G. Tanner Girard, Acting Chairman

 

Board Members:

Thomas E. Johnson, Nicholas J. Melas, Andrea S. Moore

 

 

 

 

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-3620

(312) 814-6032 TDD

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

(217) 524-8500

 

 

 

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

 

---

Letter from the Chairman

 

 

In the last month, the Board received the first of several rulemaking proposals

from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) addressing air

emissions in Illinois. Specifically, on March 16, 2006, the Illinois Pollution

Control Board adopted for first notice, without commenting on the merits, a

rulemaking proposal to control mercury emissions from coal-fired electric

generating units. The proposal, docketed as R 06-25, In the Matter of: Proposed

New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions from Large Combustion

Sources (Mercury), was filed by the IEPA on March 14, 2006.

The IEPA states that the proposal was filed to satisfy the State’s obligation to

submit a state implementation plan addressing the requirements of Clean Air

Mercury Rule (CAMR) and Section 9.10 of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Act (Act). The IEPA states that the proposal addresses serious deficiencies

present in the CAMR including:

the unnecessary delay in achieving mercury emission reductions, the

inherent concerns associated with a cap and trade program to control a persistent, bioaccumulative

toxin, the inadequate mercury reductions contained in the CAMR, and the legal basis upon which

CAMR was adopted.

This proposal was filed pursuant to Section 28.5 of the Act, which provides the Board with strict deadlines toward

adoption of the regulation. The Board has no discretion under Section 28.5 to amend or alter those deadlines.

The first hearing on the proposal must be held “within 55 days of receipt of the rule and shall be confined to

testimony by and questions of the IEPA’s witnesses concerning the scope, applicability, and basis of the rule.” The

first hearing begins Monday, May 8th at 1:00 PM at the Thompson Center in Chicago. Section 28.5 provides that,

“[w]ithin 7 days after the first hearing, any person may request that the second hearing be held.” The second

hearing, if necessary, will begin Monday, June 5th at 1:00 PM at the IEPA office building in Springfield. Under the

Act, the second hearing “shall be devoted to presentation of testimony, documents, and comments by affected

entities and all other interested parties.” The third hearing “shall be devoted solely to any IEPA response to the

material submitted at the second hearing and to any response by other parties” according to Section 28.5 of the Act.

However, Section 28.5 provides that the third hearing will be cancelled “if the IEPA indicates to the Board that it

does not intend to introduce any additional material.” If it is necessary, the third hearing will begin Monday, June

19th at 10:00 AM at the IEPA office building in Springfield. All three hearings will continue day-to-day as

necessary to complete the subject matter of the hearing.

Opinions and orders of the Board, hearing transcripts, and other documents in rulemaking records are posted on the

Board’s Web site and may be downloaded from the Web without charge. I invite you to participate in this

proceeding and to assist us in developing sound environmental policy for the people of Illinois.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

G. Tanner Girard, Ph.D.

Acting Chairman

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

1

Inside This Issue:

 

 

FEDERAL UPDATE

  

  

  

P. 1

APPELLATE UPDATE

  

  

  

P. 3

RULE UPDATE

  

  

  

  

P. 6

BOARD ACTIONS

  

  

  

P. 13

NEW CASES

  

  

  

  

P. 20

BOARD CALENDAR

  

  

  

P. 21

 

 

Federal Update

United States Environmental Protection Agency Publishes Notice of its Final Order Partially Granting and

Partially Denying a Petition to Object to Title V Clean Air Act Operating Permit for Onyx Environmental

Services

On March 16, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 13591) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Administrator responded to a citizen petition asking USEPA to object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating

permit proposed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). Specifically, the Administrator partially

granted and partially denied the petition submitted by the Sierra Club and American Bottom Conservancy to object

to the proposed operating permit for Onyx Environmental Services (Onyx).

The CAA affords USEPA a 45-day period to review, and to object to, a title V operating permit proposed by a state

permitting authority. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act, 42 USC 7661d(b)(2), authorizes any person to petition the

USEPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of the USEPA review period to object to a title V

operating permit if USEPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were

raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was

impracticable to raise the issues during the comment period, or the grounds for the issues arose after the public

comment period.

On February 18, 2004, the USEPA received from the Sierra Club and American Bottom Conservancy a petition

requesting that USEPA object to the proposed title V operating permit for Onyx Environmental Services. The

Sierra Club and American Bottom Conservancy alleged that the proposed permit:

(1) Violates USEPA's commitments and obligations to address environmental justice issues;

nd certification of compliance;

(3) Does not address modifications Onyx allegedly took that triggered new source review requirements;

(4) Is based on an eight-year old application;

(5) Lacks practically enforceable conditions;

(6) Contains a permit shield that broadly insulates it from ongoing and recent violations;

(7) Fails to include conditions that meet the legal requirements for monitoring;

(8) Does not contain a statement of basis;

(9) Does not require prompt reporting of violations; and

(10) Fails to establish annual mercury and lead limits.

On February 1, 2006, the Administrator signed an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The

order explains the reasons behind USEPA's conclusion that the IEPA must:

(1) Address the significant comments concerning the possible need for a compliance schedule in the

proposed permit;

(2) Require Onyx to submit a current compliance certification;

(3) Address comments concerning modifications made at the Onyx facility and the potential applicability

of new source review requirements;

(4) Require Onyx to submit an updated application that reflects all applicable requirements for the source;

(5) Make clear either in the permit or statement of basis what constitutes “normal” operating conditions;

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

2

(6) Amend the permit to limit Onyx’ election to regulatory requirements applicable to hazardous waste

incinerators;

(7) Define the terms “container” and “containerized solids,” or explain in the statement of basis where the

terms are defined;

(8) Provide information on where the applicable specifications pertaining to “manufacturer's

specifications” can be located;

(9) Provide a statement of basis that complies with the requirements of USEPA regulations and post its

statement of basis on a Web site, or make available to the public on the Web site a notice telling the public

where it can obtain the statement of basis; and

(10) Explain how a thirty day reporting requirement for all deviations is prompt or require a shorter

reporting period for deviations as is provided for in 40 CFR 71.

The order also explains the reasons for denying Sierra Club and American Bottom Conservancy's remaining claims.

Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Act, a petitioner may seek in the United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit judicial review of those portions of the petition that USEPA denied.

Copies of the final orders, the petitions, and other supporting information may be reviewed at the USEPA Region 5

Office, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. If you wish to examine these documents, you should

make an appointment at least 24 hours before visiting day. Additionally, the final order for Onyx Environmental

Services is available electronically at:

www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitiondb2004.htm

For further information contact Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permitting Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and

Radiation Division, USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 886-

4447.

 

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposes Amendments Under the Clean Air Act to Control

Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources

On March 29, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 15803) the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed

amendments that would institute controls on gasoline, passenger vehicles, and portable gasoline containers (gas

cans) to reduce emissions of benzene and other hazardous air pollutants (mobile source air toxics).

Benzene is a known human carcinogen, and USEPA stated that mobile sources are responsible for the majority of

benzene emissions. The amendments proposed by USEPA would limit the benzene content of gasoline to an annual

average of 0.62% by volume, beginning in 2011. USEPA also proposed to limit exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons

from passenger vehicles when they are operated at cold temperatures. This standard would be phased in from 2010

to 2015. For passenger vehicles, USEPA proposed evaporative emissions standards that are equivalent to those in

California. Finally, the amendments propose a hydrocarbon emissions standard for gas cans beginning in 2009,

which would reduce evaporation and spillage of gasoline from these containers.

USEPA stated that these controls would significantly reduce emissions of benzene and other mobile source air

toxics such as 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and naphthalene. The proposal is intended to

result in additional substantial benefits to public health and welfare by significantly reducing emissions of

particulate matter from passenger vehicles. USEPA projected annual nationwide benzene reductions of 35,000 tons

in 2015, increasing to 65,000 tons by 2030. Total reductions in mobile source air toxics would be 147,000 tons in

2015 and over 350,000 tons in 2030. Passenger vehicles in 2030 would emit 45% less benzene, and gas cans

meeting the new standards would emit almost 80% less benzene. Gasoline would have 37% less benzene overall.

USEPA estimated that these reductions would have an average cost of less than 1 cent per gallon of gasoline and

less than $1 per vehicle. The average cost for gas cans would be less than $2 per can. Additionally, USEPA

estimated that the reduced evaporation from gas cans would result in significant fuel savings, which would more

than offset the increased cost for the gas can.

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

3

Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2006. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-

HQ-OAR-2005-0036, by one of the following methods:

1) http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

2) Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741.

3) Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

For further information contact Mr. Chris Lieske, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment

and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;

telephone number: (734) 214-4584; fax number: (734) 214-4816; email address: lieske.christopher@epa.gov.

 

Appellate Update

Third District Affirms Board’s $66,000 Civil Penalty Order in Blue Ridge Construction Corp. v. IPCB and

People of the State of Illinois

,

No. 3-04-0874 (March 30, 2006) (PCB 02-115)

In a March 30, 2006 final seven-page unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 (155 Ill.2d R. 23) in

 

Blue

Ridge Construction Corp. v. IPCB and People of the State of Illinois, No. 3-04-0874 (March 30, 2006), the Third

District Appellate Court affirmed the Board’s order imposing a $66,000 penalty. The court made its decision on the

parties’ briefs, dispensing with oral argument. The case is vindication of an important purpose of the

Environmental Protection Act (Act): “to assure that adverse effects upon the environment are fully considered and

borne by those who cause them.” 415 ILCS 5/2(b).

Board Decision.

The Board’s 22-page final opinion and order in People of the State of Illinois v. Blue Ridge Construction

Corporation, PCB 02-115 (October 7, 2005) found Blue Ridge Construction Corp. (Blue Ridge) had committed

various air and water violations when it disposed of demolition debris containing asbestos by dumping the waste

into a ravine through which ran an intermittent stream.

The People of the State of Illinois filed a four-count complaint with the Board in February 2002. The complaint

arose from Blue Ridge’s May, 2000 demolition of the former dining hall at the old Bartonville Mental Health

Facility in Peoria County and Blue Ridge’s management and handling of the various demolition wastes, including

asbestos-containing wastes. The People charged Blue Ridge with various violations of the Act (Act), 415 ILCS

5/100 et. seq., and the Board’s regulations.

In an August 7, 2003 order following the People’s uncontested motion based on stipulated facts, the Board granted

for partial summary judgment as to all but three paragraphs of the second count of the Act. The undisputed facts

were that Blue Ridge acquired the Old Bartonville Mental Facility located in Bartonville, Peoria County, with the

intention of converting the dining hall into a metal fabrication shop. On May 11, 2000, after being advised by

Village of Bartonville officials that no permits were necessary, respondent commenced demolition of the dining

hall. Between May 11-17, 2000, respondent opened approximately a 40-foot hole in the east wall, removed roofing

material which had caved in, removed the rest of the roof that was near collapsing, and cut off and removed steel

pipe roof support columns from six locations within the dining hall. During these activities, respondent deposited

demolition debris from its demolition activities in a ravine adjacent to the facility. People of the State of Illinois v.

Blue Ridge Construction Corporation, PCB 02-115 (August 7, 2003), slip op. at 1.

On May 17, 2000, an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency inspector inspected the facility and obtained seven

samples of demolition materials, including insulation material from pipes within the facility. Analyses for four of

the samples showed asbestos Chrysotile concentration ranging from 20% to 40% and asbestos amosite in

concentrations ranging from 10% to 30%. Prior to starting demolition of the dining hall, respondent did not inspect

the facility for the presence of asbestos, or submit a written notification of its intention to demolish the facility.

Id.

 

The Board accordingly found that, as charged in:

Count I: respondent failed to utilize asbestos emission control methods, failed to properly

remove, handle and dispose of Regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) and other

regulated asbestos-containing material (ACM) during demolition activities causing, threatening or

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

4

allowing the emission of asbestos into the environment in violation of Section 9(a) of the Act and

Section 201.141;

Count II: a) prior to the demolition of the dining hall, respondent failed to thoroughly inspect the

facility for the presence of asbestos, including categories I and II non-friendly ACM in violation

of 40 C.F.R. 61.145(a) and 9.1(d); b) respondent failed to submit a written notification of its

intention to demolish the dining hall in violation of 40 C.F.R.(b)(1) and Section 9.1(d) of the Act;

Count III: respondent caused or allowed the open dumping of demolition debris generated by the

demolition activities within the former dining hall, including but not limited to wooden desk, pipe

material, and other debris in or near a ravine on property owned by respondent in violation of

Section 21(a), (e), (p)(1) and (p)(2) of the Act; and

Count IV: respondent caused or allowed the open dumping of demolition debris generated by its

demolition activities within and adjacent to a ravine owned by respondent so as to create a water

pollution hazard in violation of Section 12(d) of the Act.

Id.

, slip op. at 2-4.

The Board sent the parties to hearing to address the remaining alleged violations and remedy.

Id

. at 4.

In its October 7, 2004 order, the Board noted as additional stipulated facts that Blue Ridge, in compliance with all

applicable requirements, began asbestos removal and removal of waste in the ravine on April 16, 2001 and

completed it three days later. A May 15, 2001, “Notification of Demolition and Renovation” stated that the Dining

Hall site contained 1,000 cubic feet of RACM, an amount in excess of one cubic meter. After removal of material

from the ravine, soil samples there tested positive for asbestos. After removal of two inches of soil, the ravine

retested positive for asbestos and required additional clean-up. Blue Ridge spent a total of $59,965.67 to remove

asbestos from the facility and to remove waste from the ravine. On April 11, 2002, the Village Council of

Bartonville voted to reimburse Blue Ridge $56,000 “for the expenses associated with the clean-up except for the

expenses directly related to the asbestos on the pipes.” People of the State of Illinois v. Blue Ridge Construction

Corporation, PCB 02-115 (October 7, 2005), slip op. at 6-7.

After review of the record, the Board found that, as alleged in the remaining portions of Count II of the complaint,

Blue Ridge had violated the various asbestos-notification and handling requirements 40 C.F.R. 61.150(a)(1) and

Section 9.1(d)(1) of the Act. The Board then went on to consideration of penalty issues.

In determining whether to impose a civil penalty, the Board must consider specified statutory factors set forth in

Section 33(c) of the Act to determine whether a civil penalty should be imposed. The Section 33(c) factors bear

upon the reasonableness of the circumstances surrounding the violation. In determining the amount of a civil

penalty, the Board is authorized by the Act to consider a number of matters in either mitigation or aggravation of

penalty, including those specified in Section 42(h) of the Act.

The People argued that Blue Ridge has committed fourteen violations, at least six of which continued for 340 days.

The People calculate the maximum penalty allowable under Section 42(a) of the Act to be in excess of $30 million

but sought instead a penalty of $72,000. Blue Ridge sought a maximum penalty of $3,000.

Much of the parties’ disagreement on penalty issues related to Blue Ridge’s recovery of $56,000 from the Village of

the $59, 965.67 Blue Ridge spent in clean-up costs. On this issue, the Board determined:

Even if, as the People propose, this payment of $56,000 could be construed as reimbursement of the cost of

removing debris that existed before the owners purchased the facility, that removal became much more

extensive and expensive when Blue Ridge dumped a large quantity of demolition debris and RACM into

the ravine. Also, the parties have stipulated that the village reimbursed an amount $3,965.67 less than the

full cost to avoid paying expenses “directly related to the asbestos on the pipe.” There is nothing in the

record to indicate that this amount is the actual cost of cleaning up asbestos-containing pipe. It is indeed

the purpose of the Act “to assure that adverse effects upon the environment are fully considered and borne

by those who cause them.” 415 ILCS 5/2(b). Under the facts of this case, Blue Ridge has shifted costs for

which it is responsible onto the Village of Bartonville and those who provide financially for its operations.

The civil penalty must be at least $56,000 to be consistent with the fundamental principle of the Act.

Id.

,

slip op. at 19 (most citations omitted).

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

5

The Board ultimately concluded:

Because this case presents a large number of violations, a failure to exercise due diligence, and a need to

deter similar threats to the air and water of the State, the Board finds that a substantial civil penalty is

warranted in this case. The People argued that Blue Ridge’s lack of prior adjudicated violations was

irrelevant, but the Board consider this a mitigating factor and will accordingly reduce the amount of civil

penalty sought by the People. Under the circumstances of this case and after considering all of the

statutory factors, the Board will order Blue Ridge to pay a civil penalty of $66,000.

Id.

, slip op. at 20.

 

The Board’s last action in the case was to stay payment of the civil penalty at Blue Ridge’s unopposed request

during the pendancy of the appeal Blue Ridge filed in the Third District on November 15, 2005. People of the State

of Illinois v. Blue Ridge Construction Corporation, PCB 02-115 (December 16, 2004).

The Third District Order.

On appeal, Blue Ridge challenged only the Board’s $66,000 penalty. After a brief review of the facts of the case

and the Board’s order, the court’s analysis turned first to the proper standard of review. While noting that the

People, as well as Blue Ridge from time to time, had argued application of the “arbitrary and capricious” standard

of review, the court found that the appropriate standard was the less deferential “manifest weight of the evidence”

standard. Blue Ridge Construction Corp. v. IPCB and People of the State of Illinois, No. 3-04-0874 (March 30,

2006), slip op. at 5-6, citing Discovery South Group, Ltd. v. Pollution Control Board, 275 Ill. App. 3d 547, 656

N.E. 2d 51 (1995).

The court concluded that the Board’s $66,000 penalty was not against the manifest weight of the evidence:

The record shows that the Board thoroughly considered the appropriate statutory factors in calculating the

amount of the penalty, which included (1) the maximum penalty allowed; (2) aggravating and mitigating

factors; and (3) a fundamental principle of the Act that those who commit environmental damage should

bear the cost of repairing the damage. The Board’s assessment of a $66,00 penalty was considerably less

than the maximum penalty of more than $30 million, which was authorized by the Act.

Contrary to Blue Ridge’s assertion, it was not improper for the Board to consider the Village’s

reimbursement as a factor in aggravation. The Act explicitly states that the Board is “not limited to”

consideration of the five factors enumerated in section 42(h), and, in any case, the Board analyzed the

reimbursement under the factor concerning the deterrence of further violations and the enhancement of

voluntary compliance. Moreover, the Board determined that Blue Ridge’s receipt of the Village’s

reimbursement violated a fundamental principle of the Act that Blue Ridge bear responsibility for causing

the asbestos contamination of the ravine, including contamination of the preexisting debris.

Id.

, slip op at

6-7 (citations omitted).

 

Illinois Supreme Court Grants Petitions for Leave to Appeal Third District Order in

 

Town & Country

Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, County of Kankakee,

Edward D. Smith as State's Attorney of Kankakee County, the City of Kankakee, Illinois City Council,

Byron Sandberg, and Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., Nos. 101619 and 101652 (cons.) ( PLA accepted

March 29, 2006) (PCB 03-31, PCB 03-33, PCB 03-35 (cons.) (January 1, 2003)

The Illinois Supreme Court has granted two Petitions for Leave to Appeal (PLAs) the Third District Appellate

Court's decision in Town & Country Utilities, Inc., and Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC v. The Illinois Pollution

Control Board, County of Kankakee, Edward D. Smith as State’s Attorney of Kankakee County, The City of

Kankakee, Illinois City Council, Byron Sandburg, and Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. Supreme Ct. Nos.

101619, 101652 (cons.). On March 29, 2006, the Supreme Court accepted the petitions filed by both the Board and

the County of Kankakee, and consolidated the two. The parties will brief the issues on the schedule set by the

Court.

The Third District decision under review was reported in detail in

Environmental Register

No. 616, pp.3-6

(October, 2005), and that discussion is only briefly summarized below. In a September 7, 2005 final unpublished

11-page order under Supreme Court Rule 23 (155 Ill.2d R. 23), one justice concurring and one dissenting, the Third

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

6

District Appellate Court reinstated the grant by the City of Kankakee (City) of siting approval to the 2002

application for a new landfill made by Town and Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill

(collectively, Town and Country). Town & Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC v. Illinois

Pollution Control Board, County of Kankakee, Edward D. Smith as State's Attorney of Kankakee County, the City

of Kankakee, Illinois City Council, Byron Sandberg, and Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., No. 3-03-0025

(September 7, 2005) (hereinafter Town and Country I). On October 19, 2005, the Third District denied separate

petitions for rehearing filed by the Board, the County of Kankakee, and Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. The

court also denied the County's motion to publish the decision, so that the Court’s rationale and conclusions cannot

serve as precedents in future cases.

In its decision in Town and Country I, the Court affirmed the Board’s finding that the City had conducted a

fundamentally fair siting procedure under Section 39.2 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act), 415 ILCS 5/39.2

(2004). But the Court reversed the Board’s determination that the City’s finding was against the manifest weight of

the evidence as to criterion 2 of Section 39.2. In other words, the Court found the City properly found that the

proposed “facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety, and welfare will

be protected.” 415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(ii)(2004). In three consolidated third party appeals before it, the Board had

concluded that the record lacked evidence as to whether the groundwater under the proposed site was an aquifer,

rather than an aquitard. County of Kankakee and Edward D. Smith, States Attorney of Kankakee County v. City of

Kankakee, Illinois, The City of Kankakee, Illinois City Council, Town and Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee

Regional Landfill, L.L.C.; Byron Sandberg v. City of Kankakee, Illinois, The City of Kankakee, Illinois City

Council, Town and Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill, L.L.C.; Waste Management of Illinois

v. City of Kankakee, Illinois, City Council, Town and Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill,

L.L.C., PCB 03-31, PCB 03-33, PCB 03-35 (cons.) (January 1, 2003).

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Board takes issue with the standard of review employed by the Third District,

to the extent the court stated that it was reviewing not the Board's decision but rather the City's decision.

See

Town

and Country I, slip op. at 8, n.1. The County seeks review of the Third District's decision to affirm the Board's

ruling that the City proceeding was fundamentally fair.

 

Rule Update

 

Board Adopts Final Opinion and Order in Proposed New and Updated Rules for Measurement and

Numerical Sound Emissions Standards, Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 901 and 910; March 2004

Proposal Formally Withdrawn (R03-09)

On March 2, 2006, the Board adopted a final opinion and order in Proposed New and Updated Rules for

Measurement and Numerical Sound Emissions Standards, Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 901 and 910; March

2004 Proposal Formally Withdrawn (R03-09). The adopted rulemaking amended Part 901 and added a new Part

910 to the noise regulations found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Subtitle H to update sound measurement definitions and

techniques. The adopted amendments were filed with the Secretary of State’s Index department and published in

the March 24, 2006 issue of the

Illinois Register

at 30 Ill. Reg. 5594 (Part 901) and 5594 (Part 910) with a March

10, 2006, effective date.

The Board initiated this rulemaking to update noise rules the Board first adopted in the 1970’s and last updated in

1987. In Part 901, the Board replaced reference to the existing 1965 Standard Land Use Coding Manual (SLUCM)

codes with the Land-Based Classification Standards (LBCS) codes, a consistent model for classifying land uses

based on a multi-dimensional land use classification model based land classification. The changes to Section

901.104 clarify that the impulsive sound standards are based on 1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound levels. The

Board also revised the numeric standards to bring highly impulsive noise standards into conformity with the

standards set forth in Sections 901.102 and 901.103 in terms of the effective community response. The Board also

revised outdated numerical sound emission standards for property line noise sources found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Parts 901.

The new Part 910 sets forth the measurement procedures for enforcing the Board’s noise standards in Parts 900 and

901. These procedures are essentially based upon the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s noise

measurement protocols at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 951. In addition to the measurement techniques, the new Part contains

general requirements and specific instrument requirements. Appendix A includes tables (obtained from extensive

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

7

measurements) that can be used to determine the long-term background ambient noise levels in instances where

direct measurements cannot be made.

One major substantive change that the Board made at second notice to this rulemaking was to exempt the noise from

blasting at facilities operated by aggregate producers and surface coal mines. The Board found that the Board could

appropriately defer the regulation of noise emissions from blasting at aggregate and surface coal mines to the

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). This exemption is limited to impulsive sound produced by

explosive blasting activities, which are regulated by IDNR in accordance with Section 6.5 and Section 3.13 of the

Surface Coal Mining Land Conservation and Reclamation Act (225 ILCS 715/6.5 and 3.13 (2004)).

Copies of the Board’s opinion and order in R03-9 may be obtained by calling Dorothy Gunn at 312-814-3620, or by

downloading copies from the Board’s Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us.

For additional information contact the hearing officer, Marie Tipsord, at 312-814-4925; e-mail address

tipsorm@ipcb.state.il.us.

 

Board Adopts Second Notice Proposal in Technical Correction to Formulas in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214; Clean-

Up Part III, Amendments to 35 Ill Adm. Code Part 211, 218, and 219 (R04-12/20)(cons.)

 

On March 2, 2006, the Board adopted a second notice opinion and order in Technical Correction to Formulas in 35

Ill. Adm. Code 214; Clean-Up Part III, Amendments to 35 Ill Adm. Code Part 211, 218, and 219 (R04-

12/20)(consolidated). The Board’s first notice proposal was published at 29 Ill. Reg. 7418 (May 27, 2005). The

Board, in response to public comments, made a few changes to the rulemaking at second notice. The Board has sent

both rulemakings, pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/1-1

et seq.

(2004)), to the Joint

Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) for its review at the April 11, 2006, JCAR meeting.

R04-12 is a Board-initiated proposal to amend Adm. Code 214. The Board is proposing to correct technical errors

in formulas that are in the Board’s air rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214 "Sulfur Limitations." The errors appear to

have occurred when the Illinois Administrative Code was re-codified. The Board made minor, technical changes to

the proposal in response to comments filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA).

The R04-20 docket was opened for the IEPA’s January 6, 2004 rulemaking proposal. The IEPA designed the

proposal to correct, update, and clarify rules implementing federal Clean Air Act requirements for volatile organic

material (VOM) emissions reductions in the Chicago and Metro-East ozone areas. This proposal addresses capture

efficiency, carbon adsorbers and control device monitoring, screen printers, sealers and topcoats, lithographic

printing, natural gas fired afterburners, perchloroethylene dry cleaners, and motor vehicle refinishing. The IEPA

described the rule amendments as intended to benefit the regulated community by reducing the burden of, and

increasing the flexibility in, demonstrating compliance.

The proposal also makes changes to:

•

Update the test methods for capture efficiency (CE);

•

Clarify the term “carbon adsorber”;

•

Clarify requirements for screen printers;

•

Clarify categories of sealers and topcoats;

•

Clarify provisions on monitoring, applicability, equations, recordkeeping, and reporting for lithographic

printing operations;

•

Clarify that sources may turn off their natural gas fired afterburners outside the ozone season;

•

Delete the requirements applicable to perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities;

•

Delete the requirement that auto finishing shops annually re-register with Agency;

•

Delete the coating purchasing recordkeeping requirements; and

•

Correct miscellaneous grammatical and typographical errors.

During first notice the Board received comments from the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group (IERG), IEPA,

Specialty Graphic Imaging Association (SGIA), Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. (Smurfit-Stone), and the

Printing Industry of Illinois/Indiana Association (PII).

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

8

Issues raised and Board responses:

Capture Efficiency (CE) protocols in enforcement cases

 

The participants in this rulemaking have agreed that the Lower Confidence Limit (LCL) protocol alone cannot

prove a violation because the LCL will tend to understate the actual CE. Because the actual CE is therefore likely to

be greater than the LCL, a calculated LCL above the applicable CE standard demonstrates compliance. However,

because the LCL is the “floor” for CE, a calculated LCL below the required CE does not demonstrate non-

compliance. IEPA maintained that if a source uses LCL and determines that its CE appears to be below the CE

standard, the “burden the source has is providing the Agency with a solid number” using one of the other protocols.

IEPA also asserted that when the LCL is below the allowable CE limit, IEPA does not know if the source is out of

compliance. IEPA was concerned that the Board’s first notice proposal removed its authority to require sources to

use the Data Quality Objective (DQO) protocol or other CE test methods.

IEPA and IERG requested that the Board provide additional rule language concerning enforcement proceedings.

The Board made changes in response to both concerns, adding clarification language to Section 218.105(c)(2)(E).

Emission Credits and Additional Testing

IEPA and IEGR both supported the Board’s first notice language regarding testing to establish emission credits,

however both requested the addition of a Board Note to Section 218.105(c)(2)(E) to provide further clarification.

The Board added a Board Note to Section 218.105(c)(2)(E) to provide additional clarity to the proposed rule.

Emission Credits and Trading

Smurfit-Stone had argued that the LCL could be used to calculate actual seasonal emissions, just not the baseline for

the volatile organic material (VOM) Emission Reduction Market System (ERMS) (35 Ill. Adm. Code 205). In

response, IEPA stated that it had a problem with Smurfit-Stone’s position on the word “actual.” The relevant

ERMS rule (35 Ill. Adm. Code 205.300(b)(1)) requires that sources must submit “[a]ctual seasonal emissions of

VOM from the source.” According to IEPA, because the LCL underestimates CE and overestimates emissions, the

LCL does not result in the “actual seasonal emissions.”

The Board concurred with IEPA’s interpretation. None of the participants requested that the Board add any rule

language concerning the ERMS baseline/seasonal emission issue, and the Board found no reason to do so.

IEPA proposed language to the Board’s proposal that would classify DQO/LCL as an “equivalent alternative” or

“statistical analysis” instead of identifying it as a protocol.

The Board did not find a clear need to make the suggested changes and did not amend its proposed language.

Error Margin

Smurfit-Stone requested that the Board delete the reference to error margins found in Section 218.105(c)(2). IEPA

disagreed with the suggestions as unnecessary, and pointed out that the change would impact language already

approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

The Board declined to make any changes to the error margin language

Equipment Configuration

Smurfit-Stone sought to clarify that the suitability of a given CE test method or protocol might depend not only on

the process, but also on the configuration of the equipment to be tested at a particular facility. According to

Smurfit-Stone, though a process may be suitable to a test method, the equipment configuration might make the

method unsuitable. Although Smurfit-Stone believes the words “a particular process” should be interpreted to allow

consideration of facility-specific factors, Smurfit-Stone suggests adding language to avoid potential ambiguity.

IEPA did not support Smurfit-Stone’s proposed language change.

The Board agreed with Smurfit-Stone that the phrase “a particular process” may include consideration of facility-

specific factors for a particular equipment configuration, and accordingly found that the addition of Smurfit-Stone’s

proposed language was not necessary.

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

9

Carbon adsorber

IERG stated that it remains concerned that the definition of “carbon adsorber” still includes media besides carbon,

such as oxides of silicon and aluminum. IERG believes the stand-alone term “carbon adsorber” could be deceptive.

When reviewing monitoring requirements for “carbon adsorbers,” sources, IERG explained, might not be aware that

the requirements for carbon adsorbers in Parts 218 and 219 would also extend to other types of adsorbers.

The Board noted that when it promulgates regulations, the Board must assume that the regulations will be read by

those regulated. IERG’s suggested changes would effectively exempt all non-carbon adsorbers from the

requirements. The suggestion therefore runs directly counter to using this rulemaking to close the unforeseen

compliance loophole mentioned at first notice. Under these circumstances, the Board declined at second notice to

alter the definition of “carbon adsorber.”

Lithographic printing

In its comments, PII stated that lithography is different than other printing processes because lithography uses a

planographic plate to deliver an inked image to a substrate. PII is concerned about the proposed regulatory

requirements for coatings applied in the lithographic printing process under Parts 218 and 219.

PII sees inconsistencies between Part 215 for attainment areas and Parts 218 and 219 for nonattainment areas as

they apply to coatings. PII interpreted the Board note in the attainment area regulations under Section 215.204(c) to

mean that a lithographic (or flexographic or gravure) printing press that prints and applies varnish or other coatings

is not subject to the paper coating rule. Under Sections 218.204(c) and 219.204(c), however, the proposed note

specifies only that flexographic or rotogravure printing is not subject to the paper coating rule. According to PII,

this leaves lithographic printing potentially subject to two sets of regulatory requirements for a single piece of

equipment in nonattainment areas: the lithographic printing requirements of Subpart H and the coating

requirements of Subpart F in Parts 218 and 219.

In response to concerns raised by PII, IEPA explained that there are differences between what is expected of

sources in attainment areas (Part 215) and those in nonattainment areas (Parts 218 and 219). According to IEPA,

one of those differences appears in the notes under the paper coating rules. IEPA stated that the proposed

amendments to the notes in Parts 218 and 219 were intended to clarify that the exemption from paper coating

limitations applies only to fleoxgraphic and rotogravure printing,

i.e.

, not to lithographic printing.

The Board observed that flexographic and rotogravure printing are regulated differently from lithographic printing

under Subpart H. Without additional information on the history, intent, and environmental impact of the paper

coating exemption to support PII’s views, the Board concluded that the record in this rulemaking did not support

PII’s requested revisions. The Board did not make any changes to the first notice proposal.

To achieve administrative economies during the hearing process, the Board consolidated the R04-20 IEPA

rulemaking proposal with the R04-12 Board-initiated rulemaking proposal. The Board held two hearings in this

rulemaking. The first hearing was in Chicago on March 18, 2004 and the second hearing was in Springfield on May

6, 2004.

Copies of the Board’s opinion and order in R04-12/20 may be obtained by calling Dorothy Gunn at 312-814-3620,

or by downloading copies from the Board’s Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us.

For additional information contact Richard McGill at 312-814-6983; e-mail address mcgillr@ipcb.state.il.us

 

Board Adopts Final Opinion and Order in Two Dockets Amending 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.146: Proposed

Amendments to Exemptions from State Permitting Requirements (35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.146) (R05-19); and

Proposed Amendments to Exemptions from State Permitting Requirements for Plastic Injection Molding

Operations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.146) (R05-20)

On March 2, 2006 the Board adopted a final opinion and order in two dockets amending 35 Ill. Adm. Code

201.146

:

Proposed Amendments to Exemptions from State Permitting Requirements (35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.146)

(R05-19), and Proposed Amendments to Exemptions from State Permitting Requirements for Plastic Injection

Molding Operations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.146) (R05-20). Because both dockets amended the same Section in

Part 201, the Board consolidated the final text for filing purposes. In each docket, the Board adopted rules virtually

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

10

identical to the first notice proposals. The adopted amendments were filed with the Secretary of State’s Index

department and published in the March 17, 2006 issue of the

Illinois Register

at 30 Ill. Reg. 4901 with a March 3,

2006, effective date.

 

R05-19

The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group (IERG) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)

proposed the R05-19 amendments jointly on February 22, 2005. Proponents’ stated purpose was to eliminate

permitting delays for minor projects having little environmental or regulatory impact.

The amendments adopted in R05-19 add four new categories to the existing list of 59 exemptions from state air

permit requirements in Section 201.146 as follows:

Exemption for replacing or adding air pollution control equipment at existing emission units

This exemption applies to existing units, which are permitted and have operated in compliance for the past year.

The new pollution control equipment must maintain or improve air pollution control over the prior levels of target

pollutants, and not result in a net increase in emissions of any collateral pollutant. This exemption does not apply if

the installation or operation of the new or replacement pollution controls would trigger or change applicability of

different regulatory requirements. Finally, required monitoring equipment must be carried over to the replacement

control device and must incorporate current technology.

Exemption for sources with federally enforceable state operating permits (FESOP) having a low potential to emit

This provision affects some projects at FESOP sources that do not fit under any of the existing listed exemptions

under Section 201.146 and that are still insignificant from a permitting standpoint. Under this second exemption,

permits are unnecessary for projects at minor FESOP sources with a low potential to emit (less than 0.1 pound per

hour or 0.44 tons per year) any regulated air pollutant absent air pollution equipment from the new or modified unit

that have no outstanding compliance or enforcement issues. Also, raw materials and fuels that cause or contribute

to emissions must not contain a hazardous air pollutant equal to or greater than 0.01 percent by weight. This

exemption is not available to a source that must meet New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and New Source

Review (NSR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) or if outstanding compliance or enforcement issues

exist.

Exemption for minor sources that are not subject to the Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) or FESOP

requirements

This third exemption is limited to sources with the low potential to emit any regulated air pollutant absent air

pollution equipment from the new or modified unit that have no outstanding compliance or enforcement issues.

This exemption is available for minor sources that have a slightly greater potential to emit (up to 0.5 pounds per

hour), so long as the facility notifies the IEPA of its intent to construct or install a new emissions unit or

modification. Only after notification can the facility begin construction, installation, or modification. This

provision requires permitting if the additional emissions from the project could change the sources’ status with

respect to its potential to emit. This exemption is also not available to a source that must meet NSPS and NSR

requirements under the CAA.

Insignificant activities exemption

The fourth exemption creates a list of permit exempt insignificant activities similar to those for CAAPP sources.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.210 through 210.211. Owners or operators must notify the IEPA when adding

insignificant activities. Facilities must still comply with otherwise applicable emission standards or other regulatory

requirements.

R05-20

Docket R05-20 was opened for the April 19, 2005 proposal filed by the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois

(CICI). CICI’s stated purpose in proposing the exemption was to eliminate the burden of state construction and

operating permitting of low emitting emission units and activities for both the IEPA and owners and operators of

PIM operations.

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

11

The adopted amendment added one category for plastic injection molding (PIM) operations to the existing list of

permit exemptions in Section 201.146. CICI’s stated purpose in proposing the exemption was to eliminate the

burden of state construction and operating permitting of low emitting emission units and activities for both the IEPA

and owners and operators of PIM operations. The adopted rule language limits the exemption to facilities that use

5,000 tons or less of resin annually in the PIM process. The 5,000-ton limit applies facility-wide rather than to each

piece of PIM equipment.

The Board held two hearings on the R05-19 IERG/IEPA proposal in April and June, 2005, and in the R05-20 CICI

proposal on July 1 and 15, 2005.

Copies of the Board’s opinion and order in R05-19 or R05-20 may be obtained by calling Dorothy Gunn at 312-

814-3620, or by downloading copies from the Board’s Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us.

For additional information contact Amy Antoniolli at 312/814-3665; e-mail address: antonioa@ipcb.state.il.us .

 

Board Grants Request for Expedited Consideration and Adopts First Notice Opinion and Order in Revisions

to Water Quality Standards for Total Dissolved Solids in the Lower Des Plaines River for Exxon Mobil Oil

Corporation: Proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.445 (R06-24)

On March 2, 2006, the Board accepted for hearing, and granted a motion to expedite, a joint rule proposal filed by

the ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (ExxonMobil) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on

February 7, 2006. The proposal addresses wastewater discharges of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) from the

ExxonMobil Joliet Refinery. The refinery draws from and discharges to the Des Plaines River, approximately 1,000

feet east of the Interstate 55 Bridge; the rule proposes to relax the water quality standards in that stretch of the river

during the months of November through April in each year. In summary, the proposal’s purpose is to allow

ExxonMobil to lawfully reduce air emissions as required by a federal consent decree by addition of pollution

control equipment that will increase TDS loadings in its wastewater discharge.

The Board adopted a first notice opinion and order, without commenting on the merits of the proposal, and filed the

rulemaking for first notice publication with the Secretary of State’s Index department. The proposal was published

in the

Illinois Register

on March 31, 2006 at 30 Ill. Reg. 5957. The Board presently intends to schedule only one

hearing during the 45-day first notice period.

This site-specific rulemaking proposal would set 1,686 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) as the TDS levels for both

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic life Use Waters General Use Waters. This 1,686 mg/L standard would

apply instead of the general use standard of 1,000 mg/L found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208 and the secondary

contact use standard of 1,500 mg/L found in 302.407.

ExxonMobil owns and operates the Joliet Refinery (refinery) located in Channahon Township on a 1,300-acre tract

of land in unincorporated Will County. The site is adjacent to Interstate 55 at the Arsenal Road exit, approximately

50 miles southwest of Chicago. The refinery employs more than 500 full-time employees, and approximately 100

additional ExxonMobil employees who provide regional support services are also located at the refinery.

On October 11, 2005, ExxonMobil was a party to a consent decree involving the United States of America, as well

as the States of Illinois, Louisiana, and Montana. Under that consent decree, ExxonMobil must, among other

things, make substantial investments in air emissions reductions at the Joliet Refinery. The consent decree calls for

the use of a wet gas scrubber in addition to added technology, which will contribute to additional sulfate and TDS to

the wastewater treatment system.

ExxonMobil has asserted that because of occasional observed TDS violations in the Des Plaines River and in light

of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.102(b)(9), the IEPA could not lawfully issue the wastewater construction permit needed

by ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil and the IEPA believe that Board adoption of the proposed 1,686 mg/L TDS standard

would allow for IEPA issuance of a permit approvable by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Copies of the Board’s opinion and order in R06-24 may be obtained by calling Dorothy Gunn at 312-814-3620, or

by downloading copies from the Board’s Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us.

For additional information contact John Knittle at 217/278-3111; e-mail address: knittlej@ipcb.state.il.us.

 

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

12

Board Grants IEPA Motion to Supplement the Record in NOx Trading Program: Amendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Part 217 (R06-22)

 

On March 16, 2006, the Board granted a motion filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to

supplement its rulemaking proposal in NOx Trading Program: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 217 (R06-

22). The Board accepted the IEPA’s January 19, 2006 proposal for hearing by order of February 2.

In its February 21, 2006 motion to supplement the rulemaking proposal, the IEPA requested that the Board accept

two documents into the record. The first document is a petition for review filed in the State of North Carolina v.

EPA, No. 05-1244 (D.C. Cir.) on July 8, 2005; the second document is the decision entered in State of West

Virginia v. EPA, 362 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Board did not receive a response to the motion to supplement.

In its order, the Board granted the IEPA motion without comment. The Board reserved ruling on the March 13,

2006 motion for expedited review filed by the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group (IERG) pending receipt of

any responses to the IERG motion.

Copies of the Board’s opinion and order in R06-22 may be obtained by calling Dorothy Gunn at 312-814-3620, or

by downloading copies from the Board’s Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us.

For additional information contact John Knittle at 217-278-3111; e-mail address knittlej@ipcb.state.il.us

 

Board Accepts IEPA Proposal for First Notice Publication Under Section 28.5 of the Act in Proposed New 35

Ill. Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions from Large Combustion Sources (Mercury) (R06-25)

On March 16, 2005, the Board adopted a first notice opinion and order, without commenting on the merits of the

proposal, in Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225 Control Of Emissions From Large Combustion Sources

(Mercury) (R06-25). This rulemaking, filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) under the

“fast track” rulemaking authority of Section 28.5 of the Act, seeks to add a new Part 225 to the Board’s air

regulations to address mercury emissions from large combustion sources. The proposal was published in the March

31, 2006 issue of the

Illinois Register

at 30 Ill. Reg. 5957.

The IEPA Proposal

On January 5, 2006, Governor Rod Blagojevich announced his intent to have the IEPA propose rules requiring

Illinois coal-fired electrical generating plants to reduce mercury emissions by an average of 90% by July 2009. In

the Statement of Reasons accompanying its March 14, 2006 proposal, the IEPA stated that this proposal was

intended to meet certain obligations of the State of Illinois under the Clean Air Act, 42 USC § 7401

et seq

.

Specifically, the proposed rule is designed to satisfy Illinois' obligation to submit a State Implementation Plan to

address the requirements of the Clean Air Mercury Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 28606, and to address the applicable

requirements of Section 9.10 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/9.10). If adopted, beginning July 1,

2009, IEPA’s proposed rule would require Illinois coal-fired electrical generating units (EGUs) that serve a

generator greater than 25 megawatts producing electricity for sale to begin to utilize control technology for mercury

as necessary to achieve the numerical standards set by the proposed rule.

The regulations propose to provide new and existing sources with two alternative mercury emission standards to

demonstrate compliance. The first alternative allows a source to comply with a mercury emission standard of

0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output for each EGU. In the alternative, sources may control emissions by

a minimum of 90% from input mercury levels. In addition, through December 31, 2013, companies with several

sources with EGUs may utilize averaging demonstrations among the sources. Those sources that have no sister

plants are grouped into a co-op so that they may also average among the listed facilities. However, every source in

the averaging demonstration must attain at least a 75% reduction of input mercury or 0.020 lb mercury/GWh gross

electrical output. This proposal also sets forth permitting, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements

for affected sources.

March 16, 2006 Board Order

The Board issued an order on March 16, 2006, its first regularly scheduled meeting following receipt of the IEPA

proposal. Consistent with the requirements of Section 28.5 of the Act, the Board adopted an order causing first

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

13

notice publication of the proposal without merits. The Board also granted IEPA motions accompanying the

proposal, including an IEPA motion that, for budgetary reasons, all hearings be held in Springfield, and if not, that

the first be in Chicago.

Following the tight hearing timetable required under Section 28.5 of the Act, the Board has established the

following hearing schedule (in which hearings will be continued from day to day until the business is completed)

First hearing will be begin on May 8, 2006, at 1:00 pm

Assembly Hall, Concourse Level

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Chicago IL

Second hearing, if necessary, will begin on June 5, 2006, at 1:00 pm

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Office Building

Training Room, 1214 West

1021 North Grand Avenue Eat, North Entrance

Springfield, IL

Third hearing, if necessary, will begin on June 19, 2006, at 10:00 am

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Office Building

Training Room, 1214 West

1021 North Grand Avenue Eat, North Entrance

Springfield, IL

Prefiling requirements for testimony and questions as well as other procedural details are set out in a March 16,

2006 hearing officer.

Ruling Reserved on March 15, 2006 Motions

The Board’s March 16 order reserved ruling on three motions filed March 15, 2005: 1) Dynegy, Midwest

Generation, and Southern Illinois Power Cooperative's Motion to Reject Regulatory Filing, 2) Ameren Energy

Generating Company, Ameren Energy Resources Generating Company, and Electric Energy, Inc.'s Objection to

Use of Section 28.5 Fast Track Procedures for Consideration of Mercury Proposal, and 3) Dominion Kincaid, Inc.'s

Motion for the Board to Reject the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's Proposal to Add Mercury Rules

Under Section 28.5 Fast-Track Rule Making Procedures. The March 16 hearing officer order specified that any

response to the motions must be filed by March 29, 2006, and any replies to the responses by April 5, 2006 (the

mailbox rule of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101 .300(c) does not apply).

Copies of the March 16 orders of the Board and hearing officer in R06-25 may be obtained by calling Dorothy

Gunn at 312-814-3620, or by downloading copies from the Board’s Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us.

For additional information contact Marie Tipsord at 312/ 814-4925; email address tipsordm@ipcb.state.il.us.

 

Board Actions

 

 

March 2, 2006

Springfield, Illinois

 

Rulemakings

R03-9 In the Matter of: Proposed New and Updated Rules for Measurement and

Numerical Sound Emissions Standards Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 901

and 910 – The Board adopted a final opinion and order in this rulemaking which

amends the Board’s noise pollution regulations.

 

4-0

R, Noise

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

14

R04-12

R04-20

(cons.)

In the Matter of: Technical Correction to Formulas in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 214

“Sulfur Limitations”; In the Matter of: Clean-Up Part III, Amendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Part 211, 218, and 219 – The Board adopted a second notice

proposal to amend the Board’s air regulations.

 

4-0

R, Air

R05-19 In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments to Exemptions from State Permitting

Requirements (35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.146) – The Board adopted a final opinion

and order in this rulemaking which amends the Board’s air quality standards

regulations.

 

4-0

R, Air

R05-20 In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments to Exemptions From Permitting

Requirements for Plastic Injection Molding Operations Code 201.146 – The

Board adopted a final opinion and order in this rulemaking which amends the

Board’s air quality standards regulations.

 

4-0

R, Air

R06-24 In the Matter of: Revisions to Water Quality Standards for Total Dissolved

Solids in the Lower Des Plaines River for Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation:

Proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.445 – The Board accepted for hearing

petitioner’s February 7, 2006 proposal to amend the Board’s water pollution

control regulations. The Board granted petitioner’s motions to waive

requirements to submit 200 signatures and for expedited review. The Board also

requested that petitioner address the “published study or report” requirement of

35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.210(c).

4-0

R, Water

 

Adjusted Standars

AS 06-2 In the Matter of: Petition of BP Products North America, Inc. for an Adjusted

Standard Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 721.122 – The Board dismissed this

petition for an adjusted standard for petitioner’s failure to timely publish notice

of the filing of the petition by advertisement in a newspaper of general

circulation in the area likely to be affected, as required by Section 28.1 of the

Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(d)(1) (2004)).

4-0

Air

 

Decisions

PCB 06-42 People of the State of Illinois v. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. – In this land

enforcement action concerning a Whiteside 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) (2004)), accepted a stipulation and

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

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

 

4-0

L-E

 

PCB 06-133 People of the State of Illinois v. City of Flora – In this land and water

enforcement action concerning a Clay 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) (2004)), accepted a stipulation and

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

$9,600, and to cease and desist from further violations.

4-0

L,W-E

 

 

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

15

Motions and Other Matters

PCB 04-134 People of the State of Illinois v. Interstate Brands Corporation – Upon receipt of a

proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to request

relief from the hearing requirement in this air enforcement action involving a

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

notice.

 

4-0

A-E

PCB 05-49 Morton F. Dorothy v. Flex-N-Gate Corporation – The Board granted

complainant’s motion to reconsider. The Board, however, upheld its October 20,

2005 ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the respondent on counts II

through VI and directed the hearing officer to proceed to hearing on count I of

the complaint.

 

4-0

A&L-E

PCB 05-157

Grand Pier Center L.L.C. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co.

as subrogee of Grand Pier Center L.L.C. v. River East L.L.C., Chicago Dock and

Canal Trust, Chicago Dock and Canal Company, Kerr-McGee Chemical L.L.C.

– The Board denied complainants’ motion to reconsider its’ January 5, 2006

Board order.

 

4-0

Citizens

L-E

PCB 06-33 People of the State of Illinois v. J&S Companies, Inc. and First Choice

Construction, Inc. – The Board denied complainant’s separate motions for

default against each respondent.

 

4-0

L-E

PCB 06-48 People of the State of Illinois v. STS Consultants, Ltd. – Upon receipt of a

proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to request

relief from the hearing requirement in this public water supply enforcement

action involving a Will County facility, the Board ordered publication of the

required newspaper notice.

 

4-0

PWS-E

PCB 06-131 Wesley Brazas, Jr. v. Mr. Jeff Magnussen, President Village of Hampshire and

IEPA – The Board found that all claims other than those that concern the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s issuance of the December 9, 2005 National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to the Village of Hampshire are

frivolous, and dismissed those claims. The Board accepted the matter for

hearing, finding that the filing of the amended petition restarted the decision time

clock.

 

4-0

P-A, NPDES

PCB 06-138 Brenda George Bryant 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

Massac County facility.

 

4-0

UST Appeal

90-Day Ext.

 

PCB 06-139 Richard Gooden v. IEPA – The Board accepted for hearing this underground

storage tank appeal involving a Ford County facility.

 

4-0

UST Appeal

 

PCB 06-140 W.R. Meadows, Inc. v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day 4-0

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

16

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

Kane County facility.

UST Appeal

90-Day Ext.

 

March 16, 2006

Chicago, Illinois

 

Rulemakings

R06-22 In the Matter of: NOx Trading Program: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part

217 – The Board granted petitioner’s February 21, 2006 motion to supplement

the rulemaking proposal. No action was taken on the motion for expedited

review filed by the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group on March 13, 2006.

 

4-0

R, Air

R06-25 In the Matter of: Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions

from Large Combustion Sources (Mercury) – The Board accepted for hearing

petitioner’s March 14, 2006 proposal to amend the Board’s air pollution control

regulations. The Board granted petitioner’s motions to waive copy requirements.

The Board denied in part petitioner’s motion to hold the required hearings in

Springfield. The Board will hold at least one hearing in the Chicago area and per

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s request the first hearing will be

scheduled in Chicago. The Board took no action on the motions filed March 15,

2006.

4-0

R, Air

 

Administrative Citations

AC 04-75 IEPA v. Charles L. Parker – The Board entered an interim opinion and order

finding respondent violated Sections 21(p)(1), (p)(3) and (p)(7) of the Act (415

ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (p)(3), (p)(7) (2004)), and ordered respondent to pay a civil

penalty of $4,500. The Board ordered the Clerk of the Board and the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency to file within 14 days a statement of hearing

costs, supported by affidavit, with service on respondent. Respondent may

respond to the cost statement within 14 days of service.

 

4-0

AC 05-18 IEPA v. William Shrum – The Board entered an interim opinion and order

finding respondent violated Sections 21(p)(1) and (p)(4) of the Act (415 ILCS

5/21(p)(1), (p)(4) (2004)) and assessing a penalty of $4,500. The Board ordered

the Clerk of the Board and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to file

within 14 days a statement of hearing costs, supported by affidavit, with service

on respondent. Respondent may respond to the cost statement within 14 days of

service.

 

4-0

AC 05-33 IEPA v. Leo and Debra Harn – In response to a joint stipulation and settlement

agreement in this administrative citation action involving a McDonough County

facility, the Board found that respondent Leo Harn had violated Section 21(p)(1)

of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2004)) and ordered

respondent to pay a civil penalty of $1,500. The Board also granted the parties’

joint motion to dismiss the petition for review and the alleged violation of 415

4-0

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

17

ILCS 5/21(p) (7) (2004). The Board also amended the caption to reflect Leo

Harn’s status as the only remaining respondent in this action following Debra’s

death.

 

AC 05-63 IEPA v. John R. Malloch – The Board entered an interim opinion and order

finding respondent violated Sections 21(p)(1), (p)(3) and (p)(7) of the Act (415

ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (p)(3), (p)(7) (2004)), and ordered respondent to pay a civil

penalty of $4,500. The Board ordered the Clerk of the Board and the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency to file within 14 days a statement of hearing

costs, supported by affidavit, with service on respondent. Respondent may

respond to the cost statement within 14 days of service.

 

4-0

AC 06-21 County of Jackson v. Dan Kimmel – The Board accepted for hearing this

amended petition for review of an administrative citation against this Jackson

County respondent.

 

4-0

AC 06-22 IEPA v. Harold Graves – The Board accepted for hearing this petition for review

of an administrative citation against this Shelby County respondent.

 

4-0

AC 06-23 IEPA v. Harold Graves – The Board accepted for hearing this petition for review

of an administrative citation against this Shelby County respondent.

4-0

 

Decisions

PCB 05-204 People of the State of Illinois v. Lake Street Development, L.L.C. – 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) (2004)), accepted a stipulation and

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

$25,000, and to cease and desist from further violations.

 

4-0

W-E

PCB 06-15 People of the State of Illinois v. Illinois-American Water Company – In this

public water supply enforcement action concerning a Will 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) (2004)), accepted a

stipulation and settlement agreement, and ordered the respondent to pay a total

civil penalty of $7,500, and to cease and desist from further violations. Illinois-

American Water Company was also ordered to pay a cash contribution in the

amount of $5,000 to the Village of Homer Glen, for use in constructing an off-

road multi-use trail system and trailhead, to perform an environmental

compliance audit valued at $5,000 at one of its facilities in the Chicago

Metropolitan area and submit the results to the complainant as supplemental

environmental projects.

4-0

PWS-E

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

18

 

PCB 06-134 People of the State of Illinois v. Village of Hainesville – In this public water

supply 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) (2004)), accepted a stipulation and

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

$3,000, and to cease and desist from further violations.

4-0

PWS-E

 

Motions and Other Matters

PCB 03-1 Illinois State Toll Highway Authority v. IEPA – The Board granted this DeKalb

County facility’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this underground storage tank

appeal.

 

4-0

UST Appeal

 

PCB 04-7 People of the State of Illinois v. 4832 S. Vincennes, L.P. and Batteast

Construction Company, Inc. – In this air enforcement action concerning a Cook

County facility, the Board granted relief from the hearing requirement of Section

31(c)(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2004)),

accepted a stipulation and settlement agreement as to the Batteast Construction

Company (Batteast), and ordered Batteast to pay a total civil penalty of $1,500,

and to cease and desist from further violations. The Board also denied the

complainant’s motion for summary judgment against respondent 4832 S.

Vincennes, L.P., an Illinois limited partnership and directed the remaining parties

to proceed to hearing.

 

3-1

Moore

dissented

A-E

PCB 05-220 Kenneth E. Medema, Jr. v. TNT Logistics North America – The Board granted

complainant’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The amended

complaint is due on or before April 17, 2006. The Board denied as moot

complainant’s February 10, 2006 motion that the hearing officer provide an

expedited ruling on the motion for leave to amend the complaint

instanter

. In

addition, to allow the response time to expire, the Board reserved ruling on

respondent’s February 28, 2006 motion to include communications.

 

4-0

Citizens

N-E

PCB 06-1 Robert F. Kassela, Jr. and Kellie R. Kassela v. TNT Logistics North America -

The Board granted complainants’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

The amended complaint is due on or before April 17, 2006. The Board denied as

moot complainants’ February 10, 2006 motion that the hearing officer provide an

expedited ruling on the motion for leave to amend the complaint

instanter

. In

addition, to allow the response time to expire, the Board reserved ruling on

respondent’s February 28, 2006 motion to include communications.

 

4-0

Citizens

N-E

PCB 06-49 People of the State of Illinois v. Premier Waste & Recycling, Inc. – Upon receipt

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

request relief from the hearing requirement in this land enforcement action

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

newspaper notice.

 

4-0

L-E

PCB 06-76 Gateway FS, Inc. v. IEPA – The Board accepted for hearing this underground

storage tank appeal involving a Monroe County facility.

4-0

UST Appeal

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

19

 

  

PCB 06-82 People of the State of Illinois v. Barger Engineering, Inc. – The Board denied

respondent’s motion for dismissal of this air enforcement action involving a

White County facility.

 

4-0

W-E

PCB 06-85 Prosise Oil Company (#922355) 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 Jefferson County facility.

 

4-0

UST Appeal

 

PCB 06-86 Prosise Oil Company (#982486) 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 Jefferson County facility.

 

4-0

UST Appeal

 

PCB 06-87 Wayne & Dennis Swanson 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 Kane County facility.

 

4-0

UST Appeal

 

PCB 06-88 Biggs Brothers Service Center v. IEPA – The Board accepted for hearing this

underground storage tank appeal involving a St. Clair County facility.

 

4-0

UST Appeal

 

PCB 06-137 City of Springfield, Illinois v. IEPA – The Board ordered petitioner to file an

amended petition to cure noted deficiencies, noting that the filing of an amended

petition would restart the decision time clock. The Board granted petitioner’s

motion to incorporate the records of prior Board proceedings.

 

4-0

PWS-V

PCB 06-142 Magie Bros./Penreco v. IEPA – The Board ordered petitioner to file an amended

petition to cure noted deficiencies, accompanied by an attorney’s appearance on

or before April 10, 2006, or the petition would be subject to dismissal.

4-0

P-A,

NPDES

 

PCB 06-143 People of the State of Illinois v. Astec Mobile Screens, Inc. – The Board

accepted for hearing this Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enforcement

action involving a site located in Whiteside County.

 

4-0

RCRA-E

PCB 06-144 People of the State of Illinois v. Golden Bag Company – The Board accepted for

hearing this air enforcement action involving a site located in Kane County.

 

4-0

A-E

PCB 06-145 Arlyn D. Fisk d/b/a Arlyn Fisk’s Service Center v. IEPA – The Board accepted

for hearing this underground storage tank appeal involving a Randolph County

facility.

 

4-0

UST Appeal

 

PCB 06-146 Midwest Generation, L.L.C., Waukegan Generating Station v. IEPA – The

Board accepted for hearing this permit appeal involving a Lake County facility.

4-0

P-A, Air

 

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

20

New Cases

 

 

March 2, 2006 Board Meeting

06-138

Brenda George Bryant 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 Massac County facility.

 

06-139

Richard Gooden v. IEPA – The Board accepted for hearing this underground storage tank appeal involving

a Ford County facility.

06-140

W.R. Meadows, 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 Kane County facility.

 

AC 06-026

IEPA v. Marshall and Juanita Garrison – The Board accepted an administrative citation against these

Jefferson County respondents.

 

March 16, 2006 Board Meeting

06-141

Flagg Creek Water Reclamation District v. Village of Hinsdale, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

Greater Chicago, Illinois Department of Transportation, and DuPage County – No action taken.

 

06-142

Magie Bros./Penreco v. IEPA – The Board ordered petitioner to file an amended petition to cure noted

deficiencies, accompanied by an attorney’s appearance on or before April 10, 2006, or the petition would be subject

to dismissal.

06-143

People of the State of Illinois v. Astec Mobile Screens, Inc. – The Board accepted for hearing this Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act enforcement action involving a site located in Whiteside County.

06-144

People of the State of Illinois v. Golden Bag Company – The Board accepted for hearing this air

enforcement action involving a site located in Kane County.

06-145

Arlyn D. Fisk d/b/a Arlyn Fisk’s Service Center v. IEPA – The Board accepted for hearing this underground

storage tank appeal involving a Randolph County facility.

06-146

Midwest Generation, L.L.C., Waukegan Generating Station v. IEPA – The Board accepted for hearing this

permit appeal involving a Lake County facility.

 

AC 06-027

County of LaSalle v. Jerry Koetz – The Board accepted an administrative citation against this LaSalle

County respondent.

AC 06-028

County of Macon, Illinois v. Onyx Valley View Landfill – The Board accepted an administrative

citation against this Macon County respondent.

AC 06-029

County of Macon, Illinois v. Onyx Valley View Landfill – The Board accepted an administrative

citation against this Macon County respondent.

 

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

21

4/06/06

11:00 AM

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Videoconference

Chicago/Springfield

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

And

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

Oliver Holmes Conference

Springfield

04/19/06

10:00 AM

R06-21

In the Matter of: Organic Material

Emissions Standards and Limitations for

the Chicago and Metro-East Areas:

Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Code

218 and 219

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

Suite 11-512

100 West Randolph

Chicago

04/20/06

9:00 AM

AC 05-40

IEPA v. Northern Illinois Service

Company

State of Illinois Rockford

Regional Office,

Conference Room A

4302 North Main Street

Rockford

4/20/06

11:00 AM

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 09-040

100 W. Randolph Street

Chicago

4/25/06

10:00 AM

R04-25

In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments

to Dissolved Oxygen Standard 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 302.206

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency,

North Entrance, TQM Room

1000 E. Converse

Springfield

5/4/06

11:00 AM

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

Springfield

05/8/06

1:00 PM

R06-25

In the Matter of: Proposed New 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions

From Large Combustion Sources

(Mercury)

If necessary, may be continued

day-to-day

 

James R. Thompson Center

Assembly Hall

Concourse Level

100 W. Randolph

Chicago

05/17/06

9:00 AM

R06-21

In the Matter of: Organic Material

Emissions Standards and Limitations for

the Chicago and Metro-East Areas:

Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Code

218 and 219

Madison County Administration

Building

Room 108

157 North Main

Edwardsville

5/18/06

11:00 AM

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Chicago

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 09-040

100 W. Randolph Street

Chicago

---

Environmental Register – March 2006

22

5/23/06

10:00 AM

R06-23

In the Matter of: Standards and

Requirements for Potable Water Well

Surveys and for Community Relations

Activities Performed in Conjunction with

Agency Notices of Threats from

Contamination Under PA 94-134: New

35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1505

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room

1021 North Grand Avenue East

North Entrance

Springfield

6/1/06

11:00 AM

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Videoconference

Chicago/Springfield

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

And

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

Oliver Holmes Conference

Springfield

06/5/06

1:00 PM

R06-25

In the Matter of: Proposed New 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions

From Large Combustion Sources

(Mercury)

If necessary, may be continued

day-to-day

 

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency Office Building

Training Room 1214 West

1021 N. Grand Avenue East,

North Entrance

Springfield

5/18/06

11:00 AM

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Chicago

James R. Thompson Center

Conference Room 09-040

100 W. Randolph Street

Chicago

06/19/06

10:00 AM

R06-25

In the Matter of: Proposed New 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions

From Large Combustion Sources

(Mercury)

If necessary, may be continued

day-to-day

 

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency Office Building

Training Room 1214 West

1021 N. Grand Avenue East,

North Entrance

Springfield

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Environmental Register Comment Card

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

The Illinois Pollution Control Board is an independent five-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

contains

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

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274