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
The excellent reputation of the Board throughout the years is the result of teamwork by an exceptional group of
people. The Board’s Clerk, Dorothy M. Gunn, and the Board’s Executive Coordinator, Sandra L. Wiley, have
played large roles in the success of the Board over the years. This month, all four Board Members join in signing
this letter to salute the April 30, 2007 retirement of Dorothy and Sandy.
Dorothy has served as the Board’s Clerk since 1984. In that role, she acts as official custodian of the Board’s
records and also prepares and certifies records for appeals. Dorothy first joined the Board in 1975 as a staff
secretary and later served as private secretary to the late Irvin G. Goodman during his tenure as a Board member
and as a staff accounting assistant.
Dorothy is an active member of Divine Mercy Seat Missionary Baptist Church in Harvey, which she serves as
secretary of the Sunday school. Dorothy is widely recognized for her beautiful singing voice and also serves as a
soloist for and a member of the church’s choir. Dorothy and her husband, Kenneth, are loving parents to Tracey
and Dartagnon, grandparents to Kyla and Bianca, and great-grandparents to Jaleel and Jalen.
Dorothy’s cheerful and conscientious efforts have enabled the Board to perform its work efficiently and accurately.
With all of the patience and understanding she has shown to the Board’s members and staff and to those who deal
with the Board in various capacities, Ms. Gunn has earned the appreciation, respect, and friendship of countless
persons.
Sandy Wiley joined the Board in 1972 and in 1993 became Executive Coordinator overseeing operations of the
Board’s Chicago office. During her service at the Board, Sandy has filled various roles when needed, including
financial officer, personnel officer, and supply officer. For many years, she frequently testified at Illinois House
and Senate Budget Committee hearings on behalf of the Board. Sandy was named Administrative Coordinator of
the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Review Commission, which was created in 1999 to improve the state’s
environmental regulations. Sandy began state service in 1963 as an office manager at the Chicago campus of the
University of Illinois and later joined the Illinois Sesquicentennial Commission as an accounting and office
manager.
Throughout the time of her state service, Sandy was involved in a range of community activities, including the Girl
Scouts of America and various leadership roles in her church. Sandy is a loving mother to Angelo “Tony” Wiley
and grandmother to Alexander “Alex” Wiley.
Sandy has endeared herself to Board members and staff both by providing excellent advice and information and
through her frequent expressions of generosity, compassion, and support. With her spirit of cooperation and her
lively sense of humor, Sandy has won the respect and affection of her colleagues and countless persons who have
conducted business with the Board since 1972.
We are grateful for the knowledge and experience that Dorothy and Sandy brought to the Board. We extend our
fond best wishes for a long, happy, and very well-deserved retirement.
Sincerely,
Dr. G. Tanner Girard
Thomas E. Johnson
Nicholas J. Melas
Andrea S. Moore
Environmental Register – March 2007
1
Inside This Issue:
FEDERAL UPDATE
P. 1
R
ULE UPDATE
P. 1
A
PPELLATE UPDATE
P. 2
B
OARD ACTIONS
P. 8
N
EW CASES
P. 15
P
ROVISIONAL VARIANCES
P. 16
B
OARD CALENDAR
P. 16
Back to top
Federal Update
United States Environmental Protection Agency Adopts Amendments to the Guidelines
Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act
On March 26, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 14219) the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted amended analytical methods for biological
pollutants in wastewater and sewage sludge. This rule modifies the USEPA's
guidelines that establish approved bacterial testing procedures for analysis and
sampling under the Clean Water Act.
USEPA proposed these changes for public comment on August 16, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 48255).
The changes include approval for new methods for monitoring microbial pollutants in wastewater
and sewage sludge, including USEPA methods, vendor-developed methods and methods
developed by voluntary consensus bodies (VCSB) as well as updated versions of currently
approved methods. The addition of new and updated methods to the wastewater regulations
provides increased flexibility to the regulated community and laboratories in the selection of
analytical methods. In addition, EPA made technical, non-substantive corrections.
This regulation is effective April 25, 2007.
For information regarding the changes to wastewater regulations, contact Robin K. Oshiro,
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), USEPA Office of Science and Technology, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, 202-566-1075, e-mail: oshiro.robin@epa.gov
.
The Board will include any necessary amendments to Board rules resulting from this federal
action in a future wastewater pretreatment identical in substance rulemaking pursuant to Section
7.2 13, and 13.3, of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/7.2 13, and 13.3 (2006)).
Back to top
Rule Update
Board Adopts Second Notice Opinion and Order in Organic Material Emission Standards
And Limitations for the Chicago And Metro-East Areas: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill.
Code 218 and 219 (R06-21)
On March 1, 2007, the Board adopted a second notice opinion and order in Organic Material
Emission Standards And Limitations for the Chicago And Metro-East Areas: Proposed
Amendments to 35 Ill. Code 218 and 219 (R06-21). The Board made only minor changes to the
proposed internal effective dates in the rulemaking as published in the
Illinois Register. See
30
Ill. Reg
.
15867 and 15892 (October 6, 2006). The Board sent this rulemaking, as required by the
Environmental Register – March 2007
2
Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/1-1
et seq.
(2006)), to the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules (JCAR) for review at its April 18, 2007 meeting.
The rulemaking, based on a proposal filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) on December 22, 2005, seeks to amend the Board’s volatile organic material (VOM) rules
at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218 and 219 to allow for the use of add-on controls as a compliance option
for operations using cold cleaning solvent degreasing. The proposed amendments affect cold
cleaning degreasing operations located in the Chicago and Metro-East ozone nonattainment areas.
The proposed amendments would allow the use of add-on controls as an alternative to using
solvents with vapor pressure of 1.0 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) or less. Additionally, the
proposal would allow the use of an equivalent alternative control plan to comply with the control
measure requirements. The proposed amendments include testing procedures and recordkeeping
requirements for add-on controls and equivalent alternative controls.
The Board revised the internal timelines that were proposed in the rulemaking to match the
Board’s current anticipated adoption schedule for the rulemaking; the dates were changed from
November 30, 2006, to May 30, 2007, and from March 1, 2007, to August 31, 2007. These dates
reflect the effective dates for the requirements (May 30, 2007), and the date by which existing
add-on controls must be tested for compliance with the proposed standards (August 31, 2007).
Amendments were also proposed to the “paper coating” note at Appendix H in Part 218 to ensure
consistency with the already-amended “paper coating” note at Section 218.204(c). Identical
amendments were also proposed to the “paper coating” note at Appendix H in Part 219 to ensure
consistency with the already-amended “paper coating” note at Section 219.204(c).
The Board held hearings in this rulemaking on April 19, 2006 in Chicago, and on May 17, 2006 in
Edwardsville.
Copies of the Board’s opinion and order in R06-21 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 Erin Conley at 217/782-2471 or by email at
conleye@ipcb.state.il.us
.
Appellate Update
In a Case Known as “Town and Country I”, Illinois Supreme Court Reverses A Decision of
Third District Appellate Court Reinstating Grant of Local Siting Approval (and Reversing
the Board) in Town & Country Utilities, Inc., et al. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, et al.
,
Nos. 101619, 101652 (March 22, 2007) (affirming Board ruling in PCB 03-31, PCB 03-33,
PCB 03-35 (cons.)(January 1, 2003))
On March 22, 2007, the Supreme Court of Illinois filed an opinion confirming the decision of the
Board in a landfill siting appeal, captioned Town & Country Utilities, Inc., et al. v. Illinois
Pollution Control Board, et al., Nos. 101619, 101652 (March 22, 2007) (hereinafter “Town &
Country I (Ill. S. Ct. 2007)”). In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the September 7, 2005
order issued by the Appellate Court for the Third District under Supreme Court Rule 23 (155
Ill.2d R.23) in Town & Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC v. Illinois
Pollution Control Board, County of Kankakee, Edward D. Smith as State's Attorney of Kankakee
County, the City of Kankakee, Illinois City Council, Byron Sandberg, and Waste Management of
Illinois, Inc., No. 3-03-0025 (September 7, 2005)(petitions for rehearing denied October 19, 2005)
(hereinafter “Town & Country I
(Third Dist. 2005).” In that order, the Third District had
reinstated the grant by the City of Kankakee (City) of siting approval to the 2002 application for a
new landfill make by Town and Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill
(collectively, Town and Country). The Board had reversed the City’s decision, finding that it was
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Environmental Register – March 2007
3
Justice Fitzgerald authored the Illinois Supreme Court opinion, in which Chief Justice Thomas
and Justices Freeman, Kilbride, Garman, Karmeier, and Burke concurred. The Court has advised
the parties that the mandate in this case will issue on April 26, 2007, unless a petition for
rehearing is filed by April 12, 2007.
This case is known as the "Town & Country I"
appeal. It concerns a siting application filed in
2002 by Town and Country concerning a proposal under Section 39.2 of the Environmental
Protection Act (Act), 415 ILCS 5/39.2 (2004), to site a new municipal solid waste landfill on
approximately 400 acres in the City. The Supreme Court’s decision in Town & Country I
reaffirms that Section 40.1 of the Act requires the courts to review the Board’s decision, not that
of the local government, to determine whether the Board’s decision is against the manifest weight
of the evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to impact the Third District’s decision
on reconsideration concerning the related and still-pending “Town & Country II”
appeal,
described at the conclusion of the Town & Country I discussion.
Prior History In Town & Country I
The Board’s Decision
The Board decided consolidated, third-party appeals concerning the City’s approval of Town and
Country’s proposed landfill on January 2, 2003. 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 Town
and Country I, PCB 03-31, PCB 03-33, PCB 03-35 (cons.)). Petitioners variously alleged that 1)
the City lacked jurisdiction over the siting application due to alleged deficiencies in Town and
Country’s service of notice of the application as required by Section 39.2(b) of the Act; 2) the
procedures used by the City to assess the application were fundamentally unfair; and 3) that the
City’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence as to three of the nine siting
criteria listed in Section 39.2 of the Act.
In its July 9, 2003 opinion and order, for reasons that will not be summarized here, the Board
found that the City did have jurisdiction over the application and that its procedures were
fundamentally fair. The Board affirmed the City’s decisions that the applicant had satisfied two
out of the three challenged criteria: that the operation plan minimized danger to the surrounding
area, and that the facility was consistent with the County’s solid waste management plan. 415
ILCS 5/39.2 (v) and (viii) (2004).
But, the Board reversed the City of Kankakee's decision that Town and Country had satisfied
criterion ii of Section 39.2(a): 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). The Board found an absence of evidence in the local siting record addressing
the potential vertical flow of contaminants at the site or the prospect that groundwater under the
landfill is an aquifer rather than the assumed aquitard. The Board therefore held that the City's
decision on criterion ii was against the manifest weight of the evidence, concluding in summary
that
Town & Country failed to address research indicating that the Silurian dolomite,
upon which the proposed landfill would rest, is an aquifer. Town & Country
also failed to consider well log data with a 2-mile radius of the site that
indicated area wells draw water from the Silurian dolomite aquifer. The
evidence belies the findings of the tests on the single boring taken from the 236-
acre waste footprint. Town & Country’s scientifically unjustified assumption
regarding the identity of the Silurian dolomite resulted in the use of inaccurate
information in its modeling and groundwater impact evaluation. Consequently,
Environmental Register – March 2007
4
Town & Country did not present sufficient details to show that the landfill was
designed, located and proposed to be operated to protect public health, safety,
and welfare. The evidence Town & Country did present was unreliable.
Therefore, the Board finds it is clearly evident that the City’s determination that
Town & Country met the requirements of criterion (ii) of Section 39.2 of the
Act is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Town and Country I, PCB
03-31, PCB 03-33, PCB 03-35 (cons.), slip op. at 27-28.
The Third District’s Order
On September 7, 2005, the Third District Appellate Court reversed the Board, reinstating the
City's grant of siting approval. After a recitation of the facts of the case Town and Country I
(Third Dist.), slip op. at 1-4, the Third District's order first addresses the issue of fundamental
fairness. The appellate court first noted that it held in Land & Lakes v. Pollution Control Board,
319 Ill. App. 3d 41, 48 (2000) that “Board determinations that the siting hearing proceedings were
fundamentally fair are subject to de novo
review. But, the Court went on to acknowledge the
Board’s argument that this analysis was no longer effective since the decision of the Illinois
Supreme Court in AFM Messenger, Inc. v. Dept. of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001)
,
where the more deferential “clearly erroneous” standard was applied to a mixed question of law
and fact. The court then states that “[p]ursuant to AFM Messenger
, we will affirm the Board’s
decision unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Town and Country I (Third
Dist.), slip op. at 5. The court considered arguments that several circumstances caused
fundamental unfairness, including various alleged deficiencies in the conduct of the hearing, and
ex parte
contacts. The court concluded that “[o]n the issue of fundamental fairness, we find no
basis upon which to overturn the decision of the [City] Council.” Id., slip op. at 5.
The court begins its analysis of the issues involving the statutory criteria by citing a statement in
Concerned Adjoining Owners v. Pollution Control Board, 288 Ill. App. 3d 565, 576. (1997)
that
“[o]n review, the court is limited to a determination of whether the siting authority’s decision was
contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” Town and Country I (Third Dist.)
, slip op. at 7-
8. The court then concluded that “[I]t is clear by this statement that the court is not reviewing the
decision of the PCB." Id., slip op. at 8. In a lengthy footnote following this remark, the court
suggests
There is some dispute as to the standard of review an appellate court will apply
to the ruling of the PCB.
See
, Turlek v. Pollution Control Board
, 274 Ill. App.
3d 244, 249 (1995) (“On review, we are to determine whether the Board’s
decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence.”): File v. D&L Landfill,
Inc., 219 Ill. App. 3d 897, 901 (1991) (“Standard of review to be exercised by
the [PCB] and this court is whether, respectively, the decision of the county
board and [PCB] are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”). But see
Concerned Adjoining Owners v. Pollution Control Board
, 288 Ill. App. 3d 565
(1997); Waste Management of Illinois v. Pollution Control Board
, 160 Ill. App.
3d 434 (1987); City of Rockford v. Pollution Control Board
, 125 Ill. App. 3d
384 (1984). The manifest weight of the evidence standard of review is
applicable to a tribunal with an adjudicatory function that is called upon to
weigh evidence. It is not applicable to a tribunal which reviews the decision of
an adjudicatory body. If an appellate court were to review both the local body
and the PCB under manifest weight of the evidence standard of review, it might
have to affirm two contradictory decision (sic). A situation could arise where
both the decision of the local body and the decision of the PCB were each
supported by evidence. Indeed the hallmark of the manifest weight of the
evidence standard of review is that the evidence could support two opposite
conclusions, and only when an opposite conclusion to that reached by the
adjudicatory body is clearly
Environmental Register – March 2007
5
apparent is the decision against the manifest weight of the evidence. Town and
Country I (Third Dist.), slip op. at 8, n.1.
In reviewing the parties’ arguments as to the statutory criteria, the appellate court does not
evaluate any of the Board’s rationale for decision. Instead, the court appears to go on to review
the City's decision directly, using a "manifest weight of the evidence" standard, as if there were no
Board decision.
As to criterion two, the court stated
In the instant matter, extensive expert testimony came before the [City]
Council, both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed site.
Ultimately, a dispute developed over whether the site was an aquifer or an
aquitard, and the public health consequences of the answer. On appeal, the
parties expend much effort to explain why one expert or the other was more
credible and ask this court to actually determine wither the site was an aquifer or
an aquitard. In the final analysis, however, the decision belongs to the [City]
Council, and nothing in the record would support a conclusion that the
Council’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Town and
Country I (Third Dist.), slip op. at 9-10.
The court reached a similar result as to criterion 8, finding that “it cannot be said that the
conclusion of the Council on this criterion [consistency with the county solid waste management
plan] was against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Id.
, slip op. at 9-10.
The ultimate conclusion of the court then was that the City’s decision approving siting
was fundamentally fair and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Accordingly, the order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board overturning the
decision of the city council is reversed and the decision of the city council is
reinstated. Id.
, slip op. at 11.
Dissenting opinion
.
In his short, written dissent, Justice Barry observes that the appeal was brought under Section
41(b) of the Act. Under that section,
any final order of the Board shall be based solely on the evidence in the record
of the particular proceeding involved, and an such final order for permit appeals
shall be invalid if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 415 ILCS
5/41(b)(West 2000). As recognized by our Supreme Court in Environmental
Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Board (115 Ill. 2d 65, 70, 503 N.E. 2d
343, 345-46 (1986)), it is the duty of this court, under the plain language of
section 41(b), to evaluate all the evidence in the record to determine if the
Pollution Control Board's findings were contrary to the manifest weight of the
evidence.
Parties’ Post-Decision Filings.
On September 28, 2005, the Board filed a petition for rehearing with the Third District, requesting
that it revisit the issue of the standard of review to be applied consistent with Section 41(b) of the
Act. As previously stated, other parties also requested further review of this and other issues. On
October 19, 2005, the Third District denied all petitions for rehearing, as well as the County’s
motion for publication of the Rule 23 order.
The Illinois Supreme Court Ruling in Town & Country I
The Illinois Supreme Court granted the petitions for leave to appeal of the Board and the County
on March 29, 2006. Oral argument was held on January 10, 2007. The Supreme Court found that
the case before it presented two primary issues: (1) whether the appellate court reviews the
Board's decision or the local siting authority's decision; and (2) if it is the Board’s decision that is
Environmental Register – March 2007
6
to be judicially reviewed, whether the Board decision on criterion (ii) is against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
Judicial Review Must Be of Board Decision, Not City Decision
At the outset of the opinion, the court states the "central issue" in the case: "whether we must
apply the manifest weight of the evidence standard of review to the City's decision or to that of the
Board." Town & Country I
(Ill. S. Ct. 2007), slip op. at 2. The court then provides background on
the Board, the Act, and the pollution control facility siting scheme, noting that that "authority of
the Board finds its roots in the Illinois Constitution of 1970" and that the "legislature established
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency . . . and the independent Pollution Control Board . . .
to implement the Act." Id
.
The court also notes that Town & Country filed its siting application with the City on March 13,
2002, proposing a new municipal solid waste landfill of approximately 400 acres with a 236-acre
waste footprint. Town & Country I
(Ill. S. Ct. 2007), slip op. at 4. The court states that the
"salient evidentiary issue presented by this appeal concerns the potential groundwater impact of
the proposed landfill. *** The parties disputed whether the geology underneath the proposed site
was an 'aquifer' or an 'aquitard.' An aquifer is a geologic formation that permits the flow of water.
An aquitard is a geologic formation that retards the flow of water." Id.
The court quotes liberally from the Board's opinion concerning criterion (ii). Id
. at 7-8. For
example, the court states: "the Board held the City's conclusion that the 'design of the landfill will
protect the public health, safety, and welfare is against the manifest weight of the evidence
because * * * the landfill is located on an aquifer and T&C's design does not adequately address
that fact.' The Board concluded on criterion (ii): 'Town & Country failed to address research
indicating that the Silurian dolomite, upon which the proposed landfill would rest, is an aquifer.'"
Id. at 7.
The court dismisses the notion that there is any "purported split in authority in the appellate court"
over whether the court should review the Board's decision or the decision of the local siting
authority. Town & Country I
(Ill. S. Ct. 2007), slip op. at 9-10. Instead, relying on familiar rules
of statutory construction, the court interprets Sections 41(a) and (b) of the Act as providing for
judicial review of the Board's final decision. That final Board decision in a landfill siting appeal,
the court rules, constitutes a "permit appeal" decision, under the Act’s Title X, subject to the
"manifest weight of the evidence" standard of review. Id
. at 11-12. The court emphasizes that
Section 40.1(b) "grants the Board an important role in the permit process. Section 40.1 requires
the Board's technically qualified members to conduct a 'hearing' . . . " Id.
at 12. The court
concludes: "Because the legislature has deemed the decision of the Board, rather than the
decision of the locality, to be 'final' in section 41, local decisions cannot be subject to direct
judicial review within the provisions of section 41 . . . The appellate court may then review the
Board's decision concerning the petition contesting the propriety of the underlying local decision,
based only on the evidence presented during the local proceedings." Id
. at 13.
The court finds that this result is not contrary to its decision in Environmental Protection Agency
v. Pollution Control Board, 115 Ill. 2d 65 (1986). The court explains the differences between
Board review of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) permit decisions and Board
review of local siting decisions, and how both such Board decisions are judicially reviewed:
While this court stated [in Environmental Protection Agency]
that there was a
distinction between permit and siting cases, this court never considered whether
the local siting authority or that of the Board is the final decision. It is true that
the Board's consideration of an IEPA permit decision differs from its
consideration of a local siting decision. But we based that distinction on the
lack of an adversarial hearing under the regular permitting process.
Environmental Protection Agency
, 115 111. 2d at 70. Accordingly, we found
that the Board was not required to apply the manifest weight of the evidence
Environmental Register – March 2007
7
standard to review of an Agency's decision to deny a permit. The appellate
court's review of the Board's decisions on either an appeal from an Agency
permit decision or a local siting decision is the same." Town & Country I
(Ill.
S. Ct. 2007), slip op.at 13.
The court also makes quick work of Town & Country's argument that the Board’s decision in a
siting appeal is "irrelevant" and that technical decisions should be made solely by the local
authority. Id
. at 14. The court finds that this position conflicts with "the Act's purpose 'to
establish a unified, state-wide program' to protect the citizens of Illinois from environmental
harm,” citing Section 2(b) of the Act. Id
. The court further states that to accord the Board "no
meaningful role in the process yet still require its participation would lack sense." Id
. Nor does
the Board being restricted to reviewing the local siting record mean, in the court's view, that the
Board's technical expertise is not brought to bear: "The fact that the Board undertakes
consideration of the record prepared by the local siting authority rather than preparing its own
record does not render the Board's technical expertise irrelevant. Instead, the Board applies that
technical expertise in examining the record to determine whether the record supported the local
authority's conclusions." Id
.
Supreme Court Affirms Board Decision on Criterion (ii)
After finding that it is the Board's decision that is subject to judicial review, the court turned to
that decision. The court states that the "essential issue, as expressed in the Board's underlying
reversal of the city council decision, is its disagreement with Town & Country's characterization
of the underlying bedrock." Id.
at 15. The court notes that the Board found (1) the evidence
insufficient to show that the bedrock was an aquitard and (2) the landfill design to be based on
"inaccurate scientific assumptions." Id.
The court holds that the Board's conclusion on criterion
(ii) (proposed facility designed, located, and proposed to be operated so as to protect public
health, safety, and welfare) is not against the manifest weight of the evidence: "The witness
testimony, the fact that Town & Country's application was based on only one deep boring into
competent bedrock on a 236-acre site, and that the 1966 study upon which the application was
based has been superceded provides significant evidence that the site application did not meet
criterion (ii)." Id
. at 16.
Conclusion of Illinois Supreme Court
After confirming the Board's decision on criterion (ii), the court finds: "Because resolution of this
issue is sufficient to decide this case, we need not discuss the remaining arguments in the briefs."
Id
. (The County had contested the Third District's decision affirming the Board's rulings that the
City's siting procedures were fundamentally fair and that the City's decision on criterion (viii)
(consistency of proposal with county solid waste management plan) was not against the manifest
weight of the evidence.)
The Supreme Court concludes its ruling by stating that "the judgment of the appellate court is
reversed and the order of the Board is confirmed."
Id.
Relationship to Town & Country II
As a result of the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Town & Country I
, Town & Country has no
approval for its proposed landfill expansion as a result of its 2002 application.
In 2003, Town and Country again applied to the City for siting approval, which the City again
granted. This action on the 2003 application was also appealed to the Board by three separate sets
of petitioners, and handled by the Board as a single consolidated action. 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.;
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., PCB 04-33, PCB 04-34, PCB 04-35 (cons.) (March 18,
Environmental Register – March 2007
8
2004)(hereinafter “Town & Country II (PCB).
” In Town & Country II, the Board again affirmed
the City's grant of siting approval. This decision too was appealed to the Third District.
In a non-precedential Rule 23 order issued on September 17, 2006, the Third District Appellate
Court again reversed the Board, one justice dissenting. 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., Nos. 3-04-0271, 3-04-0285, 3-04-0289 (cons.)(Third
Dist. September 17, 2006) (hereinafter Town & Country II
(Third Dist.).
On appeal of the Board's decision, petitioners argued that to the Third District Appellate Court
that the Board erred in upholding the City's siting approval decision because (1) Town & Country
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.
The Third District reversed the Board's decision, finding that Town & Country was barred from
filing its 2003 siting application with the City because that application violated Section 39.2(m).
Town & Country II
(Third Dist.) slip op. at 2. 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." Id.
at 8.
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." Town & Country II
(Third Dist.) slip op. at 11. The Third District 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 monotoring system, final
contours and cover configuration, etc. Id.
at 13-14. The Third District 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 Town &
Country II decision affirming the City and the City's corresponding grant of siting. Id.
at 14.
Town & Country's petition for rehearing, in which the Board joined, is pending before the Third
District Appellate Court.
Board Actions
March 1, 2007
Springfield, Illinois
Rulemakings
R06-21
In the Matter of: Organic Material Emissions Standards
and Limitations for the
Chicago and Metro-East Areas: Proposed Amendments to 35 Adm. Code 218
and 219 – The Board adopted a second notice opinion and order in this
rulemaking to amend the Board’s air pollution regulations.
4-0
R, Air
Administrative Citations
Environmental Register – March 2007
9
AC 05-47
IEPA v. Stacy Hess
– The Board entered an interim opinion and order finding
respondent violated Sections 21(p)(1), (3) and (7) of the Act (415 ILCS
5/21(p)(1), (3) and (7) (2004)) and assessing a penalty of $4,500. The Board
ordered the Clerk of the Board and the Environmental Protection Agency to file,
on or before March 22, 2007, a statement of hearing costs, supported by
affidavit, with service on respondent. Respondent may respond to the cost
statement within 14 days of service.
4-0
AC 06-32
County of Jackson v. David Skidmore
– The Board entered an interim opinion
and order finding respondent violated Sections 21(p)(1), (3) and (7) of the Act
(415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1), (3) and (7) (2004)) and assessing a penalty of $4,500.
The Board ordered the Clerk of the Board and the Environmental Protection
Agency to file, on or before March 22, 2007, a statement of hearing costs,
supported by affidavit, with service on respondent. Respondent may respond to
the cost statement within 14 days of service.
4-0
AC 07-29
IEPA v. Gere Properties, Inc., Perry Ridge Landfill, Inc., and Mike Whitlock
–
The Board granted the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s motion to
dismiss the administrative citation as to Gere Properties and Perry Ridge. The
Board found that Mike Whitlock violated Section 21(p)(1) of the Environmental
Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2004)) in this Perry County administrative
citation, and ordered respondent to pay a civil penalty of $1,500
.
4-0
Decisions
PCB 07-3
People of the State of Illinois v. East Lynn Community Water System, Inc.
– In
this water enforcement action concerning a Vermilion 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 $200, and to cease and desist from further violations.
4-0
W-E
PCB 07-29
People of the State of Illinois v. Pinnacle Genetics, L.L.C. and Professional
Swine Management, L.L.C. – In this air and water enforcement action
concerning a Macomb 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 $27,000, and to cease and desist
from further violations. The respondents must also perform three supplemental
environmental projects at a cost of $11,000 plus annual maintenance costs of
approximately $1,500 to $2,000.
4-0
W-E
Motions and Other Matters
PCB 00-104
People of the State of Illinois v. The Highlands, L.L.C. and Murphy Farms, Inc.,
a/k/a Murphy Family Farms, and Bion Technologies, Inc. – The Board granted
complainant’s motion to conform the second paragraph of the Board’s
January 26, 2007 order to the stipulation between the complainant and
Highlands, L.L.C. The Board ordered the respondent to pay the $9,000.00 civil
penalty in two equal and staggered installments, rather than in one installment by
thirty days from the date of the Board’s final opinion and order.
4-0
A-E
Environmental Register – March 2007
10
PCB 04-31
PCB 05-43
(cons.)
Broadus Oil v. IEPA
– The Board denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
of the Board’s December 21, 2006 opinion and order granting summary
judgment to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and affirming its
denial of various budget amendments for corrective actions at petitioner’s
leaking underground storage tank site.
4-0
UST Appeal
PCB 06-53
C&F Packing Company, Inc. v. IEPA and Lake County
– The Board granted this
Lake County facility’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this variance petition.
4-0
W-V
PCB 06-184
Peoria Disposal Company v. Peoria County Board
– The Board granted
petitioner’s motion to file a post-hearing brief in excess of 50 pages.
4-0
P-C-F-S-R
PCB 07-17
Dale L. Stanhibel v. Tom Halat d/b/a Tom’s Vegetable Market
– The Board
denied respondent’s motion to dismiss based on a claimed affirmative defense,
and also finding that the complaint is not duplicative or frivolous. The Board
directed respondent to answer the complaint on or before April 30, 2007.
4-0
Citizens
A&N – E
PCB 07-34
Knapp Oil Company, Inc. (Metropolis) 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 Massac
County.
4-0
UST Appeal
PCB 07-38
City of Joliet v. IEPA
– Having previously granted a request for a 90-day
extension, the Board dismissed this matter because no permit appeal was filed on
behalf of this facility in Will County.
4-0
P-A, Water
PCB 07-71
Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. IEPA
– The Board granted this LaSalle County
petitioner’s motion to stay the effectiveness of three contested permit conditions.
4-0
P-A, Air
PCB 07-77
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Baldwin Energy Complex (Property
Identification Number 09-012-003-00) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and
certified that specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., located in
Randolph 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
Water
PCB 07-78
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Havana Power Station (Property Identification
Number 09-11-400-001) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that
specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., located in Mason
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
Water
Environmental Register – March 2007
11
PCB 07-79
North American Lighting, Inc. v. IEPA
– The Board accepted for hearing this
permit appeal involving an Edgar County facility.
4-0
P-A, Air
PCB 07-80
Russ Taylor 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 Champaign
County facility.
4-0
UST Appeal
90-Day
Ext.
March 15, 2007
Chicago, Illinois
Rulemakings
Adjusted Standards
AS 07-3
In the Matter of: Petition of Midwest Generation, L.L.C., Waukegan Generating
Station for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.230 – The Board
granted petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings pending completion 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, R06-26.
4-0
Air
AS 07-4
In the Matter of: Petition of Midwest Generation, L.L.C., Will County
Generating Station for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.230 –
The Board granted petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings pending completion
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, R06-26.
4-0
Air
Administrative Citations
AC 06-50
IEPA v. Maria Lewis Gates, Mark Gates, and Mark Kingsley Lewis
– The Board
granted respondent Mark Gates’ motion in part. The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency need not produce the documents requested, but Gates is given
until April 13, 2007 to amend his original petition.
4-0
AC 07-31
IEPA v. Mark A. Lewis
– The Board dismissed respondent’s petition for review
as untimely filed. The Board then found that this Clay County respondent
violated Section (p)(1) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2004)), and ordered
respondent to pay a civil penalty of $1,500
.
4-0
AC 07-33
IEPA v. Donald R. Langley, Perry D. Winebrinner and Bret Slater
– The Board
found that these Logan County respondents violated Section (p)(1) of the Act
(415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2004)), and ordered respondents to pay a civil penalty of
4-0
Environmental Register – March 2007
12
$1,500.
Environmental Register – March 2007
13
AC 07-34
County of Jackson v. Alvin Valdez and Ruben J. Valdez
– The Board accepted
as timely respondents’ petition for review of this administrative citation
involving a Union County facility. But, the Board then directed respondents to
file within thirty days, an amended petition stating the reasons for appeal as
required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 108.206.
4-0
AC 07-35
County of Jackson v. Gary Easton
– The Board found that this Jackson County
respondent violated Section (p)(1) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2004)).
Because the Board had previously found respondent in violation of Section
21(p)(1) (
see
County of Jackson v. Gary Easton
, AC 04-42 (Mar. 18, 2004)), the
total civil penalty assessed is $3,000.
4-0
AC 07-36
AC 07-37
AC 07-38
(not cons.)
IEPA v. Lawrence Abraham Bartolomucci
– The Board accepted respondent’s
petition for review and on its own motion consolidated these administrative
citations concerning three sites in Jefferson County for purpose of hearing.
4-0
AC 07-39
County of Jackson v. Gary Easton
– The Board found that this Jackson County
respondent violated Section (p)(1) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2004)).
Because the Board had previously found respondent in violation of Section
21(p)(1) (
see
County of Jackson v. Gary Easton
, AC 04-42 (Mar. 18, 2004)), the
total civil penalty assessed is $3,000.
4-0
AC 07-43
County of Jackson v. Bob Osinga
– The Board accepted respondent’s petition for
review of this administrative citation involving a Jackson County facility, and set
the matter for hearing.
4-0
Decisions
PCB 06-79
People of the State of Illinois v. City of Gillespie
– In this water enforcement
action concerning a Macoupin 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 $2,000, and to cease
and desist from further violations. The respondents must also perform a
supplemental environmental project by making a $5,000 grant to the Gillespie
Soccer Association to fund a project intended to reduce or eliminate erosion and
leaching at the Little Dog Coal Mine site now owned and operated by the soccer
association.
4-0
W-E
PCB 07-73
People of the State of Illinois v. Randy Edmund d/b/a Edmund Farms
– In this
water enforcement action concerning a Henry County facility, the Board granted
relief from the hearing requirement of Section 31(c)(1) of the Environmental
Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2004)), accepted a stipulation and
settlement agreement, and ordered the respondent to pay a total civil penalty of
$7,500, and to cease and desist from further violations.
4-0
W-E
Environmental Register – March 2007
14
Motions and Other Matters
PCB 02-11
PCB 02-32
(cons.)
Doris Glave and Glenn Glave v. Brent Harris, Patty Harris, and Winds Chant
Kennel, Inc.; Village of Grayslake v. Winds Chant Kennel, Inc. – The Board
granted the parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss this consolidated citizens’
enforcement action involving a Lake County facility.
4-0
Citizens
N-E
PCB 03-191
People of the State of Illinois v. Community Landfill Company, Inc. and the City
of Morris – The Board denied complainant’s motion to set a hearing date or,
alternatively, sever the respondents’ claims.
4-0
L-E
PCB 05-191
People of the State of Illinois v. Castle Ridge Estates Incorporated
– 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 Madison County facility, the Board ordered publication of the
required newspaper notice.
4-0
W-E
PCB 05-212
John and Linda Maracic v. TNT Logistics North America Inc.
– The Board
granted petitioners’ motion for leave to file the amended complaint and accepted
their filing of the amended complaint, but denied their motion to add Key
Logistics Solutions and Location Finders, Inc. as respondents. The Board also
granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the original complaint and the amended
complaint.
4-0
N-E
PCB 05-213
Vincent and Jennifer Neri v. TNT Logistics North America Inc.
– The Board
granted petitioners’ motion for leave to file the amended complaint and accepted
their filing of the amended complaint, but denied their motion to add Key
Logistics Solutions and Location Finders, Inc. as respondents. The Board also
granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the original complaint and the amended
complaint.
4-0
N-E
PCB 05-216
Wayne Haser v. TNT Logistics North America Inc.
– The Board granted
petitioners’ motion for leave to file the amended complaint and accepted their
filing of the amended complaint, but denied their motion to add Key Logistics
Solutions and Location Finders, Inc. as respondents. The Board also granted
respondent’s motion to dismiss the original complaint and the amended
complaint.
4-0
N-E
PCB 05-217
Ken Blouin v. TNT Logistics North America Inc.
– The Board granted
petitioners’ motion for leave to file the amended complaint and accepted their
filing of the amended complaint, but denied their motion to add Key Logistics
Solutions and Location Finders, Inc. as respondents. The Board also granted
respondent’s motion to dismiss the original complaint and the amended
complaint.
4-0
N-E
Environmental Register – March 2007
15
PCB 07-9
K.A. Steel Chemicals Inc. v. IEPA
– The Board granted this Cook County
facility’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this permit appeal.
4-0
P-A, NPDES
PCB 07-27
Village of Wilmette v. IEPA
– The Board denied petitioner’s motion to
consolidate this case with PCB 07-48. The Board took no action on
respondent’s motion for summary judgment.
4-0
UST Appeal
PCB 07-37
People of the State of Illinois v. Village of Dorchester
– Upon receipt of a
proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to request
relief from the hearing requirement in this public water supply enforcement
action involving a Macoupin County facility, the Board ordered publication of
the required newspaper notice.
4-0
PWS-E
PCB 07-39
City of Geneva v. IEPA
– The Board granted this Kane County facility’s motion
for voluntary dismissal of this permit appeal.
4-0
P-A, Water
PCB 07-44
Indian Creek Development Company individually as beneficiary under Trust
3291 of the Chicago Title and Trust Company dated December 15, 1981 and the
Chicago Title and Trust Company, as trustee under trust 3291 dated December
15, 1981 v. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company – The Board,
in this land and water enforcement action involving a site located in Kane
County, denied respondent’s motion to dismiss, determined that the complaint
was neither duplicative nor frivolous, and accepted the complaint for hearing.
4-0
L&W-E
PCB 07-48
Village of Wilmette v. IEPA
– The Board denied petitioner’s motion to
consolidate this case with PCB 07-27.
4-0
UST Appeal
PCB 07-81
People of the State of Illinois v. Durre Brothers Welding and Machine Shop, Inc.
– The Board accepted for hearing this water enforcement action involving a site
located in Woodford County.
4-0
W-E
PCB 07-82
Bob’s Service Center, Inc. v. IEPA
– The Board accepted for hearing this
underground storage tank appeal involving a St. Clair County facility.
4-0
UST Appeal
PCB 07-83
People of the State of Illinois v. Edelstein Waterworks Co-Op
– The Board
accepted for hearing this public water supply enforcement action involving a site
located in Peoria County.
4-0
PWS-E
PCB 07-84
American Bottom Conservancy and Sierra Club v. City of Madison, Illinois and
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. – The Board accepted for hearing this third-
party pollution control facility siting appeal involving a Madison County facility.
4-0
P-C-F-S-R
Environmental Register – March 2007
16
New Cases
March 1, 2007 Board Meeting
07-077
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Baldwin Energy Complex (Property Identification
Number 09-012-003-00) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Dynegy
Midwest Generation, Inc., located in Randolph County, are pollution control facilities for the
purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2004)).
07-078
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Havana Power Station (Property Identification Number
09-11-400-001) v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s
recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Dynegy Midwest
Generation, Inc., located in Mason County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of
preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2004)).
07-079
North American Lighting, Inc. v. IEPA
– The Board accepted for hearing this permit
appeal involving an Edgar County facility.
07-080
Russ Taylor 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 Champaign County facility.
AC 07-043
County of Jackson v. Bob Osinga
– The Board accepted an administrative citation
against this Jackson County respondent.
AC 07-044
IEPA v. Harold Tomlinson, Larry Tomlinson and Jerry Tomlinson – The Board
accepted an administrative citation against these Marshall County respondents.
AC 07-045
County of LaSalle v. Wayne and Becky Foster
– The Board accepted an
administrative citation against these LaSalle County respondents.
March 15, 2007 Board Meeting
07-081
People of the State of Illinois v. Durre Brothers Welding and Machine Shop, Inc. – The
Board accepted for hearing this water enforcement action involving a site located in Woodford
County.
07-082
Bob’s Service Center, Inc. v. IEPA
– The Board accepted for hearing this underground
storage tank appeal involving a St. Clair County facility.
07-083
People of the State of Illinois v. Edelstein Waterworks Co-Op
– The Board accepted for
hearing this public water supply enforcement action involving a site located in Peoria County.
07-084
American Bottom Conservancy and Sierra Club v. City of Madison, Illinois and Waste
Management of Illinois, Inc. – The Board accepted for hearing this third-party pollution control
facility siting appeal involving a Madison County facility.
AC 07-046
IEPA v. Adolph M. Lo – The Board accepted an administrative citation against this
Champaign County respondent.
Back to top
Provisional Variances
IEPA 07-14 Midwest Generation EME, LLC Will County Generating Station v. IEPA
– On
March 14 2007, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency granted Midwest Generation EME,
LLC’s Will County Generating Station a provisional variance, subject to conditions, from the
BOD and TSS limits for Outfall 003 of NPDES Permit IL0002208. Midwest Generation EME
Environmental Register – March 2007
17
requested the provisional variance for its coal-fired steam electric generating facility near
Romeoville because of an upset in its sanitary wastewater treatment system that requires the
cleaning of the media in the trickling filter. Cleaning the media and re-establishing biological
growth will take approximately 30 days. Relief was granted beginning March 14, 2007, and
ending no later than April 27, 2007.
Public Act 93-0152 (Senate Bill 222) amended Sections 35-37 of the Illinois Environmental Act
(415 ILCS 5/5(b) (2002)) so that provisional variances are issued by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA). If the IEPA grants a provisional variance, then the IEPA must file
a copy of its written decision with the Board. The Board must maintain copies of the
provisional variances for public inspection. Copies of provisional variances can be obtained by
contacting the Clerk’s Office at (312) 814-3620, or by visiting the Board’s Website at
www.ipcb.state.il.us. If the IEPA denies a provisional variance request, then the applicant may
initiate a proceeding with the Board for a full variance.
Calendar
4/5/07
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
4/19/07
11:00 AM
Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting
James R. Thompson Center
Room 9-040
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago
04/23/07
10:00 AM
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)(A),
409.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100(d);
Repealer of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
406.203 and Part 407; and Proposed
News 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(h)
James R. Thompson Center
Room 9-031
100 W. Randolph
Chicago
5/3/07
11:00 AM
Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
Hearing Room
1021 North Grand Avenue
East
North Entrance
Springfield
Environmental Register – March 2007
18
5/08/07
12:00 PM
AC 05-72
IEPA v. Gary Clover, d/b/a Clover
Concrete, Marion, IL
City Hall Council Chambers
1102 Tower Square
Marion
5/16/07
9:00 AM
AC 06-16
IEPA v. Rex D. Evans and Roy W.
Evans, Jr. (Road Dist. No.
10/Evans)(IEPA File No. 442-05-
AC)(Consolidated: AC 06-16 and
AC 06-17
Municipal Building
2
nd
Floor Commission Room
200 W. Douglas
Jacksonville
5/16/07
9:00 AM
AC 06-17
IEPA v. Rex D. Evans and Roy W.
Evans, Jr. (Road Dist. No.
11/Evans)(IEPA File No. 443-05-
AC)(Consolidated: AC 06-16 and
AC 06-17
Municipal Building
2
nd
Floor Commission Room
200 W. Douglas
Jacksonville
5/17/07
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
