ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
o~3...
1~
GOVERNOR
Rod R.
Blagojevich
~
~
•
February 24, 2004
~
•CHAIRMAN
J.
Philip Novak
---~
OF
~LU~O~
Vickie Thomas
ç’oUUt~Ofl
Contro’
oa~
Executive Director
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
700 Stratton
Office Building
Springfield,
IL
62706
Re:
“Permits”, 35
III. Adm.
Code 309,
27
Iii. Reg. 14765 (September 19, 2003)
Dear Ms. Thomas:
0
Enclosed are the following with
respect to
the above-captioned rulemaking:
SPRINGFIELD OFFICE
1)
Second Notice for Part 309;
102
North GrandAve.
East
P.O.
Box
19274
Springfield,
IL
2)
Agency Analysis ofEconomic and Budgetary Effects of Proposed
62794-9274
Rulemaking;
and
217-524-8500
FAX 217-524-8508
3)
February
19, 2004 opinion and orderof the Board in this
rulemaking.
Sincerely,
•
A
CHICAGO OFFICE
James
R. Thompson Center
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk
100
West Randolph
Suite
1—500
Chicago, IL 60601
DMG(ecc); Enclosures
312-814-3620
FAX 312-814-3669
TYY 312-814-6032
WEB SITE
www.ipclxstate.i1. us
I RI\
11.11
II’
RI~(VI 1.11) I~\PVR
SECOND NOTICE
1)
Agency:
Pollution Control Board
2)
Title and Administrative Code Citation:
“Permits”, 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 309
3)
Date and Citation to Illinois Register:
27 Ill. Reg.
14765
(September 19, 2003)
4)
Text and Location ofany Changes from First Notice:
See Attachment A
5)
Response to Codification Recommendations:
No changes were requested by the
Secretary ofState.
6)
Incorporations by Reference:
This rulemaking does not
include any incorporations by
reference.
7)
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
•A)
Summary ofIssues Raised By Small
Business:
The Board received comments from several organizations that may include small
businesses as members.
Also the Board received a comment from Illinois
American Water Company in support ofthe proposed rule.
B)
Description ofActions and Alternatives Proposed by Small
Business during First Notice:
None
8)
Compliance with Section 5-30 ofthe APA and
1111. Adm. Code 220.285:
The Board published notice ofthe hearings in this proceeding in two newspapers of
general circulation in
the State.
The Board placed the hearing notice and the proposal on
the Board’s Web site.
The Board also notified the public through the Board’s
Environmental Register.
The Board did not receive
a comment from the Small
Business
Office.
9)
A)
List ofCommenters:
Illinois
Environmental Regulatory Group (IERG)
Environmental Law and Policy Center ofthe Midwest
(Proponent)
Illinois
Chapter ofthe Sierra Club (Proponent)
Prairie Rivers Network (Proponent)
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)
Illinois American Water Company (IAWC)
Illinois Coal Association (IAC)
Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies (IAWA)
B)
Issues Raised
Issues raised during first notice focused
on language in three Sections:
309.1
13(a)(5),
309.120, and 309.143.
In Section
309.113(a)(5)
IEPA asked that the Board strike the provision requiring
a summary ofchanges for reissued permits.
IAWA and IERG also
asked that this
requirementbe dropped,
stating that it might be too burdensome for the IEPA to
comply with and still issue permits in a timely manner.
The Proponents ofthe
rulemaking commented that the language asks only for a summary ofchanges, not
an itemized listing, and
that in cases ofnumerous changes the IEPA could simply
note that much ofthe permit has changed and advise the public to review the old
and newpermit.
In Section 309.120 comments from ICA, IERG, and IAWA focused on the
•concern that reopening a comment period could delay the issuance ofa permit.
Subsection 309.120(a)(4) was also identified as being confusing.
The proponents
agreed that this subsection could be deleted.
In Section 309.143(a),
ICA, JAWA,
and IERG requested that the Board include
federal language to explain an excursion or violation ofa water quality standard.
The Proponents agreed
~to
the addition ofthe language.
C)
Change in the Rule:
The Board did not make any changes to
the language in Section
309.113(a)(5),
as
the proposed language clearly calls for a summary ofthe permit changes, and is
not intended tO
require a detailed listing ofall modifications.
In response to comments, the Board deleted the proposed subsection
309.1 20(a)(4).
The Board added additional language
from 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(i) to the
proposed language at 309.143(a).
D)
Public Hearing Requests:
The Board held a hearing on November 19, 2003, in response to requests from the
participants in this rulemaking.
10)
Justification and Rationale:
A)
Changes in
Statutory Language:
None
B)
Changes in Board Policy, Procedures or Structure:
None
C)
Citations to Federal Laws, Rule or Regulations, or Finding Requirements:
None
D)
Court Decisions:
None
E)
Other Reasons:
This rulemaking was filed with the Board by the Environmental
Law and Policy Center ofthe Midwest, Illinois Chapter ofthe Sierra Club, Prairie
Rivers Network, and
225
citizen petitioners to clarify the rules for the issuance of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits by. the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) pursuant to the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C.
§1251
et seq.),
including provisions for public participation.
11)
Name ofAgency Representative:
Marie Tipsord
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
(312)814-4925
AGENCY ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC AND
BUDGETARY EFFECTS
OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Agency:
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Part/Title:
“Permits”, 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 309
Illinois Register Citation:
27 Ill. Reg.
14765 (September
19, 2003)
Please attempt to provide as dollar-specific responses
as possible and feel free to
add any
relevant narrative explanation.
Anticipated
effect on State expenditures and revenues.
(a)
•
Current cost to the agency for this programlactivity.
$
Unknown, the Board does not break its costs down by case type or program
(b)
Ifthis
rulemaking will result in an increase or decrease in cost,
specify the fiscal
year in which this change will first occur and the dollar amount ofthe effect.
None
(c)
Indicate the funding source, including Fund and appropriation lines, for this
program/activity.
N/A
(d)
Ifan increase or decrease in the costs ofanother State agency is anticipated,
specify the fiscal year in which this
change will first occur and the estimated
dollar amount ofthe effect.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency does not anticipate an increase or
decrease in costs as a result ofthis rulemaking.
(e)
Will this rulemaking have any
effect on State revenues or expenditures not
already indicated above?
Specify effects and amounts.
N/A
2,
Economic effect on persons affected by the rulemaking.
(a)
Indicate the economic effect and specify the persons affected:
This rulemaking is not expected to have an economic effect on the holders of
NPDES permits.
Persons affected: None
Dollar amount per person:
None
Total
Statewide cost:
No increase in costs.
(b)
Ifan economic effect is predicted, please briefly describe how the effect will
occur.
(c)
Will the rulemaking have an indirect effect that may result in increased
administrative costs?
Will
therebe any
change in requirements such as filing,
documentation, reporting or completion offorms?
Compare to current
requirements.
The IEPA has testified that the procedures codified in this rulemaking are
substantially similar to
procedures they already have incorporated into their
permit review process.
Therefore, IEPA will not require any additional filings,
documentation, reporting or completion offorms from NPDES applicants.
•
•
ATTACHMENT A
FIRST NOTICE CHANGES
AGENCY:
Pollution Control Board
RULEMAKING:
“Permits”, 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 309; 27 Ill. Reg.
14765
(September 19, 2003)
1.
In line 211,
add
a comma after “and”
•
2.
In lines 222 and 224,
change “States” to “states”
•
•
3.
In line 280,
add “or” after “issue;”
4.
In line 282, change “;or” to
“.“
5.
Delete the proposed text in lines 283
and 284.
6.
In line 289, add “the” after “For”
7.
In line 297, add “which” after “pollutants)”
8.
In line 300, after “quality” add
“When determining whether a discharge causes, has the
reasonable potential to
cause or contributes
to an in-stream excursion above a narrative or
numeric criteria within a state water quality standard, the Agency shall use procedures
which account for existing controls on point and nonpoint sources ofpollution, the
variability ofthe pollutant or pollutant parameter in the effluent, the sensitivity ofthe
•
species to toxicity testing (when evaluating whole effluent toxicity), and where
appropriate, the dilution ofthe effluent in the receiving water.”
9.
In line 328, add
a closing parenthesis after “prescribed”
10. In line
348, after “data” add
“which are”
11. In line 349, delete the comma after “activity”