BEFORE
THE
POLLUTION CONTROL
B~~AR1R
E
C
E ~V B
D
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
CLERK’S OFACE
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF JO’LYN CORPORATION
)
and FALCON WASTE AND RECYCLiNG)
for an ADJUSTED STANDARD from
)
35
ILL. ADM. CODE PART 807 or,
)
in the alternative, A FINDING OF
)
iNAPPLICABILITY.
)
DorothyM.
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Elizabeth
S. Harvey
Swanson, Martin & Bell
One IBM Plaza, Suite 3300
330 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL
60611
NOTICE
FEB
03
2005
STATE OF ~LUNO~S
PoUut~Ofl
ContrO’ Board
•AS 04-02
(Adjusted Standard
—
Land)
Bradley P. Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson
Center
100 WestRandolph
Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
PLEASE
TAKE NOTICE that
I have
today filed
with the
office of the
Clerk of the Pollution
Control
BOard
a
MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO
FILE
INSTANTER
and
RESPONSE
BRIEF,
copies of
which
are
herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
Johi1j~
Kim
Assistant Counsel
Special Assistant Attorney General
Division ofLegal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield,
illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
Dated: February 2, 2005
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY,
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LEFIK’S
OFFICE
iN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
FEB
932005
STATE
OF ILUNOIS
PETITION OF JO’LYN CORPORATION
)
~
lut:o~
Control Board
and FALCON WASTE AND RECYCLING)
for an ADJUSTED STANDARD from
.)
35
ILL. ADM. CODE PART 807 or,
)
in the alternative, A FINDING OF
)
INAPPLICABILITY.
)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER RESPONSE BRIEF
NOW
COMES the Respondent,
the illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency (“Illinois
EPA”), by
one of its
attorneys, John J. Kim,
Assistant Counsel
and
Special Assistant
Attorney
General, and, pursuant to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
101.500, hereby requests that the Illinois Pollution
Control Board (“Board”) grant the Illinois EPA leave to
file instanter its Response to
Petitioners’
Post-hearing Brief.
In support ofthis motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows:
1.
On December 22, 2004, the parties participated in a hearing in this matter.
At the
conclusion of the
hearing,
the
parties
agreed
that, I~r
~
the
Illinois
EPA’s
post-hearing
response briefwould be filed by no later than January 28, 2005.
2.
Due to
several other matters that have also
fallen due in the time
period between
the filing of the Petitioners’
post-hearing brief and the present date, the undersigned counsel for
the Illinois EPA has been unable to complete the post-hearing response brief in
a timely fashion.
A motion
was filed seeking a short
extension to January 31,
2005,
or one
business day, to allow
completion
and
filing
of
the
Illinois
EPA’s
post-hearing
response
brief.
Unfortunately,
finalization ofthe response brief took longer than anticipated.
3.
The Petitioners
should
not be prejudiced by
this
short delay, since
less
than
one
week will elapse between the original due date and the filing date.
AS 04-02
(Adjusted Standard
—
Land)
1
WHEREFORE,
for
the
reasons
stated
above,
the
Illinois
EPA
hereby
respectfully
requests that the Board grant the Illinois EPA leave to file instanter its Response Brief.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Assistant Counsel
Special Assistant Attorney General
Division ofLegal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
Dated: February 2, 2005
This filing submitted on recycled paper:
2
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
~
iN THE MATTER OF:
)
FEB ~32U65
PETITION OF JO’L\~CORPORATION
)
P~T~TE
OF ILUNOIS
and FALCON WASTE
AND RECYCLING)
AS
04-02
~ Control Board
for an ADJUSTED STANDARD from
)
(Adjusted Standard
-
Land)
35
ILL. ADM. CODE PART 807 or,
)
in the alternative, A FINDING OF
)
iNAPPLICABILITY.
RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S POST-HEARING BRIEF
NOW COMES the illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”), by one of
its attorneys, John J. Kim, Assistant Counsel and Special Assistant Attorney General, and hereby
submits a response to the Petitioner’s post-hearing brief filed by Jo’Lyn Corporation arid Falcon
Waste
and Recycling
(“Petitioners”).
In support
of this
response,
the
Illinois
EPA states
as
follows:
I.
ILLINOIS EPA’S
RECOMMENDATION
The
Illinois
EPA has previously submitted
a
recommendation
to
the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
(“Board”) in
response to
the
Petitioners’
petition
and
amended
petition.
The
arguments and comments in the recommendation need not be repeated here, but the illinois EPA
does direct the Board’s attention to that filing.
II.
GBSM IS A WASTE
The underlying basis
for the
Illinois EPA’s position in this matter is that the granulated
bituminous
shingle material (“GBSM”) discussed in the Petitioners’
proposed order or adjusted
standard from the Board is
a waste.
The Illinois EPA’s position is based both in fact and law,
as
set out more fully in the previously-filed recommendation.
1
In its post-hearing brief, the Petitioners
attempt to
portray the Illinois
EPA’s position in
this matter as one seeking to
distance itself from, or repudiate, a May 18,
1993
letter (“May
1993
letter”)
sent
to
IKO
Chicago,
Inc.
(“IKO”).
That
letter
was
admitted
as
Exhibit
5
in
the
December
22,
2004
hearing.
Such
is
not
the
case.
Rather,
the
Petitioners
are
themselves
attempting to broaden the scope
and impact ofthat letter far beyond its clearly stated terms.
The
May 1993 letter was a solid waste determination sent only to IKO
based upon a specific request
supported
by specific
information.
No
other parties
are referenced or identified in the letter as
being able to take advantage ofthe conclusion therein,
and the letter does not have any viability
orrelevance beyond use by IKO.
Here, the Petitioners
are trying
to
piggy-back their proposed
operations
onto
the
May
1993
letter, hoping
to
stand
in the
shoes of IKO
so that
they may treat
the letter as if it were
issued
directly to
them.
The
Illinois
EPA
is
not repudiating the May
1993
letter,
it is
simply
recognizing that letter as being effective only as to IKO.
The Petitioners, on the other hand,
are
trying to
avail themselves of the finding issued to
IKO
and use it as their own.
Since the letter
was a facility-specific, requestor-specific letter, it should not be interpreted as being available for
the Petitioners’
use.
Put
another way,
1KO
is not the party seeking an adjusted standard, so the
Petitioners’ claim that the Illinois EPA is ignoring the May 1993 letter is wholly withoutmerit.
The May
1993
letter issued to
IKO
clearly evidenced the
Illinois
EPA’s
decision that
IKO was the recipient of the solid waste determination, that the determination was based
on the
information presented by IKO,
and that
there were limitations
on the use of GBSM within the
scope of the determination.
Given
that the Petitioners were not even in existence at the time of
the issuance ofthe letter, there is no credible argument to be advanced that the Petitioners should
regardless be able to treat the letter as being applicable to their operations.
The May 1993
letter
2
did not contemplate IKO
selling their GBSM to
a third party,
did not
address the possibility of
that
third party in
turn processing the
GBSM
in
a manner that
would
arguably fit
within the
scope ofthe letter.
Simplyput, the May 1993
letter is being stretched well beyond its limits.
Since the filing of the
illinois
EPA’s recommendation, the
Illinois
Supreme Court has
issued
an opinion in
the case ofAlternate Fuels, Inc. v.
Director ofthe Illinois
EPA, No. 96071,
2004
WL 2359398 (October
21,
2004) (“~~j
2004”).
That decision affirms the appellate
court
decision reached in Alternate Fuels, Inc.
v.
Illinois
EPA, 337
Ill. App.
3d
857,
786 N.E.2d
1063
(5th
Dist.
2003) (“AFI 2003”).
As
argued in the Illinois
EPA’s
recommendation, the ~
2003
opinion
is
factually
and
legally distinguishable
from
the present
case,
and
thus
the
Supreme
Court’s disposition in AFI 2004 is not persuasive.1
Therefore,
the
Board
should
not
look
to
the
AFI
2004
decision
as
being
applicable,
relevant or controlling.
Much more on-point, factually and legally, is the Board’s decision in j~
the matter of: Petition ofIllinois
Wood Energy Partners, LP, For An Adjusted Standard From
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 807
Or, In The Alternative, A Finding Of Inapplicability, AS
94-1 (December
1,
1994).
Based
on
the
Illinois
Wood
Energy
Partners
decision,
as
well
as
the
other
legal
arguments
presented thus
far by
the
Illinois
EPA,
the Board
should not
enter an
order
in
this
matter that the GBSM is not a waste.
III.
REQUEST FOR
ADJUSTED
STANDARD
The Board
should
also
not
grant the
adjusted standard
as requested by
the Petitioners.
The supporting documentation provided thus far, along with the testimony and exhibits presented
Even if the Board diddecide that the ,~j2004
decision was relevant in some
manner, the
Illinois
EPA notes that it
filed
a
motion for
rehearing to
that
decision.
(This
filing
is
listed on the
IllinOis
Supreme Court’s
website
at:
httix//www.state.il.us/courtlSupremeCourt/Docket/2005IPdflrehearOl.pdf.)
As
of
the
date
of filing
this response,
the
court has
yet
to rule
on the
motion for rehearing.
The court could
grant the
motion and possibly
re-open the
matter.
Without seeing
what
the
court’s
final order
is in that case,
the
Illinois EPA is
in the
difficult position of
either not being
able to further distinguish what may
be the
court’s final order, or cite to a new order that may be
more
clearly
supportive
of (or not inconsistent with)
the
Illinois
EPA’s
position
articulated
here.
Similarly, the
Board may want to consider how much reliance it wishes to place on a decision that could be modified or reversed.
3
at the hearing held on December 22,
2004,
fail to
sufficiently justify the Board’s granting of an
adjusted standard.
In the
hearing, the Petitioners
attempted
to
address at
least some of the Illinois
EPA’s
concerns
described
in
its
recommendation;
nonetheless,
there
are
serious
issues
that
remain
unresolved.
Those
issues,
along
with
others
to
be
discussed
below,
include
quality
control
concerns,
the
Petitioners
plans
to
accept
GBSM
from
sources
other
than
IKO,
and
missing
information from the adjusted standard “checklist.”
A.
Testimony and exhibits
offered at the December
2004
hearing
Kathy Powles, the vice-president of Jo’Lyn Corporation and president ofFalcon Waste
and
Recycling,
presented
testimony
at
the
December
2004
hearing.
Her
testimony
raised
a
number ofissues that warrant consideration and, ultimately, denial ofthe adjusted standard.
Ms.
Powles testified that
a blacktop
or asphalt application could essentially be
replaced
with Eclipse Dust Control (“EDC”), which is the name ofthe paving product that the Petitioners
wish to
market.
Hearing Transcript,. p.
22.2
She
also testified that
EDC
is
made from
GBSM.
Tr.,
p.
18.
Upon cross-examination,
she initially testified that she did not forsee any limits
as to
the types ofroads that EDC could be used upon, though she later agreed that something such as a
high
volume
roadway
would
not
be
appropriate
for
application.
Tr.,
pp.
72-73.
Upon
questioning from
a member of the Board’s technical staff,
she stated she was not
aware of any
regulatory
restrictions
in
using
EDC
on
roadways,
such
as
limitations
imposed
by
the
Department ofTransportation.
Tr., p. 73.
However,
the Illinois
Department of Transportation (“DOT”)
does
have standards
and
specifications for road construction (“road standards”) on its website.3
Section
400 ofthe DOT
2
Reference to the Hearing Transcript will henceforth be made as, “Tr., p.
.“
~See, http://www.dot.state.il.us/desenv/stdspecs 1 .html.
4
road
standards
addresses
bituminous
surfaces
and
pavements,
and
includes
.
a
discussion
of
reclaimed
asphalt pavement
(“RAP”).
Ms.
Powles
testified that,
in
at
least
one
situation,
a
potential client had backed out of a contract with the Petitioners
and insteadutilized RAP.
Tr., p.
125.
By
her
testimony,
RAP
is
not
dissimilar
in
application
and use
from
her
companies’
product,
yet
RAP
is
specifically
addressed
in
the
DOT
road
standards.
The
Petitioners
apparently are not aware of the DOT road standards or, if they are, have not
addressed them to
date.4
The apparent
failure
of the Petitioners
to
properly research all
relevant
and
applicable
roadway
construction
standards
and
guidelines
is
further
proof that
the proposed
process
is
flawed and not worthy of an adjusted standard.
The Petitioners
have not presented any testimony or evidence that recognizes
the DOT
road standards, nor have theypresented any testimony or arguments as to whether the standards
are applicable.
Without such testimony,
all
that can be fairly stated is that
the Petitioners have
not fully considered the possible limitations ofuse for EDC.
Another subject ofMs. Powles’ testimony was the “Operating Manual for Production and
Application ofEclipse Dust Control”
(“operating manual”), introduced into evidence as Exhibit
2
and
first provided
to
the
Illinois
EPA at
the December
2004 hearing.
Tr.,
pp.
24-25.
The
operating
manual
was presumably prepared and
provided to the Board
in response to
concerns
previouslyraised by the Illinois EPA that there was a dearth ofinformation provided, the petition
and
amended petition notwithstanding.
The
operating manual,
however,
itself raises
questions
that need to be answered.
~Admittedly, counsel
for the Illinois
EPA was also not heretofore aware ofthe IDOT road
standards
and therefore
did not specifically bring those
standards to Ms. Powles’
attention during
the December
2004 hearing.
However,
it
should be incumbent
upon
the
Petitioners
to have
properly and fully researched any regulations
or standards
that
could be applicable to use ofEDC.
That the Petitioners were unaware ofthe IDOT road standards (or possibly knew
ofthe standards and chose to not acknowledge them) is in and of itselfproblematic, and certainly warrants denial of
the adjusted standard.
5
For example, Ms. Powles testified that it would be the Petitioners’ plan to use at least one
other supplier of GBSM
in
addition to
IKO.
Tr.,
p.
84.
However,
she was not
able to
testify
with certainty that the operating manual
would
or would not need to be revised,
since much of
the operating procedures within the operating manual are tailored specifically for interactionwith
IKO.
Exhibit
2, p.
4.
One such instance would be the use of a live
camera, via internet feed, to
watch the
GBSM
tab
box
at the
GBSM
supplier.
Such
a
camera
is
listed
in
the
operating
manual, but Ms.
Powles was not
clear in her
testimony as to
whether such a
camera would be
required
for each and every potential
supplier.
Thus
the operating manual
would undoubtedly
need to be revised to some
extent.
Ms. Powles’ testimony that another supplier other than IKO would be utilized raises two
more issues.
First,
the Petitioners
have attempted
to
argue that
the May
1993
letter
issued to
IKO
should
control the
characterization
of GBSM.
However,
as noted
above,
that
letter was
issued
in direct response to voluminous and detailed supporting information sent by IKO
to the
Illinois EPA.
If an as yet unidentified supplier of GBSM became involved with the Petitioners’
business, the
Petitioners—to
be
consistent
with their reliance
on the
May 1993
letter—would
have
to
produce a similar
solid waste
determination that was issued
to that
other supplier.
No
such letter has been produced.
Yet the Petitioners want the Board to somehow find that the May
1993
letter, issued
only
to
IKO,
is
in
fact
applicable
to
IKO,
the
Petitioners,
and
any other
shingle manufacturer that may enter into business with
the Petitioners.
That kind of finding is
clearly inappropriate.
Second,
as testified to
later by David Foulkes,
aside from IKO’s present plant,
the only
other GBSM
supplier in the state of Illinois is Owens
Coming.
Tr., pp.
144-43.
However, the
Petitioners
have not
stated
that
Owens
Coming would
their second
supplier
of GBSM,
even
6
though
right
now there is no other potential supplier in
the state.
There was testimony that IKO
intended to open a second manufacturing plant in Kankakee, Illinois,
later in 2005.
Tr., p.
132.
However, the Petitioners
did
not name that
facility as the possible
supplier either.
Thus
it is
unclear who the Petitioners intend to seek out as their secondary supplier ofGBSM.
Ms. Powles also testified that the thickness of the EDC upon application is between four
to
six inches.
Tr., p.
39.
She
later testified that there may be
a need in the
future
to
adjust the
specifications
related
to
application
of EDC.
Tr.,
p.
114.
In
their
post-hearing
brief,
the
Petitioners followed up on that theme, stating that it is best that the adjusted standard not include
a specific thickness specification.
Petitioners’
brief, p.
16.
This position is
again contrary to the
May 1993
letter that purportedly supports the Petitioners’ request for an adjusted standard, since
that letterprovides a specific thickness
(i.e., five to six inches) in its terms.
.
II
Another
issue
that
arose
from
Ms.
Powles’ testimony
concerns
the second
test
site in
which EDC was used.
Ms. Powles testifiedthat the second ofthe two test sections created by the
Petitioners held up very good in the full sun area.
Tr., pp. 4 1-43.
But on cross-examination; Ms.
Powles admitted that in the shaded areas of the second test site, the EDC was slightly broken up.
Tr., p. 95.
Based on this
testimony, the conclusion must be drawn that EDC does not perform as
well
in
areas that receive at least some
if not
full shade.
If that
is
the case, then the adjusted
standard
should
not
be
granted as it does
not
reflect a
limitation
on
the areas
on which
EDC
could be used.
B.
Issues raised
in Petitioners’
post-hearing
brief
In addition to the issues discussed and identified above, the Petitioners also address issues
in their post-hearing brief.
Some ofthose issues warrantresponse and further discussion.
7
1.
Experiences in other states
The Petitioners
first
elaborate
on experiences in
other states, citing to
testimony by Mr.
Foullces that the Illinois EPA has essentially revoked the May 1993
letter.
Mr. Foulkes further
testified that since the Petitioners’
operations are on hold, IKO is being forced to landfill most of
its GBSM.
Petitioners’ brief, p. 7.
That argument is
wrong,
and the
testimony
is
misleading.
The
Illinois
EPA has done
nothing
to
revoke
the May
1993
letter;
however,
there has
been
no
attempt
by
IKO
to
take
advantage ofthe letter.
Rather, the Petitioners are attempting to take advantage ofIKO
‘
s letter.
The Illinois
EPA fully recognizes
that IKO
could utilize
its
GBSM in
the manner described in
the May 1993 letter, and nothing has been presentedby the Petitioners to
dispute that.
As for Mr. Foulkes’
testimony that
11(0
is being forced to
landfill
its
GBSM,
that
is
a
very misleading characterization ofthe present situation.
The Illinois EPA issued the solid waste
determination to
1KO
in May 1993.
The Petitioners
did not come into existence until
1997, and
did not begin to look into the prospect of using GBSM until
1999.
Tr.,
pp.
13,
15-16.
The first
test application of EDC did not take place until
2000.
Tr., p.
157.
Mr. Foulkes
acknowledged
that from
1993
to
2000,
IKO
sent the majority of its
GBSM to a landfill.
This
decision by
IKO
had absolutely nothing to do with the Illinois EPA’s position regarding the Petitioners’
proposed
activity.
The Petitioners have represented that for a time they did
accept GBSM at their facility,
and that they currently have approximately 4,730 tons ofGBSM on-site.
Petitioners’ brief, p.
10.
So for at least some period oftime following
2000, 11(0 was able to send some of its GBSM
to
the Petitioners.
The notion that the Illinois EPA is forcing
IKO
to dispose ofGBSM
in the same
manner it did for the
seven
years prior to
the creation ofthe Petitioners
is without merit,
as the
Illinois EPA has taken no action upon or against 11(0.
8
.
2.
Comparison oftest results to regulatory standards
The Petitioners cite
to much ofthe information that
was provided by
11(0
to
the Illinois
EPA
in
support
of the
ultimate
issuance
of the
May
1993
letter.
Petitioners’
brief,
p.
8.
However, this citation further illustrates the problem identified by the illinois EPA; namely,
that
the Petitioners have
stated they intend to use at least one other supplier other than IKO.
Since
only
11(0’s information is
being cited
to,
a
complete picture
is
not being presented
since no
information from the Petitioners’
other supplier(s) has been discussed (or even identified).
There
is
no
dispute
that
IKO’s
data says
what it
says,
but
what
is
unclear
is
whether
there is
any
correlating data from whatever other supplierthe Petitioners intend to use.
The
Petitioners
also
argue that
RAP
can
be
looked
to
by
analogy,
as
RAP
has
no
environmental
impact on
humans
or the
environment
and
asphalt is
a
component
of GBSM.
Petitioners’ brief, p.
9.
But, as noted above, there are specific DOT road standards
that address
the manner in
which RAP
is
to
be used in
road
construction.
There is
no
evidence
from the
Petitioners that EDC can meet DOT road standards.
.
3.
Are there any roadways which are not appropriate for application of EDC?
Again,
the
Petitioners
state
that
EDC
is
used
for
lower-traffic
applications,
just
like
traditional
asphalt.
Petitioners’
brief,
p.
10.
If that
is
the
case,
the
Petitioners
should
have
previously researched
and located the DOT road standards cited to
herein, and determined how
use of EDC meshes, if at all, with those standards.
The failure to recognize those road standards,
and instead focus on the aesthetics of EDC,
is
indicative of the lack of quality control that
the
Illinois EPA has referred to.
9
4.
Would EDC be
sold to customers for installation by the customer?
For the
first time,
the Petitioners now
state that
there may be
potential
customers
that
would like
to
purchase EDC
for their own installation.
Petitioners’
brief, p.
13.
The Petitioners
note that
if suCh were
the case, the Petitioners
would
provide detailed installation instructions,
the same as those to be used by the Petitioners.
The Petitioners refer to the operating manual for
those
instructions.
Referencing
the
operating
manual,
however,
shows
that
the
“detailed”
instructions amount to five steps that take up less than halfa page.
Exhibit
2, p.
6.
Setting aside
whether those instructions are detailed, it clearly would require a further revision ofthe operating
manual to
account for third party installation.
Also, that
situation
would
then result in
not
11(0, not. the Petitioners, but
a third party
attempting
to
somehow fall within the coverage
of the May
1993
letter issued
by
the Illinois
EPA.
Whether the May 1993 letter is acknowledged by the Petitioners to be their main basis for
the adjusted standard,
the
fact remains that
application of the
EDC
is
a
key component
in the
argument that there is no waste involved (as the installation specification was clearly a part ofthe
Illinois
EPA’s
1993
solid waste
determination),
and
the adjusted standard language now being
proposed by the Petitioners does not take into account
the possibility
that
a third party would
perform the application.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The
Board
should
carefully
weigh
the
Illinois
EPA’s
concerns
set
forth
in
its
recommendation and this
response brief.
The material in question is
a
waste,
and no
successful
legal
or
factual
argument
has
been proferred
to
the
contrary.
There
are
still
a
number
of
unanswered
concerns
and
problems with
the
adjusted standard sought
by
the Petitioners,
and
therefore the Board should deny the relief requested.
10
WHEREFORE,
for
the
reasons
stated
above,
the
Illinois
EPA
hereby
respectfully
requests
that
the
Board
deny
the
Petitioners’
request
for
an
adjusted
standard
or,
in
the
alternative, a finding ofinapplicability.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
John
Assistant Counsel
Special Assistant Attorney General
Division ofLegal Counsel
1021
North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
Dated: February 2, 2005
This filing
submitted on recycled paper.
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned attorney at law,
hereby certify that on February 2, 2005, I served
true
and
correct
copies
of
a
MOTION
FOR
LEAVE
TO
FILE
INSTANTER
and
RESPONSE
BRIEF,
by placing
true
and correct
copies
in properly
sealed and
addressed
envelopes
and by
depositing
said sealed envelopes in a U.S. mail
drop box located within Springfield,
Illinois, with
sufficient First Class Mail postage affixed thereto,
upon the following named persons:
DorothyM.
Gunn,
Clerk
BradleyP. Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
.
100 West Randolph Street
Suite
11-500
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Chicago, IL
60601
Elizabeth
S. Harvey
Swanson, Martin & Bell
One
IBM Plaza, Suite 3300
330 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL
60611
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY,
Assistant Counsel
Special Assistant Attorney General
Division ofLegal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
