CHICAGO LEGAL CLINIC,

INC.

South

Chicago • Pilsen • Austin • Downtown

Most Rev. Thomas John Paprocki, President

Downtown Office

Edward Grossman, Executive Director

211 W. Wacker, Suite 750

Marta

C.

Bukata,

Deputy

Director

Chicago,

IL 60606

Keith I.

Harley

Greta Doumanian

Phone (312)

726-2938

Fax (312) 726-5206

TDD

(773)

731-3477

fl

1

November

30,

2012

“‘ ‘ . .

N

02012

Marie E. Tipsord

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

Hearing Officer

Pollution

Control

Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago,

1L60601

Hand

Delivered

/

Re:

In The

Matter of

Proposed Amendments

To Clean Construction Or Demolition

Debris Fill

Operations (CCDD): Proposed Amendments

to 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 1100, R12-9(B) (Rulemaking

Land)

To The Hearing Officer:

Please accept

this letter

as the

public

comment of Citizens Against Ruining the

Environment

(CARE). My Appearance as CARE’s attorney in this matter

is on file with the Board,

as are two

sets

of post-hearing comments

I submitted on CARE’s behalf. Also for CARE,

I submitted

comments to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

as part of its review of the Board’s

Order.

A

true

and accurate

copy of CARE’s comments to JCAR is attached and labeled

as

CARE Public Comment

Exhibit One.

CARE’s members live in Will County, the location

of the greatest number of CCDD sites

in

Illinois. Like most Will County residents, CARE’s members rely

on

groundwater

as the source

of their public and private water supplies.

As to the matter which is now open for public

conirnent, CARE continues to urge the Board

to

mandate groundwater

monitoring at CCDD

sites

to

ensure

that

aggregated fill

material does not affect vital groundwater resources

now or in the

future, and,

to

ensure that if

a

release occurs, it

can be identified and addressed efficiently

before

affecting private or public wells.

CARE has consistently asserted that proactive groundwater

monitoring is appropriate. CARE

makes this

assertion for three

basic reasons. First, for “perfect compliance” sites

that only accept

loads of fill material that are always appropriately

screened, there nonetheless could

be

an

aggregation

of material

that

cumulatively

affects groundwater quality over time.

This is

1

---

especially true because fill sites are not required

to have liners, and can

be

located

where there is

a direct hydrogeologic connection between

the disposed material and groundwater.

Second, it is the unconditional mandate of the Illinois

Legislature that groundwater must

be

protected

in order for the Board to act consistently with

its mandate in this matter. Section

22.5 1(f)(1) of the Act,

as

amended

by Public Act 096-1416, unconditionally

dictates that “The

rules must include standards and procedures

necessary to protect groundwater. . .“. It is also

the

unambiguous

legislative mandate in the Illinois Groundwater

Protection Act, 415 ILCS 55/2

(“.

. .it is the policy of the

State

of Illinois

to restore, protect, and enhance

the groundwaters of the

State, as a natural and public resource”). Notably,

consistent with the IL EPA’s position, the

Illinois

Groundwater Protection Act mandates

a preventative approach. 415 ILCS

5

5/2(b).

‘s

has

a

third reason for asserting that

proactive groundwater monitoring should

be

required.

There is ample evidence in Illinois that “perfect

compliance” will not be achieved

by

CCDD generators and the sites that

accept this material for disposal. To demonstrate why

it is

unreasonable

to assume compliance, CARE conducted

a ten-year survey of completed Illinois

enforcement

cases

against CCDD generators

and disposal sites. CARE identified more

than 150

administrative and judicial enforcement cases in which Illinois

asserted that CCDD generators

and/or disposal sites operated in violation

of mandated legal standards. It is not possible for

CARE or any other person to assess compliance with legal

requirements that have not been

implemented. It is possible for CARE and this Board

to

review

compliance in this industry

with

the requirements that have existed over

the past ten years. This compliance survey

unmistakably

evidences that the assumption that, in the future, only

“properly run” facilities will operate is

naïve. The inventory of these enforcement

cases is attached to these comments and labeled

as

CARE Public Comment Exhibit Two.

Notably,

this

inventory was not developed

by CARE in order to influence this rulemaking,

but

rather is part of Illinois EPA’s ongoing, neutral catalogue

of all existing Enforcement Orders

resolving administrative and judicial

environmental Complaints. This on-line inventory

is freely

available at

http

://www.epa. state.il.us/cgi-bin/en/orders/orders.pl.

The Enforcement Order

inventory provided by

CARE is

accessible by choosing “solid waste” as the program

and

“construction” as the case

summary

text.

Care Public Comment Exhibit Three consists of the

case summaries developed by Illinois EPA

of each Enforcement Order on the inventory. Again, these case summaries

were not developed

by

CARE to influence the Board in this rulemaking;

rather, they are independently developed

by

Illinois EPA to summarize Enforcement Orders in administrative and judicial

enforcement

actions.

These

case

summaries and the

Orders to which they refer chronicle more than 150

examples of improperly run CCDD facilities subject

to enforcement under the laws that existed

during this ten

year period. CARE

questions why the Board believes that

establishing new

regulations will magically transform the actors in

this industry into perfectly compliant

operators, in every case

managing

“properly run” facilities. If this

perfect compliance is not

magically

achieved, the most direct and devastating

potential impact on innocent parties

will be

on the

groundwater resources they

use via public or private wells in proximity

to a disposal site.

Administrative agencies may take notice of matters

of which circuit courts may take judicial

notice. 5 ILCS

100/10-40(c). Therefore,

an administrative tribunal may

take judicial notice of

matters of

record in another administrative

order, determination or judgment. All Purpose

2

---

Nursing

Service v.

Illinois

Human Rights Commission, 205

Ill.App.3d 816, 823-4, 150 Ill.Dec.

717,

563 N.E.2d 844 (1990). Notice

may

also

be taken of generally recognized

technical or

scientific

facts within the agency’s specialized knowledge,

and its experience, technical

competence

and

specialized

knowledge may be utilized in

the evaluation of the evidence.

5

ILCS

100/10-40(c).

Of the

cases contained on the inventory, CARE requests the Board

to take particular note of

three cases, all of which were decided

by the

Board

itself either immediately prior

to or during

the pendency of the present rulemaking.

1.

People v. Western Sand & Gravel

Co.,

LLC, No.

PCB 10-022 (Ill. Pollution Control Bd.

March

18, 2010).

On

September 30, 2009, the State of Illinois (State) filed

a three-count complaint against

Western Sand

&

Gravel

Co.,

LLC

(Western) alleging violations of

§

21 (d)(2), 22(e)

and

22.5

1(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act), 415

ILCS 5/1 etseq. (2008), and

§

1100.201(a), 1100.205(a)(1), (b)(1),

(c),

(g),

and (h), 1100.207(a)-(b), and 1100.210 of

the

Illinois

Administrative Code. 35 111. Adm. Code 101 et.

seq.

Opinion

& Order of the Bd.

at 1,

People v. Western

Sand &

Gravel

Co., LLC,

No.

PCB 10-022 (Ill. Pollution Control Bd.

Mar. 18,

2010).

On January 19, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation and

proposed settlement. Id. at 2.

On

March 18, 2010, the Illinois Pollution Control

Board (Board) determined that

a

hearing

was not

required,

accepted the parties’ proposed settlement, and ordered

Western to pay a civil penalty

of

$3,120.

Id.

According

to

the settlement agreement,

Western operated a clean construction and demolition

debris (CCDD) facility in LaSalle County, Illinois (Site). Stipulation

& Proposal for Settlement

at

2, Western

Sand,

No. PCB 10-022.

On September 26, 2007 the Illinois EPA inspected

the Site

and noted a fill area containing broken concrete, rocks and soil. Id.

The inspection also revealed

that Western failed

to

visually inspect

each

load;

failed to conduct random discharge

inspections;

and failed to use a photo ionization detection (PID) instrument in

conducting inspections. Id.

In

addition, Western failed

to

properly

train its employees in screening procedures; failed

to keep

written policies and procedures; and failed to maintain an

operating record at the Site. Id. Finally,

Western failed

to

restrict unauthorized

access to the Site, and failed to

post a

sign

stating that

the

Site only accepted CCDD. Id. at 3.

The settlement proposal noted that when Western

was

notified

of its noncompliance with

the Act

and the applicable regulations, it acted diligently to correct the situation,

with most violations

“addressed

by

the Respondent’s February

7,

2008

compliance commitment agreement and

subsequent actions.” Id. at 7. However, it also noted that “[h]uman

health and the environment

were

threatened and the Illinois EPA’s information

gathering responsibilities

[were] hindered

by

the

Respondent’s violations.” Id. at

6.

The State retains

a right of entry to the Site

“at

all

reasonable times” to conduct inspections and evaluate Western’s continuing

compliance with

the

law. Id. at9.

3

---

2. People v. Reliable Materials Lyons, LLC, No. PCB

12-52 (Ill. Pollution Control Bd. Oct.

6,

2011).

On September 26, 2011, the State of Illinois (State) filed

a four-count complaint against Reliable

Materials

Lyons, LLC

(Reliable),

GSG Consultants, Inc.

(GSG),

O.C.A. ConstructiOn LLC

(OCA), Speedy Gonzales Landscaping,

Inc. (SGL), the Public Building Commission of Chicago

(PBC), and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago

(CPS), alleging multiple violations of

the Illinois Environmental Protection

Act (Act), 415 ILCS 5/1 et

seq.

(2010) and related

provisions of the Illinois Administrative

Code, 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 101 ci’. seq. Order of the Bd.

at

1—2, People v. Reliable Materials Lyons, LLC, No. PCB 12-52 (Ill. Pollution Control

Bd. Oct.

6,

2011).

On

September

26, 2011, the

State also filed a proposed stipulation and settlement agreement

with

SGL, and

a

separate proposed settlement with PBC and

CPS. Id. at 2. On October 6, 2011, after

determining that no

hearings were

required, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board)

accepted both proposed settlements, ordered SGL

to pay a civil penalty of

$10,000,

and ordered

PBC

and CPS to

jointly

pay a

civil

penalty of

$17,500.

Id.

The charges related to the

construction

of Westinghouse Vocational High School on CPS-owned

property in Chicago, Illinois (Site). Id.

at

1. According

to the complaint, contaminated soil

excavated from the Site was deposited at Reliable’s clean construction and demolition debris

(CCDD) facility in Lyons, Illinois (CCDD facility). Id.

Count I charged all of the Respondents

with open dumping in

violation

of §21(a) of the Act; Count II charged SGL and CPS with

violations of’ 21 (d)(2) of the Act, and

§S

808.12 1(a)

and (b), 808.122 and 809.301 of the

Illinois Administrative Code. 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 101 et. seq., for failing to make

a

valid

special

waste

determination for the soil, and for delivering the

contaminated waste without manifests;

Count III charged

Reliable, which

accepted the waste, with conducting

a

waste disposal

operation without a permit, in violation of

§

21(d)(1)

of the Act; and Count IV charged Reliable

with violating

§

21 (d)(2) of the Act and

§

809.302(a) of the Illinois Administrative

Code, 35 Ill.

Adm. Code

101 et. seq., for accepting the waste without

manifests designating the CCDD facility

as

the destination for the waste. Id.

According to the SGL settlement agreement, OCA was the general contractor on the

Westinghouse

project, and SGL, a subcontractor

to OCA, was responsible for excavating and

disposing of soil from the Site. Stipulation & Proposal for Settlement with SGL

at

2, Reliable

Materials, No.

PCB 12-52. In March 2006,

SGL contracted with Reliable for disposal of

excavated

soil from the Site at Reliable’s CCDD Facility. Id.

at 3.

From

at

least

early April to

mid-July 2006,

contaminated soil

excavated from the Site was disposed of at the CCDD

facility.

Id. at 5.

Although disposal of the contaminated soil

at the CCDD facility ceased as soon as

SGL

and

the other Respondents became aware of their non-compliance, id.

at 6,

the contaminated

soil

deposited at the

CCDD facility had the

potential “to impact the groundwater at and around the

facility,

[posing] a risk to the environment.” Id. at

5—6.

According to

the PBC / CPS settlement agreement, PBC

managed construction of the

Westinghouse project pursuant to an agreement between PCB and CPS. Stipulation

&

Proposal

for Settlement

with PBC

&

CPS

at

2,

Reliable

Materials,

No. PCB 12-52. PBC hired GSG,

an

4

---

engineering

and consulting

firm, to provide

environmental

consulting

services for the

project.

Id.

GSG was

responsible

for determining

how to dispose of

construction

debris and

soil

excavated

from

the Site. Id.

at 3.

PBC

and

CPS acted

in reliance on

GSG and Reliable,

both

of whom

asserted that

the Reliable

CCDD facility

could properly accept

the excavated

soil from the

Site. Id. at 6. When

they

were

notified

of their non-compliance,

PBC and CPS stopped

the transfer

of

contaminated

soil from

the Site

to the

Reliable CCDD facility;

they also

developed new

procedures to prevent

the

problem from reoccurring.

Id.

The agreement

noted that “[i]mproper

disposal

of contaminated

soil

poses a risk

to the environment,”

id., and PBC

and

CPS

were required to

“cease and desist

from future violations.”

Id. at

8.

On July 12, 2012,

the Board accepted

a stipulation

and settlement

proposal with

GSG, and

issued

a second order

in connection

with the Reliable

Materials

case.

Opinion

&

Order

of the Bd.

at 1,

People v.

Reliable Materials Lyons,

LLC,

No.

PCB 12-52 (Ill. Pollution

Control

Bd. Jul.

12,

2012).

According to

the

GSG

settlement

agreement, after

consulting

with the Illinois

EPA, PBC,

CPS

and Reliable,

GSG concluded

that the

Reliable

CCDD facility

could properly

receive

soils

from

the Site as CCDD.

Stipulation

& Proposal for Settlement

with

GSG at 6,

Reliable

Materials,

No.

PCB 12-52.

However, when the

Illinois

EPA

inspected soil that

had been excavated

from

the

Site and deposited

at

the

CCDD

facility, it asserted

that the soil

was contaminated,

and could

not

be

classified

as CCDD. Id.

In its

answer

to the complaint,

GSG denied

that the excavated

soil was contaminated.

Id.

However, the

settlement

agreement

noted that “[ijrnproper

disposal

of contaminated

soil can

pose a risk

to the environment,”

id., and

the

Board ordered

GSG to pay a civil

penalty of

$25,000.

Opinion

&

Order

of the Bd. at 2, Reliable

Materials,

No. PCB 12-52.

The Board noted

that

a settlement

proposal with

OCA had recently

been filed,

and that it would

issue a separate

order after the

21-day

statutory

period for requesting

a hearing

had expired.

Id.

at

1. The Board

also noted

that Reliable was not

a party to either

the

GSG

stipulation or the

OCA stipulation.

Id.

3: People

v. 87th & Greenwood,

LLC.,

No.

PCB 10-7 1 (Ill. Pollution

Control

Bd. Aug.

19,

2010).

On March

19, 2010, the State

of Illinois (People)

filed a three-count

complaint

against Land

Reclamation

Services (LRS),

87th & Greenwood,

LLC

(Greenwood), and Innovative

Recycling

Technologies,

Inc. (IRT),

alleging violations

of

§ §

21(a),

(d)(

1)

and (e) of

Illinois

Environment

Environmental

Protection

Act (Act), 415 ILCS

5/1 et seq.

(2008)

by

all

three respondents.

Order

&

Opinion

of the Bd.,

at

1.

According

to

the Complaint,

Greenwood,

which was

constructing a storage

facility in

Cook

County (excavation site),

had tested the

soil and determined

that it was

contaminated.

Id. at

3.

Greenwood

hired IRT

to remove and dispose

of the

contaminated soil. Id.

LRS, which

operated

5

---

a clean construction and demolition and

debris fill business in Kane County (LRS site), reviewed

the

test results and agreed to accept the contaminated soil, even

though the LRS site was not

covered

by a

permit for

storage or disposal of waste. Id. From mid-January through mid-

February

2006, approximately

350

truckloads

of contaminated soil from the excavation site were

deposited

at the LRS site. Id.

Because LRS did not answer the Complaint, in

June

2010

the Illinois Pollution Control Board

(Board)

granted the State’s uncontested motion to deem all facts admitted and for summary

judgment on all three counts against LRS.

Id. at 1. In its analysis, the Board found that the

discarded,

contaminated soil met the definition of “waste” under

the Act, and it emphasized that

LRS had

agreed to accept the soil after reviewing test results showing that it was contaminated.

Id. at 8. Moreover, LRS had never tried to obtain

a

waste

disposal permit from the Illinois EPA;

without

the permit, the LRS site did not qualify as a “sanitary landfill.” Id. at 9. Thus,

by

“clearly solicit[ingj” and “knowingly dispos[ing] of’

the contaminated soil on the unpermitted

LRS

site, LRS had

violated

the prohibitions of

§

2 1(a), (d)(1) and

(e)

of the Act. Id.

at 8—9.

In

fashioning an appropriate remedy, the Board noted that two of the aggravating factors

set forth

under

§

33(c) of the Act were present. Specifically, the Board

found that the

violations

“created

a significant risk to the environment and persons situated near the LRS site,” and that

because

the contaminated waste could easily have been taken

to a

permitted

facility, these risks could

have

been avoided. Id. at 10. Because the aggravating factors set forth in

§

42(h) of the Act

were

also present, the Board concluded that imposition of

a $20,000 civil penalty was justified. Id.

at

12.

By way of conclusion, CARE asserts the Board’s September 21, 2012 Order is not framing

the

groundwater inquiry appropriately when it asks for evidence of impacts

by “properly run

facilities.” As evidenced by more than 150 enforcement cases over the past ten years, including

cases that the Board itself adjudicated, it is not appropriate for the

Board to assume facilities will

be “properly run.” This supports the prudent position taken by the Illinois EPA in its rulemaking

proposal, and reflected in the testimony of its experts

(“.

. .since the

IL EPA cannot be sure that

the front-end screening process will keep 100% of contamination out of the fill operations,

the

groundwater monitoring requirement is necessary

to detect

any

contamination of groundwater

and provide timely corrective action and remediation.” IL EPA Statement of Reasons,

p.

6. As

Rick

Cobb

stated in his March

12

th

testimony: “Again, the Agency’s

larger point is because of

imperfect certification and screening procedures that are just inherent in screening procedures

of

any type

and the strong likelihood of maybe an imperfect

performance of certification in the

screening procedures.. .[t]here is no certification process that’s absolutely perfect.” TR

3/12/12

a.m. at

22.).

Under these circumstances, the Board should accept the Illinois EPA’s prudent, preventative

approach,

an approach which is endorsed

by

the Illinois Attorney

General and Will County

government officials. As stated in Illinois EPA expert testimony “.

. .a

groundwater

monitoring

program is

important

at

fill operations

because the facilities are not required to have a protective

liner to

control contaminant migration and because they are consolidating

a

large

volume of

offsite materials into one area with that material often placed directly into the groundwater

flow.”, at 32. As

Rick

Cobb stated inhis March

121

testimony:

6

---

“And with the acceptance

of large quantities of soil over time,

and

nearly the

complete

absence of any technical control such

as

liners

to prevent any contamination, and the

location of such facilities

in these extremely highly

sensitive geological areas with heavy

reliance on groundwater

as not

only

a current and future source of fresh water,

we really

think that for the CCDD and uncontaminated soil

fill operations, that we must —that the

Board should consider

the potential to cause groundwater contamination,

and not just be

thinking

about contamination that’s been caused and

allowed.”

j.

at 22.

CARE stresses that the Illinois EPA’s concern is not mere

speculation, but is justified by a well-

documented history of non-compliance

and enforcement, the evidence of which CARE

now

submits

to

the Board

to

include

in its deliberative process.

Thank

you

for your consideration

of these comments and the attached exhibits.

Respectfully Submitted,

Keith Harley

Attorney for Citizens Against

Ruining the Environment

enc

7

---

CHICAGO

LEGAL

CLINIC,

INC.

South

Chicago

a

Pilsen

a

Austin

a

Downtown

Most

Rev.

Thomas

John

Paprocki.

President

Downtown

Office

Edward

Grossman,

Executive

Director

211

W.

Wacker,

Suite

750

Marta

C.

Bukata,

Deputy

Director

Chicago.

IL

60606

Keith

1.

Harley

Greta

Doumanian

Phone

(3

2)

726-2938

Andrew

R.

Smit1

Fax

(312)

726-5206

TDD

(773)

731-3477

July

5,

2012

Deborah

Conneily

Joint

Committee

on

Administrative

Rules

CONNELLY(ILGA.Gov

Re:

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board Rulemaking

Case

R

2012-009

(Land)

—

Clean

Construction

and

Demolition

Debris

Dear

Ms.

Connelly:

Please

be

advised

that

I

represent

Citizens

Against

Ruining

the

Environment.

Citizens

Against

Ruining

the

Environment

(“CARE”)

is a

Will

County-based

environmental

organization

comprised

of

members

who

live,

work

and

recreate

in

Will

County.

CARE

is

very

concerned

that

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board (“Board”)

concluded

that

groundwater

monitoring

should

not

he

required

at

clean construction

and

demolition

debris

(“CCDD”)

and

uncontaminated

soil

fill

operation

(“USFO”)

sites.

CARE

asserts

this

decision

is

contrary

to

the

legislative

mandate

the

Board must

fulfill,

against

the

manifest

weight

of

evidence

before

the

Board

and

contrary

to

the

more

prudent

positions

taken

by

the

illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

the

Illinois Attorney

General

and

Will

County.

On

a

more

basic

level,

CARE’s

members

are

among the

350,000

residents

of

Will

County who

rely

on

groundwater

as

their

drinking

water

supply.

In

the

absence

of

protective

groundwater

monitoring,

the

first evidence

of

a

release

will be

realized

in

the

private

or

public

wells

on

which

these

residents

depend

for

their

potable

water.

There are

eleven (nine

active)

CCDD

and/or USFO

sites

in

Will

County,

the

most

in

the

State

of

Illinois.

PC

6

at

I.

At

the

same time,

many

communities

in

Will

County

-

including

the

Lockport

and

Joliet

areas where

CARE

is

most

active

-

use

groundwater

as

the

source

of

their

private

well

and

public

water

supplies.

.

Consequently,

CARE’s

primary

concern

is

the

cumulative

impact

of

aggregated

contaminated

material

in

a

CCDD

or

Soil

Fill

Operation

on

groundwater,

over

time. That

is,

even

if

no

individual

load

of

CCDD

or

soil

exceeds

contaminant

thresholds,

thousands

of

loads directed

to

a

single location

could cumulatively

cause

endangering

conditions.

This

is

particularly

true

for

contaminants

that

are

persistent

and

toxic.

This

could

occur while

a

facility

is

operating,

or

at

any

time

after

a

facility

concludes

operations.

These

risks

to

groundwater resources

are

even greater

if

self-screening

protocols

are

not

perfectly

implemented,

a

scenario

that

the

Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“IL

EPA”)

characterizes

as

“inherent”

in

the

screening

process.

TR

3/12/12

a.m.

at

22.

1

CARE

Public

Comment

Exhibit

One

---

CARE’s

position

on

the

necessity

of

groundwater

monitoring

is

consistent

with

the

legislative

mandate

which

must

be

met

in

this

rulemaking.

Section

22.51(0(1)

of

the

Act,

as

amended

by

Public

Act

096-1416,

unconditionally

mandates

that

“The

rules

must

include

standards

and

procedures

necessary

to

protect

groundwater,..”.

In

order

to

protect

groundwater

resources,

the

Board

may

include

requirements

regarding:

1.

Testing,

2.

Certification,

3.

Surface

water

runoffi

4.

Liners,

5.

Other

protective

barriers,

6.

Monitoring,

7.

Groundwater

monitoring,

8.

Corrective

action,

9.

Recordkeeping,

10.

Reporting,

11.

Closure,

12.

Post-closure

care,

13.

Financial

assurance.

14.

Post-closure

land

use

controls.

15.

Location

standards,

16.

Modification

of

existing

permits,

and

17.

Other

standards

and

procedures

necessary

to

protect

groundwater.

Id.

As

an

initial

matter,

CARE

points

out

that

the

Legislature

clearly

intended

for

the

Board

to

use

the

full

arsenal

of

regulatory

requirements

as

necessary

to

protect

groundwater.

The

protection

of

groundwater

is

the

unmistakable,

unconditional

and

paramount

legislative

priority,

without

reference

to

the

costs

to

regulated

entities

or

the

additional

administrative

requirements

for

liLnois

EPA.

The

protection

of

groundwater

is

not

constrained

by

a

time

horizon;

any

regulatory

regime

must

protect

groundwater

now

and

in

the

future.

As

stated

by

IL

EPA:

“We

emphasize

that,

because

really

the

State’s

policy

of

preventing

groundwater

contamination

is

to

prevent

and

protect

groundwater

resources

from

for

current

and

future

beneficial

uses.

And

we

believe

that’s

potential

reason

enough

to

justify

groundwater

monitoring

in

fill

operations.

This

policy

and

the

importance

of

the

groundwater

resource

requires

the

uncertainties

really

be

resolved

in

favor

of

groundwater

monitoring.”

TR

3/12/12

a.m.

at

23.

Importantly,

the

“State’s

policy

of

preventing

groundwater

contamination”

that

IL

EPA

espouses

is

not

merely

internal

IL

EPA

guidance,

it

is

the

unambiguous

legislative

mandate

in

the

Illinois

Groundwater

Protection

Act,

415

ILCS

55/2

(“...it

is

the

policy

of

the

State

of

Illinois

to

restore,

protect,

and

enhance

the

groundwaters

of

the

State,

as

a

natural

and

public

resource).

Notably,

consistent

with

the

IL

EPA’s

position,

the

Illinois

Groundwater

Protection

Act

mandates

a

preventative

approach.

415

ILCS

55/2(b).

The

evidence

before

the

IPCB

in

this

matter

clearly

demonstrates

the

importance

of

a

proactive,

preventative

approach

that

includes

groundwater

monitoring.

CARE

points

to

the

following

evidence

in

this

rulemaking.

1.

“A

map

of

the

current

permitted

CCDD

fill

operations

shows

that

both

public

and

private

wells

are

found

in

close

proximity

to

CCDD

fill

operations

due

to

the

fact

that

the

same

geologic

material

that

is

good

to

be

quarried

is

also

appropriate

material

in

which

to

sink

a

groundwater

well.”

IL

EPA

Statement

of

Reasons,

p.

6.

2.

As

to

Will

County,

the

IL

EPA

presented

uncontroverted

evidence

that

there

are

398

potential

private

wells,

31

public

non-community

wells

and

12

community

water

supply

wells

within

2,500

feet

of

the

existing

CCDD

and

USFO

sites.

TR

3/12/i2

a.m.

at

20;

see

also

Exhibit

27

“CCDD

and

USFO

Sites

In

Relation

to

the

Potential

For

Aquifer

Recharge

Within

Will

County”.

2

---

3. There

are

350,000

people served

by

groundwater supplies

in Will County. TR

3/12/12 a.m. at

20.

4. As

IL

EPA

witness Rick Cobb testified

on March

l

2

th:

“Basically

the existing

and potential locations

of fill

operations

covered

under the

proposed Part

1100 are in

some of the most geologically susceptible

areas of

the State of

Illinois.

And moreover,

the importance of groundwater

as

a fresh water

source

within the

Chicago metropolitan

area really can

hardly be overstated,.

.Therefore,

really,

the sand

and

—shallow sand and gravel

and the Siurian Dolomite aqifer systems

will be the

primary source

of drinking water in northeastern

Illinois.” TR 3/12/12

a.m. at 15,

16.

5. Moreover, “...since the IL

EPA cannot

be

sure that the front-end

screening process

will keep

100% of contamination out

of the fill operations, the groundwater monitoring

requirement

is

necessary to detect

any contamination

of

groundwater

and

provide timely

corrective

action

and

remediation.” IL EPA

Statement of Reasons,

p.

6.

As Rick Cobb stated in

his March

12

th

testimony:

“Again, the

Agency’s larger point is because of imperfect

certification and

screening

procedures

that are just inherent in screening procedures of any

type and the

strong

likelihood of maybe an imperfect

performance of certification in the screening

procedures..

.[t]here

is no certification process that’s absolutely

perfect.” TR 3/12!

12 a.m.

at 22.

This evidence is

based on IL EPA’s decades-long history of

enforcing

regulations,

including

many

cases that are adjudicated

by

the IPCB.

6.

This

is

especially important because,

as IL EPA

states, “...a groundwater

monitoring

program is

important at fill operations because the facilities are not required

to

have

a

protective

liner to

control contaminant migration

and because they

are consolidating

a large volume

of

offsite materials into one area with that material often

?laced

directly

into

the groundwater

flow.” Id. at 32. As

Rick

Cobb stated in his March

i2 testimony:

“And with the acceptance of large quantities of soil over time,

and

nearly

the complete

absence of

any technical control such as liners to prevent any contamination,

and

the

location

of such facilities in these extremely

highly

sensitive geological

areas with heavy

reliance on groundwater as not only a

current

and

future source

of fresh water,

we really

think that for the CCDD and uncontaminated soil fill operations, that

e must —that

the

Board

should consider

the

potential to cause groundwater

contamination, and

not just

be

thinking about contamination that’s been caused

and

allowed.”

jçj.

at 22.

7. The demands on

groundwater resources in northeastern Illinois including Will

County

will

increase. As stated by

Rick

Cobb

in his testimony:

Northeastern Illinois could he facing a

future shortage of supplies,

and really

the biggest

driver of the

water

use is population. In the

year 2000, there were

about

8.6 million

people in

Illinois’ northeastern region, and that number could grow to

12 million

by the

3

---

year

2050. And

based on growth

trends,

the

metropolitan

area may need

as much

as

50%

more water

within the next 50 years.

TR 3/12/12

a.m.

at

22,

This increased demand

for

water

cannot

be

satisfied

by Lake Michigan

Water

because

of

Supreme

Court-imposed allocation

limits.

j.

at 16. It also

cannot be satisfied

by deeper

bedrock

aquifers

because they are

contaminated with

radionuclides

and are not being

replenished.

Id.

Instead,

the shallow

sand and gravel and the

Silurian Dolomite

aquifer

systems will

be the

primary

drinking water

in northeastern

Illinois. . The

fhture availability

of clean

and

adequate

supplies

from this

source

“will be vital

to the Illinois

population and economy.”

14.

Yet, it is

precisely

this groundwater

source

that is

at

risk of

contamination

by

virtue

of undetected

releases

from CCDD sites. IL

EPA

Statement

of

Reasons,

p.

6.

This evidence

is

uncontroverted.

8.

The

costs

of sampling groundwater

monitoring

wells,

even

for all parameters

set

forth

in

the

Class I groundwater

regulations,

is estimated

to be

$3,000.00.

Ex. 12

at

6;

see also

PC7

at I.

The IL EPA

is proposing

annual

sampling.

This cost on an annual

basis

is

not

an adequate

factual

basis to support the

IPCB’s broad

conclusion that this

cost

will

have

a detrimental

fiscal

impact

on site owners and

operators. IPCB

Proposed

Rule First Notice, Opinion

and Order

at

55-56.

9.

Other provisions

of the proposed

regulations

do not substitute

for

groundwater

monitoring.

For example,

financial assurance

and

post-closure

land

use controls

are not

alternatives

to

groundwater

monitoring, but

rather

something

that is used after

groundwater has

been

contaminated.

TR 3/12/12

a.m. at 31.

Coupled with its clear

legislative mandate,

the evidence now

before the IPCB

unmistakably

establishes the need

for groundwater

monitoring

at

CCDD

sites. The Board’s failure

to

include

groundwater

monitoring in light of

this evidence would be

contrary

to

the

manifest weight

of the

evidence.

In

its decision

to excise groundwater

monitoring requirements,

the

IPCB is

acting ifi

isolation

from

other units

of

government

in Illinois which

are

invested

with statutory

authority

to protect

public

health,

safety and welfare. The

IPCB

is rejecting

the rulemaking

proposal

put

forward

by

the

IL EPA and acting in

a manner which is contrary

to

the positions

of the Illinois

Attorney

General.

Just as importantly,

the IPCB is rejecting

the

recommendations

of local

government

officials

in Will County, which

hosts

the

most regulated. facilities,

many of which

are

in

immediate proximity

to residents who rely

on

groundwater

for their

drinking

water.

TR 3/12/12

a.m.

at 20;

see also Exhibit 27

“CCDD

and IJSFO Sites

In Relation to the

Potential For

Aquifer

Recharge

Within Will County”.

In the

absence of on-site

groundwater monitoring,

contamination will

not

be

detected until

it

has

migrated

off-site.

For the members

of CARE and the millions

of

Illinois

residents

who

like

them

rely

on

groundwater,

this

would

be too

late.

Ironically,

it will also be too

late

for

regulated

entities to

detect

and

address

releases while they

are

still on-site,

and to limit

the

potentially

catastrophic

enforcement

and

tort liability

they

will

face if

they

contaminate

private

or public

water

supplies. The

IL EPA, the Illinois

Attorney General, Will

County officials

and members

4

---

of

the

public

like

CARE

are

clearly

not

willing

to

take

this risk,

based

on

a

well-grounded

understanding

of Illinois

legal

mandates

and

the evidence

in

the record

of this

proceeding.

Thank

you

for

your

consideration

of the

comments.

Please

contact

me

if you

have

any

questions

or if

I can

be

of any

assistance

in

this

matter.

Sincerely,

Keith

Harley

Attorney

for

Citizens

Against

Ruining

the

Environment

5

---

ti

1

w

P

•/

W’>iF

a-PC!.

-:;fctf!-

it,

Pat

Quinn,

Governor

Enforcement

Order

Search

Results

Listing

Records

Where:

Case

Summary

contains

“construction”;

Program

is

“Solid

Waste”

Sorted

by

Order

Date

in

Descending

Order.

Enforcement

Orders

Case

Name

Order

Date

County

Docket

#

Reliable

Materials

Lyons,

LLC,

View

al.

et

Jul

12,

2012

Cook

PCB

12-52

View

William

Bryant

Jun

07,

2012

Champaign

AC

12-37

View

William

C.

Hagerman

Jun

07,

2012

Logan

AC

12-44

Town

&

Country

Utilities,

Inc.,

Kankakee

Regional

Landfill,

LLC,

Jun

06,

View

2012

Kankakee

07

CH 303

•

Edward

F. Hell,

and

Thomas

A.

Vol

in i

View

David

N. Lutz

May

17,

2012

Shelby

AC 12-34

View

John

K.

Croslow

May

17,

2012

Lawrence

AC 12-42

View

Ray

Newingham

Apr

05,

2012

Greene

AC 11-13

View

Johnson

Truck

Sales,

Inc.

Mar

15,

2012

White

AC

12-25

View

Dale

Gordon

Spradlin

and

Barbara

Mar

15,

J. Spradlin

2012

Pike

AC

12-23

View

Dennis

Heck

and

Deanna

Harris

Mar

15,

2012

Jefferson

AC 11-24

View

Harold

Dean

Foster

Feb

06,

2012

Pike

AC

12-14

Reliable Materials

Lyons,

LLC,

View

al.

et

Dec

01,

2011

Cook

PCB

12-52

David

W.

Edwards

and

Linda

View

Edwards

Dec

01, 2011

Williamson

AC

12-6

View

John

Pohar

&

Sons,

Inc.

Oct

21,

2011

La

Salle

11

CH

257

View

James

Harris

Oct

06,

2011

Knox

AC

11-27

View

Brandon

DeHart

and

Robert

Evans

Sep

22,

2011

Pike

AC

11-32

View

Patrick

and

Monique

D.

Patterson

Sep

08,

2011

Sangamon

AC

11-3

1

View

William

and

Patricia

Hajek

Sep

08,

2011

DeKalb

AC

09-35

CARE

Public

Comment

Exhibit

Two

---

View

Northwest Illinois

Construction

Sep 02, 2011

Whiteside

11 CH 137

—

View

Dennis

Deanna

Heck

Harris

and Raymond

A.

&

Aug

04,

2011

Jefferson

AC 11-24

View

Rodney Pinter

Jul 21,

2011

Bureau

AC

11-30

View

Whelan

T

s

Inc.

& Thomas

Whelan

Jul 21,

2011

Cook

AC 11-29

View

Kenneth

Verbout

Jul

07, 2011

Bureau

AC

10-25

View

Dennis

Weiler

Jul

07, 2011

Jasper

AC

11-23

87th & Greenwood,

LLC,

View

Innovative

Recycling

Technologies,

Inc. and Land

Jun

16,

2011

Cook

PCB

10-71

Reclamation

Services,

Inc.

View

John

and Debra

Watson

Jun

16, 2011

Union

AC

11-18

Jason D. & Angela

R. Marrs

d/b/a

View

Marrs

Hauling, Landscaping

&

May 19,

2011

Champaign

AC 09-55

More

View

Richard Pagel

Apr 21,

2011

Piatt

AC

11-20

View

John

J.

and Kathy

D. Still

Mar 03, 2011

Brown

AC

10-23

View

Timothy

Crouch

Mar

03,

2011

Livingston

AC

11-19

View

Busse-Yard

20, Inc., B-Lady

Trust

Mar 01, 2011

Winnebago

09 CH

824

2001

and Helene Van

Hyning

J.T.

Einoder, Inc., Tn-State

View

Industries, Inc.,

John Einoder

and

Feb

08,

2011

Cook

00 CH

10635

Janice

Einoder

View

Paul

Aureden

Jan 20,

2011

Jo Daviess

AC 11-15

View

David

Antrim

Jan

06,

2011

Effingham

AC

10-15

Excavating & Lowboy

Services,

Inc., Daniel

Sernitella,

City of

View

Harvey,

Harvey Park

District,

Oct

14, 2010

Cook

04

CH

8063

Mohammed

Sayed,

and Alaadien

Z. Elabady

Excavating

&

Lowboy

Services,

Inc.,

Daniel Serritella,

City of

View

Harvey, Harvey

Park

District,

Oct

14, 2010

Cook

04 CH

8063

Mohammed Sayed,

and Alaadien

Z.

Elabady

Excavating

& Lowboy

Services,

Inc.,

Daniel

Serritella, City

of

View

Harvey, Harvey

Park District,

Aug 31,

2010

Cook

04

CH

8063

Mohammed

Sayed,

and Alaadien

Z. Elabady

Excavating

&

Lowboy

Services,

Inc., Daniel Serritella,

City

of

View

Harvey,

Harvey Park

District,

Aug

31, 2010

Cook

04

CH

8063

Mohammed

Sayed, and

Alaadien

Z. Elabady

---

View

Greg Pinter, and individual,

d/b/a

Jul 20, 2010

Bureau

10 CH 45

Pinter General Contracting

Excavating

& Lowboy Services,

Inc., Daniel

Serritella, City of

View

Harvey, Harvey

Park District,

Jun 10, 2010

Cook

04 CH

8063

Mohammed Sayed,

and Alaadien

Z. Elabady

Excavating

& Lowboy Services,

Inc., Daniel Serritella,

City of

View

Harvey, Harvey

Park District,

Jun 10,

2010

Cook

04 CH

8063

Mohammed

Sayed,

and

Alaadien

Z. Elabady

Excavating

&

Lowboy

Services,

Inc.,

Daniel Serritella, City of

View

Harvey, Harvey Park District,

Jun 10, 2010

Cook

04 CH

8063

Mohammed

Sayed,

and Alaadien

Z. Elabady

Excavating & Lowboy Services,

Inc., Daniel Serritella,

City of

View

Harvey, Harvey Park

District,

May 24, 2010

Cook

04 CH

8063

Mohammed Sayed, and Alaadien

Z. Elabady

Carol G. Prieb and Margaret

View

Apr 01, 2010

Union

AC 08-18

Dill a vo u

View

Carol

G.

Prieb

Apr 01, 2010

Union

AC

08-0 1

Western Sand

&

Gravel Company,

View

Mar

18, 2010

La

Salle

PCB

10-22

LLC

View

Tony A.

Luttrell

Mar 18, 2010

Clay

AC 10-09

View

Fischer Brothers, L.L.C.

Mar

11, 2010

Ogle

09

CH 228

Excavating

&

Lowboy Services,

Inc., Daniel Serritella, City of

View

Harvey, Harvey Park District,

Mar 03, 2010

Cook

04 CH

8063

Mohammed

Sayed, and Alaadien

Z. Elabady

The Blickhan Family Corporation,

View

Inc. and Buck’s Construction Co.

Feb 04, 2010

Adams

AC 09-43

Inc.

View

Tony A. Luttrell

Jan 21, 2010

Clay

AC 10-09

Excavating &

Lowboy Services,

Inc.,

Daniel Serritella, City of

View

Harvey, Harvey

Park

District,

Dec 22, 2009

Cook

04

CH

8063

Mohammed

Sayed,

and

Alaadien

Z. Elabady

Northwest Illinois Construction

View

Nov 18,

2009

Carroll

2009-CH-55

LLC

---

Excavating

& Lowboy

Services,

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

View

Nov

06,

2009

Nov

06, 2009

Nov

05,

2009

Oct

01,

2009

Oct

01,

2009

Sep

13,

2009

Aug

07,

2009

Jul

20,

2009

Jun

29,

2009

Jun

04,

2009

May

07,

2009

Apr

16,

2009

Mar

19,

2009

Feb

19,

2009

Jan

08,

2009

Dec

04,

2008

Dec

04,

2008

Dec

04,

2008

Dec

04,

2008

Dec

04,

2008

Dec

04,

2008

Oct

16,

2008

Cook

Winnebago

Union

McDonough

Iroquois

Whiteside

Bureau

Kankakee

Cook

Logan

White

Sangamon

Coles

Brown

Henry

Union

Greene

Fulton

Union

Morgan

Morgan

Union

04

CH

8063

2009

CH

1786

AC

09-22

AC

09-44

AC

08-16

09 CH

111

09 CH

71

07

CH

303

00 CH

10635

AC

06-50

AC

09-34

AC

09-37

AC

09-33

AC

09-2

AC

09-18

AC

08-32

AC

08-34

AC

08-36

AC

09-14

AC

09-20

AC

09-21

AC

09-11

Nov 06,

2009

Cook

04

CH

8063

Nov

06,

2009

Cook

04

CH 8063

Inc.,

Daniel

Serritella,

City

of

View

Harvey,

Harvey

Park

District,

Mohammed

Sayed,

and

Alaadien

Z. Elabady

Excavating

& Lowboy

Services,

Inc.,

Daniel

Serritella,

City

of

View

Harvey,

Harvey

Park

District,

Mohammed

Sayed,

and

Alaadien

Z.

Elabady

Excavating

&

Lowboy

Services,

Inc.,

Daniel

Serritella,

City

of

View

Harvey, Harvey

Park

District,

Mohammed

Sayed,

and

Alaadien

Z.

Elabady

Greater

Rockford

Airport

Authority

Bradley

and

Carol

Corzine

Gordon

Investment

Group,

LLC

Gene

Breeden

Quality

Ready

Mix

Concrete

Co.

City

of Princeton

Town

&

Country

Utilities,

Inc.,

View

Kankakee Regional

Landfill,

LLC,

Edward

F.

Heil,

and

Thomas

A.

Vol

in

i

J.T.

Einoder,

Inc.,

Tn-State

Industries,

Inc.,

John

Einoder

and

Janice

Einoder

Mark

Gates

Jack

Campbell

Info

Corner

Materials,

Inc.

David

Swearingen

Theodore

and

Elizabeth

Hollembeak

and

Hollembeak

Construction,

Inc.

Troy

Voss

and

Shirley

Voss

Joseph

Flick

Joseph

Combs

Charles

F.

Kinsel

Reynolds

Service

Co.

Charles

Kissick

Darrell

Knox

Ruby

Acklin

and

Joseph

Flick

---

View

Billy Hammond,

Sr.

Oct

16,

2008

Franklin

AC

09-13

View

Timothy

Pearce

Jun

19,

2008

Clay

AC

05-61

View

William

Dixon

Jun

05, 2008

Union

AC 08-23

View

Gire

Properties,

Inc. and

Gire

Jun 05,

2008

Douglas

AC

08-24

---•

Construction, Inc.

View

Fisher

Edward

and

W.

DEM/EX

Fisher,

Rhonda

Group,

L.

Inc.

Jun

05, 2008

Mason

AC 08-26

View

John A.

&

Kay

E. Oldham

May

01, 2008

Clay

AC

07-62

View

Fred

Honaker

Oct

04,

2007

Moultrie

AC

08-4

View

Swami

Oil

Company

Sep

06, 2007

Iroquois

AC 08-3

View

Charles

Stuller

Sep

06, 2007

Macoupin

AC 08-2

View

Graves)

Harold

Graves

(Tower

Hill/Eilers

Sep

06,

2007

Shelby

AC

06-23

Harold

Graves

(Tower

Hill/Graves-

—---—

View

Ambrose)

Jul

26,

2007

Shelby

AC

06-22

View

Marcelo

Mendoza

Jul

26,

2007

Champaigh

AC

07-64

View

Ben

and

Destiny

Wyant

Jul

12,

2007

Williamson

AC

07-61

View

Joseph

Combs

Jul

12,

2007

Greene

AC

07-60

•---—----

View

Charmin

Doug

Hensley

Joseph

and

Eric and

Jun

21,

2007

Henderson

AC

07-50

View

James

Stutsman

Jun

07,

2007

Mason

AC

05-70

--

View

Meyers

Herman

F.

Meyers

and

Karen

May

17, 2007

Massac

AC

07-49

View

Renee

C. Lo

May

17, 2007

Champaign

AC

07-53

View

Michael

Moreton

May

03,

2007

Coles

AC

04-5

1

View

Stacy

Hess

May

03,

2007

Tazewell

AC

05-47

View

Adolph

[vJ•

Lo

Apr

19, 2007

Champaign

AC 07-46

Harold

Tomlinson,

Larry

View

Tomlinson,

and

Jerry

Tomlinson

Apr

19,

2007

Marshall

AC

07-44

View

Stacy

Hess

Mar 01,

2007

Tazewell

AC

05-47

View

Ted

Harrison

and

Gerald

S.

Gill

Feb

15,

2007

Cass

AC 05-8

View

Michael

Moreton

Feb

01,

2007

Coles

AC

04-5

1

View

Northern

Illinois

Service

Company

Jan

26,

2007

Winnebago

AC 05-40

View

Norbert

and

Wilma

Adams

Dec

21, 2006

Woodford

AC

07-2

View

Curtis

Jim

Hammond

Dec

07,

2006

Fulton

AC

07-23

View

James

Stutsman

Nov

16,

2006

Mason

AC

05-70

Excavating

&

Lowboy

Services,

Inc.,

Daniel

Serritella,

City

of

View

Harvey,

Harvey

Park

District,

Oct

20,

2006

Cook

04

CH

8063

Mohammed

Sayed,

and

Alaadien

Z. Elebady

---

View

and

Maria

Mark

Lewis

Kingsley

Gates,

LewisMark

Gates,

Oct

19,

2006

Logan

AC

06-50

View

Northern

Illinois Service

Company

Sep 21,

2006

Winnebago

AC 05-40

View

James Stutsman

Sep

21,

2006

Mason

AC

05-70

View

Georgia

Shank

and

Steve

Shank

Sep

07, 2006

Bond

AC

06-20

View

Rick

Linnabury

Sep

07,

2006

Douglas

AC

06-30

View

Ron

Lawyer

Aug

04,

2006

Fulton

AC 06-57

View

Larry Payne

Sr.

Jul 20,

2006

Fulton

AC

06-48

-----—----

View

Environmental

Paul Freeman

and

Services,

Freeman

Inc.

Jul

06, 2006

Williamson

AC

06-11

View

Charles L.

Parker

May

18,

2006

Logan

AC 04-75

View

John R.

Malloch

May 18,

2006

Champaign

AC 05-63

View

William

Shrum

May 18,

2006

Perry

AC

05-18

View

Leo Ham

Mar

16, 2006

McDonough

AC

05-33

View

Charles

L.

Parker

Mar

16,

2006

Logan

AC

04-75

View

John

R. Malloch

Mar

16, 2006

Champaign

AC

05-63

View

William

Shrum

Mar

16,

2006

Perry

AC

05-18

View

M.K.

Logsdon

O’Hara

Sand

Construction,

and

Gravel

and

Inc.

Feb

02,

2006

Cass

AC 05-54

View

Maurice

L.

Thompson

Trust

Jan 19,

2006

Fulton

AC

06-18

View

Maurice

L.

Thompson

Trust

Jan 19,

2006

Fulton

AC

06-19

View

J &

F Hauling,

Inc.

Jan 06,

2006

Cook

04 CH

01737

View

John

Groff

Dec 01,

2005

Marion

AC

05-20

View

John Groff

Oct

20, 2005

Marion

ACO5-20

View

Arthur

J.

Lootens &

Son, Inc.

Sep 01,

2005

Kane

03

CH

K

661

View

Mary

Lou and H.

Frank

Record

Aug 18,

2005

Fulton

AC 04-6

John

Brown d/b/a

John

Brown

View

Painting

Jul 07,

2005

Massac

AC

04-82

View

William

Baize

Jun

10, 2005

Williamson

2001-CH-117

View

Loxley,

Inc.

Jun 02,

2005

Cass

AC

03-5

Charles

Beilemey

and Willie

View

Jun 02,

2005

Champaign

AC

05-64

-----•

Doucher

John

Brown d/b/a

John Brown

View

Painting

May

19, 2005

Massac

AC

04-82

Edward

and Betty

Jo Cain and

View

Edward Cain

d/b/a

Cain

Roofing

Apr

21, 2005

Champaign

AC 05-7

Company

Landers

T

Children

Family,

LLC and

View

Apr

21, 2005

Sangamon

AC

05-49

———--

Ray

Landers

View

Harold Bruley

Apr

07,

2005

Macoupin

AC

05-55

---

View

Christopher

A.

and

Jenny L.

Good

Apr 07, 2005

Douglas

AC 05-56

View

International,

Equipping

The

Inc.

Saints

Ministry,

Feb 17,

2005

Macoupin

AC 04-31

View

—--.

Finch

David

Co.

and Shelby

Hill and

N.E.

Feb 17,

2005

Fulton

AC

05-19

View

Guiffre

II,

LLC

Jan

06,

2005

Winnebago

AC 05-31

View

Christopher Coleman

Dec

16, 2004

Union

AC

04-46

View

Troy

Williamson

and Swords

Dec

02,

2004

Henry

AC 04-34

Veneer

and Lumber

Company

View

Construction

Florence

Propheter

Co.

and Propheter

Dec 02, 2004

Whiteside

AC 04-61

View

Willis

E. Farley, Jr.

Nov 04,

2004

Mason

AC 05-21

View

G.T.

& L.,

Inc.

Nov 04,

2004

Cook

AC

05-4

View

Christopher

Coleman

Nov

04,

2004

Union

AC 04-46

View

Rosemary

Pehm

Oct 21,

2004

Marshall

AC

04-32

View

Richard

Groff

Oct

07,

2004

Fulton

AC 05-16

Arlyn Ray

d/b/a Arlyn Ray

View

Arlyn

Construction,

Ray Exteriors,

Tom

RomeroRobert

d/b/a

J.

Aug

05,

2004

Woodford

AC 04-57

Adams

and Rita M. Adams

View

Luther Coleman

Aug 05, 2004

Saline

AC

04-18

View

Guiffré

II, LLC and Reload,

Inc.

Aug 05, 2004

Winnebago

AC

04-83

View

Bill Weis

Jul 22, 2004

St. Clair

AC 04-86

View

John

Smith and

Twilla Williams

Jul 08,

2004

Union

AC 03-21

View

Olen

G.

Parkhill, Jr.

Jul 08, 2004

Champaign

AC

03-33

View

Olen

G.

Parkhill, Jr.

Jul 08, 2004

Champaign

AC

03-34

View

Luther

Coleman

Jun 17, 2004

Saline

AC

04-18

View

Roger

Ray

Jun 17,2004

Moultrie

AC 04-08

View

Terry Wilkerson

Jun

03, 2004

Woodford

AC 04-58

Colorado

Real

Estate

and

View

Investment Company

(Kingspark

May 06,

2004

Peoria

AC

04-25

Mobile

Estates)

View

Josiah

W.

Collins

II and Lori Hilton

May

06,

2004

McDonough

AC 04-55

View

Bill Marshall

Apr

15, 2004

Marshall

AC

04-49

View

Charles

Flick

Feb 05, 2004

Union

AC

04-26

View

Larry Lord

Feb 05,

2004

Marshall

AC

04-30

View

Roy Bauer

d/b/a Baur Trucking

Jan

08, 2004

St. Clair

AC

04-23

View

Robert Thompson

Nov

20, 2003

Alexander

AC

04-17

---

View

William

Baize

Jul

31, 2003

Williamson

01-CF-461

& 503

View

Larry

Beam

May

15, 2003

Henry

AC

03-26

View

and

Indiana

ACN

Harbor

International,

Belt

Railroad,

Inc.

Inc.

May

01, 2003

Cook

PCBO1-83

View

Terry

Stanley

Mar

06,

2003

Marshall

ACO3-16

View

Village of

[vietamora

Mar 06,

2003

Woodford

ACO3-17

View

Jerry

Summers

Mar

06,

2003

Fayette

ACO3-18

Harley

Lafary

d/b/a

Lafary

View

Construction,

Harris

Lafary and

Mar

06, 2003

McDonóugh

ACO3-19

Larry Payne,

Sr.

View

Bobby

Keller

Nov 21,

2002

Macoupin

AC

03-10

View

Tony

Luttrell

Oct

17,

2002

Clay

AC 03-1

Herb

Flannel

and Wallace

View

Excavating

Company

Oct

03,

2002

Moultrie

AC

03-7

View

Tony Luttrell

Sep 05,

2002

Clay

AC 03-1

Lesslie Yocum,

Sandra

Yocum,

Rick

L. Yocum,

and Shawna

B.

Yocum

(Birmingham

Yocum #1)

View

and

Illinois EPA

v.

Lesslie

Yocum

Aug 08,

2002

Schuyler

AC

01-29&01-30

and Sandra

Yocum

(Birmingham/Yocum

#2)

View

BradneyLuckhart

Aug

08, 2002

Logan

AC 02-18

View

Maurice

Newcomer

Jul 11,

2002

Carroll

AC

02-52

View

Roeco

Enterprises,

Inc.

Jun 20,

2002

Champaign

AC 02-45

View

E. Lewis

Look

May 16,

2002

Peoria

AC 02-35

View

Tony

Luttrell

May

02, 2002

Clay

AC

02-48

William

Plank

d/b/a Demolition

View

Feb

21, 2002

Douglas

AC

02-31

Plus

View

Robert

Wiersema

Jan 24,

2002

Douglas

AC

02-25

View

Larry

Beam

Jan 24,

2002

Henry

AC

02-28

copyright

©

1996-2011

Illinois

EPA

Agency

Site Map

I

Privacy

Information

I

Kids

Privacy

I

Web

Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

4’

y

i/j

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Case Name:

People

v. Reliable Materials

Lyons,

Incident#:

LLC, et al.

Bureau ID#:

0311715020

Location:

Chicago,

Cook County,

Region 2

DLC File#:

39-07

File

Type:

Enforcement,

Section 31

Docket#:

PCB

12-52

Order Date:

Jul 12,

2012

Penalty:

$25,000.00

Order

Type:

Civil,

Final

SEP?

No

Programs:

Solid Waste

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs or

No

Reimbursement?

Contaminated

soils from

a high school construction

site

were

sent

to the

Reliable

Materials

Lyons

clean

construction

and demolition

debris (“CCDD”)

fill

site.

Reliable

is a former limestone

quarry

that is

allowed

to

accept

CCDD, but it is

not

a

permitted

landfill, and

cannot accept

waste

and contaminated

construction

and

demolition debris.

The Illinois

EPA brought

an enforcement

action

against

six

defendants

in

this

matter.

GSG

Consultants,

Inc.

is one

of

those

defendants.

On May

16, 2012, the Attorney

General’s

Office

filed a Stipulation

and Proposal

for

Settlement

with the

Pollution

Control

Board regarding

a settlement

with

GSG.

The

settlement requires

the

payment of a civil penalty

of $25,000.

The

settlement

does

not contain

any

other

obligations or

technical remedy,

nor

does it

involve

any other

defendants.

(Adobe

Acrobat PDF file)

View

Order

Problems

viewing

Acrobat PDF files?

Copyright

©

1996-2011 Illinois

EPA

Agency

Site Map

I

Privacy

Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web

Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

Enforcement

Pat

Quinn,

Governor

Case Summary:

CARE

Public Comment

Exhibit

Three

---

W’

WI.

pi7tCU

11.

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Case Name:

Illinois EPA V. William

Bryant

Incident#:

Location:

Sidney Township,

Champaign

County,

Bureau

ID#:

0190855011

Region

4

DLC

File#:

67-12-AC

File Type:

Administrative

Citation,

Section 31.1

Docket#:

AC 12-37

Order Date:

Jun

07, 2012

Penalty:

$3,000.00

Order

Type:

Civil, Final

SEP?

No

Programs:

Solid Waste

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs or

No

Reimbursement?

On June

7, 2012, the Illinois

Pollution Control

Board

entered an opinion

and

order in

the

case

of

William

Bryant, in AC

12-37.

On

February 10, 2012,

the Illinois

EPA

inspected

a facility located

on 4.4 acres in

the Northern

Quarter

of

Section

15

Township 18 N Range

10

East

in Sidney Township,

Champaign

County,

Illinois

and

afterwards

alleged in an

administrative

citation that

Respondent violated

the

Environmental

Protection Act (Act)

by causing

or allowing the

open dumping

of

waste resulting

in litter and

the deposition

of general construction

or demolition

debris or clean construction

or demolition debris

at the facility,

in violation

of

Section

21(p)(1)

and 21(p)(7) of the

Act. To contest

an administrative

citation,

a

respondent

must

file

a petition

for review with

the Board

no later than

35 days after

being

served with

the administrative

citation. Mr.

Bryant failed

to

timely

file a

petition;

accordingly, the

Board found

that William Bryant

violated

Section

21(p)(1)and

21(p)(7)

of the Act and ordered

him to

pay a civil

penalty

of $3,000.00,

no later

than

July

9, 2012.

(Adobe

Acrobat PDF file)

View Order

Problems

viewing Acrobat

PDF files?

Enforcement

Pat

Quinn, Governor

Case

Summary:

Copyright

©

1996-2011

Illinois EPA

Agency Site Map

I

Privacy

Information

I

Kids

Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

Enforcement

Orders

View Order

Case

Name:

Illinois

EPA

v.

William

C.

Hagerman

Incident#:

Location:

Middletown,

Logan

County,

Region

5

Bureau

ID#:

1078040006

File

Type:

Administrative

Citation,

Section

31.1

DLC

File#:

90-12-AC

Order Date:

Jun 07, 2012

Docket#:

AC 12-44

Order Type:

Civil, Final

Penalty:

$4,500.00

Programs:

Solid

Waste

SEP?

No

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs or

No

Reimbursement?

On June 7, 2012,

the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

entered an opinion

and

order in

the case of William

C. Hagerman,

in AC 12-44.

On March

6,

2012,

the

Illinois

EPA

inspected

a facility located

about 2 miles

east of Middletown,

Logan

County,

Illinois

and

afterwards

alleged in an administrative

citation

that

Respondent

violated

the

Environmental

Protection

Act (Act)

by

causing or

allowing the open

dumping

of

waste resulting in

litter,

open

burning, and

the deposition

of general

construction

or

demolition

debris or

clean construction

or

demolition

debris

at

the facility,

in

violation

of

Section

21(p)(1), 21(p)(3)

and

21(p)(7) of

the Act. To

contest an

administrative

citation, a

respondent

must file a petition

for review

with

the Board

no later than

35 days after being

served with

the administrative

citation.

Mr.

Hagerman

failed

to

timely

file a petition:

Accordingly,

the Board found

that

William

Bryant

violated

Section 2l(p)(l),

2

1(p)(3)

and 21(p)(7)

of the Act and

ordered

him

to pay

a

civil

penalty of

$4,500.00,

no later than

July 9, 2012.

(Adobe Acrobat PDF

file)

View Order

Problems viewing

Acrobat PDF

files?

Enforcement

11

F

Pat Quinn,

Governor

Case Summary:

copyright

©

1996-2011

Illinois EPA

Agency Site Map

I

Privacy Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web

Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

‘1’

WI

WJ

!PC1

71a1

ij’•

Enforcement Orders

View

Order

Pat

Quinn, Governor

Location:

File Type:

Order Date:

Order Type:

People v. Town

& Country Utilities, Inc.,

Kankakee

Regional Landfill, LLC, Edward F.

Heil, and Thomas A. Volini

Kankakee, Kankakee County, Region 2

Enforcement, Section 31

Jun 06, 2012

Civil, Final

Incident#:

Bureau ID#:

DLC FiIe#:

Docket#:

Penalty:

SEP?

Compliance Plan

Requirements?

0910555208

82-06

07

CH 303

$5,000.00

No

No

. Problems viewing Acrobat PDF

files?

Enforcement

Case Name:

Programs:

Solid Waste

Costs

or

No

Reimbursement?

Case Summary:

This

case

involved the

open dumping of construction and demolition

debris at

a site

southwest of Kankakee, Illinois. On June

6,

2012, Town

& Country Utilities

entered

into a consent order settling this case. Pursuant

to the order, it paid a

$5,000

penalty. Previously, on

July

290, 2009,

Kankakee Regional Landfill, entered

into

a

Consent Order settling the enforcement

case against it. It had removed

the waste

from the site and paid $25,000 in civil penalty. The two individual

defendants,

Edward Heil and Tom Volini, were dismissed with prejudice. With

the entry

of the

June

6,

2012, Consent Order, this

case

is

fully resolved.

(Adobe Acrobat PDF file)

View Order

Copyright

©

1996-2011 Illinois EPA

Agency Site Map

I

Privacy Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web

Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

w

wiii,

piiJttiJL

i

Pat Quinn,

Governor

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Incident#:

Bureau

ID#:

0910555208

DLC File#:

82-06

Docket#:

07 CH

303

Penalty:

$5,000.00

SEP?

No

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs

or

No

Reimbursement?

This case

involved

the open dumping

of construction

and demolition

debris

at a site

southwest

of Kankakee, Illinois.

On June

6, 2012, Town

& Country Utilities

entered

into

a

consent

order

settling this

case. Pursuant

to

the

order, it

paid a

$5,000

penalty. Previously,

on July

290, 2009, Kankakee

Regional

Landfill,

entered

into

a

Consent

Order settling

the enforcement

case against

it. It had removed

the

waste

from the site

and paid $25,000

in civil

penalty.

The two individual

defendants,

Edward Heil

and Tom

Volini, were dismissed

with prejudice.

With

the entry

of the

June 6, 2012,

Consent

Order,

this case is fully

resolved.

(Adobe

Acrobat PDF

file)

View

Order

Problems

viewing Acrobat

PDF files?

Enforcement

Case Name:

People v. Town

& Country

Utilities,

Inc.,

Kankakee

Regional

Landfill, LLC,

Edward F.

Heil,

and

Thomas A.

Volini

Location:

Kankakee,

Kankakee

County,

Region 2

File Type:

Enforcement,

Section 31

Order

Date:

Jun

06,

2012

Order

Type:

Civil,

Final

Programs:

Solid Waste

Case Summary:

copyright

©

1996-2011

Illinois

EPA

Agency Site Map

I

Privacy

Information

I

Kids

Privacy

I

Web

Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

F’ 4’

W’. pa.7ttIc?.

1/.

Pat

Quinn,

Governor

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs or

No

Reimbursement?

On

May

17, 2012,

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

entered

an opinion

and

order

in

the

case

of David

N. Lutz, in

AC 12-34.

On January

30,

2012,

the Illinois

EPA

inspected

a facility

located

in Section

13, Township

11

N, Range

3E,

of Rose

Township

in part

of the

southeast

quarter

of

the northeast

quarter

of

the southwest

quarter,

Shelby

County,

Illinois

and

afterwards

alleged

in

an

administrative

citation

that Respondent

violated the

Environmental

Protection

Act (Act)

by causing

or

allowing

the open

dumping

of waste

resulting

in litter,

open burning,

and

the

deposition

of general

construction

or demolition

debris

or

clean

construction

or

demolition

debris

at the

facility,

in

violation

of Section

21(p)(1),

21(p)(3)

and

21(p)(7)

of the Act

(415 ILCS

5/21(p)(1),

5/21

(p)(3)

and

5/21(p)(7)(2010)).

To

contest

an administrative

citation,

a respondent

must

file a petition

for review

with

the

Board

no later

than 35

days

after

being

served with

the

administrative

citation.

Mr.

Lutz

failed

to timely

file a

petition:

Accordingly,

the

Board

found

that

David

N.

Lutz violated

Section

21(p)(1),

21(p)(3)

and 21(p)(7)

of

the Act

and

ordered

him

to

pay a

civil penalty

of

$4,500.00,

no later than

June

18,

2012.

(Adobe

Acrobat

PDF file)

View

Order

Problems

viewing

Acrobat

PDF

files?

Enforcement

Case Name:

Illinois

EPA

v. David

N. Lutz

Location:

Shelbyville,

Shelby

County,

Region

4

File Type:

Administrative

Citation,

Section

31.1

Order

Date:

May

17,

2012

Order

Type:

Civil,

Final

Programs:

Solid Waste

Case

Summary:

Incident#:

Bureau ID#:

1738175002

DLC

File#:

61-12-AC

Docket#:

AC 12-34

Penalty:

$4,500.00

SEP?

No

Copyright

©

1996-2011

Illinois EPA

Agency Site

Map

I Privacy

Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

ww,w,

pC!

7/Cf i’

Ii.

£4

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Case

Name:

Illinois

EPA

v.

John

K. Croslow

Incident#:

Location:

Bridgeport,

Lawrence

County,

Region

Bureau ID#:

1018025004

7

DLC

File#:

80-12-AC

File

Type:

Administrative

Citation,

Section

31.1

Docket#:

AC

12-42

Order Date:

May 17,

2012

Penalty:

$4,500.00

Order

Type:

Civil,

Final

SEP?

No

Programs:

Solid

Waste

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs

or

No

Reimbursement?

On

May

17, 2012,

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

entered

an

opinion and

order

in

the

case

of John K.

Croslow,

in

AC 12-42.

On February

15,

2012,

the Illinois

EPA

inspected

a facility

located

at

719

N 800 E.

Road,

Lawrence

County,

Illinois

and

afterwards

alleged

in an

administrative

citation

that Respondent

violated

the

Environmental

Protection

Act (Act)

by causing

or allowing

the

open

dumping

of

waste resulting

in

litter,

open

burning,

the

deposition

of

general

construction

or

demolition

debris

or clean

construction

or

demolition

debris

and by

causing

or

allowing

water

to

accumulate

in used

or waste

tires

at

the facility,

in

violation

of

Section

21(p)(1),

21(p)(3),

21(p)(7)

and

Section

55(k)(1)

of the Act

(415

ILCS

5/21(p)(1),

5/21(p)(3),

5/21(p)(

7

)

and

5/55(k)(1)(2010)).

To

contest

an

administrative

citation,

a

respondent

must

file

a

petition

for

review

with

the

Board

no later

than

35

days after

being served

with

the administrative

citation.

Mr.

Croslow

failed

to timely

file

a

petition:

Accordingly,

the Board

found

that

John

K.

Croslow

violated Section

2

1(p)(l),

21(p)(3),

21(p)(7)

and

Section

55(k)(1)

of

the

Act

and ordered

him

to pay a

civil

penalty

of $6,000.00,

no

later than

June

18,

2012.

(Adobe

Acrobat

PDF file)

View

Order

Problems

viewing

Acrobat

PDF files?

Enforcement

Pat

Quinn,

Governor

Case

Summary:

Copyright

©

1996-2011

Illinois EPA

Agency

Site Map

I

Privacy

Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

Pat

Quinn,

Governor

Enforcement

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Case Name:

Illinois

EPA

v. Ray

Newingham

Incident#:

Location:

Roodhouse,

Greene

County,

Region

Bureau

ID#:

0610355023

5

DLC

File#:

305-10-AC

File

Type:

Enforcement

Docket#:

AC

11-13

Order

Date:

Apr 05,

2012

Penalty:

$3,000.00

Order

Type:

Civil,

Final

SEP?

No

Programs:

Solid

Waste

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs

or

Yes

$315.00

Reimbursement?

Case

Summary:

On

April

5, 2012,

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

entered

an

opinion

and

order

in

the

case

involving

Ray Newingham

in

AC 11-13.

On

September

16, 2010,

the Illinois

EPA inspected

a

facility

located

at

the southeast

corner

of the

intersection

of

Worchester

and

Clay

Streets

in

Roadhouse,

Greene

County,

Illinois

and

afterwards

alleged

in an

administrative

citation

that Mr.

Newingham

violated

the

Act

by causing

or

allowing

the

open

dumping

of waste

resulting

in

litter

and the

deposition

of

general

construction

or

demolition

debris

or clean

construction

or

demolition

debris

at the

facility.

This

is

in violation

of

Sections

2

1(p)(1)

and

2l(p)(7)

of

the

Illinois

Environmental Protection

Act(Act)(415

ILCS

5/21

(p)(1),

2l(p)(7)(20l0)).

Mr.

Newingham

timely

filed

a petition

for

review

to contest

the administrative

citation.

A

hearing

was

held

on

November

2,

2011,

at the

City Hall

in Carrollton,

Greene

County,

Illinois.

On

February

16,

2012,

the Board

issued

an interim

opinion

and

order,

finding

that

Ray

Newingham

violated

Sections

21(p)(1)

and

21(p)(7)

of the

Act

and

related

regulations.

The

Board

held

that

Mr.

Newingham,

by

unsuccessfully

contesting

the

administrative

citation

at

hearing,

is subject

to pay

the

statutory

civil

penalty

of

$1,500.00,

for

each

violation.

In addition,

Mr.

Newingham

must

pay

the

hearing

costs

of $315.00.

The

total

amount

due

of

$3,315.00,

must

be

paid

no later

than

May 21,

2012.

(Adobe

Acrobat

PDF

file)

View

Order

‘

Problems

viewing

Acrobat

PDF

files?

Copyright

©

1996-2011

Illinois

EPA

Agency

Site

Map

Privacy

Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

rV

WW

iiJrtt

!/.

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Case Name:

Illinois EPA

v.

Johnson

Truck

Sales,

Incident#:

Inc.

Bureau ID#:

1930355008

Location:

Norris

City, White

County,

Region

7

DLC

File#:

1-12-AC

File

Type:

Administrative

Citation

Docket#:

AC

12-25

Order Date:

Mar

15,

2012

Penalty:

$6,000.00

Order

Type:

Civil,

Final

SEP?

No

Programs:

Solid

Waste

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs

or

No

Reimbursement?

On

March

15, 2012,

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

entered

an

opinion

and order

in the case

of Johnson

Truck

Sales Inc.,

in

AC 12-25.

On November

29,20

11,

the

Illinois

EPA inspected

a

facility located

at 508 US

Highway

45 South

of

Norris

City,

White

County,

Illinois

and

afterwards

alleged

in

an

administrative

citation

that

Johnson

Truck

Sales

Inc. violated

the Act

by

causing

or allowing

the

open

dumping

of waste

resulting

in litter;

deposition

of waste

in

standing

or

flowing

waters;

the

deposition

of

general construction

or demolition

debris

or

clean construction

or

demolition

debris;

and used

tires,

at this site,

not altered,

covered

or

otherwise

prevented

from

accumulating

water.

This

is

a

violation

of Sections

21(p)(1),

21(p)(4),

21(p)(7)and

55(k)(1)

of the

Act

(415 ILCS

5/21(p)(1),

21(p)(4),

21(p)(7)and

55(k)(1)(2010)).

To

contest

an administrative

citation,

a

respondent

must file

a petition

for review

with

the Board

no later

than 35

days after

being

served

with

the administrative

citation.

Johnson

Truck

Sales

failed

to file

a

timely

petition:

Accordingly,

the Board

found

Johnson

Truck

Sales

in

violation

of Sections

21(p)(1),

21(p)(4),

21(p)(7)

and

55(k)(1)

of the

Act

and related

regulations

and

ordered

Johnson

Truck Sales

Inc. to

pay a civil

penalty

of

$6,0000.00,

no later

than

April

16,

2012.

(Adobe

Acrobat

PDF

file)

View

Order

7: Problems

viewing

Acrobat

PDF

files?

Enforcement

Pat

Quinn,

Governor

Case

Summary:

Copyright

©

1996-2011

Illinois

EPA

Agency Site

Map

I

Privacy

Information

I

Kids

Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

w

w.

pa 7Ict!

1/.

Pat

Quinn, Governor

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Case Name:

Illinois

EPA v. Dale Gordon

Spradlin

and

Incident#:

Barbara

J. Spradlin

Bureau

ID#:

1498130002

Location:

Pittsfield,

Pike

County, Region 5

DLC File#:

405-11-AC

File

Type:

Administrative

Citation

Docket#:

AC 12-23

Order Date:

Mar

15,

2012

Penalty:

$7,500.00

Order

Type:

Civil,

Final

SEP?

No

Programs:

Solid Waste

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs

or

No

Reimbursement?

Case Summary:

On

March 15,

2012, the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board entered

an opinion

and

order

in the

case

of Dale Gordon

Spradlin

and Barbara

J. Spradlin, in AC

12-23.

On

November

3,

2011,

the

Illinois

EPA inspected

a facility located

at

37784

205th

Street,

R.R. 2, 1050

N. Pittsfield, Pike

County, Illinois

and

afterwards

alleged

in

an

administrative

citation that Dale

Gordon

Spradlin

and Barbara

J. Spradlin

violated

the Act

by causing or allowing

the open

dumping of

waste resulting

in

litter,

open

burning, deposition

of waste

in standing or flowing

waters;

the deposition

of

general

construction

or demolition

debris or clean

construction

or demolition

debris

at the

facility;

and used

tires, at this site,

not

altered,

covered or otherwise

prevented from

accumulating

water. This

is

a violation

of Sections 2

1(p)(1),

21(p)(3),

21

(p)(4),

21(p)(7) and 55(k)(1)

of the

Act (415 ILCS

5/21(p)(1),5/21(p)3),5/21(p)(4)5/21(p)

(7),5/55(k)(1)(2010)).

On January

9,

2012,

the Illinois

EPA filed

a motion

to

dismiss

Dale

Gordon

Spradlin, because he

had

not

been timely served

the

administrative

citation.

On January 18,

2012,

the Spradlins

filed

a petition to contest

the

administrative citation.

In

a

Board

Order dated

February

2,

2012, the

Board

granted

the

Illinois EPA’s motion

to dismiss Dale

Gordon Spradlin.

In

the

same order,

the

Board

directed

Barbara J. Spradlin

to

file

an

amended petition,

curing

specified

deficiencies.

In the opinion

and order

of the Board

dated March 15,

2012,

the Board

found Barbara

J. Spradlin in

default,

because

she failed to

submit

an amended

petition

for review with

the Board,

as directed in the

February

2, 2012

order:

Accordingly,

the Board, in finding

Barbara J.

Spradlin in

violation of

Sections

21(p)(1), 21(p)3,

21(p)(4), 21(p)(7),

and 55(k)(1)

of the Act

and related

regulations,

ordered her to pay

a civil

penalty

of $7,500.00,

no

later than

April 16,

2012.

(Adobe Acrobat

PDF file)

View

Order

Problems

viewing Acrobat

PDF files?

Enforcement

Copyright

©

1996-2011 Illinois EPA

Agency Site

Map

I

Privacy

Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

I -

I

v i’w’.

iitrtI.

1/.

t

Pat Quinn,

Governor

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Case

Name:

Illinois

EPA v.

Dennis Heck and

Incident#:

Deanna

Harris

Bureau

ID#:

0818155001

Location:

Opdyke, Jefferson

County, Region

7

DLC FiIe#:

84-11-AC

File Type:

Administrative

Citation

Docket#:

AC 11-24

Order

Date:

Mar 15,

2012

Penalty:

$3,000.00

Order Type:

Civil, Final

SEP?

No

Programs:

Solid Waste

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs

or

No

Reimbursement?

Case Summary:

On March 15,

2012, the

Illinois Pollution Control

Board entered

an opinion

and order

in the case of Dennis

Heck and Deanna

Harris,

in AC 11-24. On March

29, 2011,

the

Illinois EPA

inspected a facility

located

at

12112

N. Lighthouse

Lane,

Opdyke,

Jefferson

County, Illinois

and afterwards

alleged in

an administrative

citation

that

Dennis Heck

and Raymond

and Deanna Harris

violated the Act

by causing

or

allowing the open

dumping of waste

resulting in litter

and the deposition

of general

construction

or demolition debris

or clean construction

or demolition

debris

at

the

facility.

This is

a

violation

of

Sections

21(p)(1) and

21(p)(7) of the

Act (415

ILCS

5/21(p)(1), 5/21(p)7)(2010)).

On June 2,

2011, the Board received

a petition

for

review from respondent

Deanna Harris,

alleging

that she did not cause

the violation.

On June

6, 2011 the Board

received a petition

for review

from

respondent

Dennis

Heck.

The Board

accepted both

petitions as timely,

but directed

both petitions

be

amended

to

cure deficiencies. In

a July 7, 2011

order, the Board

granted

the Illinois

EPA’s motion to

dismiss respondent

Raymond Harris,

because he

had

not been

properly

served the administrative

citation. On

August

4, 2011,

the Board

entered

a

default judgment

against

Mr. Heck

and Mrs. Harris,

for failure

to submit amended

petitions.

However,

on

October

6, 2011 the

Board granted respondent

Deanna

Harris’ motion for

reconsideration and

stayed

the

default order against

Dennis

Heck

regarding.a

civil penalty, until

final disposition

of Deanna Harris’

petition

for review.

On February

27, 2012, the Illinois

EPA filed a motion

for voluntary

dismissal

of the

administrative

citation against

Deanna Harris,

based on

newly discovered

circumstances

surrounding

the

case. With regard

to the remaining

respondent,

Dennis

Heck, the

Board

found Dennis Heck

in default,

because

he

failed

to submit

an

amended petition

for review with

the Board,

as

directed.

Accordingly,

the

Board,

in

finding

Dennis Heck in violation

of Sections

21(p)(1)

and

21(p)(7), of

the Act

and

related regulations,

ordered

him to pay a civil penalty

of $3,000.00,

no later

than

April

16, 2012.

(Adobe

Acrobat PDF

file)

View

Order

enforcement

---

I

£

WI.

7/ctI?.

II.

IL ?J

Pat

Quinn,

Governor

Enforcement Orders

View

Order

Case Name:

Illinois EPA v. Harold Dean

Foster

Incident#:

Location:

Time,

Pike County, Region

5

Bureau ID#:

1490850001

File Type:

Administrative Citation

DLC File#:

340-11-AC

Order Date:

Feb

06, 2012

Docket#:

AC 12-14

Order

Type:

Civil, Final

Penalty:

$4,500.00

Programs:

Solid Waste

SEP?

No

Compliance Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs

or

No

Reimbursement?

Case Summary:

On February 16, 2012, the Illinois

Pollution Control Board

entered an

opinion

and

order in the

case of Harold Dean Foster,

in AC 12-14. On

September 23,

2011,

the

Illinois EPA inspected

a facility located

at 42998 Country Highway

8, Time,

Pike

County, Illinois and afterwards alleged

in an administrative

citation that

Harold

Dean

Foster violated the Act

by

causing

or allowing the

open dumping of waste

resulting

in litter, open burning,

and the deposition

of general construction

or demolition

debris or clean construction

or demolition

debris at the facility. This

is

a

violation

of

Sections 21(p)(1), 21(p)(3), and 21(p)(7)

of the Act (415

ILCS 5/21(p)(1)

and

5/21(p)(7)(2010)). To contest

an administrative citation,

a respondent

must file

a

petition for review

with the Board no later than

35 days after being

served

with the

administrative citation.

On, December 20, 2011,

Mr. Foster timely

filed

a petition for

review, to contest the administrative

citation. The Board

accepted the

petition

for

review on January 5, 2012,

but

found

that the petition

contained

deficiencies

that

had to be

remedied,

before the case could

be accepted for hearing.

The Board

directed Mr. Foster

to file the amended petition

by February

6,

2012.

Mr.

Foster

failed to timely file an amended

petition. Because Mr. Foster

failed to

timely file

an

amended petition, the Board found

that Mr. Foster violated

Sections 21(p)1,

21(p)(3) and 21(p)(7) of the Act. The Board,

in finding Harold Dean

Foster

in

violation of Sections 21(p)(1), 21(p)3 and

21(p)(7) of the Act

and related

regulations, ordered

him to pay a civil penalty

of $4,500.00, no later

than

March 19,

2012.

(Adobe Acrobat

PDF file)

View Order

Problems viewing Acrobat

PDF files?

Enforcement

copyright

©

1996-2011 Illinois

EPA

Agency Site Map

I

Privacy Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Case

Name:

People v. Reliable

Materials Lyons,

Incident#:

Contaminated

soils from

a

high school

construction site

were sent

to the Reliable

Materials Lyons clean

construction

and demolition

debris

(“CCDD”)

fill site.

Reliable

is

a

former

limestone

quarry that is allowed

to

accept

CCDD,

but it is

not

a

permitted landfill,

and cannot

accept

waste

and contaminated

construction

and

demolition

debris. The Illinois

EPA brought

an enforcement

action

against six

defendants in this

matter.

Speedy

Gonzales Landscaping,

the

Public Building

Commission

of Chicago,

and the Board

of Education of the

City

of Chicago

are three

of those defendants.

On December

1, 2011,

the Pollution Control

Board

accepted

two Stipulation

and Proposals

for Settlement

between

the State of Illinois

and

the

above defendants.

The

settlement

regarding the

Public Building

Commission

of

Chicago and

Board of Education

of the City

of Chicago required

the payment

of a

civil penalty

of $17,500. The settlement

regarding

Speedy Gonzales

required

the

payment

of a civil penalty

of $10,000. The

settlements

did not contain

any other

obligations or technical

remedy,

nor did they involve

any other

defendants.

(Adobe Acrobat

PDF file)

View Order

Problems

viewing Acrobat

PDF files?

Enforcement

j

I

I

wYw’pci7/tf

1LLA

a

1t

I

Pat

Quinn, Governor

LLC,

et al.

Bureau ID#:

0311715020

Location:

Lyons, Cook

County,

Region

2

DLC File#:

39-07

File Type:

Enforcement,

Section 31

Docket#:

PCB 12-52

Order

Date:

Dec 01, 2011

Penalty:

$27,500.00

Order Type:

Civil, Final

SEP?

No

Programs:

Solid Waste

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs or

No

Reimbursement?

Case

Summary:

Copyright

©

1996-2011

Illinois

EPA

Agency

Site Map

I

Privacy

Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

Enforcement

Orders

View Order

Case

Name:

Illinois

EPA v. David

W.

Edwards

and

Linda Edwards

Location:

CoIp,

Williamson

County, Region

7

File

Type:

Enforcement,

Section 31.1

Docket#:

AC 12-6

Order Date:

Dec

01,

2011

Penalty:

$3,000.00

Order

Type:

Civil, Final

SEP?

No

Programs:

Solid Waste

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs or

No

Reimbursement?

On December

1, 2011, the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

entered an

opinion

and

order

in the

case

of David W. and Linda

Edwards,

in AC 12-6. On

September

12,

2011, the Illinois

EPA

inspected

a

facility located

at 305 Martin

Luther

King

Road,

CoIp,

Williamson County,

Illinois

and afterwards alleged

in an administrative

citation

that David W.

and Linda Edwards

violated the

Act

by causing

or allowing

the

open

dumping

of waste resulting

in litter

and the

deposition

of general

construction

or

demolition debris

or

clean construction

or

demolition debris,

at

the

facility.

This

is

a

violation

of Sections

21(p)(1)and

21(p)(7)of the Act

(415

ILCS

5/21(p)(1)

and

5/21(p)(7)).

To contest an administrative

citation,

a

respondent

must file

a petition

for review

with

the

Board

no later than

35 days

after being served

with

the

administrative

citation. David

W. Edwards and

Linda Edwards

failed

to

timely

file

a

petition.

Accordingly,

the Board found

that the Edwards

violated

Sections

21(p)(1)and

21(p)(7) of the Act.

The

Board,

in finding David

W. Edwards

and Linda

Edwards

in violation

of Sections 21(p)(1)

and

21(p)(7)

of the Act and

related

regulations, ordered

them to

pay a civil penalty

of $3,000.00,

no later

than

January

2,

2012.

(Adobe Acrobat

PDF file)

View Order

Problems

viewing Acrobat

PDF files?

enforcement

P

i

I

I

I

I’

flU

pa/je.

1/,

,

r!k

Pat Quinn,

Governor

Incident#:

Bureau

ID#:

1990205009

DLC

File#:

315-11-AC

Case

Summary:

Copyright

©

1996-2011 Illinois EPA

Agency Site

Map

I

Privacy

Information Kids Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

I

Ii

j

I

I

i

mnw

Pat Quinn,

Governor

Enforcement

Enforcement

Orders

View Order

Case

Name:

People v. John Pohar

& Sons, Inc.

Incident#:

Location:

LaSalle,

La Salle County, Region 1

Bureau ID#:

0990300029

File Type:

Enforcement, Section 31

DLC File#:

264-10

Order Date:

Oct 21, 2011

Docket#:

11 CH 257

Order Type:

Civil, Final

Penalty:

$12,000.00

Programs:

Solid Waste

SEP?

No

Compliance Plan

Yes

Requirements?

Costs or

No

Reimbursement?

Case

Summary:

A Consent Order was entered in LaSalle

County Circuit Court, case 11

CH 257.

The

John Pohar

& Sons, Inc. (“Pohar”) site is located in LaSalle, LaSalle

County,

Illinois.

Solid waste was seen

strewn about the property during inspections

performed

on

March 25, 2009, July 1, 2010 and March 12,

2011. A complaint was filed

in LaSalle

County Circuit Court on June 22, 2011. The Future

Compliance section

of the

Consent Order requires

that the Defendants cease accepting clean

and

general

construction or demolition

debris at the site as fill material unless

properly

permitted

and that access controls

be

implemented

at

the

site. The waste at the

site has

been

disposed of. The violations alleged have been

addressed. A $12,000.00

penalty

was

tendered

at

the

time

of

entry of the Consent Order.

(Adobe Acrobat PDF file)

View Order

Problems viewing Acrobat

PDF files?

copyright

©

1996-2011 Illinois EPA

Agency Site Map

I

Privacy Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency

Webmaster

---

I

I

‘1k

Pat

Quinn,

Governor

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Case

Name:

Illinois

EPA v. James

Harris

Incident#:

Location:

Knoxville,

Knox

County,

Region

3

Bureau

ID#:

0958120001

File

Type:

Administrative

Citation

DLC

File#:

92-11-AC

Order

Date:

Oct 06,

2011

Docket#:

AC 11-27

Order

Type:

Civil,

Final

Penalty:

$9,000.00

Programs:

Solid

Waste

SEP?

No

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs

or

No

Reimbursement?

Case

Summary:

On

October

6, 2011,

the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

entered

an

opinion

and order

in the

case

of James

Harris,

in AC

11-27.

On

March

29,

2011,

the Illinois

EPA

inspected

a facility

located

at

the

dead end

of Market

Street

which

abuts

Haw Creek,

Knoxville,

Knox

County, Illinois

and

afterwards

alleged

in an

administrative

citation

that

James

Harris

violated

the

Act by causing

or allowing

the

open dumping

of waste

resulting

in litter;

open burning;

deposition

of

waste

in

standing or

flowing

waters;

proliferation

of

disease

vectors; the

deposition

of

general

construction

or demolition

debris

or

clean

construction

or

demolition

debris;

and

used tires,

at this

site, not

altered,

covered

or otherwise

prevented

from accumulating

water. This

is

a

violation

of

Sections

21(p)(1),

21(p)(3),

21(p)(4),

21(p)(5),

21(p)(7)and

55(k)(1)

of

the

Act

(415

ILCS 5/21(p)(1),21(p)(3),

21(p)(4),

21(p)(5),

21(p)(7)and

55(k)(1)(2010)).

To contest

an

administrative

citation,

a respondent

must

file a

petition

for review

with

the

Board

no

later

than 35

days

after

being served

with

the

administrative

citation.

Mr. Harris

filed

a

timely

petition

for review

on

June

16, 2011.

On

September

27, 2011,

Mr.

Harris filed

a

“Voluntary

Withdrawal

of

Petition

for Review”.

Having

withdrawn

the

petition

for

review,

the

Board

found Mr.

Harris violated

the Act(415

ILCS

5(2010))

as set

forth in the

administrative

citation.

The

Board,

in

finding

James

Harris

in

violation

of Sections

21(p)(1),

21(p)3,

21(p)(4),

21(p)(5),

21(p)(7)

and

55(k)(1)

of the

Act and

related regulations,

ordered

Mr. Harris

to pay

a

civil

penalty

of

$9,0000.00,

no later than

November

7, 2011.

(Adobe

Acrobat

PDF

file)

View

Order

:

Problems

viewing

Acrobat

PDF

files?

Enlorcement

copyright

©

1996-20

11 Illinois

EPA

Agency

Site Map

I

Privacy

Information

I

Kids Privacy

I

Web Accessibility

I

Agency Webmaster

---

11

r.ittt

IL

t

Pat Quinn,

Governor

Enforcement

Orders

View

Order

Case Name:

Illinois

EPA v. Brandon

DeHart

and

Robert Evans

Location:

Pittsfield, Pike

County, Region

5

DLC

File#:

150-11-AC

File Type:

Administrative

Citation

Docket#:

AC 11-32

Order Date:

Sep

22,

2011

Penalty:

$4,500.00

Order

Type:

Civil,

Final

SEP?

No

Programs:

Solid Waste

Compliance

Plan

No

Requirements?

Costs or

No

Reimbursement?

On

September

22, 2011, the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board entered

an

opinion

and

order

in the case of

Brandon DeHart

and

Robert

Evans, in

AC 11-32.

On May

6,

2011, the Illinois

EPA

inspected

a facility

located at 750

Knapp

Lane,

Pittsfield,

Pike

County,

Illinois

and

afterwards alleged

in an

administrative

citation that

Brandon

DeHart and

Robert Evans violated

the Act

by causing

or allowing the

open

dumping

of

waste resulting in

litter,

open

burning,

and

the deposition of

general

construction

or demolition

debris or

clean

construction

or demolition

debris

at the

facility. This

is

a

violation

of

Sections

21(p)(1), 21(p)(3),

and

21(p)(7)

of

the Act (415

ILCS

5/21(p)(1),

5/21(p)(3) and

5/21(p)(7)(2010)).

To

contest an

administrative

citation,

a

respondent must file

a petition

for review

with the Board no

later

than

35 days

after being served

with the

administrative citation.

Mr.

Evans

failed

to timely

file

a

petition.

On

July

19, 2011, Mr. DeHart

timely filed

a petition.

However,

the

petition

filed

by

Mr. DeHart

was deficient

and

the

Board ordered

an amended

petition

be filed

by

September 6, 2011.

Mr. DeHart

did not

file the amended

petition. Accordingly,

the Board found

that the respondents

violated

Sections

21(p)(1),

21(p)(3)

and

21(p)(7)

of the Act.

The Board, in finding

Brandon

DeHart

and Robert

Evans

in

violation of

Sections 21(p)(1),