Microsoft Word - 0804_A.doc

0804_A
0804_B
0804_C

G. Tanner Girard, Acting Chairman

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) 814-6032 TDD

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

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

Letter from the Chairman

During April, the Board progressed in several rulemaking dockets. These included

proposals to amend rules in the following topic areas: groundwater standards; water

quality and effluent standards for the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) and

Lower Des Plaines River; NO

emissions from specific stationary engines and

turbines; and VOM emissions from various consumer products, architectural and

industrial maintenance coatings, and aerosol coatings.

On April 9, 2008, the Board held the first hearing on the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s (IEPA) amended proposal to control nitrogen oxide (NO

emissions from stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines and turbines

(R07-19). The Board docketed the proposal as In the Matter of: Section 27

Proposed Rules for Nitrogen Oxide (NO

) Emissions from Stationary Reciprocating

Internal Combustion Engines and Turbines: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Parts 211 and 217. The second hearing on the amended proposal is scheduled for

May 7, 2008, in Chicago.

On April 21, 2008, the Board scheduled two hearings in a rulemaking proposal to amend the Illinois groundwater

rules (R08-18). The first hearing will be held June 18, 2008, in Chicago and the second will take place on July 16,

2008, in Springfield. Originally filed on February 19, 2008, by the IEPA, the proposal was docketed as In the

Matter of: Proposed Amendments to Groundwater Quality Standards 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620. IEPA proposes to

amend the Groundwater Quality Standards to reflect new scientific data, standards that have been amended at the

federal level, technical references updated in the Incorporations by Reference, and additional groundwater

parameters that have been discovered.

On April 23 and 24, the Board held two more days of hearing on IEPA’s proposal to amend the Board’s rules for

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses. The Board had earlier held eight days of hearing on the

proposal docketed as In the Matter of: Water Quality Standards and Effluent Limitations for the Chicago Area

Waterway System and Lower Des Plaines River Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 301, 302, 303, and

304 (R08-9). As this letter was written, the Board anticipated setting additional hearings in the summer and fall.

In R08-9, IEPA proposes updating the designated uses and criteria necessary to protect uses for the waters currently

designated as Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses. All waters that carry these designations are

water bodies that were a part of the engineering effort that reversed the flow of the Chicago River. In 2000 and

2002, IEPA began pilot programs for the Lower Des Plaines River and the CAWS to develop use attainability

analysis for these waters. The proposed rule incorporates the findings of the pilot programs. Among other

proposals, IEPA recommends three distinct recreational uses and three distinct aquatic life uses applicable to CAWS

and the Lower Des Plaines River.

On April 30, 2008, the Board held the first hearing on IEPA’s proposal to reduce volatile organic material (VOM)

emissions from various consumer products, architectural and industrial maintenance products, and aerosol coatings

(R08-17). The Board docketed the proposal as In the Matter of: Standards and Limitations for Organic Material

Emissions for Area Sources Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 223. The second hearing on the proposal is

scheduled for June 4, 2008, in Chicago.

Information about these proceedings and other Board cases is available through the Clerk’s Office Online (COOL)

on our Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us

Dr. G. Tanner Girard

Environmental Register – April 2008

Inside This Issue:

PPELLATE UPDATE

ESTRICTED STATUS/CRITICAL REVIEW

Federal Update

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposes NESHAPs for Nine Metal Fabrication and

Finishing Source Categories Under the Clean Air Act

On April 3, 2008 (at 73 Fed. Reg. 18334), USEPA proposed National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAPs) for nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories. The nine source categories are (1)

electrical and electronic equipment finishing operations; (2) fabricated metal products; (3) fabricated plate work

(boiler shops); (4) fabricated structural metal manufacturing; (5) heating equipment, except electric; (6) industrial

machinery and equipment finishing operations; (7) iron and steel forging; (8) Primary Metal Products

Manufacturing; and (9) valves and pipe fittings. The operations of concern engage in dry abrasive blasting,

machining, dry grinding and dry polishing with machines, spray painting and other spray coating, and welding

operations. The hazardous air pollutants associated with these sources, as listed in the proposed rules, include

toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, n-hexane, naphthalene, cumene, and biphenyl.

USEPA stated that it will accept public comments on the proposed rules until May 5, 2008. This time may be

extended until May 19, 2008, if before April 14, 2008, USEPA receives a request for a public hearing on the

proposed rules. Interested persons who want further information should contact Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies

and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243–02), Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: 919-541-5251; fax number: 919-541-

3207; email address: jones.donnalee@epa.gov.

These new federal standards will become effective in Illinois when effective as a matter of federal law, without any

action by the Board, as provided by Section 9.1(b) of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/9.1(b) (2006)).

United States Environmental Protection Agency Adopts Amendments to the NESHAP for Hazardous Waste

Combustors Under the Clean Air Act

On April 8, 2008 (at 73 Fed. Reg. 18971), USEPA amended National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAPs) applicable to hazardous waste combustors (the “Hazardous Waste Combustor Rule”) that it

initially adopted on October 12, 2008 (at 70 Fed. Reg. 59402). USEPA stated that the amendments clarify

monitoring provisions and correct omissions and typographical errors in the rule. USEPA further said that the

amendments did not address the issues raised by four separate petitions for reconsideration that it received after

adoption of the rules or in USEPA’s September 27, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 54875) request for public comments.

USEPA stated that the amendments did not change the October 14, 2008 compliance deadline for the rule.

Interested persons who want further information should contact Associate General Counsel for the Air and

Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20004.

Amended with the NESHAP were various related provisions in the body of the hazardous waste treatment, storage,

and disposal facility standards. Those provisions recite provisions of the Hazardous Waste Combustor Rule

NESHAP that apply to hazardous waste facilities. The new federal NESHAP standards will become effective in

Illinois when effective as a matter of federal law, without any action by the Board, as provided by Section 9.1(b) of

the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/9.1(b) (2006)). However, it will be necessary for the Board to

amend the affected segments of the hazardous waste rules to refer to the newly amended NESHAP provisions. The

Environmental Register – April 2008

Board will accomplish this using the identical-in-substance procedure, which bears a statutory deadline of April 8,

2009 for completion of those amendments.

415 ILCS 5/7.2 and 22.4(a) (2006).

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposes Drinking Water Regulations for Aircraft Public

Water Systems Under the Safe Drinking Water Act

On April 9, 2008 (at 73 Fed. Reg. 19320), USEPA proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

(NPDWRs) that would apply to public water supplies on aircraft (the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule, or “ADWR”).

The proposed new rules would add a new subpart to the existing, generally applicable NPDWRs that is tailored to

air carriers that fall within the regulatory definition of a “public water system.” Any facility that provides water for

human consumption to at least 25 individuals at least 60 days out of the year falls within that definition, and is

subject to the NPDWRs. USEPA estimates that this includes 63 air carriers and 7,327 public aircraft in the U.S.

USEPA stated that the proposed rules “amend and consolidate in one place the federal drinking water requirements

. . . for aircraft public water systems.” USEPA stated that the proposed rules would tailor existing NPDWRs, which

are crafted to apply to stationary water systems, so that they might be implemented in mobile systems. The new

rules would include microbiological quality standards and monitoring requirements, recordkeeping and reporting

requirements, system management requirements, and public notification requirements that would apply in the event

of a violation of the standards.

The effective date of the AWDR would be 12 months after the date on which USEPA would ultimately adopt it.

Public comments on the proposed ADWR are due by July 8, 2008, except that comments on the information

collection aspects of the rule are due by May 9, 2008.

Interested persons who want further information should contact Richard Naylor, Drinking Water Protection

Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC–4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-3847; e-mail address:

naylor.richard@epa.gov.

If rules are adopted by USEPA, the Board must complete corresponding rules in the Illinois primary drinking water

regulations of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 611 using the identical-in-substance procedure of Sections 7.2 and 17.5 of the

Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/7.2 and 17.5 (2006)).

United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Defense Adopt a Final Rule for

Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

On April 10, 2008 (at 40 C.F.R. 19594), USEPA and the Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of

Engineers (DA) jointly issued a rule relating to compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources due to

activities authorized by a permit issued by the DA. This rule is intended to minimize the adverse impacts to aquatic

ecosystems through Clean Water Act section 404 (dredge and fill) permits and other DA-issued permits.

The rules add a new subpart to the existing standards for designation of disposal sites for dredge or fill material in

40 C.F.R. 230. USEPA and DA described the rules as follows: “This rule improves the planning, implementation

and management of compensatory mitigation projects by emphasizing a watershed approach in selecting

compensatory mitigation project locations, requiring measurable, enforceable ecological performance standards and

regular monitoring for all types of compensation and specifying the components of a complete compensatory

mitigation plan, including assurances of long-term protection of compensation sites, financial assurances, and

identification of the parties responsible for specific project tasks.”

USEPA and DA further elaborated: “Compensatory mitigation can be carried out through four methods: the

of a previously-existing wetland or other aquatic site, the

of an existing aquatic site’s

establishment

(i.e., creation) of a new aquatic site, or the

of an existing aquatic site.

There are three mechanisms for providing compensatory mitigation:

permittee-responsible compensatory

mitigation, mitigation banks

in-lieu fee mitigation

.” The rule is effective on June 9, 2008.

Interested persons who want further information should contact David Olson at 202–761–4922 or by email at

david.b.olson@usace.army.mil,

or Mr. Palmer Hough at 202–566–1374 or by e-mail at

hough.palmer@epa.gov

Additional information can also be found at the Corps Headquarters Regulatory Program webpage at

http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/index.html

or the USEPA compensatory mitigation webpage at

http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation

Environmental Register – April 2008

The federal regulations relate to the disposal of dredge and fill material in wetlands and other aquatic sites. The

Illinois environmental regulations include no specific body of regulations that apply directly to such activities. No

Board action will result based on these federal amendments, and no direct implementation of their provisions will

occur as a matter of State law.

United States Environmental Protection Agency Makes Available Final Report, “Application of Watershed

Ecological Risk Assessment Methods to Watershed Management”

USEPA announced the availability of a final report, entitled “Application of Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

Methods to Watershed Management,” on April 14, 2008. The draft report supplements the older report, “Guidelines

for Ecological Risk Assessments,” released by USEPA in 1998.

USEPA described ecologic risk assessment as a procedure for analyzing environmental problems, and it stated that

the procedure is intended to increase the use of ecological science in decision making. USEPA stated that the new

report addresses issues unique to ecologic assessment of watersheds. USEPA will make the report available on the

Internet, at www.epa.gov/ncea

Interested persons who want further information should contact Information Management Team, National Center

for Environmental Assessment (8601P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 703–347–8561; fax: 703–347–8691; email:

nceadc.comment@epa.gov.

No immediate Board rulemaking action will directly result from the release of this federal guidance document. No

implementation-related issues as a matter of State law are presently anticipated.

United States Environmental Protection Agency Adopts Rules Under the Toxic Substances Control Act to

Address Lead-Based Paint Hazards Caused by Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities That Disturb

Lead-Based Paint in Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities

On April 22, 2008 (at 73 Fed. Reg. 21692), USEPA adopted a rule relating to renovation, repair, and painting

activities in target housing and child occupied facilities that could disturb lead-based paint. USEPA adopted the

rule under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Target housing is all housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities,

unless a child under 6 years old will reside in the housing, and except for 0-bedroom dwellings. A child occupied

facility is a building that is visited for at least three hours each time by the same child under six years old on at least

two different days in any calendar week, so long as the child’s combined visits total at least six hours in a week and

at least 60 hours in a year.

The new federal rule establishes training and certification requirements for renovators, renovation workers, and dust

samplers; accreditation requirements for trainers; standards for work practices; and recordkeeping requirements.

States may apply to USEPA for authorization to administer and enforce the minimum federal standards. The rule is

effective on June 23, 2008.

Interested persons who want further general information on the federal rule should contact Colby Lintner,

Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address:

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov

Interested persons who want technical information should contact Mike Wilson, National Program Chemicals

Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0521; e-mail address:

wilson.mike@epa.gov

In Illinois, the Department of Public Health has implemented standards applicable to mitigation of hazards to

children posed by lead-based paint and materials pursuant to the Comprehensive Lead Evaluation, Reduction, and

Window Replacement Program Act (410 ILCS 43 (2006) and the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (410 ILCS 45

(2006)). That State agency will be responsible for incorporating the new federal standards into Illinois regulations

pursuant to section 11.1 of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (410 ILCS 45/11.1 (2006)). The existing Illinois

regulations relating to abatement of lead-based paint hazards appear at 77 Ill. Adm. Code 845.

Environmental Register – April 2008

United States Environmental Protection Agency Makes a New Informational Pamphlet Available:

“Renovation Right: Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools (Renovation

On April 22, 2008 (at 73 Fed. Reg. 21769), USEPA announced the availability of a new information pamphlet,

“Renovation Right: Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools (Renovation Right).”

Intending the pamphlet to provide renovation-specific relating to the health hazards from lead paint, USEPA

described its contents in the following words: “This new pamphlet gives information on lead-based paint hazards,

lead testing, how to select a contractor, what precautions to take during the renovation, and proper cleanup

USEPA released the pamphlet simultaneous with its adoption of new regulations applicable to renovation, repair,

and painting activities in target housing and child occupied facilities that could disturb lead-based paint. (

Interested persons who want further general information on the federal rule should contact Colby Lintner,

Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address:

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov

Interested persons who want technical information should contact Mike Wilson, National Program Chemicals

Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0521; e-mail address:

wilson.mike@epa.gov

United States Environmental Protection Agency Adopts Direct Final Amendments to the NESHAPs for

Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Category Under the Clean Air Act

USEPA adopted a direct final rule on April 23, 2008 (at 73 Fed. Reg. 21825) that will amend the National

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) applicable to organic liquids distribution (non-

gasoline) category of facilities. A notice of proposed rulemaking appeared in the same issue of the

Federal Register

(at 73 Fed. Reg. 21889). In that notice of proposed rulemaking, USEPA stated that it must receive any written

comments on the rules prior to June 9, 2008. The amendments will become effective on July 22, 2008 without

further notice unless USEPA receives significant adverse public comment by June 9, 2008.

USEPA stated that it adopted the NESHAPs for this category on February 3, 2004 (at 69 Fed. Reg. 5038) and

amended them on July 28, 2006 (at 71 Fed. Reg. 42898). USEPA explained that the direct final rule will clarify

combustion control device compliance requirements, certain storage tank control compliance dates, and vapor

balance system monitoring requirements, and they will correct typographical errors found in the July 28, 2006

Interested persons wanting further general and technical information on the rule should contact Mr. Stephen Shedd,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals

Group (E143–01), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone: 919-541-5397, facsimile number: 919-

685-3195, e-mail address: shedd.steve@epa.gov.

Persons wanting compliance information should contact Ms. Marcia Mia, Office of Compliance, Air Compliance

Branch (2223A), EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone:

202-564-7042, facsimile number: 202-564-0050, e-mail address: mia.marcia@epa.gov.

These new federal standards will become effective in Illinois when effective as a matter of federal law, without any

action by the Board, as provided by Section 9.1(b) of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/9.1(b) (2006)).

United States Environmental Protection Agency Withdraws the CAIR FIP Implementing the Clean Air Act

for Illinois and 11 Sister States With Approved SIPs

On April 28, 2008 (at 73 Fed. Reg. 22818), USEPA withdrew the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) federal

implementation plan (FIP) for Illinois and 11 sister states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, and Virginia). This follows separate earlier findings that the

Illinois and sister states’ CAIR state implementation plans (SIPs) are adequate.

Environmental Register – April 2008

USEPA adopted the FIPs on April 28, 2006 (at 71 Fed. Reg. 25328) based on its earlier finding on April 25, 2005

(at 70 Fed. Reg. 21147), effective May 25, 2005, that the states had failed to submit SIPs to address interstate

transport with respect to the fine particulate matter (PM

) and 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS). USEPA issued the CAIR, which established the levels of NOX and SO

emission reduction

requirements necessary for CAIR-affected states to address their significant 8-hour ozone and PM

transport on May 12, 2005 (at 70 Fed. Reg. 25162). USEPA said that NO

emissions are precursors to 8-hour

emissions are precursors to PM

. The CAIR affects Illinois and 27 sister states and the

District of Columbia in the eastern half of the country. All CAIR states were required to submit their CAIR SIPs by

September 11, 2006.

As the control requirement for the FIPs, USEPA had adopted the model trading rules for electric generating units

(EGUs) that Illinois EPA provided in CAIR as a control option for states. USEPA stated that it intended that the

FIPs would achieve the emissions reduction requirements established by the CAIR until states promulgated and

received USEPA approval of SIPs to achieve the reductions. USEPA had codified the Illinois NO

requirements as 40 C.F.R. 52.745 and those for SO

as 40 C.F.R. 52.746.

USEPA withdrew the Illinois and sister states’ FIPs after state submission and USEPA approval of SIPs that meet

the CAIR requirements. The Board adopted the Illinois CAIR rules in Proposed New Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR) SO2, NOx Annual and NOx Ozone Season Trading Programs, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225, Subparts A, C, D, E

and F, R06-26 (Aug 26, 2007), effective on August 31, 2007. USEPA stated that the Illinois EPA submitted the

adopted rules to USEPA for review and approval on September 14, 2007. USEPA granted full approval of Illinois’

CAIR SIP for the 8-hour ozone and PM

NAAQS on October 16, 2007 (at 72 Fed. Reg. 58528), effective

December 17, 2007.

Interested persons who want further information should contact Carla Oldham, Air Quality Planning Division,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, mail code C539–04, Environmental Protection Agency, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: 919–541–3347; fax number: 919–541–0824; e-mail

oldham.carla@epa.gov

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposes More Stringent Particulate Matter Emission

Standards for Coal Preparation Facilities Under the Clean Air Act

On April 28, 2008 (at 73 Fed. Reg. 22901), USEPA proposed more stringent particulate matter (PM) emission

standards for coal processing facilities. USEPA stated that the more stringent standards would apply to new,

reconstructed, and modified facilities for which construction began after April 28, 2008. The proposed amendments

would further clarify existing emissions monitoring provisions and add new monitoring requirements for the new,

reconstructed, and modified sources.

The more stringent standards are based on USEPA’s review of performance under the existing rule, Subpart Y of 40

C.F.R. 60, which it adopted on January 15, 1976 (at 41 Fed. Reg. 2232). Subpart Y applies to any coal preparation

facility that processes 200 tons of coal or more per day and for which construction, reconstruction, or modification

occurred after October 24, 1974. USEPA stated that it had completed two prior reviews of the rule, on April 14,

1981 (at 46 Fed. Reg. 21769) and April 3, 1989 (at 54 Fed. Reg. 13384) and did not revise the standards based on

Interested persons who want further information should contact Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy Strategies Group,

Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone

number: 919-541-4003, facsimile number: 919-541-5450, electronic mail (e-mail) address:

fellner.christian@epa.gov

When adopted by USEPA, the new federal standards will apply in Illinois on their federal effective date, as

provided by Section 9.1(b) of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/9.1(b) (2006)).

Rule Update

Board Withdraws From First Notice A Proposal to In the Matter of: Section 27 Proposed Rules for Nitrogen Oxide

(NOx) Emissions From Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and Turbines: Amendments to 35

Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R07-19

Environmental Register – April 2008

On April 17, 2008, the Illinois Pollution Control Board, directed the Clerk of the Board to withdraw the first-notice

of the rulemaking docketed as In the Matter of: Section 27 Proposed Rules for Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions

From Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and Turbines: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Parts 211 and 217,R07-19. In a May 17, 2007 order, the Board had ordered publication of first notice of the rules in

Illinois Register

, following the Board’s division of an April 6, 2007 proposal of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (IEPA) into two dockets: R07-19, and R07-18, In the Matter of : Fast-Track Rules Under

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) SIP Call Phase II: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 201.146, Parts 211 and 217.

The procedural background of this division of dockets was reported in detail in the

Environmental Register

(May 2007) at pp. 4-5.

The R07-19 first notice was published at 31

7702 (June 8, 2007). A notice of that first notice’s withdrawal

is scheduled for publication in 32

. 7230-7231(May 2, 2008).

IEPA filed an amended proposal in R07-19 on December 20, 2007, which the Board accepted January 10, 2008.

Environmental Register

No. 643 (January 2008) at p.3. The Board’s April 17, 2008 explained that that

withdrawal of the June 2007 first notice would help eliminate the risk of confusion about the scope of the hearings

in this matter. Hearings are scheduled for April 9, 2008 in Edwardsville and May 7, 2008 in Chicago. The hearing

officer established requirements for the pre-filing of testimony and provided other information about the hearings in

a February 19, 2008 order.

Following the hearings, the Board will determine whether to authorize first notice publication of a revised R07-19

Copies of the Board’s opinion and orders, as well as hearing officer orders and IEPA amended proposal may be

obtained by calling the Clerk’s office at 312-814-3620, or by downloading copies from the Board’s Web site at

www.ipcb.state.il.us.

For additional information contact Tim Fox at 312-814-6085; e-mail address foxt@ipcb.state.il.us .

Appellate Update

On Reconsideration, Retreating From Its 2006 Decision, Third District Appellate Court Affirms Board’s

Affirmance of Siting Decision in County of Kankakee, Illinois, Edward D. Smith, Kankakee County State’s

Attorney, Byron Sandburg and Waste Management of Illinois, Inc v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, City of

Kankakee, Illinois, Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC and Town & Country Utilities, Inc., Nos. 3-04-02713-

04-02853-04-0289 (cons.) (3rd Dist. Apr. 24, 2008) (affirming Board’s order affirming grant of siting

approval in PCB 04-33, 34, 35 (Mar. 18, 2004)

In an April 24, 2008 13-page unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 (155 Ill. Ed. R.23), on

reconsideration, the Third District retreated from its November 17, 2006 decision reversing the Board’s decision in

County of Kankakee, Illinois, Edward D. Smith, Kankakee County State’s Attorney, Byron Sandburg and Waste

Management of Illinois, Inc v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, City of Kankakee, Illinois, Kankakee Regional

Landfill, LLC and Town & Country Utilities, Inc., Nos. 3-04-02713-04-02853-04-0289 (cons.) (3rd Dist. Nov. 17,

2006) (hereinafter “Town and Country II” (Third Dist. 2006)). In its most recent ruling, the Third District found

that the Board had correctly affirmed the City of Kankakee’s grant of siting approval to the 2003 application made

by Town and Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill, L.L.C. (T&C) in County of Kankakee,

Illinois, Edward D. Smith, Kankakee County State’s Attorney, Byron Sandburg and Waste Management of Illinois,

Inc v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, City of Kankakee, Illinois, Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC and Town &

Country Utilities, Inc., Nos. 3-04-02713-04-02853-04-0289 (cons.) (3rd Dist. Apr. 24, 2008) (hereinafter “Town

and Country II (Third Dist. 2008)”). The Board decision which was the subject of the appeal is 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, 2004)(hereinafter “Town & Country II (PCB)”.

The Board and appellate cases involving T&C ‘s 2003 siting application are known as “Town and Country II”,

while those involving T&C’s 2002 siting application are known as “Town and Country I”.

(Both sets of “Town and

County” have previously been discussed in some detail in these pages, most recently in

Environmental Register

Environmental Register – April 2008

633 at 2-9 (Mar. 2007)). While the petition for rehearing in Town and Country II

was pending before the Third

District, the Illinois Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Board’s decision in Town and Country I,

City of Kankakee’s grant of siting approval as against the manifest weight of the evidence. In so doing, the

Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Third District reversing the Board. Town & Country Utilities, Inc. v.

Illinois Pollution Control Board, 225 Ill. 2d 103, 866 N.E.2d 227 (2007) (reversing 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), and affirming the Board’s decision in 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.). (Jan. 1,

Currently, the end result of the decisions in Town and Country I and Town and Country II, is that the courts have

found that T & C has siting approval based on the 2003 application, while denial of the 2002 was properly denied.

As discussed in more detail below, the Town and Country II

(Third Dist. 2008) Rule 23 order affirmed the Board’s

decision on a single ground: the 2002 and 2003 siting applications were not “substantially the same,” so the latter

application was not barred by Section 39.2(m) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act), 415 ILCS 5/39.2(m). The

Third District did not address other appeal grounds that were raised by the appellants (

, compliance with siting

criteria, fundamental fairness), who may wish to pursue further court action in this case.

Town & Country II (PCB)

The Board’s opinion and order in Town & Country II (PCB )

dealt with a number of issues on appeal. Among these

was a provision of the Act central to the Third District’s recent ruling in Town and Country II

(Third Dist. 2008):

Section 39.2(m) of the Act which provides:

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 criteria (i) through (ix) of subsection (a) of this Section within the preceding

two years. 415 ILCS 5/39.2(m).

The Board held that the two-year prohibition of Section 39.2(m) did not bar T&C’s 2003 application because the

Kankakee City Council had never “disapproved” the 2002 application, and because the Board’s reversal of the City

Council in Town & Country I

was not a “disapproval” within the meaning of Section 39.2(m). The Board stated,

“The Board’s authority is limited to reviewing a local siting authority’s decision, but not actually approving or

disapproving the siting application.” Town & Country II (PCB )

, slip op. at 13. Because the Board found that the

Section 39.2(m) prohibition was inapplicable, the Board stated that it “need not address the parties’ arguments

regarding whether the 2003 application is substantially the same as the 2002 application.”

Town and Country II (Third Dist. 2006)

In its 2006 Rule 23 order, the Third District held that the Board erred in finding that the Board did not "disapprove"

the 2002 application by reversing the City in Town & Country I

. The court held that the Board's reversal of the

City's grant of siting in Town & Country I

"constituted a disapproval within the plain meaning of section 39.2(m)."

Town and Country II” (Third Dist. 2006),

slip op. at 10. The court then proceeded to decide whether the 2002 and

2003 applications were “substantially the same” under Section 39.2(m). 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.

. at 14. The court focused on how both applications were the same

regarding such uncontested items as the site's legal description, size, capacity, waste footprint, tonnage of waste

received, stormwater management plan, closure and post-closure plan, leachate collection system, gas management

and monitoring system, final contours and cover configuration, etc.

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 because that application was

substantially the same as the 2002 application, the court reversed the Board's Town & Country II

decision affirming

the City's grant of siting.

Environmental Register – April 2008

Town and Country II (Third Dist. 2008)

T&C and the Board petitioned the Third District for rehearing of its order in Town and Country II (Third Dist.

2006). The petition for rehearing asserted that the Third District erred in by giving no deference at all to the

Board’s statutory interpretation of Section 39.2(m): the majority applied a

standard of review but, as the

dissent correctly pointed out, in doing so the court should have, but failed, to accord substantial deference to the

Board’s interpretation of the statute the Board is empowered to enforce. In its recent decision, the Third District

stated that it granted the petition for rehearing “to address the standard of review.” Town and Country II (Third

Dist. 2006), slip op. at 8.

The court notes that, after it reversed the Board in 2006, and while the petition for rehearing was pending, the

Illinois Supreme Court issued its March 2007decision in Town & Country I

, 225 Ill. 2d 103, 866 N.E.2d 227

(2007), concerning T&C’s 2002 application:

The supreme court reversed this court's holding that the decision of the local siting

authority (the City of Kankakee), and not the Pollution Control Board, was the

administrative decision that was subject to review, and to which courts must defer under

sections 40 and 41 of the Act. *** The supreme court held that the final decision that is

reviewed is the decision of the Board, not the decision of the City. Town & Country,

225 Ill.2d at 108-09. The effect of the Supreme Court's decision was to affirm the

Board's ruling on the previous application. Town and Country II (Third Dist. 2006)

The Third District then states that “under the appropriate standard of review, the decision of the Board was not

against the manifest weight of the evidence” and so the Board’s order is accordingly affirmed.

The Third District’s discussion next focuses on the differences and similarities between the 2002 application and the

2003 application.

at 4-7. The Third District states:

The City Council ruled that the 2003 application was not substantially the same as the 2002

application for three reasons: (1) the service area described in the 2003 application was

substantially smaller than the area described in the 2002 application; (2) the 2003 application

contained additional hydrogeological information, including three volumes not included in the

2002 application; and (3) the 2003 application contained proposals for alternate designs not

included in[] the 2002 application. *** The Board held, inter alia

, that section 39.2(m) of the Act

did not apply because the 2002 application was not disapproved by the City Council. ***

Therefore, the Board found, it did not need to address the parties' arguments regarding whether

the 2003 application was substantially the same as the 2002 application.

Again giving no deference to the Board’s interpretation of Section 39.2(m), the Third District reasserts its original

statutory construction, under which the Board’s reversal of the City in Town & Country I

constitutes a Section

39.2(m) “disapproval.” The Third District concludes that the contrary position of T&C and the Board “is now

untenable” in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Town & Country I

Since it is the decision of the Board, not the decision of the local siting authority that is

reviewed on appeal, a finding that the Board's action constituted "disapproval" within the

meaning of Section 39.2(m) is consistent with our supreme court's interpretation of the

Act. The reversal by the Board constituted a disapproval within the meaning of the Act.

Town and Country II (Third Dist. 2006)

, slip op. at 10-11.

Turning to the second step of its legal analysis, the Third District recites the similarities and differences between the

2002 and 2003 applications, stating:

We have reviewed the voluminous evidence contained in the record, in light of the appropriate

standard of review, and find that the Board's findings on the substantial similarity is not against

the manifest weight of the evidence. While the similarities between the two applications are

apparent, so are the differences. Under the Act, the Board is given the authority to weigh the

differences between the two applications and determine as a matter of fact, whether the

differences are significant. Since we find that the Board's decision is supported by the record, we

find that the Board did not err.

Having so upheld the Board on Section 39.2(m), the court abruptly ends its analysis, stating:

Environmental Register – April 2008

Accordingly, the order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board upholding the decision of the

Kankakee City Council is affirmed. Consequently, the decision of the Kankakee City Council

granting T&C's 2003 application for siting approval is also affirmed.

The Third District did not address the other points, noted at the outset of its order, on which the appellants

contended the Board erred

Specifically, they argue: (1) T&C was barred from filing the 2003 application because

that application violated section 39.2(b) and section 39.2(m) of the Act . . .; (2) the

Board erred in finding that the 2003 application complied with sections 39.2(a)(ii) and

39.2(a)(viii) of the Act . . . ; and the local siting proceedings were fundamentally unfair.

Appellants may therefore wish to pursue further court action in this matter.

Board Actions

April 3, 2008

Chicago, Illinois

Adjusted Standards

Petition of BioMedical Technology Solutions, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard

from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 1422 – The Board granted an adjusted standards to

Biomedical Technology Solutions, Inc. (BMTS) from the requirement that

BMTS use any of the indicator organisms listed at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section

1422.Appendix A, Table B(1) when performing an Initial Efficacy Test of its

Demolizer® dry heat sterilization technology. In lieu of the listed organisms,

BMTS may use only

Bacillus atrophaeus

(ATCC 9372). BMTS must comply

with all other requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 1422.

Administrative Citations

IEPA v. Michael Gruen and Jon Eric Gruen, d/b/a Jon's Tree Service

Board entered a final opinion and order requiring respondent to pay hearing

costs of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the Board in the

amount of $427.56 and a civil penalty of $1,500. This order follows the Board's

interim order of January 24, 2008, which found that this respondent had violated

Sections 21(p)(1) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2006)).

IEPA v. Dennis Ballinger

– The Board granted complainant’s motion for

withdrawal of this administrative citation and closed the docket.

County of DuPage v. Nicolas Cruz

– The Board ordered respondent to file a

petition for review to cure noted deficiencies, on or before May 5, 2008, or the

petition for review would be subject to dismissal.

City of Chicago Department of Environment v. Crystal IL 98LLC

The Board accepted for hearing respondent’s petition for review of this

administrative citation involving a Cook County facility.

IEPA (File No. 23-08-AC) v. C. John Blickhan

– The Board accepted for

hearing respondent’s petition for review of this administrative citation involving

an Adams County facility.

Environmental Register – April 2008

County of Jackson v. James Moake

– The Board accepted for hearing

respondent’s petition for review of this administrative citation involving a

Jackson County facility.

County of Jackson v. Jack Reeves & Jacqueline Watkins

– The Board accepted

for hearing respondents’ petition for review of this administrative citation

involving a Jackson County facility.

County of Jackson v. Frank Smith & Danny Smith

– The Board granted

complainant’s motion for withdrawal of this administrative citation and closed

Adjudicatory Cases

Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. County Board of Kankakee County,

Illinois – The Board denied petitioners’ motion to reconsider the January 24,

2008 Board Order which affirmed the decision of the County of Kankakee

denying Waste Management of Illinois’ application to site for landfill expansion.

Robert and Tony Thompson v. IEPA

– The Board granted this Alexander

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

TT-Town Drive Thru, Inc. v. IEPA

– The Board denied petitioner’s motion for

summary judgment, granted respondent’s counter-motion for summary judgment

and affirmed the respondent’s March 2, 2007 denial of UST Fund reimbursement

for petitioner.

Rochelle Waste Disposal, L.L.C. v. The City of Rochelle, an Illinois Municipal

Corporation and The Rochelle City Council – The Board granted the parties’

motions to reconsider and affirmed its January 24, 2008 decision, which

affirmed special conditions 8, 13, 22, 23, 26, and 28, and, as requested, modified

conditions 33 and 34 of the sitting approval granted by the City of Rochelle on

April 11, 2007.

Lindenhurst Sanitary District v. IEPA

– The Board granted this Lake County

facility’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this permit appeal.

People of the State of Illinois v. Rancho Amigo, LLC

– In this land enforcement

action concerning a Jo Daviess County facility, the Board granted relief from the

hearing requirement of Section 31(c)(1) of the Environmental Protection Act

(415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2006)), and accepted a stipulation and settlement

agreement, ordering the respondent to pay a total civil penalty of $5,000, and to

cease and desist from further violations.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago v. Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency – The Board granted this Cook County

facility’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this permit appeal.

Grote Stock Farm-Sims v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of Grote Stock Farm, located in Wayne County, are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Newcomber Confinements-Lanark v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and

Environmental Register – April 2008

certified that specified facilities of Newcomber Confinements – Lanark Farm,

located in Carroll County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of

preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10

People of the State of Illinois v. Village of Merrionette Park

accepted for hearing this public water supply enforcement action involving a site

located in Cook County.

McCune Farm Gold – East v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of McCune Farm Gold – East, located in Bureau County, are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

McCune Farm Gold – East v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of McCune Farm Gold – East, located in Bureau County, are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Bible Pork – Louisville v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of Bible Pork – Louisville, located in Clay County, are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

John Blickhan v. IEPA

– The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension

of time to file a permit appeal on behalf of this Adams County facility.

Von Holten Farms – Lydon v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and

certified that specified facilities of Von Holten Farms – Lyndon, located in

Whiteside County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential

tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

April 17, 2008

Chicago, Illinois

Rulemakings

In the Matter of: Section 27 Proposed Rules for Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)

Emissions From Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and

Turbines: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217 – The Board on

its own motion, entered an order directing the Clerk of the Board to withdraw the

first-notice of this rulemaking published in the

Illinois Register

on June 8, 2007.

Environmental Register – April 2008

Adjusted Standards

In the Matter of: Petition of Midwest Generation, LLC, Waukegan Generating

Station for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.230 – The Board

denied the Environmental Law & Policy Center’s motion to intervene in this

adjusted standard proceeding.

In the Matter of: Petition of Midwest Generation, LLC, Will County Generating

Station for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.230 – The Board

denied the Environmental Law & Policy Center’s motion to intervene in this

adjusted standard proceeding.

In the Matter of: Petition of BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. for

Waste Delisting – The Board granted petitioner’s motion to file amendatory

adjusted standard language, and accepted the amended language. The Board

directed the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to provide the

Board with IEPA’s final position on the relief requested in this matter before the

Administrative Citations

IEPA v. Carol G. Prieb and Margaret Dillavou

– The Board accepted for hearing

respondents’ petition for review of this administrative citation involving a Union

County facility.

Adjudicatory Cases

People of the State of Illinois v. Skokie Valley Asphalt, Inc., EDWIN L.

FREDERICK, JR., individually and as owner and President of Skokie Valley

Asphalt Co., Inc., and RICHARD J. FREDERICK, individually and as owner

and Vice President of Skokie Valley Asphalt Co., Inc. – The Board denied

respondents’ motions to reconsider and stay the Board’s November 1, 2007

order. In summary the Board’s April 17, 2008 order finds that respondents

violated the following provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) and

the Board’s regulations: Sections 12 (a) and (f) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/12(a)

and (f) (2002)), and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.203, 304.105, 304.106, 305.102(b),

309.102(a), and 309.104(a). On or before June 2, 2008, the Board ordered the

respondents to pay a total civil penalty of $153,000, and to pay complainant

$30,225 in attorney fees and $2,291.20 in costs, for a total of $32,516.20.

Daniel J. Beers v. Dave Calhoun (Let It Shine Car Wash)

– In this citizen noise

enforcement action concerning a Tazewell County facility, the Board accepted a

stipulation and settlement agreement and closed the docket. Respondent agreed

to perform several projects to mitigate noise projected toward complainant’s

J. D. Streett & Company, Inc. v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Board granted this Fulton County facility’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this

underground storage tank appeal.

People of the State of Illinois v. City of Hometown

– In this public water supply

enforcement action concerning a Cook County facility, the Board granted relief

from the hearing requirement of Section 31(c)(1) of the Environmental

Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2006)), and accepted a stipulation and

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

$1,000, and to cease and desist from further violations.

Environmental Register – April 2008

Ameren Energy Generating Company v. IEPA

– The Board granted this request

for a 90-day extension of time to file a permit appeal on behalf of this Morgan

County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. Carri Scharf Materials Company, d/b/a Farmdale

Sand & Gravel Pit – The Board accepted for hearing this water enforcement

action involving a site located in Tazewell County.

Kollmann Hog Farms v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of Kollmann Hog Farms, located in Effingham County, are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Mark Sturtevant-Shannon v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of Mark Sturtevant-Shannon, located in Carroll County, are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

CAC Farms, Inc - Ashton v. IEPA –

Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of CAC Farms, Inc - Ashton, located in Ogle County, are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Baldwin Energy Complex) v. IEPA

Board accepted for hearing this permit appeal involving a Randolph County

facility. No action was taken on petitioner’s motion for partial stay of specified

conditions in the construction permit.

CNS Farms, Inc. - Malta v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of CNS Farms, Inc., located in DeKalb County, are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Harmet Farms - Cropsey v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of Harmet Farms - Cropsey, located in McLean County, are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Ehnle Farms v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

of Ehnle Farms, located in Bureau County, are pollution control facilities for the

purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS

200/11-10 (2006)).

Honey Creek Hogs, Inc. v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of Honey Creek Hogs, Inc., located in Pike County, are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

D & V. Pork v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

Environmental Register – April 2008

of D & V. Pork, located in Adams County, are pollution control facilities for the

purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS

200/11-10 (2006)).

Kuntz Farms v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities

of Kuntz Farms, located in McLean County, are pollution control facilities for

the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS

200/11-10 (2006)).

Pine Ridge Farms, Inc. v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of Pine Ridge Farms, Inc., located in Adams County, are

pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Jeff Hank - Aledo v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of Jeff Hank - Aledo, located in Mercer County, are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Hopkins Farms – Gilson v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation, the Board found and certified that

specified facilities of Hopkins Farms, located in Knox County, are pollution

control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

April 3, 2008 Board Meeting

Grote Stock Farm-Sims v. IEPA – Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Grote Stock Farm, located in Wayne

County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Newcomber Confinements-Lanark v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Newcomber Confinements - Lanark Farm,

located in Carroll County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the

Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

People of the State of Illinois v. Village of Merrionette Park

– The Board accepted for hearing this public

water supply enforcement action involving a site located in Cook County.

McCune Farm Gold – East v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of McCune Farm Gold - East, located in

Bureau County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax

Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

McCune Farm Gold – East v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of McCune Farm Gold - East, located in

Bureau County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax

Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Bible Pork – Louisville v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Bible Pork - Louisville, located in Clay

Environmental Register – April 2008

County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

John Blickhan v. IEPA

– The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of time to file a permit appeal

on behalf of this Adams County facility.

Von Holten Farms - Lydon v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Von Holten Farms - Lyndon, located in

Whiteside County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

IEPA v. William Dixon

– The Board accepted an administrative citation against this Union County

IEPA v. Gire Properties, Inc. and Gire Construction, Inc.,

– The Board accepted an administrative

citation against these Douglas County respondents.

County of Jackson v. Frank Smith & Danny Smith

– The Board granted complainant’s motion for

withdrawal of this administrative citation and closed the docket.

IEPA v. Edward W. Fisher, Rhonda L. Fisher and DEM/EX Group, Inc.

– The Board accepted an

administrative citation against these Mason County respondents.

IEPA v. Hiram Vanderheiden, Jr.

– The Board accepted an administrative citation against this Mason

County respondent.

April 17, 2008 Board Meeting

Ameren Energy Generating Company v. IEPA – The Board granted this request for a 90-day extension of

time to file a permit appeal on behalf of this Morgan County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. Carri Scharf Materials Company, d/b/a Farmdale Sand & Gravel Pit

Board accepted for hearing this water enforcement action involving a site located in Tazewell County.

Kollmann Hog Farms v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Kollmann Hog Farms, located in

Effingham County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property

Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Mark Sturtevant-Shannon v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Mark Sturtevant-Shannon, located in

Carroll County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax

Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

CAC Farms, Inc - Ashton v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of CAC Farms, Inc - Ashton, located in Ogle

County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Baldwin Energy Complex) v. IEPA

– The Board accepted for hearing this

permit appeal involving a Randolph County facility. No action was taken on petitioner’s motion for partial stay of

specified conditions in the construction permit.

CNS Farms, Inc. - Malta v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of CNS Farms, Inc., located in DeKalb

County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Harmet Farms - Cropsey v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Harmet Farms - Cropsey, located in

McLean County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax

Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Environmental Register – April 2008

Ehnle Farms v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of Ehnle Farms, located in Bureau County, are pollution control

facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Honey Creek Hogs, Inc. v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Honey Creek Hogs, Inc., located in Pike

County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

D & V. Pork v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of D & V. Pork, located in Adams County, are pollution control

facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Kuntz Farms v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation, the

Board found and certified that specified facilities of Kuntz Farms, located in McLean County, are pollution control

facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Pine Ridge Farms, Inc. v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Pine Ridge Farms, Inc., located in Adams

County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Jeff Hank - Aledo v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Jeff Hank - Aledo, located in Mercer

County, are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35

ILCS 200/11-10 (2006)).

Hopkins Farms – Gilson v. IEPA

– Upon receipt of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s

recommendation, the Board found and certified that specified facilities of Hopkins Farms, located in Knox County,

are pollution control facilities for the purpose of preferential tax treatment under the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS

200/11-10 (2006)).

IEPA v. Joseph Cosentino and Rob Pinski

– The Board accepted an administrative citation against these

Perry County respondents.

In the Matter of: Petition of Big River Zinc Corporation for an Adjusted Standard Under 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 720-131(c) – No action taken.

In the Matter of: Standards and

Limitations for Organic Material

Emissions for Area Sources Proposed

New 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 223

IEPA Office Building

Training Room 1214 West

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

(North Entrance)

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room

1021 North Grand Avenue East

North Entrance

Springfield

In the Matter of: Section 27 Proposed

Rules for Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)

Emissions From Stationary Reciprocating

Internal Combustion Engines and

Turbines: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code Parts 211 and 217

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Environmental Register – April 2008

In the Matter of: Section 27 Proposed

Rules for Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)

Emissions From Stationary Reciprocating

Internal Combustion Engines and

Turbines: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code Parts 211 and 217

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

In the Matter of: Petition of BFI Waste

Systems of North America, Inc. for

Waste Delisting

Ogle County Judicial Center

106 South Fifth Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

VIDOECONFERENCE

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room (1244 N, First

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

(North Entrance)

Springfield

In the Matter of: Standards and

Limitations for Organic Material

Emissions for Area Sources Proposed

New 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 223

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

In the Matter of: Standards and

Limitations for Organic Material

Emissions for Area Sources Proposed

New 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 223

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

VIDOECONFERENCE

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room (1244 N, First

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

(North Entrance)

Springfield

In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments

to Groundwater Quality Standards, 35 Ill.

Michael A. Bilandic Building

160 N. LaSalle Street, Room

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Environmental Register – April 2008

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

VIDOECONFERENCE

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Hearing Room (1244 N, First

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

(North Entrance)

Springfield

In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments

to Groundwater Quality Standards, 35 Ill.

Illinois Environmental Protection

1021 North Grand Avenue East,

Environmental Register – April 2008

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Public Water Supplies

Restricted Status List - Public Water Supplies

SYSTEM NAME

RGN NATURE OF PROBLEM

DATE

ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR TREATMENT CENTER - IL0977189

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

ARLINGTON REHABILITATION LIVING CENTER - IL0971110

INADEQUATE HYDRO STORAGE

ATHENS – IL1290050

INADEQUATE TREATMENT CAPACITY

AURORA COMMUNITY WATER ASSN - IL0895750

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

BAHL WATER CORP - IL0855200

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

BALCITIS PUMP CORP - IL2015100

INADEQUATE STORAGE

BRADLEY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION - IL2015050

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

CARROLL HEIGHTS UTILITIES COMPANY - IL0155200

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

CENTURY PINES APARTMENTS - IL0150020

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

CHANDLERVILLE - IL0170200

INAD & UNAPPROVED STORAGE

CHESTERFIELD – IL1170200

TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE

COOKSVILLE - IL1130400

TTHM & HALOACIDIC ACIDS

COYNE CNTR COOP - IL1615150

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

CROPSEY COMMUNITY WATER - IL1135150

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

CRYSTAL CLEAR WATER COMPANY - IL1115150

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

D L WELL OWNERS ASSOCIATION - IL0975380

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

DE KALB UNIV DVL CORP - IL0375148

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

DEERING OAKS SUBDIVISION - IL1115200

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

DOVER - IL0110350

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

EAST END WATER ASSOCIATION - IL1610140

INADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY

EAST MORELAND WATER CORPORATION - IL1975640

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

EASTMORELAND WTR SERVICE ASSN - IL1975600

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

EVERGREEN VILLAGE SUBDIVISION - IL1615310

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

FAHNSTOCK COURT SUBDIVISION - IL1435200

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

FAIR ACRES SUBDIVISION - IL1975680

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

FOREST LAKE ADDITION - IL0975500

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

FRWRD-SKYLINE PLANT - IL0895030

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

GARDEN STREET IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION - IL1975376

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

GOOD SHEPHERD MANOR - IL0915189

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

GREAT OAKS AND BEACON HILLS APARTMENTS - IL2015488

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

Environmental Register – April 2008

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Public Water Supplies

Restricted Status List - Public Water Supplies

SYSTEM NAME

RGN NATURE OF PROBLEM

DATE

HAWTHORN WOODS - IL0970450

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

HEATHERFIELD SUBDIVISION - IL0635150

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

HETTICK - IL1170500

HIGHLAND SUBDIVISION - IL0895530

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

HILLVIEW SUBDIVISION - IL1975800

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

HOLY FAMILY VILLA - IL0310280

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

INGALLS PARK SUBDIVISION - IL1975880

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

LAKE LYNWOOD WATER SYSTEM - IL0735330

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

LARCHMONT SUBDIVISION - IL2015290

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

LARSON COURT APARTMENTS - IL1615728

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

LEGEND LAKES WATER ASSOCIATION - IL2015300

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

LIBERTY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - IL0435600

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

LINDENWOOD WATER ASSOCIATION - IL1415300

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

LISBON NORTH, INC. - IL0631000

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

LONDON MILLS - IL0574620

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

LYNN CENTER - IL0735100

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

LYNNWOOD WATER CORPORATION - IL0995336

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

M C L W SYSTEM, INC. - IL1315150

INADEQUATE SOURCE

MENARD RURAL WATER CO.(SWEETWATER SYSTEM)- IL1290010 5

INADEQUATE SOURCE CAPACITY

MOUND PWD - IL1635050

INADEQUATE PLANT CAPACITY

NORTHWEST BELMONT IMPRV ASSN - IL0435900

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

OAK RIDGE SD - IL2035300

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

OLIVET NAZARENE UNIVERSITY - IL0915279

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

OPHIEM PWS - IL0735150

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

OSCO MUTUAL WATER SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. - IL0735200

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

PANAMA - IL0054720

TTHM, DBP, INAD STORAGE

PATOKA - IL1210400

INADEQUATE PLANT CAPACITY

POLO DR AND SADDLE RD SUBDIVISION - IL0437000

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

PORTS SULLIVAN LAKE OWNERS ASSOCIATION - IL0971160

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

Environmental Register – April 2008

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Public Water Supplies

Restricted Status List - Public Water Supplies

SYSTEM NAME

RGN NATURE OF PROBLEM

DATE

PRAIRIE RIDGE ASSOCIATION - IL1115730

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

RIDGECREST NORTH SUBDIVISION - IL0635250

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

RIDGEWOOD LEDGES WATER ASSOCIATION - IL1615670

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

RIDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION - IL1977650

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

SHAWNITA TRC WATER ASSOCIATION - IL1977690

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

SILVIS HEIGHTS WATER CORP - IL1615750

INADEQUATE HYDRO STORAGE

SKYVIEW SBDV - IL0915526

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

ST CHARLES COMMSSION WELLFUND 3 - IL0437040

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

STRATFORD WEST APARTMENTS - IL1095200

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

SUBURBAN HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION - IL1615800

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - IL0975280

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

SUNNY HILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION - IL0735300

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

SUNNYLAND SUBDIVISION - IL1977730

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

SWEDONA WATER ASSOCIATION - IL1315200

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

SYLVAN LAKE 1ST SUBDIVISION - IL0977100

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

TOWNERS SUBDIVISION - IL0977250

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

UTILITIES INC HOLIDAY HILLS - IL1115350

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

UTL INC-LAKE HOLIDAY - IL0995200

INAD SOURCE & TREATMENT PLT

UTL INC-NORTHERN HILLS UTLITIES COMPANY - IL1775050

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

UTL INC-WALK-UP WOODS WATER COMPANY - IL1115800

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

WEST SHORE PARK SUBDIVISION - IL0977370

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

WEST SHORELAND SUBDIVISION - IL0977050

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

WIENEN ESTATES - IL0850030

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

WONDER LAKE WATER COMPANY - IL1115750

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

YORK CENTER COOP - IL0437550

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

WATER SYSTEMS REMOVED FROM PREVIOUS LIST

BUCKINGHAM – IL0910250

MOECHERVILLE WATER SUPPLY – IL0895300

* DENOTES ADDED WATER SUPPLIES

Environmental Register – April 2008

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Public Water Supplies

Critical Review List - Public Water Supplies

SYSTEM NAME

RGN NATURE OF PROBLEM

DATE

ANDALUSIA - IL1610050

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

ARENZVILLE - IL0170050

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

BEASON CHESTNUT PWD - IL1075150

INAD PLANT & SOURCE CAP

BROWNING - IL1690050

INADEQUATE SOURCE CAPACITY

CANTON – IL0570250

INSUFFICIENT TREATMENT CAPACITY

CASEYVILLE - IL1630250

INADEQUATE STORAGE

CEDARVILLE - IL1770050

EMERGENCY POWER

COLLINSVILLE – IL1194280

INADEQUATE STORAGE

COLUMBIA - IL1330050

INADEQUATE PUMPING CAPACITY

CROPPERS 1ST 4TH AND 5TH ADDITION - IL1615250

UNDERSIZED WATERMAINS

DE PUE - IL0110300

INADEQUATE TREATMENT PLANT

1729 12/15/1993

EFFINGHAM – IL0490250

INADEQUATE DISINFECTION

ELIZABETH - IL0850150

LOW SYSTEM PRESSURE

ELLIS GROVE – IL1570200

INSUFFICIENT STORAGE CAPACITY

EXETER-MERRITT WATER COOP - IL1710010

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

GALENA - IL0850200

LOW SYSTEM PRESSURE

GRIGGSVILLE – IL1490300

INADEQUATE TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY 1259

HAMEL - IL1190450

INADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY

HOLIDAY SHORES SD - IL1195110

INADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY

JOY - IL1310100

LOW SYSTEM PRESSURE

LA MOILLE - IL0110500

INADEQUATE PLANT CAPACITY

LA SALLE - IL0990300

INAD PLANT & SOURCE CAPACITY

LACON - IL1230100

UNDERSIZED WATERMAINS

LEE - IL1034600

INADEQUATE PRESSURE TANK

MALDEN - IL0110550

UNDERSIZED WATERMAINS

MARION - IL1990550

INADEQUATE SOURCE CAPACITY

*MARYVILLE – IL1190750

INADEQUATE STORAGE

MASON CITY - IL1250350

INADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY

MATHERSVILLE - IL1310200

INADEQUATE SYSTEM PRESSURE

MC HENRY SHORES WATER COMPANY - IL1115020

LOW SYSTEM PRESSURE

MECHANICSBURG-BUFFALO WTR CMSN - IL1675150

INADEQUATE SOURCE CAPACITY

Environmental Register – April 2008

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Public Water Supplies

Critical Review List - Public Water Supplies

SYSTEM NAME

RGN NATURE OF PROBLEM

DATE

O’FALLON – IL1970050

INADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY

OTTER CREEK LAKE UTILITIES DISTRICT - IL2015320

INADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY

OTTER LAKE WTR CMSN ADGPTV – IL1175200

INADEQUATE PLANT CAPACITY

SCALES MOUND - IL0850400

LOW SYSTEM PRESSURE

SENECA - IL0991050

INADEQUATE PLANT CAPACITY AND

UNDERSIZED WATER MAINS

SOUTH HIGHWAY PWD - IL0775400

LOW SYSTEM PRESSURE &

UNDERSIZED WATERMAINS

STOCKTON - IL0850450

LOW SYSTEM PRESSURE

SUMNER - IL1010300

LOW SYSTEM PRESSURE

1481 12/13/1985

UTL INC-LAKE MARIAN WATER CORPORATION - IL0895200

INAD PRES STORAGE & LOW SYS

WALNUT HILL - IL1210600

LOW SYSTEM PRESSURE

WATERLOO - IL1330300

INADEQUATE STORAGE

* WITT – IL1350850

INADEQUATE TREATMENT CAPACITY

WORDEN - IL1191200

INADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY

WATER SYSTEMS REMOVED FROM PREVIOUS LIST

* DENOTES ADDED WATER SUPPLIES

Restricted Status/Critical Review

The Environmental Protection Act prohibits the Agency from issuing a construction permit that will cause or extend a violation. A construction

permit to expand the distribution system cannot be granted when a water supply has a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique

violation, an inadequate source of raw water supply, inadequate treatment plant capacity, finished water storage or distribution system

pressure. A Restricted Status List is published quarterly in the Illinois Pollution Control Board Environmental Register to notify those persons

considering expansion of a water supply distribution system of that status before large sums of money have been spent on items such as land

acquisition, financing and engineering fees. A companion Critical Review List is published concurrently with the Restricted Status List and has

the water supplies that are approaching a point where the supply could be placed on Restricted Status. A permit application from a supply on

Critical Review will be examined carefully to ensure that the proposed construction will not cause a violation. Restricted Status and Critical

Review are presented as a combined list with the status of the water supply denoted as either RS (Restricted Status) or CR (Critical Review).

The current list reflects the status as of April 1, 2008. An asterisk, * , beside the water supply indicates public water supplies that have been

added to the Restricted Status/Critical Review list since the previous publication.

Restricted Status List

The Restricted Status List was developed to give additional notification to officials of public water supplies which are in violation of 35 Ill.

Adm. Code, Subtitle F: Public Water Supplies, Chapter I or the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

Environmental Register – April 2008

The Restricted Status List will include all Public Water Supplies for which the Agency has information indicating a violation of any of the

following requirements: Finished water quality requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Part 604, Subparts B and C; maintenance of adequate

pressure on all parts of the distribution system under all conditions of demand; meeting raw water quantity requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code

604.502; or maintenance of treatment facilities capable of providing water "assuredly adequate in quantity" as required by Section 18 of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

A public water supply on the Restricted Status List will not be issued permits for water main extensions, except for certain limited situations,

or unless the supply has been granted a variance from the Illinois Pollution Control Board for the violation, or from permit issuance

requirements of Section 39 of the Act.

This list is continually being revised as new information becomes available, and therefore, specific inquiries as to the status of any public water

supply should be directed to the Division of Public Water Supplies for final determination.

Critical Review List

The Critical Review List was developed to give additional notification to officials of public water supplies which may be close to being in

violation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle F: Public Water Supplies, Chapter I or the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

A supply will be placed on the Critical Review List when Agency records indicate that it is approaching any of the violations that would place

it on the Restricted Status List.

This list is continually being revised as new information becomes available, and therefore, specific inquiries as to the status of any public water

supply should be directed to the Division of Public Water Supplies for final determination.

------------------------------------------------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.

Environmental Register

is published monthly by the Board, and

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

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274