ILLINOIS
    POLLuTION CONTROL BOARD
    May
    5,
    1983
    MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CO.,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—71
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    RICHARD
    J.
    KISSEL
    (MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTER & SONNENSCHEIN)
    AND BRIAN
    H.
    DAVIS (OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL/3M) APPEAREr
    ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER; AND
    WILLIAM
    J.
    I3ARZANO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED~ON
    BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    Andersonh
    This matter comes before
    the Board on the March
    30,
    1979
    appeal of certain conditions of NPDES permit 1L0003140 issued
    February 28,
    1979 by the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Aqency (Agencv~ to the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.
    (3M).
    The permit governs discharges from 3M’s Cordova, Rock
    Island County,
    chemical manufacturing plant.
    The Cordova
    plant manufactures adhesives and resin products,
    iron oxides,
    fluorochemicals and industrial specialty chemicals.
    Plant
    e~fluentis discharged
    to the Mississippi River.
    3M challenged
    4 conditions,
    and omission of a fifth.
    First,
    it objected to the duration of the permit,
    arguing
    that
    a
    3 year permit was more appropriate
    than the
    2 year permit
    issued.
    Second,
    3M questioned
    the Agency’s establishment
    of
    two
    separate effluent limitations for what
    it called
    in the permit
    Nnon_contact cooling water”
    (Attach.
    B—i) and process waste—
    water
    Attach.
    B—1(a),
    when prior permits had recognized that
    there is physically only one discharge
    to the Mississippi.
    The
    constituents
    of this single discharqe are non—contact process
    water1
    wastewater
    from
    the plant’s organic waste treatment
    phase,
    and wastewater
    from
    the inorganic waste treatment phase.
    52-117
    2
    3M
    asserted
    that prior to the design of the facility, that the
    Agency had approved mixing of these three waste streams,
    pursuant
    to its authority to make determinations concerning
    the “best
    degree of treatment of wastewater” as outlined
    in 35 Ill. Mm.
    Code 304.102
    (formerly Rule 401(a) Dilution of Chapter
    3:
    Water
    Pollution).
    3M claimed that Agency reversal
    of this earlier
    determination would be arbitrary and capricious, and that the
    Agency should be estopped from so doing.
    The balance of
    the conditions relate to monitoring and
    authority to discharge pollutants other than those specified.
    The third challenged condition
    (Attach.
    T3—1(a),
    ¶6)
    related
    to twice—yearly monitoring for 19 designated parameters.
    3M
    objected on the grounds that monitoring and reporting for
    5 of
    these was required
    in other permit sections at different
    frequencies, and that the other 14 parameters were not present
    in the discharge in significant concentrations.
    The fourth
    condition,
    Attachment G,
    required submission of
    a “facility
    process evaluation”
    “with regard to known or potential toxic
    pollutants”,
    to be submitted 180 days prior to the permit’s
    expiration.
    3M objected to this condition because of lack of
    prior public notice,
    and the condition’s general vagueness
    and unreasonableness.
    Finally,
    3M requested inclusion of
    a
    condition allowing for discharge of pollutants other than those
    specified,
    provided that concentration limits did not exceed
    applicable federal or state limitations.
    All of the challenged conditions save the “facility
    process evaluation” were stayed by the Board’s Order of May
    10,
    1979.
    On July 26,
    1979,
    at 3M’s request the Board ordered that
    certain files
    be marked “not subject to disclosure”.
    Hearing
    was held
    in this matter on August 10,
    1.82,
    at which the parties
    presented suggested resolutions of this matter.
    No further
    arguments or comments have been
    received before or since the
    November
    9,
    1982 filing
    of the hearing transcript.
    In the parties’
    “stipulation”
    at
    hearing, the Agency has
    agreed to issue
    a
    3 year permit,
    to make all
    of the changes
    listed on
    p.
    6, paragraph
    tO
    of
    3M’s
    petition,
    to
    add
    an
    authorization to discharge parameters not otherwise listed,
    and
    to modify the facility process evaluation requirements
    (R.
    6-13).
    ~In consideration for that”
    (R.
    6),
    3M would agree to make
    modifications
    in its treatment facility as contained in
    Joint
    Ex,
    1, pursuant to a schedule to conclude
    10 months after the
    date of the reissued permit.
    Based on 3M’s pleadings,
    and the lack of Agency response
    in
    support of the conditions included by the Agency in this permit,
    the
    Agency’s permitting decision
    is reversed.
    As
    no evidence
    or
    argument in support of the replacement conditions has been
    given the Board, the Board declines to “place its imprimatur”
    on
    them,
    and to order their inclusion
    in
    a reissued permit
    (See Texaco Inc.
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 81—96,
    May 5,
    1983).
    The Agency
    will
    therefore be ordered only to reissue the permit,
    subject
    to
    lawful conditions.
    52-118
    3
    This Opinion constitutes
    the Board’s
    finding of
    fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    The Agency’s inclusion in NPDES permit 1L0003140 of the
    conditions challenged
    in this appeal
    is reversed.
    The permit
    shall be reissued subject to lawful conditions.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
    was
    adopted on the
    _____-
    day of
    ‘‘
    ,
    1983 by
    a vote
    of
    L
    —
    /
    ~
    -
    -
    Christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk
    Ti
    14
    ....4
    .
    ~
    i...i~4
    ~
    ~
    .j.
    S.
    4.
    I
    S
    .1. ~
    I.
    ~_I
    .5.
    .J~
    l.A
    S..
    £~.
    S.f
    I
    ¼...LIA
    5.. .5.. LI
    4.
    IJL#
    A S
    52-119

    Back to top