ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 29,
    1984
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES
    )
    R84—1
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by J.
    D.
    Dumelle):
    The Emergency Rule enacted by the Board majority today
    is of doubtful
    legality, serves no purpose,
    is much
    too complex,
    does not follow the statute, and will,
    if finally enacted
    in
    P.84-7,
    generate
    a great many needless appeals.
    Emergency
    rules
    may only be enacted if the
    “public interest,
    v~relfareor safety is threatened.”
    Since the fees to be paid
    are
    not to become effective until July
    1,
    1984 and since a permanent
    rule
    is expected by June 15,
    1984 there is no reason now
    for an
    Emergency Rule.
    The argument that the Legislatur&s setting of March
    1,
    1984
    for the Board~saction on this matter somehow negates the plain
    language quoted above is wrong.
    There is,
    in
    fact, no “emergency”
    as one usually defines the word.
    Today~sOrder thus serves
    no purpose.
    It
    cannot “guide the
    Legislature”
    in its
    appropriation process because
    it is a
    temporary rule
    that expires
    on July 28
    (150 days from today).
    The Board,
    I am certain, is not prejudging
    R84~-7, What then is
    the purpose
    of today~s
    enactment?
    The adopted rule is much too complex.
    It
    has levels of
    surveillance determined by a subjective point
    system.
    It has
    four different
    fee schedules.
    I would have
    much preferred
    a single
    lump
    sum fee for each of the
    three categories
    as much
    more understandable and easier to administer.
    And to propose
    to
    add inflation factors into the future will
    only make it
    even
    more complex.
    Will the Board also
    adjust these
    fees as
    the cost
    of
    “moonsuits”
    varies?
    That portion of the rule that
    provides for billing of actual
    inspections performed
    is a precedent for all future
    inspection
    fee rules.
    If,
    in the future,
    the Board sets fees for air
    and water and water supply inspections then those too will have
    to be
    on a billing basis
    for actual
    inspections performed.
    The administrative burden to
    the IEPA will
    be a major one to
    record and bill and collect.
    56-277
    The statute requires that the fees return the Stat&s
    cost.
    The Division of Land Pollution Control is now 75
    funded
    by
    Federal
    funds,
    I would have used the
    IEPA
    costs
    given and
    reduced them by 75
    to allow
    for this,
    To assert that
    this
    hazardous waste inspection program is a new one
    (in fact,
    it is
    ongoing) and to be 100
    State—funded is an exercise in
    “voodoo
    bookkeeping”.
    Any other program within the Division could
    equally well have been excluded from Federal funding.
    If this rule becomes final
    in its present form in
    R84—7 it
    will generate a great many needless appeals.
    Was the
    inspection
    in fact performed?
    Was the inspection of too
    short
    duration?
    Why do not two private wells near a
    landfill count as
    much
    in the ranking system as a single private well
    and a public
    water supply?
    Why should neutralization
    (a chemical
    treatment
    process)
    and landfilling on the same site require
    an increased
    number of inspections?
    The rule, as enacted, would impose fees in the
    highest
    categories as follows:
    off—site disposal, $153,400;
    on—site
    disposal,
    $138,200; underground injection,
    $141,800,
    To me the greatest need is to thoroughly check off—site
    disposal sites, Manifests and cargoes and barrels
    should be
    checked intensively.
    A daily inspection is needed.
    Using
    appropriate costs to the State
    (the 25
    factor)
    I would
    have set
    an annual
    fee of about $20,000,
    On-site disposal involves generally the same
    wastes year—in
    and year—out unless a product line changes,
    A weekly inspection
    should be sufficient and a
    fee of about $8,000 is
    recommended,
    Lastly, underground injection needs little
    inspection and
    a
    monthly frequency seems adequate,
    A fee of about $6,000
    is
    recommended.
    For these reasons,
    I dissent,
    f~
    I,
    Christan L,
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois
    Pollution
    Control Board,
    hereby certify that the above Dissenting
    Opinion
    was filed on the ~~j~~day
    of
    ~
    1984.
    Illinois Pollution
    Control Board
    56-278

    Back to top