ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 17, 1992
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS LIST,
)
R90-1(C)
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
)
(Rulemaking)
(35 ILL.
ADM.
CODE 232)
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. C. Marlin):
On November 5, 1992, the Illinois Environmental Regulatroy
Group filed a motion to continue hearing in this matter. On
November 6, 1992, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) filed a motion to continue hearing and other related
motions. On November 12, 1992 the Illinois Steel Group (ISG)
filed a response to the Agency’s motions. The motions for
continuance were granted in a Hearing Officer order on November
20, 1992. Today, the Board is taking action on the other related
motions made by the Agency.
In its motion, the Agency moves the Board to proceed to
adopt a first notice opinion in this docket and to exclude new
source reporting as a subject of hearing in this docket. (Mot.
at 1.) The Agency urges the Board to do sobased upon the fact
that, “the docket is ripe for consideration”. (Not. at 2.) In
addition, the Agency states that new source reporting should not
be an issue in this docket and that the language requiring new
sourôe reporting should be returned to the rule without issue.
(Mot. at 2.) The Agency argues that new source reporting should
be excluded as a subject of hearing because none of the
participants in Docket A objected to it. (Mot. at 2.)
In its response, ISG states that it does not believe that
the Board should go to first notice with the reporting
requirements docket at this time. (Resp. at 1.) ISG argues that
there is considerable uncertainty regarding reporting
requirements and a possibility of a wide range of regulatory
responses to the proposal. (Resp. at 1.) The ISG argues that in
order to avoid issuing several first notice orders, the Board
should hold at least one hearing to determine whether the
negotiations between interested parties has or will develop into
a consensus. (Resp. at 1.)
The ISG also states in its response that it “strenuously”
objects to the Agency’s motion to exclude new source reporting
from discussion in Docket C. (Resp. at 2.) ISG argues that the
Agency misstates the position of at least ISG when it states that
no objections were made to reporting of new sources. (Resp. at
2.) ISG points out that under the language in the original first
notice, new sources were required to identify toxic air
contaminants and potentially toxic air contaminants. (Resp. at
2. See also, In The Matter of: Toxic Air Contaminants List,
0138-0209
2
First Notice Order and Opinion of the Board (April 26, 1990), PCB
R90-l.)In
The MatterAt
secondof:
Toxicfirst Airnotice,Contaminantsthe
languageList,wasSecondchanged.First
(~,
Notice Order and Opinion of the Board (September 26, 1991), PCB
R90-l.) The second first notice language would require new
sources to report the nature, source and quantity of toxic air
contaminants (Resp. at 2). ISG argues that it is incorrect to
state that parties did not object to the second first notice
language since this was never part of any proposal’.
The Board agrees with ISG that uncertainty regarding
reporting requirements and a possibility of a wide range of
regulatory responses to the proposal does exist. The Board is
not persuaded to go to first notice on this proposal by the
Agency’s argument that this docket is “ripe for consideration”.
The Board believes that it is in the best interest of everyone
involved to allow the interested parties time to negotiate and to
address one another at hearing before moving to first notice on
this proposal. Therefore, the Board denies the Agency’s motion
to initiate first notice publication in the Illinois Register.
In addition, the Board will not exclude new source reporting
as a discussion topic at hearing. The Agency’s argument that no
interested party objected to the new source ~reporting
requirements mischaracterizes the facts. No hearing was ever
held on the second first notice proposed language for new source
•reporting requirements. Instead, reporting requirements were
severed from docket A and moved to docket C for later action. As
ISG points out, after
the
first, first notice language was
changed, no opportunity for objection to the new language was
ever presented. The Board believes that all interested parties
deserve an opportunity to input their opinions on new source
reporting in this proceeding. Therefore, the Board denies the
Agency’s motion to exclude new source reporting as a subject of
hearing in this docket.
Finally, In its response, ISG moved the Board to reschedule
the dates for pre-filing of testimony and the hearing. (Resp. at
2.) In its motion, the Agency notified the Board of its
intention to testify at any hearings which are setin this
docket. (Mot. at 2.) The Hearing Officer and the Board will
determine the timing and sequence of further actions in this
docket upon receipt of the status report due to be filed on or
before January 30, 1993, ~ursuant to the Hearing Officer order of
November 20, 1992.
1The Board notes that fifty-six days after the Board adopted
its second first notice, reporting requirements were severed from
the docket and placed into Docket C. Since Docket C was created,
no hearing has been held on the language proposed in the second
first notice order.
0138-02 10
3
Again, the Board hereby denies the Agency’s motion to
initiate first notice and to exclude new source reporting as a
subject of hearing in R90-1(C).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
/7t~
day of
/~t~I
,
1992, by a vote of 1—6
Dorothy N. nn, Clerk
Illinois P 1 ution Control Board
038-0211