ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July
    11, 1985
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    M4ENDMENTS TO TITLE
    35:
    )
    R82—25
    E’WIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    SUBTITLE:
    WATER POLLUTION;
    )
    CHAPTER
    I:
    POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOA~RD; PART 304;
    SUBPART B
    (CHEMUNG SITE—SPECIFIC RULES)
    )
    ORDER OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by
    B.
    Forcade):
    On July 8,
    1985,
    the Department of Energy and Natural
    Resources
    (“DENR”)
    filed
    a negative declaration
    in this matter.
    However,
    in part that letter states,
    “..,.
    the information
    presented, though incomplete
    in its coverage of
    innovative
    treatment alternatives available to Dean Foods, does establish
    that the cost to the company greatly outweighs the impact on
    the
    receiving stream.’
    Later,
    the letter states that DENR will not
    prepare an economic impact statement because, “the cost of making
    a formal
    study is economically unreasonable
    in relation to the
    value of
    the study to the Board
    in determining
    the adverse
    economic impact of the regulation.”
    The Board notes
    that the
    former statement appears
    to be a conclusion of some form of cost—
    benefit analysis yet the supporting
    factual data and methodology
    are not included.
    Moreover, the letter states that no formal
    economic study was done.
    Section 27(a)
    of the Environmental Protection Act
    (“Act”)
    provides that the Board
    shall consider the “technical feasibility
    and economic reasonableness”
    of
    its substantive regulations.
    Section 27(b)
    provides that the Board shall review any economic
    impact studies prepared by the Department of Energy and Natural
    Resources (“DENR”)
    and shall make
    a determination as
    to whether
    the
    proposed regulation has any adverse economic impact on the
    people of the State of Illinois.
    In a recent opinion, the Third
    District stated, “the Illinois Pollution Control Board has the
    legal responsibility for making
    a determination of
    the costs and
    benefits, while
    the Department of Energy and Natural
    Resources
    has the legal responsibility for performing the study.”
    Citizens
    Utilities Company
    v.
    Illinois Pollution Control BoardL et al.
    Slip Opinion p.
    8,
    June 17,
    1985.
    The Court held that the Board
    c-~nnotavoid this responsibility in site—specific proceedings
    where
    the economic information
    is
    insufficient to make
    a
    determination.
    65-83
    —2—
    The Board
    is unclear as
    to whether DENR intended
    to comment
    on economic cost benefit issues which would need testimony at
    a
    hearing,
    or whether
    this information was included
    in error.
    DENR
    is requested to clarify its intention.
    Based on DENR’s
    submittal,
    the Board authorizes the hearing officer
    to schedule
    another hearing
    in this matter,
    or
    take any other appropriate
    action.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED
    I,
    Dorothy
    M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
    the
    J/~—
    day of
    ____
    ___________________,
    1985,
    by
    a vote
    of
    i=p
    .
    (I
    Dorothy M. ~unn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Bo~ird
    65-84

    Back to top