ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    October 1~, 1983
    OLIN CORPORATION,
    )
    Respondent.
    V.
    )
    PCB 83—44
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    Theodore Meyer)’
    On September
    21.
    1983 Olin filed a Motion for Rehearing on
    the variance petition denied on August
    18,
    1983.
    Ar~ongother
    arguments.
    Olin addressed the Board’s concern about ground
    level
    concentration of sulfur dioxide had the variance been granted.
    Olin however did not inform the Board
    if they are currently burning
    Illinois coal.
    If not,
    and should Olin switch to Illinois coal
    due to
    a Variance,
    the Board also needs to know what are the
    consequences and how would compliance be achieved should the
    petition for exemption concurrently filed,
    he denied.
    In order
    to address the first issue further and the second regarding a
    compliance plan the motion for rehearing is granted.
    Olin argues that Dr. Sievering’s letter should not he
    a
    part of the record
    in this matter since he was not suhiect to
    cross—examination at hearing as required by the Board’s Procedural
    Rules at 35
    Ill. Mm. Code 103.203.
    However. Section 103.204(d)
    provides that
    Relevant scientific or technical articles, treatises or
    materials may be introduced into evidence suhiect to
    refutation or disputation through any introduction
    of comparable documentary evidence or expert testimony.
    As stated
    in the Opinionr Dr.
    Sieverinq’s letter and study
    were sent to the Hearing Officer and copies to Olin’s attorneys.
    the Board- and the Agency attorneys.
    Through the Board’s mad-
    vertance during
    its office move and hearing officer error. these
    documents were not made part of the record pursuant to Section
    103.204 prior to hearing.
    They were made
    a part of the record in
    the Opinion and Order of
    August 18.1983.
    That was
    in error
    because at the time of hearing Petitioner had no reason to respond.
    Since rehearing is being granted,. Petitioner now has opportunity
    54-235
    —2—
    to refute or dispute the study.
    Therefore, the error
    is corrected
    and the documents are accepted under Section 103.204.
    Hearing
    shall
    be expeditiously scheduled and held.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Bqard, hereby c~rtifythat the above Order was~adopted
    on the
    ~g-~
    day of~~A~
    ,
    1983 by a vote of
    ~S-~
    0
    CL~~
    Christan L.
    Mof
    ~
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollutidh”-’Control Board
    54-236

    Back to top