ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
17, 1975
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 75—69
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss):
Allied Chemical Corporation filed Motion
for Reconsideration
requesting that the Pollution Control Board modify its Order of
May
8,
1975 to allow a variance from the
pH
requirements of Rule
408(a)
of the Water Pollution Control Regulations until April
1,
1976.
In PCB 75-G9 Allied sought,
inter alia, extension of the
pH
variance which had previously been granted by the Board in
P03 73-382
(Order NO.
4).
Although Allied adequately addressed
the remaining issues of PCB 75-69,
the Board determined that
neither Allied nor the Agency had provided a sufficient basis
upon which extension of the prior variance,
as it related to
p11,
could be granted.
Allied apologizes
in the instant Motion for failure to
directly address the pH issue, stating that it had erroneously
assumed that the continued need for the
pH
variance was self-
evident.
In explanation, Allied submits
it was unaware that
data contained
in monthly monitoring
reports submitted
to the
Environmental Protection Agency may not have been reviewed by
the Board.
For the record, the Board notes that said reports
were not available for inspection by the Board at the time PCB
75-69 was under review.
In support of its Motion for Reconsideration, Allied has
now provided information relative to the pH question.
The
Agency deems the information contained in pages
4 through
6 of
the Motion as Thew facts’~with which Petitioner seeks to obtain
a different decision by the Board.
Submission of new facts
after
the
close of the record and after the Board has rendered
its Opinion and Order
is improper, according to the Agency,
and
is tantamount to
a new petition for variance.
However, the Agency
18
—
141
—2—
recommends that the variance he extended for the reason that
it was originally urderstood that the variance should be in
effect until completion of the pollution control project.
In Item II of Allied’s Petition for Extension of Variance,
Allied stated
th;.it “the quantity and type of wastes discharged
by the Petitioner
is substantially unchanged from that des-
cribed in our September
5, 1973 petition to the Board”.
Having
reviewed the information in the instant Motion at pages
4 through
6,
it
is the Board’s opinion that the Motion for Reconsideration
merely expands upon Item II of the Petition for Extension and
does not constitute “new material”.
At page
5 of the Opinion in PCB 75-69
the
Board noted that
Allied had ceased discharging 95
sulfuric acid into the drainage
channels on August 1,
1974.
For this reason the Board thought it
reasonable to now expect Allied to comply with the 5-10 range
for pH as specified in Rule 408.
However, it appears that the
sulfuric acid discharge constituted only
a small portion
(6)
of
the total acid discharge to the drainage channels.
Since sub-
stantial quantities of other acids and alkalies
are present in
the streams,
removal of the 95
sulfuric acid would not have a
significant effect on the pH range found in the discharge
channels.
Samples taken subsequent to August
1,
1974,
as reported
to the Agency, confirmed this.
Allied states that its water pollution abatement program now
underway
is designed
to solve its fluoride,
acid and alkaline
problems
simultaneously.
Even completion of the
“U” recovery
recycle project o~March
31,
1975 has, and is projected to have,
only a negligible effect on the pH values of Outfall 002.
Be-
cause of this integrated approach to achieve compliance, Allied
states that it will not be able to meet the pH criteria of Rule
408(a)
until completion of the total abatement program on April
1,
1976.
Having carefully reviewed the information in Allied’s Motion
for Reconsideration and the Agency’s Response, the Board finds
that Allied has sufficiently clarified the record as it pertains
to pH
so as to allow
the granting of a variance from the pH
requirements of Rule 408(a).
The Motion for Reconsideration will
be allowed and the Order
in PCB 75-69 will be modified accordingly.
This Opinion constitutes
the
findings of fact and conclusions
of
law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
18—
142
—3—
ORDER
It is
the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Items
1A,
lB and
6 of the Order of the Pollution Control Board
entered on May 8, 1975 in Allied Chemical Corporation vs.
Environmental Protection Agency,
PCB 75-69 be amended as
follows:
1.
Item 1A is amended to read:
1A.
Effluent in the 001 discharge shall not
exceed:
i.
45 mg/l fluoride on
a daily average
ii.
90 mg/l suspended solids on a daily
average nor 60 mg/l on a monthly average
iii.
a pH of 13.8 nor be lower than 5.0.
2.
Item lB is amended to read:
lB.
Effluent in the 002 discharge shall not
exceed:
1.
545 mg/l fluoride on a daily average
nor 425 mg/l on
a monthly average
ii.
200 mg/I suspended solids on a daily
average nor 110 mg/l on a monthly average
iii.
a pH of 10.4 nor be lower than 1.8.
3.
Item No.
6 is amended
to read:
6.
Variance from Rule 921(a)
of the Water
Pollution Control Regulations is denied.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certif
e above Opinion and Order wa
adopted
the
)i-~’
day of
1975 by a vote of
______________
Christan L. Moffe t/~1erk
Illinois Pollution (Q~itro1Board
18
—
143