Page 1 cif 2
Mike Mc
Cambridge - FW: PCB RCRA
rulemaking R07-5/R07-14
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Geving, Kim" <Kim.Geving@Illinois.gov>
<mccambm@ipcb.state.il.us>
4/14/2008 10:49 AM
FW: PCB RCRA rulemaking R07-5/R07-14
gi07
PC11
/44°'fri
Mike, per the conversation below, Deb Connelly has some questions. Could you please shed some light on this.
You can reply to me, and I will
be happy to relay to her, or you can copy us both. I appreciate your assistance.
Kimberly A. Geving
Assistant Counsel
From:
Connelly, Deborah [mailto:connelly©ilga.gov]
Sent:
Monday, April
14, 2008 10:46 AM
To: Geving, Kim
Subject:
RE: PCB RCRA rulemaking R07-5/R07-14
rinIEHvtlL
RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
APR 1 6 2008
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
35 IAC 102.610(b) Also,
wherever appropriate, the Board regulations
will
reflect any consistent,
more
stringent
regulations adopted pursuant to the rulemaking requirements of Title VII of the Act and
Section 5-35 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act
[415 ILCS 5/7.2(a)(6)].
Section 5-35 is the lead in section for adopting general, emergency and peremptory rulemakings.
From:
Geving, Kim [mailto:Kim.Geving@Illinois.gov]
Sent:
Monday, April 14, 2008 10:29 AM
To: Connelly, Deborah
Subject:
RE: PCB RCRA rulemaking R07-5/R07-14
No, actually that is not accurate. The Board may adopt more stringent rules in IIS rulemakings. They just cannot
be less stringent than the feds. If you look at their opinion dated March 20, 2008
in
R07-5/R07-14, pages10-11,
they discuss the section in RCRA that allows states to adopt more stringent rules. I think they may also have
something in
their procedural rules that discusses this issue, but I am not 100% certain without doing some more
research.
Does this help?
Kimberly A. Geving
Assistant Counsel
From:
Connelly, Deborah [mailto:connelly@ilga.gov]
Sent:
Monday, April 14, 2008 10:12 AM
To: Geving, Kim
Subject:
RE: PCB RCRA rulemaking R07-5/R07-14
I understand the
need for the change, what I don't understand is why you're suggesting more stringent language
for an identical in substance rulemaking when PCB said it's only allowed in a general rulemaking.
From:
Geving, Kim [mailto:Kim.Geving@Illinois.gov]
file://C: \ Documents and Settings \McCambM \Local Settings \Temp \GW 0000 I.HTM
?
4/15/2008
Page
2 of 2
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:09 AM
To: Connelly, Deborah
Subject: RE: PCB RCRA rulemaking R07-5/R07-14
The reason we wanted this change is that Section 20.1 of the EPAct requires the Agency to compile and make
available an annual report regarding certain hazardous waste operations.
If we are only receiving biennial reports
from facilities, we cannot effectively put together our annual reports. Additionally, the financial assurance
requirements in Section 727.240(c) require annual updates to account for inflation. Again, in order to check
compliance with that requirement we would need annual cost estimates from facilities.
I hope this answers your question.
Kimberly A. Geving
Assistant Counsel
From: Connelly, Deborah [mailto:connelly@ilga.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:58 AM
To: Geving, Kim
Subject: PCB RCRA rulemaking R07-5/R07-14
Kim:
Regarding your proposal that 35 IAC 727.170(f)(1) be changed to require an annual report.
This is a more stringent requirement than USEPA's required biennial report. In its 4/18/02
Opinion on R02-1/R02-12/R02-17, PCB stated that it could adopt rules more stringent than
federal RCRA rules only in a general rulemaking proceeding under 415 ILCS 5/22.4(b) and 27.
Why is EPA asking for this change in an identical in substance rulemaking?
dc
file://C: \Documents and Settings\McCambM \Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM
?
4/16/2008