ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
September
21,
1978
ILLINOIS
POWER
CO.
(BALDWIN
STATION),
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB
78—189
)
ENVIRON~NTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
CONCURRING OPINION
(by Mr.
Dumelle):
The majority Opinion and Order gives Illinois Power the
added protection of the possible enactment of R77—9 if
such
occurs prior to July 1,
1979.
In addition,
the “outside date”
of June
1,
1979 is changed to July 1,
1979.
The argument for adding R77—9’s possible enactment
to that of R75-5’s is that further proceedings under R75—5
might be needed after its enactment in order to fully protect
Illinois Power Company.
Since R75—5 is not yet final, no one can say if the
Baldwin Station falls under the omnibus provision or requires
a further site specific proceeding.
But it can be argued that
the Board’s Order of February 2,
1978
in PCB 75-109 contemplated
protection by R75-5 including any additional proceedings
required by
it.
My own feeling is that the economic study for R77-9
will not be completed by the Institute of Natural Resources
in time for the Board to make a timely decision.
The operative
variance date will then become July 1,
1979.
Thus,
this action
(the Inclusion of R77—9)
is probably
not necessary.
And,
to me,
it may signal all other owners of
rural coal burning power plants to file site specific regula-
tions, thus hopelessly overloading the Board
(in terms of
possibly achieving timely decisions before July 1,
1979).
In conclusion,
I believe that Illinois Power was
implicitly protected by our Order referencing R75-5 and that
a poor precedent of encouraging numerous site specific rule-
makings has been created.
Respectfully submitted,
—.
).
\.
-P’i
/,~
))
/1
/
/
______________________________________
/
Jacob
r.
Dumelle
31—509
—2—
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above concurring opinion
was submitted on the
________________
day of
~
1978.
Christan L. Moffett, ~Clerk
Illinois Pollution’~ControlBoard
31—510