ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 22, 1986

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL

)

R82—14

EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY

SOURCES: RACT III

)

INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):

On April 10, 1986, the Board, through an Interim Order,

requested that participants in this proceeding comment on certain

procedural issues. In response to the April 10, 1986, Interim

Order and an earlier request made at hearing on March 21, 1986,

the Board received the following:

1) Objection to Agency Motion to Amendment

35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204 by Duo Fast and

CACI (4—3—86);

2) Agency Comments to Board Regarding

Proposed Amendments for Consideration in

this proceeding (4—4—86);

3) Comments of Allied Tube & Conduit and 3M

(5—5—86);

4) Agency Comments on Interim Order of the

Board (5—5—86); and

5) ISCC Comments to the Board Regarding

Proposed Amendments by the Agency and Two

Industrial Sources (5—7—86).

The Board will, for the reasons outlined in this Order, retain

all pending proposed amendments within the R82—l4 docket, as well

as any filed by July 1, 1986.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)

filed a motion to amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204 on March 13,

1986. CACI and Duo Fast objected to this amendment at the March

20, 1986, hearing and in their April 3, 1986, Objection. The

Objection, in brief, argues that the proposed amendment to

Section 215.204 modifies the key provision setting RACT for a

large number of stationary VON sources; that the proposed

amendment may have wide—reaching and highly significant impact on

many manufacturers in Illinois; that because the amendment has

been proposed at this late stage in an ongoing rulemaking many

potentially impacted manufacturers have no notice and no

70-74

---

—2—

opportunity to participate; and therefore, the Agency’s proposed

amendment should be docketed as a new and separate rulemaking

proceeding. The Agency responds in its April 7, 1986, comments,

that the proposed amendments to Section 215.204 grew out of the

R82—l4 proceeding and are interrelated with proposed Section

215.207 and therefore, should be retained within this proceeding.

The Board will retain the proposed amendment to Section

215.204 within the R82—l4 docket. By so doing, the Board will be

able to utilize the existing pertinent record regarding exempt

solvents and the record regarding proposed Section 215.207. Duo

Fast, itself has recognized the interrelationship of proposed

Section 215.204 and 215.207 at hearing on March 20, 1986 (R.

3379). Regarding the notice issue raised by Duo Fast and CAd,

the Board will fulfill all statutory notice requirements through

newspaper publication, distribution of hearing notices to

participants on the R82—14 notice list and publication in the

Environmental Register. The Board notes that placing the

proposed amendments to 215.204 in a new docket could result in

less actual notice to potentially impacted industries as a new

and less complete notice list would have to be created. By

retaining the proposed amendment to 215.204 within R82—l4, all

participants will have been given notice and an opportunity to

comment on these issues.

Currently, there are two “site—specific” proposals to

Section 215.204 as related to proposed Section 215.207 filed with

the Board in R82—14. A third “site—specific” proposal is

expected. As these proposals are related to proposed amendments

to Section 215.207, the Board will entertain them in the context

of R82—14. The Board is persuaded to follow this course in this

proceeding for a number of reasons. First, the December 31,

1987, Clean Air Act (“CAA”) deadline for an implemented, approved

State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) for attainment of the national

ambient ozone standard necessitates Board decision in this.

proceeding, no later than January 1, 1987. There is a great need

to complete this proceeding and separate docketing of certain

proposed amendments could result in duplication of effort, and

notice and scheduling delays. Second, the Board will be able to

more freely utilize the existing R82—l4 record and better explore

the interrelationship of various proposed amendments. Third,

while the full impact of CIPS v. IPCB, No. 4—85—0602, slip op.

3/31/86, 4th District, may not be fully comprehended at this

time, the best course of action is to at least develop records

for “site—specific” proposals.

The Board is concerned with the status of the economic

record in this proceeding. In the absence of legislative relief

exempting CAA rulemakings from the requirement of a Department of

Energy and Natural Resources (“DENR”) economic impact statement

(“EcIS”) or determination of negative declaration of economic

impact, the Board may be unable to meet the CAA deadlines for any

70-75

---

—3—

regulation arising from this docket. It is necessary to close

the record in R82—14 by December 1, 1986, in order to have

sufficient time for Board decisionmaking. Therefore, the Board

requests that DENR file a status report stating its evaluation of

the various proposed amendments by July 14, 1986.

Because of the fast approaching CAA deadline, it is

necessary to schedule, at this time and in this Order, deadlines

for completion of this record. Therefore, the Board establishes

the following schedule:

1. The Board requests that the Department of Energy and

Natural Resources (“DENR”) file a status report to the

Board by July 14, 1986, on whether all economic studies,

hearings, reports or determinations of negative

declaration of economic impact can be completed by

December 1, 1986;

2. The Board will entertain filing of proposed amendments

until July 1, 1986. The Board will not consider

proposed regulatory language in this proceeding that is

not timely submitted;

3. Pre—prepared testimony supporting or responding to

proposed regulatory language must be filed with the

Board no later than July 14, 1986. Exchange of this

testimony among participants is mandatory.

4. Hearings will commence on August 4, 1986, and will be

continued from day to day, as necessary, through August

8, 1986. The subject matter of the hearings will be

limited to:

a. Amendments to Section 215.204 and 215.207 as

proposed by the Agency;

b. “Site—specific” amendments to Section 215.204 as

proposed by 3M and Allied Tube & Conduit;

c. Completion of cross—examination of Dr. John Reed by

3M regarding proposed Section 215.205; and

d. Any other proposed amendments timely filed with the

Board by July 1, 1986.

Only testimony that has been pre—prepared and submitted

by July 14, 1986, will be admitted at hearing during the

week of August 4, 1986.

5. Additional hearings will be held commencing September 3,

1986, and will be continued from day to day, as

necessary, through September 9, 1986 (excluding Saturday

70-76

---

—4—

and Sunday). The subject matter of these hearings will

be limited to issues raised at the hearings held the

week of August 4, 1986. Pre—prepared testimony for the

hearings beginning September 3, 1986, must be filed with

the Board no later than August 22, 1986. Exchange of

prepared testimony among participants is mandatory. No

testimony will be received that has not been pre—

submitted in a timely manner.

6. Final hearings, if necessary, will be held in early

October. The sole focus of these hearings will be

rebuttal and response. Separate notice and a schedule

for pre—submission of testimony will be issued, if

necessary.

7. The record will close December 1, 1986. All comments

and briefs must be filed by this date.

As deviation from this already too—tight schedule could

result in failure to timely adopt a final rule, resulting in

possible imposition of federal sanctions on the state, the Board

does not intend to deviate from this schedule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, he,reby certify that the above Order was adopted on

the ~2~day

of

____________________,

1986, by a vote

of

___________.

Dorothy M. G~’nn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board