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