ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
12,
1984
IN
THE MATTER OF:
)
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR
)
R84-22
CLOSURE
AND
POST
CLOSURE
)
CARE
OF WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
)
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
J.
D.
Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board upon a September
27,
1984
motion for review of Hearing
Officer’s
Order
filed
on
behalf
of
Illinois Power Company
(IPC).
IPC
requests that the Board
reverse the order entered
by
the
Hearing
Officer
on
the
record
at
the September 24,
1984 hearing in this matter.
IPC argues that,
given the lack of adequate notice and meaningful opportunity
to
comment which was provided on certain issues,
these issues should
be severed
from
consideration in this proceeding.
The Hearing
Officer denied
this
motion and directed that any participants who
wished to address the Board~sauthority to promulgate regulations
concerning the issues objected to should do so by submitting
written
comments to
the
Board or by submitting testimony at the
hearing held
September
28, 1984 in Carbondale.
The
regulations
under consideration in this proceeding were
made available
f
or public comment by their publication
in
8
Ill.
Reg.
14145
(August
10,
1984),
The Proposed Regulations stated
that no permit would be required ~‘f
or
any person conducting a
waste-~storage,
waste-treatment
or waste disposal operation for
wastes
generated
by such person~sown activities which are
stored,
treated
or disposed within the site where such wastes are
generated~’
(Section
807,202(b),
8
Ill.
Reg.
14155, August 10,
1984),
They
also provided that the closure and post—closure care
requirements contained in Subpart E of the Proposed Regulations
would
apply only
to
‘~theowner and operator of
a waste management
site
required
to
have
a permit pursuant to Section 21(d)
of the
Act or
Section
807,202,”
Section 807,501(a)
of
the Proposed
Regulations,
8
Ill.
Reg.
14160
(August
10,
1984),
Two
recommendations
for
amending proposed Sections
807~202(b)
and
807.501(a)
were made orally at hearing by the
Board
Assistant who
was
assigned to assist in the drafting of the
proposed regulations.
IPC
argues that these recommendations
could dramatically
alter
the scope of this rulemaking, but that
they were
stated in such
broa~ terms
that
the
public
has
not
been
provided with adequate notice
of
what
regulatory
action
the
Board
intends to take or with any meaningful opportunity to comment.
60301
—2—
IPC further argues that these two provisions,
as
published
for “first notice”,
Sections
807.202(b) and
807.501(a)),
accurately reflected the statutory mandate of Section
21(d)
of
the Environmental Protection Act
(Ill,
Rev. Stat.
1983,
cli.
111½,
§1021(d)~
Since
the preamble which accompanied the
publication
of the Proposed Regulations
in
the Illinois Register
indicated
that only
amendments
concerning definitions and permit require-
ments
to
be
considered
in this rulemaking would be
those “to
reflect the terminology of Section
21(d)”
(8
Ill. Reg. 14146
(August
10,
1984)
no
further changes are necessary.
As the Hearing Officer properly pointed out in
the
September 24th Order,
neither the Environmental
Protection
Act nor the Mministrative
Procedure
Act
(APA)
requires that possible revisions raised and dis-
cussed at hearing be
publicly
noticed,
Under
Section 28 of
the Act,
the Board has the
authority
to ‘revise the proposed regulation before
adoption
in response to suggestions made at hearings, with-
out conducting a further hearing on the
revisons.
(Iil~Rev~Stat,
1983,
ch,
111½, par.
1028).
At
35
111. Mm,
Code 102.22:
Revision of
Proposed
Rulemaking, this authority is restated with the
further
requirement
that
the
Board
specify ‘the
portions
of
the
final
form
of
the
regulations
that
differ
from
the
proposal on which the hear-
ing
was
held
.
‘.
The
APA anticipates
changes
in
the text of the rules as proposed
at
First
Notice
in
that
it
requires
the
agency
adopting
the
rules
to
notify
the
Joint
Committee
on Mministrative Rules of
such changes.
(Ill.
Rev~Stat, 1983,
ch,
127,
par.
1005.01(b)(1),
*
*
*
Both proposed Sections
807.202
and
807.501 were
published
for First Notice,
adequately
notifying
the
public
that
the
existing
Section
807.202 and
the new Section 807.501
would be considered at
hearings
Since determining which facilities
legally require permits is fundamental to the
rulemaking
and both the Sections addressing permit
and closure plan requirements were published,
the
public was put on notice that these issues would
be addressed at
hearing, which they were,
It was
at the very first hearing in this matter that the
suggestions and rationales for including judicial
interpretations
of Section 21(d)
in the permit
requirement
rule
and requiring closure plans were
addressed.
There is no statutory requirement that
the
language
proposed
for
First Notice be
identical
to that which
is
adopted at Second
Noticed
That would defeat the purpose of hearings.
60-302

—3—
Furthermore,
the Board has not,
as
of
yet,
taken
any
position
on
whether
the
recommended
changes
should
be
made
final.
The
recommendations
made
by
a
Board
Assistant
became
part
of
the
record
in the
case,
subject
to
cross-examination,
comment,
or
rebuttal
testimony,
as
the
hearing
officer
properly
allowed
and,
indeed, requested.
As
with
any
rulemaking,
if
the
Board
decides
1o modify
the
rules
as
presently
proposed,
it
will
at
that
time
determine
whether
the
modifications
so
alter
the
proposal
as
to
deny
the
public
its
full
due
process
rights,
and
if
the
Board
determines
that
it
has,
it
will
take
appropriate
action.
The
Hearing
Officer’s
September
24,
1984
Order
in
this
matter
is
hereby
affirmed.
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
~
,
1984 by
a vote of
—,
~
P~
Dorothy
M.(’)Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pbllution Control Board
60-303

Back to top