ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

December

16,

1982

OLIN

CORPORATION

(MARION),

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 82—22

)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

D.

Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board

upon

a petition and

amended

petition for variance filed March

3 and August 16,

1982 by Olin Corporation,

a Virginia corporation,

(Olin)

requesting a variance from water quality standards of 35 Ill.

Adin.

Code 302 for discharges from its explosive waste inciner-

ator and retort near Marion, Williamson County.

On April

16,

1982 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

recommended that the variance be granted with conditions, after

which Olin filed the amended petition of August 16.

On Septem-

ber 24, 1982 the Agency filed an amended recommendation,

and

on October 20, 1982 Olin filed a response requesting that the

Board grant the variance subject to the conditions of the

amended recommendation.

No hearing was held and the Board has

received no public comment.

The

explosive waste incinerator and retort are operated

pursuant to site specific air emission limitations which were

established in R78—9

(38 P~B71,

411, April

3 and May 29,

1980)

This portion of the facility is described in that Opinion.

The

air emissions are pursuant to Operating Permits Number 74 010

107 and 76 120 086.

On April

1, 1981 Olin applied for an NPDES permit for

discharges from the scrubber attached to the incinerator and

retort.

This was denied on June 26,

1981 because of apparent

contaminants in the discharge water.

This variance request is

directed at issuance of the NPDES permit.

Emissions from the incinerator and retort, which are

operated alternatively, pass through a wet venturi scrubber.

Water for the scrubber is drawn from an abandoned final

strip

mine impoundment on property owned by Olin.

After use, the

scrubber water is discharged to the same impoundment, which

discharges to a second strip mine pit on adjacent property.

The second pit has no known outlet to surface waters.

50-129

---

—2—

Emissions from explosive burning contain a number of

contaminants which are removed by the scrubbing operation.

The following table references the contaminants of concern

identified by the Agency in its amended recommendation.

Parameter

Water Quality

—

Effluent

Standard

Standard

Section

(mg/i)

Section

(mg/i)

Ammonia

1.5 to

(asN)

302,212

15

Cadmium

302.208

0.05

304.124

0.15

Copper

302.208

0.02

304.124

0.5

Cyanide

302.208

0.025

304.124

0.10

Iron

302.208

1.0

304,124

2.0

Lead

302.208

0.1

304,124

0.2

Manganese

302.208

1.0

304.124

1.0

Mercury

302,208

0.0005

304,126

0.0005 to

0.003

Oil/Grease

304,124

15,0

1pH

302,204

6.5 to

304.125

6 to

9.0

9

Phenols

302.208

0.1

304.124

0,3

2TDS

302.208

1000

3TSS

304.124

15.0

1pH units

2Total Dissolved Solids

3Total Suspended Solids

A study by Erivirodyne Engineers,

Inc., which is attached

to the recommendation,

found the following maximum levels of

these contaminants.

These are based on four days

of sampling

the retort and incinerator effluents to the first strip pit

while various wastes were being burned:

50-130

---

—3--

Effluent Maximum

Concentration

Typical influent

Ammonia

1,9

0,5

Cadmium

0~86

0.01

Copper

5,37

0.02

Cyanide

0.28

0.02

Iron

3.82

0.44

Lead

8,424

0,001

Mercury

0.008

0.0053

Oil/Grease

24

6.5

i-pH

3.3

9.9

6,8

—

7,0

Phenols

0.975

0.002

TDS

2940

2715

TSS

694

3.5

1pH units

The effluent levels given represent the highest levels

encountered during the sampling period.

In that these repre-

sent instantaneous values,

the effluent standards shown

in

the preceding table should be multiplied by five before any

comparisons are made (Section 304,104),

Problems seem to arise

with cadmium, copper,

lead and TSS, although the data are

really not sufficient to establish typica:L monthly and daily

averages.

The influent is the water from the strip mine pit which

also

receives the discharge.

It should be noted first that

these results indicate excellent water quality as abandoned

strip mine pits go.

However,

the Agency has compared this to

neighboring pits and determined that lead, manganese, zinc

and iron are higher for the Olin pit

(Rec.,

p.

5),

The Agency

believes these metals are present in elevated concentrations

because of the scrubber discharge to the first pit.

The influent data indicate that the waters of the first

pit are in excess of the general use water quality standards

for several parameters.

However,

for reasons detailed below,

the Board is not convinced that the general use water quality

standards apply in the first

pit.

Olin

is

discharging

from

the

scrubber

to

ponded

water

rather than a free-flowing stream.

It is not going to be able

to take full advantage of mixing to meet the water quality

standards in the first pit (Section 302.102).

In that the

intake

and

discharge

are

from the same pond,

there may be a

buildup

which will further complicate Olin’s efforts to comply

50431

---

with

the

water

qua~Lity standards.

It

is

unlikely

that

Olin

will

be

able

to

treat

its

effluent

from

the

scrubber

to

the

first

pit

to

the

level

reguired

by

the

water

quality

standards,

especially

for

copoer

.R8:L~24, November

2,

1982),

A

holding

applying

tue

~ate~

cj~ta~itystctndards

to

the

first

p~t will

just

result

in

~rtothor

site

specific

water

quality

proposal.

The

soap ~

~)i

~fp

~icnt

~cn

of

che

~jcnera

use

water

quality

standards

~s

determined

by

3ections

30:3.201

and

301.440,

the

definition

of

~‘vaters~

A:;

used

in

Subtitle

C,

the

Board

has

excluded

treatment

works

from

the definition of

“waters”

found

in

the

Act,

In

that

the

first

strip

pit

is

entirely

contained

on

Olin’s

property and is used

in

a

water

recycling

system,

the

Board

finds

it to be a part of the

treatment

works,

Accord-

ingly,

no

variance from the

water

quality

standards

is

necessary.

It

should.

he

:1otcd

~

the

first

strip

pit

discharges

to

waters

of

the

State~

iame:Ly

the

second

pit

which

is

on

adjacent

property.

An

NPDES

permit

is

theref~re

required.

Section

304

1JO

prohiLi

ha

dilution

of

effluents,

requires

the

best

degree

of

ttuatmont

for

contaminants

and

allows

the

Agency

to

de~

I

4natu

in

:ndn ridual

permits

points

of

measurement

to

determine

‘Dmp~

z u

~:

:l~

the

~ffL’ent

standards

prior

to

final

discharge

to

waters

of

the

State,

In

issuing

the

NPDES

permit,

the

Agency

may

well

find

that

treatment

is

required

prior

to

discharge

of

these

t

oxic

contaminants

to

the

first

strip

pit.

Acecrd:Lnq1y~. the

Board

finds

that

a

variance

from

the

effluent

standards

is

recessarv~

In

the

original

petition,

Olin indicated

that

it

was

studying

treatment options for the scrubber discharge to the

first

pit,

including

the

following in

increasing

order

of

difficulty:

1.

Sedimentation with pH adjustment;

2.

Sedimentation with chemical addition and pH adjustment;

3,

Solid/liquid separation followed by pH adjustment.

Olin intended

to explore

these

successively

until

a

sufficient

scheme emerged.

The Agency recommendation also discussed

cyanide oxidation,

In

the

amended

petition

Olin

indicated

that

it was committed

to

either

bring

the

discharge

from

the

scrubber to the first

pit

into

compliance

or

go

to

a

no

discharge

system.

Construction

was

to

start in

January,

1983,

hut

the

method

of

treatment

was

not

indicated.

Many

of the

contaminants

listed

are

toxic

metals

which

could

cause

significant

environmental

damage.

However, there

50~

132

---

is no inuicathon

hr rt

hey arc escaping the Olin

premises

to

waters of the State in quantities in excess of

the

effluent

standards at the ooint of discharge to the second pit, or that

they

are

causing

water

quality

problems

beyond that

point.

Furthermore,

uric

rnetai~are typicai of

those

found in

strip

ponds

which

have

~cid

ty

problems,

In

that

this

pit has

recovered,

3t

mu~t pos~e~s

tac

cacac~tyfor natural removal

of these metal

Apart

froic

these cons~rderations,the Board notes that

these containinant~ar cc from an air pollution

control

project.

As

noted in R78~9,Olin has taken the lead in developing incjn—

erator

technology.

Its

toxic

emissions

are

now

controlled and

measured.

Therefore,

the

Board

finds

that

it

would

impose

arbitrary

or

unreasor~ab~ehardship

to

deny

Olin

a

variance

from

the

effluent

standards

The

Agency

~a.

ecorirerdel

thaL

the

variance

be

conditioned

on concentratio

limits

ab

e

background

intake

levels

for

the

scrubber

dhrctt

p

ccc

f~r

t that Section

304.103

provide

U

t

‘~.

re

o

xcd,

the

effluent

stand-

ards ma t be

-

~btri

tng background

concentrations.

Although abo e

sck ro

~sr~ a

CII

he appropriate in

certain

varian~es, tI~

r

a d

is

e~

uc

riect any misunderstanding

of

the effluent .~taca.

~-

,~

ex~st,

The Age ~cy

~—

r

r erae

intexim limitations are based on

the maximum levels ccci

hr

the pour sets of Envirodyne

samples.

As noted

above,

ti-c Board 1lest~onsthe statistical

significance

of

the Lnvi odyre da~ab

ti- be

ruse of inadequate

samples

and

a lack of Investigation of the full range of wastes.

Olin

acceded

to

the

recommended

limitations,

but indicated

in its

amended petition that it may have to limit the quantities and

types of wastes burned to assure compliance.

For the

reasons

stated above in connection with the grant of the variance, the

Board sees no reason to limit Olin’s operations pending comple-

tion and testing of its wastewater treatment plant.

The variance

will be conditioned on samples to be analyzed by the Agency,

as

requested

in

the

amended

recommendation,

The

Agency will be

directed

to

issue

a

construction

permit

and

an interim NPDES

permit

authorizing

discharge

and

containing

any necessary con-

struction

authorizations,

The

Board

will

extend

the

term

of

the

variance for

one

year

beyond

the

date

recommended

by the

Agency to allow adequate testing.

This Opincon constitutes the Board’s

findings of fact and

conclusions of law

hr

this ~natter

50433

---

—6—

ORDER

Petitioner,

Olin

Corporation,

is

granted

a

variance from

35

Ill.

Adm,

Code

304.124,

304.125

and 304,126, subject to the

following

conditions:

1.

This

variance

will apply to discharges

from Peti-

tioner~sincinerator and retort scrubber to the strip

mine

pit

on

Olin’s facility located near Marion.

2.

This

variance

will

expire

September

1,

1984.

3.

On or before May 15, 1983, Petitioner shall complete

construction of a wastewater treatment plant.

4.

On

or

before

August

15,

1983,

Petitioner

shall

submit

a

report

on

effluent

quality

from

the

plant,

together with any plans to further upgrade the

performance.

5.

Once per week, during the term of this

variance,

Petitioner

shall

take

a

composite

sample

of

the

scrubber

effluent

representative

of

one

day’s

operation

of

the

retort

and

incinerator,

This

sample

shall

indicate

the

time

the

retort

and/or

incinerator

was

operated,

if

at

all,

and

shall

be

submitted

to

the

Agency

for

analysis.

6.

The

Agency

shall

issue

any

necessary

construction

permit

and

authorization

for

construction

of

a

waste-

water treatment plant for this discharge.

The Agency

shall issue an interim NPDES permit authorizing this

discharge pursuant to the conditions

of this variance

pending construction.

7.

Reports

and

samples shall be submitted to the following

address:

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Division of Water Pollution Control

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, IL 62706

8.

Within forty-five days of the date of this Order,

Petitioner shall execute

and forward

to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, Variance Section,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, IL 62706,

a Certifi-

cate of Acceptance

arid

Agreement to be

bound

to all

terms

and conditions of this variance.

50-134

---

—7—

day period shall be held in abeyance for any period

this matter is being appealed.

The form of the

Certificate shall be as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We,)

____________________

______,

having

read

and

fully understanding the Order in PCB 82-22,

hereby accept that Order

and

agree to be bound by

SIGNED ____________________________

TITLE

____________________________

DATE

______________________________

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

I, Christari L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby cer~ifythat the above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the

______

day of

~

,

1982 by a

voteof

~

.

Christan

Illinois Pollution Cont~o1Board