ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    April 29, 1982
    BEKER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 80—224
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by I. Goodman):
    This matter comes before the Board upon a Petition for
    Variance filed on December 9, 1980 by Beker Industries Corp.
    (Beker) which requested a variance from certain conditions
    imposed in a prior Board Order in PCB 79—9 (Beker Industries
    Corp.
    V.
    IEPA, 35 PCB 389, September 20, 1979) and ask~~r
    relief from the compliance schedule imposed as a special con-
    dition to its NPDES Permit No. 1L0036463. Beker seeks relief
    from the requirement that it neutralize its cooling
    pond with
    lime and institute a program of managed discharge of the con-
    tents of the cooling pond, by proposing the alternative of de-
    fluorinating its phosphoric acid. Similarly, in lieu of con-
    structing a wastewater treatment plant for boiler blowdown and
    softener regenerate, Beker proposes to route boiler blowdown
    and softener regenerate to its cooling pond. This change is
    sought because “Beker now has the opportunity to put a portion
    of its idle phosphoric acid plant to use in defluorinating the
    phosphoric acid that is used to produce dicalcium phosphate.”
    (Pet. 4; Rec. 2).
    On December 11, 1980, the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency (Agency) filed an Objection and Request for Hearing.
    On December 113, 1980, the Board entered an Order requesting
    more information from the Petitioner. On May 21, 1981, the
    Agency filed a Recommendation which recommended that the Boai~d
    grant the Petitioner’s variance, subject to various conditions.
    On July 30, 1981, Beker filed its Response to the Agency
    Recommendation. On February 8, 1982, the Agency
    filed an
    Amended Recommendation which altered several
    of
    the previously
    recommended conditions. No hearing has been held in this
    matter and no public comments have been received.
    46— 185

    —2—
    The Petitioner owns and operates a chemical manufacturing
    plant in Marseilles, Illinois which is bounded, on the south,
    by the Illinois River, and, on the east, by Kickapoo Creek.
    The plant, which formerly manufactured sulfuric acid, phos—
    phoric acid, and diammonium phosphate (flAP), currently utilizes
    molten sulfur to produce 175,000 tons of sulfuric acid per year
    and uses lime slurry and phosphoric acid to annually produce
    39,000 tons of dicalcium phosphate, an animal feed supplement.
    (Pet. 7—8). Beker’s plant: (1) employs about 40 permanent
    workers, with an annual payroll of over $1,000,000; (2) employs
    about 40 seasonal workers, with a yearly payroll of about
    $230,000; (3) purchases about $150,000 worth of services
    from Illinois independent contractors; and (4) produces over
    $15,000,000 worth of chemical products every year. (Pet. 8).
    Beker ceased production of DAP in 1976. However, as a
    byproduct: of the prior DAP production, a 50 foot
    high
    pile of
    calcium sulfate (i.e., gypsum) sludge, covering 80 acres, was
    created, and is now stored, on the plant site. Berms and
    ditches have been placed around the gypsum pile to collect
    seepage, but the ditch system is not totally effective in
    eliminating potential environmental injury from minor seepage
    which amy include cooling pond water pumped onto the gypsum
    pile for the purpose of additional evaporation. (Rec. 3—4).
    The previous production of DAP also required a 35 acre
    phosphoric acid cooling water pond which discharged flows to
    the Illinois River via an inlet and adjacent outlet point
    (outfall 002a). However, the only sources of water now entering
    this cooling pond are direct rainfall, surface runoff, and
    runoff from the gypsum pile. Effluent from the sulfuric acid
    plant boiler blowdown (Outfall 004a); water treatment plant
    waste (Outfall 004b); and boiler blowdown (Outfall 002b) must
    meet specified effluent limitations for total suspended solids,
    total dissolved solids, iron (total), copper (total), pH, and
    temperature. (Rec. 5—8; Appendix A & B of RecJ.
    The Petitioner’s phosphoric acid plant, which was shut
    down in 1976, remains closed. However, it is anticipated that
    the defluorination of phosphoric acid brought in from Beker’s
    Louisiana plant may allow part of the phosphoric acid facility
    in Marseilles to be used again. (Pet. 7—8). Because the
    defluorination process results in recycling of cooling water,
    the Petitioner believes that neutralization of the cooling
    pond would be a totally unnecessary, wasted step causing
    arbitrary and unreasonable hardship. (Rec. 9—10).
    The Agency’s reservations pertaining to Beker’s computer
    analysis of the cooling water pond level indicated that a con-
    tingency plan was necessary to assure that none of the overflows
    from the cooling water pond will enter the Illinois River.
    46—186

    —3—
    In its Amended Recommendation, the Agency incorporated this
    contingency plan in the proposed conditions of the variance
    and noted that the Marseilles facility is currently operating
    only on a limited basis, (Am. Rec. 2—11).
    The Agency has recommended that the Board grant the re-
    quested variance, subject to specified conditions. The Board,
    however, is concerned about possible seepage from the pond,
    especially after the addition of hot acidic effluent from the
    barametric condensers of the defluorination facility. The
    Board will therefore add a proviso that the defluorination
    facility not be activated until the monitoring wells are com-
    pleted and the Agency is satisfied that there is no immiment
    danger to the environment that might require emergency cor-
    rective procedures.
    The Board finds that denial of the variance would impose an
    arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon Petitioner. Accordingly,
    the Board will grant the requested variance, subject to the
    conditions which are delineated in the Board’s Order.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter,
    ORDER
    1. The Petitioner, Beker Industries Corporation, is hereby
    granted a variance until April 15, 1985 from paragraphs
    2(A), 2(B), and 5(C) of the Board’s Order in PCB 79-9
    (Beker Industries Corp v. IEPA, 35 PCB 389, September 20,
    1979), subject to the following conditions:
    a. This variance will expire should Petitioner permanently
    close its Marseilles facility, and the Board’s Order
    jr~
    PCB 79-9 will again be in effect to the extent aopli—
    cable to the shutdown facility. This facility w~.ll be
    considered permanently closed if operations do not re-
    commence within one year of the date of the Board’s
    Order regarding the instant variance request.
    b. Petitioner shall comply with the contingency plan
    to prevent pond overflows into the Illinois River,
    as outlined in paragraphs b. through i. of the Amended
    Recommendation, filed February 8, 1982, which is
    incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein,
    except that in no case shall the defluorination facility
    be activated until after the monitoring test wells in
    paragraph (g) are completed and the Agency is satisfied
    that the pond seepage does not constitute an imminent
    danger to the environment.
    46—187

    —4-,
    c. Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
    Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement Programs,
    2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706,
    a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound
    to all terms and conditions of this variance. This
    forty-five day period shall be held in abeyance for
    any period this matter is being appealed. The form
    of the certificate shall he as follows:
    CERTIFICATION
    I, (We),
    having read
    the Order of ~
    Boar in PCB 80—224,
    dated
    ,
    understand and accept
    the said Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all terms
    and conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
    Petitioner
    By: Authorized Agent
    Title
    Date
    2. The Board shall retain jurisdiction in this matter.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the abQve Opinion and Order
    were adopted or~the ~
    day of
    ___________—
    ,
    1982
    by a vote of ~
    Christan L. of e,t
    ,
    Clerk
    Illinois Polluti ontrol Board
    46—188

    Back to top