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
On November 2, 2006, the Illinois Pollution Control Board adopted for second
notice a proposal to control mercury emissions from coal-fired electric
generating units (EGUs) in Illinois. This rulemaking generated the most
significant public interest in recent Board history. The Board received over
7,300 public comments, held 18 days of hearings, and entered over 100 exhibits
into the record in this proceeding.
This proceeding began on March 14, 2006, when the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) filed the original proposal, which was docketed as In
the Matter of: Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions from
Large Combustion Sources (Mercury). The IEPA initiated this proceeding to
satisfy the State’s obligation to submit a state implementation plan addressing the
requirements of the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) and Section 9.10
of the Environmental Protection Act. The rules proposed by the IEPA would
require Illinois coal-fired EGUs to reduce mercury emissions by an average of 90
percent by July 2009, which is greater than the mercury reductions required under the federal CAMR.
The second notice proposal adopted by the Board requires 90 percent reduction of mercury emissions by 2009, but
includes additional flexibility for EGUs to achieve the emissions reductions. The second notice proposal adds a
temporary technology based standard (TTBS) and a multi-pollutant control system (MPS) that can be used to
achieve compliance at a later date. The TTBS may be used to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards
if the EGUs are equipped and operated with control systems which include halogenated carbon sorbent injection
and either a cold side electrostatic precipitator or a fabric filter. The MPS is a voluntary provision that allows
Illinois units to comply with mercury reductions using co-benefits from reductions in SO
2
and NO
x
emissions.
After reviewing the entirety of the record the Board found that the proposal, as amended at second notice, is
technically feasible and economically reasonable. The Board found that the rule allows flexibility to achieve
compliance and will provide health benefits for the citizens of Illinois.
During the 45-day second-notice period, the Board will accept comments only from the legislative Joint Committee
on Administrative Rules.
Opinions and orders of the Board, hearing transcripts, and other documents in rulemaking records are posted
through the Clerk’s Office On-Line (COOL) on the Board’s Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us
. Documents may be
downloaded from that Web site without charge. Hard copies may be obtained for $.75 per page from the Clerk’s
office at 312-814-3629
On behalf of my Board colleagues and our staff, I wish you a happy holiday season and a good new year. We look
forward to working with you in 2007 to develop sound environmental policies for the people of the state.
Sincerely,
G. Tanner Girard, Ph.D.
Acting Chairman
Environmental Register – November 2006
1
Inside This Issue:
FEDERAL UPDATE
P. 1
R
ULE UPDATE
P. 1
A
PPELLATE UPDATED
P. 9
B
OARD ACTIONS
P. 12
N
EW CASES
P. 17
B
OARD CALENDAR
P. 18
Back to top
Federal Update
United States Environmental Protection Agency Adopts Amendments to the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
On November 8, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 65573) the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) adopted amendments to the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations to implement the Ground Water Rule.
The Ground Water Rule is intended to provide for increased protection against microbial
pathogens in public water systems that use ground water sources. The Safe Drinking Water Act
requires the USEPA to promulgate National Primary Drinking Water Regulations requiring
disinfection as a treatment technique for all public water systems, including surface water systems
and, as necessary, ground water systems.
Instead of requiring disinfection for all ground water systems, USEPA’s Ground Water Rule
establishes what USEPA calls a “risk-targeted” approach to target ground water systems that are
susceptible to fecal contamination. The occurrence of fecal indicators in a drinking water supply
is an indication of the potential presence of microbial pathogens that may pose a threat to public
health. This rule requires ground water systems that are at risk of fecal contamination to take
corrective action to reduce cases of illnesses and deaths due to exposure to microbial pathogens.
This final rule is effective on January 8, 2007. The compliance date, unless otherwise noted, for
the rule requirements is December 1, 2009.
For further information contact Crystal Rodgers, Standards and Risk Management Division,
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-4607M), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-5275; e-
mail address: rodgers.crystal@epa.gov
. For general information, contact the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline, telephone number: (800) 426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern time.
The Board will include any necessary amendments to Board rules resulting from this federal
action in a future SDWA identical in substance rulemaking pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 17.5 of
the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/7.2, 17.5(2006)).
Back to top
Rule Update
Board Adopts Second Notice Opinion and Order in Proposal of Vaughan & Bushnell
Manufacturing Company of Amendment to a Site-Specific Rule 35 Ill Adm. Code 901.121
(R06-11)
On November 2, 2006, the Board adopted a second notice opinion and order in Proposal of
Vaughan & Bushnell Manufacturing Company of Amendment to a Site-Specific Rule 35 Ill Adm.
Environmental Register – November 2006
2
Code 901.121
(R06-11). The Board did not make any changes to its July 20, 2006 first notice
proposal, published in the
Illinois Register
on August 11, 2006 at 30 Ill. Reg.13293. The Board
sent this rulemaking, as required by the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/1-1
et
seq.
(2004)), to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules for review at its December 12, 2006
meeting.
This rulemaking is based on a proposal filed by the Vaughan & Bushnell Manufacturing
Company (V&B). The company seeks to amend its existing site-specific noise rule to allow V &
B to lawfully extend the operational levels of its forging facility located at the intersection of
Davis and Main Streets, Bushnell in McDonough County. The proposed amendments will allow
V&B to operate 24-hours a day.
In its proposal for the rulemaking and at the hearing in this rulemaking, V&B stated that it needed
an extension on its operational hours to allow it to operate a third shift at its facility. V&B stated
that it produces hammers, hatchets, heavy striking tools, and pry bars, and has contracts with
distributors that require timely delivery of its products. V&B asserted that the predominate
industrial character of the area surrounding the facility creates heavy truck, vehicle and train
traffic that combine to create an abundance of noise far in excess of the noise created by V&B at
its facility.
The Board held a hearing in this rulemaking on March 7, 2006 in the City Hall of Bushnell. V&B
provided testimony at the hearing to explain why it was technically and economically not feasible
to equip its facility with additional noise abatement technology. V&B stated that it is the largest
employer in the city of Bushnell and last year paid $137,000,000 for water, gas and electricity, as
well as $39,000 in property taxes. Only V&B submitted public comment during the first notice
period.
Copies of the Board’s opinion and order in R06-11 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 Adopts Second Notice Opinion and Order in Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225
Control of Emissions from Large Combustion Sources (Mercury) (R06-25)
On November 2, 2006, the Board adopted a second notice opinion and order in Proposed New 35
Ill. Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions from Large Combustion Sources (Mercury) (R06-25).
As detailed below, the Board made significant changes to the proposal it adopted for first notice,
most notably the addition of a new Section 225.233 “Multi-Pollutant Standard” (MPS). The
Board sent this rulemaking, as required by the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS
100/1-1
et seq.
(2004)), to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules for review at its
December 12, 2006 meeting.
The Board received 7,286 public comments in this rulemaking. These comments ranged from
lengthy post-hearing comments from the participants to postcards and notes from citizens of the
State. The overwhelming majority of the comments supported the adoption of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency’s (IEPA) proposal. Generally, the supporters of the rule
discussed the issues concerning health effects from ingestion of methylmercury. Many noted that
coal-fired plants are the main stationary source of mercury in the State. The supporters urged the
Board to adopt the proposal submitted by the IEPA. Among the public comments were a
substantial number of post cards, which echoed the concerns about the health effects of mercury
ingestion. Generally the opponents relied on economic reasons for their opposition to the
proposal. They expressed concerns about the increased costs of generating electricity in Illinois
and the impact on consumers and businesses as a result. The opponents urged the Board to adopt
the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) rule instead of the IEPA’s proposal.
Environmental Register – November 2006
3
After carefully reviewing the entirety of the record, the Board found that the proposal as amended
at second notice is technically feasible and economically reasonable. Further, the Board found
that the Board’s authority extends to including the MPS in the proposal for second notice. In
making these determinations the Board examined several issues and those will be summarized in
the following paragraphs.
Technical Feasibility
The Board considered arguments that the proposal’s preferred control technology will not achieve
the standard established in the rule. The Board disagreed and found that the use of halogenated
activated carbon injection (HCI) has been demonstrated to achieve the established standards.
Further, the Board found that the size of the specific collection area (SCA) does not impact
mercury reduction with the use of HCI. The Board found that the duration of the testing used to
demonstrate the feasibility of HCI is sufficient and that an absolute emissions limit is appropriate.
The Board considered arguments that the measurement of mercury removal cannot be
accomplished to the level required to prove compliance with the standards. The Board noted that
the measurement requirements in the proposal are substantially identical to the measurement
requirements for CAMR developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). Many of the issues concerning the measurement requirements are issues that relate to
the underlying federal requirements; therefore, the Board deferred to the USEPA’s decision to
adopt the requirements. In addition, the Board found that the testimony offered in opposition to
the measurement requirements was not persuasive. Therefore the Board found that the
measurement of mercury removal can be accomplished to the level required to prove compliance
with the standards.
The Board next considered the issue of flexibility in the proposal, including averaging, the
temporary technology based standards (TTBS), and the MPS option. The Board found that
averaging, both on a system wide and a 12-month rolling basis, adds flexibility to the proposal
that helps establish technical feasibility of the proposal. The Board also found that the TTBS will
add flexibility for compliance; and the addition of the TTBS does not equate with the conclusion
that the underlying standard is not technically feasible. As to the MPS, the Board found that the
MPS offers yet another alternative for achieving compliance and will result in additional removal
of pollutants not regulated in this proceeding.
Economic Reasonableness
In reviewing the economic reasonableness of the proposal, the Board included arguments on
deposition, modeling, health effects, and fish advisories. The Board did so because the parties
attack the economics of the proposal using these areas. The first issue considered by the Board is
whether the deposition and the modeling of the deposition of mercury support the emissions
standards in the proposal. The Board found that they do. The Board found that relying on studies
not specific to Illinois is legitimate and something the Board has done in the past. Further, the
Board found that the modeling method relied upon by the IEPA’s witnesses is an appropriate
method and supports the proposal. The Board found that the record indicates that lowering
emissions of mercury in Illinois will impact the amount of mercury deposited in Illinois waters.
Therefore, the Board found that the deposition and modeling evidence in the record support the
adoption of the proposed mercury emissions standards.
The Board next considered arguments concerning whether the reduction of mercury emissions
will result in health benefits to Illinois citizens. The Board found that the evidence in the record
indicates that health benefits can be expected. Therefore, the Board found that the expected health
benefits support the adoption of the proposed mercury emissions standards.
The Board considered arguments that reduction of mercury emissions will not impact fish
advisories in Illinois. The Board disagreed and finds that reduction of mercury emissions may
lead to delistings from the Special Mercury Advisory. Therefore, the Board found that the
potential delistings support the adoption of the proposed mercury emissions standards.
Environmental Register – November 2006
4
The Board considered arguments that the cost of compliance does not justify the adoption of the
mercury emissions standards. The Board found that the incremental cost differences between
compliance with CAMR and with the proposal, along with the significant reduction of mercury
emissions, cause this proposal to be economically reasonable. Therefore, the Board found that the
record supports a finding that the rule is economically reasonable.
Legal Issues
The Board considered arguments challenging the Board’s authority to add the MPS to the
rulemaking at second notice. The Board found that the MPS is a logical outgrowth of the
proposal and as such is not contrary to either Illinois or federal administrative law. The Board has
found the MPS to be economically reasonable and technically feasible; and therefore, the addition
of the MPS does not violate Section 27 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/27 (2004)). Further the Board
found that the MPS does not violate Section 10 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/10 (2004)) because of the
voluntary nature of the MPS. The Board also found that adding the MPS to the rule does not
violate the Supremacy Clause or the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Finally,
the Board found that the proposal does not violate the Due Process Clause of the United States
Constitution.
Kincaid
The Board addressed concerns from Kincaid that due to the utility’s unique nature in Illinois, the
proposal is not technically feasible or economically reasonable for Kincaid. The Board agreed
that Kincaid is uniquely situated and suggested that Kincaid pursue other regulatory relief.
Federal Requirements
The Board considered arguments that the proposal, with the TTBS and the MPS, will not be able
to meet the requirements established by CAMR. The Board found that the proposal, with the
TTBS and the MPS, can meet the federal requirements.
Other miscellaneous changes
Additionally, the Board made a number of nonsubstantive changes to the text of the rule to clarify
the rule language and to ensure consistency within the rule and with the general style standards of
the Board and the IAPA.
Copies of the Board’s opinion and order 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 Adopts Identical in Substance Rules in UIC Corrections, USEPA Amendments (July
1, 2005 through December 31, 2005; In the Matter of: RCRA Subtitle D Update, USEPA
Amendments (July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and August 1, 2005); In the Matter
of: RCRA Subtitle C Update, USEPA Amendments (July 1, 2005 through December 31,
2005 and August 1, 2005) (R06-16, R06-17, R06-18 consolidated)
On November 16, 2006, the Board adopted a final opinion and order in UIC Corrections, USEPA
Amendments (July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005; In the Matter of: RCRA Subtitle D
Update, USEPA Amendments (July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and August 1, 2005); In
the Matter of: RCRA Subtitle C Update, USEPA Amendments (July 1, 2005 through December
31, 2005 and August 1, 2005) (R06-16, R06-17, R06-18 consolidated). This identical-in-
substance rulemaking consists of three separate consolidated dockets. The rulemaking updates the
Illinois underground injection control, municipal solid waste landfill, and hazardous waste
regulations to incorporate revisions to the federal regulations. In response to public comments,
the Board made changes to the April 6, 2006 proposal for public comment that was published at
30 Ill. Reg. 6675-7710. The Board made some substantive changes to allow the continued use of
Environmental Register – November 2006
5
the Board’s Clerk’s Office On Line (COOL) filing system and any existing electronic document
receiving system for the maximum time allowed by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) under the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR).
Additionally, as allowed under Section 7.2 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act), 415 ILVS
5/7.2, the Board has extended the filing deadline for this complex and voluminous rulemaking
three times, most recently in this final order until December 26, 2006. The other two extensions
were detailed in the June and September 2006 issues of the
Environmental Register
. The Board-
USEPA RCRA memorandum of agreement requires the Board to hold the adopted rulemaking for
review by USEPA for 30 days after adoption, after which the Board can file final amendments
with the Secretary of State’s Index Department for publication in the
Illinois Register
.
The federal amendments that prompted this action were made by the USEPA during the period of
July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, as well as March 23, 2006 (amendments affecting
earlier hazardous waste amendments). This proceeding adopts amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
702 through 705, 720 through 726, 728, 733, 738, 810, and 811. It further includes the addition
of new 35 Ill. Adm. Code 727. The federal actions included in the adopted amendments are
summarized below.
Amendment of the “Universal Waste” Rule to Include Mercury-Containing Devices--Parts 703,
720, 721, 724, 725, 728, and 733
On August 5, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 45508), USEPA amended the Universal Waste Rule to included
mercury-containing devices. Items that are designated “universal waste,” and which are managed
in accordance with the Universal Waste Rule, are not subject to regulation as hazardous waste.
USEPA explained that common mercury-containing equipment (MCE) includes thermostats,
barometers, manometers, flow meters, pressure relief gauges, water treatment gauges, gas safety
relays, and electronic mercury switches that are in common industrial, commercial, governmental,
and household use.
The Board previously included MCE in the Universal Waste Rule in Standards for Universal
Waste Management (35 Ill. Adm. Code 703, 720, 721, 725, 728, and 733), R05-8 (Apr. 7, 2005).
The Board adopted that rule on a petition filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) pursuant to Section 22.23b of the Act (415 ILCS 5/22.23b (2004)). That IEPA proposal
was based on amendments to the Universal Waste Rule that USEPA proposed on June 12, 2002
(67 Fed. Reg. 40507) and that resulted in the federal amendments now under consideration by the
Board.
Since the June 2002 proposal, USEPA modified aspects of the amendments. Principally, USEPA
changed its definition of MCE to include thermostats, which were formerly a separate category of
universal waste. USEPA also reworded segments of the definition to clarify its intent as to what
is included as MCE. USEPA further made a series of minor changes in the MCE management
and transportation requirements of the final rule. Important among these changes is a new
definition of “ampule,” added provisions for MCE in which the mercury is not contained in an
ampule, and standards for removal of the mercury-containing component from the MCE.
“Standardized Permits” for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities--Parts 702, 703, 705,
720, 721, and 727
The USEPA action of September 8, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 53420) modified the hazardous waste
permit requirements. USEPA changed the federal permit rules to allow what it called a
“standardized permit” for certain hazardous waste management facilities. The facilities eligible
for coverage under the Standardized Permit Rule are facilities that are otherwise subject to the
RCRA permit requirements and which generate and then store or non-thermally treat hazardous
waste on-site in containers, tanks, or containment buildings. Also subject to the Standardized
Permit Rule are facilities that receive waste for storage or treatment from a generator that is under
the same ownership as the receiving facility. USEPA’s goal is to streamline the RCRA permit
process to allow the subject facilities to more easily obtain and modify permits.
Environmental Register – November 2006
6
Amendments to the “Headworks” Exemption from the Definition of Hazardous Waste--
Section 721.103
The USEPA action of October 4, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 59402), expanded an existing exemption
from the definition of hazardous waste. The exemption, called the “headworks” exemption,
relates to mixtures of listed hazardous waste (from subpart D of 40 CFR 261, which corresponds
with Subpart D of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 721) and wastewater that go to a regulated wastewater
treatment system. Certain concentration and other limits apply to the mixtures of waste in the
wastewater. USEPA changed a few aspects of the headworks exemption rule, including the
mixtures that are subject to the rule, the locations acceptable for sampling and measurement, and
the scope of the
de minimis
exemption.
USEPA added benzene and 2-ethoxyethanol to the list of solvents whose mixtures with
wastewater are exempted from the definition of hazardous waste. Certain limitations apply to the
exemption of benzene-containing wastewater. Also exempted are scrubber waters from the
combustion of any of the exempted solvents (including combustion of the solvents previously
exempted). USEPA further amended the headworks exemption to allow measurement of solvent
levels at the headworks of the wastewater treatment plant to determine the applicability of the
exemption, provided that the wastewater treatment is subject to federal Clean Air Act standards
and the generator submits an analysis plan for approval. Finally, USEPA broadened the
applicability of the
de minimis
exemption to listed wastes beyond discarded commercial products
and to non-manufacturing facilities.
Finalized Hazardous Waste Combustor Rule--Parts 703, 720, 724, 725, and 726
The USEPA action of October 12, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 59402), amended the Hazardous Waste
Combustor Rule (HWC). The HWC Rule applies to various entities that burn hazardous waste as
a fuel: incinerators; cement kilns; lightweight aggregate kilns; industrial, commercial, and
institutional boilers and process heaters; and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. USEPA has
identified these entities as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), which makes them
subject to the maximum achievable control technology under national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) pursuant to section 112(d) of the federal Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7412(d) (2003)). The amendments included Phase I replacement standards and Phase II
standards. The substantive HWC Rule is a NESHAP codified by USEPA as subpart EEE of 40
C.F.R. 63. The hazardous waste regulations are a bridge to that NESHAP.
Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule--Parts 702 through 705, 720 through 728, 730, 733,
and 739
The USEPA action of October 13, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 59848) established the Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CMERR). The CMERR sets standards for the filing of documents in
various federal program areas in an electronic format. While the CMERR does not require the
filing of documents in an electronic format, it does impose minimum requirements on documents
that are filed in such a format and on the electronic document receiving systems used to receive
them. The CMERR imposes requirements on electronic filings submitted to USEPA and on
USEPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) that receives them, as well as on any electronic
document filings submitted to the states and any systems used by the states to receive those
filings.
The CMERR appears in a new part of the USEPA regulations, 40 C.F.R. 3. The object of the
CMERR is to provide for filing of documents in an electronic format and to assure that documents
filed in such a format have the same probative effect as a signed paper document. Thus, USEPA’s
emphasis is on assuring the authenticity, dependability, and integrity of documents filed in an
electronic format. To this end, the CMERR imposes requirements on six aspects of any electronic
document receiving system used by a state: (1) system security; (2) the electronic signature
method; (3) registration of persons submitting electronic documents; (4) the signature and
certification scenario; (5) the generation of a transaction record; and (6) system archives.
See
59
Environmental Register – November 2006
7
Fed. Reg. at 59855. USEPA included a listing for its bases for evaluation of a state electronic
document receiving system in the amendments. (
see
59 Fed. Reg. at 59867-73)
The Board has incorporated the new federal CMERR into two nearly identical provisions at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 720.104, of the hazardous waste and underground injection control regulations, and
35 Ill. Adm. Code 810.105, of the municipal solid waste landfill rules.
As to rules for filing documents with the Board or the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA), the adopted amendments clarify that it is entirely up to the Board or the IEPA whether to
set up procedures for electronic filing under the Sections. Federal 40 C.F.R. 3.10 sets forth the
basic USEPA electronic document filing requirements: (1) the electronic document must be filed
in a USEPA-approved electronic document receiving system; and (2) the electronic document
must bear required electronic signatures.
To direct attention to the federally-derived electronic document filing requirements and further
assure their applicability under all of the federally-derived segments of the rules for which the
State must submit to USEPA for program authorization, the Board has added a brief requirement
in each of Parts 702 through 705, 721 through 728, 730, 733, 738, and 739, in the hazardous
waste rules, and in each of Parts 811 through 814, in the municipal solid waste landfill rules. The
brief requirement states that the filing of any document pursuant to any provision of the Part as an
electronic document is subject to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.104 or 810.105, as appropriate. The
Board inserted these brief requirements as a separate Section in the general provisions of each
Part, where possible. Alternatively, the Board inserted the brief requirement as a subsection of a
statement of scope, purpose, and applicability of the Part. The only exception as to placement of
this brief requirement is in Section 811.112(h). 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.112 is derived from 40
C.F.R. 258.29. USEPA incorporated the CMERR into the municipal solid waste landfill
regulations by the addition of a new subsection (d) to 40 C.F.R. 258.29. The Board added
subsection (h) to Section 811.112 to more closely follow the federal structure.
In adopting these rules, the Board underscored that adoption of Sections 720.104 and 810.105 or
any procedures to implement the Section is not intended to limit authority the Board or IEPA may
have under the Act to accept electronic filings. For some time, the Board has been conducting a
pilot program to develop sufficient information and experience to propose workable rules, and has
reserved a procedural rule docket. Amendments to the Board's Procedural Rules to Accommodate
Electronic Filing: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101-130, R04-8 (Aug. 21, 2003). The Board presently has
no projected date for issuance of a proposal, given the Board’s heavy rulemaking docket for
calendar years 2006 and 2007.
Copies of the Board’s opinion and order in R06-16/17/18 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 Michael J. McCambridge at 312-814-6924; e-mail address
mccambm@ipcb.state.il.us
Board Accepts Proposal for Hearing in Triennial Review of Sulfate and Total Dissolved
Solids Water Quality Standards: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.102(b)(6),
302.102(b)(8), 302.102(b)(10), 302.208(g), 309.103(c)(3), 405.109(b)(2)(4)(A),
409.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100(d): Repealer of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 406.203 and Part 407; and
Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(h) (R07-9)
On November 16, 2006, the Board accepted for hearing a proposal filed by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to amend the Board’s water quality regulations. The
proposal, filed by the IEPA on October 23, 2006, seeks to update existing water quality standards
(WQS) for sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS), by amending 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 302,
309, 405, 406, and 407 of the Board’s water and mine-related pollution rules.
Environmental Register – November 2006
8
In filing this proposal the IEPA stated that the proposal fulfills the requirements of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251-1387, sections 101-607 of which are also
known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 303(c) of the CWA requires the states to conduct
a “triennial water quality standards” review. 33 USC Sec. 1313(c)(1). States must revise and
update water quality standards to ensure that standards are protective of public health and welfare,
enhance the quality of water and promote the purposes of the CWA. 33 USC Sec. 1313 (c)(2a).
The statement of reasons explains that the proposal seeks to refine existing standards “based on
the best available scientific knowledge”. The Board adopted water quality standards for sulfate
and total dissolved solids or “TDS” in 1972 to protect aquatic life and agricultural uses without
scientific studies to determine appropriate values.
See
In the Matter Water Quality Standards
Revisions, R71-14. This presented difficult compliance issues for coal mines whose effluents are
often high in sulfate. Thus, the Board adopted standards for sulfate and chloride for mine
discharges.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code Subtitle D. In order to remedy the deficiency in the 1972
rulemaking and provide a scientific justification for sulfate water quality standards, the Illinois
EPA engaged in a multi-year project researching the toxicity of sulfate to aquatic life and
livestock.
Based on the conclusion of these studies, the Agency proposal seeks to:
1. update the sulfate water quality standard for aquatic life (allowing 500-
2,5000 mg/l depending on hardness and chloride in the water body) (Stat.
of Reas. at 9);
2. update the sulfate water quality standard for livestock watering (2,000 mg/l with
averaging available) (Stat. of Reas. at 9-10);
3. repeal the TDS WQS as unnecessary after the amendment of the sulfate WQS. (TDS is
the sum of dissolved substances in water, dominated by the common ions of sulfate,
chloride, sodium, calcium carbonate and magnesium in various proportions. New
research indicates that the toxicity of each constituent, rather than the sum of all, is the
essential factor to protection of aquatic life.) Stat. of Reas. at 10-11;
4. amend the mixing regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.102 to allow mixing in 7Q1.1
zero flow streams to dischargers demonstrating adequate upstream dilution exists in the
receiving stream at time of discharge. (This reflects IEPA practice of “granting wet
weather discharges [from mines] allowed mixing for sulfate and chloride depending upon
the upstream flows”.) Stat. of Reas. at 11; and
5. delete portions of the existing mine waste rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Subtitle D, Parts
406,407 that relate to sulfates and chlorides. As a result, mine permits will be based on
the WQS at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Subtitle C, Part 300 WQS (Stat. of Reas. at 11-12).
The IEPA asserts that it held stakeholders’ meetings in January 2004 and April 2006, and that
updated draft rules were sent to stakeholders for comment on July 31, 2006.
As to economic reasonableness and technical feasibility of the proposal, the IEPA underscores
that the proposal contains science-based standards that for most dischargers “will allow attainment
of water quality standards without the implementation of additional management practices or
process alternatives.” Although the IEPA believes a small number of existing mine may need to
employ addition controls to meet WQS-based permit limits, the IEPA notes that it has been
“proactive in getting information to these discharges that will help achieve compliance.” Finally,
the IEPA anticipates that, at a considerable cost savings, the news standards will eliminate
virtually all petitions from industrial and municipal discharges for site-specific WQS relief
concerning sulfate and TSS.
In its November 16, 2006 order, the Board also directed the IEPA to provide additional
information in support of its proposal, namely the Board requested more information on the
testimony that will be presented at the hearings and requested that the IEPA address the
Environmental Register – November 2006
9
applicability of, or provide the information requested in, the “published study or report”
requirement of Section 102.202(e) of the Board’s procedural rules. The Board’s hearing officer is
currently in the process of scheduling hearings on this proposal.
Copies of the Board’s opinion and order in R07-9 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 Marie Tipsord at 312/ 814-4925; email address
tipsordm@ipcb.state.il.us.
Appellate Updated
Third District Reverses Board’s Decision in County of Kankakee, Illinois, Edward D. Smith,
Kankakee County State’s Attorney, Byron Sandburg and Waste Management of Illinois, Inc
v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, City of Kankakee, Illinois, Kankakee Regional Landfill,
LLC and Town & Country Utilities, Inc., 3d Dist., Nos. 3-04-0271, 3-04-0285, 3-04-0289
(cons.)(November 11, 2006) (reversing PCB 04-33, PCB 04-34, PCB 04-35 (cons.) (March 18,
2004))
The Board and the Third District Appellate Court have twice reviewed decisions by the City of
Kankakee (City) concerning applications by Town & Country Utilities Inc. and Kankakee
Regional Landfill, LLC. (hereinafter, collectively, T&C) to develop a new municipal solid waste
landfill of approximately 400 acres with a waste disposal footprint of 236 acres and an estimated
service life of 30 years. In its recent ruling in the second-filed appeal, the Third District again
disagreed with the Board’s conclusions. Both cases raise important questions concerning proper
interpretation of both the site location suitability local application and decision process under
Section 39.2 of the Environmental Protection Act, (Act), 415 ILCS 5/39.2, and the Board’s review
of local decisions under the appeal procedures of Section 40.1 of the Act. 415 ILCS
5/40.1(2004).
In a November 11, 2006 final 14-page unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 (155
Ill.2d R. 23), one justice dissenting, the Third District Appellate Court reversed the Board’s
decision in County of Kankakee, Illinois, Edward D. Smith, Kankakee County State’s Attorney,
Byron Sandburg and Waste Management of Illinois, Inc v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, City
of Kankakee, Illinois, Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC and Town & Country Utilities, Inc., 3d
Dist., Nos. 3-04-0271, 3-04-0285, 3-04-0289 (cons.).(November 11, 2006) (hereinafter T&C II
(Third Dist. 2006)). In its March 18, 2004 decision, the Board had reversed the August 19, 2003
decision by the City of Kankakee, granting site location suitability approval to T&C. 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.; Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. the City of Kankakee,
Illinois City Council, Town and Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill, L.L.C.;
and County of Kankakee, Illinois and Edward D. Smith, Kankakee County State's Attorney v.
City of Kankakee, Illinois, The City of Kankakee, Illinois City Council, Town and Country
Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill, L.L.C. PCB04-33, PCB 04-34, PCB 04-35 (cons.)
(March 18, 2004). (hereinafter T&C II (IPCB 2004)).
The Court’s most recent decision in T&C II
reversed the Board’s decision upholding the City’s
decision. The Court also reversed the City’s decision on T&C’s 2003 application. But, as a result
of the same court’s ruling in a prior appeal, T & C currently has a valid siting approval for the
proposed landfill based on its 2002 application. 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 T&C I (Third Dist 2005)).
This decision, appealed by the Board and others, is itself
under review by the Illinois Supreme Court. Town & Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee
Environmental Register – November 2006
10
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.) (petitions for
leave to appeal accepted November 23, 2005 and December 28, 2005).
The import of the decision in T&C II (Third Dist. 2006)
is perhaps best understood by a quick
review of the decision in T&C I (Third Dist 2005).
T&C I (Third Dist 2005)
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 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). T&C I (Third Dist 2005)
. 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.
T&C filed its initial siting application with the City on March 10, 2002. The City approved the
siting application on August 10, 2002. On January 9, 2003, the Board reversed the City's grant of
siting. The Board held that the City's finding that T&C's proposed landfill was so located,
designed, and proposed to be operated to protect public health, safety, & welfare was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. 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) (hereinafter T&C I
(IPCB 2003)). The Board concluded that the record lacked evidence as to whether the
groundwater under the proposed site was an aquifer, rather than an aquitard.
In its decision in T&C I (Third Dist 2005)
, 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, reinstating the City's grant of T&C's 2002 siting application. 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 so doing, the Third District stated that it was not reviewing the Board's
decision, but rather the City's decision, effectively cutting the Board out of the Act's siting
scheme.
See
T&C I (Third Dist 2005)
slip op. at 8, n.1.
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. The County of Kankakee (County) seeks review of the Third District's
decision to affirm the Board's ruling that the City proceeding was fundamentally fair. The parties
are presently briefing the issues.
T&C II (Third Dist. 2006)
While its appeal of City’s initial decision was still pending in the Third District in T&C I (Third
Dist 2005), T&C filed a second siting application with the City on March 7, 2003. The second
application incorporated the 2002 application by reference, but also characterized the site as
sitting atop an aquifer, addressed the groundwater evaluation shortcomings consistent with the
Board’s finding in T&C I (IPCB 2003).
The City approved the 2003 siting application on August
18, 2003. The Board, in its 37-page opinion & order in T&C II (IPCB 2004)
, affirmed the City's
decision to approve the 2003 siting application.
Environmental Register – November 2006
11
On appeal of the Board's decision, the petitioners, including the County & Waste Management of
Illinois (WMI) argued that the Board erred in upholding the City's siting approval decision
because (1) T&C was barred from filing the 2003 siting application by Section 39.2(m) of the Act;
(2) the 2003 application did not meet all of the Section 39.2(a) siting criteria; and (3) the local
siting proceedings were fundamentally unfair. 415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(m). In T&C II (Third Dist.
2006), agreeing with petitioners’ arguments on the first ground above, the Third District reversed
the Board's decision.
Section 39.2(m) of the Act provides that an "applicant may not file a request for local siting
approval which is substantially the same as a request which was disapproved pursuant to a finding
against the applicant under any of the criteria (i) through (ix) of subsection (a) of this Section
within the preceding 2 years." T&C II (Third Dist. 2006)
, slip op. at 2. The court found that T&C
was barred from filing its 2003 siting application with the City because that application violated
Section 39.2(m). 2.
Id
. at 8.
On appeal,, the petitioners first argued that the 2003 application was barred by Section 39.2(m) of
the Act because the 2002 application was "disapproved" by the Board in T&C I (IPCB 2003)
, and
that the 2002 and 2003 siting applications were substantially similar. The Board and the other
petitioners argued that the Board's reversal in T&C I (IPCB 2003)
was not a "disapproval" within
the meaning of Section 39.2(m). However, the court, applying a
de novo
standard of review, held
that the Board erred in finding that the Board did not "disapprove" of the 2002 application in T&C
I (IPCB 2003). According to the court, if the General Assembly "had intended that only a
disapproval from a local siting authority would preclude the filing of a new application, it would
have provided for such a requirement in section 39.2(m)." T&C II (Third Dist. 2006)
, slip op. at
10. The court concluded that the Board's reversal of the City's grant of siting in T&C I (IPCB
2003) "constituted a disapproval within the plain meaning of section 39.2(m)."
Id
.
Because the Board had held that Section 39.2(m) did not apply because the 2002 application was
not "disapproved" by the City, the Board’s T&C II (IPCB 2004)
decision did not address whether
the 2003 siting application was "substantially the same" as the 2002 application. But, having
found that the Board had "disapproved" the 2002 siting application within the meaning of Section
39.2(m), the court addressed "whether the 2003 application, which was filed within two years of
the 2002 application, was barred on the ground that the applications were substantially similar."
T&C II (Third Dist. 2006)
, slip op. at 11. Applying the manifest weight of the evidence standard,
the court held that the acknowledged differences between the two applications concerning
hydrogeologic data "pale in comparison to the similarities" between the two applications.
Id.
at
14. The court focused on how both applications were the same regarding such uncontested items
as the site's legal description, size, capacity, waste footprint, tonnage of waste received,
stormwater management plan, closure and post-closure plan, leachate collection system, gas
management and monitoring system, final contours and cover configuration, etc.
Id.
at 13-14.
The court concluded that the Board "manifestly erred" in ruling that Section 39.2(m) did not apply
to the 2003 application. Having ruled that Section 39.2(m) barred the 2003 application, the court
reversed the Board's T&C II (IPCB 2004)
decision affirming the City and the City's corresponding
grant of siting. T&C II (Third Dist. 2006)
, slip op. at 14.
The parties are still considering whether they will petition the Illinois Supreme Court for leave to
appeal the T&C II (Third Dist. 2006)
decision.
Environmental Register – November 2006
12
Board Actions
November 2, 2006
Via Videoconference
Springfield and Chicago, Illinois
Rulemakings
R06-11
In the Matter of: Proposal of Vaughan & Bushnell Manufacturing Company of
Amendment to a Site-Specific Rule 35 Ill. Adm. Code 901.121 – The Board
adopted a second notice opinion and order in this rulemaking to amend an
existing site-specific noise rule, as requested.
4-0
R, Noise
R06-25
In the Matter of: Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions
From Large Combustion Sources (Mercury) – The Board adopted a second
notice opinion and order in this rulemaking to amend the Board’s air pollution
control regulations. The second notice rule requires compliance beginning
July 1, 2009 with a mercury emission standard of 0.00801lb/gwh or a 90%
reduction from input mercury. The rule also includes a temporary technology
based standard, and a multi-pollutant control system.
4-0
R, Air
Administrative Citations
AC 06-21
County of Jackson v. Dan Kimmel
– In response to a joint stipulation and
settlement agreement in this administrative citation action involving a Jackson
County facility, the Board found that respondent 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 respondent’s petition for review and the alleged violation
of 415 ILCS 5/21(p) (7) (2004.
4-0
AC 06-55
County of Wayne v. Julian Buchanan
– The Board granted the parties’ joint
motion for withdrawal of administrative citation and closed the docket.
4-0
AC 07-12
IEPA v. Francis E. Morris
– The Board denied respondent’s motion to dismiss
the administrative citation and accepted for hearing this petition for review of an
administrative citation against this Gallatin County respondent.
4-0
AC 07-13
Chicago Department of Environment v. Mr. Bult’s (Liberty Waste Transfer
Station) – The Board dismissed this administrative citation due to complainant’s
failure to file proof of timely service.
4-0
AC 07-14
County of LaSalle v. Eric and Sarah Cook
– Because the Board has already
properly entered a default order, the Board declined to accept the late-filed
petition and directed respondents to pay the $3,000 civil penalty by
4-0
Environmental Register – November 2006
13
November 20, 2006 as directed in the Board’s October 19, 2006 order.
AC 07-17
IEPA v. Lee County Landfill SC, L.L.C. and Dave Geier
– The Board found that
these Lee County respondents violated Section 21(o)(5) of the Act (415 ILCS
5/21(o)(5) (2004)), and ordered respondents to pay a civil penalty of $500
.
4-0
Decisions
PCB 06-3
People of the State of Illinois v. Lake Egypt Water and Wastewater District
– In
this public water supply enforcement action concerning a Williamson 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 $6,400, and to cease and desist from further
violations.
4-0
W-E
PCB 06-35
People of the State of Illinois v. Quantum Color Graphics, L.L.C.
– 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, and ordered the respondent to pay a total civil penalty of
$44,000, and to cease and desist from further violations.
4-0
A-E
PCB 06-178
People of the State of Illinois v. Galena Hillside Homes, Inc.
– In this water
enforcement action concerning a Jo Daviess 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
$10,000, and to cease and desist from further violations.
4-0
W-E
Motions and Other Matters
PCB 96-98
People of the State of Illinois v. Skokie Valley Asphalt, Co., Inc., Edwin L.
Frederick, Jr., individually and as owner and President of Skokie Valley Asphalt
Co., Inc., and Richard J. Frederick, individually and as owner and Vice President
of Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc. – The Board denied respondents’ motion for
sanctions and ordered the parties to proceed expeditiously to hearing.
4-0
W-E
PCB 05-49
Morton F. Dorothy v. Flex-N-Gate Corporation
– The Board granted
respondent’s motion to sanction complainant. Respondent’s alternative motion
for summary judgment on count I was denied at this time. In accordance with
sanctions and for its procedural deficiencies, the Board struck complainant’s
September 19, 2006 amended complaint.
4-0
Citizens
A&L-E
PCB 06-40
Dalee Oil Company v. EPA
– The Board granted this Washington County
facility’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this underground storage tank appeal.
4-0
UST Appeal
Environmental Register – November 2006
14
PCB 07-5
City of Des Plaines (formerly A&K Mini Mart) 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 facility in Cook
County.
4-0
UST Appeal
PCB 07-17
Dale L. Stanhibel v. Tom Halat d/b/a Tom’s Vegetable Market
– The Board
directed complainant file proof of service of the complaint upon respondent by
Monday, November 27, 2006. If complainant fails to file proof of service on or
before that date, the Board may dismiss this proceeding.
4-0
Citizens
A&N – E
PCB 07-24
Webb & Sons, Inc. v. IEPA
– The Board accepted for hearing this underground
storage tank appeal involving a Coles County facility.
4-0
UST Appeal
PCB 07-26
People of the State of Illinois v. Palos Township
– Upon receipt of a proposed
stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to request relief from
the hearing requirement in this water enforcement action involving a Cook
County facility, the Board ordered publication of the required newspaper notice.
4-0
W-E
PCB 07-27
Village of Wilmette v. IEPA
– The Board accepted for hearing this underground
storage tank appeal involving a Cook County facility.
4-0
UST Appeal
PCB 07-28
People of the State of Illinois v. Provena Hospitals d/b/a Provena United
Samaritans Medical Center and Resurrection Catholic Cemetery Association of
Danville, Illinois – The Board accepted for hearing this land enforcement action
involving a site located in Vermilion County.
4-0
L-E
PCB 07-29
People of the State of Illinois v. Pinnacle Genetics, L.L.C. and Professional
Swine Management, L.L.C. – The Board accepted for hearing this water
enforcement action involving a site located in McDonough County.
4-0
W-E
PCB 07-31
Celozzi-Ettelson Chevrolet, 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 DuPage County facility.
4-0
UST Appeal
90-Day
Ext.
Environmental Register – November 2006
15
November 16, 2006
Chicago, Illinois
Rulemakings
R06-16
R06-17
R06-18
(cons.)
In the Matter of: UIC Update, USEPA Amendments (July 1, 2005 through
December 31, 2005; In the Matter of: RCRA Subtitle D (Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill) Update, USEPA Amendments (July 1, 2005 through December 31,
2005); In the Matter of: RCRA Subtitle C (Hazardous Waste) Update, USEPA
Amendments (July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005) – The Board first
extended the filing deadline until December 26, 2006. Then, the Board adopted
a final opinion and order in this consolidated “identical-in-substance”
rulemaking amending the Board’s underground injection control, municipal solid
waste landfill, and hazardous waste regulations.
4-0
R, Land
R06-26
In the Matter of: Proposed New Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SO
2
, NO
x
Annual and NO
x
Ozone Season Trading Programs, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225,
Subparts A, C, D and E – The Board granted the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency motion to withdraw the October 11, 2006 motion to amend
rulemaking proposal.
4-0
R, Air
R07-9
In the Matter of: Triennial Review of Sulfate and Total Dissolved Solids Water
Quality Standards: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.102(b)(6),
302.102(b)(8), 302.102(b)(10), 302.208(g), 309.103(c)(3), 405.109(b)(2)(4)(A),
409.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100(d): Repealer of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 406.203 and Part
407; and Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(h) – The Board accepted for
hearing petitioner’s October 23, 2006 proposal to amend the Board’s land
pollution control regulations. The Board granted petitioner’s motion to waive
requirement to submit 200 signatures. The Board also requested that petitioner
address the deficiencies noted in the order in writing prior to any hearing
scheduled in this proceeding at such time as directed by the hearing officer.
4-0
R, Water
Adjusted Standards
AS 06-4
In the Matter of: Petition of Big River Zinc Corporation for an Adjusted
Standard Under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.131(c) – The Board granted this St. Clair
County petitioner a “waste delisting” adjusted standard, with conditions, for
electric arc furnace dust (EAFD) from the primary production of steel (K061
under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 721.132) (EAFD) received by Big River Zinc
Corporation (BRZ) at its zinc refinery (2401 Mississippi Avenue, Sauget, St.
Clair County, Illinois) (BRZ Facility). The Board found when placed directly
into the BRZ Facility’s Leaching, Solvent Extraction, Electrowinning (LSXEW)
zinc recycling process is feedstock, upon receipt by BRZ at the BRZ facility,
EAFD is not a solid waste.
4-0
Land
Environmental Register – November 2006
16
Administrative Citations
AC 05-40
IEPA v. Northern Illinois Service Company
– The Board entered a final opinion
and order requiring respondent to pay hearing costs of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency and the Board in the amount of $406.50 and a civil penalty of
$3,000. This order follows the Board's interim order of September 21, 2006,
which found that this respondent had violated Sections 21(p)(1) and (p)(7) of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (p)(7) (2004)).
4-0
AC 05-70
IEPA v. James Stutsman
– The Board entered a final opinion and order requiring
respondent to pay hearing costs of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
and the Board in the amount of $296.25 and a civil penalty of $3,000. This order
follows the Board's interim order of September 21, 2006, which found that this
respondent had violated Sections 21(p)(1) and (p)(7) of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (p)(7) (2004)).
4-0
AC 06-10
IEPA v. Guiffre II, L.L.C.
– The Board granted complainant’s motion for
withdrawal of administrative citation and closed the docket.
4-0
AC 07-24
IEPA v. C. John Blickhan
– The Board accepted for hearing this petition for
review of an administrative citation against this Adams County respondent.
4-0
Motions and Other Matters
PCB 06-175
People of the State of Illinois v. Tres Amigos Properties, L.L.C.
– Upon receipt
of a proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to
request relief from the hearing requirement in this water enforcement action
involving a Sangamon County facility, the Board ordered publication of the
required newspaper notice.
4-0
W-E
PCB 07-21
Maple Quick Mart and Ranjit Singh v. IEPA
– Having found no appealable
action to review, the Board denied petitioners’ request for 90-Day extension of
appeal period and closed this docket.
4-0
UST Appeal
90-Day
Ext.
PCB 07-30
The Premcor Refining Group, Inc. v. IEPA
– The Board accepted for hearing
this air permit appeal involving a Madison County facility. The Board reserved
ruling on petitioner's motion to stay the effectiveness of the Clean Air Act Permit
Program permit to allow for a response from the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency.
4-0
P-A, Air
PCB 07-32
People of the State of Illinois v. Lake Arlann Drainage District, Cochran &
Wilkens, Inc., and Southwind Construction Corp. – The Board accepted for
hearing this water enforcement action involving a site located in Tazewell
County.
4-0
W-E
Environmental Register – November 2006
17
PCB 07-33
Oink Inc.-Morrison (Property Identification Number 09-26-200-002) v. IEPA
–
Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s
recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Oink,
Inc.’s pork finishing operation located in Whiteside County are pollution control
facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax
Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2004)).
4-0
T-C
PCB 07-34
Knapp Oil Company, 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
Massac County facility.
4-0
UST Appeal
90-Day
Ext.
PCB 07-35
People of the State of Illinois v. Bradshaw Enterprises, L.L.C. and Brian
Bradshaw individually – Upon receipt of a proposed stipulation and settlement
agreement and an agreed motion to request relief from the hearing requirement
in this water enforcement action involving a Clark County facility, the Board
ordered publication of the required newspaper notice.
4-0
W-E
New Cases
November 2, 2006 Board Meeting
07-026
People of the State of Illinois v. Palos Township – Upon receipt of a proposed stipulation
and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to request relief from the hearing requirement in
this water enforcement action involving a Cook County facility, the Board ordered publication of
the required newspaper notice.
07-027
Village of Wilmette v. IEPA
– The Board accepted for hearing this underground storage
tank appeal involving a Cook County facility.
07-028
People of the State of Illinois v. Provena Hospitals d/b/a Provena United Samaritans
Medical Center and Resurrection Catholic Cemetery Association of Danville, Illinois – The Board
accepted for hearing this land enforcement action involving a site located in Vermilion County.
07-029
People of the State of Illinois v. Pinnacle Genetics, L.L.C. and Professional Swine
Management, L.L.C. – The Board accepted for hearing this water enforcement action involving a
site located in McDonough County.
07-030
The Premcor Refining Group, Inc. v. IEPA
– No action taken.
07-031
Celozzi-Ettelson Chevrolet, 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 DuPage County
facility.
AC 07-022
County of Sangamon v. Jack Caldwell
– The Board accepted an administrative
citation against this Sangamon County respondent.
AC 07-023
IEPA v. Curtis Jim Hammond
– The Board accepted an administrative citation against
this Fulton County respondent.
AC 07-024
IEPA v. C. John Blickhan
– The Board accepted an administrative citation against this
Adams County respondent.
Environmental Register – November 2006
18
R07-009
In the Matter of: Triennial Review of Sulfate and Total Dissolved Solids Water Quality
Standards: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.102(b)(6), 302.102(b)(8),
302.102(b)(10), 302.208(g), 309.103(c)(3), 405.109(b)(2)(4)(A), 409.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100(d):
Repealer of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 406.203 and Part 407; and Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code
302.208(h) – No action taken.
November 16, 2006 Board Meeting
07-032
People of the State of Illinois v. Lake Arlann Drainage District, Cochran & Wilkens, Inc.,
and Southwind Construction Corp. – The Board accepted for hearing this water enforcement
action involving a site located in Tazewell County.
07-033
Oink Inc.-Morrison (Property Identification Number 09-26-200-002) v. IEPA
– Upon
receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and
certified that specified facilities of Oink, Inc.’s pork finishing operation located in Whiteside
County are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the
Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2004)).
07-034
Knapp Oil Company, 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 Massac County
facility.
07-035
People of the State of Illinois v. Bradshaw Enterprises, L.L.C. and Brian Bradshaw
individually – Upon receipt of a proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed
motion to request relief from the hearing requirement in this water enforcement action involving a
Clark County facility, the Board ordered publication of the required newspaper notice.
AS 07-002
In the Matter of: Proposed Extension of Adjusted Standard Applicable to Illinois-
American Water Company’s Alton Public Water Supply Facility Discharge to the Mississippi
River – No action taken.
Calendar
12/7/06
11:00 AM
Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting
Videoconference
Chicago/Springfield
James R. Thompson Center
Hearing Room 11-512
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago
And
1021 N. Grand Avenue East
Oliver Holmes Conference
Room 2012 N
Springfield
12/11/06
10:00 AM
PCB 07-24 Webb & Sons, Inc. v. IEPA
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Hearing Room
1021 North Grand Avenue East
North Entrance
Springfield
12/12/06
9:00 AM
PCB 96-98
People of the State of Illinois v.
Skokie Valley Asphalt, Inc., an
Illinois corporation, Edwin L.
Frederick, Jr., individually and as
owner and President of Skokie
James R. Thompson Center
Room 9-034
100 W. Randolph
Chicago
Environmental Register – November 2006
19
Valley Asphalt Co., and Richard J.
Frederick, individually and as owner
and Vice President of Skokie Valley
Asphalt Co., Inc.
12/18/06
9:00 AM
PCB 05-
212
John and Linda Maracic v. TNT
Logistics North America Inc.
(to be continued day-to-day until
business is completed or until
December 20, 2006)
Village of Bolingbrook
Board Room
375 W. Briarcliff Road
Bolingbrook
12/18/06
9:00 AM
PCB 05-
213
Vincent & Jennifer Neri v. TNT
Logistics North America Inc.
(to be continued day-to-day until
business is completed or until
December 20, 2006)
Village of Bolingbrook
Board Room
375 W. Briarcliff Road
Bolingbrook
12/18/06
9:00 AM
PCB 05-
216
Wayne Haser v. TNT Logistics
North America Inc.
(to be continued day-to-day until
business is completed or until
December 20, 2006)
Village of Bolingbrook
Board Room
375 W. Briarcliff Road
Bolingbrook
12/18/06
9:00 AM
PCB 05-
217
Ken Blouin v. TNT Logistics North
America Inc.
(to be continued day-to-day until
business is completed or until
December 20, 2006)
Village of Bolingbrook
Board Room
375 W. Briarcliff Road
Bolingbrook
12/21/06
11:00 AM
Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting
James R. Thompson Center
Room 9-040
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago
1/4/07
11:00 AM
Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting
Videoconference
Chicago/Springfield
James R. Thompson Center
Hearing Room 11-512
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago
And
1021 N. Grand Avenue East
Oliver Holmes Conference
Room 2012 N
Springfield
1/18/07
11:00 AM
Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting
Michael A. Bilandic Building
Room N-505
160 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago
1/29/07
11:00 AM
R07-08
In the Matter of: Proposed
Amendments to Solid Waste
Landfill Rules, 35 Ill. Adm. Code
810 and 811
Michael A. Bilandic Building
Room N-505
160 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago
1/30/07
9:30 AM
R07-08
In the Matter of: Proposed
Amendments to Solid Waste
Landfill Rules, 35 Ill. Adm. Code
810 and 811
Michael A. Bilandic Building
Room N-505
160 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago
Environmental Register – November 2006
20
2/1/07
11:00 AM
Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting
Videoconference
Chicago/Springfield
James R. Thompson Center
Hearing Room 11-512
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago
And
1021 N. Grand Avenue East
Oliver Holmes Conference
Room 2012 N
Springfield
2/15/07
11:00 AM
Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting
James R. Thompson Center
Room 9-040
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago
2/28/07
11:00 AM
R07-08
In the Matter of: Proposed
Amendments to Solid Waste
Landfill Rules, 35 Ill. Adm. Code
810 and 811
Pollution Control Board
Conference Room
1021 N. Grand Avenue East
(North Entrance, IEPA
Building)
Springfield
3/1/07
11:00 AM
Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
Hearing Room
1021 North Grand Avenue
East
North Entrance
Springfield
3/1/07
9:30 AM
R07-08
In the Matter of: Proposed
Amendments to Solid Waste
Landfill Rules, 35 Ill. Adm. Code
810 and 811
Pollution Control Board
Conference Room
1021 N. Grand Avenue East
(North Entrance, IEPA
Building)
Springfield
3/15/07
11:00 AM
Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting
James R. Thompson Center
Room 9-040
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago
------------------------------------------------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
