ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 20,
1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION FOR SITE SPECIFIC
)
R85—ll
EXCEPTION TO EFFLUENT STANDARDS
)
FOR THE ILLINOIS-AMERICAN WATER
)
COMPANY,
EAST ST.
LOUIS TREATMENT
)
PLANT
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board
upon the October
28,
1986
motion of the Illinois—American Water Company (“Company”)
to
reopen
the record
in
this proceeding.
The Company desires this
result
so that
it might submit additional evidence regarding
alternative
methods
of
treating
the
discharges
from
its
East
St.
Louis
plant.
The Agency filed
a response
to the Company’s motion on
November
19,
1986.
The Agency states that
it “sees no reason”
to
reopen
the record, and
that it intends
to
implement the Board’s
September 25,
1986 Opinion and Order
in this matter.
The Company contends that
the compliance method
it had
intended
to utilize
in the absence of site—specific relief,
on—
site treatment using mechanical centrifuges,
is “significantly
less feasible,
both economically and technologically,
than
originally anticipated”.
A witness
for the Company previously
testified at hearing
in this matter that this treatment method
would entail $8.5 million
in capital costs and $150,000 per year
in operating expenses.
The Company presently asserts,
however,
that the capital costs associated with this method would
approximate $12.4 million.
Additionally, the Company believes
that
recent
industry
experience
with
centrifuges
has
been
sufficiently discouraging
to question whether the treatment
system would even work properly
in this application.
As a consequence of these discoveries,
the Company intends
to
seek Board
consideration of an alternative treatment method
which will include the construction of settling lagoons.
The
Company believes that the alternative treatment method
is
economically
reasonable
and
technologically
feasible,
that
it
would
save
customers
millions
of
dollars,
and
that
it
offers
prospect
of
improvement
in
environmental
quality.
The
Agency
argues
that
the
Board’s Procedural Rules do not
provide,
in the context of regulatory proceedings,
for motions to
the Board
for reconsideration or
rehearing after
a final order of
the Board
has issued.
The Agency believes that,
rather,
review
of final
orders
in regulatory proceedings must occur
in the
context of
judicial review.
74-131
—2--
The Board notes that contrary to
the Agency’s assertion,
motions
for rehearing or reconsideration may appropriately be
considered
by the Board
in rulemaking proceedings.
The authority
to hear such motions
is implicit
in the general rulemaking
authority delegated
to
the Board by the Act.
However, the allowance of rehearing
is
a matter of Board
discretion and should not be lightly granted due
to the potential
for abuse.
If the Board were
to routinely grant motion’s for
rehearing, petitioners might be encouraged
to file an
initial
proposal providing the least amount of environmental protection;
then, upon denial, propose
a more stringent approach, and upon a
second denial, propose
an even more stringent approach.
Thus,
the
rehearing process could become
a form of negotiation.
Such
is not the intent of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
and that process runs seriously counter
to considerations of
administrative convenience.
In
this
case,
the
Board
does
not
believe
that
the
Company
has
intended
to
abuse
the
regulatory
process.
Therefore,
while
the
Board
will
scrutinize
requests
for
rehearing
in
order
to
protect the integrity of the regulatory process,
in this case the
Board
concludes
that
the
record
in
this
matter
will
be
reopened.
The
Company
therefore
may
submit
a
detailed
treatment
proposal for Board consideration.
The
Board
wishes
to
note
that
in
the
record
to
date
the
Company’s justification
for relief addressed only the options of
adherence
to
the present effluent limitations versus
no
limitations
at’all.
Under
these circumstances, the Board
found
in
favor
of
adherence
to
the
present
limitations.
It
would
appear
that
the
Company
now
wishes
to
supplement
the
record
and
thus request the
Board
to weigh an intermediate option
(e.g.
a
reduction
in waste
load,
but not necessarily a reduction
sufficient
to allow full compliance with current effluent
standards).
Should such,
in fact,
be true, the
Company
may
additionally
wish
to
propose
effluent
limitations
as
alternatives
to those
found at
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.124.
The Company’s motion
is granted.
The revised proposal shall
be submitted
to the Board within 60 days.
After
Board receipt of
the proposal,
the Hearing Officer may set this matter for
additional hearing.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board member
B.
Forcade dissents.
Board Member
3.
Marlin concurs.
74-132
—3—
I,
Dorothy
M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that
the
above
Order
was
adopted
on
the
~
day
of
7~’-~-~j~&..’,
1986, by a vote of
~-/
2’
~-~A
)7.
Dorothy
M.’ Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
74-133