ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May
8,
1975
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 74—201
STEPAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Respondent.
STEPAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 74—270
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
STEPAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 74—317
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
JAMES GLADDEN
~nd HARLEY HUTCHINS, Attorneys
for Stepan Chemical
JOHN L.
I3ERNBOM, Attorney for EPA
CBE appeared by one
of
its officers, Dennis Adamczyk
OPINION AND ORDER
OF THE BOARD ON MOTION OF STEPAN CHEMICAL
COMPANY SUBSEQUENT TO FINAL ORDER
(by Mr.
Henss):
Stepan Chemical Company has requested rehearing
and modifi-
cation of certain portions of the Opinion and Order adopted by
the Board on February
14,
1975.
Specifically,
Stepan objects to
the fact that
the Board questioned Stepan1s good faith when
Stepan failed to divert
its effluent
to the Des Plaines River.
Stepan also objects
to
the requirement
that Stepan not increase
its BOD and suspended solid discharge
to Cedar Creek over levels
achieved in July 1975.
Stepan claims that
it cannot reasonably
be expected to comply with that discharge
level.
16—539
—2—
Records have been reviewed regarding Stepan’s contention
that it never committed to the installation of
a pipeline to
divert waste waters to the Des Plaines River.
Stepan clearly
agreed to divert its waste water discharges to the River but
it
is technically correct that nothing in the Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement specified the use of
a pipeline.
Several documents and statements using the words
“pipe”
or “pipeline” were strong indications that this was the method
Stepan planned to use.
In its original Petition for Variance
(later dismissed)
Stepan stated:
“Alternatively,
Stepan could
install a pipe to discharge directly to the Des Plaines River
from its treatment plant”
(Item 10).
At the hearing on July 19,
1973 in PCB 72-489 and PCB 73-184
(consolidated) Attorney
Gladden for Stepan said:
“One of the things that
is ~acing us
here is the fact that
it
would
be
possible
to
lay pipe from the
present
facility
to the Des Plaines Rivera
(R.
89).
At the
December 14, 1973 hearing in the consolidated cases, Attorney
Handzell for the Agency made the following statements:
“The
settlement
further
provides
that
Stepan
Chemical
Company will install
a drainage ditch which will divert
the effluent”.
(R.
69)
.what it
is intended to show is that the in-
stallation of the pipe
to the Des Plaines River...”
(R.
80)
“...so that the Board may know why the Agency required
Stepan Chemical Company to go to the expense of building a
pipe
to
the
Des Plaines River,
..“
(R.
81)
Stepan’s Attorney did not make any comment during that
hearing about Handzell’s use of the word “pipe’.
The Board, in its prior Opinion
(PCB
72-489) used the phrase
“install the pipe”, although the Agreement did not specify that
a
pipeline would be the method used.
Stepan now says that it should
have corrected the “apparent misunderstanding”
at that time but,
since the terms
of the Agreement had been accepted and those terms
did not specify use of
a pipeline the Company chose to let things
stand as they were.
In the current proceeding this “misunderstanding” was
carried forward to some extent by Stepan in its Exhibit No.
7.
That Exhibit plainly states “our present plans for diversion
require installation of
a pipeline under two railroad tracks”.
Exhibit No.
8 makes reference to both pipeline and open ditch.
16
—540
—3—
From all of these things the Board believed that Stepan
would divert its effluent to the Des Plaines River by pipeline.
This belief was apparently shared by.others and Stepan did
nothing to alter the impression which had been left with the
Board.
We believe it is fair to say that Stepan had made a
specific commitment to divert its waste water directly to the
Des Plaines River and that the Company intended to use pipeline
for at least part of the diversion,
i.e. under the railroad
tracks.
Our
finding
that
Stepan
had
committed
to
a
continuous
pipeline
from
the
waste
treatment
plant
to the Des Plaines
River
was
apparently
based
upon
a
long
series
of
mis-statements
and
misunderstandings.
The
good
faith question still remains since Stepan failed
to
take
those
steps
necessary
to
lay
the
pipe
past
the
major
obstacle, the railroad tracks.
Stepan had committed to a
diversion deadline while apparently knowing that pipeline would
be used to carry the effluent under the tracks and that nine
months to a year would be required to obtain railroad permission.
We made no specific finding in our prior Opinion with regard
to the good faith of Stepan Chemical but indicated that Stepan~s
good faith was subject to some question and doubt,
We now find
that some of the doubts were based upon misunderstanding and
therefore,
to that extent, correct the Opinion although it does
not affect the final decision.
We turn now to the question of what effluent level Stepan
should be required to meet during the te±mof its variance.
Stepan challenges Paragraph
1(b)
of our Order which states:
“During the term of this variance Stepan shall not
increase its HOD and SS discharge to Cedar Creek over
levels achieved in July 1974”.
Stepan’s improvement program as described in the Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement apparently improved the operation of
the waste treatment plant for a period of time with regard to
influent BOD concentrations.
BOD in the influent has dropped
21
since December 1973.
However, BOD in the treatment plant
effluent had gone up 44
during this same period and the treat-
ment plant BOO removal efficiency has dropped 4.
Since
November 1972 the treatment plant has met the design influent
BOD concentration of 1300 mg/l only 62
of the time.
Stepan contends that its summer waste treatment operations
are inherently more efficient than its winter operations and
for that reason does not want to be limited to July effluent
quality levels.
Data for April to September show a BOD removal
16—541
—4—
efficiency of 95.
Data for October to March show
a BOO re-
moval efficiency of 85.
This
is a significant drop in
efficiency and probably indicates that there is a need for
insulation on treatment plant vessels and lines.
A photograph
of the treatment plant shows that equipment is above ground
and exposed to the ambient
air.
We believe that one of the major problems exists in
failure of the Company to assign a full-time operator to the
treatment plant.
The record shows that the treatment plant
operator is on duty only on the day shifts Monday through
Friday.
Boilerhouse personnel attend the plant at other times.
To see what can happen when a treatment plant of this type is
operated in a nonchalant fashion one only needs to read Appendix
F to the Motion.
In November 1974 the operator took control
samples on the 15th,
a Friday.
No samples were taken on the
16th or 17th.
When the boilerhouse operator checked the waste
treatment plant on the 17th he discovered that an air blower to
the aeration tank was not operating.
The motor was cold which
indicated that it had been off for some time.
Although Stepan
called in its operator and maintenance to get the blower started,
the damage had been done.
All the protozoan bacteria were dead.
Aeration is critical to the effective operation of an activated
sludge treatment system.
Without aeration the bacteria die
and it is very difficult to get a new population of bacteria
established.
Stepan’s February 17,
1975 report
(Appendix H)
shows that there are still no protozoan bacteria in the system,
and BOO in the effluent shot up to an average of 333 mg/l for
the month of January 1975.
We believe that Stepan’s effluent could be improved with
better housekeeping and maintenance practices but will not
insist at this point that Stepan meet its July 1974 effluent
quality.
Previously Stepan had agreed to consistently meet an
effluent quality of
30 mg/i BOO and 37 mg/i suspended solids.
We will reinstate that requirement during the term of this
variance.
In addition, we will grant Stepan a variance from Rule 404
(b) once diversion is completed to the Des Plaines River and
until December 30,
1975,
on condition that BOO and suspended
solids not exceed 30 mg/i and 37 mg/i Eespectively.
Rule 404(b)
would limit the discharge to the Des Plaines River to 20 mg/i
BOD or 25 mg/i suspended solids and it is clear that Stepan
cannot meet that limitation prior to start-up of its new waste
treatment improvements.
This Opinion constitutes
the, findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
16—542
—5—
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the
February 14, 1975 Order of the Board be modified as follows:
1.
Paragraph 1(b)
shall be amended to read:
During the term of this variance Stepan shall
not increase its BOD and SS discharge to Cedar
Creek over
30 mg/i and 37 mg/i respectively.
2.
Order No.
5 shall be added
to’ read:
Stepan Chemical Company is granted variance
from Rule 404(b) of the Water Pollution Control
Regulations for its Nillsdale plant commencing
when diversion is completed to the Des Plaines
River and extending until December 31,
1975.
This variance is allowed on the conditions that:
a)
During the term of the variance Stepan shall
not increase its BOO and SS discharge to Des
Plaines River over 30 mg/l and 37 mg/l respectively.
b)
Stepan submit to the Agency within
30 days of
this Order its program for control sampling every
day the plant is operating and for complete
equipment checks at frequent intervals during
the day.
3.
The request that variance be extended from Rule
404(f)
to December 31,
1975 for the discharge of
effluent to Cedar Creek is denied.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on the
1441
day of May,
1975 by a vote of
£/~.O
QL~ft)
~JJ~i/~
Christan L. Moffett, ,~7Ark
Illinois Pollution Cthf’&ol Board
16 —543