ILLI NOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

February 17,

1982

t~T THE MATTER OF:

)

At~1ENDMENTS TO CHAPTER

3:

)

R77—12

(Docket

D)

ThTER POLLUTION

(Effluent Disinfection)

DISSENTING OPINION

(by J.

Anderson):

~riFebruary 10,

1982,

the Attorney General

filed a motion

L()

extend the comment period for 30

days.

The motion was granted

an~ the comment period extended to March

15,

1982.

I do not feel that the Board’s procedural rules should

have been used to prolong an already elongated proceeding

enless the person

a)

for good reason was unable to substantively

participate before or

h) had personally raised any new issue.

Such

is not the case here.

After

the passage of more than

four and one—half years

since

this Environmental Protection Agency proposal was introduced,

after six merit hearings in 1977 and 1978,

after three days of

economic impact hearings in mid—1981,

after an already extended

comment period,

and after two more hearing days primarily because

of the delayed submittal of K.A.

Steel Chemicals

Inc.,

enough

is

enough.

I certain~j~

do not question the good faith reasoning of

the

nalority to overrule the Hearing Officer and to extend the

comment period.

From a procedural

standpoint,

the Board was

placed

in a difficult situation by this motion.

Under normal

circumstances,

the 14 day comment period in Procedural Rule

2lfl

would not be shortened.

The Board’s effort

to try to expedite

its decision on this proposal

(see Order of January

7,

1982) was

sLnply frustrated.

The recent extra hearings were appropriate and necessary.

However, once this was done,

I believe that the Board should

have sustained the Hearing Officer’s ruling limiting the time

1~orstill another comment period,

even

if,

for other reasons,

it. probably could not have acted quickly enough to alleviate

the Metropolitan Sanitary District”s

time constraints on its

chlorine contract.

Now,

the Board has created a new “roil—over”

situation in place of an expedited decision.

45—44 1

---

While

I will defend the Board’s long standing desire to

assure that everyone

“has their say”,

I feel that the Board

should have balanced this against a perception that its

regulatory proceedings

are unnecessarily repetitous and

prolonged.

/

Joan G.

An erson

Board Member

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion

was submitted on the

~

day of

_______,

1982.

__

Christan

L. Moffe~/Clerk

flhinois Pollution Control Board

45—442