628.168 Ec74x ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY OF PROPOSED IPCB AMENDMENTS TO WATER POLLUTION REGULATIONS, R80-6 DOCUMENT NO. 82/06 fit LldKARY OF THE 51982 •v'FRSM. ')r ILLINOIS ■■>•« "CHAMPAIGN IHE LIBRARY. OF. THE JUL 1 5 1932 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS RBANA-CHAMPAIGN inois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Printed by Authority of the State of Illinois UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY ££ URSANA-CHAMPAIQN BOCXSUGKS DOC. NO. 82/06 FEBRUARY, 1982 ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY OF PROPOSED IPCB AMENDMENTS TO WATER POLLUTION REGULATIONS, R80-6 by Robert G. Ducharme, Inc . Project No. 80.235 Michael B. Witte, Director State of Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources 309 West Washington Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 NOTE This report has been reviewed by the Department of Energy and Natural Resources and approved for publication. With the exception of the Opinion of the Department's Economic Technical Advisory Committee, views expressed are those of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the posi- tion of the DENR. Printed by Authority of the State of Illinois Date Printed: February, 1982 Quantity Printed: 200 Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources 309 West Washington Street Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 793-3870 n b£8* (he Opinion of the Economic Technical Advisory Committee of the Illinois Institute of Natural Resources The Economic Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) has reviewed an INR study entitled: The Economic Impact of Proposed IPCB Amendments to Water Pollution Regulations, R80-6 . The study has been subject to a review by the Institute's Project Manager and approved for publication. The Committee of the Institute has reservations regarding the undefined criteria discussed in the proposed regulation. More specifically, these criteria have important economic implications that cannot be quantified because of the ambiguities flowing from the adoption of federal regulation. The study continually refers to the adoption of federal criteria. The study author asserts that there would be no economic impact flowing from the adoption of these definitions and criteria. The ETAC and the Institute disagree with this position. The proposed regulation would incorporate major changes forthcoming under federal law and impose them on Illinois. Under this scheme, they would not be subject to the Board's adjudicatory process, the technical hearings, or an economic impact statement as required by Illinois law. The proposed regulation contains numerous such admissions. For example, page 3-1 discusses the adoption of rules "subject to the rule promulgated under the provisions of the Clean Water Act." In effect, these are economic impacts of changes that have not taken place, and are virtually impossible to quantify. m The Illinois Pollution Control Board should be aware of economic impacts flowing from the adoption of federal criteria. The economic effects could be enormous. For example, the criteria for the federal pre- treatment progr remains undefined, but there could be tremendous economic impacts on Illinois industry and local governments if the federal government pursues its current course. This could consist of a lack of federal grant monies, increased costs for industry associated with overly stringent pre-treatment program requirements and other ancillary effects. In other words, the adoption of R80-6 would force Illinois to abide by federal pre-treatment requirements. There are tremendous costs associated with, such adoption, even though federal criteria remains undefined at this time. There are other substantive rule-making issues related to this docket as well. For example, the proposed regulation would allow the Illinois Environmental Protection* Agency QlEPPi) to define the criteria for "restricted status". In this regard, Ullnois law clearly defines the IPCB's role as determining the standards of regulations in Illinois. We question the validity of a proposed rule that would allow the IEPA to utilize criteria not having an explicit definition in the regulation. Within this context, severe economic implications could flow from ex parte statutory interpretations, if guidelines are not explicitly established in R80-6. In light of the foregoing, we feel compelled to alert the Board to the economic impacts that may occur in the future if the. proposed regulation is adopted without substantial modification. The foregoing discussion raises the fundamental question of adopting a proposed regulation where federal definitions and/or criteria remain undefined at the time of adoption.. The economic study fulfills the requirements of Section 4 of P. A. 80-1218 only to the extent that the economic impacts of R80-6 have been discussed and quantified. However, the study does not come to grips with future economic impacts of proposed changes to federal definitions and criteria. /r Table of Contents Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Appendix Executive Summary Introduction Pages 1-1 to 1-4 2-1 to 2-2 Analysis of Proposed Regulations 3-1 to 3-39 Summary of Benefits and Costs 4-1 to 4-3 Pollution Control Board Notice of Rule Making, R80-6 Amendments to Chapter 3, Water Pollution Illinois Register Vol. 5, Issue 5, January 30, 1981 . VI Chapter 1 Executive Summary This report constitutes an economic impact study (ECIS) to evaluate the benefits and costs resulting from R80-6 Amendments to Chapter 3 Water Pollution of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations. The proposed amendments were initiated by the Board to deal with pro- cedural problems which have emerged from Board and Agency experience in implementing the regulations. The amendments are fairly extensive, with nineteen rules affected by changes. The changes are procedural in nature and are designed to clarify, update and otherwise improve the regulations through: 1. Expansion of opportunities for remedial actions such as permit appeals and variances. 2. Clarification of remedial action options available, the types of sewer connections exempt from permits, and elimination of ambiguities in the regulations. 3. Improvements in due process through codification and formalization of informal procedures and practices currently followed by the Board and the Agency. 4. Elimination of obsolete language and updating of language to relate the regulations to current federal law. Because of the nature of the proposed changes little or no environmental impact will result. Benefits and costs will be associated with administrative impacts which are discussed separately in the report. These impacts will be reflected in administrative benefits in the form of improvements in due process, enhanced public understanding of the regulations and more efficient and effective administration. Some of these benefits could result in lower control costs for the Board, the Agency, local wastewater authorities and affected individuals. On the other hand, some of the changes can be expected to encourage more activity and increase administrative costs so that some of the cost savings will be offset. One limitation of this study is that we are not able to measure the magnitude of any effects because it is not possible to predict how the affected individuals and local wastewater authorities will react to the proposed changes. As a consequence this analysis is limited to identifying in a general way the nature of the benefits and costs associated with the proposed changes, why they are expected to occur, and who will be affected. No exact quantification of benefits and costs is possible, although in some instances we are able to infer from other related data or make an informed guess as to whether the effects are significant. 1-1 With that thought in mind the reader is referred to Table 1.1 which summarizes the benefits and costs associated with each of the proposed changes. Major categories of benefits and costs are listed across the top of the table. Rules incorporating proposed changes are listed in the left column. The expected effects of the proposed changes are shown under each benefit-cost column. Positive effects are noted with a plus sign (+), and negative effects with a minus sign (-). A zero (0) indicates a neutral effect. It should be noted that in the Economic Incidence columns a minus sign denotes a negative effect and an expected increase in costs, prices, taxes, etc., while a plus sign signifies a positive effect or a decrease in costs, prices, taxes, etc. All of the proposed changes are part of an overall attempt to clarify and improve the regulations. Many of the changes are shown in Table 1.1 and will have positive administrative impacts which will contribute to lower control costs and reduce governmental expenditures. In most instances we have not shown any effects under any of the three factors under Economic Incidence because these effects are not likely to be significant or noticeable for the individual rule changes. However, the combined effects of all of the proposed changes should have a positive effect upon control costs for all parties involved, upon prices of wastewater service for permitees and upon expenditures by the Board, the Agency and local wastewater authorities. The combined effect of all of the proposed changes is indicated in the bottom line in Table 1.1. The overall impression from Table 1.1 is one of positive effects from the proposed changes. The major benefits take the form of administrative improvements including improvements in due process, greater public under- standing of the regulations and more effective and efficient administration. Some of these benefits should be reflected in lower control costs, lower prices for wastewater service and reduced government expenditures. Some benefits will create opposite pressures and increase costs by encouraging increased use of remedial measure or increasing local wastewater authority involvement in Board proceedings. On balance we would expect the pressures for cost reduction to be stronger than the pressure for cost increases so that net savings in control costs, prices of wastewater service and govern- ment expenditures should result. This obviously will not be the case for each individual permitee affected by the regulations. However, even in the aggregate it seems doubtful that any of the economic effects of the proposed changes will be noticeable so that the most visible result of the proposed changes might be the greater public satisfaction and acceptance of the regulations and the states water pollution control program. 1-2 Table 1.1 Summary of Benefits and Costs Resulting From Proposed IPCB Changes in Water Pollution Regulations (Docket # R80-6) Proposed Rule Environmental Impact Administrative Impact Economic Incidence Control Cost Effect Price Employ. Output Effect Govt. Expend Tax Effec 104 501 (a)(1) 604 (a) 604 (b) 604 (c) 604 (d) 604 (e) old 604 (e) new 604 (f) old 604 (f) new 604 (9) 604 (h) 605 606 (a) 606 (b) 606 (c) 606 (d) 607 608 914 old 914 new 917 951 (b)(2) 951 (c)(1) 952 (a) 952 (b) 952 (c) 953 (a) + 00 + 00 + 00 + 00 + 00 + 00 + + 00 + 00 + 00 + + + + 00 + 00 + 00 + 00 + 00 + 1-3 Table 1.1 (continued) Summary of Benefits and Costs Resulting From Proposed IPBC Changes in Water Pollution Regulations (Docket # R80-6) Environmental Impact Administrative Impact Economic Incidence ™ Proposed Rule Control Cost Effect 4 Price Employ. Output Effect Govt. Tax Expend. Effect 953 (b) + . . ., 953 (d)(1) 956 962 (a) + 962 (b) + 962 (c) 967 (a) 967 (b) + 967 (c) + 967 (d) + 969 (a) + 969 (b) + 971 974 + 975 + Combined e1 c fect of all prof )osed changes + + + + 1-4 Chapter 2 Introduction This report constitutes an economic impact study (EIS) to evaluate the benefits and costs associated with R80-6, Amendments to Chapter 3, Water Pollution. The proposed amendments were initiated by the Illinois Pollution Control Board and are designed to clarify and improve procedural regulations. No substantive changes are proposed. The proposed changes constitute a fairly extensive revision of the pro- cedural portions of Chapter 3. This is the first such effort since the last major revisions were made in September 1974. Nineteen rules are affected: seven new rules would be added, two rules are proposed for deletion, one would be replaced entirely, and less extensive language changes are proposed in nine rules. The changes attempt to deal with procedural problems which have emerged from Board and Agency experience in implementing the regulations The main objective is to clarify, update and otherwise improve the regulations through a variety of steps, namely: 1. Expansion of opportunities for remedial action by individuals and local wastewater agencies affected by the regulations. 2. Clarification of remedial options available, the types of sewer connections exempt from Agency permits, and elimination of other ambiguities in the regulations. 3. Improvements in due process through codification and formalization of informal procedures and practices currently followed by the Board and the Agency. 4. Elimination of obsolete language and updating of the language to relate the regulations to current federal law. The changes cut across a wide spectrum of Board and Agency procedures and practices relating to variances, permit appeals, permits exemption and the preparation of data reports, guidelines and responses all of which involve time and expense by individuals, local wastewater authorities, the Board and the Agency. On the other hand, some of the changes are expected to encourage more activity and increase administrative costs. The impacts of these changes will largely be reflected in improvements in due process, in greater public understanding of the regulations, and in greater overall administrative efficiency and effectiveness. Some of these administrative benefits could be reflected in reduced control costs and lower governmental expenditures. Because of the difficulty in predicting how the affected individuals and local wastewater authorities are likely to react to the proposed changes, it is impossible to measure the magnitude of any effects. For this analysis, therefore, we will be limited to identify- ing what effects are likely to occur as a result of the proposed changes, why they will occur, and who will be affected. No exact quantification will be possible, although in some instances we will be able to infer from other related data or make an informed guess of whether the resulting changes are likely to be significant. 2-1 The format for this study follows the standard ECIS format suggested by the Illinois Institute of Natural Resources with one exception. The recommended format understandably focuses on environmental impacts and the benefits and costs associated with increases or reductions in environ- mental damages. In our analysis of benefits and costs associated with procedural changes we have found it useful to add the new heading Adminis- trative Impacts in order to provide an appropriate section for the discussion of the largely non-environmental impacts of the changes. 2-2 Chapter 3 Analysis of Proposed Changes This Chapter comprises the main body of the report. Each of the proposed rules is discussed in a separate section with the discussion organized under five major subsections as follows: 1 . Proposed Rule 2. Rationale 3. Environmental Impact 4. Administrative Impact 5. Economic Incidence In the description of the proposed rule underl ining indicates additions of proposed language. Str4ke eut indicates deletions from existing language. For ease in following the discussion rule numbers are added for each subportion of each rule. Where appropriate the discussion under Economic Incidence is divided into three sub-subsections including Effects Upon Control Costs, Effects Upon Prices, Employment and Output, and Effects Upon Government Expenditures and Taxes. 1.0 RULE 104-DEFINITIONS 1 .1 Proposed Rule "Pretreatment Works" means a treatment works designed and intended for the treatment of wastewater from a maaer eentr4but4ng 4ndustry7 an indirect discharge or an industrial user as defined in 40 CFR 428 Part 403, before introduction into a sewer system tributary to a publicly owned or publicly regulated treatment works. "Publicly Owned" means ownership by a municipality, sanitary district, county, or state or federal agency. "Publicly Regulated" refers to those otherwise private companies which are regulated as public utilities by the Illinois Commerce Commissi o 7T~ pursuant to an Act Concerning Public Utilities, 111. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. Ill 2/3, par. 1 et seq. 1.2 Rationale The definition of "Pretreatment Works" has been changed to make it consistent with language in federal pretreatment regulations and use the correct citation to the Code of Federal Regulations as changed in rules published June 26, 1978 (43 FR 27736-27773). Definitions for "Publicly Owned" and "Publicly Regulated" have been added for use in Rule 951. 3-1 1.3 Environmental and Administrative Impacts and Economic Incidence The definition of Pretreatment Works is changed to make it consistent with the change in Rule 501. See the discussion under Rule 501 . Since definitions for "Publicly Owned" and "Publicly Regulated" have been added for use in Rule 951, the impacts are discussed under that Rule. 2.0 RULE 501-REP0RTING REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Proposed Rule 501 Reporting Requirements (501) (a) Every person within this State operating a pretreatment works, treatment works or wastewater source shall submit operating reports to the Agency at a frequency to be determined by the Agency. Such reports shall contain information regarding the quantity of influent and of effluent discharged, of wastes bypassed and of combined sewer overflows; the concentrations of those physical, chemical, bacteriological and radiological parameters which shall be specified by the Agency; and any additional information the Agency may reasonably require. This reporting requirement for pretreatment works shall only apply to those pretreatment works that e4ther which: (1 ) D4sehar§e-tex4€-pe4}utants-5-as-de#4ned-4n-Seet4efl-§92{43) ef-the-FWPGA-y-eF-pe44utaHts-wh4eh-fflay-4Hterfere-w4th-the treatment- preeess-; -4 Hte-the-reee4v4n§-treatmeHt-werks-5-er Will be subject to regulations promulgated under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act (FWPCA); or (2) Discharge 15% or more of the total hydraulic flow received by the treatment works; or (3) Discharge 15% or more of the total biological loading received by the treatment works as measured by 5-day biochemical oxygen demand. (501 )(b) Deleted. (501 )(c) Every holder of an NPDES Permit is required to comply with the monitoring, sampling, recording and reporting require- ments set forth in the permit and this Chapter. 2.2 Rationale Section 307 of the Clean Water Act provides for the identification and regulation of toxic pollutants and of substances which may interfere with, pass through, or otherwise be incompatible with the treatment 3-2 process of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). USEPA has promulgated nation pretreatrrent standards implementing Section 307 under 40 CFR 403. The change in Rule 501 (a)(1) reflects rewording to correctly state current federal law. Rules 501 (2) and (3) are retained to require periodic reports from indirect discharges, such as breweries and slaughter houses, which are not regulated under Section 307 regulations. 2.3 Environmental Impact I This proposed change merely involves rewording to correctly reference \ current federal law. There are no resulting impacts upon pollution emissions or water quality and consequently no benefits or costs resulting from reductions or increases in environmental damages. The change has little practical significance at the present time given the status of the Federal Pretreatment Program. Despite the fact that final implementing regulations were promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in June 1978 the Pretreatment Program has had only very limited applicability to date and its future is very uncertain.* The program is not operational in Illinois and consequently no operating reports are required under Rule 501 (a)(1). State officials are still negotiating with the USEPA on the transfer of authority to the state to operate the program. In the meantime a number of local wastewater authorities have applied directly to the USEPA for funding for the preparation of pretreatment programs but no grants have been approved to date. The pretreatment program is one of the more controversial parts of the Clean Water Act and is currently being examined closely by Congress as part of an overall review of the Act. Federal funding for the pretreatment program has been frozen by President Reagan pending completion of this review. 2.4 Administrative Impact The proposed changes will have no administrative impact. 2.5 Economic Incidence There are no expected effects from the proposed changes in Rule 501 upon control costs, or upon prices, output and employment for industry, commerce, agriculture or consumers'. *The implementing regulations were published in 40 CFR Part 403 pp. 27736-27773, To date only two states, Alabama and Minnesota, have operational pretreatment programs. 3-3 3.0 RULE 604-CRITICAL REVIEW AND RESTRICTED STATUS 3.1 Proposed Change 604 New-Gerreet4eRS Critical Review and Restricted Status (604) (a) Pub! ication of Lists . The Agency shall publish and make available to the public at intervals of not more than three months a comprehensive and up-to-date list of san4tary-d4str4€ts-aRd-etl : ieF wastewater treatmeRt-er traHspertat4eR authorities then subject to restricted status on further sewer connections, as well as a list of those which are then under critical review by the Agency. Such lists shall include estimates of treatment plant and sewer capacity, and the amount of population equivalent added since publication of the previous list. (604) (b) Restricted Status . Restricted status shall be defined as the Agency determination-5-pars-biaRt-te-5eet4eR-39-ef-tRe Aet-aRd-RH4e-962-e#-tR4s-GRapter-, that a sewer has reached hydraulic capacity or that a sewage treatment plant has reached design capacity, such that additional sewer con- nection permits may no longer be issued without causing a violation of the Act or regulations. (604) (c) Critical Review . Critical review shall be defined as the Agency determination pHrsuant-te-5eet4eR-39-ef-tRe-Aet-aRd Ru4e-9§2-ef-th4s-Ghapter-j that a sewer is approaching hydraulic capacity or that a sewage treatment plant is approaching design capacity, such that additional sewer connection permit applications will require close scrutiny to determine whether issuance would result in a violation of the Act or regulations. (604) (d) Notification of Individuals Requesting Connections. 5afi4tary-d4str4ets-*-er-etheF wastewater treatmeRt-er traRspertat4eR authorities responsible for authorizing new sewer connections which have been placed on restricted status or critical review by the Agency shall notify all individuals requesting connections of such Agency deter- mination. (604)(e) Appeal- --ARy-saR4tary-d4str4et-er -ether-was tewater- treatment 9F-tFansp0Ftat4en-aHther4ty-Fespens4ble-fer-adtheF4£4fl§-flew sewer-eenneet4 ens ■ J -may-pet4t4en-i -pursuant- te-T4t4e-49-ef- the- AGt-aHd-Part-6-ef-the-Beard-PreeedHra4-Rd4es-5-fer-a-hear4R§ befere-the-Beard-te-€entest-the-dee4s4eR-ef-the-A§eRey-te p4aee-4t-eR-restr4eted-statusT (604)£eX The Agency shall notify the wastewater authority of its determination of restricted status or critical review and shall give a specific, detailed written statement as to the reasons for imposition of the restricted status or critical review. 3-4 (604)(f) E##ee ; fc4ve-Datev--Ih4s-fa4e-sha ; U-beeeffle-effee%4ve-en JaHyaFy-4-;-+976T (604) (f) The Agency may issue, pursuant to Rule 967, criteria further defining restricted status. (604)igl For purposes of Rules 604, 605, 606, 607 and 608 the term "sewer connection" shall mean a sewer for which a permit is required under Rule 951 of this Chapter . (604)0t]_ For purposes of Rules 604, 605, 606, 607 and 608 the term "wastewater authority" shall mean sanitary district or other wastewater treatment or transportation authority. 3.2 Rationale Rule 604 has been retitled to more accurately reflect its content. Rules 604(a) and (d) have been reworded to reflect the addition of Rule 604(h) which defines "wastewater authority". Rules 604(b) and (c) have been changed to reflect minor editorial changes. References to Chapter 39 of the Act and Rule 962 of this chapter are no longer applicable and have been deleted. Rule 604(e) relating to appeals has been deleted and moved to Rule 606(a). New Rule 604(e) has been added to require notification by the Agency to affected wastewater authorities of restricted status or critical review along with the reasons therefore. Procedures relating to notification of restricted status have been established under the Agency's Technical Policy WPC-4 adopted in December 1975. This change provides for the codification of these procedures. Rule 604(f) relating to the original effective date of Rule 604 has been deleted since it is no longer applicable. New Rule 604(f) has been added which authorizes the Agency to issue criteria further defining restricted status. Criteria defining restricted status and critical review are established in the Agency's Technical Policy WPC-4 which has been in effect since December 1975. This change codifies that procedure. Rule 604(g) has been added to clarify the term "sewer connection". The failure to define this term or to distinguish it from "sewer extension" in existing regulations resulted in the reversal of an IPCB permit denial decision in Starcevich v. EPA (1979), 78 ILL. App. 3d 700, 397 N.E. 2d 870. In the past the use of the term "sewer connection" has not caused difficulties in administration of Rule 604 because the Agency has not reviewed and permitted the connection of all pipes to sewers, but only those sewers for which a permit is required under Rule 951. The discharges from individual buildings and other sources which do not require a construction permit 3-5 under Rule 951 have already been accounted for in the Agency's decision to place a facility on restricted status. For example, if a sewer extension which will serve 50 individual homes has been installed, the Agency treats the development as having been completed when it determines restricted status. New Rule 604(g) expressly states that only "sewer connections" requiring a permit under Rule 951 are prohibited when a wastewater authority is on restricted status. Rule 604(h) has been added to define the term "wastewater authority. 3.3 Environmental Impact None of the changes proposed in Rule 604 will have any impact upon pollution emission and water quality and therefore no benefits or costs resulting reductions or increases in environmental damages will result. 3.4 Administrative Impact Two of the proposed changes in Rule 604 will result in benefits in the form of due process. This results from the codification of procedures relating to notification by the Agency of restricted status or critical review designations along with the reasons therefore in Rule 604(e) and with respect to the issuance by the Agency of criteria defining restricted status in Rule 604(f). Codification establishes these procedures as a matter of right for affected wastewater authorities. Clarification of the term "sewer connection" under Rule 604(g) along with the other changes in Rule 604 are part of the overall attempt to clarify and improve the regulations, which should result in improved public understanding of the regulations and more efficient and effective administration by the Board and the Agency. The change proposed in Rule 604(g) complements the changes in Rule 951(b) and the reader is referred to the discussion of impacts under that rule. 3.5 Economic Incidence The administrative benefits cited above could result in lower control costs for permitees, the Board and the Agency and reduced government expenditures and taxes although the changes will very likely not be significant or even noticeable. Prices, output and employment will not be affected. 4.0 RULE 605-NEW CONNECTIONS 4.1 Proposed Rule 605 New Connections The Agency shall not issue operating permits under Rule 952 or joint construction/operating permits under Rule 954 of this 3-6 Chapter for the construction or operation of facilities which will connect to a sewer or sewage treatment plant which is on restricted status. The Agency may issue ""construct only" permits under Rule 951 to such facilities but no operating permits until the sewer or sewage treat- ment plant has been removed from restricted status." 4.2 Rationale New Rule 605 restates the cumulative effect of Rules 604(b) and 962 and codifies existing case law authorizing "construct only" permits but not operating permits while a sewer or sewage treat- ment plant is on restricted status. The Agency has been issuing "construct only" permits pursuant to technical Policy WPC-5, filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on March 3, 1977, as a practical accommodation to allow development when the Agency has assurances that the necessary capacity for transport and treatment of the additional waste loads will be provided in a timely manner. 4.3 Environmental Impact Since the changes in this Rule are procedural they will not have any impact upon water pollution emissions as water quality. Therefore, no benefits or costs from reductions or increases in environmental damages will occur. 4.4 Administrative Impact By codifying a procedure providing for the issuance of "construct only" permits under Rule 951 while a facility is on restricted status, the issuance of such permits is established as a matter of right for potential applicants. Thus, a benefit is provided for permittees in the form of an improvement in due process. 4.5 Economic Incidence There are no expected impacts of the proposed changes upon control costs, upon prices, output or employment or upon local government expenditure and taxes. 5.0 RULE 606-APPEAL 5.1 Proposed Rule 606 Appeal (6Q6) (a) Any authority responsible for authorizing new sewer connections may petition, pursuant to Title X of the Act and Part V of the Board Procedural Rules, for a hearing before the Board to contest the decision of the Agency to place it on critical review or restricted status or the refusal to terminate such. 3-7 (606) (b) The Agency shall provide procedures whereby a wastewater authority may request termination of critical review or restricted status. (606) (c) If the Agency refuses to terminate critical review or restricted status, the Agency shall give a specific, detailed written statement as to the reasons for its decision to the wastewater authority requesting such terminati on. (606) (d) Any person who has been denied an Agency permit because of restricting status may appeal the denial pursuant to Section 40 of the Act and Part V of the Board's Pro- cedural Rules. The wastewater authority which is responsible for authorizing new sewer connections shall be joined as a respondent, in which case the petitioner shall provide notice and service as provided by Part III of the Procedural Rules. The Agency's decision to place the sewer or sewage treatment plant on restricted status is an appealable issue in such proceedin gs. 5.2 Rationale New Rule 606(a) replaces Rule 604(e) and the appeal process has been expanded. Under existing regulations only Agency decisions regarding the initial determination of restricted status are appealable. Under the proposed regulations, Agency decisions to place facilities under critical review as wel 1 as decisions to refuse to terminate restricted status or critical review would also be appealable to the Board. Agency's determinations of critical review and restricted status are made in accordance with Technical Policy WPC-4 on file with the Secretary of State. The Policy contains guidelines for notification of restricted status or critical review. Under these guidelines the Agency notifies the wastewater authority of the prospect that the facility will be placed on critical review or restricted status. The notification also includes a description of the basis for the Agency's proposed action. The wastewater authority has the opportunity to submit additional relevant information to meet with the responsible Agency personnel or to respond in writing prior to the Agency's final decision. However, the wastewater authority may not concur with the Agency's final decision and local development may virtually cease as a result of the placement of a facility on critical review. Therefore, there should be an opportunity for external review of the Agency's decision. Proposed Rule 606(a) provides this opportunity. Furthermore, the information on which the Agency relied in making the initial determination on critical review or restricted status may become obsolete. WPC-4 provides for revision of both critical review and restricted status decisions on the basis of new information. If the Agency refuses to "de-list" the treatment facility which has sought a change in its critical review status, or restricted status, this decision should also be appealable to the Board. This option is authorized under proposed new Rule 606(a). 3-8 New Rule 606 (b) requiring the Agencv to establish procedures relating to requests by wastewater authorities for termination of critical review or restricted status codifies a practice already followed by the Agency pursuant to Technical Policy WPC-4. New Rule 606 (c) requiring the Agency to provide a detailed written statement on the reasons for its decision regarding requests for termination of critical review or restricted status codifies a pro- cedure already followed by the Agency pursuant to Technical Policy WPC-4. New Rule 606(d) which authorizes any person denied an Agency permit because of restricted status to appeal the denial to the Board codifies a procedure which has been followed by the Agency and the Board pursuant to Title X Section 40 a of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. The new requirement that the local wastewater authority be joined as a respondent in the appeal petition formalizes and expands a practice already followed by the Board. The Board has established a procedure for joining affected local wastewater authorities for notification purposes and to provide an opportunity for the authorities to express their views on permit appeal petitions. 5.3 Environmental Impact All of the changes in Rule 606 are of a procedural nature and they are not expected to have any impact upon water pollution emissions or water quality. Consequently, no benefits or costs resulting from reductions or increases in environmental damages are anticipated. 5.4 Administrative Impact The most significant benefits resulting from the proposed changes in Rule 606 take the form of procedural improvements. This, in fact, is the intended purpose of the proposed changes which are directed at expanding and clarifying remedial procedures available to local waste- water authorities and individuals impacted by the Environmental Pro- tection Act and the regulations and decisions of the Board and the Agency, and at formalizing and codifying informal procedures of the Board and the Agency. Under proposed Rule 606(a) due process is improved through an ex- pansion of the appeal process for local wastewater authorities. Under existing regulations only Agency decisions regarding the initial determination of restricted status are appealable. Under the proposed regulations, Agency decisions to place facilities under critical review as well as decisions to refuse to terminate restricted status or critical review would also be appealable to the Board. Judging from prior experience with restricted status designations the practical consequences of these changes are not likely to be very great. Agency personnel estimate the number of requests by local wastewater agencies for termination of restricted status at 12 - 15 per year. Nearly all are approved and only occasionally 3-9 is one disapproved. During the past five years there has not been a single appeal of a rejected request for termination of restricted status. Under new Rule 606(b) and new Rule 606(c) codification of regulations requiring the Agency to establish procedures relating to requests by wastewater authorities for termination of restricted status or critical review and requiring the Agency to provide a detailed written statement on the reasons for its decisions regarding requests for termination of critical review or restricted status represents a benefit to local waste- water authorities in that codification establishes these pro- cedures as a matter or right. The improvement in due process under Rule 606(d) results from the first part of this Rule which authorizes any person denied an Agency permit because of restricted status to appeal the denial to the Board. By codifying a procedure already followed by the Board and the Agency pursuant to Title X Section 40 a of the Environmental Protection Act the changes formally establishes the permit appeal process as a matter of right. The practical con- sequences of this change are not wery great - in 1980 around 27 permits were denied due to restricted status and not a single one was appealed. The new provision requiring that local wastewater authorities be joined as respondents in permit appeal petitions has the potential for producing benefits in terms of due process and administrative efficiencies for the Board and local wastewater authorities. The Board benefits from being assured that the views of local wastewater authorities will be available in its deliberations on permit appeals. Its decisions will therefore be more informed. The availability of local responses should also help to facilitate Board proceeding and thus contribute to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Board and the Agency. The local wastewater agencies benefit from having their participation in Board deliberations established as a matter of right through codification. They therefore have greater assurance that they will be informed on all permit appeals affecting their facilities and of having their views considered in Board proceedings on these matters. Appellants in permit appeal proceedings will benefit or not depend- ing upon whether or not they have the support of the local waste- water authority. If they have that support, the chances for approval of their appeal by the Board will probably be improved. Without that support their chances are probably lessened. The practical result of requiring the involvement of local wastewater authorities in all permit appeals is that wery few individuals will file an appeal without the support of his wastewater authority. This should help to weed out the less supportable permit appeals and save time and expense for everyone concerned. 3-10 The magnitude of the benefits associated with the changes in Rule 606(d) cannot be estimated. Detailed permit denial records are not available over any extended period. However, Agency personnel report that not a single permit denial appeal was filed in 1980. One of the reasons for the limited use of the permit appeal remedy is the confusion related to the use of permit denial appeals and variances. As noted in the rationale for the proposed changes in Rule 607 some petitioners for variances have constructed elaborate arguments to show that their wastewater treatment plants are not overloaded, arguments appropriate to permit denial appeals but not to variances. One objective of the proposed changes in Rules 606 and 607 is to clarify the distinction between the two forms of relief. Board and Agency staff anticipate that this clarification will lead to an increase in the number of permit appeals with a corresponding decrease in the number of variance requests. There will be no net change in any benefits associated with the mandatory joining of local wastewater authorities since the pro- posed requirements for joining are the same for permit appeals and for variances. If we make the assumption that 1980 was an abnormal year and that there normally are some permit denial appeals, then some benefit can be claimed from the proposed change since these would be instances not involving the type of shifting discussed above. Discussion of this proposed change with several local wastewater authorities indicates general support for the concept of involving them in all permit appeals and variances affecting their jurisdictions for purposes of their being kept informed on matters affecting their facilities and enabling them to support development proposals that will benefit their jurisdictions or oppose those that are detrimental to their interests. 5.5 Economic Incidence 5.51 Effects Upon Control Costs Potential cost impacts can be expected from changes proposed in Rules 606(a) and 606(d). No cost impacts are expected from the changes in Rules 606(b) and 606(c) since they merely codify procedures already followed by the Agency under Technical Policy WPC-4 and no addi tonal work on the part of the Agency will be required as a result of the changes. Expansion of the appeals process for local wastewater authorities under Rule 606(a) has the potential for increasing the number of appeals and thereby adding to administrative costs for appelants, the Board and the Agency. However, prior experience with restricted status designations suggests that any such effects are not likely to be significant. 3-11 As noted, the number of requests by local wastewater authorities for termination of restricted status is estimated by Agency personnel at 12 - 15 per year. Rarely are these applications not approved and not a single rejected request has been appealed during the past five years . Given their experience and given the fact that requests for terminations of critical review are even less likely than for restricted status, since critical review does not involve an actual halt in new sewer connections, it seems very unlikely that these changes will result in a significant increase in the number and cost of appeals. The changes proposed in Rule 606(d) will have cost effects in both directions. As noted, one objective of this Rule is to eliminate the present confusion regarding the use of permit appeals and variances. This confusion leads to wasted time and expense on the part of petitioners, the Agency and the Board. By helpinq to guide petitioners to the most appropriate form of relief for their particular situation the proposed changes in Rules 606 and 607 can help avoid wasted time and expense for all parties con- cerned. We have no way of measuring what these potential savings might be although it seems reasonable to conclude that they are not likely to be very larqe because of the very limited use of the appeal remedy. On the other hand, clarification of the permit appeal and variance processes is expected to result in an increase in the number of permit appeals with a corresponding decline in the use of variances. To the extent that a shift actually occurs, administrative costs for permit appeals will increase while costs for variances will decline. Data for 1980 show 85 variance applications. There were also 27 permit denials because of restricted status but not a single one was appealed. There is no way of estimating how much shifting will occur as a result of the changes in Rules 606(d) and 607. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the total cost shifts will not be very large and that in any case any cost charges will probably cancel each other out. The total cost of the permit appeals process will be increased further if the changes in Rule 606(d) accomplish their intended purpose of increasing the involvement of local wastewater authorities in the process, due to the additional staff time that will have to be allocated for the preparation of responses. The magnitude of their increase will be related mainly to the extent to which petitioners use the permit appeals process in the future. As noted, no permit denial appeals were recorded during 1980 and future instances of permit appeals may merely reflect a shift from what would previously have been variance 3-12 proceedings in which case the time and effort spent by the local wastewater authorities as respondents on permit appeals would be offset by an equal amount of time and effort not devoted to responding in variance proceedings. Only in instances where a variance proceeding would not have occurred under the existing regulations or where the local wastewater authority would not have been joined by the Board under their present informal procedure would added costs result from requiring the involvement of local wastewater authorities in all permit denial appeal proceedings. On the other hand, the involvement local wastewater authorities in permit appeals should help to facilitate Board proceedings and thereby contribute to greater efficiency and effectiveness of Board permit appeal decisions and work in the direction of cost containment and cost reduction. Finally, a likely practical result of joining local authorities in all permit appeals is that few applicants will file appeals without the support of their local authority. This should help to weed out the less supportable appeals and save time and expense for applicants, local authorities, the Board and the Agency. It is impossible to assess the net overall effects of these cost changes although it seems likely that they will not be very large due to the limited use of the appeal process. It is useful to note that in discussions with the author, several local wastewater authorities indicated their strong support for their involvement in permit appeals. They also view the procession for a written response from them as a positive feature. They would be less supportive if their response required a personal appearance before the Board since this would require a great deal more time and expense. The mandatory joining of local wastewater authorities in all permit appeal proceedings raises the question of possible duplication of effort and wasted tax dollars in view of the fact that the Environmental Protection Act (Section 37 a and 40 a) requires that the Agency appear as a respondent in all permit appeal and variance proceedings. There is no duplication problem in the Agency's view. The Agency frequently is not sufficiently knowledgeable of local situations to adequately reflect the viewpoint of the local wastewater authorities. Thus, in Board proceedings it is essential that the local wastewater officials speak directly on matters affecting their jurisdiction. 5.52 Effect Upon Price, Output and Employment No effects are expected upon prices, output and employment in 3-13 industry, commerce or agriculture from any of the proposed changes in Rule 606. Conceivably some of the changes in control costs identified above could reflect themselves in higher or lower prices for wastewater services for certain consumers. Potential cost savings were identified as a result of clarification of the permit appeals and variance processes which will better enable individual petitioners to identify the most appropriate form of relief for their particular si tuation. At the same time cost increases could result from the greater use of permit appeals although these would probably be offset by decreases in variance costs. Overall the net impact of these changes on the price of waste- water services should be very small and in any case confined to developers and other potential appellants. For the general consumer of wastewater services, we would expect to see no noticeable change in prices. 5.53 Effects Upon Local Government Expenditures and Taxes From the above review of control costs, the effects upon government expenditures and taxes may be summarized as follows: 5.531 By expanding the appeals process proposed Rule 606(a) has the potential for increasing the number of appeals by local wastewater authorities thereby increasing their expenditures and those of the Board and the Agency. The changes will probably not be noticeable because of the very limited use of this appeal process by local waste- water authorities. 5.532 No effects are expected from the changes in Rule 606(b) and 606(c). 5.533 Cost influences resulting from the proposed changes in Rule 606(d) will pull in both directions. Clarification of the permit appeal and variance process should eliminate the present confusion and lead to savings in time and expense for the Board and the Agency. On the other hand, this change is also expected to lead to an increase in the number of permit appeals by individuals which would lead to an increase in expenditures by the Board and the Agency for processing these appeals. How- ever, a corresponding decline is expected in the number and cost of variances which would affect any increase. 5.534 Additional staff time and expense will be required by local wastewater authorities as a result of the require- ment for their involvement in all permit appeals under 3-14 Rule 606(d). This increase is expected to be very small due to the very limited use of the permit appeal process. At the same time, involvement of local wastewater authorities in permit appeals should contribute to improved efficiency and effectiveness of Board decisions on these matters and work in the direction of cost containment and cost reductions. 5.535 Finally, the practical effect of requiring the involve- ment of local authorities is that a screening process will be established which will help appellants to identify weaknesses in their petitions or even whether they should proceed at all with their petition to the Board. This should result in savings in time and ex- pense by appeal lants, local wastewater authorities, the Board and the Agency. On the whole, the net result of these changes is likely to be very small and not be visible in terms of government expen- ditures or taxes at the local or state levels. 6.0 RULE 607-VARIANCES FROM RESTRICTED STATUS 6.1 Proposed Rule 607 Variances from Restricted Status Any person who has applied for an Agency permit which may be denied because of restricted status may petition the Board for a variance from Rule 605 to allow the sewer connection in spite of the restricted status upon a showing of arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. Such proceeding shall be governed by Part IV of the Board's Procedural Rules. The wastewater authority which is responsible for authorizing new sewer connections may join in the petition, but if it does not it shall be joined as a respondent, in which case petitioner must provide notice and service as provided by Part III of the Procedural Rules . 6.2 Rationale New Rule 607 has been added to codify case law establishing a right to variance from restricted status by a person discharging into a sewer system and requiring that the wastewater authority responsible for authorizing new sewer connections be joined as a respondent in the variance proceeding. The proposal distinguishes between permit denial appeals and variances arising out of the imposition of restricted status. The applicant who intends to contest the Agency's decision on restricted status should do so within the permit denial appeal. On the other hand, if the applicant intends to argue arbitrary and unreasonable hardship as a consequence of restricted status, the proper form of relief is a variance. Confusion in regard to the standards related to these 3-15 different forms of relief is evidenced in recent cases before the Board. For example, the Woodridge-Lisle treatment plants operated by the DuPage County Department of Public Works have been on a restricted status since May 31, 1979. This imposition of restricted status has led to a number of variance applications since permits could not be issued by the Agency. Some of these petitioners have constructed elaborate arguments to show that these STP's are not overloaded, arguments appropriate to permit appeals but not variances. See Corporate West Development, Inc. v. EPA , PCB 79-163 (Variance Petition, pp. 9-10); Rossmoor Associates v. EPA , PCB 79-161 (Variance Petition, op. 29-30). The proposed amendments in Rule 607 should deter the raising of permit issues in variance cases and prevent the introduction of variance arguments in permit appeals. 6.3 Environmental Impact The changes in Rule 607 are procedural and they are not expected to have any impact upon water pollution emission or water quality. Consequently, no benefits or costs resulting from reductions or increases in environmental damages are expected. 6.4 Administrative Impact Changes in this Rule are directed at clarification of the variance process and at codification of variance procedures currently followed informally by the Board. The changes are part of the overall effort to clarify and improve the regulations which should result in improved public understanding of the regulation and to more efficient and effective administration of Board and Agency regulations and procedures. These administrative benefits should reflect themselves in a variety of ways . An improvement in due process will result from the provision requiring that local wastewater authorities be joined in all variance cases. As noted this practice is currently followed informally by the Board in many instances. Codification of the process establishes the procedure as a matter of right for all local authorities in all variance petitions affecting their jurisdictions. The Board will benefit from being assured that the views of the local authorities will be available in all of its variance deliberations. Its decision will therefore be more informed. The availability of local responses should also help to facilitate Board proceedings and thus contribute to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Board and the state's water quality control program. At the same time, local wastewater authorities will benefit from having their participation in Board deliberation on all variances affecting their facilities established as a matter of right through codifications. They will have greater assurance that they will be informed on all variance requests affecting their facilities and of having an opportunity to comment. Variance 3-16 applicants will benefit or not depending upon whether or not they get the support of their local wastewater officials. If they have that support the chances of approval of their variance will be improved. Without that support their chances will be lessened. The practical result of requiring the involvement of local authorities in all variances is that very few individuals will file a variance application without the support of his local authority. This should help to weed out the less supportable variances and save time and expense for everyone concerned. As noted earlier in discussions with several local wastewater authorities unanimous support was expressed for their involvement in all variance and permit appeal cases affecting their jurisdictions Improvements in administration should result from clarification of the distinction between variances and permit denial appeals arising out of the imposition of restricted status. Any applicant who intends to contest the Agency's decision to place a wastewater authority on restricted status should do so within the permit denial appeal process covered under Rule 606(d). On the other hand, if the applicant intends to argue arbitrary and unreasonable hardship as a result of the imposition of restricted status the proper form of relief is a variance under Rule 607. As noted earlier, confusion in regard to these alternative forms of relief is evident in recent cases before the Board in which peti- tioners seeking variances constructed elaborate arguments to show that their wastewater treatment plants were not overloaded, arguments appropriate for permit appeals but not for variances. The changes proposed in Rule 607 along with those proposed in Rule 606(d) are intented to eliminate this confusion. Time and effort should be saved by variance applicants and the Board by detering applicants from raising permit issues in variance cases and from introducing variance issues in permit appeals. 6.5 Economic Incidence 6.51 Effects Upon Control Costs Cost effects of changes relating to variances under Rule 607 are similar to those identified for the companion changes in permit appeals in Rule 606(d), although the potential changes are greater for variances because of the much greater use of their procedure. Over the past three years, 251 variance applications were filed. Details on the number of applications per year and their disposition are shown in Table 3.1. As noted in the discussion of Rule 606(d) one of the objectives of the changes in Rule 606(d) and Rule 607 is to eliminate the 3-17 Table 3.1 Number of Applications for Variances From Restricted Status and Their Disposition 1978-1980 Item 1978 1979 1980 Number of Applications 93 73 85 Variances Granted . 72 48 61 Variances Granted in Past 1 3 Variances Denied 1 7 6 Variances Dismissed due to Incomplete Application * 19 12 9 Variances Pending 3 9 Source : Information provided by Illinois EPA Enforcement Division * In case of dismissals applicants are requested to correct deficiencies and to reapply. However, many do not reapply. 3-18 present confusion in the use of the permit appeal and variance processes. By helping to guide petitioners to the appropriate remedy, the proposed changes should help deter applicants from raising variance issues in permit appeals and from introducing permit issues in variance cases thereby avoiding wasted time and effort for the applicants and the Board. We have no way of measuring the magnitude of the potential savings, but in any case they are not likely to be very large. Another potential cost impact resulting from clarifying permit appeals and variances could come from the decreased use of the variance process. Board and Agency staff anti- cipate that there will be an increase in permit appeals with a corresponding reduction in variance applications as a result of the changes in Rule 606(d) and 607. To the extent that this shift actually occurs overall, administrative costs for variances will decline while those for permit appeals will increase. Assuming that the administrative costs of permit appeals and variances are the same, these changes will cancel each other out, so that there will be no net change in the total cost of the two processes. The joining of local wastewater authorities in all variance proceedings will increase the time and expense of preparing responses to the extent that it increases the involvement of local authorities over what it has been under the current informal Board procedure. We have no way of measuring the magnitude of this increase although discussions with several local wastewater authori- ties indicates that they do not expect the added cost to be significant. The provision for a written response is regarded as a positive feature which can be met at little additional cost compared with personal appearances before the Board which could be much more time consuming and expensive. The involvement of local authorities in all variance applica- tions should help also lead to facilitate and expedite Board proceedings and contribute to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Board's variance proceedings and thereby work in the direction of cost containment and cost reduction, although there is no way to measure the magnitude of these savings . 3-19 One likely result of joining local wastewater authori- ties in all variance cases is that few applicants will file for a variance without the support of their local authority. Preappl ication review by the local autho- rity can serve as a screening process to identify weaknesses in proposals or weed out unsupportable proposals, thereby saving time and expense for applicants, local authorities, the Board and the Agency. As noted under Rule 606 the mandatory joining of local wastewater authorities raises the question of possible duplication of effort and waste of public funds in view of the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency is required by the Act to appear as a respondent in all variance procedings. Discussion with Agency personnel indicates that there is no cause for concern. The Agency is not knowledgeable enough of local situations to present the viewpoint of the local wastewater officials. Thus in Board proceedings it is essential to the Board and the Agency to have the local wastewater officials speak directly on matters affecting their jurisdictions. Furthermore, the Agency feels that the procedure contributes to improved management and administration of local wastewater systems by keeping local officials informed on matters affecting their facilities. In a recent review of the proposed change in Rule 607 the Agency has called attention to the fact that the language now requires that an application for a permit be submitted and denied before a person can petition the Board for a variance. When the facility is known to be on restricted status, an application for a permit is a waste of time and money and, therefore, should not be a precondition for a variance. If this precondition had been in effect for the 251 variance applications filed during the past three years, considerable time and money would have been wasted in the preparation and filing of permit applications and in their processing by the Agency. To remedy this situation, the Agency has proposed that the first sentence in proposed Rule 607 read as shown below. Proposed new language is underlined and deletions are stricken "Any person who has-appHed-fer-aR-Ageney perm4t-wh4eh ma> be denied a permit because of restricted status may petition the Board, etc..."* Comments of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Amendments to the Water Pollution Regulations of the Illinois Pollution Control Board R806 , Transmitted to IPCB by letter from Mary V. Rehman dated April 6, 1981. 3-20 6.52 Effects Upon Prices, Output and Employment The proposed changes in Rule 607 are not expected to have any impact upon prices, output or employment for industry, commerce and agriculture. Some of the increases or decreases in control costs cited above could translate themselves into changes in the price of wastewater service for certain consumers. For example - 6.521 Prices of wastewater services will be reduced for applicants who benefit from being better able to select the appropriate form of relief for their situation and to avoid the use of variance arguments in permit appeals and permit arguments in variance applications. 6.522 Clarification of the permit appeal and variance processes is also expected to lead to reduced use of variances and greater use of permit appeals, Variance costs will be reduced but will be offset by corresponding increases in permit appeals so that the net effect upon prices should be neutral. 6.523 Finally, the requirement that local wastewater authorities be involved in all variance cases will establish a screening process through which weak- nesses in variance requests can be identified and corrected before they are presented to the Board, and unsupportable requests can be weeded out, thereby saving unnecessary time and expense by the appl icant. Overall, the net effect of these changes on the price of wastewater service should be minor even for the customer directly effected. For the consumers in general, there will be no effect. 6.53 Effects Upon Local Government Expenditures and Taxes Summarizing from the above review of control costs the effects of the changes in Rule 607 government expendi- tures and taxes can be stated as follows. 6.531 Clarification of the permit appeal and variance processes will eliminate the wasted time and effort resulting from the present confusion and lead to savings in expenditures by the Board and the Agency. This change is also expected 3-21 to lead to decreased use of variances which will reduce expenditures by the Board and the Agency for variances. However, this reduction will be offset by a corresponding increase in the number and cost of permit appeals so that the next effect on expenditures will be neutral. 6.532 Additional staff time and expense will be required by local wastewater agencies as a result of the requirement for their involvement in all variance applications. The increase in expenditures is likely to be small since the Board currently involves the local authorities in many variance cases on an informal basis. At the same time any increase in the involvement of local wastewater authorities will help facilitate and expedite Board decisions and help reduce or contain Board expenditures. 6.533 Finally, the involvement of local wastewater authorites in all variances will effectively establish a screening process through which weaknesses in variance proposals can be identified and corrected before they reach the Board and unsupportable variances can be weeded out, thereby avoiding unnecessary time and expense by the Board, the Agency and local wastewater authorities. On balance we would judge the combined effect of all of these changes to be quite small and not visible in terms of changes in governmental expenditures or taxes at the local and state levels. 7.0 RULE 608-RESPONSE BY WASTEWATER AUTHORITY 7.1 Proposed Rule 608 Response by Wastewater Authority (608)(a_) Where a wastewater authority has been joined as a respondent pursuant to Rule 606 or 607, it shall file a response within twenty-one days of receipt of the petition . (608)(bJ The response shall indicate : (1) What permits the petitioner must obtain from it in order to make the sewer connections contemplated ; (_2_) Whether these permits have been issued or are likely to be issued ; (3_) Whether it supports or opposes the petitioner's sewer connections; 3-22 (4) Any facts alleged by petitioner with which it disagrees ; (5_) Any other relevant information . (608) (cj Participation by a wastewater authority as a respondent is for the purpose of allowing it to protect any interest it may have in the subject matter of the variance or permit appeal. No penalty or compliance order may be imposed upon it in this action. However, it may undertake a compliance plan in order to secure the relief petitioner requests. In the event a Board Order is conditioned upon a compliance plan to be executed by a wastewater authority, it shall be construed as a condition limiting the grant of the variance or permit to the petitioner and not as an order enforceable against the respondent wastewater authority. It will be necessary for the petitioner to obtain the respondent's performance to perfect the variance or permit . 7.2 Rationale New Rule 608(a), (b) and (c) have been added to clarify the rights and obligations of wastewater authorities involuntarily joined in variances or permit appeals. Rule 603(c) is designed to overcome the resistance of local wastewater authorities to being joined in variance and permit appeal proceedings. In the past, some local authorities have resisted being joined out of fear that a variance or permit granted by the Board and conditioned upon a compliance plan to be implemented by the wastewater authority would represent an order enforceable against the respondent wastewater authority. The proposed rule makes it clear that it is the petitioner's responsibility to obtain the respondent wastewater authority's compliance to perfect the variance or permit. 7.3 Environmental Impact The changes will have no effect upon pollution emissions and water quality, and, therefore, no benefits or costs resulting frcm reduc- tions or increases in environmental damages will result. 7.4 Administrative Impact The proposed changes complement and supplement the changes in Rules 606(d) and 607 by spelling out the rights and responsibilities of wastewater authorities joined as respondents in variance and permit denial appeal proceedings. These administrative impacts are discussed under Rule 606(d) and 607. 3-23 7.5 Economic Incidence The impacts upon control costs, prices, output and employment, and government expenditures and taxes are discussed under Rule 606(d) and 607. 8.0 RULE 914-PERMIT MODIFICATION PURSUANT TO BOARD ORDER 8.1 Proposed Rule 914 Variances from NPDES Limitations, Standards and Requirements Te-tne-extent-abitHeF42ed-by-the-FWPGA-afld-4;fle-A€ ; h-tfle-8eaFd may-gran t-var4anees -from- standards-- 4 4ffl4tat4ens-;- afld-req«4re- ffleRts-4ffipesed-by-tRese-NP9E5-Re§a4at4ens-Hpefl-a-5Hew4fl§-tflat eempHanee-webild^mpese- an -arb4trary- and- unreasonable- nardsh4p en -the-appl 4 eant-er-perff^ ttee-r-- Any- request- for- 5«€h-re4 4e# shal4-be-eemffleneed-4n-aeeeFdanee-w4th-Rd4e-494-e#-£he-Preeedbira4 Rd4es-and-PaFt-iV-e#-the-PreeeTdbira4-Rbi4es-5na44-geveFn-the preeeed4n§T--if-syen-a-var4anee-4s-§ranted-;-the-Beard-sna44 erder-the-A§eney-te-4ssbie-er-ffled4#y-an-HP9E§-Perm4t-€ens4stent w4tn-tne-Beard-0rder,-tne-FWPGA- 5 -Federa4-NP9ES-Reg«4at4ens and-the-Aet. 914 Permit Modification Pursuant to Board Order The Agency may issue, modify, revoke and reissue, or terminate any NPDES permit consistent with the Act, the Clean Water Act (FWPCA), applicable regulations and any applicable Board Order , whether the result of a variance, enforcement or permit appeal case . 8.2 Rationale Rule 914 has been rewritten to clarify the condition for NPDES to permit modification. The terminology "revoke and reissue, or terminate" is included to make the rule consistent with the terminology used in the federal NPDES regulations. This language also clearly authorizes the Agency to modify a permit even if there has been no specific Board directive to do so in an order. The Agency reports that, on occasion, permittees have objected to such permit modifications when the Board did not include the directive in its variance order. 8.3 Environmental Impact Pollution emissions and water quality will not be effected by these procedural changes. Consequently, no benefits or costs from reductions or increases in environmental damages will result. 3-24 8.4 Administrative Impact The proposed changes are part of an overall effort to clarify and improve the regulations which should result in benefits in the form of improved public understanding of the authority and responsibility of the NPDES permit issuing process and more efficient and effective administration by the Board and the Agency. The changes in this rule should have an especially salutory effect because of the large number of permits issued. During the past three years 1,250 NPDES permits have been issued by the Agency. 8.5 Economic Incidence The administrative benefits cited above could reflect themselves in lower control costs for permittees, the Board and the Agency and in reduced government expenditures and taxes. It is impossible to measure the magnitude of these potential savings and in fact most of them are not likely to be noticeable. Prices, output and employment will not be effected by the proposed changes. 9.0 RULE 917-PERMIT MODIFICATION PURSUANT TO APPLICATION 9.1 Proposed Rule 91 7 Permit Modification Pursuant to Application Upon receipt of an application from a permittee the Agency may issue, modify, revoke and reissue, or terminate any NPDES permit just as though an original application had been received . 9.2 Rationale New Rule 917 has been added to codify existing case law authorizing NPDES permit modification by the Agency prior to their expiration but only pursuant to application. 9.3 Environmental Impact The proposed change is procedural and will not effect pollution emission or water quality and will have no impact upon environmental damages . 9.4 Administrative Impact Codification of the procedure authorizing NPDES permit mod ; fi cations established that procedure as a matter or right for permitees. This represents a benefit to permitees in the form of an improvement in due process. 3-25 9.5 Enonomic Incidence There will be no effects upon control costs, prices, output or employment and government expenditures and taxes as a result of the proposed changes. 10.0. RULE 951-C0NSTRUCTI0N PERMITS 10.1 Proposed Rule 951 Construction Permits (951) Except for treatment works or wastewater sources which have or will have discharges for which NPDES permits are required, and for which NPDES permits have been issued by the Agency. (951) (a) No person shall cause or allow the construction of any new treatment works, sewer, or wastewater source or cause or allow the modification of any existing treatment works, sewer, or wastewater source without a Construction Permit issued by the Agency, except as provided in Paragraph (b). ( 951 ) ( b ) Construction Permits shall not be required for the following: ■ (1) Storm sewers that transport only land runoff; or (2) Any treatment works, sewer, or wastewater source designed and intended to serve a single building and eventually treat or discharge less than an average of 1500 gallons per day of domestic sewage and which will discharge, if at all, directly to a publicly owned or publicly regulated sanitary or combined sewer ; or (3) Any swer required by statute to secure a permit pursuant to Ch. Ill 1/2 111. Rev. Stat., Sec. 713, et seq.; or (4) Any treatment works, pretreatment works, sewer, or waste- water source that, on the effective date of this Subpart B, is being constructed or will be constructed under the authorization of a Permit already issued by the Agency or its predecessors; provided, however, that all construction must be completed within four years from the effective date of this Subpart B; or (5) Privately owned sewers tributary to industrial treatment works owned by the same person if the additional waste load does not exceed the permitted design capacity of the industrial treatment works . 3-26 (951 ) ( c) No person without a construction permit issued by the Agency shall cause or allow the construction of any pretreatment works or cause or allow the modification of any existing pretreatment works if such pretreatment works, after construc- tion or modification, will: (1 ) 94sehar§e-tex4s-pe44bitants-5-as-def4ned-4n-Se€t4en-§Q2(43) ef-tRe-FWPGA"er-pe44dtants-wR4eh-may-4fltef , #ere-w4th-the tFeatffleHt-preeess-4Hte-the-re€e4v4n€j-werks?-er Be subject to regulations promulgated under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act (FWPCA) (40 CFR ^art 403) ; or (2) Discharge 15% or more of the total hydraulic flow received by the treatment works; or (3) Discharge 15% or more of the total biological loading received by the treatment works as measured by the 5-day biochemical oxygen demand. w4 they t-a -Gens trd€t4eR-Perffl4t- 4 ssbied- by- the- Agency t 10.2 Rationale Rule 951(b)(2) has been reworded to specify more clearly the types of wastewater facilities exempted from construction permits. This change was precipitated by the Appellate Court decision in Starevich v. EPA (1979), 78 ILL. App. 3d 700, 397 N.E. 2d 870, which in effect construes Rule 951 as authorizing piecemeal development of a sewer system without an Agency construction permit. The new wording will avoid similar decisions in the future. Rule 951(c)(1) relating to the construction of pretreatment works discharging toxic pollutants has been changed to correctly state current federal law. Section 307 of the Clean Water Act provides for the iden- tification and regulation of toxic pollutants and of substances which may interfere with, pass through, or otherwise be incompatible with the treatment process of a P0TW. Under 40 CFR 403, USEPA has promulgated national pretreatment standards implementing Section 307. However, there are some indirect dischargers, such as breweries and slaughter- houses, which are not regulated under the federal standards and whose activities may have significant impact on the receiving P0TW. Subsections 951(c)(2) and (3) are retained to require construction permits for these indirect dischargers. 10.3 Environmental Impact As noted above, the current Appellate Court interpretation of Rule 951 (b)(2) as reflected in the Starcevich decision in effect construes that Rule as authorizing piecemeal development of a sewer system without an Agency construction permit. 3-27 The interpretation could result in negative environmental impacts. Without construction permits public health problems could increase through faulty sewer construction, improper placement of sewers near water sources, and sewer backups. In addition, sewer connections exempted from construction permits under 951 are exempted from any restricted status designation which might be placed upon the system. Thus, by increasing the number of connections exempt from permits under 951, the court is increasing the number of exemptions from restricted status. It, thus, in effect provides a means for property owners and developers to avoid restricted status. There is no way of knowing how far developers would go in taking advantage of this loophole or whether it would lead to any increase in public health problems and other environmental damages. Judging from the number of facilities covered by permits, the number of exempted facilities must be quite small by comparison and represent only a very small fraction of total water pollution emissions. In addition to the 1250 NPDES permits referenced earlier, during the past three years the Agency also issued 5453 construction and combined construction and operating permits under rules 951, 952, and 953. Under the circumstances, a substantial increase in the number of exempted facilities under 951(b)(2) as a result of the Stracevich interpretation might be noticeable in terms of some localized public health problems but not in terms of any degredation in water quality in the streams. Furthermore, other means are available to protect water quality and public health on sewer connections exempted under Rule 951(b). Most local wastewater authorities have their own requirements related to sewer hook-up and service fees which would apply to any connections exempted under Rule 951. Also, the Agency has other authority enforcing water quality standards which go beyond the granting of construction permits and which could be brought into play to prevent any increase in water pollution that might result from this loophole. Nevertheless, both the Board and the Agency feel that the Starcevich decision provides an opportunity for circumventing Board regulations and poses the potential danger of public health problems which should be removed, and that is the prupose of the proposed changes in Rule 951(b)(2). In commenting on the initial draft of the proposed changes in Rule 951(b)(2), the Illinois Power Company noted that by requiring that an exempted facility discharge directly to a publicly owned or publicly regulated facility, the proposed amendment removes from the exclusion facilities such as private septic systems which may have a surface discharge not requiring an NPDES permit. The phrase "if at all" was added to the language in the current draft of the rule at Illinois Power's suggestion to remedy this deficiency. ■28 The agency is now suggesting even more explicit language through the addition of part 6 of Rule 951(b)(2) which would read as follows: "(6) Private sewage disposal systems which are regulated under the Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act, Rev. State. Ch. 111^, Par 116 301 et seq. as amended." The agency does not intend to issue permits for private septic systems which are regulated by the Illinois Department of Public Health pur- suant to the statute cited above. There will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed change in Rule 951 (c)(1). 10.4 Administrative Impact The proposed changes are part of the overall effort to clarify and improve the regulations, which should result in benefits in the form of improved public understanding of the regulations and more efficient and effective administration by the Board and the Agency. The Agency has called attention to the potential for duplication in the requirement for construction permits for pretreatment facilities under Rule 951 (c) (1). Under Federal law the State must require pretreatment programs by local wastewater authorities part of which includes a local permit system. In these situations, there will be no need for an Agency construction permit as well. To avoid any duplication the Agency is proposing a change in the proposed language of Rule 951(c)(1) that would exempt pretreatment facilities from Agency permits where local permits are required. Under this change, the new wording of Rule 951(c) would be as follows, with the new wording underl ined. "(c) Unless waived as part of the pretreatment program of a publicly-owned treatment works approved by the Agency in accordance with Section 307 of the Clean Water Act , no person, without a construction permit issued by the Agency shall cause or allow the construction of any pretreatment works, or cause or allow the modification of any existing pretreatment works if such pretreatment works after construction or modification:" (Continue as in proposed rule)* According to the Agency, approval of local pretreatment programs will be based upon Federal requirements for monitoring, compliance reporting and enforcement. The Agency feels that approved pretreatment programs Letter dated April 6, 1981 from Mary V. Rehman, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to Illinois Pollution Control Board. 3-29 of some of the larger publicly owned treatment works will be operated in such a way as to obviate the need for additional construction and operating permits by the Agency. The deter- mination will be made as part of the Agency's review of the proposed local pretreatment program. If the Agency determines that permits under Rule 951(c)(1) are not needed to accomplish the purposes of the Act, this requirement will be waived as an element of the approved pretreatment program, and the waiver will be communicated to the industrial discharges by the local wastewater authority. As noted in connection with Rule 501, rule changes relating to industrial pretreatment have little practical significance at the present time because of the uncertain status of the Federal pre- treatment programs. The program is not operational in Illinois so that no constructing permits are required under Rule 951(c)(1). It may never become operational in its present form. The pretreatment program is one of the more controversial parts of the Clean Water Act, and it is currently undergoing critical review by Congress. All Federal funding for the program has been frozen by President Reagan pending completion of this review. 10.5 Economic Incidence To the extent that the proposed change in Rule 951(b)(2) reduces the number of exempt sewer connections, more permit applications will be required and control costs will increase for permit applicants, the Board and the Agency. The increases will probably be noticeable only to the individual applicants affected so that there will be no effect upon government expenditure and taxes. Prices, output and employment will not be affected by the change. The change in Rule 951(c)(1) will have no effect upon control costs, government expenditures and taxes, as upon prices, output and employ- ment. 11.0 RULE 952-0PERATING PERMITS: NEW OR MODIFIED TREATMENT WORKS, ETC. 11.1 Proposed Rule 952 Operation Operating Permits: New or Modified Treatment Works, Sewers and Wastewater Sources. (952)(a) No person shall cause or allow the use or operation of any treatment works, sewer or wastewater source for which a construction permit is required under Rule 951 without an operating permit issued by the Agency, except fer-sueh test4n§-eperat4ens as may be authorized by the construction permit. No operating permit is required under this rule for any discharge for which an NPDES permit is required . 3-30 (952){b) HeweveF T -the-Fe9,d4FeffleRt-feF-aR-9peFat4R§-PeFffl4t-fe-F-eR4y that-peFt4eR-ef-aRy-tFeatmeRt-weFks-eF-wastewateF-seuFee feF-wR4eh-aR-NP9E5-PeFm4t-4s-Fe9,d4Fed-SRa44-be-suspeRded fFeffl-the-ef#eet4ve-date-e#-th4s-5dbBaFt-B-feiRt44-the eaF44eF-ef-e4theF. (1) June 30, 1975, or (2) TRe-date-ef-a-#4Ra4-deteFm4Rat4eR-By-tRe-Adffi4R4stFateF, BHFsuaRt-te-Seet4eR-492(e)-e#-tRe-FWPGA-5- that- the S tate 1 s-NP9E5- PeFffl4t-BFe§Faffl- dees -Ret-meet- the- Fee, u4 Fe- meR ts-ef -See t4eR -492(b) -of- dees- Re t-eeR#eFffl-te- the §d4de44Res-4ssued-URdeF-5eet4eH-394(h)(3)-ef-tRe-FWPGA. (952)(e) 9fi-tRe-e#teet4ve-date-e#-5ube-aFt-A-heFee#"a ; }4-Fee;H4FeffleRts teF-9peFat4R§-PeFffl4ts-feF-d4sehaF§es-teF-wh4eh-NP9E§-PeFffl4ts aFe - Feq w 4 Fed -s ha H-he-abe4 4 shed-5-pyFStiaRt-te- the- pFev4s4eRS e#-5eet4eR-43(b)(4)-ef-the-Aet. 11.2 Rationale Rule 952(a) has been amended by adding a sentence to state expressly the exemption from operating permits for new or modified treatment works, sewers or wastewater sources where an NPDES permit is required. Rules 952(b) and (c) relating to compliance and effective dates are deleted because they are unnecessary. 11.3 Environmental Impact The proposed changes will have no effects upon pollution emission, water quality or environmental damages. 11.4 Administrative Impact The proposed changes are part of an overall effort to clarify and update the regulations, which should result in a benefit in the form of improved public understanding of the regulations and more efficient and effective administration by the Board and the Agency. 11.5 Economic Incidence The administrative benefits cited above could reflect themselves in lower control costs and lower government expenditures and taxes, although the impact will very likely not be noticeable. The changes will have no effect upon prices, output and employment. 3-31 12.0 RULE 953-OPERATING PERMITS: EXISTING TREATMENT WORKS, ETC. 12.1 Proposed Rule 953 Operating Permits: Existing Treatment Works, Pretreatment Works and Wastewater Sources. (953)(a) No person shall cuase or allow the use of operation of any treatment works, pretreatment works, or wastewater source after 9eeembeF-34 7 -4972- without an operating permit issued by the Agency, except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d). (953) (b) Per- the-per4ed-ef-t4ffle-ref erred- te-4n-Ru4e-9§2-abeve-5- the Fequ4Fefflent-e#-Qperat4ng-PeFffl4ts-feF-tFeatffleHt-weFks-and wastewateF-seuFees-#eF-wR4eh-NP9E5-PeFffl4ts-are-Fequ4Fed sha44-be-suspendedT--0R-the-e#feet4ve-date-ef-5ubpart-A- heFeefT-a ; l-4-Feqy4) e effleHts-feF-9perat4H§-Perffl4ts-feF-d4sehaf§ers fer-wh4eh-WP9E5-PeFffl4ts-aFe-Fee;U4Fed-sha44-be-abe44shed, pursuant- te-prev4s4ens-ef-Seet4en- 4 3(b) (4) -e#-the-Aet. No operating permit is required under this rule for any discharge for which an NPDES permit is required . (953)(c) Operating Permits are required for treatment works and waste- water sources that are designed and intended to serve a single building and eventually treat or discharge less than an average of 1500 gallons per day of domestic sewage. (953) (d) Operating Permits are not required for those pretreatment works or wastewater sources discharging to a sewer tributary to a treatment works that which will not: ( 1 ) 94sehaFge-tex4e-pe44utants-5-as-def4ned-4H-§e€t4efl-i92{43} ef- the -FWPGA T -eF-pe44utants-wh4 en-may- 4 nteF#eFe-w4tH- the trea tmeRt-preeess-4Hte- the- reee4v4n§- treatment-works? -or Be subject to regulations promulgated under Section 307 of Clean Water Act; or (2) Discharge 15% or more of the total hydraulic flow received by the treatment works; or (3) Discharge 15% or more of the total biological loading received by the treatment works as measured by the 5-day biochemical oxygen demand. 12.2 Rationale Rule 953(a) has been changed and Rule 953(b) has been deleted to remove references to compliance and effective dates which are no longer appl icable. 3-32 New Rule 953(b) has been added to state expressly the exemption from operating permits for existing treatment works, pretreatment works and wastewater sources where an NPDES permit is required. Rule 953(d)(1) has been changed to correctly state the realtionship to federal law. These changes are the same as those for Rule 951(c)(1), and the rationale is also the same. 12.3 Environmental Impact None of the proposed changes will have any effect upon pollution emissions, water quality or environmental damages. 12.4 Administrative Impact The proposed changes are part of an overall effort to clarify, update and improve the regulations which will result in a benefit in the form of improved public understanding of the regulations and more efficient and effective administration by the Board and the Agency. Given the fact that the pretreatment program is not operational in Illinois and its present uncertain status in the Congress, the changes relating to operating permits for pretreatment facilities have little practical significance at the present time. The reader is referred to additional comments on the pretreatment program under Rules 501 and 951. 12.5 Economic Incidence The administrative benefits cited above could reflect themselves in lower control costs and reduced government expenditures and taxes, although the changes will very likely not be noticeable. There will be no effects upon prices, output and employment. 13.0 RULE 956- FORMER PERMITS 13.1 Proposed Rule 9§6 Former- Perm4ts (a) The-4ssdan€e-e#-any-perm4t-by-the-A§eney-eF-any-predeeesser pr4er- te- tne-ef- #eet4ve- da te-ef-th4s- Subpart- B-w4 44 -net net-eK€yse-eefflp44anee-w4th-tHe-Fee|bi4rements-fer-ebta4n4n§ Qperat4n€j-Perifi4ts-as-set-ferth-4n-Ru4e-9§37 (b) Ne-£enstru€t4en-er-9perat4fl§-Perm4t-4ssded-by- the- Agency or-i ts- predecessor- under- ad ther4ty-e#- any- State- 4 eg4s4at4 en or-regu4 a t4on- ether- than-Seet4en-39(b}-ef- the- Act- and- Beard regu 4a t4oRS-premu4 gated- pursuant- there te-?-sha4 4 -be- eens4dered va44d-fer-the-purpese-ef-auther4z4ng-aHy-d4sehar§e-te-the waters-ef-the-State-er-te-any-we44-r 956 Deleted 3-33 13.2 Rationale Rules 956(a) and (b) are deleted because they no longer have any effect. 13.3 Environmental Impact There will be no effects upon pollution emissions, water quality or environmental damages. 13.4 Administrative Impact The proposed changes will have no administrative impact. 13.5 Economic Incidence There will be no effects upon control costs, prices, output or employment, and government expenditures and taxes. 14.1 RULE 962-STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE 14.1 Proposed Rule 962 Standards for Issuance (962) (a) The Agency shall not grant any permit required by this Subpart B, except an Experimental Permit under Rule 955, unless the applicant submits adequate proof that the treatment works, sewer, or wastewater source? W444 will be constructed, modified, or operated so as not to cause a violation of the Act or of this Chapter-?, er-has-been §ranted-a-var4an€e-bmder-T4t4e-JX-ef-the-Aet-5-and (962) (b) E4ther- conforms -te- the- des4gn-€r4ter4a-premu4gated-by the-Agency- under- Ru4e-967-;-er-4s -based-en- sueh-ether- er4 ter4a-wh4eh- the- app44eant- proves -w44 4 -product- een- s4stent4y-sat4sfaetery-resu4ts-j-and If the Agency has promulgated, pursuant to Rule 967 , criteria with regard to any part or condition of a permit, then for purposes of permit issuance proof of conformity with the criteria shall be prima facie evidence of no violation. However, nonconformity with the criteria shall not be grounds for permit den ial if the condition of subsection (a) of this rule is~met. (962){e) Conforms- te-a44-eend4t4ens-eenta4ned-4n-the-Genstrd€t4en Perm4t-j -where- app44eab4eT 14.2 Rationale In Rule 962(a) references to variances under Title IX of the Act have been removed because these references seem to indicate that a variance application is the appropriate route of appeal for a permit denial, which is not always the case. Further clarification 3-34 is provided in new expanded regulations on variances in Rules 607 and 974. Rule 962(b) has been reworded to make it clear that nonconformity with Agency construction criteria is not, of itself, grounds for permit denial . Rule 962(c) has been deleted because a literal interpretation conflicts with Section 39a of the Act which required the Agency to issue a permit if the applicant demonstrates that there will be no violation of the Act or a Board regulation. 14.3 Environmental Impact The proposed changes will have no effect upon pollution emissions, water quality or environmental damages. 14.4 Administrative Impact The proposed changes in this rule are part of an overall effort to clarify and improve the regulations which should result in improved public understanding of the regulations and more efficient and effective administration by the Board and the Agency. 14.5 Economic Incidence The administrative benefits cited above could reflect themselves in lower control costs and reduced government expenditures and taxes, although the changes will yery likely not be noticeable. There will be no effect upon prices, output and employment. 15.0 RULE 967-DESIGN CRITERIA 15.1 Proposed Rule 967 Design Operation and Maintenance Criteria (967) (a) The Agency may adopt preeedure5-wh4en-set-ferth criteria for the design, operation, and maintenance of treatment works, pretreatment works, sewers, and wastewater sources. These procedures criteria shall be revised from time to time to reflect current engineering judgment and advances in the state of the art. (967) (b) Bef ere- adopting- new- er4ter4 a- er-FRak4ng-sbbstant4ve- changes te-any-6r4ter4 a- adopted -by- the- Agency -*- the- Agency- sha44: (4}--Pub44sh-a-5Ufflfflary-e#-the-prepesed-chan§es-4n-the Beard- News 4 etter-er-a-eefflparae.4e-pub4 4 eat4en-3 -at Ageney-i-s- expense-; -and (2) --Prev4de-a-cepy-e#-the-#y 44- text-e#- the- proposed changes -te-any-persen-whe- 4 n-wr4t4ne- so- requests-; and 3-35 (3}--Be#eFe-adeptiefl-ef -the- ehan§es-feF-45-€lays-f for £he-date-ef-pub : Uea£4eR-£e-aUew-sHbffii5s4en-aRd eeRs4deFat4eR-e#-wF4tten-eefflifieHts-eH-the-preeesed ehangesT The Agency shall adopt such procedures as are necessary for permit issuance under this Subpart B of Part IX . (967) (c) In adopting new or revised criteria or procedures, the Agency shall comply with the requirements of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, 111. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 127, S1001 et seg. (967) (d) To the extent the Agency adopts such criteria, they will represent a formal Agency interpretation of what is con- sistent with the Act and Chapter 3 and necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act. 15.2 Rationale Rules (967) (a) and 967(b) have been reworded and new Rules 967(c) and 967(d) have been added to incorporate from Rule 971 Agency authorizations relating to the preparation of procedures necessary for permit issuance. The Rule clarifies the distinction between engineering criteria and procedural rules and correctly states the requirements of the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act. 15.3 Environmental Impact The proposed changes will have no effect upon pollution emissions, water quality or environmental damages. 15.4 Administrative Impact The proposed changes are part of an overall effort to clarify and improve the regulations which should result in improved public understanding of the regulations and more efficient and effective administration by the Board and the Agency. 15.5 Economic Incidence The administrative benefits cited above could be reflected in lower control costs and reduced government expenditures and taxes, although the changes will \/ery likely not be noticeable. Prices, output and employment will not be effected by the changes. 16.0 RULE 969-PERMIT REVOCATION 16.1 Proposed Rule 969 Permit Revocation 3-36 (969) (a) V4e4at4eR-e#-tfie-eeRd4t4eRS-e#-a-peFffl4t-4ssbed-biRdeF tRe-p^e v4s4ens-e#-tR4 s- Subpart- B-sRall-be-g^e bmds-f ef-- Feveeat4eR-ef-tRe-perffl4t-;-4R-add4t4eR-te-etReF-saRet4eRS prev4ded-by-tRe-AetT--SbeR-saRet4eRS-sRa44-be-seu§Rt-by f414R§-a-eefflpla4Rt-w4%R-tRe-BeaFd7 A permit issued under this Subpart B may be revoked for cause which includes, but is not limited to, the fol lowing : (1 ) Cause as set forth in Rule 912(b); or (2) Delinquency in payment of any charges which may be required to be paid under Section 240(b) of the Clean Water Act. (969) (b) 9e44He)yeR€y-4H-paymeHt-ef-any-eRaF§es-wh4eh-fflay-be-fequ4fed %9-bG-pa4d-wndeF-Seet4eH-294(b)-ef-tRe-FWP6A-and-Fe§d4a ; fe4ens theFedRdeF-SRa4}-be-§FeuRds-feF-Feveeat4eH-ef-any-perffl4£ 4ssued- pursuant- te-tR4s-SybpaFt-B-as-prev4ded-by-Rfei}e-9§9{a} abever Revocation may be sought by filing a complaint with the Board pursuant to Part III of the Procedural Ru les. 16.2 Rationale Rules (969) (a) and (b) have been reworded to more clearly state the causes and procedures for permit revocation. 16.3 Environmental Impact The proposed change will have no effect upon pollution emissions, water quality or environmental damages. 16.4 Administrative Impact As part of the overall effort to clarify and improve the regulations the proposed changes will contribute to improved public understanding of the regulations and more efficient and effective administration by the Board and the Agency. 16.5 Economic Incidence The administrative benefits noted above could be reflected in lower control cost for permitees, the Agency and the Board, and reduced government expenditures and taxes although the changes are not likely to be noticeable. Prices, output and employment will not be effected by the changes. 17.0 RULE 971-PR0CEDURES 17.1 Proposed Rule 971 Procedures jR-add4t4eR-te-preeedures-spee4#4ea}4y-autReF4zed-URder-tR4s 3-37 Part-?- the- AgeR€y-fflay-adept-aRd-prefflu4§ate-a44-preeedbiFes reaseRab4y-Reeessary-te-perferm-4ts-dut4es-aRd-respeR54b444t4e5 HRder-tR4s-GRapter---5yeR-preeeduFes-5-aRd-rev4s4eRS- thereto? SRa44-Ret-beeeffle-e##e€t4ve-URt44-#44ed-w4tR-tRe-iRdex-94v4s4eR ef-tRe-9ff4ee-ef-Se€retary-ef-State-as-re€|fci4Fed-by--AR-Aet GeReerR4Rg-Adffl4R4strat4ve-Rd4es--5 -approved- Jbme-44-5-4964-;- as ameRded- 17.2 Rationale Rule 971 relating to procedural rules has been deleted and incorporated in Rule 967(b). 17.3 Environmental Impact See Rule 967(b). 17.4 Administrative Impact See Rule 967(b). 17.5 Economic Incidence See Rule 967(b) 18.0 RULE 974-PERMIT MODIFICATION PURSUANT TO VARIANCE 18.1 Proposed Rule 974 P ermit Modification Pursuant to Variance If a permit is denied or granted with objectionable conditions required by Board Regulations, the permittee may petition the Board for a variance from the regulations. The proceeding will be governed by Part IV of the Procedural Rules. If requested, the Board may order permit modification or issuance pursuant to variance. 18.2 Rationale New Rule 974 has been added to clarify the function of variances in non-NPDES permit issuance. The change codifies and formulizes a practice currently followed by the Board. 18.3 Environmental Impact Since the proposed change is procedural, it will have no effect upon pollution emissions or water quality and will not effect environment damages one way or another. 18.4 Administrative Impact Codification and formalization of procedures relating to the issuance of variances in non-NPDES permit issuance represents a benefit to 3-38 permittees in the form of a due process improvement. Clarification of the variance process will help improve public understanding of the regulation and contribute to more efficient and effective administration by the Board and the Agency. 18.5 Economic Incidence The above administrative benefits could be reflected in lower control costs for variance applicants and the Board and the Agency and in reduced government expenditures and taxes although the changes will \/ery likely not be noticeable. There will be no effects from the changes upon prices, output and employment. 19.0 RULE 975-PERMIT MODIFICATION PURSUANT TO APPLICATION 19.1 Proposed Rule 975 P ermit Modification Pursuant to Application Upon receipt of an application from a permittee the Agency may issue, modify, revoke and reissue, or terminate any permit just as though an original application had been received. 19.2 Rationale New Rule 975 codifies existing case law and clarifies the Agency's authority to modify non-NPDES permits. 19.3 Environmental Impact The proposed change will not effect pollution emissions or water quality, and will have no impact upon environmental damages. 19.4 Administrative Impact Establishment of the procedure authorizing modification of non-NPDES permits as a matter of right through codification represents a benefit to permittees in the form of a due process improvement. Clarification will result in a better understanding of the Agency's authority by permittees and contribute to more efficient and effective overall administration of Board and Agency procedures and regulations. 19.5 Economic Incidence The administrative benefits noted above could be effected in lower control costs for permittees, the Agency and the Board and in reduced government expenditures and taxes, although the changes are not likely to be noticeable. Prices, output and employment will not be effected by the changes. 3-39 Chapter 4 Comparison Benefits and Costs The benefits and costs associated with each of the proposed changes are summarized in Table 4.1. Major categories of benefits and costs are shown acrcss the top of the table while the rules incorporating the proposed changes are listed in the left column. The expected effects of the proposed rule changes are shown under each benefit cost column. Positive effects are noted with a plus sign (+) sign and negative effects with a minus sign (-). A zero (0) indicates a neutral effect. It should be noted that under Economic Incidence a negative impact means an increase in costs, prices, expenditures, etc., while a positive impact implies a reduction in these factors. As noted earlier all of the proposed changes are part of an overall attempt to clarify and improve the regulations. Table 4.1 shows that many of the changes produce positive administrative impacts. These take the form of improvements in due process, enhanced public understanding of the regulations or greater administrative efficiency and effectiveness, all of which should contribute to lower control costs, lower prices for wastewater service and reduced governmental expenditures. In most instances we have not shown any effects under any of the three measures of Economic Incidence because these effects are not likely to be noticeable. However, the combined influence of all of the proposed changes should have a positive effect upon control costs for the Board, the Agency, local wastewater authorities and individual property owners as a group, upon prices of wastewater service for permitees and upon expenditures by the Board, the Agency and local waste- water authorities. These combined effects are shown in the bottom line in Table 4.1. The overall impression from Table 4.1 is one of positive effects from the proposed changes. The major benefits take the form of administrative improvements such as improvements in due process, enhanced public under- standing of the regulations and greater effectiveness and efficiency in administering the regulations. Some of these benefits should be reflected in lower control costs, lower prices for wastewater services and reduced government expenditures. Some Changes will create opposite pressures and increase costs by encouraging greater use of remedial measures or increasing the involvement of local wastewater authorities in permit and variance pro- ceedings. On balance we would expect that on an overall basis the reduction should more than offset any increases so that net savings in control costs, prices of wastewater service and government services should result. This obviously will not be the case for each individual permitee affected by the regulations. But even in the aggregate it seems doubtful that any of the economic effects of the proposed changes will be noticeable so that the most visible result of the changes might be the greater public satisfaction and acceptance of the regulations and the state's water pollution control program. 4-1 Table 4.1 Summary of Benefits and Costs Resulting From Proposed IPCB Changes in Water Pollution Regulations (Docket # R80-6) Environmental Administrative Economic Incidence Proposed Control Price Employ Govt Expend. Rule Impact Impact Cost Effect Output Effect Tax Effects 104 501 (a)(l ) 604 (a) 604 (b) 604 (c) 604 (d) 604 (e) o Id + 604 (e) n ew + 604 (f) o Id 604 (f) n ew + 604 (9) + 604 (h) + 605 + 606 (a) + - - - 606 (b) + 606 (c) + 606 (d) + 607 + + + + 608 + 914 old 914 new + 917 + 951 (b)(2 ) + 951 (c)(l ) 952 (a) + 952 (b) 952 (c) 953 (a) 4-2 Table 4.1 (continued) Summary of Benefits and Costs Resulting From Proposed IPBC Changes in Water Pollution Regulations (Docket # R80-6) ...... Environmental Impact r | • Administrative Impact Economic Incidence Proposed Rule Control Cost Effect I Price Employ. Output Effect Go vt. Expend. Tax Effect 953 (b) + 953 (d)(1) 956 962 (a) + 962 (b) + 962 (c) 967 (a) 967 (b) + 967 (c) + 967 (d) + 969 (a) + ° 969 (b) + 971 974 + 975 + Combined ef feet of all prop osed changes + + + + 4-3 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 628.168 EC74X C001 Economic Impact study of proposed IPCB a 3 0112 088638157