BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN WATER
COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
FACILITY DISCHARGE TO THE MISSISSIPPI
RNER
)
)
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD )
)
)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
AS 2007-2
(Adjusted Standard)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that
on October 3, 2007, there was electronically filed
with the Office
ofthe Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board of the State of Illinois
an original, executed copy
of the AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS-
AMERICAN'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY
INSTANTER
and AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN'S SUR-REPLY
INSTANTER,
a copy of which is herewith served upon you.
John Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James
R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite. 11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
William Richardson, Chief Legal Counsel
lIIinai,s Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resource Way
Springfield, IL 62702
Carol
Webb
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
Bradley
S. Hiles
Alison
M. Nelson
Blackwell, Sanders, Peper,
&
Martin, LLP
720 Olive Street, 24
th
Floor
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Matthew J. Dunn
Division Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Illinois Attorney General
100 W. Randolph Street, 12'h Floor
Chicago,
IL 60601
~Ly~INOI~mH~~TION
AGENCY
Sanjay
K. Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Dated: October 3, 2007
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
l
IN
THE
MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADmSTED STANDARD )
APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN WATER
)
COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
)
FACILITY DISCHARGE TO THE MISSISSIPPI
RNER )
AS 2007-2
(Adjusted Standard)
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN'S
SUR-REPLY BRIEF
NOW COMES the Respondent, lllinois Environmental Protection Agency
("lllinois EPA" or "Agency") by and through its attorney, Sanjay
K.
Sofat, Assistant
Counsel, respectfully moves for leave under
35 Ill.Adm. Code 101.500(e) to file a
response
to lllinois-American Water Company's("lllinois-American") Motion for Leave
to File a Sur-Reply Instanter and its Sur-Reply (hereinafter
"IL-Amer. Sur-Reply")
to the
Agency'spost-hearing reply brief. In support
of this motion, the Agency states as
follows:
I.
Pursuant to the Hearing Officer Order dated August 20, 2007, the parties were
directed to file concurrent post-hearing briefs by September 10,2007. The
concurrent responses were due by September 18, 2007.
2. On September 10,2007, both lllinois-American and the Agency electronically
filed their post-hearing briefs with the Board. On the same date, lllinois-
American also provided the Agency with an electronic copy of its brief.
3. lllinois-American'spost-hearing brief contained email correspondence
between lllinois-American'sMs. Cindy Hebenstriet and Mr. George Azevedo
ofUSEPA, Region 5, in an attempt to contradict statements made by Mr.
Toby Frevert in his deposition.
See
lllinois-American'sPost Hearing Brief,
FN
10 and Exhibit
I.
4. The Agency responded to lllinois-American'spost-hearing briefby filing the
Agency'spost-hearing reply briefon September 18, 2007. lllinois-American
also responded to the Agency'spost-hearing brief on September 18,2007.
2
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
5. In the Agency'spost-hearing reply brief, the Agency responded to Illinois-
American'spost-hearing brief asserting that its adjusted standard (AS 99-6) is
a trading project and communication with USEPA official, Mr. Azevedo,
confirms this assertion. After checking the Agency'scommunication with
Mr. Azevedo, the Agency realized it had received correspondence from
USEPA concluding otherwise.
See
Agency'sPost-Hearing Reply Brief,
Attachments I and
2. As the Board will note, Mr. Frevert forwarded the email
communication with Mr. Azevedo to the Agency's attorney, Sanjay Sofat, on
September
11, 2007-a day after the Agency filed its Post-Hearing brief.
6. On September 28, 2007, Illinois-American electronically filed a Motion for
Leave to File a Sur-Reply Instanter and its Sur-reply brief.
7. Under Section 101.500(e) ofthe Board'srules, a party filing a motion does
not have the right to reply "except as permitted by the Board or the hearing
officer to prevent material prejudice."
8. As Illinois-American failed to comply with Section Io1.5OO(e) by not first
seeking permission from either the Board or the Hearing Officer, the Agency
respectfully request that this Board dismiss Illinois-American's motion.
9. Ifthis Board accepts Illinois-American'smotion, the Agency contends that
filing a response
to
IL-Amer. Sur-Reply
is necessary to prevent material
prejudice. Illinois-American has made serious, unfounded, and inaccurate
allegations about the Agency's motive for attaching the USEPA
correspondence and spreadsheet.
10. Granting this motion will not result in hardship or prejudice to Illinois-
American.
In order
to prevent the material prejudice that would result from the inability to
respond to Illinois-American'sargument, the Agency requests leave to file a response to
IL-Amer. Sur-Reply.
Also, in the interest of allowing the Board to rule on Illinois-
American'sproposed adjusted standard at its meeting on October 4,2007, or October
18,
2007, without delay, the Agency'sresponse to
IL-Amer. Sur-Reply
is attached to this
Motion for Leave.
3
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
DATED: October 3, 2007
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
BY:
=:---..2::?
Sanjay K. Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division
of Legal Counsel
4
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
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 )
AS 2007-2
(Adjusted Standard)
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN'S
SUR-REPLY INSTANTER
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA" or "Agency") by
and through its attorney, Sanjay
K.
Sofat, Assistant Counsel, files this response in
opposition to IlIinois-American's sur-reply
brief (Hereinafter
"IL-Amer. Sur-Reply").
As Illinois-American has not complied with Section 101.500(e) by not first
obtaining permission to file a sur-reply from either the Hearing Officer,
or the Board, the
Agency respectfully requests this Board to deny IIlinois-American'smotion for leave to
file a sur-reply and memorandum in opposition
of the Agency'spost-hearing reply brief.
In the event that this Board grants IlIinois-American'smotion for leave to file a sur-reply,
the Agency presents the following arguments:
ARGUMENTS
Illinois-American claims that the Agency's argument regarding the USEPA email
and spreadsheet should
be rejected because it is misleading, without merit, and untimely.
Illinois-American specifically takes issue with: 1) the timing
ofthe Agency's
5
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
introduction ofMr. Azevedo'semail communication and spreadsheet; 2) the authenticity
ofthe email; and 3) the Agency'scharacterization of this email.
1. The Agency Did Not Intentionally Exclude the USEPA Email and
Spreadsheet in an Attempt to "Sandbag" its Reply Brief.
Contrary
to IIIinois-American'sbelief, the Agency did not intentionally exclude
the USEPA email and spreadsheet until Illinois-American had no opportunity
to respond.
IL-Amer. Sur-Reply
at 6. Rather, in reality, the Agency was simply responding to
IIIinois-American'spost-hearing brief argument, regarding correspondence with
Mr.
Azevedo ofUSEPA, Region 5. Due to the nature of the briefing schedule for this
proceeding, (which required concurrent filings), inevitably both sides would not have an
opportunity to respond to the other parties' post-hearing reply brief. This is a situation
that is beyond the Agency's control.
Illinois-American claims that the Agency should have presented this newly
discovered evidence at the August 29, 2007 Board hearing. Illinois-American further
criticizes the Agency (namely
Mr.
Toby Fervert) for "conveniently" failing to mention
either document at that time or offer either document into evidence.'
IL-Amer. Sur-Reply
at 6. Nevertheless, at the Board'sHearing on August 29,2007,
Mr.
Toby Frevert may
have received the email in his mailbox, but having an email in one'spossession does not
necessary mean that one also knew the importance of the email. As one could imagine,
Mr. Frevert, the Manager of the Division ofthe Water Pollution Control, receives many
emailseachday, some of which are fromUSEPA. Unfortunately,
Mr.
Frevert does not
I
Interestingly enough, even by Illinois-American'sown asserted standard, it similarly violated this
unspoken rule by not offering into evidence its own correspondence with Mr. Azevedo at the Board
hearing, nor did mention any such correspondence existed. Clearly, Illinois-American had their email
correspondence with Mr. Azevedo in their possession at the time
of the Board hearing.
6
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
have the time or the luxury to immediately open every email and dissect the relevance of
the email for each of the many issues presented to Mr. Frevert on a daily basis. Clearly,
Mr. Frevert has many other obligations than merely checking emailsall day. Due to
Mr.
Frevert'sbusy schedule, issues of urgency get first priority. As such, Mr. Frevert was
simply unaware
of the importance of the USEPA correspondence at the time of the
hearing.
2
Only when the Agency was prompted by Illinois-American'sattachment of its
correspondence with Mr. Azevedo in its post-hearing brief, did the Mr. Frevert recall the
USEPA email regarding trading projects
..
Illinois-American also argues that since the Agency did not present the emails at
the Board hearing, it had a responsibility to attach the correspondence to its post-hearing
brief. But, contrary to lliinois-American'sbelief, the purpose
of a reply brief is not
simply
to repeat verbatim what was written in the opening brief. Further, the Agency
was not under any obligation
to anticipate every argument that Illinois-American might
raise
in
its post-hearing brief and address it
in
the Agency'spost-hearing brief.
See
Oliveira
v.
Amoco Oil Co.,
331 m.App.3d 886, 726 N.E.2d 51, 55 (4th Dist. 2000)
vacated in part
&
rev'don other grounds.
Rather, the Agency's reply briefproperly
responded to arguments made in Illinois-American'spost-hearing brief.
Again, the Agency only realized the significance ofthis specific email
correspondence and spreadsheet after the Agency read Illinois-American'spost-hearing
briefdetailing its correspondence with
Mr. Azevedo. The Agency attached the
information in order to give the Board the most up-to-date and accurate information
available.
2 Illinois-American repeatedly notes that Mr. Frevert had the USEPA correspondence and spreadsheet in
his possession "5 days" before the Board hearing.
In
reality, it was only 3 days, becanse naturally
Mr.
Frevert does not check his email or dissect the prior week's email on weekends.
7
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
2. The Email Correspondence and Attached Spreadsheet is a True and
Accurate Copy of the Email Mr. Frevert Received on August 23, 2007.
Illinois-American also claims that the email attached to the Agency'sreply
brief
is not a true and accurate copy of the email Mr. Frevert received on August 23, 2007.
Illinois-American specifically identifies three flaws
1) a missing address block from Mr.
Azevedo'semail
to "Water Quality Trade Colleagues"; 2) no recipients are listed for Mr.
Keller'scorrespondence, as the address block proceeding his email is missing; and 3)
there are "several inches
of space on the second page of the email-a rather interesting
gap."
IL-Amer. Sur-Reply
at 5.
After reviewing IIlinois-American's identified flaws with the attached email
correspondence, the Agency obtained a hard copy print out
ofthe email correspondence
directly from Mr. Frevert, rather than the print out
of the forwarded email that was
attached
to the Agency'spost-hearing reply brief.
(See
Agency's post-hearing reply brief,
Attachment I). This hard copy print out
of Mr. Azevedo'semail correspondence to
"Water Quality Trading Colleagues," as opposed to the forwarded copy, shows the
"missing address block." Notably, Mr. Frevert was a recipient
of this email
correspondence from Mr. Azevedo.
(See
Attachment 1). Therefore, Mr. Frevert can
attest to the authenticity of the USEPA correspondence and spreadsheet.
Illinois-American also questions the missing address block from Mr. Keller's
email correspondence to Mr. Frevert. Again, after printing a hard copy
of the email
correspondence from Mr. Frevert, as opposed to the forwarded copy, the address block
appears. (See Attachment 2). Mr. Frevert was the only recipient of this email. The
8
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
Agency has no idea why the address blocks did not appear on forwarded copies, but
nonetheless, this "flaw" was not created
by someone in the Agency.
Additionally, the Agency notes that the "several inches
of space on the second
page
of the email," is still present on the print outs taken directly from Mr. Frevert's
computer. The fact that the "interesting gap" is on both the forwarded copy and the
direct print out illustrates that the gap is not so interesting, but rather the Agency'sprinter
page set
up format. Thus, Illinois-American'sobjection to the Agency's use of the email
on the grounds that it is not the full and complete email received by Mr. Frevert is
without merit.
3. IIlinois-American's NPDES Permit Does Not Contain Trading Provisions.
Illinois-American further claims that neither the spreadsheet nor the email
establish that the Illinois-American'ssedimentation reduction project was removed from
USEPA'sTrading Permit database because the NPDES permit does not contain trading
provisions.
J
In
support, Illinois-American cites NPDES Permit No. IL0000299, Special
Condition No. 13(b), (g).
In
IL-Amer. Sur-Reply,
Illinois-American attempts to discredit
the Agency's characterization
of the spreadsheet. Specifically, Illinois-American states
that the entry with regards to its offset states that the project is "[n]o longer considered a
trade in R5. Permit never included trading provisions?" Illinois-American highlights the
3 Illinois-American also attacks the Agency's typographical oversight.
See Agency'spost-hearing reply
brie/at
13. The spirit of the Agency'sargument is that IlIinois-American's "trading projecf' was removed
because there were no trading provisions and it is generally inconsistent with federal
policy
(not law, as
was written in the reply briel). Without any type
of prompting from Illinois EPA, the USEPA spreadsheet
indicated that IlIinois-American'ssedimentation reduction project
is not a trading project, consistent with
the sttucture specifically prescribed by the USEPA federal policy on trading. The Agency'srole in this
spreadsheet was to merely affirm what USEPA evidently already knew-Illinois-American's sedimentation
reduction project is not a trading project.
9
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
fact that the intern added a question mark, indicating the author of the spreadsheet was
"unsure
of the truthfulness ofthe statement."
IL-Amer. Sur-Reply
at 2. Mr. Azevedo's
email forwarding the spreadsheet
to
'~W
ater Quality Trading Colleagues" asked all
recipients
to "review the information in the attached spreadsheet from your state and
inform me
of any errors." llIinois-American specifically takes issue with the fact that the
Agency failed
to notify Mr. Azevedo of "this mistake" contained in the USEPA
spreadsheet.
IL-Amer. Sur-Reply
at 2.
The Agency asserts that any question that the intern may have had about whether
the permit included trading provisions was cleared up by the Agency's response that the
information contained in the spreadsheet is correct. IIIinois-American's sedimentation
reduction project is not a trading project, neither within the context
of Illinois nor in the
context
of federal guidance
4
.
Illinois-American also asserts that IIIinois-American'sNPDES permit does
contain trading provisions. Naturally, Illinois-American overlooks a very important fact.
These conditions were incorporated pursuant
to the Board'sOrder in AS 99-6. Special
Conditions l3(b) and (g) were not structured under the context of any trading policy.
Illinois does not have a trading policy. On the other hand, USEPA does have a trading
guidance document. Further, even by IIIinois-American's own cited definition of a trade,
IIIinois-American'ssedimentationreduction project is not a trading project. Specifically,
a point/nonpoint source trading occurs when "a point source(s) arranges for control of
pollutants from nonpoint source(s) to undertake greater-than-required pollutant
4 Illinois-American also argoes that the USEPA compiled spreadsheet, "[i]tself acknowledges Illinois-
American's offset
is a trading program," because IIIinois-American'sproject is contained under the "PS-
NPS" category.
fL.Amer. Sur-reply
at 3. This argument is without merit. If there is anything that is clear
from that sentence is that USEPA, "[n]o longer considered [Illinois-American'soffset] a trade
in
RS."
10
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
reductions in lieu of upgrading its own treatment beyond the minimum technology-based
discharge standards, to achieve water quality objectives more effectively."
(emphasis
added) IL-Amer. Sur-Reply
at 3. As Illinois-American is intending to use the
sedimentation reduction project as a substitute to meeting Illinois' technology-based
controls for TSS, the reductions achieved
by the sedimentation control project are not in
lieu
ofupgrading its own treatment beyond the minimum technology-based discharge
standards. Thus, even under this federal definition Illinois-American'sproject is not a
trade. To conclude that these conditions are trading provision is simply unfounded.
CONCLUSION
Illinois-American construes the Agency's use of the USEPA correspondence and
spreadsheet as "sandbagging." This is simply not true. Due to the nature
of this
proceeding being that concurrent post-hearing briefs and reply briefs were due
on the
same date, it is likely that both parties could have presented information which the other
party would not have an opportunity to respond. Illinois-American's post-hearing
brief
included a lengthy discussion regarding Mr. Azevedo. After reviewing the substance of
Illinois-American'spost-hearing brief and specifically the information relating to Mr.
Azevedo, the Agency conducted its own review
of Azevedo correspondence. The
Agency merely wanted to present all current and accurate information for the
Board's
consideration.
For the foregoing reasons, the Agency respectively request that this Board reject
Illinois-American's motion for leave to file a sur-reply to the Agency's post-hearing reply
brief.
11
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
DATED: October 3,2007
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
::O~ON::~
Sanjay
K.
Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division
of Legal Counsel
12
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY
OF SANGAMON
)
)
)
SS
AFFIDAVIT OF TOBY FREVERT
I, Toby Frevert, after being first duly sworn upon my oath, do depose and say as
follows:
1.
I am employed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, as
the Manager
of the Division of the Water Pollution Control.
2.
I received an email from Mr. George Azevedo, the NPDES Nutrients
and Water Quality Trading Coordinator for USEPA Region
5, on
August 23,2007.
3.
The email attached to the Agency'sResponse to Illinois-American's
Sur-Reply Briefas Attachment 1 is a true and accurate copy
of that
email.
4.
The email attached to the Agency'sResponse to lllinois-American's
Sur-Reply Briefas Attachment 2
is a true and accurate copy of the
email I received from
Mr. AI Keller.
Further, Affiant sayeth not.
SubscrijJed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for said County and
State, this
~
Yt&ay of October 2007.
~r~~~~'~~~~*~AAAAA'
.
:;:
OFFICIACSEAL"........"':;
:~
BRENDA BOEHNER
;:
~:
NOTARY PIJ8lJC, STATE OF IUlNaIS .:
.'. MY COMI.IISSlON EXPIR'S 11 3
)
.!..,...........9 ...•• ..4t...
i.,,~o:.i~.~·.:1:
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
ll-3-
0
']
13
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
I
:r~b.Y
Frevert - Fw: trading Permit Database Annual Update
From:
<Azevedo,George@epamail.epa,gov>
To:
<Iisa,mccormick@pca,state,mn,us>, <bruce,henningsgaard@pca,state,mn,us>,
<duane,schuettpelz@wisconsin,gov>, <toby,frevert@illinois,gov>, <al,keller@illinois,gov>,
<Gary,Stuhlfauth@epa,state,oh,us>, <chess@idem,in.gov>
Date:
8/23/200710:02:47
AM
Subject:
Fw: Trading Permit Database Annual Update
Dear Water Quality Trade Colleagues,
HQ has asked me to confirm the water quality trade data used to track
progress
in the program.
Can you please review the information
in the attached spreadsheet from
your state and inform
me of any errors, In particular, the "Region 5" ,
tab has the number
of permits featuring trading language for each
program, the number of facilities covered
by those permits, and the
number
of facilities that have actually traded.
(See attached file: permiUnventory_by region 2007 Working .fiIe.xls)
As a reminder
HQ released the Water Quality Trading Toolkit recently,
please forward this link to interested stakeholders
in your state.
The Toolkit is a web-based document available
at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterqualitytradingIWQTIoolkifhtml
Regards, George.
312-886-0143
---- Forwarded by George Azevedo/R5/USEPNUS on
08/2312007
09:35 AM
Kavya
Kasturi/DC/USEPA
IUS
To
08/20/200702:44
Erik BecklR1/USEPNUS@EPA, Jeff
PM
Gralz/R2/USEPNUS@EPA, Patricia
Gleason/R3/USEPNUS, Curt
Fehn/R4/USEPNUS@EPA, George
Azevedo/R5/USEPNUS@EPA, Scott
Stine/R6/USEPNUS@EPA, Mark
Matthews/R7/USEPNUS@EPA, Sandra
Stavnes/P2/R8/USEPNUS@EPA,
Matthew Mitchell/R9/USEPNUS@EPA,
Claire Schary/R10/USEPNUS@EPA
cc
Virginia Kibler/DC/USEPNUS
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
Page
1]1
IrToby Frevert -
FW:=T~~g
Permit Da.tabase
Annua~
Upaate"
Subject
Trading Permit Database Annual
Update
Hi all,
It's that time of year again! I have attached the latest version the
Trading Permit Database excel file. Please look at the file, verify that
the information is correct, and update the table with any new
information regarding trading
in your region. The most important parts
of the table are the number
of permits featuring trading language for
each program, the number
of facilities covered by those permits, and the
number
of facilities that have actually traded.
Please return your revised tables to me
by Friday, September 7. If you
. have any questions let me know.
Thanks everyone! Hope you're all having a great summer (and enjoying
reading the Trading Toolkit)!
-Kavya
Kavya P Kasturi
ORISE Intern
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
EPA
East- Room 7146
Mail Code: 4203M
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone:
202-564~635
Fax: 202-564-6384
Email:' Kasturi.Kavya@epa.gov
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
ATTACHMENT 2
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
l Tob{Frevert - Fwd: Fw: Trading Permit Oata6ase Annual Update
Pag£D1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
AI Keller
Frevert, Toby
8/23/200711:32:14
AM
Fwd: Fw: Trading Permit Database Annual Update
I am going to advise George the info is perfect for Illinois..
>>> <Azevedo.George@epamail.epa.gov>
8123/2007
10:01 :53 AM »>
Dear Water Quality Trade Colleagues,
HQ has asked me to confirm the water quality trade data used to track
progress
in the program.
Can you please review the information in the attached spreadsheet from
your state and inform me
of any errors. In particular, the "Region 5"
tab has the number of permits featuring trading language for each
program, the number of facilities covered
by those permits, and the
number
of facilities that have actually traded.
(See attached file: permiUnventory_by region 2007 Working file. xis)
As a reminder HQ released the Water Quality Trading Toolkit recently,
please forward this link to interested stakeholders
in your state.
The Toolkit
is a web-based document available at:
http://www.epa.govlwatergualitvtradingIWQTToolkit.html
Regards, George.
312-886-0143
---- Forwarded by George Azevedo/R5/USEPAIUS on
08/23/200709:.35
AM
Kavya
KasturilDC/USEPA
IUS
To
08/20/2007
02:44
Erik Beck/R 1/USEPAlUS@EPA, Jeff
PM
Gralz/R2/USEPAlUS@EPA, Patricia
Gleason/R3/USEPAlUS, Curt
Fehn/R4/USEPAlUS@EPA, George
Azevedo/R5/USEPAlUS@EPA, Scott
Stine/R6/USEPAlUS@EPA, Mark
Matthews/R7/USEPAlUS@EPA, Sandra
Stavnes/P2/R8/USEPAlUS@EPA,
Matthew Mitchell/R9/USEPAlUS@EPA,
Claire Schary/R1 O/USEPAlUS@EPA
cc
Virginia KiblerlDC/USEPAIUS
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
VrobyFrevert - Fwd: Fw: Trading-Permit batabase Annual
U~date
SUbject
Trading Permit Database Annual
Update
Hi all,
It's that time
of year again! I have attached the latest version the
Trading Permit Database excel file. Please look at the file, verify that
the information is correct, and update the table with any new
information regarding trading
in your region. The most important parts
of the table are the number of permits featuring trading language for
each program,the number of facilities covered by those permits, and the
number of facilities that have actually traded.
Please return your revised tables to
me by Friday, September 7. If you
have any questions let me know.
Thanks everyone! Hope you're all having a great summer (and enjoying
reading the Trading Toolkit)!
-Kavya
Kavya P Kasturi
ORISE Intern
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
EPA East- Room 7146
Mail Code: 4203M
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-6635
Fax: 202-564-6384
Email: Kasturi.Kavya@epa.gov
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
Pa~e~]
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
RNER )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AS 2007-2
(Adjusted Standard)
I, Sanjay K. Sofat, certify on October 3,2007, I filed the above AGENCY'S
RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
SUR-REPLY
INSTANTER
and AGENCY'SRESPONSE TO ILLINOIS-
AMERICAN'S SUR-REPLY
INSTANTER
electronically with the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board and with Carol Webb, Hearing Officer, at webbc@illinois.gov.
In addition, I served copies of the foregoing electronically upon Bradley S. Hiles and
Alison
M. Nelson, counsel for petitioner Illinois-American, at
bhiles@Blackwellsanders.com and anelson@Blackwellsanders.com.
An
executed copy
of the AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A SUR.REPLY
INSTANTER
and AGENCY'SRESPONSE TO
ILLINOIS-AMERICAN'S SUR-REPLY
INSTANTER,
will be mailed on October 3,
2007, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following persons:
William Richardson, Chief Legal Counsel
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources
One Natural Resource Way
Springfield, IL 62702
Matthew J. Dunn
Division Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Illinois Attorney General
100
W. Randolph Street, 12
th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Respectively submitted,
Illinois Environmental
P"',,",,
AW'~~
~~
"""--
Sanjay
K.
Sofat
Assistant Counsel
14
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 3, 2007
