BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
NOx EMISSIONS FIIOIM STATIONARY
)
R07-18
RECIPROCATING
IVTERNAL COMBUSTION
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
ENGINES AND
TL'IIBINES:
1
AMENDMENTS TO 35 1LL.ADM.CODE
)
SECTION
201.136A1I)
PARTS 21
1
ASD 217.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Clerk
Persons included on the
Illinois Pollution Control Board
ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
James R. Thompson Ccnter
Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
PLEASE TAKE NL'OTICE that we have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board the
APPEARANCES
of
KATHLEEN C. BASSI, STEPHEN J.
BONEBRAKE, RENEE CIPRIANO, and JOSHUA R. MORE on behalf
of
ANIl
PIPELINE COMPANY, KINDER MORGAN, INC., TRUNKLINE GAS COMPANY, and
PANHANDLE EASTERN COMPANY and REPLY TO THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS TO
THE USE
OF SECTION 28.5 FAST-TRACK PROCEDURES IN THIS MATTER.
Dated: May 8,2007
Renee Cipriano
Kathleen
C. Bassi
Stephen
J. Bonebrakc
Joshua
I<.
More
SCHIFP
FIARDIK.
1.1.1'
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drixc
Chicago, Illinois 60606
3 12-258-5500
Fax:
3 12-258-5600
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLIJTIOK COKTKOL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
1
)
NOx EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY
)
R07-18
RECIPROCATING INTERNAL
COMBUSI'ION
)
(Hulemaliing
-
Air)
ENGINES AKD TURBINES:
)
.AMENDMENTS TO 35 1LL.AI)M.CODE
)
SECTION 201.146 AND PARTS 211 AND 217.
)
APPEARANCE
1: KATHLEEN C. BASSI, hereby file my appearance in this matter on behalf of ANR
I'IPE1,IIiE COMI'ANY, KA'rURAL GAS PII'EEINE COMPANY: TRLb-KLINI: GAS
COMPANY: and
f'ANHAND1,iZ EASTERN COMI'ANY.
Respectfully submitted.
1
Dated: May 8,2007
Ilenee Cipriano
Kathleen C. Bassi
Stephen
J. Bonebrake
Joshua R. More
SCHIFF
IIARDIN. I,I,P
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker
Drixe
Chicago. lllinois 60606
312-258-5500
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLIJTION CONTIIOL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
NOx EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY
)
R07-18
RECIPIIOCATING INTERNAL CO,lilBUSTlOV
)
(IIulemal~ing
-
Air)
ENGINES AND TURBINES:
)
AMENDMENTS TO 35 1LL.ADM.CODE
)
SECTION 201.146 AND PARTS 211 AND 217.
)
APPEAIIANCE
1: S7'EPI-IEN J. I3ONEBRAKE. hereby file my appearance in this matter on behalf of
ANR PIPEI-INE COMPANY: NA'I'URAI, GAS PIPELINE COMPANY: TRIJNKLINE GAS
COMPANY,
and PAKkIANDLE EASTERN COMI'ANY.
Respectfully submitted.
Renee
Cipria~io
Kathleen C. Bassi
Stephen
.I.
Bonebrakc
.loshua K. More
SCIIIFF HARDIN. 1.1.P
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago. Illinois 60606
3 12-258-5500
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
NOx EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY
)
R07-18
RECIPROCATING
INTERKAL COMBUSTION
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
ENGINES AXD TURBINES:
)
AMENDMENTS TO 35 1LL.ADM.CODE
1
SECTION 201.146 AND PARTS 211 AND 217.
)
APPEARANCE
I, RENEE CIPRIANO; hereby fiie my appearance in this matter on behalf of ANR
PIPELINE COMPANY, NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY,
TRUNKLINE GAS
COMPANY, and PANHANDLE EASTERN
COMPAKY.
Dated: May 8, 2007
Renee Cipriano
Kathleen C. Bassi
Stephen
J. Bonebrake
Joshua
R. More
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312-258-5500
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIOK CONTROL, BOARD
Ih
THE MATTER OF:
1
)
NOx EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY
)
R07-18
RECIPROCATING INTERNAL
CONIBUSTION
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
ENGINES AND TURBINES:
)
A.1.1ENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.ADM.CODE
)
SECTION 201.146 AND PARTS 211 AND 217.
)
APPEARANCE
I. JOStIllA R. MORI-, hercby lile my appearance in this matter on bchaIfoi'ANK
PIPELINE COMPANY, NA'I'UKAI, GAS P!ITEIKI'I< COMPANY, TRUNK1,INE GAS
COMPANY. and
PANI-IANDLE EAS'TIIRN COMPANY.
Respectfully submitted.
Dated: May
8, 2007
Renee Cipriano
Kathleen
C.
Bassi
Stephen
J. Ronehrake
Joshua
R, More
SCI-1II:F IIARDIN, LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
3 12-258-5500
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
BEFORE TIfE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
NOx EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY
)
R07-18
RECIPROCATING
INTEIINAL COMBUSTION
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
ENGINES AND TURBINES:
)
AMENDMENTS TO 35 II,L.ADM.CODE
1
SECTION 201.146 AND PARTS 21 1 AND 217.
)
SECTION 28.5 FAST-TRACK PROCEDURES IN THIS MATTER
NOW COME ANIZ PIPELINE COMPANY, NATUIWL, GAS I'IPELTNE COMPANY,
TRUNKLINE GAS
COMI'AKY, and PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPELINE COMPANY
(collectively "the Pipeline Consortium"), by and through their attorneys,
SCH1Ff2 HARDIN
I,LP, and, pursuant to 35 lll.Adm.Code
$
101.500(e) and the Board's 1:irst Notice Order. dated
April 19,2007, ("Order") at page 3. reply to the Responses to Objections to
lJse of Section 28.5
Fast Track Procedures for Consideration of Nitrogen Oxide
I'roposal ("'the Responses") filed by
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(;'Agency") on May 1: 2007. The Pipeline
Consortium reiterates its position, stated in its Objection, and supports the Objection filed
by the
Illinois Environmental
K-gulatory Group (;'IERG"), that it is improper for the Board to proceed
under the fast-track
nilenlaking provisions of Section 28.5 of the Environmental Protection Act
("Act") (415
IL,CS 5128.5) (reference to fast-track rulemaking only: "28.5") with respect to
Sections
217.392(a)(3) and (4) of the proposed rule. The Board has jurisdiction under 28.5 only
when the U.S.
Enviroilmcntal Protection Agency ("USEPA") may impose sanctions for the
state's failure to adopt a
federally-required
&.
Section 28.5 does not confer jurisdiction when
USEPA may impose sanctions for the state's failure to make a federally-required submittal thai
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
is sornetliing other than a rulc. such as an attainment demonstration or plan for reasonable further
progress
("RFP") or rate of progress ("ROP) or monitoring deployment plan or any of a number
of other components of
thc state implementation plan ("SIP") that are not rules. In support of its
previously-stated request that the Board sever Sections 2
17.392(aj(3) and (4) of the proposal into
a separate rulemaking proceeding pursuant to Section 27 of the Act, the Pipeline Consortium
states as follows:
1.
RELIANCE 0%
INCLUSIOK OF THE RULE IN ATTAINMENT
DEMONSTRATIONS
The Agency argues in its Responses that the attainment area sources are properly
included in the
28.5 ruleniaking because emission reductions under the proposed rule at these
sources somehow
will be iiscd as part of the attainment demonstrations for ozone and fine
particulate matter
("I'M?
5")
IIouever. the Agency has not included in this proposal any
evidence other than its
~tsscrrions that this is, indeed: the case.
Further, because the contents
oi'
an attainment demonstration are subject to the Agency's discretion rather than specifically
mandated in the Clean Air
.4ct for these two national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS"),
see 42 U.S.C.
$3
7409: 7502. and 75
11.
the proposed attainment area rules are not required.
Indeed, the Agency could. arguably,
dec~de at a later date
to use this attainment area rule in
the attainment
denionstra;ion. thus setting aside the status currently asserted by the Agency for
these sources that such rii!cs are federally required and that sanctions can be imposed absent their
inclusion. In fact, these
ps~~icular
rules are
federally required. and if these rules are not
adopted by the Board,
thcre will be no federal sanctions imposed. Therefore, they do not meet
the requirements of
28.5.
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
A.
Lack of 'l'echnical Support and Leva1 Sufficiency as to Inclusion of the
Attainment
.Area Sources PrecIudes the Board's 28.5 Jurisdiction over These
Sources.
The Board's rulcs require that the Agency submit technical support and arguments of
legal sufficiency with a
28
5
submittal. The Agency has failed to meet these requirements with
respect to the portion
01 tlie proposal that applies to attainment area sources.
The Technical Support Document makes broad assertions with no support regarding the
necessity of inclusion
ol'thcse sources for the attainment demonstration. The Agcncy argues in
its Response that this is
ail issue offact that is properiy addressed at hearing and is not necessary
for inclusion in the initial submittal. To the contrary,
%here the Board's jurisdiction under
28
5
depends on factual issues. the Agency must initially submit sufficient information, not merely
assertions, to resolve those issues in a manner that establishes jurisdiction under
28.5.
If it
cannot, then the
Board lacks jurisdiction under
28.5.
The question of including attainment area
sources in an attainment demonstration when such industrial category has not been identified by
Congress or the U.S.
En\ ironmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") as a source category that
must be regulated
requires a far more complete initial submittal with an adequate justification for
28.5
jurisdiction. The Agcncy has failed to make the requisite jurisdictional demonstration.
The Agency
asscrts that thcse attainment area sources must be included in the attainment
demonstrations without
pro\iding any oberall description of the mix of sources that will be
included in the attainment demonstrations. The Board has not been provided with a factual basis
upon which to
determinc that inclusion of these sources in the attainment demonstration is
necessary or appropriate. When the Board's jurisdiction relies on such
a determination, the
Agency must include in
ti~c initial submittal sufficient information beyond its mere assertions
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
that imposition of its 28.5 jurisdiction is appropriate in order for the Board and the public to
determine that 28.5 jurisdiction is available.
Failure to include such information in the initial
s~tbmittal makes the submittal
technically and
legaily insiifficient under 28.5, leaving the Board with no jurisdiction to procecd
with the rule as it pertains to the attainment area sources, because the rule is not federally
required and
USEPA cannot impose sanctions if the Board fails to adopt it. Therefore_ the Board
must sever Sections 21
7.392(a)(3) and (4) and any related portions of the rule from the rest.
B.
The Aeenc\'s Discretion Kcpardine, the Contents of an Attainment
Demonstration Render Rules Not Specifically Identified by Congress in the
Clean
Ail- Art or bv USEPA by Rule Not Subject to Adoption Under 28.5.
A part of the Agency's responsibility under the Act is to make the submittals to L;SEf'A
that comprise the SIP. 4 15 IICS 5!4. Exercise of that responsibility involves employment of
discretion in choosing the mix of rules that comply with SIP requirements, including the
attainment demonstrations for the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
72
17ed.Reg. 26586 26588-89
(April 25,2007). Clearly. an attainment demonstration
SIP is federally required, and USEPA
can impose sanctions on thc state ilthe Agency does not submit an approvable attainment
demonstration. 42
U.S.C'. $$
7410 and 7509. Because the rules that form a part of the
attainment
demonstratioii are not specifically federally required until and unless the attainment
demonstration is
appro\cd as part of Illinois' SIP, USEPA cannot impose sanctions upon the
state for failure to
submit any rules prior to its approval of the attainment SIP. 42 U.S.C.
55
7410 and 7509. It is that approval that makes the pariicular rules that the Agency, in its
discretion, determines arc necessary or appropriate for the attainment demonstration federally
required. Until that
motmcnt. those rules are
federally required and USEPA cannot impose
sanctions. In fact.
US1;I'A cannot ever impose sanctions for the state's failure to adopt any rule
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
component of an aliainmcnt demonstration SIP if those rules are not specifically identified and
required by Congress
or I:SI.;PA. 42 U.S.C.
$
7509. All that USEPA can impose sanctions for
is the failure ofthc
statc to stibmit an approvable attainment demonstration.
Because inclusion of the portion of the rule controlling attainment area sources is not
federally required and is not subject to sanctions, the Board does not have jurisdiction to include
that portion of the rule in a 78.5 rulemaking, and the Pipeline Consortium reiterates its request
that the Board sever
that portion of the proposal.
11.
RELIANCE 0%
THE RULE AS A PART OF RFPfROP
'The Agency also asserts that the attainment area portion of the rule is necessary So1
purposes of demonstrating Rl:P and ROf'. The Agency discusses at some length in the
Responses that reductions
oi'
nitrogen oxides ("NOx") outside thc attainment areas for purposes
of
RFI'IROP is approvahlc under federal guidance. However. the federal requirements are (1)
that the state consider attainment area regulation and (2) that it
iustif\l
reliance on attainment area
regulation if it chooses
to rcly on attainment area regulations in its RFPIROP.
C:f
72 Fed.Reg.
20586, 20636-39 (April
25.
2007). Not only did the Agency fail to sufficiently describe how it
complies with these
[actors in the initial submittal, but also, compliance with these factors do not
confer on the Board 28.5 jurisdiction in a rulemaking.
A.
Inclusion of a Rule in an RFP Plan Does Not Confer on the Board 28.5
Jurisdiction.
Despite the Agcnc?
'\
lack ofjustification, RFP/ROP does not apply in the Chicago area
in any event because
thc area attains the ozone standard, revealed to the Board in the R06-26
rulemaking. See
Sierrri i'liih
v.
~iSE'11.4:
99 F.3d 1551. 1556-58 (10'" Cir. 1996);
Sierrii C:luh
I>
liSEP,4,375 F.3d 537. 511-41 (7lh Cir. 2004): 72 Fed.Reg. 19424. 19429 (April 18, 2007); 72
Fed.Reg. 14422; 14427 (March 28,2007). Therefore, the Agency's reliance on R12P/KOP for
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
ozone for the Chicago nonnttainment is misplaced. Further, it is highly questionable whether the
Agency can justify
reliance on attainment area sources that are not upwind of the Metro-EastiSt.
Louis ozone nonattainmcnt area. Regardless: the Agency did not include in its submittal any
discussion of the impact
of'attainment area sources all over the state on the Metro-East!%. Louis
ozone nonattainment arca.
The Agency
relicd upon the proposed PM2.5 implementation rule. not the final rule: in its
submittal to support inclusion of attainment area sources
ibr IZ17P/ROP for PM2.5. That rule has
since been finalized docs not relieve the Agency
ofthe requirement that it be responsible in its
s~~bmittals
and the Board
to
bc discerning in determining its jurisdiction. A proposed rule has no
legal effect and cannot
bc thc basis of an assertion that a rule is federally required.
The final rule
reili~ires that a state specifically justify the inclusion of attainment area
sources in an
RFI' submittal, The Agency provided no evidence of such justification other than
references to
LAIICO niodeling in the Agency's submittal and 12esponses. but, as the Agcncy
adtnits, that modeling is p~.climinary. Response to Pipeline Objection, p. 11. The modeling
discussion included with
the '1'SD describes regional modeling. It does not focus on Illinois
sources, let alone attainn~ent area sources and, therefore. is insufficient justification for inclusion
of the attainment arca sources for
RFP. Where the Board's jurisdiction is in question, mere
assertions by the
Agenc) and suggestions that it will address the question more fully at hearing is
insufficient. We must question whether the Agency would address the question at hearing absent
these Objections.
Regardless,
ho\?c\ cr. of the lack ofjustification for inclusion of the attainment arca
portion of the proposal
in the RFP plan in the Agency's submittal, it is not possible for a rule
intended to satisfy an
R1:l' plan requirement to proceed under 28.5. The rule does not become
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
federally required until I Sti'A has approved the RFP plan, and USEPA requires that the rules
included in an
RFI' plan to have been already adopted. Further. it is only the KFP plan itself that
is sanctionable. not the
Sailure to adopt a rule that may be a component of the I21:P plan
B.
The
Ageno's
Discretion Regardine the Contents of an RFP Plan Render
Rules
Not Specificallv identified by Conpress in the Clean Air Act or by
USEPA b, Rule Not Subject to Adoption Under 28.5.
As with the attainlncnt demonstration SIP, the Agency has discretion as to what it will
include in an RFP SIP
i'ntil and unless USEPA has approved the RFI' plan submittal as a part
of the SIP, the rules included in the RFP plan are not federally required. Moreover,
USEPA
cannot impose sanctions ii,r a state's failure to include a rule not specifically required by
Congress or USEI'A
through a rule in the RFP plan submittal.42 U.S.C. $5 7410 and 7509.
Rather,
all that USEP.4 can impose sanctions ihr is a state's f'ailure to submit an approvable RFP
plan. 42 U.S.C.
5s 7410 and 7509.
With respect to
the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, USEPA has not required that any speciiic
attainment area sources be controlled other than those identified in Phase I1 of the NOx SIP Cali
and in the CAIR.
USFPA has required, in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. that states
"consider" attainment area sources. but it has not required that any specific attainment area
sources
-
or even
g
dhinment area sources
-
be regulated. 72 Fed.Reg. 20586.20636 (April
25,2007). Therefore,
thoic portions of this rule that apply to attainment area sources is not
federally required. and
I'SEI'A cannot impose sanctions if the Board fails to adopt them.
111.
SPECIFIC
POINI'S IN
THE AGENCY'S RESPONSES
The Agency stares that IJSEPA has started the sanctions clocks for states that failed to
submit
SIPS addressing tlic NOx SIP Call for power plant boilers. Agency Response to Pipeline
Consortium Objection.
p.
9. The Pipeline Consortium does not understand the relevance of this
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
statement. 'This is a rule addressing reciprocating internal combustion engines, not power plants.
What
USEPA has required relative to power plants is irrelevant to whether this rulemaking
should proceed under
28.5.
The fact that thc lioard has accepted other rules intended as parts of RFIVROP plans or
attainment
demonstratiolis without the Agency including in its initial submittal sufficient support
is first of
all, a question 01' fact that we do not intend to explore, and second of ail, irrelevant.
See
Agency Response to I1:RG Objection, p. 8. That the Board proceeded on the basis of the
Agency's assertions and
the lack of objection is irrelevant here. See Agency Response to IERG
Objection, p.
8. I'he suf'liciency of the submittal
this
time and the Board's jurisdiction over the
attainment area sources
in t& rulemaking is under question. l'he Agency cannot rely on past
actions to justify
curreni :ictions. It must constantly submit complete proposals if it seeks to rely
on 28.5. And it is the public's duty to serve as a watchdog over this, given the
stat~rtorily short
timeframes available to
the Board.
When an objection to the Board's alleged 28.5 jurisdiction is made, the Board must
engage in a higher
le\rcl of scrutiny over a submittal to absolutely ensure that the submittal
justifies proceeding
undcr 28.5. The statutory and regulatory checklist for determining the
sufficiency of an
Agenc! siibmittal pursuant to 28.5 is insufficient once the public has raised an
objection to the Board's jurisdiction under 28.5.
The Agency relics on
the 'Technical Support Document ("7'SD") as the repository of all
of' its assertions,
ineiuiiiiig lcgal arguments. One must question the role of the Statement of
Reasons ("SOR"). Argiinbiy. if the Agency submits an SOR, which is not specifically required
under the Board's
procediiral rules for 28.5 rulemakings: then the Agency must meet the
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
requirements of general rulemakings for SORs at 35 I1l.Adm.Code 102.202(b). A TSD is not
technically required by the
Board's rules, either.
Usually, the
TSl) is written by the Agency's technical staff
-
thus its name. It is not the
appropriate location
ihr legal arguments. That leaves the SOR. normally written by the
Agency's legal staff,
as
the
legitimate location of legal arguments or assertions. Where what is
legal and what is technical
tend to overlap, perhaps the assertion of the information must also
overlap. In any event. the Agency's reliance on the
'I'SD as the locale of all of its arguments or
assertions relative to the
rulcinaking is questionable and arguably leaves the inclusion of an SOR
irrelevant.
The Agency
coii~ploins that the federal clock is ticking with respect to the requirement
that this rule be
adoptcd as cjiiickly as possible. First, the Agency is the creator of this particular
time crunch. The
Phasc il YOx SIP Call was finalized in 2005
-
two years ago. The last
outreach meeting
relati\ e to these rules was over a year ago. Regardless, the Pipeline
Consortium does not challenge the propriety of the Phase
I1 NOx SIP Call portion ofthis rule
proceeding under
28.5. biit it does object to the Agency's specious arguments regarding time.
Further, there is not a federal doomsday clock ticking over this rulemaking other than the Phase
I1 NOx SIP Call portion, i'here is plenty of time for a Section 27 rulemaking, particularly with
respect to the attainmcrii area sources.
WI.lEREFORI,. for the reasons set forth above. the Pipeline Consortium reiterates its
objection to the
Board procccding under Section 28.5 fbr those portions of the proposal that
would control attainment area sources and
requests that the Board sever that portion of the rule to
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
a separate, Section 27 r~il~making.
The Board does not have 28.5 jurisdiction over the portion of
the rule that is in questioii
Respectf~~lly
submitted.
ANR
PIPE1,INlZ COMPANY, NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE COMPANY,
TRUNK1,INE GAS
COMPANY, and
PANIlANDLE EASTERN PII'E1,Ih'E
COMPANY
Dated: May
8, 2007
Renee Cipriano
Kathleen
C. Bassi
Stephen
J. Bonebrake
Joshua
R. More
SCHIFF
I-IARDIN, Ll,i'
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker
Ilrive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312-258-5500
Fax: 3 12-258-5600
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned. certify that on this
gth
day of May, 2007.1 have served electron~cally
the attached
APPEARARICES
of
KATHLEEN C. BASSI, RENEE CIPRIANO, and
JOSHUA R. MORE on behalf of ANR PIPELINE COMPANY, KINDER MORGAN,
INC., TRUNKLINE
G
4s
COMPANY, and PANHANDLE EASTERN COMPANY
and
REPLY TO
THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
RESPONSES TO
OBJEX'TIONS TO THE USE OF SECTION 28.5 FAST-TRACK
PliOCEDURES IN THIS MATTER
upon the following persons
Clerk
Illinois Pollution
Contn~i Board
James R. Thompson Center
Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
and electronically and
b) lirst-class mail with postage thereon fully prepaid and affixed to the
persons listed on the
ATTACHE]) SERVICE LIST.
Renee Cipriano
Kathleen
C. Bassi
Stephen J. Bonebrake
Joshua R. More
SCI-IIFF HARDIN. I-Lf'
6600 Sears Tower
233 South
Wacker Dri\ e
Chicago, Illinois 60606
3 12-258-5500
Fax: 312-258-5600
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
--
--
SERVICE LIST
(1107-18)
I
-- -
Timothy Fox
I-fearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
100 West Randolph, Su~te 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
foxt@i~cb.state.iI.us
Katherine D. Hodge
N. LaDonna Driver
Gale W. Newton
I-Iodrre
"
Dwver Zeman
3 150 Roland Avenue
P.O. Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
6270-5776
kdh@,hdzlaw.com
nld,@11dzIaw.com
gwnf$hdzlaw.con~
Rachel Doctors
D~vision of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
102
1 North Grand Avenue. 1:ast
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield. Illinois 62794-9276
rachel.doctorst?illinois
gov
N. LaDonna Driver
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
3 150 Roland Avenue
P.O. Box 5776
Springfield. Illinois 62705-5776
nld/&hdrlau;.com
~~ . -
I
William Richardson, ~hicf l,egal Counsel
I
Virginia I Yang, I)eput> ('ounsel
i
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources
Way
Springfield, Illinois 67702-1 271
richardson.williamG!ill~g~?is.~o\~
vang.virginia@,illinois.il~~~
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007