ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

23,

1989

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PETITION FOR SITE SPECIFIC

)

EXCEPTION TO 35

ILL.

ADM.

)

R88—20

CODE 215.245 FOR SIMKINS

)

INDUSTRIES,

INC.

(CICERO PLANT)

)

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

R.

C.

Flernal):

Section 27(a) of the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”)

has recently been amended by P.A..85—l048

to give the Board

exclusive authority

in deciding whether

an EcIS should be

performed

for

a rulemaking.

Since

that change became effective

January

1,

1989, Resolution 89—1 sets forth the procedure

that

the Board will utilize

for rulemakings

which were filed prior

to

1989 and for which an EcIS determination had not been made by the

Department of Energy and Natural Resources

(“DENR”).

In part,

the amendments

to the Act provide:

(Tihe Board shall determine whether

art

economic

impact study should be conducted.

The Board

shall

reach

its decision based on its assessment of the

potential

economic impact

of the rule, the potential

for consideration of the economic impact absent such

a study,

the extent,

if

any,

to which

the Board

is

free under

the statute authorizing the rule to

modify the substance of

the rule based upon the

conclusions of such

a

study, and any other

considerations the Board deems appropriate.

The

Board may,

in addition,

identify specific issues

to

be addressed

in the study.

Section 27(a) of the

Act.

(as amended by

P.A. 85—1048)

It

is upon these criteria that the Board must make its EcIS

determination

in this matter.

On July 21,

1988, Simkin~Industries,

Inc. (“Simkins”)

filed

a petition with

the Board

for site specific exception from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 215.245, Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing.

As of January

1,

1989; no EcIS determination had been made

in

this proceeding.

On January 18, 1989, pursuant

to Res 89—l,

the

Hearing Officer

requested comment on the necessity for

the

preparation of an EcIS

in this matter.

A letter from Simkins

to

the Hearing Officer was

filed

on January

27,

1989,

and comments

96—451

---

—2—

were filed by DENR and the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (“Agency~)on February

9 and

14,

1989;

respectively.

DENR requests the Board determine that the preparation of

and EcIS

is not necessary in this proceeding.

As DENR comments:

Section 215.245 was promulgated

(sic)

in the R85—21,

Docket B proceeding, Proposed Amendments

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

215:

Flexographic and Rotogravure

Printing.

...

DENR conducted

a study

of

(the R85—

21B) regulatory proceeding entitled The Economic

Impact

of the Rotogravure and Flexographic Printing

Provisions of Proposed Regulation R85—2l.

This

study estimated the economic impact of the proposed

regulations controlling the emissions of volatile

organic material from certain Illinois printing

establishments employing flexographic and

rotogravure printing presses.

...

Given that DENR

had previously completed

an EcIS that encompassed

the adopted statewide regulation

for rotogravure and

flexographic printing facilities, DENR requests that

the Board determine that an economic impact study

should not be prepared

for

this site specific

proposal by Simkins.

DENR further stated that although Simkins’ Cicero Plant was

not indicated as an impacted facility

in

their study,

they

believe that the information contained

in the study would be

relevant

to this proceeding and submitted

a copy

to the Board

for

inclusion

as an exhibit.

The Agency concurred

in DENR’s comments and further stated

that the economic impact of

the proposed rule can be adequately

addressed

at hearing.

After

consideration of the above comments and the proposal

for rulemaking,

the Board presently believes that the

presentation of economic information at hearing

in this

proceeding should be sufficient

for

its consideration

of the

economic impact of the proposed rule.

The Board therefore finds

that the preparation of an EcIS need not be conducted

in this

matter

at

this time.

In its letter

to the Hearing Officer,

Simkins stated that

due

to the possibility of

settlement of

a related matter,

it does

not wish

to comment on the necessity of an EcIS at this time.

Rather,

Simkins wishes

to “reserve

its right pursuant

to Section

27

of

the

Act),

to submit comments on the need

for an EcIS”.

In addition

to the portion cited above,

the Board observes

that the recent amendments

to Section

27(a)

further require the

Board make its EcIS determination within 60 days of

the date the

96—452

---

—3—

Board accepts

a proposal, and provide

at least

21 days from the

date

the Board accepts the proposal for any person

to request an

EcIS be prepared or not prepared.

For those cases

in which

an

EcIS determination had not been made prior

to 1989,

the Board

in

Res 89—1 construed the amendments as requiring the Board to make

an initial EcIS determination within 60 days of the effective

date of the amendments,

i.e.

March

2, 1989,

in proceedings

governed by Section

27.

For the

21 day comment period,

the Board

in Res 89—1 directed Hearing Officers

to allow

at least

21 days

from

the date

of

their orders

for comments.

The Hearing Officer

in this proceeding allowed

23 days for comment.

The Board finds

that regardless

of whether Simkins desires to comment at this

time,

adequate time was provided

for comment.

The Board

further

finds that

it. must make its determination before March

2,

1989

to

be within the statutory timeframe.

The Board

further notes that the amendments provide

for the

Board

to change

its determination that an EcIS need

not

be

prepared under specific circumstances:

...any

time prior

to the close

of the record during

the rulemaking proceeding,

the Board may determine

that an economic

impact study be prepared,

if the

proposal has been substantially modified or

if

information in the record indicates that an economic

impact study would

be advisable.

The Board cautions that irrespective of the Board’s ability

to later

request an EcIS, Simkins bears

the burden

to justify its

site specific request,

including submission of adequate economic

information

to so justify the request.

IT IS

SO ORDERED.

I,

Dorothy M. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, herepy certify tha~,.theabove Order was adopted on

the

~‘

~

day of

__________________,

1989, by

a vote

of

7—~’~

~

122,

Dorothy M. G~n, Clerk’

Illinois Po~utionControl Board

96—453