ILLINOIS POLLt1TION CONTROL BOARD
    October t9~l~83
    OLIN
    CORPORATION,
    )
    Joliet
    Plant
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB
    83—46
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    D.
    Duinelle)-
    On September 21, 1983 Olin Corporation
    (Olin)
    filed a
    motion for clarification of the Board’s August
    18,
    1q83 Interim
    Order
    in this matter.
    The motion
    is granted.
    Olin requests clarification of the Board’s Order
    for addi-
    tional information on “calculated maximum ground
    level conc—
    centrations
    “of
    SO2.
    Olin submits that the record clearly
    reflects that none of 156 receptors analyzed exceed the regu-
    latory standard of 80
    of the NAAOS(s).
    While this tells the
    Board what the ground
    level concentrations do not exceed,
    it
    does not tell the Board the specific calculated maxima
    and related data,
    as required by
    35
    Ill.
    Adm.
    Code 106.302(q)
    &
    (h).
    A simple statement that the maximum calcui.~ter3ground ~evei
    concentration for 3-hours
    (24-hours,
    annual)
    is X ug/m
    at
    (location) with an expected duration of
    Y hours and frequency of
    Z times per year would he adequate to fulfill the August 18th
    Order,
    if coupled with information on the characteristics and
    probable time of occurrence of the relevant meteorological
    conditions.
    If this information
    is not readily available
    Olin should so inform the Board and explain why.
    Olin’s second clarification request concerns PSD infor—
    mation.
    Section 106.302(q)(s) requires petitioners to address
    PSD available air increments.
    A statement of air quality
    increments applicable
    in the areas impacted by the source, and
    the
    incremental
    increase
    that
    would
    be
    added
    by
    the
    source.
    is
    adequate.
    This information provides the Board with additional
    insight on the type of impact expected and it must be provided
    whether or not the PSD provisions are legally binding on the
    petitioner.
    54-237
    2
    Section 106.302 lists the information required
    in
    a petition.
    These specific items cannot he omitted based on conclusions that
    the petitioner will not violate ultimate standards or that
    certain provisions do not legally bind petitioners acitvibies.
    A statement that such information could not he reasonably
    secured would he evaluated by the Board.
    Since Olin has
    made no such claim, the Board expects this information to be
    clearly delineated in the petition or
    in the record.
    Olin’s
    last clarification request concerns Dr. Sievering’s
    study and potential testimony at a future hearing;
    in effect
    Olin urges the Board to reverse its decision on this issue.
    In establishing the procedural
    rules
    for exemption proceedinqs
    the Board must provide public participation equivalent
    to
    rulemaking.
    35 Ill,
    Admin.
    Code Part
    102, Subpart
    D.
    In
    effect the Board
    is establishing
    a SIP revision for submission
    to the
    ~.
    S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
    The Board has
    provided
    for such public participation
    (cf.
    R75—5 Opinion at
    page
    18. February
    15,
    197’);
    R80—22.
    Opinion at paqe 13.
    February
    24, 1983; PCB 83-46,
    Order at page
    1, June
    16.
    1983).
    Dr.
    Sievering’s public comment was not included in the record
    because of an erroneous ruling by the Hearing Officer and
    oversight by the Board
    in the confusion surrounding a move
    of office locations.
    In the August
    18.
    1983 Interim Order
    the Board corrected that error.
    The Board has ordered that Dr. Sievering be given a reason-
    able opportunity to testify at a hearing pursuant to 35
    Iii.
    Admin. Code Part 102, Subpart D, nothing more and nothing
    less.
    Contrary to Olin’s assertions the Board has never
    “persisttedi
    in requiring Olin to address the Sievering study”.
    Nor did the Board imply that Olin has
    a higher burden of proof
    that other sources in the state.
    However, Olin may not use
    the regulatory aspects of ad~udicatoryproceedings to exclude
    public comments or testimony that would be properly included
    in a rulemaking record.
    Olin’s CASAC report and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    letter are included in the record
    in this matter.
    IT
    IS
    SO ORDERED,
    I.
    Christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the
    Tj.
    linois Pollution
    Control Board. hereb~certify that t)~e,above Order was
    adopted on the
    J~_~__day of
    ~
    1’)83
    by a vote of
    S’~
    Christan
    L. Moff~. Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    54-238

    Back to top