ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 13,
1988
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PARTICULATE EMISSION LIMITATIONS,
)
R82—l
(Docket B)
RULE 203(g)(l) AND 202(b) OF
)
CHAPTER
2
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
D.
Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a June 29,
1988
Motion For Reconsideration filed by the Illinois Environmental
Regulatory Group
(IERG).
The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed its Motion In Opposition
To Reconsideration
of the Opacity Regulations on July
8,
1988.
For the reasons
set
forth below, IERG’s Motion To Reconsider
is denied.
First, IERG acknowledges that
it is late
in the proceeding
to request special consideration.
However,
IERG believes the
Board should
be “advised
of the full,
and possibly unconsidered,
impact of
this regulation.”
The Board notes
that the time to
advise the Board of the impact of
a proposed regulation is during
the 45—day comment period after First Notice
(i.e.
in this case
January 16,
1988 through March
2,
1988),
not one day before Final
Adoption.
Second,
IERG’s Motion attempts to present new information
with respect
to National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
for Total Suspended Particulates
(TSP)
and for particles with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 10 micrometers
(PM—
10).
Based on this new information,
IERG moves the Board “to re-
examine
the actual need for
an opacity rule,
its method of
implementation and its impact”
in light of USEPA’s action
“replacing the TSP standard with the PM-la standard.”
The Agency
argues that IERG’s Motion presents no new information concerning
opacity,
the appropriate issue
in this proceeding,
that could not
have been presented
in the first notice comment period.
Further,
the Agency states that:
“(ojpacity
regulations
are
needed
for
a
federally
approvable
Total
Suspended
Particulates
(TSP)
State
Implementation
Plan
(SIP).
The TSP SIP
is needed for
a viable PM—
10
SIP.
Therefore,
the
opacity
regulations
are essential
for
a
federally approvable PM—b
SIP.
The
record
contains
no
convincing
information
or
arguments
that
opacity
is
a
poor surrogate
for PM—b.”
91—37
—2—
The Board will neither accept nor consider this new information
as part of the record
in this proceeding at this late date.
Finally, IERG comments that another Board rulemaking
(R87—
38) will have an impact on the effect
of these
rules.
Although
IERG states that it intends to file similar comments
in that
rulemaking proceeding,
it provides information relating
to the
impact R87—38 will have on these
rules to support
its Motion For
Reconsideration.
The Agency states that IERG,
as well as any
other affected entity,
could have provided comments and
information on any of these issues
in that proceeding.
The
Agency believes that IERG’s Motion
is an improper attempt to
introduce continuous self—monitoring issues into another
regulatory proceeding, which could only serve
to needlessly delay
the opacity rule and further complicate R87—38.
The Board finds
this new information not only too late to be submitted into this
record,
but also better suited for consideration in R87—38.
IERG’s Motion For Reconsideration is therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, here~ycertify that the above Order was adopted on
the
/-~~-~
day
of
____________,
1988 by
a vote
of
7-0
.
Dorothy M(/Gunn, Clerk
Illinois P’ollution Control Board
91—38