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

Illinois’ efforts to protect its surface water and groundwater resources have traditionally, and necessarily, focused

protection. Those efforts to protect our waters from pollutants will continue, but there is more to

be done. On April 22, 2002, Governor Ryan issued Executive Order Number 5 to bring about a coordinated,

statewide planning system for water

The Governor observed that Illinois’ citizens rely on surface water and groundwater for personal consumption and

Illinois’ industries use a significant amount of these waters: “The demand on Illinois’ water resources may lead to

conflicts among multiple users, may adversely affect the health of the State’s citizens, and may adversely impact the

environment and the economy of the State.” The Governor accordingly concluded that planning is essential to

protect and manage adequate supplies of Illinois’ water resources “for the future generations of citizens, industry,

and wildlife of the State.”

To provide that planning, the Governor ordered the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Groundwater (created

under the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act and composed of various State agency directors (415 ILCS 55/4)) to

designate a subcommittee on water quantity planning. The subcommittee, to be chaired by the Director of the

Department of Natural Resources or the Director’s designee, will be responsible for developing an “integrated

groundwater and surface-water resources agenda and assessment report.” The agenda will prioritize planning to

protect the quantities of Illinois’ water resources. The report will analyze the “burdens on Illinois’ finite water

resources” and “quantify Illinois’ water resources.”

Using the subcommittee’s agenda and report, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Groundwater and the

Groundwater Advisory Council (also created under the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act, but composed of

persons representing environmental, industrial, local government, and other interests (415 ILCS 55/5)) must

“establish a water-quantity planning procedure for the State by implementing the following programs”:

A “coordinated groundwater and surface-water resource program” with “accessible and usable”

information for government agencies and the public to “support the State’s water-resources quantity

A “statewide groundwater and surface-water resource program to serve as the basis for the formation of

priority water-quantity planning areas”; and

A “statewide program for the identification and recommendation of the appropriate organizational structure

for priority water-quantity planning areas.”

Before January 1 of each year, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Groundwater must report to the

Governor “on the progress of the assessments and programs mandated by this Executive Order.”

The Board, in recently considering potential environmental impacts from simple cycle and combined cycle electrical

power generating plants, found that Illinois has no regulatory framework for managing and preserving the quantity

of the our surface water and groundwater resources. I commend the Governor for his leadership in setting the stage

for these sorely needed water quantity planning programs.

Claire A. Manning, Chairman

Environmental Register – May 2002

Inside This Issue:

APPELLATE UPDATE

Federal Update

United States Environmental Protection Agency Adopts the Approval and Promulgation of Implementation

Plans for Illinois Under the Clean Air Act

On May 15, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted direct final rules, while

simultaneously publishing an identical proposal, to approve revisions adopted by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (IEPA) to the Illinois emission reporting regulations found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 254.

In this rule, USEPA approved revisions to Illinois rules for emission reporting. The IEPA requested these revisions

on November 6, 2001. The revisions have two purposes. First, the revisions restructure previously approved

regulations, eliminating a category with intermediate reporting requirements and thus requiring further reporting by

a modest number of sources. Second, the revisions add requirements for reporting emissions of hazardous air

pollutants by sources in the Chicago area volatile organic compound emissions trading program. This information

on hazardous air pollutant emissions will help IEPA assess whether its emission trading program has adverse effects

on the magnitude and distribution of hazardous air pollutant emissions (HAPs).

The emission reporting rule requires sources subject to the trading program to report ozone season emissions of

HAPs meeting any of three criteria: (1) HAPs that are regulated by a national emission standard (typically a

maximum achievable control technology standard), (2) HAPs emitted in sufficient quantity to make the source a

major source, and (3) HAPs reported to the federal Toxic Release Inventory. Sources are exempt from reporting if

they certify that information already reported to the Toxic Release Inventory suffices to indicate ozone season HAP

emissions. All sources subject to the trading program, including sources meeting none of the three criteria for HAP

reporting, must answer questions that address whether the trading program might have affected HAPs emissions.

IEPA is then authorized to request further information on HAP emissions when needed.

Through its approval of the amendments, USEPA concluded that the revised regulations continue to satisfy

emissions reporting requirements and provide for reporting of emissions information needed to assess the impact of

the emissions trading program on the distribution and overall magnitude of hazardous air pollutant emissions.

This rule is effective on July 15, 2002, unless USEPA receives written adverse comments by June 14, 2002. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

Send comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the

State's submittal are available for inspection at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

For further information contact: John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590, (312)

Environmental Register – May 2002

United States Environmental Protection Agency Adopts Direct Final Rules Under the Clean Water Act to

Regulate Fill Material Deposited in Waters of the United States

On May 9, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the United States Army Corps

of Engineers (Corps) adopted direct final rules to reconcile both agencies’ definitions of the terms “fill material” and

to amend their definitions of “discharge of fill material.” These rules are effective June 10, 2002.

The final rule completed the rulemaking process initiated by the April 20, 2000 proposal in which the Corps and

USEPA jointly proposed to amend their respective regulations so that both agencies would have identical definitions

of these key terms. The proposal was intended to clarify the Section 404 regulatory framework and generally to be

consistent with existing regulatory practice.

In the final rule, “fill material” is defined in both the Corps' and USEPA's regulations as material placed in waters of

the U.S. where the material has the effect of either replacing any portion of a water of the United States with dry

land or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of a water. The examples of “fill material” identified in the

rule include rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, overburden from mining or other

excavation activities, and materials used to create any structure or infrastructure in waters of the U.S.

This rule retains the effects-based approach of the April 2000 proposal and reflects the approach in USEPA's

longstanding regulations. However, it includes an explicit exclusion from the definition of “fill material” for trash

or garbage. The final rule also includes several clarifying changes to the term “discharge of fill material.”

Specifically, the term “infrastructure” has been added in several places following the term “structure” to further

define the situations where the placement of fill material is considered a “discharge of fill material.” In addition, the

phrases “placement of fill material for construction or maintenance of any liner, berm, or other infrastructure

associated with solid waste landfills” and “placement of overburden, slurry, or tailings or similar mining-related

materials” have been added to the definition of “discharge of fill material” to provide further clarification of the

types of activities regulated under section 404. In their explanation of the final rules, both agencies indicated that

the final rule would not modify existing regulatory practice, but is intended to clarify terms.

For further information contact: Ms. Brenda Mallory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Office of

Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (4502T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, phone:

(202) 566-1368, e-mail address: mallory.brenda@epa.gov.

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Proposes National Emission Standards Under the Clean Air

Act for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Engine Test Cells/Stands

On May 14, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) from engine test cells/stands. In its notice, USEPA stated that

engine test cells/stands have been identified as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) such as toluene,

benzene, mixed xylenes, and 1,3-butadiene. The proposed NESHAPs implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) that requires all major sources of HAP to meet emission standards reflecting the application of the

maximum achievable control technology (MACT).

An engine test cell/stand is any apparatus used for testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile engines. The

proposed rule applies to any engine test cell/stand located at a major source of HAP emissions. However, the

proposed regulations exempt existing engine test cells/stands that are located at major sources of HAP emissions

from the emission limitation or the recordkeeping or reporting requirements. A major source of HAP emissions is a

plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams) or more per

year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per year.

The proposed rule covers four subcategories of engine test cells/stands located at major source facilities: (1)

cells/stands used for testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp (19 kW) or more, (2) cells/stands

used for testing internal combustion engines with rated power of less than 25 hp, (3) cells/stands used for testing

combustion turbine engines, and (4) cells/stands used for testing rocket engines.

Environmental Register – May 2002

Submit comments on or before July 15, 2002 to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention

Docket Number A-98-29, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

For further information contact: Mr. Jaime Pagan, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.

EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5340; facsimile number (919)

541-0942; electronic mail (e-mail) address pagan.jaime@epa.gov

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

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

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposes National Emission Standards Under the Clean Air

Act for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

On May 23, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed supplemental

amendments to its November 7, 2000 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for

municipal solid waste landfills (MSW).

On November 7, 2000, at 65 Fed. Reg. 66672, USEPA proposed NESHAP for MSW landfills and requested

comments on bioreactors. Based on comments to the proposed rule and additional information and analyses, USEPA

added a definition of bioreactors to the proposed rule and proposed timely control for bioreactors located at MSW

landfills with a design capacity greater than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters.

Comments are requested only on information and proposed requirements for bioreactors presented in the

supplementary action. Submit comments on or before June 24, 2002 to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-98-28, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC

Further information contact: Ms. Michele Laur at 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) 541-5256, facsimile number (919) 541-0246, electronic mail address

laur.michele@epa.gov.

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

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

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposes National Emission Standards Under the Clean Air

Act for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Semiconductor Manufacturing

On May 8, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for semiconductor manufacturing operations.

USEPA stated that it had identified semiconductor manufacturing operations as major sources of emissions of

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, glycol ethers, methanol, and xylene.

These HAPs are associated with a variety of adverse health effects including irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus

membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and damage to the skeleton system. The proposed NESHAPs

would require all semiconductor manufacturing facilities that are major sources to meet emission standards

reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology.

Submit comments on or before July 8, 2002 to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention

Docket Number A-97-15, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

For further information contact: Mr. John Schaefer, USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-0296, e-mail: schaefer.john@epa.gov.

Environmental Register – May 2002

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

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

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposes New Source Performance Standards Under the

Clean Air Act for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

On May 23, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed amendments to the new

source performance standards for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.

The amendments are intended to clarify who is responsible for compliance activities conducted on-site; to clarify

what constitutes treated landfill gas; to correct omission of an exemption for specific boilers and process heaters

from the initial performance test; and to address compliance activities conducted by third parties with systems

located off-site. USEPA stated that the proposed amendments would not change the current basic control

requirements or the level of health protection it provides, but will improve implementation, compliance, and

regulatory flexibility.

The current new source performance standards (NSPS) do not contain a specific definition for MSW landfill

owners/operators. In the absence of a specific definition, relevant definitions in the NSPS and in the general

provisions apply. This lack of a specific definition for MSW landfill owners/operators may have confused some

with regard to who is responsible for compliance when collection and control or treatment of landfill gas is

performed on-site.

Submit comments on or before July 22, 2002 to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention

Docket Number A-88-09, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

For further information contact: Ms. Michele Laur, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards

Division (C439-03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5256, facsimile

number (919) 541-0246, e-mail address: laur.michele@epa.gov.

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

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

Rule Update

Board Accepts for Hearing a Site-Specific Air Rulemaking Proposal in Petition Of Central Illinois Light

Company (E.D. Edwards Generating Station) For a Site-Specific Air Regulation: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214.561,

On May 2, 2002, the Board accepted for hearing a proposal filed by the Central Illinois Light Company (E.D.

Edwards Generating Station) (CILCO) to amend the Board’s sulfur dioxide emissions limitations found at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 214.141.

CILCO operates the E.D. Edwards Generating Station (facility) located near Peoria in Peoria County. The facility

consists of three coal-fired boilers. CILCO received a variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214.141 in a Board order

issued on April 15, 1999.

Central Illinois Light Company v. IEPA, PCB 99-80 (Apr. 15, 1999). The variance is

effective through July 31, 2003. Boilers 1 and 3 are subject to a sulfur dioxide emission limit under a site-specific

rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214.561. Boiler 2 is subject to the sulfur dioxide emissions limit under 35 Ill. Adm. Code

CILCO seeks to make permanent the relief it was granted in PCB 99-80 by amending 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214.561

with respect to the requirements for the operation of Boiler 2. CILCO requests that the Board repeal the text of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 214.561 and replace it verbatim with text from the variance order of April 15, 1999. CILCO asserts

Environmental Register – May 2002

that this language has already been reviewed, approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and

incorporated into the approved Illinois State Implementation Plan pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

This petition replaces CILCO’s earlier-filed petition for adjusted standard seeking the same relief. This petition was

dismissed as unnecessary. In the Matter of: Petition of Central Illinois Light Company (E.D. Edwards Generating

Station) for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214.141, AS 02-4 (May 5, 2002).

A hearing in this rulemaking will be scheduled shortly.

For more information contact John Knittle at (217) 278-3111 or email at knittlej@ipcb.state.il.us

Appellate Update

Third District Appellate Court Affirms Board in Community Landfill Company and the City of Morris vs.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 01-170

On May 15, 2002, the Third District Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision in Community Landfill

Company and City of Morris v. IEPA, PCB 01-170 December 6, 2001. In a published opinion written by Justice

Breslin, with Justices Lytton and McDade concurring, the court agreed with the Board that the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) had properly denied a supplemental landfill permit.

In its decision, the court addressed several important subjects on permitting in addition to the primary issue of

permit denial for not meeting the surety/financial assurance requirements. These other subjects include permit

denial on the basis of a felony conviction; "Wells letter" notice and opportunity to respond to reasons for potential

permit denial (see Wells Manufacturing Co. v. IEPA, 195 Ill. App.3d 593, 552 N.E.2d 1074 (1

enforcement through permitting; equitable estoppel; and standard of review.

The Board’s December opinion affirmed the IEPA's decision denying a supplemental waste disposal permit to

Community Landfill Company (operator) and the City of Morris (owner) for the Morris Community Landfill. The

Board found that the IEPA properly denied the permit because the surety on the performance bonds proposed for the

landfill was not on the U.S. Department of Treasury's approved list of sureties (Circular 570) at the time of the

IEPA's decision. The Board's financial assurance regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.712(b)) require that sureties be

on the federal approved list.

The court affirmed the Board's decision on this ground: the landfill's surety did not comply.

The Board found that the IEPA’s second ground of the two grounds for permit denial was improper for procedural,

not substantive, reasons. The IEPA's second ground was based on the felony conviction of the company president.

The Board found that the IEPA served its "Wells letter" on the company so late that the company had insufficient

time to respond to the felony conviction issue. Under the Wells decision, because the felony conviction basis for

permit denial was outside of the permitting process, the company was entitled to an opportunity to respond to the

issue before the IEPA denied the permit on that ground.

The court did reach the merits of the Board's decision on the felony conviction issue because "the Board agreed with

the company that the IEPA had improperly considered the felony conviction." The court cited a recent decision for

the proposition that it is improper to provide a forum in a reviewing court to a party who succeeded but simply did

not agree with the reasoning of the lower court. Here, the company succeeded before the Board on the felony

conviction ground, but the reason was procedurally based, not based on the substance of the IEPA 's decision with

which the company disagreed.

Though the court does not cite Wells, the court agreed with the Board that the IEPA did not have to provide the

permit applicant with notice and an opportunity to respond (a "Wells letter") before denying the permit on the surety

ground. The court held that "the company was well aware that financial assurance must be obtained from an

Environmental Register – May 2002

approved surety and that the permit application could be denied for failure to do so. Therefore, the fact that the

surety was removed from the Circular 570 list was not a matter outside the permitting process . . . "

The court affirmed the Board's rulings on two arguments that are often raised. First, the court agreed with the Board

that the permit denial was not an impermissible use of the permitting process as an enforcement tool. Rather, with

the unapproved surety, any IEPA permit issuance would simply have violated the Board regulation. Consequently,

Section 39(a) of the Act required permit denial.

Second, the court reiterated that a public entity cannot be equitably estopped unless, among other things, it is

demonstrated that the public entity made a misrepresentation with knowledge that the misrepresentation was untrue:

"the company failed to prove that the Agency knowingly represented that the bonds were compliant with the

applicable regulations when it knew that they were not." Accordingly, the court agreed with the Board that the

IEPA could not be estopped from rejecting the bonds.

The court has not yet ruled on a petition for rehearing filed by Community Landfill and the City of Morris on June 5,

Board Actions

May 2, 2002

Via Video Conference Between

Springfield and Chicago, Illinois

Rulemakings

In the Matter of: Petition of Central Illinois Light Company for a Site Specific

Air Rule: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214.141 – The Board opened a new regulatory

docket to amend the Board’s air pollution control regulations. The Board

accepted the proposal to amend air pollution control regulations for hearing and

granted petitioner’s motions to waive the 200-signature requirement and to

incorporate the record in PCB 99-80 (see AS 02-4 below).

Adjusted Standards

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

granted this Winnebago County facility an adjusted standard from the definition

of solid waste, pursuant to 35 Ill Adm. Code 720.131(c), subject to conditions.

Environmental Register – May 2002

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

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214.141 – The Board dismissed this Peoria

County facility’s petition for an adjusted standard. The Board opened a new

regulatory docket to amend the Board’s air pollution control regulations. The

Board accepted the proposal to amend air pollution control regulations for

hearing and granted petitioner’s motions to waive the 200 signature requirement

and to incorporate the record in PCB 99-80.

Administrative Citations

IEPA v. James Potter – The Board accepted for hearing this petition for review of

an administrative citation against this Edgar County respondent.

County of Jackson v. Robert L. Morgan – The Board found that this Jackson

County respondent violated Section 21(p)(3) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(3)

(2000)), and ordered respondent to pay a civil penalty of $1,500.

IEPA v. Roeco Enterprises, Inc. – The Board accepted for hearing this petition

for review of an administrative citation against this Champaign County

Sangamon County v. Kevin Biggs – In response to a joint stipulation and

settlement agreement in this administrative citation action involving a Sangamon

County facility, the Board found respondent violated Section 21(p)(1) of the

Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2000)) and ordered

respondent 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. James H. Hendricks, Joseph L. Hendricks, Jeffrey Hendricks, and

Hendricks Home Furnishing, Inc. – The Board found that these Macoupin

County respondents violated Section 21(p)(1) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1)

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

IEPA v. Tony Luttrell – The Board found that this Clay County respondent

violated Sections 21(p)(1) and (p)(7) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (p)(7)

(2000)), and ordered respondent to pay a civil penalty of $3,000.

Environmental Register – May 2002

People of the State of Illinois v. City of Pana, Housing Authority of Christian

County, PrairieLand Construction, Inc. and Rich Williams d/b/a C.R. Williams &

Associates Architects – In this public water supply enforcement action

concerning a Christian County facility, the Board granted relief from the hearing

requirement of Section 31(c)(1) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2000)),

accepted a final stipulation and settlement agreement for the City of Pana (Pana),

the Housing Authority of Christian County (HACC), PrairieLand Construction,

Inc. (PrairieLand) only. HACC was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $4,000.

Pana was ordered to fund a $7,500 Supplemental Environmental Project and to

pay a civil penalty of $2,140. PrairieLand was ordered to pay a civil penalty of

$5,000. HACC, Pana, and PrairieLand were ordered to cease and desist from

further violations. This matter shall proceed to hearing as to the remaining

respondent, Rich Williams d/b/a C.R. Williams & Associates Architects.

People of the State of Illinois v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. – In this water

enforcement action concerning a Lake 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 $50,000 and a

payment of $30,000 to the Lake County Health Department and Community

Health Center, and to cease and desist from further violations.

Motions and Other Matters

Donald McCarrell and Ann McCarrell v. Air Distribution Associates, Inc. – The

Board denied complainants motion for summary judgment and directed this

citizens’ cost recovery action involving a DuPage County facility to hearing.

People of the State of Illinois v. American Disposal Company – The Board

granted complainant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the remaining respondent

from this Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enforcement action involving

a Cook County facility, closing this docket.

MDI Limited Partnership #42 v. Regional Board of Trustees for Boone and

Winnebago Counties and the Board of Education of Belvidere District 100 – The

Board granted the motion to strike complainant’s affidavit and denied the

motions for summary judgment, directing this citizen’s cost recovery action to

Stepan Company v. IEPA – The Board granted petitioner’s motion for voluntary

dismissal of this permit appeal involving a Will County facility.

Environmental Register – May 2002

People of the State of Illinois v. Bill Palmer d/b/a Commercial Group, Frank

Glosky, d/b/a Glosky Realty, and R.A.S. Development, Inc. – 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

Kendall County facility, the Board ordered publication of the required newspaper

Midwest Illinois Auto/Truck Plaza, Inc. v. IEPA – Having previously granted a

request for a 90-day extension, the Board dismissed this matter because no

underground storage tank appeal was filed on behalf of this Bond County facility.

Principia College v. IEPA – Having previously granted a request for a 90-day

extension, the Board dismissed this matter because no permit appeal was filed on

behalf of this Jersey County facility.

David L. Weber and Rachel B. Weber v. Cisco United Methodist Church – In

this citizens’ noise enforcement action involving a Piatt County facility, the

Board struck as frivolous the alleged violation of Section 901.104 of the Board’s

noise regulation (35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.104). The Board found that the

remaining alleged violation of the Board’s regulations is neither duplicitous nor

frivolous, and accepted it for hearing.

City of Waukegan , Waukegan City Council, and Richard H. Hyde, Mayor of the

City of Waukegan et al. v. IEPA and North Shore Sanitary District – The Board

dismissed this third-party permit appeal involving a Lake County facility for lack

of jurisdiction.

Alfred Uffelmann, Inc. v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

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

specified facilities of Alfred Uffelmann, 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)).

David Billington v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection

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

of David Billington located in Wayne County are pollution control facilities for

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

200/11-10 (2000)).

Engelman Farms v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection

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

of Englelman Farms located in Perry 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 – May 2002

People of the State of Illinois v. John Prior d/b/a Prior Oil Company and James

Mezo d/b/a Mezo Oil Company – The Board accepted for hearing this Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act and water enforcement action involving a

Washington County facility.

Davis H. and Dennis K. Biddle v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and

certified that specified facilities of Davis H. and Dennis K. Biddle located in

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

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

Davis H. and Dennis K. Biddle v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and

certified that specified facilities of Davis H. and Dennis K. Biddle located in

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

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

Loren and Micah Anderson Partnership v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and

certified that specified facilities of Loren and Micah Anderson located in Henry

County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax

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

William and Linda Michl Farms v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and

certified that specified facilities of William and Linda Michl located in Jasper

County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax

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

UAP Richter Company (McDonough County) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found

and certified that specified facilities of UAP Richter Company located in

McDonough County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential

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

Shearon, 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 McHenry

County facility.

Environmental Register – May 2002

UAP Richter Company (McDonough County) 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 McDonough 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.

People of the State of Illinois v. Ferrara Pan Candy Company, Inc. – The Board

accepted for hearing this air enforcement action involving a Cook County

People of the State of Illinois v. Van Melle U.S.A., Inc. – The Board accepted for

hearing this air enforcement action involving a Lake County facility.

UOP L.L.C. v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of

time to file a permit appeal on behalf of this Cook County facility.

Smithfield Properties IV, L.L.C. 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.

Wareco Service, 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

Knox County facility.

Mark IV Realty, 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

Cook County facility.

Environmental Register – May 2002

May 16, 2002

Via Video Conference Between

Springfield and Chicago, Illinois

Administrative Citations

IEPA v. Charles Haley d/b/a Haley Brothers Construction – In response to a joint

stipulation and settlement agreement in this administrative citation action

involving an Iroquois County facility, the Board found respondent violated

Section 21(p)(3) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(3)

(2000)) and ordered respondent 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)(1) of the Act. 415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2000).

IEPA v. E. Lewis Look – In response to a joint stipulation and settlement

agreement in this administrative citation action involving a Peoria County

facility, the Board found respondent violated Section 21(p)(1) of the

Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2000)) and ordered

respondent 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).

Ogle County v. Loren and Mary Hart d/b/a Rolling Meadows Mobile Home Park

and Jeff Hart – In response to a joint stipulation and settlement agreement in this

administrative citation action involving an Ogle County facility, the Board found

respondent violated Section 21(p)(3) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act)

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

$1,500. The Board also granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the alleged

violation of Sections 21(p)(1) and (p)(7) of the Act. 415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (p)(7)

IEPA v. Gordon Romine d/b/a Romine Disposal – The Board found that this

Fulton County respondent violated Section 21(p)(1) of the Environmental

Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2000)), and ordered respondent to pay a

civil penalty of $1,500

IEPA v. Gerald Goines – The Board accepted for hearing this petition for review

of an administrative citation against this Johnson County respondent.

IEPA v. Edward E. Tucker and Gibson Materials, Company – The Board found

that these Ford County respondents violated Sections 21(p)(1), (p)(3), (p)(4), and

(p)(7) of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (p)(3), (p)(4),

(p)(7) (2000)), and ordered respondents to pay a civil penalty of $6,000

Environmental Register – May 2002

People of the State of Illinois v. Laidlaw Corporation – In this air

enforcement action concerning a Massac 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 respondent to pay

a total civil penalty of $50,000, and to cease and desist from further

Saline County Landfill, Inc. v. IEPA; County of Saline, Intervenor –

The Board affirmed the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

January 4, 2002 decision to deny Saline County Landfill, Inc.’s

application for a development permit to expand the Saline County

Landfill, due to lack of proof of local siting approval.

Provisional Variances

Precoat Metals v. IEPA – Upon receipt of an Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency recommendation, the Board granted a 30-day

provisional variance to this Madison County facility from the 90-day

limitation on the accumulation of hazardous wastes, as set forth in 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 722.134(b).

Motions and Other Matters

Moline/Dutchway Cleaners v. IEPA – The Board granted petitioner’s

motion for voluntary dismissal of this underground storage tank appeal

involving a Rock Island County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. State Oil Company, William Anest

f/d/b/a S&S Petroleum Products, Peter Anest f/d/b/a S&S Petroleum

Products, Charles Abraham, Josephine Abraham, and Millstream

Service, Inc.; Charles Abraham, Josephine Abraham, and Millstream

Services, Inc., Cross-Complainants v. William Anest and Peter Anest,

Cross-Respondents – The Board denied the motions for certification of

issues for interlocutory appeal and to stay the proceedings. The Board

directed this matter to hearing as expeditiously as practicable.

People of the State of Illinois v. Joe Decicco Demolition, Inc. – The

Board rescinded its interim order of April 18, 2002, denied

complainant’s November 19, 2001 motion for summary judgment in its

entirety, and directed this matter to hearing.

ESG Watts, Inc. (Sangamon Valley Landfill) v. IEPA

the May 2, 2002 mandate from the Fourth District Appellate Court, the

Board ordered this matter to proceed to hearing. (The Appellate Court

reversed the Board’s August 24, 2000 decision in this proceeding

finding that the Board had jurisdiction, and remanded the appeal for

further proceedings.)

Economy Mechanical Industries, Inc. v. IEPA – The Board granted

petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this underground storage

tank appeal involving a Cook County facility.

Environmental Register – May 2002

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

for voluntary dismissal of this underground storage tank appeal

involving a Knox County facility.

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville v. IEPA – The Board

accepted for hearing this permit appeal involving a Madison County

Midway Oil Company v. IEPA – Having previously granted a request

for a 90-day extension, the Board dismissed this matter because no

underground storage tank appeal was filed on behalf of this Rock Island

County facility.

Barbara and Ronald Stuart v. Franklin Fisher – In this citizens’ noise

enforcement action involving a Will County facility, the Board denied in

part and granted in part the motion to dismiss, and struck as frivolous

the alleged violations of Section 23 of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act) (415 ILCS 5/23 (2000)) and of the Humane Care for Animals Act

(510 ILCS 70/3.01, 3.02, and 3.03 (2000)). The Board found that the

remaining alleged violation of the Board’s regulations is neither

duplicitous nor frivolous, and accepted it for hearing.

Dairy King Farms, Inc. v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found

and certified that specified facilities of Dairy King Farms, Inc. 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)).

Probst Pork, Inc. v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified

that specified facilities of Probst Pork, Inc. located in Jasper County are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment

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

Illinois Valley Paving 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 Scott County facility.

Cooperative Gas & Oil Company v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found

and certified that specified facilities of Cooperative Gas & Oil Co.

located in Whiteside County are pollution control facilities for the

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

ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

R. Dean Lower v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified

that specified facilities of R. Dean Lower located in Carroll 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 – May 2002

Smoot 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 Union County facility.

Nicor Gas v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day

extension of time to file a permit appeal on behalf of this Livingston and

McLean County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. Olin Corporation – Upon receipt of a

proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to

request relief from the hearing requirement in this Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act enforcement action involving a

Madison County facility, the Board ordered publication of the required

newspaper notice.

People of the State of Illinois v. Great Lakes Terminal & Transport

Corporation – Upon receipt of a proposed stipulation and settlement

agreement and an agreed motion to request relief from the hearing

requirement in this Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

enforcement action involving a Cook County facility, the Board ordered

publication of the required newspaper notice.

May 2, 2002 Board Meeting

Alfred Uffelmann, Inc. v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Alfred Uffelmann, 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)).

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

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of David Billington located in Wayne

County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

People of the State of Illinois v. John Prior d/b/a Prior Oil Company and James Mezo d/b/a Mezo Oil

Company – The Board accepted for hearing this Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and water enforcement

action involving a Washington County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. John Prior d/b/a Prior Oil Company and James Mezo d/b/a Mezo Oil

Company – The Board accepted for hearing this Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and water enforcement

action involving a Washington County facility.

Davis H. and Dennis K. Biddle v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Davis H. and Dennis K. Biddle located in

Mercer County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax

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

Davis H. and Dennis K. Biddle v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Davis H. and Dennis K. Biddle located in

Mercer 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 – May 2002

Loren and Micah Anderson Partnership v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Loren and Micah Anderson

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

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

William and Linda Michl Farms v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of William and Linda Michl located in Jasper

County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2000)).

UAP Richter Company (McDonough County) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

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

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

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

Shearon, 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 McHenry County facility.

UAP Richter Company (McDonough County) 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 McDonough 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.

People of the State of Illinois v. Ferrara Pan Candy Company, Inc. – The Board accepted for hearing this air

enforcement action involving a Cook County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. Van Melle U.S.A., Inc. – The Board accepted for hearing this air

enforcement action involving a Lake County facility.

UOP L.L.C. v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file a permit appeal

on behalf of this Cook County facility.

Smithfield Properties IV, L.L.C. 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.

Wareco Service, 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 Knox County facility.

Mark IV Realty, 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 Cook County facility.

In the Matter of: Petition of Central Illinois Light Company for a Site Specific Air Rule: 35 Ill. Adm. Code

214.141 – The Board opened a new regulatory docket to amend the Board’s air pollution control regulations. The

Board accepted the proposal to amend air pollution control regulations for hearing and granted petitioner’s motions

to waive the 200-signature requirement and to incorporate the record in PCB 99-80 (see AS 02-4).

May 16, 2002 Board Meeting

Dairy King Farms, Inc. v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Dairy King Farms, Inc. 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)).

Probst Pork, Inc. v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Probst Pork, Inc. located in Jasper 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 – May 2002

Illinois Valley Paving 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 Scott County facility.

Cooperative Gas & Oil Company v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Cooperative Gas & Oil Co. located in

Whiteside County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax

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

R. Dean Lower v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation,

the Board found and certified that specified facilities of R. Dean Lower located in Carroll County are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10

Smoot 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 Union County facility.

Nicor Gas v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file a permit appeal on

behalf of this Livingston and McLean County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. Olin Corporation – Upon receipt of a proposed stipulation and settlement

agreement and an agreed motion to request relief from the hearing requirement in this Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act enforcement action involving a Madison County facility, the Board ordered publication of the

required newspaper notice.

People of the State of Illinois v. Great Lakes Terminal & Transport Corporation – Upon receipt of a

proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to request relief from the hearing requirement

in this Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enforcement action involving a Cook County facility, the Board

ordered publication of the required newspaper notice.

Precoat Metals v. IEPA – Upon receipt of an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency recommendation, the

Board granted a 30-day provisional variance to this Madison County facility from the 90-day limitation on the

accumulation of hazardous wastes, as set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 722.134(b).

IEPA v. Rayetta Thompson – The Board accepted an administrative citation against this Union County

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Conference Room 403

600 South Second Street

Gladys L. Knox and David A. Knox v.

Turris Coal Company and AEI Resources,

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room 403

600 South Second Street

Gladys L. Knox and David A. Knox v.

Turris Coal Company and AEI Resources,

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room 403

600 South Second Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 11-512

100 West Randolph Street

IEPA v. Terry and Litisha Springer (Elsah

Twp./Springer) IEPA Docket No. 390-01-

Jersey County Courthouse

201 West Pearl Street

Environmental Register – May 2002

Proposed Horween Leather Company Site-

Specific Air Rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 9-040

100 West Randolph Street

Petition of Prairie Material Sales, Inc. for

Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Parts 811 and 814

Lee County Courthouse

County Board Room

112 East Second Street

IEPA v. Mound City (IEPA no. 288-01-AC)

Pulaski County Courthouse

County Board Room

Second and High Street

Illinois Pollution Control board Meeting

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 11-512

100 West Randolph Street

People of the State of Illinois v. Patrick

Robert Land Trust

Tazewell County Courthouse

342 Court Street

Home Oil Company v. IEPA

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room 403

600 South Second Street

Home Oil Company v. IEPA

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room 403

600 South Second Street

Wallace Pharmaceuticals v. IEPA

Macon County Courthouse

253 East Wood Street

IEPA v. Colorado Real Estate & Investment

Co. (Kingspark Mobile Estates) IEPA

Docket No. 561-01-AC

Peoria County Courthouse

324 Main 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