ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July

18,

1996

IN MATTER OF:

)

PETITION OF THE CITY OF LASALLE

)

PCB 86-2

FOR EXCEPTION TO THE COMBINED

)

(CSO Exception)

SEWER OVERFLOW REGULATIONS

)

JAMES A MCPHEDRAN OF ANTHONY C.

RACCUGLIA & ASSOCIATES APPEARED

BEHALF OF CITY OF LASALLE;

LISA E.

MORENO APPEARED

ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T.

Girard):

On September

1995,

the City of LaSalle

(LaSalle) filed a second amended petition

(Am.Pet.) for exception to the combined sewer overflow

(CSO) regulations at

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(a)

and (b).

On November 27,

1995,

the Board received a response to the

petition (Ag. Rec.) from the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

recommending that the Board deny the request for CSO

exception.

On December 20,

1995,

the Board denied LaSalle permanent exception to the CSO

requirement and closed the docket.

On January 23,

1996,

LaSalle sought reconsideration of

the Board’s order and requested that a hearing be held.

On February

1996,

the Agency

filed a response which also asked that the Board reconsider and modify the December 20,

1995,

opinion and order.

The Agency also

asked that this

matter be

set for hearing.

February

15,

1996 the Board granted reconsideration, vacated its

December 20,

1995

opinion

and

order and

set the matter for hearing.

Hearing was held before the Board Hearing Officer Deborah Frank on May 8,

1996.

Briefs were filed by

LaSalle and the Agency

on June 4,

1996.

The Agency’s brief now

recommends that permanent exception be granted with certain conditions.

The Board first received a

request from LaSalle for a permanent exception to the CSO

regulations on January 2,

1986,

and on January 9,

1986,

the Board accepted that petition.

public hearing was held on July 21,

1986.

Additional information was provided by

LaSalle on

August 21,

1986.

On April

1987,

the Board granted a

temporary CSO exception to LaSalle

with conditions and

retained jurisdiction over the proceeding.

For the reasons discussed below the Board will grant a permanent exception to 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

306.305(a) regarding first flush of storm flows and

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(b)

for LaSalle’s

CSO outfall 007 and

CSO

outfall 006A.

The Board will further grant an

exception to the compliance deadlines of 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.306

for CSO

outfall

003

subject to

the conditions discussed below.

BACKGROUND

The City of LaSalle is located in LaSalle County

along both sides of Illinois Route 351

from the north bank ofthe Illinois River to

a point just south

of Interstate Route

80.

The

Illinois

River flows from east to west along the south boundary of the community.

The Board has previously discussed in detail the relevant background information in

this proceeding.

Rather than repeat that information here, the Board hereby incorporates

reference in this

opinion the Board’s April

1987 and November

1994,

opinions and

orders (In the Matter of:

Petition of the City of LaSalle for Exception to Combined Sewer

Overflow Regulations,

77 PCB 21,

PCB 86-2;

—

PCB

—,

PCB 86-2).

The Board directs

interested persons to

those previous decisions for a more comprehensive review.

CSO

REGULATIONS

The CSO regulations are contained in 35 Ill. Adm.

Code

306.

Section 306.305

provides as follows:

All combined sewer overflows and treatment plant bypasses shall be given

sufficient treatment to prevent pollution, or the violations of applicable water

standards unless

an exception has been granted by the Board pursuant to

Subpart D.

Sufficient treatment shall consist of the following:

All dry weather flows,

and the first flush of storm flows as determined

by the Agency,

shall meet the applicable

effluent standards; and

Additional flows, as determined by the Agency but not less

than ten

times to

sic

average dry weather flow for design year, shall receive a

minimum of primary treatment and disinfection with adequate retention

time; and

Flows

in excess of those described in subsection (b) shall be treated,

whole or in part,

to the extent necessary to prevent accumulations of

sludge deposits,

floating debris and solids

in accordance with 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

302.203,

and

to prevent depression of oxygen levels; or

Compliance with a treatment program

authorized by the Board in an

exception granted pursuant to Subpart

Section 306.306

sets forth specific timeframes for compliance with the provisions

of Section

306.305.

Subpart D sets forth the CSO exception procedures.

Section

306.350 states that an

exception shall be granted by the Board based upon

“water quality effects, actual and potential

stream uses,

and economic considerations

including those of the discharger and those affected

by the discharge”.

Section

306.360 allows the discharger to file a petition for an exception

either singly,

orjointly with

the Agency.

In order for a discharger to receive a CSO

exception, a certain level ofjustification for the exception

is required to be

submitted.

This

level ofjustification

differs depending on whether the discharger filed a single orjoint petition

for CSO exception.

The level ofjustification required of a jQj~~t

petition is

set forth in Section

306.362 which provides for a demonstration under

Section 306.361(a) (i.e., minimal discharge

impact) which is not

available to

single petitioners.

LaSalle as a

single petitioner, justifies

its

claim for a CSO exception based on Section 306.361(b), (c)

and (d).

Section 306.361(d),

applicable to

single petitioners under

Section 306.362,

provides

that

a discharger may establish that because special

circumstances exist, a detailed water

quality evaluation (required pursuant to

Sections 306.361(b) and (c)) would

be inapplicable for

reasons of irrelevancy or the expense of data collection in relation to the relevancy of the data.

BOARD’S

1987 OPINION

The Board’s April

1987

opinion (1987) indicated that the Agency testified that

LaSalle did take all the necessary

steps

to qualify as joint petitioners with the Agency,

including submitting a Phase I study

on October

1983 and a Phase II Study on October 23,

1984.

(1987 at 2.)

However, the Agency chose not to

co-petition with LaSalle because of the

late

date at which LaSalle

‘

s petition was received, and because of Agency concerns related to

whether water quality and

other environmental

impacts will be alleviated after the City’s

proposed improvements are completed.

(Id.)

Further, Mr. Tim Zook of the Agency testified

that although a detailed CSO

impact study

(i.e., Phase III Study) was not conducted, pursuant

to Section 306.361(b)

and

(c),

a study prepared for LaSalle by Serco Laboratories does give

substantial

information concerning water quality impacts.

The Board in its

1987

opinion also detailed the compliance options and the cost

effectiveness of each option.

(1987 at 5-7.)

The Board in the

1987

opinion held that LaSalle

had

not justified a permanent CSO exception, but had justified a temporary CSO exception

with conditions.

Among other conditions,

the Board order required an amended petition be

filed by March

1990,

as well as requiring LaSalle to construct and operate improvements to

its wastewater collecting

system,

and continue monitoring.

On March

22,

1990,

the Board

extended

until March 1,

1991,

the deadline for the amended petition.

BOARD’S

1994

OPINION

In the amended petition of March

1991,

LaSalle stated that improvements have

resulted in the elimination of all dry weather overflows.

(November 3,

1994 opinion and

order (1994) at 2.)

LaSalle pointed out

that since the Board granted the temporary

CSO

exception in

1987,

LaSalle has constructed and was operating

improvements to its wastewater

collection

system and treatment plant.

(Id.)

LaSalle also provided information regarding

improvements to the wastewater treatment plant which increased the design average flow of

the plant from 2.2 MGD to 3.3

MGD.

(Id.)

However, the design maximum flow was

decreased

from

12 MGD to

9.1

MGD.

(Id.)

LaSalle stated that the

11th Street Pump

station and the M & H Outfall have been

eliminated by

installing a diversion structure near the location of the

11th Street Pump

Station,

routing all existing

sewers which were tributary to the Pump

Station through this

structure,

and abandoning the M

& H Pipe

in place.

(1994 at 2.)

A 60”

overflow pipe at the

11th Street

overflow was also installed south

of the old M & H Overflow pipe.

(Id.)

In 1991,

LaSalle

also maintained that construction

involving the Union Street interceptor, the Canal Street

interceptor, and the Creve Coeur Street Diversion structure upgraded the system and decreased

overflows.

(Id.)

To further reduce the possibility

of overflows, LaSalle had implemented a policy

that

any

major street repair would involve new storm sewers as well as adding a Street sweeping

program to

remove debris

before the debris can enter the sewer.

(1994 at 2-3.)

Finally,

LaSalle stated that its

population had decreased by

approximately 6.3

since the

1980

census

and one large industrial user has been lost,

while a second industrial user had significantly

upgraded its pre-treatment facility and a third

is presently subject to a compliance plan to

install a pre-treatment facility.

(1994 at 3.)

In November

1994,

the Board found that LaSalle’s March

1991

amended petition

lacked

sufficient information to grant a permanent CSO exception as there were some areas

where dry-weather overflows may be occurring.

(1994 at 4.)

The Board stated:

The Board is

particularly concerned

in that LaSalle was offered an opportunity

to update the information before the Board in June of this

year.

LaSalle choose

not to file any

further information with the Board.

The Board finds that LaSalle

has failed to provide necessary data to allow the Board to

determine what

impact the requested exception will have on the environment.

Therefore,

the

Board

will not grant a permanent CSO exception at this

time.

Instead,

the

Board will accept the Agency’s recommendation and extend the temporary

exception with certain conditions.

(1994 at 4.)

The Board’s 1994 order set forth eight conditions

which included a requirement that

LaSalle shall eliminate

all dry-weather overflows as well as providing any raw data LaSalle

has with respect to monitoring

outfalls 003,

004,

006,

006A and 007.

(1994 at 6.)

Further,

the Board’s order required LaSalle to repair outfall 006, prior to

performing stream

inspections, so the flow can properly enter the Little Vermilion River.

(Id.)

The Board also

directed LaSalle, in consultation with the Agency,

to:

design and construct improvements at

CSO outfalls 006 and 004

(5th Street and Marquette

Street) to permanently eliminate the dry

weather overflows at these locations by March

1995;

complete a Phase II report as outlined

in 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 375.203

and submit it to the Agency by May

15,

1995;

and complete

and submit to

the Agency a Plan of Study

(POS) for a Phase III Evaluation at each CSO

outfall

location by December

1994.

(Id.)

SECOND AMENDED PETITION

In general,

the second amended petition states that LaSalle has continued the policy of

street sweeping

and upgrading storm sewers.

(Am. Pet.

at 6-7.)

LaSalle reiterates that certain

industrial users have ceased operations while other industrial users have upgraded pretreatment

facilities.

(Am. Pet,

at 6.)

Further,

LaSalle

states that it has received recent approval from

USEPA

of “upgraded standards regarding its

wastewater treatment plant”.

(Id.)

Specifically,

LaSalle submitted

information regarding each of the conditions from the

Board’s 1994 order.

Regarding Condition

which required that LaSalle eliminate all

dry-

weather overflows,

LaSalle maintains that it has eliminated all

dry-weather overflows.

(Am.

Pet.

at 10.)

LaSalle states that it has removed the Marquette

Street outfall (004) from the

combined sewer system and sealed the Fifth Street outfall.

(Id.)

LaSalle maintains that

“any

flow currently existing with an

outlet pipe presently,

does not originate from any portion of

any

remaining combined

system”.

(Id.)

LaSalle admits that a

“slight flow”

was noticed

during dry weather at the Creve Coeur Street outfall

(003);

however,

according to LaSalle an

investigation determined that the flow did not originate from the combined system.

(Id.)

Rather, LaSalle speculates

that the flow originates from LaSalle

‘

s water distribution system.

(Id.)

Conditions

and 3

granted LaSalle a temporary CSO

exception until December

1995 from

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(a)

regarding the first flush of storm

flows and from 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(b) and required LaSalle to submit an amended petition on or before

September

1995.

LaSalle timely filed this

amended petition.

Condition 4 required LaSalle to provide any raw data it has with respect to monitoring

outfalls 003,

004,

006,

006A and

007.

LaSalle submitted

summaries of the data as Exhibits

and B to the amended petition filed on September

1995.

(Am. Pet.

at 11.)

Condition

required LaSalle to repair outfall 006,

prior to performing stream inspections,

so the flow can

properly enter the Little Vermilion River.

LaSalle

states that outfall 006 was eliminated on

November

15,

1994.

(Am. Pet.

at 11.)

Condition

set forth several requirements for LaSalle including a requirement to

design and

construct improvements at outfalls 006 and 004 (5th Street and Marquette Street) to

permanently eliminate the dry weather overflows at these locations

March 1,

1995.

stated above, LaSalle maintains that it has eliminated all dry-weather overflows.

(Am. Pet.

11.)

Condition 6(b) required LaSalle to complete a Phase II report as outlined

in 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

375.203

and submit to the Agency by May

15,

1995.

LaSalle indicates that it

completed inspection for low flow events in September of 1994;

however,

stream and

environmental conditions have not resulted in an overflow at outfall 007.

(Am. Pet.

at 11.)

Therefore,

LaSalle asserts it was unable to fully comply with condition 6(b).

(Id.)

Condition 6(c) required LaSalle to complete and submit to

the Agency a Plan of Study

(POS) for a Phase III Evaluation at each CSO outfall location by

December

1994.

LaSalle

states that a Phase III stream study was submitted to

the Agency

by December

1994.

(Am.

Pet.

at 11.)

According to LaSalle, work associated with the study

is being completed and data

in existence at the date of the

filing of the amended petition was included in Exhibit B to the

petition.

(Id.)

Condition

6(d) prohibited expansion of the service area tributary to the combined

sewers and condition 6(e)

required LaSalle to

continue its

monitoring of the combined

sewer

overflows on a weekly basis and after every major rainfall.

LaSalle states that no extensions

of service have been allowed and monitoring has been continued.

(Am. Pet.

at 12.)

LaSalle

has submitted

copies of all monitoring reports

to the Agency and included a summary of the

reports

in Exhibit A.

(Id.)

The remaining conditions

in the Board’s 1994 order

concerned procedural

considerations and

LaSalle simply acknowledges those

conditions in the second amended

petition.

(Am. Pet.

at 12.)

LaSalle

also

states that it remains willing

“continue to

be alert

to any additional issues that may arise”.

(Am. Pet,

at 12.)

an example of LaSalle’s

diligence, LaS alle reportedly

“spent considerable time

investigating potential

solutions” to a

recent increase

in the frequency and amount of backups.

(Id.)

LaSalle further indicates that it

has recently appointed a full-time city

engineer with

“considerable experience in environmental

matters”.

(Id.)

MAY 8.

1996 HEARENG

Mr. William Etzenbach testified on behalf of LaSalle and indicated what additional

measures LaSalle would undertake to correct ongoing problems at CSO

outfalls

007,

006A and

003.

(Tr.

at 76.)

At CSO outfall 007,

in dry weather there is

infiltration of groundwater into

the discharge pipe.

(Tr.

at 78.)

The discharge is contaminated primarily with metals.

(Tr.

78-79.)

Mr. Etzenbach testified that LaSalle will dam the pipe at the bottom and pump the

infiltrations back into the sewage

system for treatment.

(Tr.

at 79.)

The estimated cost of the

pumping station

$70,000.

(Tr.

at 81.) Mr. Etzenbach testified that LaSalle will have the

facility designed and

plans submitted

to the Agency for a construction permit by December 31,

1996,

with completion

of the project by December 31,

1997.

(Tr.

at 92.)

With regard to problems identified in the Agency response to the discharge at CSO

outfall 006A,

Mr. Etzenbach testified that the

“visual appearance leaves nothing to be

desired”.

(Tr.

at 80.)

However to

insure that no

further problems may occur, LaSalle

prepared to

install a hand raked bar

screen.

(Tr.

at 80.)

LaSalle further proposes that the bar

screen be

visited on a weekly basis and after any rainfall event that might cause an overflow.

(Id.)

Such visits would

allow crews to rake the bar screen, raking the material into the sewer

system

and performing remedial action if necessary.

(Tr.

at 80-81.)

The cost of installing the

bar screen is estimated at $5,600.

(Tr.

at 81.)

Mr.

Etzenbach testified that the bar screen

could be fabricated and

installed by the end of 1996.

(Tr.

at 92.)

Mr. Etzenbach testified that LaSalle does not have enough solid information to design a

plan for CSO outfall 003

at this

time; however, LaSalle does have a two-phase plan for

proceeding with bringing CSO

outfall

003

into compliance.

(Tr.

at 82.)

First,

LaSalle will

construct a bar screen in the overflow manhole to be visited and maintained in the same

manner as the bar screen for outfall 006A.

(Id.)

Mr. Etzenbach testified that

the bar screen

would provide immediate relief.

(Tr.

at 83.)

Second,

LaSalle would

capture the entire

first

flush and provide a secondary treatment

and capture

the next ten times

average dry weather

flow and provide primary treatment.

(Tr.

at 83-84.)

The second phase will require additional

investigation and study.

(Tr.

82-84.)

Mr. Etzenbach testified that a very rough estimate for

the cost of proceeding with this plan would be just

over $3,000,000.

(Tr.

at 89.)

Mr.

Etzenbach testified that phase one

could be

completed by December 31,

1996.

(Tr.

at 92.)

Mr. Etzenbach stated that the first flush rate and volume,

and dry weather flow monitoring,

should be completed by June 30,

1997,

and construction alternatives by

December 31,

1999.

(Tr.

at 92-93.)

LaSalle would then choose the best plan by December 31,

2000,

with permits

and financing obtained by December 31,

2001.

(Id.)

AGENCY RESPONSE

After the Board

issued the December 20,

1995 order

denying LaSalle a permanent

exception, the Agency joined LaSalle in asking the Board to reconsider the December 20,

1995

order.

The Agency

also joined

in LaSalle’s request for hearing.

For the record, the

Board notes that the Agency,

in its initial

response to the amended petition,

stated that the

Agency

“cannot

recommend” that the temporary exception to the

CSO regulations be extended

nor can the Agency recommend that LaSalle be granted a permanent CSO exception.

(Ag.

Rec. at 1.)

Also for the record the Board will summarize the concerns raised by the Agency

in the initial response.

However, at hearing and in the Agency’s post-hearing brief, the

Agency

indicated that it now supported LaSalle

‘5

request for exception with

certain conditions.

(Tr.

102;

Resp. Br.

1.)

Response

The Agency acknowledges that LaSalle

“has made significant improvements in its

overall C SO” system.

(Ag. Rec. at 7.)

However, the Agency is concerned that discharges

from certain CSO outfalls

still

apparently cause sludge deposits

in the Illinois

and Michigan

Canal (I &

M Canal).

(Id.)

The Agency indicated particular concerns about the conditions at

CSO outfall 003

which discharges into the I & M Canal.

(Ag. Rec. at 3-4.)

By LaSalle’s

own admission dry-

weather flow is

occurring at this outfall apparently from the potable water distribution system.

(Ag.

Rec. at 4.)

The Agency

is concerned that this

a potential cross-connection which is

prohibited by

regulation.

(Id.)

In addition,

the Agency points

to the observations made by

LaSalle’s personnel when carrying out a low stream flow inspection in

1994.1

According to

the inspection:

A general overall inspection of the outfall area indicated the presence of rags,

paper and feminine hygiene products.

A smell similar to

that found in a bar

screen building was present.

The water in these pockets was a milky

green

color.

There were also

isolated areas of turbid green water with debris.

Probing of the bottom sediment,

which appeared to be

a sandy soil,

indicated

the presence of fresh and partially deteriorated organic material.

This sediment

was black, gritty

and had a septic odor.

Approximately twenty percent of the

bed appeared to contain these deposits which were

1/4

inch in depth in an area

of stream about 300 feet long.

Exhibit A, par.

6.1-1;

Ag.

Rec. at

4-5.

In addition to the Agency’s concerns involving

outfall 003,

the Agency is

also

concerned about the conditions

around

outfalls 006A and 007.

(Ag. Rec. at

5.)

In the area of

outfall 006A,

according to LaSalle’ s inspections,

is being used as an illegal dump.

(Exhibit A,

par 6.2-1;

Ag.

Rec. at

5.)

The Agency believes that additional Phase II

stream inspection

should be made in this area to

insure that the debris is

not masking impacts from the CSO.

(Ag. Rec. at 5.)

Outfall 007 also has evidence of dry-weather flows,

apparently due to

groundwater infiltration from

an old

industrial site.

(Ag.

Rec.

at 6.)

The Agency is

concerned that the outfall pipe may be serving

as a conduit for transporting potentially

hazardous materials directly to the Little Vermilion River.

(Id.)

Hearing and Agency Post-Hearing Brief

At hearing,

Mr.

Dean Studer testified on behalf of the Agency.

(Tr.

at 102.)

Mr.

Studer indicated that the compliance plans

testified to by Mr.

Etzenbach on behalf of LaSalle

were acceptable to the Agency.

(Tr.

at 102-107.)

Mr. Studer further testified that the

timeframes given for completion of the compliance plans

were realistic and acceptable to the

Agency.

(Id.)

The inspection is discussed in

Exhibit A to LaSalle’s

second amended petition (Exhibit A)

titled “Update of Report of Monitoring Program to

Comply with Illinois

Pollution Control

Board Order No. 89-2 April

1987.”

The Agency,

in its post-hearing brief, recommends that LaSalle be granted a permanent

exception to 35 Iii.

Adm.

Code 306.305(a)

regarding first flush of storm flows and 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(b) for CSO

outfalls 006A

and 007.

(Resp.

Br.

1.)

The Agency also

recommends that LaSalle be granted an exception to

the compliance

deadlines of 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 306.306

for CSO outfall

003.

(Id.)

The Agency further recommends

conditions

to be

included in the exceptions.

(Resp. Br.

at 7.)

The conditions recommended by the Agency

set forth the plans for compliance testified to by Mr. Etzenbach.

(Id.)

DISCUSSION

As previously stated a CSO exception shall be granted by

the Board based upon

“water

quality

effects, actual and potential stream uses,

and economic considerations

including those

of the discharger and those affected by the discharge”.

(Section

306.350.)

LaSalle has made

significant progress in correcting the deficiencies

in LaSalle’s sewer overflow systems.

LaSalle has established

that an exception

is economically justified and the environmental

impact of the permanent exception has been minimized.

LaSalle has addressed concerns of the

Agency

and the Board and LaSalle has committed

to correcting the remaining problems at

outfalls

003,

006A and 007 within a specific

timeframe.

Therefore,

the Board

will grant

permanent exception to

35 Ill. Adm.

Code

306.305(a) regarding first flush of storm flows and

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(b) for CSO outfalls

006A and 007.

The Board also grants

LaSalle an exception to the compliance

deadlines of 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.306 for CSO

outfall

003,

subject to

the conditions

set forth in the Agency’s brief.

This

docket is closed.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

ORDER

The City of LaSalle is hereby granted an exception from the combined sewer overflow

regulation of 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(a)

as it relates to

the first flush of storm flows and

from 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.305(b) for CSO

outfall

006A

and CSO

outfall 007,

and

from the

compliance dates of 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 306.306

for CSO outfall 003,

subject to the following

conditions:

LaSalle shall:

Install bar screens and maintain for CSO outfall

006A and CSO

outfall 003 no later than December

1996.

Install

a pump station capable of transporting all

dry weather flows

from CSO

outfall 007 no later than December 31,

1997.

Complete a monitoring program at

CSO outfall 003

sufficient to

determine first flush rate and dry weather flow volumes no

later than

June 30,

1997.

Develop and

select a compliance

alternative for CSO outfall 003

later than December 31,

1999.

Complete design and submit a construction permit to IEPA for the

selected CSO outfall 003

compliance alternative

no later than

December 31,

2000.

Complete construction of the selected compliance

alternative for CSO

outfall 003

no later than December 31,

2003.

The grant of exception does not preclude the Agency from

exercising its

authority to require as a permit condition a CSO monitoring program

sufficient to assess

compliance with this exception and

any other Board

regulations and other controls, if needed,

for compliance,

including

compliance

with water quality standards.

This grant of exception is

not to be construed as affecting the

enforceability of any

provisions

of this exception, other Board

regulations,

the Environmental Protection Act, or the federal Clean

Water

Act.

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Board Members J.

Theodore Meyer and M. McFawn dissented.

Section

of the Environmental Protection Act

(415 ILCS

5/41

(1994)) provides for

the appeal of final Board orders within 35

days of the date of service of this order.

The

Rules

of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing

requirements.

(See also

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

101.246

“Motions for Reconsideration.”)

I, Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

the

above opinion and order was adopted on the

/?~

day of

5-~

Board,

hereby certify that

1996,

by a vote

Illinois

Control Board