ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 2, 1996
    IN MATTER OF:
    TRIENNIAL WATER QUALITY REVIEW
    AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.202,
    302.212, 302.213, 304.122 AND 304.301
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    R94-1(B)
    (Rulemaking - Water)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by E. Dunham, C.A. Manning and R.C. Flemal ):
    In this order the Board opens a new comment period to address new developments
    raised in a public comment and decides several motions pending in this docket.
    Comment from the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
    On April 5, 1996, the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois (CICI) filed a post-hearing
    comment. (PC #7(B).)
    1
    CICI states that USEPA Region VIII is drafting an issue paper
    concerning the ammonia criteria that proposes a less stringent alternative to the current
    standard. CICI recommends that no action regarding the adoption of the proposed
    amendments to the ammonia standards be taken at this juncture.
    In view of the information provided by this comment, the Board is extending the
    comment period in this matter to allow the participants to provide comment to the Board on
    the relevancy of the action by USEPA Region VIII on this rulemaking. Comments should also
    indicate what, if any action, the Board should take in anticipation of the issuance of the paper
    on the ammonia criteria.
    Participants shall file comments with the Board on the above issues on or before June
    3, 1996. Comments shall also be served on all participants listed on the service list a copy of
    which is available from the Clerk of the Board.
    Agency Motion to Strike
    On April 19, 1996, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a
    “Motion to Strike Final Report of the Ammonia Group”. The Agency requests that the Board
    strike the Wisconsin Report which was attached to the post hearing comments of the Ammonia
    Group.
    2
    The Agency also requests that the portions of the Ammonia Group’s post-hearing
    comment referencing the Wisconsin Report be stricken. The Ammonia Group filed a response
    to the Agency’s motion on April 25, 1996.
    1
    Public comments filed in subdocket B are designated by the number of the public comment
    followed by a B.
    2
    The Ammonia Group is comprised of the Cities of Batavia, Geneva, Rock Falls, Sterling
    and the Galesburg Sanitary District.
    2
    The Agency observes that the report was not filed earlier in the proceeding even though
    it is dated July 1994. The Agency also observes that the report was not specifically requested
    by the Board or in response to an inquiry by the Board. The Agency argues that the relevancy
    of the Wisconsin Report has not been established by the Ammonia Group. The Agency further
    contends that the Wisconsin Report is irrelevant to these proceedings because it contains
    suggested interim strategies that were not even adopted and implemented by the State of
    Wisconsin at the time the document was drafted. The Agency further observes differences
    between Illinois and Wisconsin waterways and the standards proposed in each state that result
    in the Wisconsin Report being irrelevant to Illinois regulations. In addition, the Agency raises
    concern as to the purpose of the document and the development of the workgroup that
    prepared the report.
    While the Ammonia Group questions whether the relevancy requirement of Section
    102.282 is applicable to public comments, it maintains that the Wisconsin Report is relevant to
    this proceeding. The Ammonia Group asserts that the Board specifically requested information
    regarding the activities of other States relating to ammonia nitrogen. The Ammonia Group
    contends that the Board is capable of drawing its own conclusions regarding the content of the
    report.
    In a rulemaking proceeding “[a]ll information which is relevant and not repetitious or
    privileged shall be admitted”. (35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.282.) The Board specifically requested
    the participants to provide information regarding other States’ ammonia rules. Therefore, the
    Wisconsin Report is relevant to these proceedings and the Board denies the Agency’s motion to
    strike the Ammonia Group’s Final Report.
    Motions of American Western Refining, L.P.
    On April 4, 1996, American Western Refining, L.P. filed a motion to substitute
    participants and incorporate past comments and testimony of Indian Refining Limited
    Partnership and a motion to file its comment instanter. The motion to substitute requests that
    the Board substitute American Western Refining, L.P. for Indian Refining Limited Partnership
    as the participant and to incorporate all past comments and testimony of Indian Refining
    Limited Partnership in this matter.
    The Board hereby grants the motion to substitute and the motion to file instanter.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the _____ day of ___________, 1996, by a vote of
    ______________.
    ___________________________________
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top