ILLINOIS

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

5,

1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

R 82—27

PETITIONS FOR SITE—SPECIFIC

)

 R 82—36

 Consol.

RULE CHANGES

)

 R 83—37

PROPOSED RULE.

 FIRST NOTICE.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

 3. Theodore Meyer):

This matter comes before the Board on a December

16,

 1982,

regulatory proposal

 filed

 by the Illinois Environmental Protec-

tion Agency (“Agency”).

 The Board

 is reproposing

 these rules

for

first notice

 in order

 to comply with codification requirements.

Accordingly, certain organizational and

 format changes have been

made from

 the January 26,

 1987 proposal which will

 be duly noted

in the discussion below.

 While hearings are not required under

Section 26 of the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), hearings

were held on June 23,

 1983,

 in Springfield.

 The Agency filed

an

amended proposal on January 16,

 1986.

 On April 10,

 1986,

the

Board, by

 Interim Order, made public

 a complete draft of the

procedural

 rules

 in order

 to solicit public comments.

 This April

10,

 1986, draft of the procedural

 rules incorporated the Agency’s

amended proposal.

 The Agency filed comments regarding the

Board’s draft procedural

 rules,

 including the proposed

 site-’

specific regulations, on June 25,

 1986,

 (P.C.

 #4).

 The Board, by

this Opinion

 aiid Order, proposes a modified version of the

Agency’s proposal

for

 first notice.

The Agency’s proposal would create

 a new subpart to Part 102

of the existing procedural regulations that would specifically

govern “site—specific”

 regulatory proposals and

 rules not of

general

 applicability.

 The Agency’s rationale

 for proposing

“site—specific”

 rules is that:

1)

 This category of proceeding

has become

 a large and growing

 segment of the Board’s rulemaking

docket;

2)

 Informational deficiencies in many petitions continue

to be

 a common problem;

3)

 Conflicts between state

 and federal

program requirements and law frequently are not adequately

addressed;

 and 4)

 The “parties”

 to site—specific proceedings

frequently are not sufficiently aware of the applicable

requirements and

 “burden of proof.”

 The Agency amended proposal

provides

for

 a segment of rules applicable

 to all proposals, with

subsequent sections

 for criteria specific

to

 a particular

media:

 Sections 102.220

 to 223 for general rules; Sections

102.240

 to 259 for Subtitle

B:

 Air Pollution;

 Sections 102.260

to 279

 for Subtitle

C:

 Water Pollution; Sections 102.280

 to 299

for Subtitle

D:

 Mine Pollution;

 Sections 102.300

 to 319 for

76.166

—2—

Subtitle

E:

 Agriculture Related Pollution; Sections 102.320 to

339 for Subtitle

F:

 Public Water Supply; Sections 102.340 to 359

for Subtitle G:

 Waste Disposal; and Sections 102.360 to 379 for

Subtitle H:

 Noise Pollution.

 The actual numbering and placement

of the rules has been modified

 in the Board’s proposal.

At this stage of the proceeding, only general rules and

rules specific

 to Subtitle

C:

 Water Pollution are presently

proposed.

 In order

 to comply with codification requirements and

to still maintain organizational clarity in the rules the general

provisions have been placed in

 a new Subpart G and those

 rules

specific to Subtitle

C:

 Water Pollution have been placed in a

new Subpart

I.

 Following this format Subpart H will remain

reserved for rules specific

 to Subtitle B:

 Air Pollution;

 Subpart J for Subtitle D:

 Mine Pollution; Subpart K for Subtitle

E:

 Agriculture Related Pollution; Subpart L for Subtitle

F:

Public Water Supply; Subpart M for Subtitle G:

 Waste Disposal

and Subpart N

 for Subtitle

H:

 Noise Pollution.

 Former Subpart

G:

 Other proceedings has been moved

 to new Subpart

0.

Of the comments received after the April

10,

 1986,

distribution of

 the Board’s draft procedural rules, only the

Agency’s comments addressed the site—specific portion of the

draft.

 That comment noted a recent appellate court decision

involving an appeal

 from

 a denial of a site—specific regulatory

proposal which affected the Agency’s previous statements

regarding burden of proof.

The Board has determined

 that there are compelling reasons

to promulgate specific procedural rules that would apply to site-

specific rules or rules not of general applicability.

 As the

Agency has noted,

 this category of rules comprises a large

portion of

 the Board’s rulemaking docket.

 Many of these

petitions are factually deficient and the Board

 is often placed

in the difficult position of having

 to make a decision with

inadequate information.

 Proponents also find themselves

in

difficult circumstances because they are often unsure what

information is necessary for

 a petition.

 To this end,

 the rules

proposed today provide specific informational requirements.

 And,

consequently, determining the adequacy of

 a petition will no

longer be as subjective as

 it currently

is.

 Also,

 the issue of

consistency of the relief with federal law will be addressed

early

 in the proceeding.

The information required in the proposed rules

 is detailed

and specific.

It

 is based,

 in large part,

 on the information

required

 in Part 104 for variances.

 In certain respects,

however, the proposed

 rules are more rigorous.

 The Board does

not believe that these informational requirements are oppressive

or burdensome to petitioners because site—specific regulations

usually provide long—term relief from general regulations.

Consequently,

 the Board’s record

 for decision must encompass a

76-167

—3—

broader perspective than

 a record supporting variance relief.

The Board’s first notice proposed language generally follows

the Agency’s proposal but does deviate

 in some significant

respects.

 Each section will

 be briefly discussed and changes

from the Agency proposal will be addressed.

Subpart G:

 General Provisions for Proposal

 of Site—Specific

 Rules and Rules Not of General Applicability

—

 The title has been

reworded to include site—specific regulations and rules not of

general applicability, rather

 than “exceptions.”

 The proposed

rules are intended to apply to a growing category of rules not of

general applicability that are often difficult to categorize only

as “site—specific.”

 Such rules could be process specific, or

provide an environmentally equivalent alternative standard,

as

well as the more common exclusion from regulation.

 The term

“exception” has been deleted because that term has often been

used to apply to Board adjusted standard procedures contemplated

by Section 28.1 of the Act or otherwise provided for elsewhere in

the Board’s rules

 (thermal demonstrations, ~°2 demonstrations,

CSO proceedings).

Section 102.220 Relationship With Other Rules

—

 This section has

been added

 to clarify the relationship between the rules

in

Subpart G and those

 in Subpart

I.

Section 102.221 Proposal

 of Regulations Not of General

Applicability

—

 This section outlines the procedure for filing

regulatory proposals and provides guidance on the general scope

of such

 a proposal.

 Copies are

 to be filed with the Board,

Agency and Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR).

The Agency’s amended proposal provided for service

 to the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”).

 As not all

proposed rules are subject to USEPA review or approval,

 this

requirement was deleted.

Section 102.222 Contents of Proposal

—

 This section provides,

in

general terms, the requirements and guidelines

 for an

informationally adequate regulatory proposal.

 Subsection

(a)

requires the language and placement of the regulatory proposal be

provided.

 Subsection

(b)

 requires a statement of reasons and

incorporates the specific factual information requirements

outlined

 in the Subpart.

Subsection

(C)

 is a revised version of the Agency’s proposed

Section 102.285 Unique Conditions.

 The Board significantly

modified this language and moved it from the water specific

portion of the rules as it applies to all media.

 The Agency’s

proposal created

 a criteria of “uniqueness”

 for site—specific

relief.

 The Board believes that uniqueness

 is too vague

a

concept

 to be

 a meaningful guide or criteria.

 The statutory

language

 of Section

 27(a)

 of the Act provides a listing of

76-168

—4—

relevant considerations.

 The appropriate scope of analysis,

 where

 a site—specific relaxation of

 a general rule

 is sought,

should be whether

 the general

 rule

 is technically unfeasible or

economically unreasonable

 for that facility.

 Documentation may

include information on other similar pollution sources’ ability

to comply with the general rule.

Subsection

 (d) provides

 a “safety valve”

for

 a proponent

where,

 under special circumstances, the relevancy of certain of

the information required

for

 an adequate petition

 is outweighed

by the cost of obtaining that information.

Section 102.223 Dismissal

 for Inadequacy

—

 This section provides

a mechanism for dismissing regulatory proposals where such

proposals are factually inadequate.

 As previously noted, factual

insufficiency is

 a recurring problem with site—specific

regulatory proposals.

 The lack of specific informational

requirements or levels of justification have been cited by at

least one appellate court as

 a serious deficiency in the site—

specific process.

In

 re: Petition for Site—Specific Groundwater

Quality Standards by Central

 Illinois Public Service Company, 491

N.E.2d 175

 (1986).

As

 a solution

 to this problem,

 today’s

proposal specifically enumerates what information

 is required for

an adequate petition

 (Sections

 102.222, 102.261

—

 265)

and

provides a dismissal mechanism when that information

 is not

provided.

 Such a dismissal would, of course, be discretionary

with the Board

 and would

 be exercised

in

 a similar fashion to

variance proceedings.

 First, one or more “more information

orders” would

 be issued, specifically requesting

 the necessary

information.

 Dismissal would

 then be appropriate

 if the

information was not provided

 or explanation of why the

information would not be relevant

 in light of the cost of

obtaining

 such information, pursuant to Section 102.222(d).

By specifically listing what information

 is necessary for an

adequate petition,

 a proponent has notice of what

 is required.

The dismissal mechanism will provide the Board with a

 tool for

managing its regulatory docket and ensuring that only

informationally sufficient petitions go to hearing.

 A dismissal

pursuant

 to Section 102.223 would not be on the merits of the

proposal and would be without prejudice.

 It should be understood

that

 the information

to

 be submitted with

 the petition is the

minimum necessary to go

 to hearing (which in most proceedings

will not be sufficient for

 the Board

 to reach a decision on the

merits).

Section 102.224 Conduct of Proceeding

—

 The title proposed by the

Agency has been changed from “Hearings”

 to “Conduct of

Proceeding”

 as this title better describes the broader content of

the section.

 Subsection

(a)

 follows the Act’s criteria

for

ordering

 a proposal

 to hearing,

 as well

 as the Board’s

discretionary practice of waiving

 the signature requirement.

76-169

—5—

Subsection

(b)

 follows the Act’s minimum hearing requirements for

rules of general and specific applicability.

Subsection

 (c) cites the Board’s statutory and regulatory

authority and criteria for adopting regulations.

 Subsection

(c)

also prescribes

 the burden in a rulemaking proceeding.

 In a

rulemaking proceeding,

 there

 is no particular legal burden on a

participant

 to go forward with evidence or

 to persuade.

The

“burden”

 is actually on the Board to make a decision that is not

arbitrary and capricious and

 is based solely on the regulatory

record and those

 facts which are appropriate

 to take

administrative notice of.

 The Board disagrees with the Agency

that the regulatory proponent carries a legal burden of proof.

 The Board believes that the Agency’s proposed language would

promote proceedings that would be too adversarial in nature.

The

Board notes,

 for example, that the proponent does not provide the

EcIS.

 The Board

 is not convinced that this

 is the best way to

structure this type of proceeding, especially when,

 under

the

Agency’s proposed language (which the Board does not propose),

the Agency would carry no burden or responsibility to

participate.

 The Board has,

 in its proposed language, placed the

burden of persuasion on the “record.”

 While this language, at

first glance, may be somewhat confusing,

 the Board believes that

it does adequately convey the requirement that decisions be based

on the regulatory record.

 First notice comments are specifically

requested on this issue.

Subsection

 (d),

(e)

and

 (f) outline certain administrative

aspects related

 to consolidation of proposals, appointment of a

hearing officer and conduct of hearings.

Subpart

I

—

 Specific Provisions

 for Site—Specific Proposals

Pertaining

 to Subtitle

C:

 Water Pollution

—

 This title has been

created to denote those sections specifically related to

petitions concerning water pollution.

Section 102.260 Relationship with other Rules

—

 This section has

been added

 to clarify the relationship of Subpart

 I to Subpart G.

Section 102.261 Description of Facility

—

 This section requires

a

description of the faciflty, including precise geographical

location, facility activity and process, type of waste produced

or discharged and current or proposed treatment option.

In

subsection (a),

 the Board has added the requirement of a map

showing the location of the facility and other nearby relevant

physical features.

Section 102.262 Description of Affected Area

—

 Section 102.262

requires

 a complete assessment of not only the receiving waters

but also present and future uses thereof.

 An identification or

delineation of the affected waters

 in terms

 of extent, i.e.,

river mileage, watershed area,

 lake surface acreage, groundwater

76.170

—6—

aquifer segment, etc., must be considered

 in the proposal.

 Water

quality uses identified

 in the general

 use standards,

and

any

additional

 beneficial purposes, must be discussed under

subsection

 (b).

 Subsection

 (c) concerns the general vicinity of

the

 impacted area.

 Examples of factors would include

the

following:

 urban or

 rural,

 industrial

 or agricultural,

population density, recreational

 uses, etc.

 Important land uses

must

considered

the

petition

order

that

the

Board

fully informed prior

 to the hearing.

 Subsection

(d)

relates

back

to Section 102.222(a)

 in that

 it requires that consideration be

given

to

 the practical effect of the proposal.

Section 102.263 Assessment of Environmental Impact

—

 This section

deals with the environmental impact of the proposal.

 The format

this

particular

section

four—tiered

approach

the

concept

use

 attainability.

 Subsection

 (a) addresses aquatic

uses

presently

available,

the

causes

any

present

impairment,

and

 in the inherent characteristics of the waters that could

support other future uses.

 The next three subsections focus on

water quality and present and potential uses under

 three

scenarios:

 present operational impact, possible impact under

full compliance,

 and possible impact under compliance with

proposed rule change.

 Section 102.263 requires

 a comprehensive

assessment of contingent environmental impacts, not simply a

conclusory contrast between the status quo and

 the predicted

impact

 if the proposal were

 implemented.

 The reference

to

“higher level uses other

 than currently designated”

is

 a reminder

that improvement

 is more desirable than merely preventing further

degradation as long—term environmental goal.

 The intent of this

section is

 to identify the incremental change from existing

conditions resulting from varying levels of compliance.

 Section

102.263

 is designed

 to require the proponent to approach the

issue

 of environmental

 impact from several differing

 angles.

Section 102.264 Consistency with Federal Law

—

 This section

imposes the requirement that the proponent reconcile the proposal

with applicable federal

 regulations.

 This requirement

is

borrowed from the variance procedure

 in Part

 104, specifically

Section 104.122.

 This section will require

 a proponent to

 focus

early

in

 the proceeding

 on the issue of consistency with federal

law.

Section 102.265 Evaluation of Control Options

—

 This section

requires

 a description of available treatment or control options,

thus allowing an

 informed analysis of possible incremental

changes

 in environmental

 impact.

Sections Not Proposed

—

 Certain rules proposed by the Agency have

been deleted

 in their

 entirety from the Board’s first notice

proposal.

 The Agency proposed

 a Section 102.243 Costs of

Proceeding,

 which would require that

 a proponent pay all

 hearing

costs associated with

 a proposal.

 The Board

 is without specific

76-171

—7—

authority to impose this cost on

 a proponent under current

Illinois law.

 Town of Ottawa and Village of Naplate v.

 PCB, 129

Ill. App.

 3d 121,

 472 N.E.2d 150

 (3rd Dist.

 1984).

The Agency also proposed

 a section that permitted

a

proponent to

 request

 a “negative declaration” of economic impact

from DENR.

 As such determinations are

solely

within

the

discretion of the DENR and governed by

 a separate statute, the

Board declines

 to propose rules or guidelines governing this

process.

As

 a final matter, the Board has placed

 the proposed site—

specific rules

 in Subpart G,

 thus displacing existing Subpart G

and Section 102.400.

 This section

 is reproposed

 as Subpart 0.

No substantive changes are made or

 intended.

ORDER

The following rules are proposed for

 first notice.

The

Clerk of the Board

 is directed

 to file these proposed rules with

the Secretary of State.

TITLE

35:

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

A:

 GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER

I:

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART

102

~(EGULATORYAND OTHER NONADJUDICATIVE

HEARINGS AND PROCEEDINGS

SUBPART

GENERAL

PROVISIONS

Section

102.101

 Applicability

102.102

 Adoption of Regulations

SUBPART B:

 PROPOSAL OF REGULATIONS

Section

102.120

 Proposal

 of Regulations

102.121

 Authorization of Hearing

102.122

Notice

Hearing

102.123

Proposal

RCRA

Amendments

102.124

Notice

Site—Specific

RCRA

 Proposals

SUBPART

DISCOVERY

76-172

—8—

Section

102.140

 Discovery

SUBPART

D:

 HEARINGS

Authority of Hearing Officer

Examination of Witnesses

Prior Submissions

Written Submissions

Record

SUBPART E:

 ECONOMIC IMPACT HEARINGS

Hearings on the Economic IMpact Study of New Proposals

Hearings on the Economic IMpact Study of Existing

Regulations

SUBPART

F:

 BOARD ACTION

Revision of Proposed Regulations

Notice of Adopted Regulations

Adoption of RCRA Amendments

SUBPART G:

 ~PHER PR8eEEB~N6S

GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR PROPOSAL OF SITE—SPECIFIC RULES

AND

 RULES NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY

Section

102 .220

102.221

102.222

102.223

102.224

102.

260

102

261

102 .262

102.263

102.264

102.265

9~I~ie~

 P~eeee~4,i~s

 Re1ationshi~pwith Other Rules

Proposal of Regulations Not of General Applicability

Contents of Proposal

Dismissal for Inadequacy

Conduct of Proceeding

SUBPART

I:

 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR SITE—SPECIFIC

PROPOSALS PERTAINING TO SUBTITLE

C:

 WATER POLLUTION

Relationship with Other

 Rules

Description of Facility

Description of Affected Area

Assessment of Environmental Impact

Consistency with Federal Law

Evaluation of Control Options

Section

102.160

102.161

102. 162

102.163

102.164

Section

102.180

102.181

Section

102.200

102.201

102.202

76-173

—9—

SUBPART 0:

 OTHER PROCEEDINGS

Section

102.400

 Other Proceedings

APPENDIX

 Old Rule Numbers Referenced

 (Repealed)

AUTHORITY:

 Implementing Sections

5,

 22.4(a),

 27 and 28 of the

Environmental Protection Act (Ill. Rev. Stat.

 1985,

 ch. ll~,

pars.

 1005,

 1022.4(a), 1027 and 1028)

 and Section

4

 of “An Act in

relation

 to natural

 resources, research, data collection and

environmental studies”

 (Ill. Rev.

 Stat. 1985,

ch.

 9&/2,

 par.

 7404)

and authorized by Section 26

 of the Environmental Protection Act

(Ill.

 Rev. Stat.

 1985,

ch.

 11*2, par.

 1026).

SOURCE:

 Originally adopted as Chapter

1:

 Procedural Rules,

 Part

II:

 Regulatory and Other Nonadjudicative Hearings and

Proceedings,

 in R70—4,

 1 PCB

 43, October

 8, 1970; codified at

6

Ill. Reg. 8357;

 amended in R84—10 at

9

 Ill. Reg.

 1398,

 effective

January 16,

 1985;

 as amended

 in R82—27, R82—36,

 R83—37 at

Ill. Reg.

_____,

 effective ______________________________

SUBART G:

 9PHBR PR~?~EB~N6S

GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR PROPOSAL OF SITE—SPECIFIC RULES

AND

RULES NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY

Section 102.220

 Other P*eeeed~gsRelationship with Other

 Rules

This Subpart contains general provisions

 for the proposal of

site—specific rules and rules not

 of general applicability.

These general rules should be read in conjunction with and are

cumulative to Subpart

 I which contains specific provisions for

proposal of rules relatinq to Subtitle C:

 Water Pollution.

(Source:

 Former Section 102.220

 renumbered

102.400;

 new Section 102.220 adopted at

effective

Section 102.221

 Proposal of Regulations

Applicabil

i~y

to

Not

new

Ill.

of

Section

Reg.

General

Any person or group of persons may submit

 a written proposal for

the adoption, amendment or

 repeal of

 a substantive regulation not

of general applicability as it applies

 to a specific site or

sites, geographical location, activity or common issue.

Ten

 (10)

copies

 of each proposal shall be filed with the Clerk and one

copy each with the Agency and DENR.

(Source:

 Added at

 Ill. Reg.

________,

 effective

___________

76-174

—10-’

Section 102.222

 Contents of Proposal

a)

 The proposal

 shall identify the regulations which are

to

be addressed by the proposed amendment and the language

to be added, deleted or

 repealed.

b)

 Except

 as otherwise provided

 in the Act, the proposal

shall

 include

 a statement of the reasons and

 facts

supporting the proposal and the purpose and effect of

the proposal

 as provided

 in this Subpart.

 The minimum

information required by this Subpart shall

 be addressed

in the proposal.

c)

 In the event that the proposed rule would displace the

applicability of

 a ~eneral rule to the pollution source,

the proposal

 shall include

 a statement with supporting

documentation as

 to why the general rule

 is not

technically feasible or economically reasonable for

the

~articular pollution source.

 Such documentation may

include relevant information on other similar pollution

sources ability to comply with the general

 rule.

d)

 Where special circumstances may render any information

requested

 in this Subpart inapplicable, for reasons of

expense

 of data collection

 in relation

 to the relevancy

the

data

other

similar

reasons,

the

petitioner

shall

include

justification

for

 such inapplicability.

(Source:

Added

Ill.

Reg.

_________,

effective

)

Section 102.223

 Dismissal

 for Inadequacy

Failure of

 the petitioner

 to satisfy the information requirements

for petitions under

 this Subpart

 or failure

 to respond

 to Board

requests for additional

 information

 shall

 render

 a petition

subject

 to dismissal

 for inadequacy.

(Source:

 Added at

 Ill.

 Reg.

_______,

 effective

__________)

Section 102.224

 Conduct of Proceeding

a)

 If the Board

 finds that

 a proposal

 is supported by an

adequate statement

 of reasons,

 is accompanied

 by a

petition signed by at least 200 persons,

 is not plainly

devoid

 of merit, and does not deal with

 a specific

subject on which a hearing has been held within the

preceding

 6 months,

 the Board shall

 schedule

 a public

hearing

 for consideration of the proposal.

 The Board

may also

in

 its discretion schedule

 a public hearing

76.175

—11—

upon any proposal without regard

 to the above

conditions.

b)

 No decision shall

 be made on the merits of

 a proposal

until after

 a public hearing within the area of the

State concerned.

 In the case of non site—specific

regulations, hearings shall

 be held

in

 at least two

areas

of

 the state.

c)

 The burden of

 persuasion shall be upon the record.

The

Board may adopt

 the proposal

 in its discretion

in

accordance with Section

27

 of the Act.

 Adoption or

revision of the proposal

 shall

be

 in accordance with

Subpart

F.

d)

 The Board may consolidate two or more proposals for the

purposes of hearing and decision.

e)

If

 a hearing

 is authorized

 by the Board, the Chairman

shall designate

 an attending Board member.

 The Board

member may serve

 as Hearing Officer

 if also otherwise

qualified.

f)

 Hearings shall

 be scheduled

 in accordance with Section

102.122.

 Hearings shall

 be conducted

 in accordance with

Subpart D.

(Source:

 Added at

 Ill. Reg.

 effective

)

SUBPART

I:

 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR SITE—SPECIFIC

PROPOSALS PERTAINING TO SUBTITLE C:

 WATER POLLUTION

Section 102.260

 Relationship with Other Rules

This Subpart contains specific provisions

 for the proposal

 of site—

specific rules

and

 rules not of general applicability relating

to

Subpart

C:

 Water Pollution.

 The specific rules should be

 read in

conjunction with and are cumulative

 to Subpart G,

 containing general

provisions

for

proposal

such

rules.

Section

102.261

Description

Facility

All proposals shall describe the facility for which

 the change

is

sought including:

a)

 The location, either by street or county road,

 or by legal

description and

 a map adequate

 to identify the

 facility’s

location

 and other nearby relevant physical features

b)

 The activity performed

at

 the facility and processes and

76-176

—12—

materials used

c)

 The waste material produced

 or discharged including

g~antity,in terms of volume or

 flow rate,

 and content,

in

terms of concentration or mass load, of pertinent physical,

thermal, chemical, biological, bacterial, and

 radioactive

properties;

and

d)

 The type of treatment or control and

 the components of the

treatment system or control equipment currently employed

or

proposed.

(Source:

 Added at

 Ill.

 Reg.

_________,

 effective

_________)

Section 102.262

 Description of Affected Area

All proposals shall describe:

a)

 The extent of the receiving waters affected by the

proposal

b)

 The present and anticipated future public and private

uses of and access

 to the affected waters

c)

 The nature of the

 surrounding

 land uses,

 zoning

and

population characteristics; and

d)

 The other facilities that might benefit from or be

adversely affected by the proposal within the affected

area.

(Source:

 Added

at

 Ill.

 Reg.

________,

 effective

_________)

Section 102.263

 Assessment of Environmental Impact

a)

 All proposals shall describe:

1)

 The aquatic uses currently being achieved

in

the

affected waters

2)

 The causes of any impairment

 in the aquatic uses;

and

3)

 The aquatic uses which might be attained based

 on the

physical, chemical and biological

 characteristics of

the affected waters.

b)

 All proposals shall describe the condition of and the

environmental

 impact upon the affected waters under

current operations with respect to:

76-177

—13—

1)

 The attainment of and compliance with presently

applicable water quality standards

2)

 The ability to support currently designated uses as

contained

 in Subtitle

C,

 35 Ill.

 Adm. Code 303;

and

3)

 The ability to support any higher

 level uses other

than currently designated

 in Subtitle C,

 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 303.

c)

 All proposals shall describe the condition of and the

environmental impact upon the affected waters

 if the

proposal were adopted with respect to:

1)

 The attainment of and

 compliance with presently

applicable water quality standards

2)

 The ability to

 support currently designated uses as

contained

 in Subtitle

C,

35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code 303;

and

3)

 The ability to support any higher level

 uses other

than currently designated

 in Subtitle

C,

 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 303.

(Source:

 Added at

 Ill. Reg.

_________,

 effective

_________)

Section 102.264

 Consistency with Federal Law

a)

 All proposals shall

 indicate whether

 relief can be

granted consistent with the Clean Water Act

 (33 U.S.C.

1251 et

 seq.,), U.S.E.P.A. water

 quality guidelines and

standards,

 any other

 federal regulation or any

wastewater

 treatment mana~einentplan certified and

approved pursuant

 to Section 208

 of the Clean Water

 Act.

b)

 Any proposal

 requesting

 relief from

 a specific water

quality standard contained

 in Subtitle C,

35

 Ill.

 Adm..

Code 302,

 use designation contained

 in Subtitle

C,

35

Ill. Adm. Code 303

 or Section 304.105,

 or necessitating

relief

relaxation

any

such

rule

order

 realize the benefit intended by the proposal

 shall

include

 a statement of the proposal’s consistency with

U.S.E.P.A.

 water quality standards and use designation

criteria as contained

 in 40 CFR 131.

 Such statement

shall

 include

 an identification of the pertinent

technical evaluations relative to use attainability,

comprehensive pollutant source control strategies,

and

the social

 and economic implications consistent with

the

intent of 40 C.F.R.

 131 and

 the technical criteria

promulgated thereunder.

76-178

—14--

(Source:

 Added at

 Ill.

 Reg.

________,

 effective

)

Section

102.265

Evaluation

Control

Options

All

proposals

shall

describe

the

treatment

control

options

including costs and efficiencies, as to:

a)

 The present levels of control

b)

 The past efforts to obtain compliance with applicable

regulations; and

 Any available or proposed control options including

the

elimination of the source.

(Source:

 Added

at

 Ill..

 Reg.

________,

 effective

__________

SUBPART

0:

 OTHER PROCEEDINGS

Section 102.400

 Other Proceedings

The Board may conduct such other nonadjudicative or

 informational

hearings as may be necessary to accomplish

 the purposes of the

Act.

 Such other hearings shall

 be conducted according

 to these

rules

to

 the extent applicable.

(Source:

 Renui~tbered from Section 102.220

at

_____

 Ill. Reg._______

effective

_________________)

IT

 IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M.

 Gunn,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted

the

day

____________,

1987,

vote

~-O

)~.

Dorothy

M.

 Günn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control

 Board

76.179