ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
January 10, 1980
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
)
R78—6
PROCEDURAL
RULES
REVISIONS
(PART
VI:
)
HEARINGS
PURSUANT
TO
SPECIFIC
RULES)
)
OPINION
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Goodman):
This Opinion supports the
Board
Order
entered
in
this
matter December 13, 1979.
On January 18, 1979 the Board proposed revisions to Chap-
ter 1:
Procedural Rules.
The proposed revisions were published
in the Illinois Register on February 12, 1979.
No hearings have
been held.
Five public comments were received.
Rules 601-607 are identical to old Part VI of chapter 1:
Procedural Rules; Rules 611-614 are identical to old Part VI(A)
of chapter 1:
Procedural Rules.
Rules 621—626 are new and
are designed to specify the nanner in which proceedings under
Rule 204(e)(3) of chapter 2:
Air Pollution Control Regulations,
relating to sulfur dioxide emissions are to be held.
On December 14,
1978 the Board made substantial changes
to Rule 204(e).
Rule 204(e)(3) now provides an adjudicative
proceeding through which an owner
or operator of an existing
fuel combustion emission source which is located outside the
Chicago, Peoria and St. Louis (Illinois) Major Metropolitan
Areas may obtain an alternative limitation for sulfur dioxide
emissions.
Rule 204(e)(3)(A) requires that any source owner
or operator
who
seeks this alternative limitation follow the
Board’s Procedural Rules.
This rulemaking establishes appli-
cable procedures regarding Rule 203(e)(3)(A).
The January 18,
1979 proposal was drawn entirely from
proposed Illinois Environi’iental Protection Agency (Agency)
Guidelines which had been submitted as Exhibit 64 in R75—5,
Amendments to Chapter
2, Part II, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions.
Five public comments were received and are discussed below.
Public Comment #1,
from Sherex Chemical Company, made
three recommendations:
(1)
any
model approved for use in the
U.S. EPA “Guidelines on Air Quality Models” should be accepted,
(2) certain meteorological data input restrictions should be
clarified,
and
(3) the Agency’s response
time
should be short-
ened to 45 days.
The first two suggestions have been incorpo—
37—173
rated into Rules 622(g)(1)
and’ 622(g) (2), respectively~
The
Board declines the invitation to shorten the response time
allotted to the Agency~
Public Comment
#2,
from
Agency
Technical Advisor Mary
Rehrnann,
suggested alternative amendments which would locate
in these Rules procedures to he used
for determinations under
Rule 410(c)
of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution~
The Board finds
that this proposal
is outside the scope of this rulemaking
and hence has not made the suggested additions~
Public Comment
#3,
from Agency Director Michael Mauzy,
suggested several clarifications which the Board incorporated
into Rules 621(c)(3),
621(c)(5),
622(a),
and 622(b)(3)~
The
Board also adopted the Agency position that the hearing should
he held in the county in which the source is located~
In addi~
tion,
the Agency requested a chance to comment Luther on the
modeling requirements of the Rule,
(See Public Comment
#5,
infra~)
Public Comment #4,
from the U~S~EPA,
Region V1
indicated
that they would not approve studies using the air quality model
“AQSTM”,
This objection has been met by the substantial revi~
sion of Rule 622(g),
part of which dictates that only tJ~S, EPA
approved dispersion models
(or their equivalent)
be used.
Public Comment
#5, fr~mthe Agency,
sets forth the Agency~s
proposed procedures for air quality analyses.
These procedures
are currently in use and allow for subsequent revision,
The
Board has incorporated the procedures into the Rules with one
exception;
the references to new sources
in Agency~proposed
Rules 622(g)(4) and 622(g) (5) have been eliminated since this
procedure
is for existing sources only.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclu~~
sions
of law of the Board in this matter,
Mr. Werner dissents.
I, Christan L,
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted on
the
f~t~’
day of
~
1980 by a vote of
3~L,
Christan L, MofLet
Illinois Pollution C~
~rk
o1 Board
37”~174