ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 6, 1973
    )
    REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY
    )
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 73-235
    )
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    )
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
    Mr.
    Dumelle)
    Messrs. Hackbert, Rooks, Pitts, Fullagar ~ Poust, by Mr. Clifton A.
    Lake, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner,
    Mr. John Slattery and Mr. Michael A. Benedetto, Jr.
    ,
    Assistant
    Attorney Generals, Environmental Control Division, appeared
    on behalf of the Respondent
    Petition for variance from certain of the Water Pollution
    Regulation was filed June 1, 1973 for the West Outfall Treatment
    Plant of the Reynolds Metals Company in McCook. On July 6, 1973
    the Environmental Protection Agency filed its recommendation calling
    for a denial on part of the variance and a grant of part. Public
    hearing was held on July 27, 1973.
    This case rises from the Board’s order in PCB 72-518 of
    April 12, 1973 (opinion of May 3, 1973). We granted the petitioner’s
    motion to incorporate that entire record into these proceedings.
    Reynolds asks for variance as follows:
    a) From the requirements of Rule 1002 so as to enable
    the Agency to approve its project completion schedule
    for compliance with Rule 404(c) with a November 3, 1974
    compliance date.
    b) From the requirements of Rule 404(c) until November 3,
    1974.
    c) Extension of the existing variance from Rule 903(a)
    until such time as the Agency shall approve the peti-
    tioner’s project completion schedule pursuant to variance
    requested and issue an operating permit to petitioner
    for the West Outfall Treatment Plant.
    The Agency recommended approval of the Rule 1002 variance and
    denial of the Rule 903(a) request because of failure to re-submit
    its operating permit application. It also recommends denial of
    Rule 404(c) as being a self-imposed hardship because of delay. The
    Agency further states that it does not agree with the petitioner
    that it is governed by Rule 602(d) (2) but believes that Rule 602(d) (3)
    9
    —
    203
    -2-
    governs and that storm overflow problems must be corrected by
    Decembej 31, 1975.
    Many o:F the issues deal with the question of which regulation
    is applicable. Petitioner requests variance from Rule 404(c) in
    order to bring its suspended solids discharge from 26 mg/i to 12 mg/l
    (Petition, Weston Report of May 14, 1973, p. 4), Rule 404(c) (ii)
    gives the effective date for sources with a dilution ratio between
    two-to-one and less than five-to-one as December 31, 1974 to achieve
    12 mg/l. The Reynolds dilution ratio is four-to-one and thus falls
    within the range of this reguldtion (R, 46-7)
    .
    The variance request
    from 404(c) until November
    3,
    1974 is thus moot as is the related
    Rule 1002 request.
    We
    are left then only with the variance request from Rule 903(a)
    which requires an operating permit for
    an
    existing treatment plant.
    We
    had previously granted a variance until July 31, 1973 and ordinarily
    would not be disposed to extend this variance, Reynolds had from
    April 12, 1973 to July 31, 1973 to submit its materials for an
    operating permit and for reasons not clear in the record did not do
    so. Perhaps with Rule 404(c) being moot, no impediment now exists.
    However, as we said in the opinion in PCB 72-518
    We take the position that a denial would
    serve no useful purpose at this point.
    We again grant a variance from Rule 903(a) to run only until
    September 30, 1973. That should be sufficient time for Reynolds
    to resubmit its operating permit application to the Agency.
    Lastly, we do not agree with Reynolds and we do agree with the
    Agency that the applicable storm water overflow rule is Rule 602(d) (3)
    and the applicable date is December 31, 1975.
    Reynolds argues that
    McCook is wholly within The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
    Chicago and that 602(d) (2) applies and consequently a deadline date
    of December 31, 1977 is applicable. The Agency argues that it is
    necessary to discharge industrial wastewater to the MSDGC in order
    to be eligible for the later date.
    Neither are correct.
    The 1977 date was set by the Board for
    the storm water overflows owned or subject to control by the
    MSDGC
    in light of the long period and large amounts of money required to
    build an “Underflow Plan” or any other “Deep Tunnel” control variant.
    A direct discharging industry, within the MSDGC with a combined
    storm problem of its own, would be expected to solve its problem
    in the same time frame (by December 31, 1975) as an industry located
    anywhere else in Illinois also discharging to a waterway. Since
    Reynolds did not make its case for the variance on Rule 602(d) (3)
    we
    will not rule
    on it in
    this proceeding.
    Indeed it
    would be pre-
    mature
    to do so because the December 31, 1975 deadline is farther
    off than the 12-month period within which the Board can grant a
    variance.
    9
    —
    204
    -3-
    This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
    and conclusions of law.
    ORDER
    1. Variance requests as to Rules 404(c)
    an~ 1002 are dismissed
    as moot without prejudice.
    2.
    Variance
    from
    Rule 903 (a) is granted for
    the period froni
    July 31, 1973 to September 30, 1973.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Odell abstains.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois
    Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Opinion
    and
    Order was adopted
    on the ~
    day of September, 1973
    by
    a vote of
    .3-~~
    Christan L. Moffett, C
    Illinois Pollution Co 1 Board
    9
    —
    205

    Back to top