ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February
    7,
    1980
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    R77—15,
    R78—14,
    SULFUR DIOXIDE AND PARTICULATES
    )
    R78—15, R78~16,
    REGULATIONS, RULES
    204(c)(1)(A)
    )
    R78—17
    AND
    (D) AND RULE 203(g) (1)
    OF
    CHAPTER
    2
    ORDER
    OF
    THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Goodman):
    The Celotex Corporation’s January 23, 1980 Motion
    for
    Clarification of Status
    is granted as follows.
    Celotex, a participant at hearings in these proceedings,
    on
    April 17, 1979 proposed a site—specific sulfur dioxide emission
    limitation of 6.8 lbs. per million BTU actual heat input for
    its Peoria facility.
    The limitation happens
    to be the same one
    sought by Bemis Company, Inc.
    at hearing
    by way of a writing.
    On January
    10, 1980
    the
    Board ordered this writing, admitted as
    Exhibit 38, construed as an amendment to Ashland Chemical
    Company1s proposal which initiated these proceedings.
    The Board does not consider
    the
    amendments sought
    by
    either Bemis or Celotex
    as “comments”,
    as Celotex states.
    They are suggestions as to what the wording of the proposed
    rule might contain at the time the Board finally issues its
    Order.
    Therefore, although the motion is granted,
    the requested
    relief of considering the limitation Celotex seeks for
    its
    Peoria facility as a “regulatory proposal”
    is not given
    j~
    se.
    What “proposal” refers to is that which when filed by industry
    is accompanied by 200 or more citizen signatures.
    What “amended
    proposal” refers to is oral or written evidence offered by any
    participant either at hearing or by public comment which seeks
    modifications of the first proposal filed to initiate regulatory
    proceedings;
    it may he
    a misnomer to the extent the modifica-
    tions
    sought are material to the substance of the proposal.
    The docketing of each initial proposal of a substantive
    rather than procedural nature by the Board mandates the Illinois
    Institute
    of Natural
    Resources to conduct an economic impact
    study.
    But
    the
    INR is not required to conduct a study for every
    site—specific limitation sought thereafter within the same pro-
    ceeding.
    This would constitute a waste of state resources
    inasmuch as the study is to be designed to account for the
    economic impact of all sites
    subject to the proposal.
    37 —37
    7
    —2—
    To quote from the Board~sOrder of January
    10,
    1980:
    Amended proposals are as
    fully considerable by
    the Board and by all participants at hearing as
    original proposals.
    IT IS
    SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan
    L,
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Contro
    Board,
    h r
    y certify the above Order was adopted on
    the
    day ~
    1980
    by a vote of
    Illinois Pollution
    -ol Board
    I
    37—378

    Back to top