ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

June

14,

1984

CITIZENS

UTILITIES

COMPANY

OF

)

ILLINOIS,

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB

83—124

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Marlin):

This matter comes before the

Board upon a Motion for

Rehearing and for Oral Argument timely filed

on May

23,

1984

by Citizens Utilities Company of Illinois

(Citizens).

The

Environmental Protection Agency~s

(Agency)

Motion

to

File

Response Instanter is granted, although the

response

is

1 day

late.

The Board has considered all

of the

arguments

presented

by Citizens and notes that many simply

reiterate what

has been

previously

discussed.

Petitioner asserts that an arbitrary

or unreasonable

hard~

ship would result if it

had

to comply

with the applicable

standards

by

July

2,

1985 and if the

water quality standards

were

revised

in the

future,

This argument was covered in

the

prior

Board

Opinion and Order

of

April 19,

1984.

Petitioner

states that the

Agency

has set a hearing for June 20,

1984 and

that

this is further evidence that standards

will be

revised.

Under

the Clean Water Act,

33 U.S.C.

§ 1313(c), the Agency

must

review

the

water quality

standards

and provide for public

comment

every three years.

The Agency is fulfilling

its

duty

and

the

fact that a hearing has been set

lends no more

credibility

or

urgency to petitioner~sargument.

Second,

petitioner, asserts that the Board denied the

variance

extension because

it found that

petitioner

violated

a

Board

Order,

The

variance extension was denied because of

the

failure

of petitioner to show arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship, not because the Board stated in its

Opinion

that

petitioner had violated a prior Board Order.

Concomitant

with

this argument is that the Board~saction has

violated constit-

utional

due process guarantees citing

Citizens

Utilities v,

Pollution_Control_Board,

9

Ill.

App.

3d 158

(2d Dist,

1972).

---

2

This case involved

a Board Order imposing a

monetary penalty

as a condition to

granting a variance, which

is not the

situation here,

Petitioner has been afforded

due process.

Third, petitioner repeats the

argument

that the delays

in

R81-19 were

not within its control and

that the compliance

date should

be extended by at least

2 years.

It

must be

remembered

that

regulatory

and

variance

proceedings

are

separate

mechanisms.

Although

petitioner

chose

the

site-specific route,

the

variance

provisions

still

control

and petitioner must

comply by July

2,

1985.

The

fourth argument concerning Board

jurisdiction over

the United States Geological Service was

disposed of

in the

prior Board Order,

The petitioner has failed to provide

the board with

suf~

ficient evidence to warrant rehearing.

Therefore,

the

Board

hereby denies

the

Motion for Rehearing and

for Oral

Argument.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

hereby

certify

that

the above Order

was adopted on

th~p

day of

~,

1984 by a vote of

~0,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn, ClerK

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

58~334