ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
13, 1989
THE VILLAGE OF SAUGET,
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 89—86
(Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
LEE R.
CUNNINGHAM AND RICHARD 3. KISSEL,
OF GARDNER, CARTON
&
DOUGLAS, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
RICHARD
C. WAPRINGTON,
JR.,
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before
the Board upon
a May 16,
1989
petition for variance extension filed by the Village of Sauget
(t~Saugetn) requesting
an extension of the variance granted until
September
8,
1989
in PCB 88—18.
Sauget requests variance from 35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 304.106,
as
it relates to the color of
the
effluent discharged
from Sauget’s American Bottoms Regional
Treatment Facility
(“AB Plant”).
Section 304.106 reads:
In addition
to the other
requirements of this Part,
no
effluent shall contain
settleable
solids,
floating
debris, visible
oil,
grease,
scum
or sludge solids.
Color, odor
and turbidity must be
reduced
to below
obvious
levels.
On August
9,
1989,
the Agency filed
its Recommendation
(“Rec”)
instanter, which motion was granted
by the Hearing
Officer at hearing.
Hearing was held
on August
10,
1989.
Members of the public were present and participated
in the
hearing.
Sauget filed
its brief on August
14,
1989.
The Agency
waived
filing of a brief.
Background
The description and operation of
the AB Plant was stated
in
detail
in the PCB 88—18 Opinion and
it
is not necessary
to
reiterate that
full
description
here.
Suffice
it
to
state
that
the
AB
Plant
is
a
regional
wastewater
treatment
plant
located
at
U
American
Bottoms
Road
in
Sauget,
St.
Clair
County,
Illinois.
The AB Plant was designed
to provide primary and secondary
treatment
to
the untreated
flows
from
the City of East
St. Louis,
103—57
—2—
the Village of Cahokia,
and the Commonfields of Cahokia Public
Water District, and secondary treatment
to flows
from Sauget’s
Physical/Chemical
(“P/C”)
Plant.
The communities which discharge
into this new regional system contain several major industrial
facilities
that are now being served by the AB Plant.
A major
such industrial discharge
is Monsanto Company’s Krummrich Plant
located
in Sauget.
(PCB 88—18
at
6)
In addition
to other
treatment processes,
the AB Plant
employs a powdered activated carbon treatment with wet air
regeneration
(“PACT/WAR”)
system.
After
the PACT/WAR system
became operational
in 1986,
Sauget was informed
of certain
deficiencies
in the system whereby
it would not operate as
designed.
During
the time that Sauget was operating
the PACT/WAR
system, specifically on December
2,
1987,
a
fire and explosion
occurred
in one of
the six heat exchangers, which rendered one of
the
two WAR units
inoperable.
(PCB 88—18
at
8—9).
On September
8,
1988,
the Board
in PCB 88—18 found
that
Sauget would suffer an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship
if
denied variance solely for
the color parameter.
The Board
found
that such hardship was due
to the December
2,
1987
accident and
the resultant inability
to provide PACT/WAR treatment.
In its
Opinion,
the Board
noted
a lack of information on the origin of
the color
of
the AB Plant’s effluent (which
is yellow
to
greenish—yellow),
as well
as whether
or not the addition of
powdered activated carbon (“PAC”)
and
in what amount would
accomplish compliance with the color requirement.
The Board
therefore granted Sauget variance
from Section 304.106
as
it
relates
to color, with the following conditions quoted here
in
part:
Sauget
shall
a)
Investigate and determine
the origin
of the color
that appears
in
the ABRTF
LAB Plant
effluent.
Sauget shall
investigate methods
by which
it can
achieve compliance
with the color
standard of
Sction 304.106.
Pretreatment requirements and
controls shall
be included
in Sauget’s
investigation;
b)
Sauget shall select
a method
by which
it can
achieve compliance with
the color standard of
Section 304.106;
.
.
Origin of
the Color
George
R.
Schillinger, General Manager
of the
AB and P/C
Plants,
testified that through visual comparison,
he determined
that
the P/C Plant effluent was more colored
than any of
the
other wastestreams
influent
to the AB Plant.
Carrying his
103—53
—3--
investigation further, he discovered through visual and
spectrophotometric analysis that Monsanto Company’s wastestream
is the most highly colored of
the wastestreams which flow to the
P/C Plant.
Mr. Schillinger then stated
that Sauget requested
Monsanto
to identify the particular chemicals causing color
in
its wastestream
(R.
at 39—41).
Max W. McCombs, General Superintendent of Government and
Environmental Affairs at Monsanto Company’s Krummrich Plant,
described the analyses conducted at Monsanto’s facility to
determine which compounds might contribute
to the color
of the AB
effluent.
He stated
that the results of
the analyses indicate
that three compounds exhibited color
at levels
at which they are
present
in
the AB Plant effluent.
These
are:
orthonitroaniline
(“DNA”), paranitroaniline
(“PNA”),
and 4—nitrodiphenylamine
(“4—
NDPA”).
Although he believes that these
are the major color
bodies, he stated that the complexity
of the wastewater systems
at
the Monsanto facility make
it
impossible
to ensure
identification of every compound which may contribute
to the
color
of
the effluent,
especially
in light of variable pH, salt
and metal content
(B.
at 69—71).
Compliance Plan
Sauget has stated
in
its brief and testimony that
it has
investigated methods by which
it can achieve compliance with the
color standard.
These are
the present addition of PAC during
secondary treatment processes, Monsanto’s pretreatment program,
and the installation of
a diffuser.
Pursuant to an interim consent decree with
the Unite~States
and the State of Illinois
in
a federal enforcement action
Sauget
is presently adding PAC
to its secondary treatment
processes at
a dosage
rate of
29 mg/l
and,
if necessary,
will
increase
the dosage
rate
to 35 mg/l
in mid—September.
Sauget
claims that
its calculations
show
there has been an increase
of
color removal efficiencies
from 57
to 85
since
the addition of
PAC
(B.
at 43—44,
Pet.
Exh.
6—A).
However, Sauget does not view
PAC addition alone as
a viable compliance option.
As Sauget
states:
Since
PAC addition may only be
temporary,
and may
never be sufficient
to achieve compliance due
to
possible adverse impacts on plant operations
at higher
dosage levels
and exhorbitant costs,
Sauget does not
1 U.S.A.
and Illinois v.
Sauget,
Civil No.
88—5131
(S.D.
Ill.
Interim Consent Or.
Mar.
15,
1989).
The consent decree has been
entered
into
the
record of
the instant matter
as Attachment
E
to
both the Petition
and Petitioner’s Exhibit
1.
103—59
—4—
view PAC addition as
a viable
final compliance
option.
However, PAC addition is continuing at
a
current cost of over $600,000 per year and will
continue
at that cost or more as required by the
interim consent order.
(Pet. Brief at
5)
Mr. McCombs further testified that Monsanto’s pretreatment
program,
together with treatment provided at the AB
Plant, will
significantly reduce
the discharge of the three principal color
contributors, which thereby should reduce
the color
of the
effluent.
He explained that the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (“USEPA”) has established pretreatment limits
for several industrial categories.
Monsanto falls under
the
organic chemicals,
plastics and synthetic fibers (“OCPSF”)
category, and
is required
to meet stringent discharge limits for
certain chemicals
by November
5,
1990.
He stated that Monsanto
is currently
in
the midst
of designing process changes and
pretreatment equipment
to meet the OCPSF requirements.
Among
the pretreatment programs Monsanto
is intending
to
introduce
is
a system
for recycling
of wastewater
and filtering
of the wastewater through carbon columns
(B.
at 79).
This
program should make
a significant reduction
in the color of the
Monsanto discharge.
Specifically, Monsanto estimates current DNA
discharges
to be
reduced
80 to 90
from present levels,
current
PNA discharges
to be reduced
45
to
60,
and current 4—NDPA levels
to be reduced 75
(B.
at 74).
Sauget believes that after
pretreatment, the effluent color
is anticipated
to be quite faint
(Pet. Brief at 8).
Sauget presented samples
in vials and
photographs
of samples
in
an attempt
to indicate the anticipated
color of the effluent after pretreatment and after
PAC
addition.
It
is questionable whether
these samples accurately
depict that color
(see,
Pet.
Exhs.
6
and
9; Hearing Officer’s
comments
B.
at
58).
It was also not stated whether
Monsanto’s
pretreatment
alone would
be sufficient
for compliance
such that
some additional
treatment would
no longer
be necessary.
In addition
to PAC treatment and pretreatment activities,
Sauget
is proceeding with plans
to install
a multiport
diffuser.
The diffuser
is
intended to serve multiple purposes,
one
of which
to reduce the
impact of color
by inducing rapid
mixing
of the effluent
into the receiving water
body.
The diffuser
in question consists of
a pipe laid
on the
bottom of
the river
perpendicular
to the river
flow.
The pipe
has multiple ports or effluent release points along
its length
which each allow
a
fraction of
the effluent
to mix with river
water
in
a segregated
zone
some distance downstream.
The
individual jets established
along
the diffuser length eventually
merge
and become fully established as one plume
about one
diffuser
length downstream
from the
initial discharge point.
103—60
—5—
Water
from the receiving stream
is pulled
into the plume
area,
and the result of this induced mixing
is
far greater dispersion
of the effluents
in a much smaller area
(R.
at 82—83).
The diffuser selected
for
the AB Plant effluent would
be 100
feet long placed about 120 feet into the river from the existing
outfall.
It will have
20 ports and two variable speed pumps.
Based upon USEPA modeling studies,
Sauget expects that at the
point of full establishment of the effluent plume,
the ratio
of
river water
to effluent is expected to be 78
to
1.
With
dispersion of each individual constituent or parameter contained
within the effluent expected to be identical, dispersion of color
is also expected
to be 78
to
1
(B.
at 88—90;
Pet.
Exh.
14).
Michael
B.
Corn,
P.E.,
who testified on behalf of Sauget,
explained that
a series of laboratory tests were run using
mixtures of river water
and AB Plant effluent.
He stated
that at
a mixture of
25 parts
river
water
to one part effluent,
laboratory analysts could
no longer visually distinguish between
the mixture and
a sample of 100
river water.
He stated that at
the point where
the plume reaches the river
surface,
the effluent
is projected
to consist of
127
parts
river water
to
one part
effluent,
and its color will
be the same as the rest of the
river
(R.
at 92).
Mr. Schillinger stated that Sauget will
begin
the
process of obtaining permits
for construction and operation
of
the diffuser, which
it expects to be operational
by late 1990
(B.
at 63).
Environmental Impact
As the Agency states
in
its Recommendation,
the only
environmental
impact documented
in the record
at present
is the
observation
of
obvious
color
in
the
river
for
a
distance
of
five
feet
downstream
of
the
AB
Plant
outfall
(Rec.
at
par.
12).
At
distances greater
than approximately five feet mixing
is
apparently sufficient such
that
the color
of the effluent
is
no
longer discernible.
In spite of
the fact that the only request
for variance made
in this proceeding
is with respect
to the color standard,
a
substantial portion of
the argument in this matter
has been
directed toward
the issue of possible toxicity of the AB Plant
effluent.
Inasmuch as there
is
no request
for variance from any
toxicity standards,
these arguments are irrelevant and therefore
will not
be summarized
here.
Hardship
Sauget believes that immediate compliance with Section
304.106
as
it pertains
to color would
impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship upon Sauget since “there
is no presently
available means of attaining compliance short of refusing
to
103—61
—6—
accept
the influents from the
industries which contribute
to the
color of the
AB Plant’s effluent” (Petition at 9).
Sauget
asserts that the arbitrary or unreasonable hardship which the
Board
found
in R88—l8
is
a continuing
one.
Sauget further
asserts that although
it has made satisfactory progress toward
achieving compliance
since the granting of the previous variance,
it is unable
to achieve compliance by September
8,
1989
(Pet.
Brief at 11).
Board Determination
Based
on
the facts
in the record,
the Board finds
that
immediate compliance with
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.106
as
it
pertains to color would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship upon Sauget.
The Board
also finds
that Sauget has
demonstrated that satisfactory progress has been made toward
achieving compliance during the term of the prior variance;
Sauget has committed
to methods of compliance and identified
the
origin of the color pursuant
to the conditions
of the prior
variance.
The Board therefore grants Sauget extension of
variance.
In
making
its
determination
of
the
term
of the variance,
the
Board
notes
that
there
is
conflicting information
in
the record
regarding
the date which Sauget expects to be
in compliance.
The
record contains
a number
of dates, such as November
5,
1990, the
date that the OCPSF regulations are to be met, and January
31,
1991,
the date that stable operation of Monsanto’s pretreatment
processes
and equipment
is
to be attained.
Sauget itself
requests
at
least until September 13,
1990,
one year from the
date
of
grant of the variance.
Conversely,
the Agency recommends
a grant for two years,
until September 1991,
or until
the federal
enforcement action
is ruled
upon
(Bec.
at par.
23).
The
Agency
estimates that
the
federal action will be ready
for
trial
in
April
1990
(Rec.
at
par.
5),
but
ventures
no
opinion
as
to
when
final
action
can be anticipated.
The Agency further
states that
variance can
be granted consistent with
federal
law,
since
there
are
no federal
laws specifically limiting color
in effluents
(Bec.
at par.
21).
The Board believes
that among
this array of dates,
two stand
as particularly critical.
These
are the January
31,
1991 date
and
the conclusion of the federal action.
Accordingly,
the
variance will
be granted
to terminate on the earlier of these two
dates.
In this manner,
Monsanto should be able to fully
implement
its pretreatment program, which appears
to offer
the
most viable compliance prospect
for Sauget, while
under
the
protection of
the variance.
However,
should
the
federal action
reach conclusion prior
to January 1991,
the Board believes that
the variance should then terminate
so that any prospect of
conflict with the broader
issues handled therein be removed.
103—62
—7—
The Board emphasizes
that these findings relate solely to
the matter of color,
the subject of the instant variance
request.
They do not extend
to other matters,
including the
matter of possible toxicity associated with the AB Plant’s
effluent, or other issues currently before the federal district
court.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law
in this matter.
ORDER
The
Board
hereby
grants the Village of Sauget extension of
variance
from
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.106,
as
it
relates
to
color.
Variance
shall begin on
September
9,
1989
and
extend
until January 31,
1991,
or until
final action has been taken
in
United States
of America
and the State
of Illinois v.
The Village
of Sauget,
Illinois, Civil No.
88—5131
(S.D.
Ill.
filed May 13,
1988);
whichever
is
sooner.
Within
45
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
Petitioner
shall
execute and forward
to Richard
C. Warrington,
Jr., Enforcement
Programs,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200
Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62794—9276,
a
Certification
of Acceptance
and Agreement
to be bound
to
all terms
and
conditions of this variance.
The 45—day period shall be
held
in
abeyance during any period that this matter
is being appealed.
Failure
to
execute and forward
the Certificate within
45
days
renders this variance void and of
no force
and effect as a shield
against enforcement of rules
from which variance was granted.
The form of said Certification shall
be
as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
,
hereby
accept and agree
to be bound
by all terms and conditions of the
Order
of the Pollution Control Board
in PCB 89—86,
September
13,
1989.
Peti tioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
103—63
—8—
Section
41
of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987
ch.
1111/2 par. 1041, provides for appeal of final
Orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the aboy’~’~pjpionand Order was
adopted on the
/~~-
day
of
~
,
1989,
by
a
vote of
7O
.
~
Dorothy
M. G~n, Clerk
Illinois Polqution Control Board
103—64