ILL~INOISPOLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 31, 1975
OLIN CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 74—492
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
OF
THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss):
Olin Corporatior~requests variance from Rule 408(a)
of
the Water Pollution Control Regulations
as that Rule pertains
to suspended solids or,
in the alternative,
for a ruling that
the subject eff1uent~is a deoxygenating waste governed by the
looser standard of Rule 404(a).
Petitioner owns and operates
a manufacturing plant near
Joiiet,
Illinois known as
the Blockson Works which discharges
waste water
to the Des Plaines River.
These waste discharges
were the subject of PCB 72-253 and PCB 73-82.
The prior pro-
ceedinqs resulted
in a project completion schedule for in—
stallation of a clar’fier system which was
to bring compliance
with Rule 408(a)
by April
1, 1974.
Installation of the clarifier system was completed by
April
1,
1974 according
to Olin.
The operation of this system
was varied
from April to November 1974 in an effort to achieve
the level
of performance required by Rule 408(a).
Olin took
samples
of the clarifier discharge and states that 95
of all
samples fell within a range of
6 mg/i suspended solids to 82
mg/i suspended soUds.
The overall average was said to be
about 40 mg/i.
Rule 408(a)
establishes an allowable of
15
mg/i amd Rule 404(a) establishes an allowable of
37 mg/i
suspended solids.
Th~
BOD levels
for the same period ranged
from about
7 mg/i
to
25 mg/i with an overall average of 12 mg/l.
During initial ~perations
of the clarifier Olin discovered
that the system is d~endent upon an even flow rate if it is to
achieve maximum eficiency.
This discovery led to the ordering
in early November 1974 of equipment to modify the underflow of
18—
236
—2—
the clarifier.
~ristallation of the modification eauipment was
expected by MarcI~ 1,
1974.
Olin anticipates that the modified
clarifier will produce
an effluent in compliance with
the
suspended solids limitations
of Rule 404 (a), but it will not be
known until
the equipment is operational whether the limitations
of Rule 408(a)
can be met.
Because of this uncertainty regarding quality of effluent
from the modified clarifier, Olin is investigating the use of
filtration equipment. to polish filter the clarifier overflow.
If the modified clarifier proves inadequate
to meet the suspended
solids requirements of Rule 408(a),
Olin could install the
polish filtering equipment by March
1,
1976, subject to any
delays caused by vendors.
Olin submits that both the Agency and Olin had assumed
until recently that the industrial discharge was governed by
Rule 408(a).
Based on recent Board decisions in EPA vs. Stepan
Chemical Company,
PCJ3
72-489 and PCB 73-184 and LaClede Steel
Company vs. EPA,
PC~372-425 and PCB 72-505,
Olin now believes
that its discharge should more properly be~classified
as a
deoxygenating waste. under Rule 404(a).
Such a finding would be authorization
to Olin to discharge
an effluent containing
37 mg/i suspended solids instead of the
15 mg/i suspended solids allowed by Rule
408(a)
.
Apparently
the modified clarifier would be capable of producing such an
effluent.
If the ~oard
should rule that the stricter standard
of Rule 408(a)
is
the applicable Rule,
then a variance until
March
1,
1976 will be necessary.
On this issue,
the Agency asserts that the Petition and
Anierided Petition provide no data to justify the application of
Rule
404.
The Board agrees.
In Stepan the Board noted several
DOD discharges
in excess of 600 mg/i and at least
37 discharges
in excess of 100 ~q/l BOD.
BOD concentrations
in LaClede’s effluent
ranged
from
8 mg/I to 1300 mg/i.
Olin’s BOD of
7 to 25 mg/i
is
not of the same dimension and should not be classified
as
deoxyqenating
was te.
Data
submitted
by
the
Agency,
based
on
operating
reports
submitted
by
Olin
tc.
the
Agency,
does
not
confirm
an
average
suspended
solids
of
40
mg/i
from
April
to
November
1974.
As
shown
on
page
5
of
the
Agency
Recommendation,
these
data,
originally
obtained
from
Olin,
are
as
follows:
18
—
237
—3—
Month
Suspended Solids
(mg/l)
Flo
(GPM)
May
294
2116
June
228
2220
July
146
1857
August
159
1877
September
135
1722
October
--NO
DATA
AVAILABLE--
November
160
1292
Agency
inspect:’rs
visited
the
Biockson
Works
on
October
29,
1974
and
conducted
what
the
Agency
described
as
an
“extensive”
sampling
program.
The
sampling
for
suspended
solids
revealed
the
following:
Location
Suspended
Solids
(mg/i)
Influent
to
clarifier
90
Clarifier
effluen~:
1
Storm
sewer
at
point
entering
clarifier
effluent
stream
290
Total
effluent
discharge
at
river
130
This
information
would
indicate
that
the
source
of
suspended
solids
contaminathon
is
from
a
storm sewer downstream of the
clarifier.
If
that
is
the
case,
improvements
to
the
clarifier
may
not
he
needed.
The
Agency
states that results of the October
1974
sampling
were
consistent with findings made by the Agency
investigators
on
3ul~ 25,
1974.
The Aqericy
reco.amended denial of this variance unless Olin
provided accurate suspended solids data and
“a clear and
complete explanation as
to
~hc
source
of
suspended
solids
concentration
in
the
final
effluent
and
a
compliance
program
For
same,
if
needed’.
Following
receipt
of
the
Agency
Recommendation,
Olin
submitted
supplemental
information
for
the
period
March
9,
1975
through
May
12,
1975.
The
data
was
obtained subsequent
to modification
of the clarifier underfiow.
It
may
be
summarized
as
follows:
18—
238
—4—
Total Samples Analyzed
.
.
169
No.
of Samples
—
15 mg/i or lower
.
45
of Samples
—
15 mg/l or lower
26.6
No. of Samples
—
30 mg/i or lower
.
.
109
of
Samples
-
30
mg/i
or
lower
.
.
.
64.6
No.
of
Samples
—
37
mg/i
or
lower
.
.
121
of
Samples
-
37
mg/l
or
lower
.
.
.
71.6
Average
—
~l1
samples
—
mg/i.
.
.
.
.
.
37.0
Range
—
mg/l
2—220
The Agency states
that
Olin’s
summary
of data shows that
Petitioner
is currently unable to meet the standards of
either
Rule 408 or Rule 404.
However,
the Agency believes that on-site
sampling conducted by Agency personnel revealed the existence of
a more involved suspended solids problem than Petitioner
is
willing to address.
In addition to the October 1974 sampling
data shown on Page
3 of this Opinion,
the Agency submits results
from samples taken
(in April
1,
1975 which show that effluent
from the clarifier
.:ontained
6.0
mg/i
total
suspended
solids
while
the TSP—CL outfall contained 580 mg/i total suspended solids.
The
TSP—CL outfall sample location is above the point of confluence
of
this
discharge
with
the
clarifier
effluent.
The
Agency
again
recommends
denial
of
variance until Olin
submits “a clear and complete explanation as to the source of
suspended solids concentration in the final effluent”.
In
addition,
the Agency believes Olin should be required to submit
a compliance program showing full compliance with the requirements
of the Water Pollution Control Regulations.
We read
Olin’s
tequest
as
specifically
applicable
to
effluent
from the clarifier.
Olin has submitted data substantiating its
claim of excessive suspended solids concentrations
in the clari-
fier effluent and a compliance program to bring the suspended
solids concentratior. in that discharge into compliance with the
Rule 408(a)
standard.
Agency data,
on the other hand,
indicates that the two
parties have
drawn
samples
from
different
points
and
that
Olin
does
have a problem in ~:hetotal picture beyond that of the clarifier
effluent.
The Aqcncv
3ampling program clearly shows the existence
of at least one problem discharge.
The Board agrees that Olin
should come into total compliance with the Regulation, but will
not deny the limited variance requested here.
Olin has not
requested a variance covering all streams which contain suspended
solids.
The EPA
may
prosecute Olin for its other discharges
if
in violation of the Regulations.
Variance will be granted subject to specified conditions.
Olin has expressed a desire to propose installation of alternative
18
—
239
—5—
equipment
and/or
processes
to
the
Agency
in
the
event
such
an alternative con be found and would be operative by
March
1,
1976.
This
is a reasonable request and indicates that
Petitioner
is reviewing other compliance methods
in addition
to the filtration equipment.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-
clusions of law of
the
Illinois Pollution Control Board.
ORDER
It is
the Orcier of the Pollution Control Board that Olin
Corporation is gr~n~edvariance from the suspended solid
standard of Rule
403(a)
of the Illinois Water Pollution Control
Regulations until March
1,
1976.
Variance covers only the
effluent from Olin’s Blockson Works clarifier system.
Variance
is subject to the fc~lowing conditions:
1.
Petitioner
shall
apply
for
and
obtain
all
necessary permits for installation of equipment.
2.
Pet~tioner
shall
submit
a
compliance
plan
and incremental time table to the Agency by September
1,
1975
showing
what
method
is
to
be
employed
to
achieve
compliance
with
Rule
408(a).
Should
an
alternative
method become available to Petitioner which could be
operative by Maiich 1,
1976,
Petitioner may submit
details
of
such
~nethod
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Upon approval by the Agency,
Petitioner may
alter the compliance plan and increments of the time
table
to
reflect
new
requirements
necessitated
by
the
alternate
method.
3.
Petitioner
shall
submit
monthly
progress
reports
to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Said progress
reports
shall
commence
on
October
1,
1975
and
shall
provide details
of Petitioner’s progress towards compliance.
I,
Christan L. MoffetL, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby
certify
the
hove
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
the
j~~day
of
____________,
1975 by a vote of
~
p
tristan L. Morte~
Illinois Pollution
18
—
240