ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 10,

1990

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED SITE-SPECIFIC R~E

CHANGE FOR THE CITY OF EAST

)

R87-35

MOLINE’S PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY

)

(Rulemaking)

TREAThENT PLANT DISCHARGE:

35

ILL.

ADM.

CODE 304.218

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board upon a Motion for

Reconsideration,

filed on April

13,

1990, and a Motion to

Substitute Affidavit,

filed on April

18,

1990,

by the City of

East Moline

(“East Moline”)

.

In its Motion for Reconsideration

East Moline requested the Board to reconsider its March

8,

1990

Opinion and Order denying site-specific relief.

In its Motion to

Substitute Affidavit,

East Moline requested the Board to

substitute the original affidavit of Mr. James

E. Huff that was

attached to the motion,

for the copy of the affidavit that was

filed with the Motion for Reconsideration.

The Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

(“Agency”)

filed

a response to

East Moline’s Motion for Reconsideration on April

26,

1990.

The

Board grants East Moline’s motions; however, with regard to the

Motion for Reconsideration,

the Board declines to grant the

requested relief.

In support of its Motion for Reconsideration,

East Moline

argues that the Board misapprehended

its intent and evaluated

its

site-specific proposal according to improper standards

in that

it

premised its decision

in large part on the following

determinations:

(1)

that East Moline’s discharge presents

a

serious risk to the ditch,

(2)

that the record contained

insufficient

information regarding East Moline’s proposal to

bypass the ditch and discharge directly to the Mississippi River,

(3)

that the record contained insufficient information to

distinguish East Moline from other communities subject to

technology-based standards,

(4)

that the concepts espoused by

ORSANCO represent

a broad departure from technology—based

standards that must be addressed in

a general rulemaking rather

than through a site-specific proceeding,

and

(5)

that East Moline

failed to demonstrate that the regulations from which

it

sought

relief were not economically reasonable.

In response,

the Agency argues that the Board should not

grant the motion because East Moline has not provided

a proper

basis for

it as

is required by

35

Iii.

Adm.

Code 101.301(b).

The

Agency also argues that the Board did not misapprehend East

Moline’s intent and did evaluate the proposal according to proper

standards.

ii

1—1(~5

---

2

Although the Agency’s reliance on

35 Ill. Adm.

Code

is

misplaced because

it applies to contested cases rather than site—

specific rulemakings,

the Board agrees with the Agency’s other

arguments.

Specifically, the Board concludes that

it did not

misapprehend East Moline’s intent, but recognized the proposal

for what

it was;

a proposal for direct discharge.

As for East

Moline’s argument that the Board failed to evaluate the proposal

according to proper standards,

Section

27 of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act provides five factors that the Board

must consider when

it evaluates

a proposal for site-specific

relief;

existing physical conditions,

character of the area

involved,

nature of the receiving body of water,

technical

feasibility,

and economic reasonableness.

The Board

fails to see

how it failed to evaluate East Moline’s proposal according to

proper standards when

it addressed each of the foregoing factors

in its Opinion.

The inclusion of Mr. Huff’s affidavit with the Motion for

Reconsideration does not persuade the Board to revisit this

matter.

We must first emphasize that the record

in this

proceeding has been closed for some time and that we have made

our decision based on that record.

There

is no allegation

in the

Motion for Reconsideration that the calculations contained

in the

affidavit could not have been presented at hearing.

The Board

will not act lightly and reopen

a proceeding to consider an

affidavit,

submitted after the close of record, to the extent

that it purports to present “new information”,

absent

a

compelling reason as to why such information could not have been

presented before the close of the record.

In any event,

the

information presented

in the affidavit

is not of

a nature to

persuade the Board

that it erred

in its determination.

The Board therefore grants East Moline’s motions but,

with

regard to the Motion for Reconsideration,

declines

to grant the

relief requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, ~iereby certify that the above Order was adopted on the

~

day of

_____________

,

1990,

by

a vote of/a

7—~

~

~

‘2~,

~

Dorothy M~Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1

1 1—1