BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR])

RECEIVED

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR])

IN THE MATTER OF:

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM

(AMENDMENTS TO

ILL.

ADM. CODE 740)

THE MATTER OF:

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM

PROPOSED 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

740.SUBPART H (SCHOOLS, PUBLIC

PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS)

)

RECEIVED

CT FRK’SOFFICE

MI\Y

Zaoi

STATE

OF IWNOIS

Pollution Control Board

ROI-27

(Rulemaking

Land)

RO 1-29

(Rulemaking

Land)

(Consolidated)

NOTICE OF FILING

Dorothy Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R.

Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Bobb Beauchamp, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Suite

11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Matthew J. Dunn, Chief

Environmental Bureau

Office of the Attorney General

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph,

12th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Robert Lawley, ChiefLegal Counsel

Department ofNatural Resources

524 South Second Street

Springfield, Illinois 62701-1787

Attached Service List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that today I have filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of the Pollution Control

Board the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’sAgency’sPost-Hearing Comments, a copy of which is

herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

,/I’IiS

462Ivti~

Mark Wight

Assistant Counsel

DATE: May 2, 2001

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

RECEIVED

CLERWS ~

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

o ~zooi

THE MATTER OF:

)

STATE OF IWr4OIS

)

(AMENDMENTS TO

ILL. pollution

Control Board

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM

)

ROl-27

)

(Rulemaking

Land)

ADM. CODE 740)

)

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

SITE REMEDIATION PROGRAM

)

ROl-29

PROPOSED 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

)

(Rulemaking

Land)

740.SUBPART H (SCHOOLS, PUBLIC

)

(Consolidated)

PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS)

)

AGENCY’SPOST-HEARING COMMENTS

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)respectfully submits its post-

hearing comments in the above-titled matters to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”)

pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

102.108 and the direction ofthe Hearing Officer at the close ofthe

hearing on April 4, 2001.

I..

OVERVIEW

To date, two hearings have been held on the Agency’sproposal for the amendment of35 Ill.

Adm. Code 740:

Site Remediation Program and the Citizens for a Better Environment (“CBE”)

proposal to add Subpart H to the Part 740 regulations. The hearings were held on February 28,

2001,

in Springfield and on April 4,2001, in Chicago. During the course ofthe hearings,

approximately

325

pages oftestimony, questions and responses have been gathered and fifteen

exhibits admitted to the record. The Agency has filed one amendment to its original proposal.

Before providing

its post-hearing comments, the Agency wishes to take this opportunity to thank

the attending Board members and their assistants, Hearing Officer Bobb Beauchamp, Chairman

Harry Walton and the members ofthe Site Remediation Advisory Committee

(“SRAC”),and the

other participants at the hearings fortheir substantial efforts in preparing the Agency’sproposal and

in working to refine it through the hearing process.

The Agency urges the Board to adopt for first notice the Agency’sproposal as modified by

the “Agency’sMotion to Amend Original Agency Proposal,” filed with the Board on March 13,

2001.

In the Agency’sopinion, the Site Remediation Program (“SRP”)has worked remarkably

well since its adoption by the Board in 1997.

Therefore, the Agency’sproposed amendments are

relatively modest. The proposal would update the incorporations by reference and the testing

methods at Appendix A. It would clarify ambiguities concerning the recording ofNo Further

Remediation (“NFR”)Letters and the effectiveness oflate-recorded NFR Letters.

It would

establish special procedures for NFR Letters issued to certain Illinois Department ofTransportation

remediation sites.

It would acknowledge the recently established profession ofLicensed

Professional Geologist (“LPG”). It would require analyses of soil and groundwater samples to be

conducted by accredited laboratories, and it would provide forthe establishment ofsoil

management zones (“SMZ”)to increase options and reduce time and cost for the redevelopment of

remediation sites.

Judging by the reaction (or lack thereof) at the hearings, most ofthese proposed

amendments have been viewed by the participants as satisfactory in concept and language.

However, there has been some controversy, in particular with regard to the soil management zones

and the LPG provisions.

In addition, representatives ofthe Department ofthe Navy and the

General Services Administration have offered amendments and testimony in support ofspecial

procedures for the perfection of NFR Letters issued to federal landholding entities. Finally,

representatives ofCBE have proposed that a new Subpart H be added to Part 740 to ensure that

interested and affected persons will be fully informed about environmental issues arising at

remediation sites intended for use as public schools.

In the remainder ofthis document, the Agency will provide comments on the controversial

portions ofits own proposal, the amendments proposed on behalfofthe federal landholding

entities, and the extrarequirements for the public schools.

The absence of comment in this

document should not be construed as acquiescence

oragreement by the Agency for positions or

revisions not otherwise expressly endorsed.

II. ISSUES RAISED

BY AGENCY PROPOSAL

Soil Management Zones

The SMZ concept creates an exemption from the

solid waste disposal regulations

at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 811 through 815

that will facilitate redevelopment ofcontaminated sites by increasing

the options forthe on-site handling ofcontaminated soils and by reducing the cost and time for

remediation.

Among other uses, the exemption allows remediation waste (i.e., excavated,

contaminated soil) to be used for regrading, structural fill or land reclamation, to be consolidated

on site, or to be treated and redeposited following treatment.

While the SMZ concept has met with broad support, at least two issues have arisen during

the hearings.

The Agency’scondition at

740.535(b)(8)(B)

provides that soil containing

contaminants ofconcern above the concentrations in 35 Ill. Adm. Code

742.Appendix B: Table A

(Tier

objectives for residential properties) or approved by the Agency pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code

742.5

10(c) may not be treated or placed closer to any residential property contiguous to the

remediation site.

This condition has been criticized as unnecessary on the grounds that the Tiered

Approach to Corrective Action Objectives (“TACO”)(35 Ill. Adm.

Code 742) is sufficiently

protective without it.

Testimony ofHarry R. Walton, Tr. 2 at

126

9•1

Also, it has been proposed

that a definition of “soil”be added to prevent the Agency from taking an unnecessarily restrictive

view ofwhat constitutes soil when the naturally-occurring materials most people think ofas soil

are contaminated ormixed with slag, ash, construction and demolition debris, and so forth.

Prefiled Testimony ofHarry R. Walton, Exhibit 6 (ROl-27) at

The absence ofa liberal

definition ofsoil will prevent “the maximum utility ofthe

Soil Management Zone (SMZ) for its

intended purpose ofproviding an exemption from the solid waste disposal regulations.”

Prefiled

Testimony ofHarry R. Walton, Exhibit 6 (ROl-27) at 2.

As a threshold matter, the Agency does not agree that immediately maximizing the breadth

ofthe solid waste disposal exemption is the proper starting point forthe experiment with SMZs.

As stated above, the SMZ creates an exemption for a practice that currently would be a violation of

the Environmental Protection Act.

415 ILCS

5/21(d)(2).

Prudence dictates that such exemptions

be approached cautiously.

It is reasonable to proceed slowly to see how well the exemption works

and whether or not there are unanticipated problems or abuses.

In the Agency’sopinion, its

proposal will allow many if not most sites interested in using an SMZ to design a redevelopment

plan satisfying

all the requirements proposed in Section 740.535.

This represents fundamental

change from what exists currently.

The entire

concept can be revisited for adjustments at a later

date whether experience demonstrates that the exemption is working well or creating problems.

References to the hearingtranscriptswill be

cited as Tr.

1 or Tr. 2 with the former referringto the hearing held in

Springfield on February 28, 2001, and the latter referring to the hearing held in Chicagoon

April 4, 2001.

Section 21(d)(1)

also might be violated where a defined remediation site crosses property boundaries.

Definition of”Soil”

The Agency opposes the attempt to define “soil” in these regulations. This is an issue that

was discussed at length when developing the TACO regulations.

“Soil” is a term that appears tens

if not hundreds oftimes in Part 742.

Ifit were to be defined, TACO would be the place to do it,

but it was generally concluded at that time that a generic definition could not be achieved-because

there are too many considerations.

Nevertheless, TACO has functioned well without it.

Ifsoil

must be defined, the definition should be based on sound principles ofgeology and not on an

artificial construct calculated to gain maximum advuntage from the SMZ concept.

However,

geology texts consulted by the Agency have not defined soil per se but are far more specific,

describing instead different soil types such as clay, silt, and loam.

The Agency understands the concern that frequently the soil found at remediation sites is

contaminated or mixed with slag, ash, refuse, or demolition debris including concrete, asphalt,

brick, wood, and so forth.

Whether or not these substances or others would limit or prevent

activities in an SMZ must depend on a variety ofsite-specific factors such as type, amount, and

size, and the effect on the TACO equations. The object is to prevent redistribution around the site

ofmaterials that should have been (or should now be) landfilled as a result ofthese factors.

The

Agency’sposition is that the call must be made by the Agency on a site-specific basis working with

the Remediation Applicant and the consultant to evaluate the information shown in the site

investigation.

See generally

Testimony ofLawrence W. Eastep and Gary King, Tr.l at 20

Section 740.535(b)(8)(B):

Treatment or Placement ofContaminated Soil Closer to

Contiguous Residential Property

Because the practice ofredepositing

or redistributing contaminated soils at a remediation

site is currently a violation ofthe Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) unlessdone in accordance

with the applicable disposal regulations, the Agency hasproposed that the exemption be used only

under strictly controlled conditions.

One ofthe conditions placed on the use ofSMZs is that soil

containing contaminantsofconcern above the concentrations in 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 742.Appendix

B: Table A (Tier

objectives for residential properties) or approved by the Agency pursuant to 35

Ill. Adm. Code 742.510(c) may not be treated orplaced closer to any residential property

contiguous to the remediation site.

The Agency proposed this condition largely to prevent

negative reaction and public resistance to the SRP and SMZ activities.

Testimony ofGary King,

Tr.

at 35-6.

The condition has been criticized as unnecessary because TACO itself is protective.

Contaminated soil moved anywhere on-site could be made safe using the TACO procedures. The

Agency has responded that the basis forthe condition has more to do with perceptions than risk

analysis.

However, this does not mean the perceptions are unjustified and unimportant orthat the

condition is unreasonable.

The Agency has learned through numerous

experiences with releases

and the siting ofpollution control facilities that the public seldom reacts positively to the news that

contamination or potential contamination has been found in or moved to the vicinity oftheir

homes.

It’sone thing to leam that contamination is in the vicinity as the result ofan accident or

mishandling ofthe contaminants and still another to learn that new or additional contamination is

Because the issues raised by subsection 740.535(b)(8)(B) often were characterized at hearing as whether or not an

SMZ could be establishedon

site ifit violated this condition, a clarification is

important.

The issue is not where the

SMZ can be established but what may be done with contaminated soil within the SMZ once the SMZ is established.

The condition at Section

740.535(b)(8)(B)

applies to “soil containing contaminants of concern..

.“

A soil

management zone maybe establishedat the boundary between the remediation site and acontiguous residential

property as

long as contaminated soilwithin the SMZ is not moved closer to the residential property-(e.g.,

contaminated soil within the SMZ may be moved laterally to the residential property or

it may bemoved away from

the residential property).

In addition, SMZsmay contain both contaminated and uncontaminated areas.

Within the

SMZ, contaminated areas maybe consolidated but not in violation ofthe conditions under Sections 740.535(b)(8)(A)

and (b)(8)(B).

being placed in the vicinity as authorized by law.

There is a qualitative

difference in how the

contaminated soil arrived at the point of controversy that potentially compounds the negative

reaction.

There is a second reason why the public perception problem may be magnified.

It is too

simplistic to say that the potential public concern is unjustified because TACO is protective.

The

protectiveness of TACO is not automatic.

Unless sites are cleaned to levels allowing unrestricted

use, the protectiveness of TACO depends on a relatively complex set of circumstances playing out

according to script over an indefinite period oftime.

TACO is based on a quid pro quo.

Greater

amounts and concentrations of contamination may be left in place in return for assuming the

obligation to manage the remaining risk until it is demonstrated that the risk is no longer present.

There are two tools for managing risk, institutional controls and engineered barriers.

An honest

assessment must contemplatethat,

over time, some percentage of institutional controls and

engineered barriers will be compromised or fail.

Institutional controls will be forgotten or ignored.

Engineered barriers will break down through normal deterioration and neglect or intentional

disregard.

Consider that the following scenarios are possible under the SMZ proposal. Concentrations

of soil contaminants in an area may be increased by moving soil with higher concentrations to an

The Agency has no data

on failure rates for either form of control.

TACO is a fairlyrecent development in Illinois,

and Illinois was

one ofthe leaders

in implementing risk-based corrective action.

It is not expected that failure rates

would be apparent at this earlystage.

However, for those who question whether the long-term effectiveness of

institutional controls is a valid concern, a good discussion oftheir strengths and weaknesses can be found in the U.S.

EPA publication,

“Institutional Controls: A Site Manager’sGuideto Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Institutional

Controls at Superfund and RCRA correctiveAction Cleanups,” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(OSWER 9355.O-74F5-P; EPA 540-F-OO-5,

Sept.

2000).

As a result of the failure potential, the document

recommends

layering institutional controls or

implementing them in series.

Among other safeguards receiving

attention nationally is financial assurance forboth institutional

controls and engineered barriers.

area containing the same contaminants but in lower concentrations. Any number ofcontaminants

that did not previously exist in an area may be moved to that area as long as there is

at least one

contaminant ofconcern in the area above its Tier

objective.

In the Agency’sopinion, increasing

concentrations or numbers of contaminants closer to residenceswill be

a needless provocation to

the public with the further potential for negative impact on the SRP and

SMZs.

Because

redepositing remediation waste is not currently allowed outside oflandfills, there is no imperative

for opening the SMZ to this specific practice. Nothing is lost by retaining this small portion ofthe

broader prohibition that exists today.

Licensed Professional Geologists

Testimony and comments ofMr. Bruce S. Bonczyk on behalfofthe Illinois Society of

Professional Engineers (“ISPE”) and the Consulting Engineers Council ofIllinois

(“CECI”)object

to the “proposedinclusion ofterminology and regulations which allows for licensed professional

geologists to perform certain functions assigned to licensed professional engineers in the enabling

legislation forthe SRP program.”

Testimony of Bruce S. Bonezyk, Tr. 2 at

161.

Mr. Bonczyk’s

argument on behalfofhis clients

is that the Agency may not propose and the Board may not adopt

SRP regulations containing references to LPGs because there is no statutory basis for it.

“MemorandumofLaw in Support ofthe Motion to Oppose Certain Proposed Amendments ofthe

Environmental Protection Agency’sProposal to Amend

Ill.

Adm. Code 740,” at 3 (March 27,

2001). On its face, the SRP enabling legislation

(415

ILCS

5. 58

58.12)

refers only to LPEs and

assigns certain duties only to LPE’s. Neither the Agency, in developing its proposal, nor the Board,

in considering adoption ofthe Agency’sproposal, have the authority to look beyond the express

language ofTitle XVII.

Id.

at 4; Testimony ofBruce S. Bonczyk, Tr. 2 at

161.

The Agency has included LPGs in its proposal only to the extent authorized by the

Professional Geologist Licensing Act (“PGLA”)(225 ILCS

745).

Although the PGLA is an

expression oflegislative intent regarding the practice ofprofessional geology that is much more

broad thanthe involvement ofgeologists in environmental activities, the PGLA clearly expresses

the understanding of the General Assembly that geologists have an important role to play in

environmental activities conducted in Illinois.

225 ILCS 745/5(a), (c), (f).

Further,

the examples

of the practice ofprofessional geology provided in the definition section ofthe PGLA clearly

include activities that might be part ofenvironmental remediation activities conducted under the

SRP

and necessary for the application ofthe TACO methodology (sampling and analysis of earth

materials and interpretation ofdata; planning ofdatagathering activities and preparation of

geological maps and cross sections for the purpose ofevaluating site-specific geological

conditions; planning, review and supervision ofactivities and interpretation ofdataregarding

groundwater; the conduct ofenvironmental property audits).

Id.

745/15.

It is not the Agency’sposition that LPGs may do everything on site that LPEs may do, but

the PGLA clearly states that they are qualified to do some ofthem.

For example, Section

15 ofthe

PGLA expressly authorizes LPGs to conduct environmental property audits.

While the

environmental audit is not defined in the PGLA, it is

defined in the “Standard Practice for

Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” (ASTM E

1527

00), which is the basis for the SRP comprehensive site investigation.

Sections 3.3.11

and

3.3.13

ofthe ASTM document indicate that the environmental audit is more rigorous than an

environmental site assessment, but may include an environmental site assessment.

Because other

activities in addition to the environmental site assessment may be

required to complete a site

investigation, the Agency’sproposal does not authorize LPGs to sign off on site investigation

reports.

Similar reasoning applies to the signing ofthe other plans and reports required by the SRP

rules, which would remain the responsibility ofthe LPEs.

Mr. Bonczyk’sconclusion as to the Board’sauthority to adopt regulations is too narrow.

The legislature need not

spell out each and every detail for administrative agencies to exercise their

rulemaking authority.

A grant of authority to adopt rules includes the power to do all that

reasonably necessary to perform the duty conferred by statute, and the courts have so held

repeatedly.

Oak Liquors, Inc.

Zagel,

90 Ill. App. 3d 379, 380

82; 413 N.E.2d 56,

(1St

Dist. 1980) (holding the Department ofRevenue did not exceed its general

grant ofauthority to

adopt rules forhearings by imposing a good faith deposit as a precondition to granting a tax

liability hearing even though the enabling act did not expressly provide for deposits and the

hearings could have been held without them);

see Land and Lakes Co.

illinois Pollution Control

Bd.,

245 Ill. App. 3d 631, 640, 616 N.E.2d 349, 355

(3’~’Dist. 1993) (citing

Reichhold Chemicals,

Inc.

Pollution Control Board

in holding that the Environmental Protection Act’s grant to the

Board ofauthority to adopt procedural rules “as necessary to accomplish the purposes ofthis Act”

was sufficient authority forthe Board to authorize by rule reconsideration ofits rulings even where

the courts had consistently held that administrative agencies may allow rehearings only when

authorized to do so by

statute).

Section 58.11(c) ofTitle XVII grants the Board broad authority to adopt “rulesthat are

consistent with [Title XVII]...

.“

Nothing in the Agency’sproposal divests LPEs ofany duties or

responsibilities assigned in Title XVII.

Nothing in Title XVII excludes LPGs from applying their

expertise at SRP remediation sites.

Nothing in the Agency’sproposal contravenes the legislative

intent so as to make the proposal unlawful if adopted by the Board.

Moreover, the Agency’s

proposal is consistent with the legislative intent set forth in the PGLA, and the Agency has found

no case law holding that an administrative body may not look to expressions oflegislative intent

outside the regulatory enabling legislation as long as the final product is consistent with that

enabling legislation.

The Agency urges the Board to retain the proposed amendments simply

acknowledging in the SRP what the PGLA already has acknowledged statewide by law

that

LPGs have valuable

skills that may be useful at environmental remediation sites.

Special Procedures for Federal Landholding Entities

Richard Butterworth ofthe General Services Administration and Georgia Vlahos ofthe

Department ofthe Navy testified at hearing that special procedures for perfecting NFR Letters are

needed for federal landholding entities because oflegal

limitations on the ability of these entities to

deed record land use restrictions on federal property.

Testimony ofRichard R. Butterworth, Jr., Tr.

2 at 99; Testimony ofGeorgia Vlahos, Tr. 2 at

110.

The testimony ofMr. Butterworth explains the

nature ofthose limitations

in detail, and they need not be repeated here.

Testimony ofRichard R.

Butterworth, Jr., Tr. 2 at 99

107.

As a result ofthese recording limitations, the Department ofthe

Navy and other Department ofDefense (“DoD”) component agenciesworked with the United

States Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois EPA to develop for use in Illinois the

concept ofthe Land Use Control Memorandum ofAgreement (“LUC MOA”).

The LUC MOA concept, already a part ofthe TACO regulations, will be used as the basis

for an alternative procedure for perfecting NFR Letters issued to federal landholding entities and

containing land use restrictions.

Ms. Vlahos and Mr. Butterworth testified to the many safeguards

built into the LUC MOAs to ensure that land use restrictions are maintained while the property

remains in the possession ofthe federal landholding entity and that the restrictions are transferred

with the property once it passes from federal ownership. Testimony ofGeorgia Vlahos, Tr. 2 at

114;

Testimony ofRichard R. Butterworth, Jr., Tr. 2 at 106.

The DoD component agencies worked

with the Agency to develop amendments to Part 740 implementing the alternative procedure. The

Agency fully supports the amendments attached to Ms. Vlahos’spre-filed testimony (Exhibit 4,

ROl-27) as modified by her testimony at hearing.

Testimony ofGeorgia Vlahos, Tr. 2

at 116

The Agency requests that the Board accept the

DoD amendments to Part 740.

III.

CBE PROPOSAL

Citizens for a Better Environment (“CBE”)has proposed a new Subpart H for Part 740 that

would create extraprocedures for remediation sites entering the SRI’ and intended for use as public

schools.

The proposal has evolved since its initial submission in January 2001.

The version

currently before the Board was filed on April 2, 2001.

As stated at the hearing on April 4, 2001,

the Agency has several concerns ofa general nature with this proposal, including manpower and

budgetary concerns and lack ofspecificity in some ofthe requirements.

Comments ofMark

Wight, Tr. 2 at

166

However, the CBE stated in testimony that it intended to submit a revised

proposal following the April 4~ hearing as a result ofits

communications with other interested

entities (Testimony ofStefanNoe, Tr. 2 at 51

2), and the Agency has offered additional

comments to CBE since that hearing. Because a revised proposal is expected, the Agency offers no

specific comments on the April

2nd

version at this time, but it reserves the rightto testify or

comment as appropriate in the future.

IV.

CONCLUSION

As stated above, the SRI’has been a very

successful program to date. Each year the

program has shown a steady increase in the number ofNFR Letters issued.

The Agency expects

that the program will continue its steady growth in the coming years.

The limited changes

proposedby the Agency primarily are intended to update and fine-tune the existing procedures and

to eliminate minor sticking points.

The exceptions are the requirement for using accredited

laboratories for analyses ofsoil and groundwater samples and the authority to create SMZs.

Even

if it does not quite accommodate every conceivable redevelopment plan, the SMZ concept

proposed by the Agency promises to expand substantially the options for site redevelopment while

reducing remediation costs and time. The Agency urges the Board to adopt for First Notice the

Agency’sproposal as modified by its Motion to Amend and by the Department of Defense

amendments.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

4KL

Mark Wight

Assistant Counsel

Date: May 2,

2001

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

THIS DOCUMENT SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

STATE OF ILLINOIS

COUNTY OF SANGAMON

)

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached Agency’sPost-Hearing Comments

upon the persons to whom it is directed by placing copies in envelopes addressed to:

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(FEDERAL EXPRESS

OVERNIGHT)

Bobb Beauchamp, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(FEDERAL EXPRESS

OVERNIGHT)

Matthew J. Dunn, Chief

Environmental Bureau

Office ofthe Attorney General

James

R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, 12th Floor

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Robert Lawley, Chief Legal Counsel

Department ofNatural Resources

524 South Second Street

Springfield,

Illinois 62701-1787

(FiRST

CLASS MAIL)

Attached Service List

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

and mailing them from Springfield, Illinois on

—

with sufficient postage affixed as

indicated above.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME

this

day of

Y~ic4

,2001.

&As~AD~

~cA~c\~DC

Notary Public

OFFICIAL

SEAL

BRENDA BOEHNER

NOTARY PUBLIC.

STATE

ILUNOIS

~:MYCOMMISSiON

EXPIRES

11-14-200P?

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

—

Ct2~Z

-C

~~‘(b

fl22

—

uCA

0~~

7’-

~q7

5f3~

~-—.

CD~

cr0-

—

(-‘Ct

orb

w~d

LJ2~

—o

•‘~

~2.

o~n

Ca.-

—C

-Co

C-

—q~Pd

8g.

?9’9

0~a~t3a0

gn~;~

-cm

000

—

u’~n~

age

Cw~

•

—.~

aR~’0-

0-P

(It

—

a’cC

;o~.

—o

g’s~

,,<2

—-

~tcc

—

‘9

—

~. ~-

C—,

~d2 ~2

—

•

tj3

r~ ~

a—

SwO

p-.j-~~—

oCuc

P0%

.‘~

‘9 ‘9

flOC

inca

0’0

r2-~

g~0

0-C

-~2-

£0

rrr

—

~ s1e-

555

—

—C,

-.c’-ng-

(in:

0.2

0a~

C~,

U2~

020-

~0-

-t

PC-

—C:

02CC

lot

rio

(PP

0.0-

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

coO

0—

‘0.1:-

0’ LA

-‘-

-4

flCO

Cafi

p”t

0-p

~‘

S’2

0-On

(1002

rio

w~j

00-

—

—~

~—

-0%

~ota

L.a-a

—0

-~LA

‘-A

-4

-a

0’

0%0%

-4

1.30

0%0

5~i

ge~

-t

——

—0

PCI

-I

—~

I-b

‘-I

-C

—

.1:-

I’~’

m.3

—i

o02;

0—

hi-

—

-0

‘lo

—j

•-ri

a. ~

2P0

—I

I-ri

•

~icI)

.on

•

CLI

—

00-

C’9

•

-I

Cl)

—I

p-c.

W~3

IC~

—

0%-

-C-i

-‘

o’

(.3

-4

-t’.

4~.

‘0 ‘b

r..a (-.2

-p.

-4 -4

00 08