ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
5,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
Respondent,
)
PCB 72—326)
)
Consolidated
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
)
PCB 72-351)
Petitioner,
vs.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Thomas A.
Cengel, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
Neil
R. Mitchell, Attorney for Velsicol Chemical Corporation
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
Velsicol Chemical Corporation manufactures chemicals,
including an insecticide called chlordane,
near Marshall, Illinois.
The manufacturing plant is located near
a branch of East Mill
Creek which has received the Velsicol effluent and runoff from
the Velsicol land.
Water from this branch eventually reaches
the Wabash River.
In August 1972 the EPA began a prosecution of
Velsicol
alleging that the Company had allowed the discharge of chlordane,
boron and fluoride to the Creek on November 4,
1971, January 12,
1972 and July 12,
1972 and that this had caused water pollution,
a nuisance, and a toxic condition of the Creek.
It was also
alleged that Velsicol had operated a treatment facility which did
not adequately provide for removal of color, odor or turbidity
from the effluent.
These discharges are alleged to have violated
Section 12(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act; Rules 1.03(c)
and
(d), 1.05(d), and 1.08—lO(b) (3)
of SWB—l4; Rule 203(a),
(f) and
(h)
and Rule 403 of Chapter
3, Water Pollution Regulations of
Illinois.
7
—
455
—2—
Velsicol filed an answer admitting that its discharge
contained boron and fluoride in concentrations exceeding those
allowed under Chapter
3, Rule 203(f) Pollution Control Board
Rules and Regulations.
The other allegations were denied.
The Company also requested
a variance from those provisions
of the Statute and the Regulations which had been cited by the
Environmental Protection Agency,
until the Companyt s plan could
become operational for the filtration of
the effluent and the
injection of it to
a deep disposal well.
In the variance
petition it was indicated that the deep well disposal system
might become operatiànal around July 31,
1973.
The Agency recommended that the variance petition be denied.
It was the EPA position that Velsicol had known for several years
that it was in violation and that any hardship
a’t this point in
complying with the Regulations was self-imposed.
The parties appeared for a hearing but submitted
a
Stipulation of Facts in lieu of testimony.
No members of the
public appeared.
We accept the Stipulation and order the prose-
cution and variance cases consolidated for the purpose of decision.
From the Stipulation it appears that Velsicol has operated
the manufacturing plant since 1936.
The plant effluent averages
402,000 gallons per day of which 72,000 gallons is alkaline
brine—-hypochlorite wastes from the manufacture of chlordane.
The remaining 330,000 gallons comes from surface drainage, power
house and cooling
towers, oil—water separator effluent, product
storage
tanks and wastes from processing units other than
chlordane.
In 1965 the Company obtained a permit from the
Sanitary Water Board to operate
a deep well for disposal of the
contaminated brine.
The deep well was used for that purpose
until March 1972.
All other process wastes have been treated
in
a series of lagoons and holding ponds.
In March 1972 Velsicol
received a permit from the EPA to install and operate
a second
deep disposal well.
Since that time the alkaline brine, hypo-
chlorite wastes have been injected into the second well and
the first well has been reserved for backup purooses.
The
injection zone of the deep well
is more than 2400 feet below
ground level in an area which contains wat.er~of over 15,000
mg/l total dissolved solids.
In August 1972 soon after this Coi~plc~intwas filed by the
EPA,
the Company applied for a permit
to
install
an’
operate
surface facilities for injection of all plant effluent to the
second disposal well and for installation
of
a monitorinq well.
The facilities were designed to recycle some of
the waste water
for reuse and to filter out some of the suspended solids and
/
—
456
—3—
hydrocarbons prior to injection.
It
was
anticipated that the
new facility would cost about $375,000 and be operational by
April
1,
1973, with all effluent into the unnamed branch of
the East Mill Creek being stopped by April
15,
1973.
The EPA
issued a permit for this installation on October 23, 1972.
It was further stipulated that Agency investigators visited
the site on the dates charged and observed the Velsicol effluent
and the receiving stream, collecting samples at intervals up to
4 miles downstream from the effluent discharge point.
They also
took a number of photographs which were incorporated into the
record.
The EPA investigators stated that the effluent had a
strong chemical odor, appeared slightly milky in color and
contained a noticeable surface oil.
The oil was from an over-
flow of
a gasoline type product and the milky color was from an
overflow of the lime settling lagoon due to heavy rainfall.
On
other occasions
the effluent was observed to have a light
turbidity,
a dark bro~ncolor and a pungent odor.
On all three
dates levels of chiordane and chloride in
the receiving stream
were in concentrations or combinations toxic or harmful to aquatic
life.
On November
4,
1971 and July 12,
1972 there was also an
excessive level of boron in the receiving stream.
On July
12,
1972 the level of boron in the stream was 37.5 mg/i, whereas
Rule
203(f)
provides for a maximum level of 1.0 mg/i.
It was
aoroed that some or all of the boron, chiordane and fluoride
in
the receiving stream had come from the Velsicol plant effluent.
On January 12,
1972
a biologist employed by the EPA performed
a biological survey of the receiving creek to determine the
stream environments downstream from the Velsicol discharge.
He
determined that aquatic life criteria for pH, dissolved oxygen
and temperature were adequate to support life at all stations sampled
by the biologist.
however,
no aquatic
life was actually observed in
these areas of the stream.
Velsicol Chemical Corporation has operated its facilities
under the assumption that the effluent and Water Quality Standards
of SWB-14 were not applicable until July 1972.
The Environmental
Protection Apency contends that the Water Quality Standards of
SWB-l4 have been applicable since the adoption of SWB-l4 in 1967.
We do not believe that the Sanitary Water Board intended to create
a five year vacuum in water quality standards.
SWB—l4 was
effective April
1,
1968.
See:
Beardstown Sanitary District
vs.
EPA
(PCB 72-232).
~‘7efind that Velsicol did violate each of the
Statuatory or Regulatory provisions
as charged by the Environmental
Protection Ag~ncy.
As
part of the Stipulation
the
parties have suggested that
this Board order Velsicol Chemical Corporation to cease and desist
7
—
457
—4—
from further violations
of the Environmental Protection Act
and the Rules and Regulations of the Pollution Control Board
by taking all steps necessary to promulgate its proposed
program including:
the installation and operation of all
surface facilities for deep well injection by April
1,
1973;
the deep well injection of all effluent and land runoff from
the Velsicol Chemical Corporation’s Marshall, Illinois plant
by April
1,
1973 and the posting of a performance bond in the
amount of $150,000 to guarantee performance of the foregoing
conditions.
The parties state that the determination of the
amount of monetary penalty should be left to the Board’s
discretion.
We note that the deep, well method of disposal of wastes
continues
to arouse some controversy.
Serious study of this
method of waste disposal does continue.
However,
the Institute
for Environmental Quality in R7l—6 indicated that our current
regulations adequately cover
this subject.
Information currently
available to us leads us to believe that the Velsicol program
is
a good one and is
a reasonable means of protecting another
endangered Illinois stream and the interstate Wabash River.
We, therefore,
approve of the deep well project as stipulated
in this case.
Velsicol’s past attempts at some form of control, cooperative
attitude and current expenditures of $375,000 for pollution
control all mitigate against the imposition of
a large monetary
penalty.
Based on the facts of this case a monetary penalty in
the amount of $5,000
is appropriate.
ORDER
It is ordered that:
1.
Velsicol Chemical Corporation is hereby granted
variance from the statutes and regulations enumerated
in paragraph
2 of this Opinion until April
15,
1973.
2.
After April 15, 1973 Velsicol Chemical Corporation
shall cease and desist from the violations found
herein by taking all steps necessary to promulgate
its proposed program including:
a)
The installation and operation of all surface
facilities for deep well injection by April
15,
1973,
b)
The deep well injection of all effluent and
land runoff from the Velsicol Chemical Corporation’s
Marshall, Illinois plant by April
15,
1973.
7
—
458
—5—
c)
The posting of
a performance bond in the
amount of $150,000 for a period~of one
year in a form satisfactory to the Agency
to guarantee performance of this cease and
desist Order.
The performance bond shall
be posted within 35 days of the date of
this Order.
3.
Velsicol Chemical Corporation shall pay to the
State of Illinois the sum of $5,000 for violations
found herein.
Penalty payment by certified check
or money order payable to the State of Illinois
within 35 days shall be made to:
Fiscal Services
Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted this
5th
day of April,
1973 by a vote of
41
to
~
7
—
459