ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 26,
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 ~1.Theodore Meyer):
This matter comes before the Board on a December
16,
1982,
regulatory proposal filed by the Illinois Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (“Agency”).
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 and Order, proposes
a modified version of the
Agency’s proposal
for first notice.
The Agenc,y’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
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.
75-154
—2—
At this stage of the proceeding, only general rules
and
rules specific
to Subtitle C:
Water Pollution are presently
proposed.
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
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:
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
75-155
—3—
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,
SO2 demonstrations, CSO
proceedings).
Section 102.220 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 102.221 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
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 102.222 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
75-156
—4—
Quality Standards by Central Illinois Public Service Company,
491
N.E2d 175
(1986).
As a solution
to this problem,
today’s
proposal specifically enumerates what information
is required for
an adequate petition
(Sections 102.221,
102.260
—
264)
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 102.221(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
inforxnationally 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 102.223 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.
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
75-157
—5—
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.
Section 102.260 Description of Facility
—
This section requires a
description of the facility,
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 102.261 Description of Affected Area
—
Section 102.261
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
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 be considered
in the petition
in order that the Board
is
fully informed prior
to the hearing.
Subsection
(d)
relates back
to Section 102.221(a)
in that
it requires that consideration be
given
to the practical effect of the proposal.
Section 102.262 Assessment
of Environmental Impact
—
This section
deals with the environmental
impact of the proposal.
The format
of this particular section
is
a four—tiered approach
to
the
concept of use attainability.
Subsection
(a) addresses aquatic
uses presently available, the causes of 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 102.262
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
75-158
—6—
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
102.262
is designed
to require the proponent
to approach the
issue
of environmental
impact from several differing angles.
Section 102.263 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 102.264 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
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
H.
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
75-159
—7—
PART 102
REGULATORY AND OTHER NONADJUDICATIVE
HEARINGS AND PROCEEDINGS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
102.101
102.102
Applicability
Adoption of Regulations
SUBPART B:
PROPOSAL OF REGULATIONS
Proposal
of Regulations
Authorization of Hearing
Notice of Hearing
Proposal
of
RCRA
Amendments
Notice
of
Site—Specific
RCRA
Proposals
Section
102.140
Discovery
Aut’hority 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
Section
102.120
102.121
102.122
102.123
102.124
SUBPART C:
DISCOVERY
SUBPART
D:
HEARINGS
Section
102.160
102.161
102.162
102.163
102.164
Section
102.180
102.181
Section
102.200
102.201
102.202
75-160
—8—
SUBPART
G:
9THER PR~~EBB~N~S
PROPOSAL OF SITE—SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS
NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section
102. 220
102.221
102. 222
102. 223
102. 260
102.261
102. 262
102.263
102.264
e~1~e~
Proeeed4n~Proposal of Regulations Not of
General Applicability
Contents of Proposal
Conduct of Hearing
Dismissal for Inadequacy
Description of Facility
Description of Affected Area
Assessment of Environmental Impact
Consistency with Federal Law
Evaluation of Control Options
SUBPART
H:
OTHER PROCEEDINGS
Section
102.400
Other
Proceedings
APPENDIX
Old Rule Numbers Referenced
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Sections
5,
22.4(a),
27 and 28 of the
Environmental Protection Act
(Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1985,
ch. ll~h~
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&~ par. 7404)
and authorized
by Section 26
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1985,
ch.
llll½,
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—lO at 9
Ill. Reg.
1398, effective
January 16,
1985;
as amended
in R82—36
at
____
Ill.
Reg.
______
effective ________________________________
SUBART G:
eTHER PReeEEB~N6S
PROPOSAL OF SITE—SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS
NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section 102.220
ethef
Pr’oeeed~n~e
Proposal of Regulations Not
of General Applicability
P1~eBee~d mey
eetidtiet~ sueh
ether
i~o
ud4et~4ve
Cf
t~C~C~C~
mey
be
~eeessery
~c
eeecmp~eh
the
ptit~pcses c~ the
75-161
—9—
Ae~
Sueh other +~eer4ngs~he~
be eot~deete~eeee~d~r~g
te
~u~es to
the
ei~tet~tepp~4eeb~e~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
the Department of Energy and Natural Resources.
(Source:
Amended at
Ill.
Reg.
,
effective
_________)
Section 102.221
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 minimimurn
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 general 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
particular 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
of the data or other similar
reasons, the petitioner
shall
include
a justification for such inapplicability.
(Source:
Added
at
Ill. Reg.
________,
effective
)
Section 102.222
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
)
75-162
—10—
Section 102.223
Conduct of Proceeding
a)
If the Board
finds that a proposal
is supported by an
adeguate statement of reasons,
is accompanied by a
petition signed by at least
200 persons,
is not ~1ainly
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
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
_________)
Proposals
pertaining
to Subtitle
B:
Air Pollution
Sections 102.240
to 102.259 reserved for Air Pollution
Proposals
pertaining
to Subtitle
C:
Water Pollution
Section 102.260
Description of Facility
All proposals shall describe the facility for which
the change
is
sought
including:
75-163
—11—
a)
The
location,
either
by
street
or
county
road,
or
by
legs
description and
a map adequate
to
identify
the
facility’E
location and other
nearby relevant physical features
b)
The activity performed at the facility and processes and
materials used
c)
The waste material produced
or discharged
including
quantity,
in terms of volume or flow rate,
and content,
i
terms of concentration or mass load, of pertinent physics
thermal, chemical, biological,
bacterial, and radioactivE
properties;
and
d)
The type of treatment
or control and
the components of
ti
treatment system or control
equipment currently employed
proposed.
(Source:
Added
at
Ill.
Reg.
_________,
effective
_________)
Section 102.261
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 102.262
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
75.164
—12—
~J
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:
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 102.263
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 management plan 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
or
relaxation
of
any
such
rule
in
order
to
realize
the
benefit intended
by the proposal shall
include
a statement of the proposal’s consistency with
75.165
—13—
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 criterial
promulgated
thereunder.
(Source:
Added
at
Ill. Reg.
________,
effective
________)
Section 102.264
Evaluation of Control Options
All proposals shall describe
the treatment or 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
c)
Any available or proposed control options including the
elimination
of
the
source.
(Source:
Added
at
Ill.
Reg.
,
effective
)
(Proposals pertaining
to Subtitle
D:
Mine Pollution
Sections 102.300
to 102.319 reserved for Mine Pollution
Proposals
pertaining
to Subtitle
E:
Agriculture Related Pollution
Sections 102.320
to 102.339 reserved
for
Agriculture Related Pollution
Proposals
pertaining
to Subtitle
F:
Public Water Supply
Sections 102.340
to 102.359 reserved for Public Water
Supply
Proposals
pertaining
to Subtitle C:
Waste Disposal
Sections 102.360
to 102.379
reserved for Waste Disposal
(Proposals pertaining
to Subtitle
H:
Noise Pollution
Sections 102.380
to 102.399 reserved for Noise Pollution
SUBPART
H:
OTHER PROCEEDINGS
75-166
—14—
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:
Added
at
Ill.
Reg.
________,
effective
________)
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board Members
J. Dumelle and
B. Forcade concurred.
I,
Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on ~
day of
_____________,
1987, by
a vote
of
~
C
I
-
t
It
~.
~
Dorothy
M./Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
75.167
