ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 8,

1975

ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 75—69

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Henss):

Allied Chemical Corporation owns and operates a facility

in Metropolis, Illinois for the production of uraniuni hexa-

fluoride, sulfur hexafluoride, fluorine, antimony pentafluoride

and iodine pentafluoride.

Approximately

300 persons are em-

ployed at this facility.

In PCB 73-382 Allied was granted

variance from Rule 921(a)

(permits) and from Rule 408 of the

Water Pollution Control Regulations for fluorides,

suspended

solids and pH, subject to conditions.

Petitioner now requests

variance from Rules

408(a)

and 921(a)

and from certain parts

of the Board Order entered in the prior case.

Allied seeks:

1.

Deletion of Part

(c)

of Order No.

2

(limiting

fluoride concentrations)

in view of the Board’s final

adoption of Amendments to Rule 408 which changed the

effluent limitation for fluoride to 15 mg/I

(See R73—l5).

2.

Extension to April

1,

1976 of the variance from

Rule 408 for fluoride, suspended solids,

pH and Rule

921 for permits.

3.

To phase out the monthly reporting requirements

once the NPDES permit becomes effective.

4.

Amendment of Order No.

7 to require completion

of the “U” recovery recycle project by March

1,

1975,

and

5.

Amendment of that portion of the Compliance Plan

relating to Sulfide Wastes Elimination to reflect initial

delays in selecting control equipment.

Petitioner states that:

1) the discharge of 95

sulfuric

acid to the drainage ditch ceased on August 1,

1974;

2)

conditions

16—615

---

2~

relating to the natural drainage channel

have

not

changed,

c)

fluoride concentrations in the 001 and 002 discharges

have not exceeded permissible levels, ~4)suspended solids

concentrations in the 001 and 002 discharge have not exceeded

permissible levels,

5) pH levels

in the COl and 002 discharges

have not exceeded permissible limits, and

6)

its dilicent

pursuit of all aspects of its Compliance Plan has been docu~

mented in monthly reports to the Environmental Protection

Agency.

Pond earthwork and lining, roadways, storm sewers,

a

building, pipe bridge steel,

site grading and fencing for the

NOW Regeneration and HF Neutralization portions of the Compliance

Plan

have

been

completed~

Construction

of

the

concrete

block

building

is

almost

finished

and

piping

and

electrical

work

are

now

about

30

completed.

Over

$2

million

of

the

$3,500,000

combined

cost

for

these

project

has

been

spent

or

committed

as

of

February

1,

1975.

Allied

states

that

these

two

projects

are

on

schedule

for

the

September

1,

1975

completion

date.

Difficulty

in

selecting

the

most

suitable

and

cost

effective

process

for

the

Sulfide

Waste

Elimination

portion

prevented

the

attainment

of

interim

scheduling

dates,

A

sulfur

condensation~sulfide

incinerator

was

finally

selected

and

has

received

a

top

priority

effort

since

April

1974

to

offset

the

initial

scheduling

delay.

Preliminary

engineering

thrk

has

been

completed

for

the

incinerator

and

bids

from

vendors

have

been

received.

FAA

has

granted

approval

for

erection

of

the

stack,

A

construction

and

operating

permit

has

been

granted

by

the

Agency~s Water

Pollution

Division and a construction application is now pending with the

Air Pollution Control Division.

The original compliance schedu.le and the amended schedule

as of February

1,

1975 can be compared as follows:

Original Schedule

Amended Schedule

~er5,l973

~ar1,1975

Submit final plans

& specs.

9/1/74

3/1/75

Corporate approval of funds

10/1/74

7/1/75*

Award construction tracts

12/1/74

7/15/75

Start construction

12/15/74

8/1/75

Complete construction

1/1/76

1/1/76

Start full operation

4/1/76

4/1/76

*Limited approval will be obtained prior to this date to authorize

the ordering of equipment immediately upon issuance of a con~

struction permit for this

project by

the IEPA Division of Air

Pollution Control.

16—616

---

—3—

A strike by plant construction workers from June 22,

1974 through September

8,

1974 caused

a

3 month delay in

completion of the

flJU

by March

1,

1975.

On December19,

permit to the U.

EPA.

Allied states that the draft permit appears

generally consistent with conditions and terms

the “Sulfide Liquor Waste Abatement System”.

Order No.

PCB 73—382 (based upon Allied Exhibit

January

1,

struction of this project.

Allied states that it will bring this inconsistency and

to the attention of the U.

1.

quarterly reports on this monitoring be submitted.

2.

Periodic progress reports on

the compliance

schedule be submitted at specific times,

Copies of these reports are to be

sent. to both the U.

S. EPA and

the

IEPA.

Petitioner believes that the reporting requirements

of our

prior Order should be extended only

to

such time as the NPDES

permit becomes effective.

Allied seeks to avoid “unproductive

duplication of reporting requirements”.

The EPA recommends extension of the prior variance with

certain changes in the conditions.

The Agency agrees that

Allied should be required to meet only the current standard for

fluoride but questions whether the standard should be applied

before or after dilution.

Although Rule 401 specifically rules

out dilution as a method of treatment, Allied was permitted to

dilute the process waste water because the Board accepted Allied’s

contention and the Agency’s opinion that Allied’s Compliance Plan

—4—

would yield the best degree of treatment consistent with

technological feasibility, economic reasonableness and sound

engineering judgment.

According to the EPA, paragraph 2(c)

of the Order should be rephrased to read:

“That Petitioner

shall continue to pursue diligently

a program to reduce the

fluoride content of its effluent to 15 mg/l, excluding any

effects of dilution”.

The Board notes that Allied is well into its multi-million

dollar control program.

This program was designed to provide

the best treatment possible for Allied’s unique process and

treatment problem.

Allied contends that the Agency’s Recom-

mendation would force

a reopening of the program to investigate

means of achieving the 15 mg/i fluoride level without dilution.

This

action

would

not

only

disrupt

the

ongoing

control

program

but

it

would

also

serve

to

impose

additional

financial

burdens

on Allied.

Allied submits that the additional financial burden

is clearly unreasonable and unwarranted especially

in view of

the substantial capital and operating costs associated with the

already approved control program,

When the Board adopted the 15 mg/i effluent limitation for

fluoride, it did so in full consideration of extensive Allied

testimony and exhibits.

At the forefront of such consideration

was the understanding that Allied was deeply involved in the

search for methods available to bring its effluent into com-

pliance.

It was clear that Allied’s program would involve some

dilution,

Thus, when the Board stated in the Opinion on R73-15

that “the

15 mg/i fluoride is both economically reasonable and

technically feasible when applied to Allied Chemical”

the Board

was fully aware that Allied’s fluoride reduction program would

incorporate the best degree of treatment possible but that even

with such treatment,

some dilution would still be necessary.

When the Board approved Allied’s Compliance Program in

PCB 73-382,

it recognized Allied’s unusual problems and the

effort to which Allied had committed,

It would be inconsistent

with the findings inPCB 73-382 and R73-15 to now require Allied

to halt its compliance project midstream and start its investi-

gation anew.

Another issue raised by the Agency concerns Allied’s

request for variance from Rule 921(a)

(Order No.

8).

Variance

from Rule 921(a) was granted for the limited purpose of allowing

issuance of permits for Allied’s proposed facilities.

These

permits have now been issued and there appears

to be no need

for further variance from that Rule.

Variance from Rule 921(a)

will, therefore, be denied.

16

—618

---

—5—

The final issue raised by the EPA involves the submission

of monthly reports

as required by Order No.

10.

The Agency

agrees with Allied that dual reports

(one report under the

NPDES

permit

requirements and another report under Board Order)

would be unnecessarily duplicative.

However, the Agency seeks

to receive “all information...at the same frequency,

as is

presently being furnished by Petitioner under Paragraph

10 of

the prior Order”.

Allied responds that its current reports to the Agency

include both monitoring data and progress information on the

water pollution control program.

Under the proposed NPDES

permit Allied would be required to submit monthly monitoring

reports to the Agency, quarterly monitoring reports

to the U.

S.

EPA and the IEPA and compliance program reports to both Agencies

at irregular intervals of up to 4 months.

Allied contends that

a requirement to submit compliance program reports to the Agency

on a more frequent basis than required by the NPDES permit is

“completely unwarranted and unjustified”.

We will not order any reports beyond those required in the

NPDES permit after it is issued.

If the Agency really needs the

additional information it would seem a simple matter to include

such

a requirement in the NPDES permit.

Compliance with two

different reporting requirements would bring unnecessary expense

and confusion,

The policy is to avoid a dual system where

possible.

Although Allie3. seeks extension of Order No.

4 which pertains

to allowable pH ranges in the 001 and 002 effluents,

the record

shows

that the discharge of 95

sulfuric acid into the drainage

channels ceased on August 1,

1974.

Elimination of this acid

discharge should have placed Allied in position to achieve com-

pliance with the Regulation.

Since neither party directly

addressed this important issue,

the Board is of the opinion

that Allied has not justified a need for continuance of the very

liberal pH range allowed in the prior Order and that it is not

unreasonable to expect Allied to comply with the 5-10 range

for

pH as specified in Rule 408.

Extension of the PCB 73—382 variance until April

1,

1976

involves a period of 13 months.

Since Section 36(b)

of the

Environmental Protection Act authorizes the granting of variances

for up to five years

for discharges requiring an NPDES permit,

there is

legal authority for the grant of variance for the time

sought by Allied.

We believe that Allied is making good progress and has shown

a need for continued variance with regard to fluorides and sus-

16

—619

---

—6—

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Pollution Control Board.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

Allied Chemical Company is granted variance from

Rule 408 of the Water Pollution Control Regulations re-

garding fluorides,

and suspended solids until April

1,

1976 for its Metropolis Works subject to the following

conditions:

A.

Effluent in

the

001

discharge shall not

exceed:

i.

45

mg/l

fluoride

on

a daily average

ii.

90 mg/i suspended solids on a daily

average nor 60 mg/i on a monthly

average.

B,

Effluent in the 002 discharge shall not

exceed:

1.

545 mg/I fluoride on a daily average

nor 425 mg/I on a monthly average

ii,

200 mg/I

suspended solids on a daily

average nor 110 mg/i on a monthly average.

C.

Allied shall continue to pursue diligently

a

program to reduce

the

fluoride

content

in

its

effluent

to

15

mg/i.

D.

Allied shall diligently

pursue all applicable

aspects of

its

Compliance

Plan,

as

contained

in

Exhibit 11 of

PCB

73-382

(as

amended

by

Orders

2

and

4 in this proceeding),

and shall seek to expedite the

completion date of said Compliance Plan wherever

possible.

2.

Order No.

7 of PCB 73—382

is

hereby amended to require

completion of the “U” recovery recycle by March

1,

1975.

3,

All effluent concentrations shall be

based on cooling

water flow rates submitted

on February 11, 1975

(Petitioner’s

Response to Interim Order of the Board).

Any subsequent

increases in cooling water flow shall not be used as a basis

for calculating final effluent concentrations.

16

—

620

---

—7—

4.

Allied Chemical shall be allowed to amend its

compliance plan

(as contained in Exhibit No.

11 of PCB

73-382)

to reflect the schedule changes

as itemized on

page

2 of this Opinion.

5.

Petitioner shall continue to send reports to

the Environmental Protection Agency as specified in

PCB 73-382 but after the issuance of NPDES permit the

reporting requirement shall be

as specified in the NPDES

permit.

6.

Variance from the pH requirement of

Rule

408

and variance from Rule 921(a)

of the Water Pollution

Control Regulations are hereby denied.

I, Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of the

Illinois

Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted

on the _______________day

of May,

1975 by a vote of

____________

Illinois Pollution