ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 28, 1986

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

R85—2l

35 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE

)

Docket A

CODE 211 AND 215

)

CONCURRING OPINION

(by 3.

D.

Duinelle):

My reasons

for concurring are the adoption here of rules

for

non—existent industry and the tenuous basis

of the USEPA “5

rule”.

The exemptions

for airplane exterior coating and for marine

propulsion equipment coating are here revoked.

No industry

exists

in Illinois which coats exterior surfaces

of airplanes.

Why then have

a rule?

Is Illinois

to have an entire lexicon of

rules

for phantom industries?

How can this Board determine

“reasonably available control technology” when no industry in

that category exists

in Illinois to present facts?

The marine propulsion equipment coating rule

is

a related

matter but different.

The rule

is here adopted but the lone

industry in Illinois

in that category

is here exempted because of

high retrofit costs.

Why

then have

a rule at all?

The volume

of

rules should be kept at a minimum in order

that what is important

can be found and what

is extraneous

is not

in the way.

The answer,

of course,

to these questions is that “the USEPA

requires these rules”.

But

if their passage does not make sense

should we not say so?

The majority several times refers

to the “USEPA’s 5

‘equivalency’

rule”.

The March 5,

1986 hearing

showed

conclusively that it

is not a rule.

In answer to direct

questions from counsel for the Illinois Environmental Regulatory

Group,

the USEPA witness was not aware

of any publication

in the

Federal Register of either

the June 30,

1978 or

the September

27,

1979 memos

(R.

105).

A “policy”

is not

a “rule”.

The USEPA

through its issuance here of memos appears

to be doing rulemaking

without following the proper

legal procedures

for

the

promulgation of rules.

Finally,

I would point out that the marine propulsion

coating rule deals with potential emissions of only

6

to

9 tons

per year.

This

is

a minuscule amount compared

to the Chicago

area

total VOC emissions of perhaps 300,000 tons per year.

With

ambient ozone levels now—peaking about 25

over the Illinois and

72.141

---

—2—

Federal Standards,

reductions of volatile organic compounds on

the order

of 60,000 tons per year seem indicated.

It

is that

issue,

namely,

achieving substantial VOC reductions, that all

concerned should address.

Instead of straining at

a gnat we

should strive to bring forth

an elephant.

icob D. Dumelle, P.E.

iairman

I, Dorothy

M. Gunn,

Clerk ~f the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the ~bove Concurring Opinion was filed

on the

______________

day of

~~J~4~,l986.

Dorothy

M.

G’unn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board