ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 23, 1973
    VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 73—240
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
    On June 11, 1973, Petitioner, Velsicol Chemical Corporation,
    a Delaware Corporation, licensed to do business in Illinois, filed
    with this Board a Petition for Variance.
    Petitioner owns and operates an industrial plant in Clark
    County, near Marshall, Illinois. This facility produces various
    chemicals, including an insecticide called Chlordane. The effluent
    from the chemical operations of Petitioner’s plant was discharged to
    East Mill Creek for a number of years.
    On August 3, 1972, the Agency filed a complaint against Peti-
    tioner with the Pollution Control Board, charging that on several
    dates its effluent caused violations of ~l2(a) of the Environmental
    Protection Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971 Ch. 111 1/2, ~l00l et seg)
    (Act); Rules 1.03(c) and Cd), 1.05(d), and 1.08
    l0(b)(3) of SWB—l4;
    Rules 203(a),
    (f),
    and (h) and Rule 403 of Chapter 3: Water Pollu-
    tion of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations
    (Chapter 3). On April 5, 1973, the Board found Petitioner to have
    violated the above-enumerated statutes and regulations, and ordered
    Petitioner to pay a penalty of $5,000. The Board also ordered
    Petitioner to cease and desist all violations of the Act and the
    Rules, install and operate surface facilities for deep well disposal,
    and post a performance bond in the amount of $150,000.
    Petitioner seeks relief from Order #2 of Environmental Protection
    Agency v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation, PCB 72-326, and Velsicol
    Chemical Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 72-351,
    Consolidated (April 5, 1973). Specifically, Petitioner desires to
    intermittently discharge a certain amount of its processing waste—
    water into East Mill Creek and to forego the posting of a perform-
    ance bond in the amount of $150,000.
    9
    101

    —2—
    On August 21, 1972, Petitioner applied for a permit to install
    and operate surface facilities for deep well injection to all plant
    effluent and land runoff. A Construction and Operating Permit was issued
    to Petitioner by the Agency on October 23, 1972. Petitioner alleges
    that construction of these said facilities has cost approximately
    $415,000. Agency investigation indicates that the subject disposal
    system was placed in operation on May 10, 1973.
    Petitioner alleges that on or about May 22, 1973, the seals on
    its main injection pump failed. The Agency has found that the seal
    which was originally installed in the Petitioner’s main injection
    pump severely corroded once the subject disposal system was in opera-
    tion for a short period of time. The utilization of a Tungsten
    carbide seal as a substitute failed to provide any relief from this
    problem. Improved packing for this pump has been ordered from the
    manufacturer to correct the problem. At present, a temporary pump
    is being utilized with a capacity of about 120 gallons per minute
    (gpm). Since the volume of effluent discharged from Petitioner’s
    plant averages approximately 180 gpm and since the capacity of the
    temporary pump is only about 120 gpm, any excess plant effluent is
    stored in a settling basin on Petitioner’s property. Petitioner
    plans to use the above—mentioned temporary pump and settling basin
    until repairs to its main pump have been completed. Petitioner, how-
    ever, has found that the temporary pump and the capacity of the
    settling basin cannot handle the volume of
    runoff
    water
    which
    occurs
    during and subsequent to periods of heavy rainfall. Petitioner
    states that it has found it necessary during and subsequent to such
    heavy periods of rainfall to intermittently discharge a portion of
    its total effluent into East Mill Creek. The Agency has been in-
    formed by Petitioner that such discharges have occurred on June 5
    and June 19, 1973, and have persisted for approximately 24 hours.
    Petitioner alleges that it is not possible to cease the subject
    intermittent discharges into East Mill Creek until its main pump is
    repaired and placed back into operation. According to Petitioner,
    these discharges have occurred on only two occasions and have per-
    sisted for about 24
    hours.
    The Board recognizes the plight which
    Petitioner faces, and believes that the limited relief requested
    should be granted (i.e. allowing the subject discharges when necessary
    until July 31, 1973), subject to certain conditions.
    Petitioner alleges that the subject intermittent discharges will
    not adversely affect the environment generally or East Mill Creek
    in particular, inasmuch as Petitioner’s discharges have been and
    should continue to be sporadic and relatively short—lived. However,
    the Board wishes to point out that East Mill Creek is presently
    degraded and this degraded condition has been caused largely by
    Petitioner’s past discharges.
    Petitioner further requests relief from the requirement that a
    bond in the amount of $150,000 be posted by Petitioner.
    9
    102

    —3—
    Petitioner contends first that the posting of said performance
    bond was required by the Board to ensure that Petitioner would comply
    with the requirements for construction and operation of Petitioner’s
    surface facilities for deep well injection. The Board has noted
    recently that Petitioner’s interpretation is incorrect. In response
    to a Request for Reconsideration and Modification filed by Petitioner
    and which also sought relief from the bond posting requirement, the
    Board ruled that its Order requires more than installation of the
    facility. Specifically, the Board ruled that its Order required not
    only installation of the subject facilities, but also operation of the
    facilities “in an acceptable manner in order to meet the requirements
    of the law.’ Environmental Protection Agency v. Velsicol Chemical
    Corporation, PCB 72-326, and Velsicol Chemical Corporation v.
    Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 72-351, Consolidated (June 7,
    1973)
    Petitioner next contends that since the posting of said perform-
    ance bond was required by the Board to ensure that Petitioner would
    comply with the requirements for installation and operation of the
    subject facilities (Petitioner’s interpretation) and since con-
    struction of the facility has been completed, then the posting of a
    $150,000 bond is not necessary. The necessity of posting a bond to
    ensure compliance is all the more necessary in light of Petitioner’s
    current problems with operation of its facilities.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board.
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
    1. The Petition for Variance insofar as it seeks relief from
    Order #2, parts (a) and (b) of Environmental Protection Agency
    v.
    Velsicol Chemical Corporation, PCB 72-326, and Velsicol Chemical
    Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 72-351, Con-
    solidated (April 5, 1973) to allow the intermittent discharge of up
    to 100 gpm of Petitioner’s effluent and land runoff into East Mill
    Creek until July 31, 1973, be granted subject to the following con-
    ditions:
    (a) the discharges from Petitioner’s Marshall plant and
    settling basin facility into East Mill Creek be
    eliminated as expeditiously as possible but in any
    event no later than July 21, 1973,
    (b) discharges from Petitioner’s Marshall plant and
    settling basin facility into East Mill Creek not
    exceed 100 gallons per minute,
    (c) discharges from Petitioner’s Marshall plant and
    settling basin facility not exceed the concentrations
    set forth in Exhibit 1 of Petitioner’s Petition for
    Variance, and
    9
    103

    —4—
    (d) Petitioner immediately notify the Agency in
    writing of any discharges which occur from its
    facility.
    (2) The Petition for Variance insofar as it seeks relief from
    the bond posting requirements of Order #2, part (c) of Environmental
    Protection Agency v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation, PCB 72-326, and
    Velsicol Chemical Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency,
    PCB72—351, Consolidated (April 5, 1973) be denied.
    ~,
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    certify that the above 0 inion and Order was adopted by the Board on
    the ~T~3*P day of
    *
    ,
    1973, by a vote of
    ~..3
    to ~
    9
    — 104

    Back to top