ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 28,
1973
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP.
PETITIONER
v.
)
PCB 73—382
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
RESPONDENT
EDWARD
G.
MAAG,
ATTORNEY,
WALKER
&
WILLIAMS,
in
behalf
of
ALLIED
CHEMICAL
THOMAS
A.
CENGEL,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
in
behalf
of
the
ENVIRON-
MENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Marder)
This action involves
a request for variance filed September
5,
1973,
by Allied Chemical Corporation
(Petitioner).
Relief is sought from Rule
408 of the Water Pollution Regulations of Illinois.
The contaminants
for which variance is requested are suspended solids,
pH, and fluoride.
Variance is also sought from Rule 921
(a)
so as to allow the
Agency
to
issue
permits
for
proposed
facilities.
The
Agency
in
its
recommendation
recommends a grant
subject
to
many
conditions.
Allied Chemical Corm.
OWflS
and operates
in Metropolis, I1linoi.~, a
facility
for
the
production
of
uranium
hexafluoride
(UF6)
,
sulphur
hexa-
fluoride
(SF
6)
,
fluorine,
antimony
pentafluoride,
and
iodine
pcr~.efiunr~
ide.
The
facility
employs
appro~dmately
•300 people and has total
local
expenditures of about
$3,600,000,
Petitioner alleges that much
ol
its
process
and
proposed
aDatement
facilities
are
of
a
highly
proprietary
nature
and
should
be
subject
te
non--’iisclosure.
Upon
motion
of
Petition-
er,
the
Board
granted
non—dis
;e~:e
to
certain
exhibits
contained
in
the
variance
petition.
The
scbjec:.
~~:.~ibics
were
reviewed
by
the
Board
and
the contents therein were
a
cciisi~eretionin this
case.
Petitioner’s
plant
is
operating
under
a
United
States
Atomic
Energy
Commission
License
(#SUB--526)
(Pet.
Ex.
~1)
in
that
it
is
dealing
with
r~dioactivematerials.
UF6 is manufactured by converting uranium ore
concentrates
(R.
12).
This procedure is one link in the nuclear fuel
cycle.
At this point the uranium is in a state
(UF6)
from which it can
be enriched in the 235 isotope.
The facility can produce up to 14,000
tons per year of UF6.
The second major product is sulphur hexafluoride and is
used as a die-
lectric
(internal insulating medium)
in electrical power equipment.
The
plant can produce up to 1,200 tons/year of SF6.
Before a discussion of the facts surrounding this case is entered in-
to, one major point of contention must be determined.
Petitioner con-
tends that its major outfall
(designated
002)
travels
from
the
plant
11 --379
—2—
site to the Ohio River
(a distance of 2500
feet)
through a natural ef-
fluent channel, and that this channel should be
considered an industrial
ditch.
In short, Petitioner alleges that said channel
should fall
under
the restrictions of Rule 408 of Chap.
3 pertaining to effluent standards
(R.
119).
The
Agency
contends that under Section
3
(o)
of the Environ-
mental Protection Act, Petitioner is subject to the
restrictions
of Rule
203 of Chapter
3
pertaining
to Water Quality Standards.
These two rules
(408
and
203)
are
significantly different in regard
to a
number of Pet-
itioner~s
discharges
as
follows:
Rule
203
Rule
408
Fluoride
1.4
2.5
pH
6.5
—
9.0
5—10
S/S
T,D.S,
1000
3500
The question before the Board
is what
is the nature of the drainage
channel.
The channel in question was described by a number
of witnesses
during hearing.
Mr.
A,
0.
Riley
(plant manager Allied)
stated
that
002
outfall effluent
runs
2500
feet from the plant
to
the
Ohio
River,
and
that the channel
is entirely on Aiiied~smroaerty
(R,
127)
that
to
his
knowledge
no
water
other
than
Aliied~ s
etiluent
and
natural
drainage
ever
flows
in
the
“natural
depression~.
Exalbits
“A~ and
“C”
were
entered,
being
a
drawing
of
the
plant
sate
deoectanq
the
elevation of the plant
vs.
the
Ohio
River
and
an
aerial
photograph
of
the
plant
site,
respect-
ively.
Exhibit
A
shows
that
the
natural
difference
in
elevation
from
the
plant
to
the
river
is
about
80
feet
in
3000
feet
or an average pitch
of
about
1/3”
per
foot
Slope.
The
aerial
uhotograph
clearly
shows
the
discharge
ditch
as
well
as
the
surrounding
area
Total
water flow to
the
ditch
from
runoff
would
average
out
to
75,000
gal/day based on an
average
yearly
rainfall
of
44”/yr.,
45
acres
drain-
age area,
and 50
runoff
(P.
135).
The
drainage
ditch is from 10
feet
wide to 100 feet wide during its path from the plant site to the river.
On days when there is
no
rainfall
runoff,
and
therefore water other
than
Petitioner~seffluent, would be
nil.
Testimony was further elicited as
to the nature of the ditch before
Allied occupied its present site.
Ir. Yates
(Allied biologist) testi-
fied that~
he
was
a lifelong resident
of
Metropolis
and knew the area
well
(R.
161)
.
He
testified that he
had
never
known the ditch to accum-
ulate water,
nor
has it ever
supported
aquatic
life
(R.
166)
.
The ditch
is not used for irrigation,
nor
is
it
used
for
domestic
animal
grazing.
Mr. Yates testified that there were signs of aquatic plant life and wild-
life by or in the ditch
(B,
133-84).
It would seem, however, that the
aquatic life
is
a result of Ailied~seffluent rather than life which ex-
isted before Allied started
operations.
The question then is should
Allied be required to meet
a water quality standard which would protect
aquatic life even if that aquatic life would not be present if Allied
were to discontinue its operations.
Section
3
(o)
defines “Waters”
as follows:
Ii
—380
—3—
‘Waters’ means all accumulations of water, surface and underground,
natural, and artificial, public and private, or parts thereof, which are
wholly or partially within,
flow through, or border upon this State.”
Rule 203 General Standards provides that they will protect the State’s
waters for aquatic life, agricultural use, primary and secondary contact
use,
and most industrial use, and insure
the
aesthetic quality
of the
State’s aquatic environment.
It is the opinion of the Board that
in Allied’s particular case the
naturally occurring depression and
its
effluent
flow
shall
not
be
consid-
ered waters of the State and Rule 408 shall apply.
This determination
is made on the basis of the facts in this
case only and under
the
condit-
ions existing at the time of this Order.
It will be an explicit part of
this Order that the effluent waters shall not be used for any recreation-
al, domestic animal watering, or irrigation purposes.
Furthermore, the
land
surrounding the ditch shall remain closed to the general public.
Should Allied choose to change the use of its land,
the nature of the de-
pression will be re—evaluated.
Very similar issues were raised in Alton
Box Board vs. Environmental Protection Agency PCB 73-140, Environmental
Protection Agency vs, Allied Chemical
Co. PCB 72-109, and Environmental
Protection Agency vs. Koppers Co., PCB 70-49.
In Alton the ditch in ques-
tion was found not to be waters
of the state.
In Allied the point was
made that protection should be afforded to all waters, but did not speci-
fy which regulations were considered.
In the Koppers case samples taken
in
a ditch were disregarded because no proof was offered as to the use
of the ditch.
The above citations reinforce our opinion that a situation such as
this must be decided on the facts of each particular case.
Having decided this
issue, we now turl) to the main case of whether
the Petition for variance is
justified.
Nature of Outflows:
Petitioner discharges two flows into the Ohio
River.
Outfall
001
and
Outfall
002
contain
the
following
representative
contaminants:
Outfall
001
Outfall
002
Flow MGD
.06
1.97
Sus. Solids
60
110
mg/1
Fluoride mg/l
45
425
pH
13.4—13.8
5.3
—
10.4
Petitioner alleges
(R. 116-120) that the figures represented above
are based on
a thirty-day sampling period and that on given days the
ialues would be higher.
This
is particularly important
in relation to
pH,
in that this factor is
not based on an average hut
must be met
at
all times.
Petitioner states that the maximum concentrations it would
.rznect
on
any
given
day
are
as
follows:
11—381
—4—
Outfall
001
Outfall
002
Susp.
Solids
90
200
Fluoride
45
545
pH
6—13.8
1.8—10.4
Petitioner
alleges
that
all of its water
pollution
problems
are
a
result
of
its
air
pollution
control
program
(R,
152),
Scrubbants
such
as
potassium
hydroxide
used
in
air
scrubbing
equipment
are
alleged
to
be
the
main
contributor,
Hardship
and
Value
of
Facility to Community:
Petitioner
alleges that
an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship will be suffered if
the
variance
is not granted.
Petitioner alleges that one
alternate to
a variance is
a complete shutdown of its facilities.
The Board restates its
opinion
that denial of a variance
is
not
equivalent
to
a shutdown order, but
rather~avariance is a shield from prosecution.
It is true that
denial
of
a variance would leave Petitioner open to enforcement
action by the
Agency and to the full penalty provision as provided
for
in the Environ-
mental Protection Act.
However,
it is true that in many past enforce-
ment cases the Board has issued a cease and desist
order as part
of its
final
order,
and the
possi.bility
of
a
shutdown
is
a realistic one (E~-
vironmental_Protection_Agency
vs.
l.ncinerator
POE
73-314).
The
Board
must therefore consider the potential rddults of subh a shutdown order,
Petitioner alleges the following losses to itself and the community
if it were forced to close.
1.
UF6
is
a
vital
part
of
the
nuclear
energy
chain.
Allied
is
the
major producer of UF6
in the United States, and Af forced to close, the
other producer, Kerr Magee, does rot have sufficient capacity to fill
the gap.
2.
Allied has a payroll and other local expenditures of over 3.5
million dollars.
In the event of a shutdown this income would be lost.
Massac
County
has
an unemployment rate of 9.6
(1970
census)
,
and Pet—
itioner~s
work
force
of 350 accounts for 30
of the industrially em-
ployed
work
force
in
the
Metropolis
area
(Pet,
Pg.
29).
3.
If the Metropolis works were shut down,
it
is alleged that fut-
ure growth of this type of facility in the area would be seriously jeo-
pardized.
4.
Allied
would
lose sales of $30,000,000 from
this
date
until
the
completion
of
its
abatement
facilities.
The
above
alleged
hardships
in
the
event of a
possible
shutdown
lead
the
Board
to
the
conclusion
that
a
diligently
pursued
compliance
plan
will
justify
the
issuance
of
a
variance.
The other
factor
which
must
he
explored is
that
of
environmental
impact.
Environmental Impact: Petitioner alleges in its Petition that the
effects of its present discharges are negligible on the Ohio River.
The following is
a
summary
of projected effects on the
Ohio
River
(Pet.
for Variance Pg. 33-36):
Effect of Discharge on Environment
Component
Plant
Conc.
of
Conc.
of River Conc.
in
Standard
Discharge
River
After Mixing
Mixing
Rule 203
Zone
Fluoride
410 mg/i
0.2 mg/l
0.22 .mg/l
0.40 mg/l
1.4 mg/l
S/S
108 mg/l
109 mg/l
Not detectable Not detect.
pH
5
—
10.5
7.8
Insignificant
Insignif.
6.5
—
9.0
Petitioner entered Exhibit
#6, which
is
a bioassay conducted on
the
plant
effluent.
Tests were conducted using both outfalls and the com-
bined outfalls diluted with Ohio River water.
Mr. Yates
(Allied
employ-
ee) testified
as to how the samples were obtained and that the
test was
run
according to standard methods,
Counsel for the Agency objected
to
the
testimony regarding how the test was run as speculation, based
on
the
fact
that
the
person
who
actually
ran
the
bioassay
was
not
available
for
cross-examination.
(R,
178.)
The
Board
finds,
however,
that
the
repuation of
the
consulting
laboratory
would
cause
us
to
enter
this testi-
mony and accept the bioassay as valid
(R.
72).
The following results were
obtained from the above test:
Effluent
96
hr.
TLM
001
69,000
mg/l
002
430,000
mg/I
003
(Combined)
292,000
mg/l
This
test
would
indicate that stream
001
is
much
more
toxic
than
002.
It must,
however, be noted that outfall 001 is of
a
much
smaller
volume
than 002
(.06 mgd
vs. 1.97
rngd).
According to Petitioner’s
calculations
the
concentration
at the
edge of a 600’
mixing
zone would
be 484 mg/l
which
is much lower than the TLm
(Pet.
Pg.
36),
urfCompliance_Plans:
Allied has submitted
a compliance plan
w~.
ch
calls
for full compliance for
all
parameters
except
fluoride
by
:1/75.
The reasons for this rather lengthy period of time are detailed
in
the
record.
The
main
points
are
A)
that
Petitioner
produces
products
which are
unique
and that standard abatement methods are
not
readily
available; and B)
that due to the cost of raw materials and other consid-
erations Petitioner is working towards recycle/reuse rather than end of
the pipe technology.
Petitioner is
one of
only two
manufacturers
of
UF6
in
the
United
States.
Kerr—Magee
is the other
producer,
and
according
to
Petitioner
(Pet,
Pg.
7,R.
17), the Allied process
is
unique.
Petition
for
vari-
ance
(Pg.
8,
9)
clearly shows the difference between the steps used in
the
two procedures.
The
effluents
discharged
by
Allied
are
shown
on
Pg.
10
of
the
van-
—6—
ance
petition
-
and
are
as
follows:
1.
Spent
ainincj~j~~~
sulfate
solution
2.
Sulfide
liquors
3.
Hydrofluoric
‘acid
solution
4.
Spent
potassium
hydroxide
solution
5
•
Uranium
recovery
leach
liquors
Petitioner
testifed
(R.
82)
hat
because
of
the
unique
nature
of
the
plant’ s
effluent,
even
standard
control
equipment
will
have
to
be
modified
to
suit.
It
was
further
testified
that
conventional
treatment
(black
box
approach)
could
bring
about earlier
compliance,
however,
Pet-
itioner
arguep
and
the
Agency
agrees
(Reco
Pg.
&)
that
recycle/reuse
are
superior
methods
of
treating
wastes.
The
following
table
(Exhibit
Ill)
was
submitted
as
a
proposed
project
completion
schedule.
Proposed
Completion
Schedule
Final
Plans
Approval
Contracts
Start
Coup.
Start
Constr.
Constr.
Up
KOH Regeztation
4/1/74
12/31/7 3
7/1/74
7/15/74
9/1/75
12/1/75
HF Neutraliza—
4/1/74
12/31/73
7/1/74
7/15/74
9/1/75
12/75
tion
U~
Recovery
Re—3/31/74
2/28/74
4/30/74
5/15/74
11/1/74
12/74
cycle
Spent H2504
3/31/74
2/28/74
3/31/74
4/15/74
7/15/74
8/74
Sulfide Wastes
9/1/74
10/1/74
12/1/74
12/15/74 1/1/76
4/76
Another
major
point
is
that
the
proposed
plan
calls
for
reduction
of
the
fluoride
level
to
only
7.0
mg/l
(standard
2.5
mg/i).
Petitioner
al-
leges
there
is
no
reasonable
method
of
achieving
the
2.5
mg/l
level
(R.
30),
but
that
it
will
continue to
investigate
methods
for
abatement
and
if
any
breakthrough
occurs,
will
apply
for
permits
to
proceed.
Perhaps
the
greatest
problem
facing
Petitioner
in
regards
to
fluoride
is
that
the
well
water
used
in
the
process
is
about
2.5
ppm
(R.
lii)
(Exhibit
G
Pg.
2
shows
Fl
analysis
as
3
ppm).
This
influent
contamination
puts
Petitioner
in
the
position
of
having
to
achieve
100
fluoride
aba$.e’uect.
Petitioner
alleges
that
it
has
diligently
been
working
on
the
p~::
!
of
water
pollution
since
1971.
Mr.
Sobel’
5
(Allied
witness)
testiiao:’-y
(R.
51-93)
outlines
the
chronology
of
reporting
to
and
contacts
with
~rc
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
regarding
progress
in
this
a
These
contacts
included
submission
of
progress
reports
and
explorrt:i
.~:
of
deep
well, disposal.
The
chronology
as
testified
to
has
led
to
•ti
e
abovementioned
project
completion
schedule.
Progress
has
led
to
t-
...
sub-
mission
of
construction
permits
for
three
abatement
plans
(KOH,
Fl,
U re-
covery
systeme).
This
indicates
to
the
Board
that
a viable
plan
is
un—
derway.
11
--
394
—7—
Petitioner
alleges
(R.
42)
that
the
total
compliance
plan
will
cost
about
$4,200,000
as
follows:
A)
KOR Regeneration
$1,100,000
B)
HF Neutralization
1,100,000
C)
U
Recovery
100,000
D)
Sulfide
Liquor
1,300,000
E)
Acid Disposal
50,000
F)
Sewer Work
100,000
G)
Monitoring
50,000
H)
Other
400,000
The Board notes that
full
compliance
(exception fluoride at 7.0
mg/I)
cannot come about before 1P76, however,
certain partial abatement can be
accomplished sooner.
It will be an express part of this Order that in-
terim
steps will be completed as soon as possible.
Furthermore,
Petition~
er
alleges
(R.
50) thatthe final completion dates could
be
shortened
up.
it will be an express part of this Order that Petitioner prove in any
future proceedings exactly what steps were taken to expedite this program.
Although there was some misunderstanding
of
the
applicable rule
regard~
ing suspended solids
(e.g.,,
404 or
408)
,
both
parties
now
agree
that
•the
more stringent Rule 408 applies
(R.
116,
126).
Allied shall be required
to meet the 15 mg/I suspended solid criteria in its compliance
plan.
r0
regards to fluoride,
as mentioned above
a special problem exists.
Aiiied
shall
be
allowed
to
meet
the
7
mg/I
projection
of
its compliance
plan so long
as
a viable research and development program is ongoing.
This
is
in
keeping
with
previous
Board
orders
that
in
the
absence
of
known technology
a continuing program of research ard development will be
an acceptable compliance program (Union Oil Co. v~Environmental Protect-
~nAencyPCB72~447).
Discussion of Good Faith Efforts: Petitioner has alleged throughout
~
to
work
toward
compliance
~R. .20,
53, Pet.
Pg. 15,
16),
As disctssed above, Petitioner~sprocess
•~vddischarges
are
unique•,
and
therefore
require
unique
solutions.
How-
e~er,
a
detailed
study
of
the
nature
of
effluents
and
plans
for compli-
a.~ce as
outlined.
:~nExhibit
#2
(non-disclosure)
cast
doubt
on
Petition-
e:~s good faith efforts.
~ethodolo~
planned for certain abatements does
not
seem
~~ry
exotic.
For
ex.ample,
methods
for
spent
sulphuric
acid
and
SOH
regeneration
do
not
employ
unique
unit
processes,
but
rather
are
of
a seemingly routine nature.
The Board is not in a position to evaluate
the type of technology used,
and indeed would rather leave this aspect
to Petitioner; we can only judge by what is presented to us in the rec-
ord.
This record caused the
Board
to
question
Petitioner~s
good
faith
efforts.
Petitioner alludes
(Exhibit #2 Pg.
24) to
its
completed abhte-
ment projects.
A review of same reveals these projects to be merely
tokens in relation to the total problem, and not indicative of
a true
good faith effort to
get
to the
root
of
the
problem.
in
its
interim
Order
dated January
17,
1974, the Board requested add-
~mionaI anformat~onas to
what
role
dilution
plays
in
Petitioner~s~overaII
:reatrtent
scheme.
Dilution is specifically ruled out as
a method
of
treat-
11 —385
ment
in
Rule
401
of
the
Water
Pollution
Rules
and
Regulations.
Petition-
er proposed mixing the treated effluent streams with once through cooling
water, thus
lowering its final effluent concentrations.
In its answer to
the
Board’s
interim
Order,
Petitioner
states:
“It
is
beyond dispute that
the
issue
of
dilution
is
inherent
in
the
Petition
for
variance.”
Petition-
er
further
contends
that the
compliance
plan
it
proposes
will
yield
the
best degree of treatment consistent with technological
feasibility,
econ-
omic reasonableness,
and sound engineering judgment.
From material bal-
ances
submitted
the
following
effluent
concentrations
are
anticipated:
Flow
Diss.
Solids
Susp.
Solids
Fluoride
With cool
16,700,000
1274
ppm
15
ppm
7
ppm
water
P.P.D.
W/O
cool
3,500,000
5243
ppm
56
ppm
25
ppm
water
P.P.D.
It
is obvious that cooling water gives
a dilution factor of about 4.8,
and
that
a
relatively
small
increase
in
the
use
of
cooling
water
(order
of
10)
could
greatly
affect
the
final
effluent
quality.
It
will
be
a
part
of
this
Order
to
specifically
disallow
adjustments
in
cooling
water
volume to “fine tune”
effluent
concentrations.
By Order of the Board on February 14, 1974,
the Agency was granted
leave to amend its recommendation to read:
“After detailed review of
Exhibit
#2 of the Petition for variance, and the construction and
opera-
ting permits submitted to the Agency,
it is the Agency’s opinion that
when Petitioner’s
control program is complete,
each of the separate
waste streams will be given the best degree of treatment consistent with
technological feasibility, economic reasonableness,
and sound engineer-
ing judgment.”
The
Board
realizes fully its responsibility to interpret its rules
to strike a reasonable balance between environmental control and econ-
omic reasonableness.
The Board must also rely on the Agency’s expertise
in evaluating special circumstances, and on the basis of the above will
allow Petitioner’s method of compliance
in this unique case.
Taking all factors into consideration the Board
will grant a variance
subject to many
conditions.
Petitioner
has
made
an
adequate
case
regard-
ing hardship and environmental impact, but on the other hand has failed
to display to the Board
a good faith willingness
to comply.
The Board
emphatically states that any future variance requests will be subject
to the closest scrutiny.
Petitioner’s progress during the
term of this
variance
will
be
a
major
consideration
in
any
future
grants.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of
law
of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE
ORDER
of the Pollution Control Board
tI~it:
1.
The natural drainage channel running from Petitioner’s plant
to the Ohio River is
an industrial ditch and the effluent
11—386
—9—
therein
be
subject
to
Rule
408
of
Chapter
3.
Said class-
ification
to he effective
so
long
as
the
following
is
true:
A)
Petitioner~s
discharge
and
natural
runoff
are
the only
flow
in said channel,
B)
Effluent in said
channel is not used
for
purposes
of:
i.
Public
drinking
water
supply.
ii.
Domestic
animal
feeding.
iii.
Irrigation
of
crops.
iv.
Recreational
use.
C)
Said ditch is solely on Petitioner’s property and
said property
is closed to the general public.
Should any of the conditions
in
subparagraphs A,B,
or
C
change, said channel shall be subject to
re—evaluation by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
the
Board.
2.
Variance is granted from Rule
408 regarding fluorides for
one year from the date of this Order,
subject to the fol-
lowing conditions:
A)
That the 001 discharge shall not exceed 45 mg/l fluor-
ide as
a daily average;
B)
That the 002 discharge shall not exceed 425 mg/i fluor-
ide as
a monthly average, nor shall it exceed 545 mg/l
on
any
daily
average;
C)
That
Petitioner
shall
continue
to
pursue
diligently
a
program to reduce the fluoride content of
its
effluent
to 2.5 mg/i.
3.
Variance is granted from Rule 408 regarding suspended solids
for
one
year
from
the
date
of
this
Order,
subject
to
the
fol-
lowing
conditions:
A)
That
the
001
discharge
shall
not
exceed
60
mg/i
on
a
monthly average, nor shall it exceed 90 mg/i on any
daily
average;
B)
That
the
002
discharge
shall
not
exceed
110
mg/i
on
a
monthly
average
nor
shall
it
exceed
200
mg/i
on
any
daily
average.
4.
Variance
is
granted
from
Rule
408
regarding
pH
for
one
year
from
the
date
of
this
Order,
subject
to
the
following
cond-
itions:
A)
That the pH of the 001 effluent will not exceed 13.8
nor be lower than 5.0;
B)
That
the
pH
of
the
002
effluent
will
not
exceed
10.4
nor
be
lower
than
1.8.
5.
By
August
1,
1974,
Petitioner
shall
cease
and
desist
from
discharging
95
sulphuric
acid
into
the
drainage
channel.
6.
Petitioner
shall
diligently
pursue
all
aspects
of
its
com-
pliance
plan
as
contained
in
Exhibit
*11
of
its
Petition
11—387
(spent
sulphuric
acid
plan
shall
be
subject
to
Order
#5).
The
ultimate goal of said compliance plan shall be:
i,
Reduction of suspended solids
to
15
mg/i.
~i,
Reduction
of
fluoride
to
7.0
mg/i.
iii,
Maintenance
of
pH
between
5
and
10.
Petitioner shall make every
effort to
expedite
the
completion
date
of
said
compliance plan.
7.
Petitioner’s program for
“U” recovery recycle shall be completed
by
12/1/74.
8.
Variance shall be granted from Rule 921
(a) of chap.
3
for
the
limited purpose
of
aliowinq
the
Agency
to
issue
permits for Pet-
itioner’s proposed
facilities.
9.
All effluent concentrations shall be
based
on. cooling water flow
rates
submitted
on
Feb.
ii,
1974
(Petitionervs
Response
to
Inter-
im
Order
of
the
Board).
Any
subs
~quent
increases
in
coaling
water
1..
low
shall
not
be
u.sed,
as
a
basis
for
calculating
final effluent
conce.ntratienS.
10.
Petitiorer
shall
send
re
orts
mo.nthly
to
the
Environmental
Protect-
ion
Agency
containing
a.t.
the
minimum:
11
oh,
fisoride,
and
susneimen
~
Is
e.~
of
each
of
its
two
out falls.
Such
val von
shall
contain
the
monthly
and
daily
aver-
ages
of
each
com9onent.
.n
the
case
of
ph
maximum
and
minimum
readings
shall
be
supplieda
B)
A
complete
summary
of
progress
in
regtrd
to
Orders
2
(C)
,
5,
and
6.
C)
Any
changes
in
the.
use
of
the
drainage
channel.
19)
What
efforts
and
results
Fetitioner
has
made
or obtained in
ef-
forts
to
expedite
Orde.
#6.
I,
Christan
L.
Hoff ett,
Clerk
of
the
Illirois
Pollution
Control
Board,
certify
that
the
above.
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
by
the
Board
on
the
28th
day
of February,
1974,
by
a
vote
of
5
to
0.
