ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
14,
1971
DEARBORN CHEMICAL DIVISION
OF
CHEMED
CORPORATION
v.
)
PCB 71—205
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Opinion of
the Board
(by Mr.
Dumelle):
Dearborn Chemical Division of Chemed Corporation
(Dearborn)
is
a manufacturer of chemical specialties used
in
the field of
water treatment and corrosion control.
At the facilities
in Lake
Zurich liquid and dry chemicals
are processed and blended in
accordance with propriet~ry formulations and packaged
for sale
as water treatment chemicals, coatings,
corrosion inhibitors,
algicides, biocides
and coagulant aids.
Dearborn was formerly
an operating division of
W.R.
Grace
and Company and is still
94
owned by Grace
(R.5l-52).
The facilities
are on
a 75 acre site
at which approximately 180 persons are emoloyed
(R,53).
Dearborn has petitioned
the Board to be
able
to discharge
aqueous wastes
in quantities
in excess of
those allowe& by Illinois
Sanitary Water Board Rules and Regulations
SWB-14
(hereafter SWB-14).
Specifically, Dearborn on July
16,
1971,
asked to he permitted
to
continue
its present discharges
for about six months, until
the
plant’s
discharges
could
he
fully
diverted
to
the
Lake
Zurich
waste
treatment
plant.
It
is
the
decision
of
the
Board
that
netitioner
be
granted
a
variance
from
the
operation
of
the
requirements
of
SWB-l4
terminating
120
days
from
this
date
subject
to
certain
con-
ditions
hereinafter
set
forth
in
this
opinion
and
order.
Industrial
waste
water
is
generated
as
a
result
of
the
follow-
ing
activities:
Cleaning
of
small
amounts
of
residual
chemicals
from
mixing
and
blending
equipment;
oroduction
of
boiler
feedwater;
and
other
use
of
water,
such
as
for
chemical
reagents
and
dis-
carded
samples
from research,
testing,
and analytical sections
of
the company laboratory.
The domestic sanitary sewage
is discharged
through an
approved
connection
to
the
municical sewage system of
the
Village of Lake Zurich.
A substantial amount of city water
is
consumed
as
‘~oncethrough” cooling water without treatment and
discharged to
the
drainage system serving the plant
site,
The
industrial waste water
is collected
in
a
separate
drainage
system
2
6.51
and treated in
a batch treatment plant for reduction of metals
and
coagulation of metal precipitates
and other solids,
adjustment of
pH,
and
aeration,
The
treated
e~fluentis then discharged along
with
the
cooling
water
and storm water to the drainage system.
The
effluent
then
flows
into
a
marshy, shallow ditch along the
Elgin,
Joliet
and
Eastern
Railroad
right-of-way.
After
about
one-
eighth of
a mile
the ditch
empties
into
a
concrete
drainage system
and
thence into
a marshy area from which no
defined
flow
pattern
emerges.
Ultimately
the discharge
is to Flint Creek
and the Fox
River
(R,46—48).
In April,
1971, Dearborn’s industrial waste water flow was
at the rate of 15,000 gallons per day
(gpd) while the domestic
sewage flow was 16,700
gpd.
Efforts
to reduce the flow have
resulted in
a decrease
in the industrial waste flow to 9,900
gpd
and
in
the
domestic
flow
to
6,500
gpd
(R.6l-62).
In
August,
1970,
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
advised Dearborn of several items of non-compliance with the
regulations.
Following
a study Dearborn,
in October,
1970,
sought
permission from the Village of Lake Zurich to connect to
the muni-
cipal sewer system to discharge all of its wastes.
As of the
date of the hearing,
the question of whether
the Village would or
could accept Dearborn’s efflux was still unresolved.
Mr. Dwayne
M,
Doughty, Village Administrator of Lake Zurich, testified that
because
the Village had heard
from its consulting engineers only
the day before
the hearing,
it did
not know what course would
be taken.
The
facts
and figures of Dearborn’s effluent must still
be reviewed
(R,57).
Dearborn feels that by Pretreating and then
discharging into the municipal treatment plant
it is embarked
upon the best solution to
its waste water problem.
In this case as in all the cases which come before us we
are asked
to balance
the hardship visited upon the petitioner,
should the variance request be denied,
against the harm wreaked
upon the environment with the issuance of
a license to pollute.
In this ease we
are persuaded that Flint Creek and
the Fox River
will not be so adversely affected so
as to force us to deny .Dear-
born’s request.
We therefore grant the request in this instance,
but we do
so with some reservation
as the company is
in
the business
of advising other industrial water users how
to treat their wastes,
yet is unfortunately remiss
in solving its own problem,
Dearborn,
who performs
surveys, feasibility studies, design studies,
and
makes recommendations
as to what their customers should do with
wastes, should now undertake
to treat itself as well
as it does
its best customer.
2
—
652
Because no specific resolution of the problem was presented
at the hearing and we
are thus uninformed, we must continue our
jurisdiction and maintain our scrutiny of this
cause.
Presumably
Dearborn will proceed
to obtain a permit for the operation
of
its existing facilities, will routinely make monthly operational
reports and will obtain certification of itS operators.
What,
however, will Dearborn do if they cannot make arrangements to dis-
charge into
the Lake Zurich treatment plant?
There
is testimony
in
the
record
that
they
could
hook
up
to
the
municipal
system
without increasing the hydraulic loading at the facility
(R.62).
But the record yields no information as
to whether
the plant
is
presently hydraulically overloaded.
We grant the requested variance
for 120 days subject to
several conditions.
Dearborn must expeditiously make every
practical effort to resolve
its sewer connection dealings with
the Village of Lake Zurich.
This could probably be done within
the next 30 days.
By November
15,
Dearborn should know where
it
will be permanently discharging its wastes,
Within
75 days from
date we will require Dearborn
to submit
a supplemental petition
detailing
the course which
it proposes
to take,
Such supplemental
petition,
the request for extension of this variance beyond 120
days
if more
time
is required, may be acted upon without
a hearing.
As
a further condition of this variance we will require
Dearborn to post
a bond or other adequate security with
the
Environmental Protection Agency as we have done
in most of
the
variance cases decided to
date.
The bond is provided
for by
statute and is intended to serve
as an incentive
to
the polluter
to proceed apace with
the cleanup
job,
We will require a bond
or other security in the amount of $20,000 subject to modification
after consideration of the supplemental petition.
The obligation
of the bond shall be the operation of the plant in compliance
with SWB-l4 after any period of variance has
run its course.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law by the
Board,
2
—
653
ORDER
The Board having considered
the petition, recommendation,
transcript
and exhibits
in this proceeding, hereby grants
the
request of Dearborn Chemical Division of Chemed Corporation
(Dearborn)
for a variance subject to the following conditions:
1.
This grant of variance from the provisions
of SWB-l4 extends for 120 days
from this
date,
This variance
is granted to allow
Dearborn to make arrangements
and proceed
to connect to the Lake Zurich municipal
treatment system or
to make alternate plans
for the treatment
of its plant effluent.
2.
Dearborn shall submit
a supplemental peti-
tion
for variance containing a complete
abatement and compliance program to the
Environmental Protection Agency
and the
Board within
75 days specifying
in detail
the course which Dearborn will pursue to
conform to the requirements of SWB-l4,
Such
complete supplemental petition to extend
the present variance may be acted upon with-
out
a hearing.
3.
Dearborn shall post with the Environmental
Protection Agency on
or
before November
15,
1971
a bond or other adequate security in
the amount of $20,000 and
in such form as
is satisfactory
to the Agency, which sum
shall be forfeited to the State of Illinois
in the event
the treatment plant shall be
operated in contravention of the provisions
of SWB-l4 after the initial or extended
(if any) period of variance
is expired.
Any extended date will be determined after
Dearborn’s submission of
a petition and
program as required by paragraph No.
2.
4.
Failure
to adhere
to any of the conditions
of
this variance shall be grounds
for revo-
cation of the variance.
I, Regina
B.
Ryan, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order
on the
14
day of October,
1971,
~D.
~
,~:J.
~
~gina
E.
Ryan, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board