ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 23, 1989
IN THE MATTER OF
:
)
PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC RULE
)
R87-35
CHANGE FOR THE CITY OF EAST
)
MOLINE’S PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
)
TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE
35 ILL ADM. CODE 304.218
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
3.
Anderson):
Section 27(a)
of
the Environmental Protection Act
(“Act’1)
has recently been amended
by P.A.
85-1048
to give the Board
exclusive authority
in deciding whether an EcIS
should be
performed
for
a rulemaking.
Since
that change became effective
January
1,
1989, Resolution 89—1 sets forth
the procedure
that
the Board will utilize
for rulemakings which were
filed prior
to
1989 and for which an
EcIS determination had not been made by the
Department
of Energy and Natural Resources
(“DENR”).
In part,
the amendments
to the Act provides:
Tihe
Board
shall
determine
whether
an
economic
impact
study
should
be
conducted.
The
Board
shall
reach
its
decision
based
on
its
assessment
of
the
potential
economic
impact
of
the
rule,
the
potential
for
consideration
of
the
economic
impact
absent
such
a study, the extent,
if any,
to which the
Board
is
free
under
the
statute
authorizing
the
rule
to
modify
the
substance
of
the
rule
based
upon
the
conclusions
of
such
a
study,
and
any
other
considerations
the
Board
deems
appropriate.
The
Board
may,
in
addition,
identify
specific
issues
to
be
addressed
in
the study.
Section 27(a)
of the Act.
(as amended by P.A.
85—1048)
It
is upon these criteria that
the Board must make
its EcIS
determination
in this matter.
On October
9,
1987,
the City of East Moline
(“East Moline”)
filed
a petition with the Board
for site specific exception
from
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 304.124(a), Additional Contaminants.
As
of
January
1,
1989,
no EcIS determination had been made
in this
Proceeding.
On January
24,
1989, pursuant
to RES 89—1,
the
96—443
—2—
Hearing Officer requested comment on the necessity for the
preparation of an EcIS
in this matter.
Comments were filed by
East Moline, DENR and the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“Agency”)
on February 17,
1989.
DENR requests the Board determine that the preparation of an
EcIS
is not necessary in this proceeding.
As DENR comments:
The Department of Energy and Natural Resources
(DENR) believes
that
a
formal
economic
impact
study is not necessary for the proceeding
P87—
35.
While
the
petition
for
a
site specific
rulemaking
was
deficient
in
economic
and
environmental
information,
a
significant
amount of data was entered
into
the record
at
the
hearing.
The
economic
and
environmental
information provided
at
hearing
was,
for
the
most
part,
in response
to pre—filed questions
by the Department and the Agency.
For
a
site
specific regulatory
petition,
the
burden
should
be
placed
on
the petitioner
to
provide adequate economic data and information
regarding
the
environmental
impacts
and
technical
feasibility
of
its
proposal.
This
is
necessary so
as
to
allow DENR
to
conserve
its limited budgetary resources
for state—wide
proceedings
or
for
those
exceptional
cases
where
an independent study would be of genuine
value
to the Board
in rendering
its decision.
It
is
the Department’s position
that
a
formal
study
is
not warranted
in
this
proceeding
in
light
of
the
economic
and
environmental
information put into the record at the hearing
on
February
9,
1989,
and
the
additional
information
the
petitioner
agreed
to
provide
at
the
request
of
the
Board.
If
the
Board
determines
that
additional
information
is
required,
the
cost
and
responsibility
of
gathering
that
information should
be borne
by
the petitioner.
The Agency concurred
in DENR’s comments and further stated
that the economic
impact of the proposed rule can be adequately
addressed without an EcIS “provided that East Moline properly
addresses the econom~.crequirements”
(p.
2).
For
its part,
East t4oline urges
the Board
to
order
an
EcIS,
“notwithstanding the
fact that it believes that
it has submitted
sufficient data into the record
to allow the Board to make this
decision”
(p.
2).
96—444
—3—
After consideration of
the above comments and the proposal
for
rulemaking, the Board presently believes that the
presentation of economic information
at hearing, together with
the requested additional economic information from East Moline,
should be sufficient
for its consideration of the economic impact
of the proposed rule.
The Board therefore finds that the
preparation of an EelS need not be conducted in this matter
at
this time.
East Moline’s suggestion that an EcIS be required
appears,
on its face,
to be nwarranted.
As East Moline notes,
the central
issue
in this case
is the economic reasonableness of
the general requirement not
its technical feasibility; the Soard
observes that this
is precisely why the record
in this proceeding
already contains much economic information
(and will contain
more) which
is ample
to serve as
a basis
for the Board’s
determination
in
this
regard.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gum-i, Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify? that
the above Order was adopted on
the
5t~~~t’day
of
~
,
1989, by
a vote of
7~-’
~
£
Dorothy
M. ~inn, Clerk
Illinois
Po~1lution Control
Board
96—445