ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 27,
1983
ISP,
INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 82—131
)
fLLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT (By 3.0.
Dumell.e):
The record as it relates to the efficiency of
the
existing
treatment plant and any alternatives is deficient.
Bow can the efficiency of the aerated cell be
-
66.8?
This means that 166.8
more BOO is discharged than is received
flow
can BOO be created
if
in fact the cell is aerated?
Was
this the result of high winds which stirred up
bottom
deposits
which had a high BOO?
Secondly, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s
(Agency)
loading computations (the 22 lbs/ac./day standard, etc.)
on
the
aerobic
lagoons
a? I assume a series
feed.
Why
cannot
the
lagoons
be
operated in parallel?
If this is done,
the
total
acreage available rises from 41
to
81
and
consequently
the
loi~nj~
per acre drop about 50.
Lastly,
if the natural aeration capability of
the
three
aerated lagoons is in fact limited to 22 lbs/ac./day why cannot
Lt
be increased by adding mechanical aerators?
Are the lagoons
too shallow to do this?
Or do they also function as final clan-
fiers?
If an extension is needed to the instant variance the above
gaps in the record ought to he addressed.
It also is not clear
why 18 months is required to construct an oxidation ditch and
an intra—channel clarifier.
Why cannot these facilities be
built in a single construction season during 1983?
A fuller explanation would have been of great help on all
of these points.
51-67
2
I,
Christari L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution control
Board, hereby certify that the above Supplemental Statement was
filed
on
the
J~_day
of
~
1982.
Christan
L.
Moffe~t”,iClerk
Illinois Pollution control Board
51-68