ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

10, 1986

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL

)

R82-14

EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY

)

SOURCES:

RACT III

)

INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by B. Forcade):

During the recent course of this proceeding,

certain

procedural issues have arisen which necessitate Board action.

On

November

25, 1985,

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(“Agency”) proposed to amend

35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.207,

the

Internal Offset rule.

The proposed amendmentwould change

the

method of calculating volatile organic mater.ial content of

coatings from a volume

based method to a solids based method for

purposes of the internal offset rule.

At hearings held on

December 2 and

3,

1985, certain facilities that would

be impacted

by the proposed amendment were identified.

At the March 20 and

21, 1986, hearings two “site-specific”

amendments to proposed

Section 215.207 were proposed by 3M and Allied Tube and

Conduit.

Additionally, on March 13, 1986,

the Agency filed

a

Motion to Amend

35

Iii. Adm. Code 215.204 which would exclude

non-photochemically exempt solvents

from the calculation of

coating emission limitations.

At hearing on March

20 and 21,

1986, objections were made regarding

the propriety of allowing

this new amendment within this ongoing proceeding and the

adequacy of notice of this new proposal to the regulated

community.

No evidence regarding proposed Section 215.204 was

offered by the Agency at those hearings, due

to time constraints.

AT the March 20 and 21,

1986,

hearing, the Hearing Officer

and attending Board Member commented on the increasingly

confusing nature of the proceeding and requested participants

to

comment to the Board regarding these procedural issues.

On April

3,

1986,

the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry and

Duo-Fast Corporation filed

an Objection to the Agency’s Motion

to

Amend 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 215.204.

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 VOM

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 opportunity to participate; and therefore,

the

Agency’s proposed amendment

should be docketed as

a new and

separate rulemaking proceeding.

69-194

---

-2-

On April

7, 1986,

the Agency submitted Comments to the Board

Regarding Proposed Amendments for Consideration

in This

Proceeding.

In its comments, the Agency argues that the proposed

amendments to Section 215.204 grew out of the R82—14 proceeding

and are interrelated with proposed Section 215.207.

Therefore,

the best course of action is to retain proposed Section 215.204

within the context of R82-14.

Regarding the issue of “site-

specific” proposals within

the context of

a general regulatory

proceeding,

the Agency notes

the recent court opinion

in Central

Illinois Public Service Company

v.

Illinois Pollution Control

Board, No.

4-85-0602,

slip op.

3/31/86, 4th District.

That

opinion holds,

in pertinent part,

that the Board

lacks authority

to either adopt or reject “site-specific” regulatory proposals

where there are no specific criteria or levels of justification

for such relief within the general rule from which relief is

sought.

The Agency argues that

since the Board has not provided

these criteria in the context of Section 215.204,

3M’s and Allied

Tube and Conduit’s “site-specific” proposals may be beyond the

scope of the Board’s authority.

In the alternative,

the Agency

comments that the

“site-specific” proposals and the Agency’s

proposed Section 215.204

could be separately docketed

in order to

avoid delay in proceeding with the proposed amendment to Section

215.207.

The Board,

through this Order,

notifies and provides an

opportunity

for comments from all R82-14

participants regarding

the procedural disposition of the foregoing matters.

Specifically,

the Board requests comments regarding:

1)

The

advisability

of

separately

docketing the

proposal

to amend Section 215.204;

2)

The

advisability

of

separately

docketing

“site-specific”

proposals

related

to

proposed

amendments

to the Board’s general rules;

3)

The

advisability

of

allowing

“site-specific”

proposals

within

the

context

of

a

general

regulatory proceeding;

and

4)

The

impact

of

the CIPS

v.

IPCB opinion on the

Board’s

authority

to consider

“site-specific”

relief.

The Board will receive comments

in response to this Order

until Friday, May 2, 1986.

The Board plans

to take action

regarding these matters at the May 8, 1986,

Board meeting.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

69-195

---

-3-

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certif)~sthat the above Order was adopted on

the

/ercz~ day of

____________________,

1986, by a vote

of

__________.

(7

Dorothy

M. Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board