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.

—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