Web Site: http://www.ipcb.state.il.us

Web Site: http://www.ipcb.state.il.us

Claire A. Manning, Chairman

Ronald C. Flemal, G. Tanner Girard, Thomas E. Johnson,

Samuel T. Lawton Jr., Nicholas J. Melas, Michael E. Tristano

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-6032 TDD

Illinois Pollution Control Board

600 South Second Street

Springfield, Illinois 62704

Web Site: http://www.ipcb.state.il.us

Letter from the Chairman

The Board has been very busy over the course of the last year with

numerous rulemaking dockets dealing with a variety of substantive

issues impacting the State’s environmental standards pertaining to

water, air, and land. I am pleased and encouraged to note the ever-

increasing level of public participation in the Board’s rulemaking

processes, especially as this has been facilitated by the Board’s Web

The “Rulemakings Pending” page, which is one of the most visited

pages on our Web site, tracks the Board rulemakings from the initial

proposal through hearings and public comments, and Board decisions

by posting electronic copies of these proceedings on the Board’s Web site. Any documents that are not immediately

available in an electronic format are scanned at the Board’s offices to ensure that they are incorporated into the

record posted on the Web site. The Board is looking forward to expanding the level of immediate public access to

information that is reflected in the “Rulemaking Pending” page in the future to make it even more user friendly.

The public scrutiny applied to rulemakings is a vital component of the process, as rulemakings can be complicated

and involve many steps. The Board remains committed to ensuring that the rules we adopt are accurately

represented throughout the process. Recently the Board caught an error in the publication of an adopted rulemaking

that, though correctly filed with the Secretary of State’s Index Department, was published in the

Illinois Register

(the State’s official publication for rulemakings) with an inaccurate effective date. The Board caught this error and

took steps to guarantee that the oversight would be corrected through notification in the

Illinois Register.

but one example of how the Board always strives to ensure the accuracy of the State’s environmental regulations

through meticulous review of our own internal documentation and of the publication of the rules in the

I thank you all for your valuable contributions to the Board’s many rulemakings, and look forward to continuing

and expanding public participation in the rulemaking process.

Claire A. Manning, Chairman

Environmental Register – March 2002

Inside This Issue:

Federal Update

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposes Amendments to the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulations Under the Safe Drinking Water Act

On March 7, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed amendments to the

National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. These amendments would add analytical methods

for chemical and microbiological contaminants and associated Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) for the analysis of

. From January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003, 120 large and 180 small public water systems will

use these methods to perform Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regul

ation's (UCMR) List 2 monitoring. This

action is part of a USEPA program to collect data on contaminants that, though currently unregulated, may need to

be regulated in the future.

is a bacterium that is indigenous to natural waters. It has been implicated as a cause of

traveler's diarrhea and other types of infections.

has been observed in drinking water distribution

systems, especially in locations with low residual chlorine levels.

The only regulated entities are the 300 public water systems selected for

monitoring; the use of the

remaining methods proposed for approval in this action is voluntary. However, if one of these methods were

selected for use for the purpose of compliance monitoring then compliance with the procedures specified in the

method would be required. A nationally representative sample of 120 large community and non-transient non-

community water systems serving more than 10,000 persons are required to monitor for

revised UCMR. A nationally representative sample of 180 community and non-transient non-community systems

serving 10,000 or fewer persons is also required to monitor for

In Illinois there are 28 small systems that have been selected by USEPA to participate in the UCMR monitoring

program. Of these 28 systems, six are required to monitor for

. These systems are in: Oakland, Wapella,

Paris, Aledo, Sullivan, and Barry.

Comments on this proposal must be postmarked by midnight, delivered by hand, or electronically mailed on or

before May 6, 2002.

For more information contact David J. Munch, USEPA, 26 West Martin Luther King Dr. (MLK 140), Cincinnati,

Ohio 45268, (513) 569-7843 or e-mail at munch.dave@EPA.gov. General information may also be obtained from

the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-

The Board is not required to adopt amendments related to unregulated contaminant monitoring, since USEPA

directly implements the federal requirements in Illinois with the cooperation of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency. So, if USEPA adopts these proposed regulations, public water supplies in Illinois must engage

in unregulated contaminant monitoring and must report their monitoring results to USEPA even though there are no

corresponding state regulations.

Environmental Register – March 2002

United States

Environmental

Agency Extends the Time-Limited Tolerance for

Residues of 2,4-D on Soybeans Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

On March 8, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted an extension of the time-

limited tolerance for residues of 2,4-D on soybeans. The tolerance will expire on December 31, 2004.

In adopting the extension of this tolerance, USEPA evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity,

completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. USEPA also

considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of

consumers, including infants and children, before concluding that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would

result from combined exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Dietary exposures and exposure through drinking

water and in residential settings were included in the assessment, although occupational exposure was not included.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act USEPA is required to give special consideration to exposure of

infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ensure that there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide

chemical residue.

These amendments are effective March 8, 2002.

For more information contact Joanne I. Miller, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(703) 305-6224; e-mail address: miller.joanne@epa.gov.

United States Environmental

Agency Establishes Reporting Date

for Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems Under the Safe Drinking Water Act

On March 12, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted a direct final rule that

established August 9, 2002 as the date by which large public water systems serving more than 10,000 persons must

report all contaminant monitoring laboratory results they receive before May 13, 2002 for the unregulated

contaminant monitoring Regulation (UCMR) monitoring program. Monitoring results received on or after May 13,

2002 must be reported within thirty days following the month in which laboratory results are received

USEPA also included identical proposed amendments in the same issue of the

Federal Register

receive negative comments on the direct final rule by April 11, 2002 they will withdraw it and proceed to take

comments on the identical proposed amendments.

For more information contact Jeffrey Bryan (202) 564-3942, Drinking Water Protection

Division, Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water (MC-4606-M), U.S. Environmental

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington DC 20460. General information about UCMR may be obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking

Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.

The Board is not required to adopt amendments related to unregulated contaminant monitoring, since USEPA

directly implements the federal requirements in Illinois with the cooperation of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency. Accordingly, public water supplies in Illinois must engage in unregulated contaminant

monitoring and must report monitoring results to USEPA in compliance with these federal requirements.

United States Environmental Protection Agency Adopts Hazardous Waste Management System

Amendments Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

On March 13, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted final rules in response

to a court order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In Association of

Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1047 (2000), the court vacated regulatory provisions classifying mineral

processing characteristic sludges and by-products being reclaimed as solid wastes under Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act’s (RCRA's) hazardous waste management regulations. The court also found that the Toxicity

Environmental Register – March 2002

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) may not be used for determining whether manufactured gas plant (MGP)

waste is hazardous under RCRA.

USEPA’s amendments delete regulatory language that classified mineral processing characteristic sludges and by-

products being reclaimed as solid wastes under RCRA's hazardous waste management regulations. The

amendments also codify the decision that the TCLP may not be used for determining whether MGP waste is

hazardous under RCRA. USEPA initially took action on these matters as part of the Phase IV Land Disposal

Restrictions (LDR) on May 26, 1998 (63 FR 28556). After USEPA promulgated the final Phase IV LDR rule, the

Association of Battery Recyclers, the National Mining Association and other trade groups challenged this rule. On

April 21, 2000, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision that vacated two parts of the Phase IV LDR rule.

These changes in this rulemaking make the distinction that mineral processing characteristic sludges and by-

products being reclaimed are not solid wastes, and mineral processing characteristic spent materials remain eligible

for the conditional exclusion when being reclaimed.

This rule is effective on March 13, 2002.

For further information contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing

impaired). For information on definitions of solid waste aspects of the rule, contact Ms. Ingrid Rosencrantz, Office

of Solid Waste (5304W), U.S

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC, 20460. [e-mail address and telephone number: rosencrantz.ingrid@epa.gov (703-308-8285).] For information

on the manufactured gas plant wastes and the TCLP, contact Mr. Greg Helms, Office of Solid Waste (5304W), U.S.

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

The effect of the Battery Recyclers decision has been raised in pending identical-in-substance consolidated dockets:

In the Matters of: RCRA Subtitle C (Hazardous Waste) Update, USEPA Amendments (January 1, 2001, through

December 31, 2001) and In the Matter of: UIC Update, USEPA Amendments (July 1, 2001 through December 31,

2001) R02-1/R02-12/R02-17 (consolidated), (January 24, 2002). See also 26

Illinois Register

2257-2549, 2964-

2974 (February 22, 2002 and March 1, 2002).

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Publicly Owned Treatment Works Under the Clean Air Act

On March 22, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed amendments to the

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing publicly owned treatment

works (POTW), pursuant to a settlement agreement with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of

America regarding their petition for judicial review of the POTW NESHAP.

The proposed amendments would rescind the current applicability provision and adopt for all industrial POTW

treatment plants which are area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), the same NESHAP requirements that

apply to industrial POTW treatment plants that are major sources of HAP. The proposal further exempts industrial

POTW treatment plants that are area sources of HAP from certain permit requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Comments regarding this rulemaking must be received on or before April 22, 2002. Comments should be sent to:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-96-46, U.S. EPA, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.

For further information contact: Mr. Robert Lucas, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards

Division (C439-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone number (919) 541-0884, facsimile number (919) 541-0246, electronic mail address lucas.bob@epa.gov

Pursuant to Section 9.1(b) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/9.1(b) (2000)), once adopted by

USEPA, NESHAP rules are applicable and enforceable under the Act without further action by the Board.

Environmental Register – March 2002

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposes Amendments to the Synthesis Gas Production

Regulations Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

On March 25, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed revisions to the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste program to allow a conditional exclusion from

the definition of solid waste.

The proposed exclusion is for hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials generated by the petroleum refinery

industry when these materials are processed in a gasification system to produce synthesis gas fuel and other non-

fuel chemical by-products. USEPA stated that this exclusion has been proposed to put the gasification of these

hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials on the same “excluded” regulatory footing as other hazardous secondary

materials returned to a petroleum refining process. If adopted, this proposal could establish a more consistent

regulatory framework for this practice, potentially enhancing the use of this technology, as well as establishing

conditions on the practice to assure the legitimacy of this fuel manufacturing activity.

Comments regarding this proposed rulemaking must be received by June 24, 2002. Commenters should submit an

original and two copies of their comments referencing Docket Number F-2002-RPRP-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket

Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental

Agency Headquarters (EPA-

HQ), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002.

For further information contact the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing impaired).

The RCRA Hotline is open Monday-Friday, 9 am to 6 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more detailed information

on specific aspects of this proposed

rulemaking, contact Elaine Eby at 703-308-8449 or eby.elaine@epa.gov, or

write her at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U.S. Environmental

Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002.

If rules are adopted by USEPA, the Board will include any necessary amendments in a future RCRA identical in

substance rulemaking pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 22.4 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/7.2, 22.4

United States Environmental Protection Agency Gives Notice of a Proposed Administrative Cost Recovery

Settlement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

On March 19, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published notice of a proposed

administrative cost recovery settlement under section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) concerning the Burgess Inc. Site in Freeport, Illinois.

The Director of the Superfund Division, EPA Region 5, signed the settlement on January 9, 2002. It resolves an

USEPA claim under section 107(a) of CERCLA against Gould Electronics Inc. The settlement requires the settling

party to pay $107,500 to the Hazardous Substances Superfund. USEPA will accept written comments concerning

this settlement for a thirty-day period following the date of publication of the notice. In the notice, USEPA stated

that it would consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw consent to the settlement if comments

received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

Comments must be submitted on or before April 18, 2002. The proposed settlement and additional background

information relating to the settlement are available for public inspection at 7th Floor Superfund File Room, 77 W.

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Gaylene Vasaturo at

(312) 886–1811. Comments should reference the Burgess Inc. Site, Freeport, Illinois and EPA Docket No. V–W–

02-C–673 and should be addressed to Gaylene Vasaturo (C–14J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604.

For further information contact

Gaylene Vasaturo (C–14J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

Environmental Register – March 2002

Rule Update

Board Adopts Project XL Rules Affecting Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago in

Wastewater Pretreatment Update, USEPA Amendments (October 3, 2001), R02-9

On March 7, 2002, the Board adopted amendments to the Illinois wastewater pretreatment regulations that are

identical in substance to amendments adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to

implement Sections 307(b), (c), and (d) and 402(b)(8) and (b)(9) of the federal Water Pollution Control Act

(FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. §§ 1317(b), (c), and (d) and 1342(b)(8) and (b)(9) (1994)).

The adopted amendments incorporate changes to the Board’s wastewater pretreatment regulations by implementing

the October 3, 2001 USEPA amendments concerning the federal Project eXellence and Leadership (Project XL)

(published at 66 Fed. Reg. 50334). In response to comments received from the USEPA and the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency), the Board amended its proposal published for public comment by

deleting a provision in subsection 310.930(b) that would have required Board approval of XL projects.

Project XL allows the imposition of alternative requirements to the generally applicable environmental regulations

for the sake of achieving greater environmental benefits by alternative means. The October 3, 2001 Project XL

action incorporated a new provision in the federal wastewater pretreatment regulations that allows the State to issue

permits that relax the generally applicable regulations in favor of imposing alternative requirements that would

confer greater environmental benefits than would compliance with the generally applicable rules. USEPA

undertook the October 3, 2001 Project XL action for the immediate benefit of five publicly owned treatment works,

including the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), which is regulated under

the Illinois wastewater pretreatment program.

In its November 15, 2001 opinion and order proposing these amendments for public comment, the Board granted

the October 31, 2001 motion for expedited consideration of that federal action from the Agency and the MWRDGC.

The proposal was published in the November 30, 2001 issue of the

Illinois Register

, at 25 Ill. Reg. 15365.

Although the 45-day public comment period would have expired on January 14, 2002, the Board granted USEPA’s

request that it be allowed to file comments on February 15, 2002.

Sections 7.2 and 13.3 provide for quick adoption of regulations that are identical in substance to federal wastewater

pretreatment regulations that USEPA adopts to implement Sections 307(b), (c), and (d) and 402(b)(8) and (b)(9) of

the FWPCA. Section 13.3 also provides that Title VII of the Act and Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA) (5 ILCS 100/5-35 and 5-40 (2000)) do not apply to the Board’s adoption of identical-in-substance

regulations. The federal wastewater pretreatment regulations are found at 40 C.F.R. 400 through 499.

For additional information contact Mike McCambridge at 312/814-6924; e-mail address:

mccambm@ipcb.state.il.us.

Board Accepts for Hearing a Site-Specific Air Rulemaking Proposal in Proposed Horween Leather Company

Site Specific Air Rule 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.6170, R02-20

On March 7, 2002, the Board accepted for hearing a site-specific rulemaking proposal filed by the Horween Leather

Company (Horween) of Chicago, Illinois, to amend the Board’s Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

rules for volatile organic material (VOM) emissions.

35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.926 and 211.6170. These rules

implement the federal Clean Air Act.

The proposal filed by Horween seeks to limit its VOM emissions to 24 lbs. VOM per 1000 square feet for

waterproof leather (12 month rolling average) and 14 lbs. for non-waterproof leather. Horween also proposes to cap

its total emissions at 20 tones. In the proposal, Horween noted that the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) has recently approved a similar rule for waterproof leather as RACT as part of the Maine State

Implementation Plan.

Environmental Register – March 2002

Horween operates a facility located in the Elston Corridor Planned Manufacturing District No. 2 at 2015 North

Elston Avenue, Chicago, Cook County. The facility produces specialty leathers. Horween stated that relief from

the RACT rules for VOM emissions would allow it to begin producing new waterproof products.

A hearing in this rulemaking will be scheduled soon.

For additional information contact William Murphy at 312/814-6062; e-mail address: murphym@ipcb.state.il.us

Board Actions

March 7, 2002

Via Video Conference Between

Springfield and Chicago, Illinois

Rulemakings

In the Matter of: Wastewater Pretreatment Update, USEPA Amendments

(October 3, 2001) – The Board adopted a final opinion and order in this

“identical-in-substance” rulemaking to amend the Board’s wastewater

pretreatment regulations in response to federal amendments of October 3,

2001for Project XL.

In the Matter of: Proposed Horween Leather Company Site Specific Air Rule,

35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.6170 – The Board accepted for hearing the February 19,

2002 proposal of the Horween Leather Company for a site-specific rulemaking to

amend the Board’s air pollution control regulations. The Board also granted

petitioner’s motion to waive the 200-signature requirement.

Adjusted Standard

In the Matter of: Petition of World Recycling, Inc. d/b/a Planet Earth Antifreeze

for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c) – The Board

accepted this Winnebago County facility’s petition for a waste delisting under

the hazardous waste regulations and granted petitioner’s request to waive hearing

in this matter.

Administrative Citations

IEPA v. City of Wenona – The Board accepted for hearing this petition for

review of an administrative citation against this Marshall County respondent.

IEPA v. Colorado Real Estate & Investment Company – The Board accepted for

hearing this petition for review of an administrative citation against this Peoria

County respondent.

Environmental Register – March 2002

IEPA v. Lewey-Shields, Lisa and Paul Shields – The Board accepted for hearing

this petition for review of an administrative citation against these Champaign

County respondents.

IEPA v. Manzell Lawson, Sr. – The Board granted complainant’s motion for

voluntary dismissal of this administrative citation involving a Peoria County

IEPA v. E. Lewis Look – The Board accepted for hearing this petition for review

of an administrative citation against these Peoria County respondents.

David and Jacquelyn McDonough v. Gary Robke – In an interim order, the

Board found that respondent violated Section 24 of the Environmental Protection

Act (415 ILCS 5/24 (2000)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102(a) of the Board

regulations. The Board ordered respondent to consult with a noise expert and

prepare a report detailing what steps can be taken to alleviate the noise emissions

reaching complainants’ residence.

People of the State of Illinois v. Fox River Water Reclamation District – In this

water enforcement action concerning a Kane County facility, the Board granted

relief from the hearing requirement of Section 31(c)(1) of the Environmental

Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2000)), accepted a final stipulation and

settlement agreement, ordered this respondent to pay a total civil penalty of

$20,000, and to cease and desist from further violations.

James Glasgow, Vickie Glasgow, Bill Hoppe, and Pat Hoppe Robke v. Granite

City Steel – The Board found that respondent did not violate Section 24 of the

Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/24 (2000)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code

900.102(a) of the Board regulations and dismissed this matter.

Provisional Variances

Ensign Bickford Company v. IEPA – Upon receipt of an Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency recommendation, the Board granted this Union County

facility a 45-day provisional variance, subject to conditions, from 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 237.103, which prohibits open burning without a permit.

Bway Corporation v. IEPA – Upon receipt of an Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency recommendation, the Board granted this Cook County facility

a 45-day provisional variance, subject to conditions, from the requirements of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(b), 218.207(h)(2), and condition 7.2.5(a) of its Clean Air

Act Permit Program permit.

Environmental Register – March 2002

Motions and Other Matters

Vogue Tyre & Rubber Company v. IEPA – The Board denied respondent’s

motion to dismiss this underground storage tank appeal involving a Cook County

Ingleside Citgo Service, Inc. v. IEPA – The Board granted petitioner’s motion

for voluntary dismissal of this underground storage tank appeal involving a Lake

County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. Laidlaw Corporation – The Board granted

complainant’s motion to file a supplemental complaint and accepted the

supplemental complaint.

Philip S. Dallosto v. Village of Hampshire – The Board granted complainant’s

motion for voluntary dismissal of this citizen’s air enforcement complaint

involving a facility located in Kane County.

Marconi Data Systems, Inc. and Marconi, Inc. v. IEPA – The Board granted

petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this underground storage tank

appeal involving a Cook County facility.

Amoco Oil Company v. IEPA – The Board granted petitioner’s motion for

voluntary dismissal of this underground storage tank appeal involving a Lake

County facility.

E&L Trucking Company v. IEPA – The Board accepted for hearing this

underground storage tank appeal involving a Cook County facility.

City of Salem v. IEPA – The Board granted petitioner’s motion for withdrawal

of its request for a hearing in this public water supply variance request involving

a Marion County public water supply.

City of Centralia v. IEPA – The Board granted petitioner’s motion for

withdrawal of its request for a hearing in this public water supply variance

request involving a Marion County public water supply.

E&L Trucking Company v. IEPA – The Board denied the parties’ request to

extend the appeal period concerning the January 4, 2002 determination of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and dismissed this docket, stating that

the issues were properly part of the appeal in PCB02-53.

Environmental Register – March 2002

J&L Oil, Inc. (Lake Villa) v. IEPA – In this underground storage tank appeal

involving a Lake County facility, the Board ordered petitioner to file an amended

petition to cure specified deficiencies no later than April 11, 2002 or the petition

would be subject to dismissal.

J&L Oil, Inc. (Fox Lake) v. IEPA – In this underground storage tank appeal

involving a Lake County facility, the Board ordered petitioner to file an amended

petition to cure specified deficiencies no later than April 11, 2002 or the petition

would be subject to dismissal.

Logan Jones Ltd. Partnership v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-

day extension of time to file an underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this

Cook County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. Blue Ridge Construction Corporation – The

Board accepted for hearing this air and water enforcement action involving a

Peoria County facility.

Rezmar Corporation v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day

extension of time to file an underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this

Cook County facility.

Marlena Mackie v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension

of time to file an underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this Marion

County facility.

March 21, 2002

Chicago, Illinois

Adjusted Standard

In the Matter of: The City of Belleville for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 306.305 – The Board granted this St. Clair County facility an

adjusted standard from the combined sewer overflow disinfection requirements,

in 35 Ill Adm. Code 306.305(b), subject to conditions.

In the Matter of: Petition of Central Illinois Light Company for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214.141 – The Board directed petitioner to

address within 21 days of this order, its concern that the rule revision requested

by means of this petition for an adjusted standard may be contrary to the

Environmental Protection Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, (5 ILCS

Environmental Register – March 2002

Administrative Citations

IEPA v. Colorado Real Estate & Investment Company – The Board rejected

complainant’s interpretation that part of the petition to contest the administrative

citation was a motion to dismiss.

IEPA v. Trevor Pearce d/b/a Pearce Farm Store – The Board found that this Clay

County respondent violated Sections 21(p)(1) and (p)(3) of the Act (415 ILCS

5/21(p)(1), (p)(3) (2000)), and ordered respondent to pay a civil penalty of

City of Chicago Department of Environment v. Edward F. Glascott – The Board

found that this Cook County respondent violated Section 21(p)(1) of the Act

(415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2000)), and ordered respondent to pay a civil penalty of

Ogle County v. Lawrence and Eleanora Sandahl – In response to a joint

stipulation and settlement agreement in this administrative citation action

involving a Ogle County facility, the Board found respondents violated Section

21(p)(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1)

(2000)) and ordered respondents to pay a civil penalty of $1,500. The Board also

granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the alleged violation of Section

21(p)(7) of the Act. 415 ILCS 5/21(p)(7) (2000).

IEPA v. Robert and John Gray d/b/a Gray’s Material Service – The Board

accepted for hearing this petition for review of an administrative citation against

these Iroquois County respondents.

People of the State of Illinois v. Nina Enterprises, Inc. – In this air enforcement

action concerning a Cook County facility, the Board granted relief from the

hearing requirement of Section 31(c)(1) of the Environmental Protection Act

(415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2000)), accepted a final stipulation and settlement

agreement, ordered the respondents to pay a total civil penalty of $37,000, and to

cease and desist from further violations.

GBF Graphics, Inc. v. IEPA – The Board dismissed this matter for petitioner’s

failure to file an amended petition as ordered on January 10, 2002.

City of Salem v. IEPA – The Board granted petitioner a variance, subject to

conditions from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.744 and 611.745, which relate to

installing and collecting data from turbidity monitors for its water purification

plant located in Marion County, Illinois.

Environmental Register – March 2002

City of Centralia v. IEPA – The Board granted petitioner a variance, subject to

conditions from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 611.743(a)(1), 611.744 and 611.745, which

relate to installing and collecting data from turbidity monitors for its water

purification plant located in Marion County.

Motions and Other Matters

D& R Service v. IEPA – The Board granted petitioner’s motion for voluntary

dismissal of this underground storage tank appeal involving a Randolph County

People of the State of Illinois v. Meridian Development Corporation – Upon

receipt of a proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion

to request relief from the hearing requirement in this water enforcement action

involving a Lake County facility, the Board ordered publication of the required

newspaper notice.

The Lockformer Company v. IEPA – The Board construed respondent’s motion

to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. The Board granted summary

judgment in favor of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and affirmed

its November 16, 2001 termination of Lockformer’s Site Remediation Program

Review and Evaluation Services Agreement.

People of the State of Illinois v. Entler Excavating Company, Inc. – The Board

accepted for hearing this air enforcement action involving a Macon County

Aux Sable Liquid Products v. IEPA – The Board opened a docket to address

recommended denial of petitioner’s request for preferential tax treatment under

the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)) for its facility located in

Grundy County. Petitioner must file a petition to contest with the Clerk of the

Board within 35 days after the respondent served the recommendation. If

petitioner fails to timely file a petition, the Board may deny tax certification for

the noise pollution abatement control facility based solely on respondent’s

recommendation.

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Waste Heat Recovery Units) v. IEPA – Upon receipt

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board

found and certified that specified facilities of Aux Sable Liquid Products located

in Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential

tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Environmental Register – March 2002

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Merox Treating Process Unit) v. IEPA – Upon

receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of Aux Sable Liquid Products

located in Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Continuous Emissions Monitoring System) v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Aux

Sable Liquid Products located in Grundy County are pollution control facilities

for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Vapor Recovery Compressor) v. IEPA – Upon

receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of Aux Sable Liquid Products

located in Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Flare System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and

certified that specified facilities of Aux Sable Liquid Products located in Grundy

County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax

treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Ethane Treaters) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found

and certified that specified facilities of Aux Sable Liquid Products located in

Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax

treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Railcar Level System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found

and certified that specified facilities of Aux Sable Liquid Products located in

Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax

treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Sports Aircraft, Inc. v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day

extension of time to file an underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this

DuPage County facility.

Environmental Register – March 2002

Strong Oil Company v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day

extension of time to file an underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this

Schuyler County facility.

BP Amoco Chemical Company (Trimelletic Anhydride Dust Collector MM-

2703) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of BP

Amoco Chemical Company located in Will County are pollution control facilities

for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

BP Amoco Chemical Company (Trimelletic Anhydride Barometric Condensers)

v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of BP

Amoco Chemical Company located in Will County are pollution control facilities

for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

BP Amoco Chemical Company (Trimelletic Anhydride Vacuum Filter MM-

2701) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of BP

Amoco Chemical Company located in Will County are pollution control facilities

for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

BP Amoco Chemical Company (Trimelletic Anhydride Dust Collector MM-

2702) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of BP

Amoco Chemical Company located in Will County are pollution control facilities

for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

BP Amoco Chemical Company (Trimelletic Anhydride Dust Collector MM-

2753) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of BP

Amoco Chemical Company located in Will County are pollution control facilities

for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Coal Dust Suppression and Low NOx

Burners) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

of Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Madison County are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Environmental Register – March 2002

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Electrostatic Precipitator) v. IEPA – Upon

receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest

Generations, Inc. located in Madison County are pollution control facilities for

the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS

200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Addition to Electrostatic Precipitator) v.

IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Randolph County are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Bag Filter) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found

and certified that specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc.

located in Randolph County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Overfire Air System) v. IEPA – Upon

receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest

Generations, Inc. located in Randolph County are pollution control facilities for

the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS

200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Dry Fly Ash Dust Control System) v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Madison County are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Rotating Overfire Air System) v. IEPA –

Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Vermilion County are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Selective Catalytic Reduction System) v.

IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Mason County are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Environmental Register – March 2002

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Overfire Air System) v. IEPA – Upon

receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest

Generations, Inc. located in Mason County are pollution control facilities for the

purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS

200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Dust Control Equipment) v. IEPA – Upon

receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest

Generations, Inc. located in Putnam County are pollution control facilities for the

purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS

200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Conveyor System and Dust Suppression) v.

IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Putnam County are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Bag Filter Units and Ash Transfer

Equipment) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

of Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Putnam County are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Duke Energy Lee, L.L.C. (Dry Low NOx Combustion System) v. IEPA – Upon

receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest

Generations, Inc. located in Lee County are pollution control facilities for the

purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS

200/11-10 (2000)).

Duke Energy Lee, L.L.C. (Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems) v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Lee County are pollution control

facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax

Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Kaufman Grain Company (Concrete Driveway) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found

and certified that specified facilities of Kaufman Grain Company located in

Vermilion County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential

tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Environmental Register – March 2002

Ameren Energy Generating Company (Overfire Air System, Unit 1) v. IEPA –

Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Ameren Energy Generating Company located in Montgomery County are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Ameren Energy Generating Company (Overfire Air System, Unit 2) v. IEPA –

Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Ameren Energy Generating Company located in Montgomery County are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Electrostatic Precipitators) v. IEPA – Upon

receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest

Generations, Inc. located in Randolph County are pollution control facilities for

the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS

200/11-10 (2000)).

BP Products North America, Inc. (Vapor Recovery System) v. IEPA – Upon

receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of BP Products North America,

Inc. located in Cook County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10

EM Coatings (Regeneration Catalytic Oxidizer) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found

and certified that specified facilities of EM Coatings located in DuPage County

are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under

the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Chroma Corporation v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day

extension of time to file a permit appeal on behalf of this McHenry County

March 7, 2002 Board Meeting

Logan Jones Ltd. Partnership v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file

an underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this Cook County facility.

Environmental Register – March 2002

People of the State of Illinois v. Blue Ridge Construction Corporation – The Board accepted for hearing this

air and water enforcement action involving a Peoria County facility.

Rezmar Corporation v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file an

underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this Cook County facility.

Marlena Mackie v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file an

underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this Marion County facility.

Village of Round Lake Park v. IEPA – The Board granted petitioner’s motion for leave to file exhibit “A” to

petition for variance at a later date.

Milton C. and Virginia L. Kamholz v. Lawrence and Mariane Sporleder – The Board held for a later

duplicitous/frivolous determination this citizen’s air and noise enforcement action involving a McHenry County

IEPA v. Dwaine Bauer and Tim Tipsword – The Board accepted an administrative citation against these

Cumberland County respondents.

In the Matter of: Petition of Central Illinois Light Company for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 214.141 – Pending receipt of the certificate of publication, the Board held this Peoria County facility’s

petition for an adjusted standard from the air pollution control regulations.

In the Matter of: Proposed Horween Leather Company Site Specific Air Rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.6170

– The Board accepted for hearing the February 19, 2002 proposal of the Horween Leather Company for a site-

specific rulemaking to amend the Board’s air pollution control regulations. The Board also granted petitioner’s

motion to waive the signature requirement.

March 21, 2002 Board Meeting

People of the State of Illinois v. Entler Excavating Company, Inc. – The Board accepted for hearing this air

enforcement action involving a Macon County facility.

Aux Sable Liquid Products v. IEPA – The Board opened a docket to address recommended denial of

petitioner’s request for preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)) for its

facility located in Grundy County. Petitioner must file a petition to contest with the Clerk of the Board within 35

days after the respondent served the recommendation. If petitioner fails to timely file a petition, the Board may

deny tax certification for the noise pollution abatement control facility based solely on respondent’s

recommendation.

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Waste Heat Recovery Units) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Aux

Sable Liquid Products located in Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax

treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Merox Treating Process Unit) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Aux

Sable Liquid Products located in Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax

treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Continuous Emissions Monitoring System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

of Aux Sable Liquid Products located in Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Vapor Recovery Compressor) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Aux

Sable Liquid Products located in Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax

treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Environmental Register – March 2002

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Flare System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Aux Sable Liquid Products

located in Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Ethane Treaters) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Aux Sable Liquid

Products located in Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under

the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Aux Sable Liquid Products (Railcar Level System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Aux Sable Liquid

Products located in Grundy County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under

the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Sports Aircraft, Inc. v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file an

underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this DuPage County facility.

Strong Oil Company v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file an

underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this Schuyler County facility.

BP Amoco Chemical Company (Trimelletic Anhydride Dust Collector MM-2703) v. IEPA – Upon receipt

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified

facilities of BP Amoco Chemical Company located in Will County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

BP Amoco Chemical Company (Trimelletic Anhydride Barometric Condensers) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified

facilities of BP Amoco Chemical Company located in Will County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

BP Amoco Chemical Company (Trimelletic Anhydride Vacuum Filter MM-2701) v. IEPA – Upon receipt

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified

facilities of BP Amoco Chemical Company located in Will County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

BP Amoco Chemical Company (Trimelletic Anhydride Dust Collector MM-2702) v. IEPA – Upon receipt

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified

facilities of BP Amoco Chemical Company located in Will County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

BP Amoco Chemical Company (Trimelletic Anhydride Dust Collector MM-2753) v. IEPA – Upon receipt

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified

facilities of BP Amoco Chemical Company located in Will County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Coal Dust Suppression and Low NOx Burners) v. IEPA – Upon receipt

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified

facilities of Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Madison County are pollution control facilities for the

purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Electrostatic Precipitator) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Madison County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Addition to Electrostatic Precipitator) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

of Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Randolph County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Environmental Register – March 2002

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Bag Filter) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest

Generations, Inc. located in Randolph County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax

treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Overfire Air System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Randolph County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Dry Fly Ash Dust Control System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

of Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Madison County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Rotating Overfire Air System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Vermilion County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Selective Catalytic Reduction System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

of Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Mason County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Overfire Air System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Mason County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Dust Control Equipment) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Putnam County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Conveyor System and Dust Suppression) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

of Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Putnam County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. (Bag Filter Units and Ash Transfer Equipment) v. IEPA – Upon receipt

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified

facilities of Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Putnam County are pollution control facilities for the

purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Duke Energy Lee, L.L.C. (Dry Low NOx Combustion System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Lee County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Duke Energy Lee, L.L.C. (Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

of Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Lee County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Kaufman Grain Company (Concrete Driveway) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Kaufman Grain

Company located in Vermilion County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment

under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Environmental Register – March 2002

Ameren Energy Generating Company (Overfire Air System, Unit 1) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Ameren Energy Generating Company located in Montgomery County are pollution control facilities for the purpose

of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Ameren Energy Generating Company (Overfire Air System, Unit 2) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Ameren Energy Generating Company located in Montgomery County are pollution control facilities for the purpose

of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Electrostatic Precipitators) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of

Dynegy Midwest Generations, Inc. located in Randolph County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

BP Products North America, Inc. (Vapor Recovery System) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of BP

Products North America, Inc. located in Cook County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential

tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

EM Coatings (Regeneration Catalytic Oxidizer) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of EM Coatings located

in DuPage County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

Chroma Corporation v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file a

permit appeal on behalf of this McHenry County facility.

David L. Weber and Rachel B. Weber v. Cisco United Methodist Church – The Board held for a later

duplicitous/frivolous determination this citizen’s noise enforcement action involving a Piatt County facility.

IEPA v. Herbert Board – The Board accepted an administrative citation against this Edgar County

IEPA v. James Potter – The Board accepted an administrative citation against this Edgar County

County of Jackson v. Robert L. Morgan d/b/a Morgan Builders – The Board accepted an administrative

citation against this Jackson County respondent.

IEPA v. Roeco Enterprises, Inc. – The Board accepted an administrative citation against this Champaign

County respondent.

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 2-025

100 W. Randolph Street

IEPA v. Ivan R. Smith and Lois Smith

(Bainbridge Twp./Smith) IEPA Docket No.

Schuyler County Courthouse

102 South Congress

Environmental Register – March 2002

Amendments to General Permitting

Provisions for Portable Emission Units:

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 11-500

100 West Randolph Street

People of the State of Illinois v. Crier

Development Company, and Bradley S.

City Council Chambers

404 North Wood Dale Road

Saline County Landfill, Inc. v. IEPA

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room 403

600 South Second Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Chicago/Springfield Videoconference

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 11-512

100 West Randolph Street

Hearing Room 403

600 South Second Street

Proposed Amendments to Ammonia

Nitrogen Standards 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.212, 302.213 and 304.122

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room 403

600 South Second Street

IEPA v. Nordean and Susan Simons d/b/a

Berman Auto Parts IEPA Docket No. 292-

Boone County Courthouse

601 North Main Street

Saline County Landfill, Inc. v. IEPA

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room 403

600 South Second Street

People of the State of Illinois v. Bentronics

City Council Chambers

404 North Wood Dale Road

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Chicago/Springfield Videoconference

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 11-512

100 West Randolph Street

Hearing Room 403

600 South Second Street

People of the State of Illinois v. Jacobs

Energy Corporation

County Building

3rd Floor Conference Room

1504 Third Avenue

People of the State of Illinois v. Jacobs

Energy Corporation

County Building

3rd Floor Conference Room

1504 Third Avenue

Environmental Register – March 2002

Anthony and Karen Roti, Paul Rosenstrock,

and Leslie Weber v. LTD Commodities

Libertyville Village Hall

Second Floor Board Room

118 West Cook Avenue

Anthony and Karen Roti, Paul Rosenstrock

And Leslie Weber v. LTD Commodities

Libertyville village Hall

Second floor Board Room

118 West Cook Avenue

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Chicago/Springfield Videoconference

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 11-512

100 West Randolph Street

Hearing Room 403

600 South Second Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Conference Room 403

600 South Second Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 11-512

100 West Randolph Street

------------------------------------------------CUT HERE------------------------------------------------

Environmental Register Comment Card

The Illinois Pollution Control Board is an independent seven-member board

that adopts environmental control standards, rules on enforcement actions,

and other environmental disputes for the State of Illinois.

The Environmental Register is published monthly by the Board, and

updates on rulemakings, descriptions of final decisions, the Board’s hearing

calendar, and other environmental law information.

------------------------------------------------CUT HERE------------------------------------------------

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Environmental Register Coordinator

600 South Second Street, Suite 402

Springfield, Illinois 62704