ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 28, 1974
    ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 74-6
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    Richard H. Sanders, Attorney for Allied Chemical Corporation
    John T. Bernbom, Attorney for the EPA
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)
    Petitioner Allied Chemical Corporation requests variance
    from~Rules 402 violation of water quality standards, 408(a)
    suspended
    solids,
    903(c) (1) operating permits and 1002
    project completion schedule of the Illinois Water Pollution
    Control Regulations until December 31, 1974.
    Petitioner owns and operates a manufacturing plant in
    Chicago for the production of chemicals. Cooling water for
    the plant is drawn from the Calumet River, and after it passes
    once—through on a non—contact basis is then discharged through
    three outfalls. Two of the outfalls return the water to the
    Calumet River while the third, Outfall #001, discharges to
    Wolf Creek at a point approximately 100 feet from the confluence
    of Wolf Creek and the Calumet River. The discharge from Outfall
    #001 is the subject of this variance.
    Petitioner secured permits for the discharge of its non-
    contact cooling water from the Environmental Protection Agency
    on June 2, 1972. All three permits showed the cooling water
    discharges entering the Calumet River, although Outfall #001
    actually enters Wolf Creek. Petitioner claims it was
    unaware
    of any discrepancy in the permit until November 6, 1973, at which
    time Petitioner was attending a meeting with Illinois and U. S.
    Environmental Protection Agency representatives. Illinois EPA
    representatives at this meeting informed Petitioner that since
    Outfall #001 discharged into Wolf Creek (designated a “general
    use” stream) and consists of water taken from the Calumet River
    (designated as a “restricted use” stream)
    ,
    the discharge might
    1
    —
    705
    —2—
    be in violation of standards. The EPA representative said that
    compliance with the stricter standards applicable to a general
    use stream would be required by December 31, 1973. (Note: Under
    our current Regulation the ‘restricted use” waters are called
    “secondary contact and indigenous aquatic life waters”.)
    If denied the right to operate this Outfall, Petitioner
    claims that all production units served by the Outfall would
    be forced to shut down. This would affect three-fourths of
    Petitioner’s plant and would necessitate the layoff of approxi-
    mately 105 people.
    Petitioner plans to solve the outfall problem by relocating
    the discharge point of Outfall #001 so that the water is dis-
    charged directly to the Calumet River. This relocation will
    require time for preparation of permit applications, issuance of
    construction permits, preparation of engineering plans, letting
    of ccntracts and actual construction. Petitioner believes that
    the project can be completed by December 31, 1974, a date the
    Agency found acceptable.
    At times the Calumet River flows into Wolf Creek. Allied
    compared this reverse flow to its discharge of 3,000-7,000 gpm
    and argued, rather convincingly, that Wolf Creek probably suffers
    no adverse environmental effects from the plant discharge.
    The Agency states that any variance from Rule 402 is moot
    since Petitioner failed to provide any data indicating a violation
    of water quality standards. However, the Agency did express some
    concern that Petitioner may be~increasing the concentration of
    total suspended solids as a result of algae sloughing in the
    cascade cooler through which the water flows prior to discharge.
    Under the circumstances we do not believe the reauest for
    variance from Rule 402 is moot.
    Petitioner already has a permit in apparent compliance with
    Rule 903(c) (1) hut fears that the Agency may be planning some
    type of corrective action regarding the erroneously issued permit.
    This is a legitimate concern which prevents us from declaring
    that request moot.
    ~‘1ebelieve that the hardship Petitioner will suffer from
    denial of a variance outweighs the minimal environmental impact
    this discharge will have during 1974. Therefore, we will allow
    the variance.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Allie.~
    Chemical Corporation be granted variance from Rules 402, 408(:~
    (as
    that
    Rule pertains to suspended solids)
    ,
    903(c) (1) and l:~
    of the Illinois Water Pollution Control Regulations for
    its
    11
    7O(~
    —3—
    Chicago chemical manufacturing plant until December 31, 1974
    for the purpose of allowing the physical relocation of
    Outfall #001 as outlined in this Opinion.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
    conclusions of law of the Board.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, her~by certify the ab~veOpinion and Order was adopted
    this
    3rn”
    day of
    (~Gp~Jk~..
    ,
    1974 by a vote of
    ~
    to
    O
    Tj ~

    Back to top