ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    10,
    1981
    TRAVENOL LABORATORIES,
    INC.,,
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB
    80—207
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    SUPPLEMENTAL
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER
    OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by
    D.
    Satchell):
    On
    April
    19,
    1981
    Travenol
    Laboratories,
    Inc.
    (Travenol)
    filed
    a
    motion
    for
    modification
    of
    the
    Board’s
    Opinion
    and
    Order
    of March
    5, 1981 which granted Travenol a variance from Rule 702
    of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution, concerning discharge of mercury
    to sewers from Travenol’s pharmaceutical research and development
    facility in Morton Grove.
    On May 27, 1981 Travenol provided
    additional irkformation in response to a Board Order entered May
    14,
    1981.
    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
    has not responded to the motion for modification.
    Travenol asks that the Board:
    order it to monitor on the
    basis of time weighted composites; require reporting on a quarter-
    ly rather than a monthly basis; delete the mass discharge standard
    for Sewer 2A; delete effluent limitations for grab samples; and,
    change the method of interpretation of daily effluent limitations.
    Travenol asks that the Board delete the requirement of moni-
    toring by grab samples.
    There is no requirement for monitoring
    by
    grab
    samples.
    The
    petition
    and
    recomrnePdation
    were
    vague
    as
    to the method of monitoring,
    failing to specify whether Travenol
    was to take grab samples or daily composites
    for each sewer.
    The
    Board ordered neither, but provided a method of interpreting the
    effluent limitations
    for each case on the assumption the parties
    knew what they were doing.
    Because it is now clear that grab
    samples are not regularly taken, the Board will delete the efflu-
    ent limitations for grab samples.
    The parties are confused as to the difference between the
    reporting and monitoring requirements and the effluent limitations
    of the variance.
    The Board will clarify the distinction.
    Both
    conditions are satisfied if a complying sample is properly report-
    ed, both are violated if a noncomplying sample is not reported.
    If a complying sample is not reported, only the monitoring require-
    ment is violated.
    If a noncomplying sample
    is properly reported,
    only the effluent limitation is violated.
    42—41

    —2—
    The Board did not include any requirement that monitoring
    be by flow weighted composite.
    The specification that compliance
    with daily effluent limitations be based on flow weighted compos-
    ites was intended to protect Travenol from apparent violations
    of
    the effluent limitations based on compositing methods not reflect-
    ing flow.
    However, since Travenol is unconcerned, the Order will
    be modified to base effluent limitations on time weighted com-
    posites and to require monitoring by time weighted composite.
    Travenol asks that the mass discharge limitation for Sewer 2A
    be deleted as impractical.
    Travenol has found that its sewer
    slope is too gradual to provide the minimum velocity needed for
    automatic flow measurement.
    There is no explanation as to why
    this was omitted from the petition or how flows were measured
    during the preceding variance.
    The Board will nevertheless delete
    the mass discharge limitation for Sewer 2A as requested.
    In connection with the motion, Travenol has prepared a statis-
    tical analysis of its past data.
    These indicate that it can meet
    with more than 99
    confidence annual averages of 0.003, 0.005,
    0.001 and 0.001 for Sewers
    lA, 2A, 3A and 4A, respectively.
    The
    Board accepts this analysis and will modify the monthly standards
    accordingly.
    Again
    there is no explanation
    as to why this
    material was omitted from the petition IProcedural Rule 40l(a)(lO).
    In evaluating the data attached to the original petition,
    it
    was assumed they represented grab samples.
    Instead, they repre-
    sent daily composites.
    The variability exhibited in the data is
    therefore more significant.
    Travenolts statistical analysis pre-
    dicts levels for daily composites which can be achieved with 99
    confidence only 70
    of the time.
    Because of occasional very high
    values, the distribution of composites is broad.
    A daily r~taximum
    which would indicate with certainty an underlying violation of
    the annual average would be very large.
    Travenol requests a lower
    daily maximum for Sewers
    lA,
    3A and 4A which are to be met a least
    70
    of the time.
    The Board will modify the variance Order to
    provide this.
    The Opinion of March
    5, 1981 is modified by addition of the
    foregoing language.
    The Order is withdrawn and the following
    language substituted.
    This supplemental Opinion and Order, to-
    gether with the Opinion of March 5, 1981, constitutes the Board’s
    findings of fact and conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    Petitioner Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
    is granted for its
    pharmaceutical research and development facility in Morton Grove
    a variance from Rule 702(a)
    of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution, sub-
    ject to the following conditions:
    42—42

    —3—
    1.
    This variance will expire March 5,
    1986.
    2.
    Petitioner shall meet the following effluent limitations
    for discharges
    lA,
    2A,
    3A and 4A:
    mg/l Mercury
    Annual Average
    Daily Composite
    lA
    .003
    .006*
    2A
    .005
    .008*
    3A
    .001
    .002
    4A
    .001
    .002*
    *To be met at least 70
    of the
    time.
    3.
    Petitioner shall monitor the discharge from 1A,
    3A and
    4A once per month.
    4.
    Petitioner shall monitor the discharge from 2A on two
    days each month.
    5.
    Monitoring shall be by time weighted composites consisting
    of a combination of twenty-four aliquots of equal volume taken
    hourly over a 24-hour period.
    Composites shall, be taken during
    periods representative of typical operations.
    Petitioner may take
    more composites than required but must report the results of all
    composites made during each quarterly monitoring period.
    6.
    Within forty-five days of the end of each calendar quarter,
    Petitioner shall forward to the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
    the results of analysis of all samples taken during the previous
    quarter.
    The report for the fourth quarter of each calendar year
    shall include
    a summary of the previous year’s results, including
    annual averages of all samples taken.
    7.
    Petitioner shall continue employee training programs for
    the proper handling and disposal of mercury and mercury-containing
    compounds.
    8.
    Petitioner shall keep abreast of released research and
    development in the area of mercury control and evaluate its suit-
    ability for its Morton Grove
    facility.
    9.
    Petitioner shall enforce standard operating procedures
    designed to prevent spillage and/or disposal of mercury and mercury-
    containing compounds into the sanitary system, including the use of
    Baker Kits or equivalent to clean future mercury spills and the use
    of dry ice—acetone to freeze the mercury metal as
    an aid to clean-
    up.
    42—43

    —4—
    10.
    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, Spring-
    field, Illinois 62706,
    a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement
    to be bound to all terms and conditions of this variance.
    This
    forty—five 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 unde~itandingthe Order in PCB 80-207, hereby accept
    that Order and agree to be bound by all of tis terms and conditions.
    SIGNED ________________________
    TITLE
    ________________________
    DATE
    ___________________________
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the above Suppleme~ta1
    Opinion
    and
    Order
    were
    adopted
    on
    the
    Jo
    ~
    day
    of
    ~
    1981
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    I/.~c~
    .
    Christan
    L.
    Mof~ek5~Clerk
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    42—44

    Back to top