1. PROOF OF SERVICE
    2. Springfield, IL 62794-9276217-782-5544
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OCT
242005
IN THE MATTER OF:
Proposed site specific waste
Regulation Applicable
to
Silbrico Corporation
(35 fll. Adm.
Code Part 810)
NOTICE OF FILING
Silbrico Corporation
do Elizabeth S.
Harvey
Swanson, Martin &
Bell, LLP
One IBM Plaza, Suite 3300
330 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago, illinois 60611
PLEASE tAKE NOTICE that on this
24th
day ofOctober 2005,1 have filed with the
Office ofthe clerk ofthe Pollution Control Board this Response to Motion toDismiss ofthe
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in the above titled matter, a copyofwhich is herewith
served upon you.
.
.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL•PROTECTION AGENCY
By:
_____
sistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
DATE:
October 24,2005
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 NorthGrandAvenueEast
.
.
.
.
.
P.O.Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217-782-5544
TillS
FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
)
)
)
)
)
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
~OlIUtfon
Control Board
R 06-08
(Site-specific rulemaking--Land)
Chris Perzan
Office ofthe Attorney General
Environmental Division
188 West Randolph Street,
20th
Floor
Chicago, illinois 60601
To:
John Nittle
Hearing Officer
illinois Pollution Control Board
1022
North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, illinois 62794
/
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
OCT
24
2005
BEFORE TIlE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
Pollution
Control
Board
/
•/
Proposed site
specific
waste
)
R 06-08
Regulation Applicable
to
)
(Site-specific rulemaking--Land)
Silbrico Corporation
)
(35 Ill.
Adrn. CodePart 810)
)
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
DISMJSS
Now
comes
the
flhinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(hereinafter
“Agency’),
and
pursuant to
35
fll. Adxn. Code 101.500(d), files its Response to the Motion To Dismiss filed by the
Attorney General ofthe State ofillinois (hereinafter “AGO’), and states as follows:
On October 11,2005, the illinois EPA received a copy ofthe AGO’s Motion to Dismiss in
this proceeding.
The AGO’s firstargument in support ofits Motion to Dismiss isthat thePetitioner,
Silbrico Corporation (hereinafter “Silbrico”), failed to serve the AGO with
a copyofthePetitionfor
Site-Specific Rule, as required by 35111.Adm. Code
102.208.
The Agencyreviewed the copyofthe
Petition
that
it
received
and
found
that
the
service
list
includes
the
Agency
and
the
illinois
Department ofCommerce and Economic Opportunity (hereinafter DCEO), asalleged by the AGO.
The AGO’s allegation
is thrther supported
by the Petition
for Site-Specific Rule at Page
8 where
Silbrico states that it only served copies on theAgency and DCEO (Petition at page 8). Based upon
the Petition
and service list, the Agency concurs with the AGO’s argument that the Petitioner has
failed to comply with the service requirements of35 Ill. Adm.
Code
102.208.
The AGO’s second argument in support ofits Motion to Dismiss is that a Site-Specific Rule
cannot amend portions ofthe Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/1
et seq (2004)) (“Act’).
Silbrico seeks
to
have the Board adopt a site-specific rule
allowing it to
dispose two ofits waste
streams
as
clean
construction
and
demolition
debris
at
sites
that
are
allowed
to
accept
clean
construction and demolition debris.
Silbrico describes the firstwaste stream, the off-spec perlite, as
an “industrial process waste.”
It describes its second waste stream, fugitive perlite from baghouse
dust collection, as a“pollution controlwaste.” The Act defmes “industrialprocesswaste” at Section
3.235(415 ILCS 5/3.235 (2004)) and “pollution control waste” at Section 3.335(415 ILCS
5/3.335
(2004)).
It is important to note that “industrial process waste” specifically excludes “constnjction
and demolition
debris”
from
the
definition.
Furthermore,
at
no
point
does
the definition for
“construction and demolition debris” include “pollution control waste” within its scope.
The
Agency
believes that
granting
Silbrico’s
requested
site-specific
rule
would be
an
expansion ofthe definition of“construction and demolition debris” as set forth in the Act.
For that
reason, the Agency concurs with the AGO’s argument that the Petition, ifgranted, would result in an
invalid rule.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated, the Agency supports theAGO’s Motion to Dismiss,
andrequests the
Board to dismiss the Petition.
By:
DATE:
October 24,2005
illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217-782-5544
THIS FILING IS SUBMIflED ON RECYCLED PAPER
2
ILLINOISENVIRONMENT
AGENCY
Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
OCT
242005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Boara
/
IN THE MAflER OF:
/
P
Proposed site specific waste
)
R 06-08
Regulation Applicable
to
)
(Site-specific rulemaking--Land)
Silbrico Corporation
)
(35 ilL Adm.
Code Part 810)
)
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Mark V. Gurnik, as
an attorney, hereby cethfj.’ that I
caused the attached Response to Motion .to
Dismiss to be sewed upon all parties listed on the attached Notice ofFiling via first class U.S. mail
from
1021 North Grand Avenue East, Springfield, flhinois, 62794-9276.
•
M~J~(
As
stant Counsel
-
Division ofLegal Counsel
illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217-782-5544
THIS FiLING IS SUBMITTED
ON
RECYCLED
PAPER

Back to top