ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 7, 1974
)
)
CELOTEX CORPORATION
)
)
)
)
P~B
73-445
)
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT
ION AGENCY
)
)
MR. JOHN L.
PARKER
and MR. H. GERALD
REYNOLDS,
appeared
on
behalf
of
the Celotex Corporation
MR. JEFFREY R. DIVER AND MR. JOHN H. REIN, appeared on behalf
of the Environmental Protection Agency
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle)
Celotex Corporation (Celotbx) filed a Petition for Variance
on October 22, 1973. The Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed an Objection to the Variance Petition and the a Motion
Grant an Extension of Time to Pile a Recommendation on November 16,
1973. On November 19, 1973 Celotex filed a Motion to Strike the
Agency’s Objection and a Response to the Agency’s Motion for an
Extension of Time to Pile a Recommendation. On December 3, 1973
the Agency filed its Recommendation. On December 5, 1973 a hearing
was held. On January 16, 1974 the Agency’ filed a Proposed Finding
of Fact and Order. Celotex filed a waiver of the 90-day decision
period until Pebruary 7, 1974 on January 16, 1974.
Celotex, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Jim Walter Corporation
owns and operates a paperboard mill located in Adams County in
Quincy,
Illinois.
This plant has been in operation since 1865.
The plant currently produces facing and backing paper for Gypsum
Board and paperstock for refrigerated biscuit cans. Approximately
120,000 tons per year of waste paper; or the equivalent ef
J,000,000 pulp wood trees, are recycled at this••plaht.
Effluent from the plant is discharged through two outlets directly
to the Mississippi River.
Celotex acquired ownership of this facility on June 1, 1973
from Packaging Corporation of America (PCA). Th1$ plant
has
been
iubject of
considerable litigation before the Pollution Control
Board
and the Adams County Circuit Court. On December 6, 1973 the Board
granted PCA a variance from Sections 12(a) and (b) of the Environ-
mental Protection Act (Act) between November 5, 1971 and November
4,
11 —1~
-2-
1972; the Board also assessed a $10,000 penalty for violations of
the Act fror July 1 1970 to November 5, 1971 (Order of• the Board
Packaging Corporation of America
v
EPA,
PCB 71-352 and PCB 72
-t
In August of l97Z the Iiiino4s A.torney General, on beaalf of the
State of Illinois brought a suit against PCP in Mars Count Circuit
Court (72-SI 14) seeking an injunction prohibiting di’charges frait
the Quancy Mill into the Mississippi. River as well as fines aGainst
PCA After acquiring controi of the facility, Celotex and
Vie
Attorney General entered into and filed with the Adns County
Circuit Ccurt a stipulation on August )4 l97~ This stiru_a_on
required seconda y treatment of di charges to tie Mississippi Rivr
to be installed before May 1, l97C ‘Appendix A of Calotex’o
Variarc°Petitior’ Pursuant t this stipulation, the court dismiss’
all proceedings against Celotex by’ retained jurisdiction of the
proceedings as to
PCA
Celoter seeks
a variance from Sections 12(a) and l2(t~of the
Ac~ from Rules 203(a),
4G4(a)(ij
4 4(b)(t) 903, 914, 1002 and
2.201, all of thapter 3 3f the linnois Poslution Control Board’s
Rules and Regulations (Water Regulation;
,
and from Rules 1 05(b),
Rule l.0S_~ Rule 1.05-8, Rules 1.05-10 a) and (b’, and Rol°
3.01-10(1,1 all of Illinois Sanitary ater Board Rules and Regulations
#13 (SWB-13
Celotex s process consists of reducing waste paper into a
slurry consisting of water and paper fibers. This slurry is ther
taken through a series of steps that remove ink and other con
taminants, concentrate the slurry, ana finally font a paper mat fron
it. Effluent from the plant consist of non-contact cooling water
and process water The process water contains dissolved solids
and suspended solids from the pulping process Prior to 1973
andthe
wastea
primaryreceivedclarifierno
treatment;was
installedhowevern thesolidfallseparationof 1973.
faciiitieCelotex 0
estimated that after this primary treatment was installed the
3.5
to
4 MGD of effluent would have an approximate waste characteri-
zation of 420 mg/l of suspended solid,: and 460 mg/. of BOD (Page 3
Celotex’s Variance Petition). Clarifier effluent data for the
October suspended solid and BOD average in mg/i are 102 and 139,
respectively; the November averages are 186 and 112, respectively
(Celotex exhibit 12). On November 15, 1973 the Agency tested a
grab sample from the clarifier effluent and found the suspended
solids concentration to be 100 mg/i and the BOD to be 591 mg/i
(Agency exhibit 7). Ceiotex does not have data for BOD’s on
November 15, but the average suspended solids was 214 mg/i (Celotex
exhibit 12). These values are excess of the allowable values of
20 mg 1 BOD and 25 mg/i of suspended solids found in Rule 404(b)(i)
of the Water Regulations.
11 —180
-3-
The Board finds that Celote is causing ‘vater pollution
by discharging an effluent which results in floating scum and
discolor&tion ~n the Mississippi River in violation of Rule
203(a) of the fiater Regulatiors
The Bard denies Celotex a blanket variance from Section 12(a
of the Act because Ceiotex has not ai~egednor proven that ‘neither
the BOD load nor the suspended solid toad from the primary system
effsuent is harmful to human, onimal or plant life, or significantly
deleterious to the Missipsippi River (page 11 of Celotex’s Variance
Petition) Therefore, the Board grants Celotex only a variance from
that portion of Section 12(a) of the Act which is applicable to
dizcharges of BOD and suspended solids levels. Mr. John Parke~
attorne) for Ceiotex, stated that ‘the variancc from Section 12(a)
of
the Act should be limited to BOD and suspended solids’ CR. 316)
The Board agrees with the Agency’s position that a variance
from Rule 20 3(a) of the Water Regulations should be limited solely
to those portions of the rule which deal with “unnatural sludge
or bottom deposits, floating debris, visible oil, odor unnatural
plant or algae growth, unnatural color or turbid&ty’. Mr. L.
Robert Xiehl, Celotex’s witness, testified that he did not believe
the continued discharge would be toxic or harmful to human, animal,
plant or aquatic life of other than natural origin (R. 221).
The Board finds that Celotex is entitled to a variance from
Rules 404(a)(i) and 404(b)(t) of the Water Regulations because
it
has committed itself to meet the 20 mg/i BOD and 25
mg/l
suspended
solids standards of Rule 404(b)(i) of the Water Regulations by
May 1, 1975. The Board finds this to be a good solution to the
environmental problem that has
persisted for an extended period
of time Compliance by May 1, 1975 means that Celotex will have
designed and constructed a secondary treatment system within two
years from the date it acquired tne plant from PCai. The Board
has decided to condition Celotex’s Variance Request to require
Celotex to meet a 300 mg/i BOD and suspended solids limit. Mr.
ICiehl testified that this was a feasible monthly average requirement
(R. 218). The Board further conditions the grant of the variance
by the requirement that Celotex terminate all untreated process
discharges from outfalls #4 and #6 by March 1, 1974. Celotex has
agreed to this requirement (R. 251).
Celotex’s request for a Variance from SWB-13 became moot
after December 31, 1973 when Rule 404 of the Water Regulations
became effective for the Mississippi River, however, the Board
grants Celotex a variance from those portions of SWB-13 from the
date of filing the Mended Variance Petition until December 31, 1973
which pertain to discharges
of BOD, suspended solids, turbidity,
color,
and floating and settleable solids.
11
—181
4—
The Board finds that Celotex has
not complied with Section 12(b)
of the Act and Rule 903 of tFe Water Regulations which would require
Cesotex to obtain an oper ting permit for tts existing primary
treatment system. iViie C°lotex~as stated on t’ie record that
is.
intends to apply for aid obtain construction and operating permits
tor its proposed secondary ‘raatmeat system (R. 235, 314), it has
taintained that
it
should not be required to obtain an operating
ermit for its primary ylant. The kard find: s.hat Celotex has
failed to show that
i’
would be arb:trary and unreasonable to re.uire
it
to comply with the permit reç’tiremen,ts. Therefore, the Board
loes n t grant Celotex a variance from Section 12(b) of the Act
and Rule 002 of the later R~gu1ations Howev”r the Board grants
Celotex a limited variance from Rules 921(a) and Rule 914 of the
Water Regu.atic~nsto aalow the Agency to issi..e Ceiotex sn operating
permit for Celotex’s existing ;ri5 ary system. Celotex is granted
this linited variance becaitse of the c~nfusionthat arose out of
the conferences between Celotex and representatives of the Agency
as to the ~xactneet~of obtainn’g an ooerating permit (R. 27 28,
‘±3,252, 256 and 257)
‘he Board finds that eaotex shcuid submit a time schedule showing
compliance by May 31, 1975 as rontained in Celotax exhibit 20 by
March 13, ~374. ‘.herefore, ne Board grans Ce1o~sxa variance
from Rule J)t~2 al na k 13 OOP,(Lt of t1e ‘later Regu.stio’s
n order o allow ~elotexto file this pro ect completion schedule.
The Board finds that Gel tex ta not established that
it
should
tot be reauirej to ompty
. ii
Rule
‘a’
of the Water Regulations
hich requires a certi~’ed erator cat
reatment plant.
lowever Ce otex is •rn~.ceding‘o obcain It necessary forms to
btain certificatio~ f .ts operator
~.
3h-t). Therefore, the
Board grants Gelotex a ba—Jar;e fror Rule flOl until March 15,
1974, on the condition that Ceotex applies ror operator certifi-
cation within 30 days after receipt of the forms.
The Board in granting Ce o cx’s variance request noter with
satisfaction that the program Celotex has canmitted itself to
should result in the
elimination of a
sub.nantial pollution load
to the Mississippi River. As noted earlier in this opinion, this
papermill has been ii operation cince 1865 with some 108 years
of untreated waste discharge to the Mississippi River
Waile
Celotex is to be applauded for its commitment to clean this seurce
of water pollution within two years after ottaining control of the
mill, the Board and possibly the citizens If Illinoi; cannot help
but wonder why it took 108 years.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings ,f facts
and conclusions of law.
11—la
-5-
ORDER OP THE BOARD
1.
The Board hereby grants to Celotex Corporation a variance
from October 22, 1973 until October 21, 1974 from that part of
Sections 12(a) of the Environmental Protection Act which prohibits
“the discharge of any contaminants so as to violate regulations or
standards adopted by the Pollution Control Board”, from the part
•of Rule. 203(;) of the, Water Regulations which require that waters
of the State be free from “unnatural sludge or bottom deposits,
floating debris, visible oil, odor, unnatural plant or algal growth,
unnatural color or turbidity”, and from Rules 404(a)(i) and
404(b)(i) of the Water Regulations subject to the following con-
ditions:
a. That petitioner post a performance bond with the
Environmental Protection Agency in the amount of $150,000
to ensure installation of the secondary treatment system;
b. That petitioner inform the Agency and the Board at
the earliest possible date as to the exact secondary .treatment
facility it will construct and the amount of wastewater
which will be recycled;
c. That petitioner submit monthly progress reports to
the Agency describing the status of construction and
installation of the proposed secondary facilities;
d. That petitioner submit monthly operating reports
to the Agency listing daily average effluent concentrations
of BOD, suspended solids, fecal coliform, and other
parameters and data as required;
e. That discharges from petitioner’s Quincy mill not
exceed 300 mg/i BOD and 300 mg/i suspended solids as
monthly average values pursuant to the provisions of Rule
404(h) of the Water Regulations;
f.
That the discharges of untreated process water from the
No. 4 and No. 6 lines directly to the Mississippi River are
terminated by March 1, 1974;
g. That the limited variance from Section 12(a) of the Act
apply only to BOD and suspended solids.
2. That petitioner be denied a variance from Rule 1.05-5 of SWB-l3
(potentially detrimental substances).
3. That petitioner be granted a variance from October 22, 1973
until December 31, 1973, from Rule 1.05-7 (turbidity), Rule 1.05-8
(color), Rule 1.05-10(a) aid (b) (solids)1 andRule 3.01-10(b)
(treatment facilities requirements) of SWB-i3.
11
—189
4. That petitioner be denied a variance from Section 12(b) of the
Act and Rule 903 of Chapter 3~
S. That petitioner be granted a variance from Rule 914 of
Chapter 3 and from that part of Rule 1002(a) requiring a time
schedule showing compliance by applicable deadline dates and
Rule 1002(b)(ii) of Chapter 3 subject to the following conditions:
a, That petitioner obtain all necessary operating
permits fo~its facilities; and
b~ That petitioner file a Project Completion Schedule
showing the schedule found on pages 9 and l0 of its
petition by March 15, l974~
6. That petitioner be granted a limited variance from Rule 921(a)
of Chapter 3 so as to allow the Agency to issue operating permits
for Petitioner’s existi.ng primary treatment facilities,
7. That petitioner be granted a variance from Rule 1201 of
Chapter 3 until March 15, 1974, subject to the condition that
Petitioner apply for Operator certification 30 days after receipt
of the necessary forms,
IT IS SO ORDERED~
I, Christan L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the
741
day of February, 1974 by a vote of ~
________________
Illinois Pollution
trol Board
ii —
190