Microsoft Word - 0909_A.docx

0909_A
0909_B
0909_C

G. Tanner Girard, Acting Chairman

Thomas E. Johnson, Andrea S. Moore, Shundar Lin, and Gary Blankenship

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

Over the last two months, the Governor has signed several environmental bills. I have

briefly summarized three of the most substantial bills below and list several others of

particular interest. You can obtain more information through the General Assembly’s

website at www.ilga.gov.

Public Act 96-603 (House Bill 4021), effective August 24, 2009, amends the

Environmental Protection Act (Act) to require the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (IEPA) to evaluate a release of contaminants if the soil, soil gas, or

groundwater contamination may extend beyond the boundary of the site where the

release occurred. The IEPA is required to notify owners of contaminated property if

soil contamination or soil gas contamination extends beyond the boundary of the site

where the release occurred, or if there is threat of public exposure above remediation

P.A. 96-603 also requires owners and operators of community water systems to

maintain and make available to the IEPA certain documents and requires that the IEPA

provide public notice within 2 days after IEPA refers a matter for enforcement or issues a seal order. The IEPA is

required to provide notice to the owners and operators of the community water system within five days after taking

one of these actions. Also, within five days after receiving that notice, the owner or operator of the community

water system must notify all residents and owners of premises connected to the community water system. Similar

notice requirements must be complied with when groundwater contamination poses a threat of exposure to the

public above the Class I groundwater quality standards.

Public Act 96-0418 (Senate Bill 99), effective January 1, 2010, amends the Act by defining the terms “food scrap”

and “organic waste.” P.A. 96-0418 states that the term “pollution control facility” does not include the portion of a

site meeting a list of specified requirements, and used for composting food scrap, livestock waste, crop residue,

uncontaminated wood waste, or paper waste. Specified applicant notice requirements must be met before the IEPA

may issue a permit to construct or develop a composting facility using standards developed by the IEPA.

Public Act 96-0611 (Senate Bill 125), effective August 24, 2009, amends the Act by excluding the portion of a site

exclusively accepting general construction debris, located in a county with a population over 500,000, from

regulation as a pollution control facility. The Act is also amended to provide that a facility located in a county with

population over 700,000 as of January 1, 2000, operated and located in accordance with Section 22.38 of the Act,

and used exclusively for the transfer, storage, or treatment of general construction or demolition debris, does not

need a permit if “the facility was receiving construction or demolition debris on the effective date” of this Act.

There is a new provision requiring an owner or operator of a facility exclusively accepting general construction or

demolition debris for transfer, storage, or treatment, to obtain a permit from the IEPA prior to the initial acceptance

of general construction or demolition debris at the facility, if the site is opened on or after August 24, 2009.

New Public Acts of interest to the environmental and regulated communities are Public Act 96-0489 (Senate Bill

2034), effective August 14, 2009, Public Act 96-0737 (Senate Bill 2013), effective August 25, 2009, Public Act 96-

0235 (House Bill 266), effective August 11, 2009, and Public Act 96-0308 (House Bill 3859), effective August 11,

2009. Please visit the General Assembly website (www.ilga.gov

) for more details.

Dr. G. Tanner Girard

Environmental Register – September 2009

Inside This Issue:

APPELLATE UPDATE

ULEMAKING UPDATE

Appellate Update

In Consolidated Appeals of Board Affirmance of Six of Eight Conditions of Local Grant of Siting Approval

for Landfill Expansion, Second District Dismisses Part of Appeal as Moot, and Vacates and Remands Two

Conditions for Additional Board Proceedings in The City of Rochelle v. Illinois Pollution Control Board,

Rochelle Waste Disposal, L.L.C., and The Rochelle City Council, No. 2-08-0427, and The Rochelle City

Council v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, Rochelle Waste Disposal, L.L.C., and The City of Rochelle, No. 2-

08-0433 (cons.) (concerning Board’s order in PCB 07-113 (final order of Jan. 24, 2008, as reaffirmed on

reconsideration April 3, 2008))

In a September 4, 2009 five-page non-precedential order, the Second District Appellate Court “dismissed in part

and affirmed as modified” a Board ruling in a landfill siting case. The City of Rochelle v. Illinois Pollution Control

Board, Rochelle Waste Disposal, L.L.C., and The Rochelle City Council, No. 2-08-0427, and The Rochelle City

Council v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, Rochelle Waste Disposal, L.L.C., and The City of Rochelle, No. 2-08-

0433 (cons.), slip op. at 1 (2d Dist. Sept. 4, 2009) (hereinafter Rochelle

(Second District)). The court’s ruling was

an unpublished order, issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 (166 Ill.2d R.23). Justice McLaren authored the

order in which Justices Hutchinson and Hudson concurred. The court decided the case without hearing oral

Siting approval for the expansion of the existing municipal waste landfill, requested by the City of Rochelle as

owner-applicant (City), was granted by the local siting authority, the Rochelle City Council (Council), subject to

conditions. The third-party appeal before the Board filed by operator Rochelle Waste Dsisposal, LLC (RWD) dealt

only with eight conditions of that siting approval. Rochelle Waste Disposal, L.L.C. v. The City of Rochelle and The

Rochelle City Council, PCB 07-113 (final order of Jan. 24, 2008, as reaffirmed on reconsideration April 3, 2008))

(hereinafter Rochelle

The Board’s affirmation of two of those conditions was appealed to the Second District. The court noted that only

Special Conditions 13 and 23 were at issue, both of which were affirmed by the Board. In the Rule 23 order, the

court dismisses part of the appeal concerning one condition as moot (timing of waste exhumation), affirms the other

condition but with modifications (perimeter berm height), vacates the Board order, retains jurisdiction, and remands

the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court’s order. Rochelle

(Second District). In the

event none of the parties ask the Second District for reconsideration or clarification of its Rule 23 order, the Board

would normally initiate the required additional proceedings by order following its receipt of the appellate court’s

Below is a summary of the Board’s proceedings, and the court’s decision.

Board Proceedings in Rochelle, PCB 07-113

The proceeding before the Board was initiated by the May 16, 2007 filing of a under Section 40.1(b) of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) (2008) and the Board’s procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Part 107. As previously stated, the siting authority is the Rochelle City Council (Council), while the siting applicant

is the City of Rochelle (City), owner of the landfill. The landfill, which is known as the “Rochelle Municipal

Landfill,” began operating in 1972. Rochelle Waste Disposal, L.L.C. (RWD) operates the landfill and has done so

since 1995. The landfill is located at 6513 Mulford Road in Rochelle, Ogle County.

Environmental Register – September 2009

RWD filed a third-party appeal with the Board to contest the Council’s decision regarding numerous special

conditions. Specifically, RWD appealed the Council’s determination to impose eight of the special conditions. In

its 56-page opinion and order of January 24, 2008, the Board ruled that the Council’s determination to impose

challenged Special Conditions 8, 13, 22, 23, 26, and 28 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The

Board also held that Special Conditions 33 and 34 lacked support in the record and modified those conditions as

proposed by the Council and based on the record. The City, the Council, and RWD filed separate motions for

reconsideration of the Board’s opinion and order. In an order of April 3, 2008, the Board granted the parties’

motions and, upon reconsideration, affirmed its January 24, 2008 opinion and order in its entirety.

Appellate Decision in Rochelle (Second District)

After adoption of the Board’s April 3, 2008 decision, the Council and the City separately sought appellate review,

each petitioning the Second District, which consolidated the appeals. The court began its September 4, 2009 Rule

23 order by stating that “We dismiss in part and affirm as modified”. Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 1. The

court then recited relevant facts about the City Council’s proceeding under Section 39.2 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/39.2

In October 2006, the City filed an application with the Council to expand the landfill. The City proposed to accept

into the expanded landfill general municipal waste, construction and demolition debris, and non-hazardous special

waste. The proposed expansion included exhuming and transferring waste from the original landfill to a new section

equipped with a composite liner, a leachate control system, a landfill gas management system, and a groundwater

monitoring system. Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 2. Completion of the waste exhumation and transfer was

expected to take five to ten years. The siting application also proposed a vegetated berm, at least eight feet tall,

around the facility’s perimeter.

During six days of local public hearings, the parties presented ten witnesses. The technical consultant for the

Council, Patrick Engineering, submitted its report and recommendations “after the close of evidence” (Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 2) and after the end of the post-hearing public comment period. Patrick Engineering

recommended that the Council approve siting for the expansion, subject to 37 special conditions. The hearing

officer then submitted his findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending siting approval with the

imposition of the 37 special conditions. The Council approved the City’s application subject to 37 special

conditions that were based on, but differing slightly from, Patrick Engineering’s recommended conditions.

RWD filed a motion to reconsider with the Council, objecting to eight special conditions. The City responded to the

motion, arguing that the conditions were unnecessary and requesting that eight special conditions be deleted or

modified. In turn, the Council adopted a resolution modifying two of the conditions and reaffirming the remaining

conditions. Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 2.

Special Condition 13 required, in part, that RWD exhume and re-dispose of waste from the original landfill “as soon

as practicable, but in no event later than six (6) years from the date an IEPA permit is issued for the expansion,

except as otherwise provided by the City Council for good cause shown.” Rochelle

(Second District), slip op.at 3

(quoting condition). The City argued for a ten-year time limit and asked the court to delete the condition. The

Second District noted, however, that in April 2008, the Council adopted an ordinance that, among other things,

approved an agreement to extend the time period for the exhumation and re-disposal to ten years, subject to possible

further extension. (That ordinance was not presented to the Board in PCB 07-113, and presumably was adopted

after issuance of the Board’s reconsideration order of April 3, 2008.) The court found that this “intervening action

by the Council makes it impossible for this court to grant the relief sought by the City, as the Council’s action is the

equivalent of the relief sought on appeal.” Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 3-4. The court therefore held that

the issue is “moot” and accordingly “dismiss[ed] this portion of the review.”

Special Condition 23 provided for the building of berms at least 14 feet in height around the perimeter of the landfill

site. Both the City and the Council (the same entity which included the condition in the siting approval it granted

the City) argued on appeal that Special Condition 23 is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The court summarized certain record information concerning the berms from the local siting proceedings. The

City’s application proposed a vegetated berm, at least eight feet tall. A City witness, J. Christopher Lannert,

registered landscape architect, proposed a berm that would “undulate from a minimum of 8 feet high to a high of 10

feet high along Creston Road.” Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 4 (quoting testimony). The “only other

testimony regarding berms,” the court observed, was provided by Devin A. Moose, a registered professional

Environmental Register – September 2009

engingeer employed by Shaw Environmental, the principal designer of the proposed expansion proposal.

Moose “referred to Lannert’s testimony about an undulating berm ‘of a minimum of 8-foot height’ but never

testified about any other height for the berm.”

(internal quotation of testimony). The court also noted that there

was evidence in the record about the extensive history of various violations at the landfill.

The court then stated that the Board decision,

, that Special Condition 23 was not against the manifest weight of

the evidence, was based on (1) the recommendations of Patrick Engineering and the hearing officer that the berm be

at least 14 feet tall, (2) Moose’s testimony that berms help in screening landfill operations from view and

controlling litter, and (3) RWD’s operating record. Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 4-5.

The Second District’s examination of “the record” found “no support for the PCB’s conclusion that 14 foot berms

were required.” Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 5. According to the court, there was “no evidence either in

favor of or in opposition to such a height.”

. The court added that there was also “no evidence suggesting that the

planned 8 to 10 foot high berm was insufficient.”

. The court acknowledged that the Board was correct that (1)

an applicant’s prior operating experience and record can be considered before granting siting approval (citing 415

ILCS 5/39.2(a)); and (2) the Board can apply its technical expertise in examining the record to determine whether

the record supports the local siting authority’s conclusion (citing Town & Country Utilities, Inc. v. PCB

103, 123 (2007)). The court found, however, that “there simply is no evidence to support the finding that a 14 foot

berm would be necessary to prevent further violations such as those committed in the past or that such a height

would be required for any other reason.” Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 5. The court cautioned that “[t]he

PCB’s technical expertise must be applied to the record and not imposed arbitrarily or at random.”

The Second District held that the record supports the requirement that a berm be installed, but “the 14 foot height

requirement is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 5. Therefore,

the court continued, “we determine the final order of the Board is invalid and vacate said order.”

. The court had

cited U.S. Steel Corp. v. PCB

, 384 Ill. App. 3d 457, 461 (5th Dist. 2008) for the order’s articulation of the “manifest

weight of the evidence” standard of review: “A factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence if

when viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the opposite conclusion is

clearly apparent or the finding is palpably erroneous and wholly unwarranted, is clearly the result of prejudice or

passion, or appears to be arbitrary and unsubstantiated by the evidence.” Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 3.

The Second District’s finding that there was “no evidence” in favor of the 14-foot height requirement for the

perimeter berm indicates that the court did not consider the Patrick Engineering recommendation of 14-feet to be

“evidence.”

Citing 415 ILCS 5/41, the Second District “retain[ed] jurisdiction during the pendency of any further action taken

by the Board pursuant to this order.” Rochelle

(Second District), slip op. at 5. The court concluded by stating that

the Board’s order is “vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.”

Rulemaking Update

Board Adopts Second Notice Proposal In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxide (NO

) Trading Program Sunset

Provisions for Electric Generating Units (EGUs): New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.751, R09-20 (Sept. 17, 2009)

On September 17, 2009, the Illinois Pollution Control Board adopted a second notice proposal for review by the

Joint Committee on Administrative Rules under the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act. In the Matter of:

Nitrogen Oxide (NO

) Trading Program Sunset Provisions for Electric Generating Units (EGUs): New 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 217.751,R09-20 (Sept. 17, 2009). After two public hearings, the Board adopted a second notice proposal

identical to the May 7, 2009 first notice proposal published at 33 Ill. Reg. 8880 (June 26, 2009).

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) filed its proposal with the Board on April 21, 2009. The

proposal would sunset the provisions of the Nitrogen Oxides (NO

) Trading Program rules for about 229 electrical

generating units (EGUs). IEPA has requested that the Board complete the rulemaking before the end of November

In its statement of reasons, the IEPA states that Illinois adopted both the NO

rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 217

and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225 after adoption of similar rules by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). USEPA has approved both sets of rules for inclusion in the

Environmental Register – September 2009

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone attainment. As do the USEPA rules, the CAIR provisions as set forth in

35 Ill. Code Part 225.Subpart E include a trading program for control of NOx emissions during the ozone season

that replaces the provisions in Part 217.Subpart W for EGUs beginning with the 2009 control period (May 1

through September 30) and thereafter.

But, due to a federal court ruling concerning the federal CAIR rules in

North Carolina

(C.A.D.C. Cir. 2008), USEPA must take additional action concerning its rules. To solve the problem, in 40 CFR

51.123(bb)(1)(i),USEPA has provided that states such as Illinois with approved CAIR programs may revise their

applicable SIP so that the provisions of the NOx SIP Call Trading Program do not apply to affected EGUs.

IEPA’s proposal requesting the Board to amend the Illinois rules is the first step to revision of the SIP. IEPA states

that EGUs must comply with two sets of duplicative administrative requirements for the 2009 ozone season and

beyond: the Illinois Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) requirements at Part 225 and the Illinois NOx Trading

Program at Part 217. To address and remove the duplication, the Board proposes to sunset the provisions of the

NOx Trading Program, by adding a new Part 217.751 to sunset the rules beginning with the 2009 ozone control

The Board declined to make a change suggested in public comments (PC 1 & 3) by Southern Illinois Power

Company (SIPC), to avoid delay in completion of the rulemaking. While supporting the proposed sunset provision,

SIPC also requested addition of a provision requiring IEPA to distribute unallocated NO

remaining under the

defunct program. The Board noted that IEPA had commented (PC 2) that implementing the last minute would delay

the removal of duplicate requirements from the other 228 EGUs affected. The Board invited SIPC to file and

support its own proposal for the requested additional provision.

Opinions and orders of the Board, hearing transcripts, and other documents in rulemaking records are posted on the

Board’s Web site and may be downloaded from the Web without charge. Hard copies may be obtained for $.75 per

page from the Clerk’s office: Clerk of the Board, James R. Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-

500, Chicago, IL 60601.

For additional information contact Kathleen Crowley at 312-814-6929; e-mail address crowlek@ipcb.state.il.us

Board Actions

September 3, 2009

Chicago, Illinois

Administrative Citations

IEPA v. George R. Ford

– In response to a joint stipulation and settlement

agreement in this administrative citation action involving a Fulton County

facility, the Board found that respondent violated Section 21(p)(3) of the

Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(3) (2008)) and ordered

respondent to pay a civil penalty of $1,500. The Board also granted the

parties’ joint motion to dismiss respondent’s petition for review and the

alleged violation of Sections 21(p)(1) and (p)(7) of the Act (415 ILCS

5/21(p)(1),(p)(7) (2008)).

IEPA v. Mark A. Lewis

– The Board accepted for hearing respondent’s

second amended petition for review of this administrative citation involving a

Clay County facility.

Environmental Register – September 2009

IEPA v. Floyd Burns

– The Board found that this Franklin County respondent

violated Sections 21(p)(1) and (p)(7) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1),(p)(7)

(2008)), and ordered respondent to pay a civil penalty of $3,000.

County of LaSalle v. Ernest W. Fost

– The Board granted complainant’s

motion for voluntary dismissal of this administrative citation.

IEPA v. Jess Spradlin d/b/a Spradlin Mobile Home Sales and Drewnard

Woods and Kris Warren d/b/a W&W Auto Service – The Board found that

these Sangamon County respondents violated Sections 21(p)(1) of the Act

(415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2008)), and ordered respondents to pay a civil penalty

IEPA v. Les Curtis

– The Board accepted an administrative citation against

this Alexander County respondent.

Adjudicatory Cases

People of the State of Ilinois v. Barger Engineering, Inc.,

– Upon receipt of a

proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to request

relief from the hearing requirement in this water enforcement action involving

a White County facility, the Board ordered publication of the required

newspaper notice.

People of the State of Illinois v. Golden Bag Company

– Upon receipt of a

proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to request

relief from the hearing requirement in this air enforcement action involving a

Kane County facility, the Board ordered publication of the required newspaper

People of the State of Illinois v. Illinois Valley Paving Company, Inc.

receipt of a proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed

motion to request relief from the hearing requirement in this water

enforcement action involving a Peoria County facility, the Board ordered

publication of the required newspaper notice. The Board also directed the

complainant to file an amended complaint or an amended stipulation and

proposal for settlement addressing the inconsistency between the complaint

and the stipulation and proposal for settlement.

Mertz Motor Co. v. IEPA

– Having previously granted a request for a 90-day

extension, the Board dismissed this matter because no underground storage

tank appeal was filed on behalf of this facility located in St. Clair County.

People of the State of Illinois v. E. F. Heil, LLC

– Upon receipt of a proposed

stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to request relief

from the hearing requirement in this land enforcement action involving a

Kankakee County facility, the Board ordered publication of the required

newspaper notice.

Detrex Corporation v. IEPA

– The Board granted this request for a 90-day

extension of time to file an underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this

Cook County facility.

Environmental Register – September 2009

Hydromet Environmental, Inc. v. IEPA

– The Board granted this request for a

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

County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. Schauble Development, LLC

accepted for hearing this water enforcement action involving a site located in

Tazewell County.

September 17, 2009

Chicago, Illinois

Rulemakings

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Trading Program Sunset Provisions

for Electric Generating Units (EGU's): New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.751 – The

Board adopted a second notice opinion and order in this rulemaking to amend

the Board’s air pollution control regulations.

Adjudicatory Cases

People of the State of Illinois v. Community Landfill Company, Inc.

People of the State of Illinois v. Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim

granted respondents’ motion to modify the Board’s August 20, 2009 order,

extending the payment date to October 1, 2009.

People of The State of Illinois v. Community Landfill Company, Inc. and City

of Morris – The Board denied respondents’ motions for reconsideration.

Respondents have 60 days, or until November 16, 2009, to file $17,427,366.00

in financial assurance, and to update cost estimates. The Board also had

previously ordered Community Landfill Company to pay a civil penalty of

$1,059,534.70 and the City of Morris to pay a civil penalty in the amount of

$399,308.98 within 60 days.

Conocophillips Company v. IEPA

– The Board granted this DuPage County

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

People of the State of Illinois v. Rupe Contracting, Inc. and John A. Rupe,

individually and as owner and operator of Rupe Contracting, Inc. – In this

water enforcement action concerning a Bureau 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)), accepted a

stipulation and settlement agreement, and ordered the respondents to pay a

total civil penalty of $2,835, and to cease and desist from further violations.

Environmental Register – September 2009

People of the State of Illinois v. James R. Cantrell

– In this water enforcement

action concerning a White 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)), accepted a stipulation and settlement

agreement, and ordered the respondent to pay a total civil penalty of $12,000,

and to cease and desist from further violations.

People of the State of Illinois v. Richard King, Kay King, and Isaac King

this air enforcement action concerning a Sangamon 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)), accepted a

stipulation and settlement agreement, and ordered the respondents to pay a

total civil penalty of $70,000, and to cease and desist from further violations.

People of the State of Illinois v. Birds Pinkstaff Water District

– In this public

water supply enforcement action concerning a Lawrence 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)), accepted a

stipulation and settlement agreement, and ordered the respondent to pay a total

civil penalty of $1,620, and to cease and desist from further violations.

People of the State of Illinois v. Par Development, Inc.

– Upon receipt of a

proposed stipulation and settlement agreement and an agreed motion to request

relief from the hearing requirement in this water enforcement action involving

a McHenry County facility, the Board ordered publication of the required

newspaper notice.

First National Bank of Barry v. IEPA

– Having previously granted a request

for a 90-day extension, the Board dismissed this matter because no

underground storage tank appeal was filed on behalf of this facility located in

People of the State of Illinois v. Village of Kinsman

– In this water

enforcement action concerning a Grundy 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)), accepted a stipulation and

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

$376.34, and to cease and desist from further violations.

People of the State of Illinois v. Marathon Tire Service of Olney, Inc.

Board accepted for hearing this land enforcement action involving a site

located in Richland County.

People of the State of Illinois v. Montalbano Builders, Inc.

accepted for hearing this water enforcement action involving a site located in

Environmental Register – September 2009

September 3, 2009 Board Meeting

Detrex Corporation v. IEPA

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

underground storage tank appeal on behalf of this Cook County facility.

Hydromet Environmental, Inc. v. IEPA

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

a permit appeal on behalf of this Douglas County facility.

People of the State of Illinois v. Schauble Development, LLC

– The Board accepted for hearing this water

enforcement action involving a site located in Tazewell County.

IEPA v. Les Curtis

– The Board accepted an administrative citation against this Alexander County

September 17, 2009 Board Meeting

People of the State of Illinois v. Marathon Tire Service of Olney, Inc., – The Board accepted for hearing this

land enforcement action involving a site located in Richland County.

People of the State of Illinois v. Montalbano Builders, Inc. – The Board accepted for hearing this water

enforcement action involving a site located in DeKalb County.

County of Ogle v. Kathy Knutson, Steve Knutson, and Dan Bocker

– The Board accepted an

administrative citation against these Ogle County respondents.

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

In the Matter of: Water Quality

Standards and Effluent Limitations for

the Chicago Area Waterway System and

the Lower Des Plaines River: Proposed

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 301,

302, 303 and 304

Michael Bilandic Building

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Weeke Oil Company v. IEPA

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

(North Entrance)

Environmental Register – September 2009

Onken’s Incorporated v. IEPA

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

(North Entrance)

IEPA v. Hiram Vanderheiden, Jr. (IEPA

File No. 51-08-AC)

Mason County Courthouse

County Board Room

In the Matter of Reasonable Available

Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile

Organic Material emissions from Group

II Consumer & Commercial Products:

Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 211, 218, and 219

(Continues until complete or through

October 28, 2009)

Madison County Administration

County Board Room #203

In the Matter of: Petition of Royal

Fiberglass Pools Inc. for an Adjusted

Standard from 35 IAC 215.301

C. E. Brehm Memorial Public

Library Meeting Room

101 S. 7th Street

People of the State of Illinois v. Michael

Collins, d/b/a C & R Construction

St. Clair County Building

10 Public Square

People of the State of Illinois v. General

Waste Services, Inc., an Illinois

St. Clair County Building

10 Public Square

IEPA v. Gary J. and James R.

Szczeblewski (IEPA File No. 136-09-

City Hall Council Room

500 W. Main Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

In the Matter of: Water Quality

Standards and Effluent Limitations for

the Chicago Area Waterway System and

the Lower Des Plaines River: Proposed

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 301,

302, 303 and 304

(Continues until complete or through

November 10, 2009)

Michael Bilandic Building

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Environmental Register – September 2009

Definition of VOM Update, USEPA

Amendments (January 1, 2009 through

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

In the Matter of Reasonable Available

Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile

Organic Material emissions from Group

II Consumer & Commercial Products:

Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 211, 218, and 219

(Continues until complete or through

December 9, 2009)

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph

Illinois Pollution Control Board Meeting

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street

------------------------------------------------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

contains updates on rulemakings, descriptions of final decisions, the Board’s

hearing calendar, and other environmental law information.

------------------------------------------------CUT HERE------------------------------------------------

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Environmental Register Coordinator

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274