ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 23, 1989
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    PETITION OF MODINE MANUFACTURING
    )
    COMPANY FOR SITE SPECIFIC
    )
    R87-36
    EXCEPTION TO WATER POLLUTION
    )
    REGULATIONS:
    35
    ILL.
    ADM. CODE
    )
    304.120, 304.124 AND 304.301
    )
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by R.
    C.
    Flemal):
    Section
    27(a)
    of
    the Environmental Protection Act
    (‘~Act”)
    has recently been amended by p.A.85-1048
    to give the Board
    exclusive authority
    in deciding whether
    an EelS should be
    performed
    for
    a rulemaking.
    Since that change became effective
    3anuary
    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 EelS determination had not been made by the
    Department of Energy
    and Natural Resources (“DENR”).
    It-i part,
    the amendments to the Act provide:
    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 EelS
    determination
    in this matter.
    On October
    15,
    1987 Modirte Manufacturing Company
    (“Modine”)
    filed a Petition
    with’ the Board
    for site specific exception to
    certain of the Board’s water pollution regulations.
    On January
    18,
    1989,
    pursuant
    to Res 89—1,
    the Hearing Officer requested
    comment
    on the necessity for
    the preparation of an EcIS
    in this
    matter.
    Comments were filed by the Illinois Environmental
    96—447
    Protection Agency (“Agency”),
    the Depa~ttnentof Energy and
    Natural Resources (“DENR”), and Modine
    DENR commented that although
    it believes that the Petition
    contains certain deficiencies
    in economic information,
    it prefers
    that this information be entered
    into the record at the merit
    hearing.
    (The merit hearing
    is currently scheduled for March
    10,
    1989.)
    The Agency states
    that it also believes the preparation
    of an EcIS
    is not necessary in this proceeding.
    The Agency and
    DENR both discuss what type of information Modine should provide
    for the economic issues to be sufficiently addressed at hearing.
    Modine requests that an EelS be prepared.
    In support of
    its
    request, Modine discusses economic reasonableness issues
    and
    asserts its basic position that there are no economically
    reasonable or technically feasible means
    for Modine
    to comply
    with the Board’s effluent regulations.
    The Board
    finds
    that the economic
    issues which Modine
    presents are matters which are more appropriately addressed by
    the Board
    in
    its determination on the merits of the Petition.
    The mere fact that economic issues are present does not
    necessitate the preparation of an EcIS.
    In
    fact,
    Modine further
    states that
    it has submitted testimony prior
    to hearing on the
    issues of economic reasonableness and technical feasibility and
    that its consultants have determined cost estimates for
    compliance.
    After consideration of the above comments and the proposal
    for rulemaking,
    the Board presently believes
    that the
    presentation of economic information at hearing
    in this
    proceeding 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.
    The Board
    notes that the recent amendments
    to the Act
    further provide
    for
    the Board
    to change
    its determination that an
    EelS need not be prepared under specific circumstances:
    ...any time prior
    to the close of the record during
    the rulemaking proceeding,
    the Board may determine
    that an economic impact study
    be prepared,
    if the
    proposal has been substantially modified
    or
    if
    information
    in the
    record indicates that an economic
    impact study would
    be advisable.
    *
    Modine’s comments were submitted late with a motion
    to file
    instanter.
    That motion is granted.
    96—448
    The Board cautions that irrespective of the Board’s ability
    to later request
    an EelS,
    Moc3irte bears the burden
    to justify its
    site specific request, including submission of adequate economic
    information
    to so justify the request.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy
    H. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,~ereb,~jcertify tha~ithe above Order was adopted on
    the
    ~
    day
    of
    ~
    ,
    1989,
    by a vote
    of
    7—e’
    .
    Dorothy
    M.
    9’unn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pdllution Control Board
    96—449

    Back to top