ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 18, 1973
MINERVA OIL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 73—284
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OZARK-MAIIONING COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 73—294
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)
Petitioners are two companies which produce fluorspar from
their mines and mills located in Hardin and Pope Counties,
Illinois. Together they produce about 55 of the total U. S.
production of fluorspar. Discharges from their mines and mills
contain concentrations of calcium fluoride which exceed the
fluoride levels authorized in Rule 203(f) and Rule 408(a) of
the Water Regulations and Rule 605 of the Mine Related Regulations
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board. The EPA has denied
operating permits for the reason that Petitioners have not
submitted programs for achieving compliance with the Fluoride
Standards. Petitioners stated that they can not submit such
compliance programs because no economically proven technology
exists to treat its plant discharges to the level which is required
by our Regulation.
The two companies petition for variance from Rules 203(f)
and 408(a) of the Water Regulations and Rule 605 of the Mine
Related Regulations. The Agency states that variance should be
denied since no definite compliance program and compliance dates
have been presented by the companies. Since the implication is
that compliance may never be achieved with the Fluoride Standards~
the Agency states that variance is an improper remedy and that an
operating permit should not issue. The Agency, however, states
9—561
—2—
that relief of some type should be granted to Petitioners.
The two companies now request leave to file in this pro-
ceeding a Proposed Amendment to Rules 203(f) and 408 for the
purpose of changing the Fluoride Standard. The Agency recommends
that we allow the motion and schedule hearings on the proposal
to amend regulations.
Petitioners further request leave to file an appeal from
the permit denials.
We will allow Petitioners to file in the pending proceedings
their appeals from the denial of operating permits. Rearing on
the permit appeals can be conducted along with the hearing on the
variance petitions now pending. On August 16, 1973 at the first
hearing both Petitioners waived their Statutory rights to a
ruling within 90 days on the variance petitions. The waiver
should be clearly stated in writing by Petitioners upon the
filing of a permit appeal since there is the possibility of delay
in the hearings on the permit and th~variance1 pending a decision
on a Proposal to Amend the Regulations in question.
The Proposal to Amend the Regulations shall not be filed in
the pending variance proceedings. Any such Proposal shall be
docketed separately and the hearings on it shall be conducted
separately and not in conjunction with the permit or variance
hearings. The Proposal for Amendment of Regulation need not be
accompanied by the 200 signatures which are referred to in our
Procedural Rule 204 but should comply with other provisions of Board
Rules.
ORDER
Motion for leave to file appeals herein from the denial of
operating permits is allowed, conditioned upon an appropriate
waiver of Environmental Protection Act, Section 38 and Section 40
or extension of time which will allow this Board sufficient time
for ruling after consolidated hearings.
Motion for leave to amend the Variance Petition by proposing
amendment of Rule 203 and Rule 408 of the Water Pollution Regu-
lations is denied. Any such Proposal for Amendment of Regulations
shall be submitted as a separate matter conforming with Statutory
requirements and our Procedural Rules, except that the petition
need not be signed by 200 persons.
9
—562
—3—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Order was adopted this
/~~)
day of
___________,
1973 by a vote of
,~
to ~
9— 563
S
S