:30pm

PCB 97-174 Bernice Loschen V. Grist Mill Confections, Inc. Department of Rehabilitation Services,

Suite A, 407 North Franklin, Danville, IL,

61832

9/24/97

9:30am

PCB 96-84 Forest Preserve District of DuPage County v.

Land Resources Corporation, Southwind

Financial, Ltd.

DuPage County Courthouse, Courtroom

2004, 505 North County Farm Road,

Wheaton, IL, 60187

9/25/97

9:30am

PCB 96-84 Forest Preserve District of DuPage County v.

Land Resources Corporation, Southwind

Financial, Ltd.

DuPage County Courthouse, Courtroom

2004, 505 North County Farm Road,

Wheaton, IL, 60187

9/30/97

9:30am

PCB 96-68 Donetta Gott, Lyndell Chaplin, Gary Wells,

Earnest L. Ellison and Maxine Ellison v. M’Orr

Pork, Inc.

Pike County Courthouse, 204 East Adams,

Pittsfield, IL 62363

10/1/97

1:30pm

PCB 98-24 White Cap, Inc. v. IEPA James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500,

100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, IL

60601

10/7/97

10:00am

R 97-29 In the Matter of: Amendments to Location

Standards for Landscape Waste Compost

Facilities, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 820.203(c)

Illinois State Library, Room 403, 300 South

Second Street, Springfield, IL, 62756

10/17/97

10:00am

R 98-10 In the Matter of: Amendments to Major

Stationary Sources Construction and Modifica-

tion Rules (New Source Review Rules) 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 203

James R. Thompson Center, 100 West

Randolph Street, Suite 9-040, Chicago, IL

60601

11/24/97

10:00am

R 98-10 In the Matter of: Amendments to Major

Stationary Sources Construction and Modifica-

tion Rules (New Source Review Rules) 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 203

James R. Thompson Center, 100 West

Randolph Street, Suite 9-040, Chicago, IL

60601

12/9/97

10:00am

R 98-10 In the Matter of: Amendments to Major

Stationary Sources Construction and Modifica-

tion Rules (New Source Review Rules) 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 203

James R. Thompson Center, 100 West

Randolph Street, Chicago, IL 60601