ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 25,
1989
KOPPERS INDUSTRIES,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 88—196
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
J.A.
CARNES
(PLANT MANAGER) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
JOHN
J.
BRESLIN APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by 3. Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board on
a Petition for
Variance which was initially
filed
by Koppers Industries,
Inc.
(Koppers)
on December
6,
1988.
By
its Order
of December
15,
1988,
the Board found the December 6th petition deficient
and
ordered that Koppers file an amended petition.
Koppers did
so on
January 30,
1989.
In the Amended Petition, Koppers states that
it has served
a
copy
on
the Metropolitan Sanitary District
(now called the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(M~RD)) so that M~~RD
could
join
in the variance request
if it
so
desired.
MWRD receives Koppers’
discharge.
Koppers
is seeking variance from 35
Ill. Adm.
307.1102 which
prescribes effluent limitations
for mercury
in discharges
to
a
publicly owned or publicly regulated
sewer system.
Koppers
requests that
it be granted
a variance until November
5,
1990
in
order
to allow construction
of
a wastewater treatment facility.
According
to Koppers,
such
a facility will enable
its discharge
to the
MWRD
system
to achieve compliance with
the mercury monthly
average standard
of 0.003
mg/i.
Koppers proposes
interim limits,
which would
be
in force during the requested variance period,
of
0.030 mg/i for
a daily composite and 0.010 mg/l
for
a monthly
average.
Koppers waived
its right to
a hearing on its petition,
and
no one filed
a timely objection to the petition.
No hearing was
held
in this matter.
On April
6, 1989,
the Board granted the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(Agency) motion
to file the
Agency Recommendation instanter.
In its Recommendation,
the
gency recommends that the Board grant Koppers
a variance
as
requested.
99—273
2
The discharge which
is the subject
of this variance
is the
wastewater discharge
from Koppers’ manufacturing facility located
at 3900 South
Laramie Avenue, Cicero, Cook County.
The Cicero
facility employs 205 persons and
is involved in the following
processes:
1)
coal tar distillation;
2) phthalic anhydride
production;
and
3) polyester resin manufacture.
Currently,
the
wastewater generated from these processes
is pre—treated
by pH
adjustment,
API separation,
and dissolved air flotation and
discharged to MWRD.
A M~~JRDtreatment plant
is located adjacent
to the Koppers facility.
(Pet.
P.
3—4).
Koppers’ discharge rate
is approximately 0.250 million gallons per day (MGD).
(Pet.
p.
8).
According
to the Agency,
the MWRD plant which receives
Koppers discharge,
the Stickney Water Reclamation Plant,
in turn
discharges
to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
The MWRD
plant has
a design average flow of 1200 MGD.
The Stickney
facility provides secondary treatment and actually consists of
two district plants.
The West Plant
is an Imhoff system and
discharges
to the Southwest Plant which
is
an activated sludge
treatment works.
(Ag. Rec.
p.3).
Koppers
asserts
that
discharges
which
exceed
the
mercury
standard
are
intermittent.
The
petition
indicates
that
Koppers
encountered discharges exceeding the monthly mercury standard
in
1981,
1984 and
1987.
In recent years MWRD has “conducted one or
two sampling campaigns per year
to determine compliance”,
according
to Koppers.
(Pet.,
p.8).
MWRD has the same monthly
mercury standard as the Board.
(Attachment
2
to Pet.).
Sampling by MWRD in 1987 showed some violations of the daily
composite and monthly standards
for mercury.
As
a
result Notices
of Violation were
issued by M~~RD
(Attachments
4 and
5 to Pet.).
Koppers entered
into
a Conciliation Agreement with
MURD.
That
a~recmeiitcalLed
iou
a
three phase sampling
proy
ram.
I~oppers
asserts
that
the
results
of
the
sampling
program
show
that
“~of
the
28
days
of
sampling
conducted
in
19881
only
2
were
out
of
compliance with the daily composite limitation”.
According
to Koppers,
the sampling
results also indicate
that more than 90
of the mercury
is
in an insoluble form and
less than 10
is
in
a soluble
form.
(Pet.,
p.8).
Koppers states that the sampling program results also
indicate that the mercury content of the coal
tars that it
receives
(as a
raw material)
is responsible
for the mercury in
Koppers’
discharge.
Koppers purchases its coal
tars from various
coke plant
operators.
At the Koppers plant,
coal
tar
is refined
into
a number of products.
The most important product
is coal
tar pitch which
is used
as a binder for carbon electrodes
in the
aluminum industry.
The Petition states:
99—274
3
In
the
last
few
years
aluminum
production
has
increased
substantially.
Because
of
the
supply
demand
situation
coal
tar
processors
cannot
afford
to
forego
reasonable
coal
tar
streams
if
they
expect
to
satisfy
customer
demand.
(Pet.,
p.6).
Koppers states that
it
is the largest manufacturer of coal
tar—derived
products
in
the
United
States;
the
plant
at
issue
has
the
largest
capacity
of
all
Koppers’
plants.
Koppers
asserts
that
all
the
coal
tars
from
the
available suppliers
it
uses
have
mercury contamination.
Apparently,
alternate supplies are not
a
possibility due
to transportation costs.
(Pet.
p.6).
As
a result
of recently promulgated pretreatment standards
of the U.S. EPA which apply to Organic Chemicals,
Plastics
and
Synthetic Fibers industries,
Koppers
is planning to construct a
wastewater
treatment plant.
It
is Koppers’ position that the
wastewater treatment plant will enable Koppers
to comply with the
mercury standard
of 307.1102.
Koppers states
that the new
wastewater treatment plant combined with the existing pre-
treatment will likely provide:
1.
pH control
2.
API
separation
3.
Dissolved Air Flotation
4.
Equalization
5.
Biological
treatment
a.
Aeration
b.
Nutrient addition
c.
Activated
Carbon
addition
(if
required)
d.
Clarification
(Pet.
p.7).
The equalization process
of the new plant will allow
a
minimum total equalization time of
five—days.
Such equalization
will limit quality fluctuations and variations
in Koppers
discharge.
Since Koppers only has intermittent periods of non-
compliance, Koppers asserts that such equalization will
even out
the flow and reduce
the likelihood
of exceeding the standard.
Secondly, Koppers expects the biomass of the activated
sludge,
biological treatment system to trap the insoluble portion
of the mercury
in the wastewater.
However,
soluble portions
of
the mercury content
of the wastewater
will continue to
flow
through the plant untreated.
As
a result,
the soluble portion
will ultimately be discharged.
(Pet., p.10).
Koppers claims that technologies which actually remove
mercury,
such as hydroxide precipitation and sulfide
99—275
4
precipitation, are infeasible and expensive as applied
to Koppers
due
to the relatively low concentration
of mercury in the
wastewater.
(Pet., p.lO).
The Agency agrees with Koppers’ assertion that granting a
variance will have
“no measurable impact on human,
plant or
animal life”.
(Pet.,
p.
8).
The bases for such
a conclusion
are:
1)
the relatively small amount of mercury discharged per day
by Koppers (0.0069
lbs per day);
2)
the types of dilution
afforded
by MWRD’s çffluent (ratio
of Koppers’ flow
to the M~RD’s
flow
is
1
to
31265)i;
and
3)
the intermittent nature of the
mercury problem.
(Ag. Rec.,
p.
3).
As to consistency with
federal
law,
the Agency states that
there
is no federal law or
regulation specifically limiting
mercury discharges
by Koppers.
(Ag. Rec.,
p.
5).
The Agency recommends that Koppers
be granted. a variance
subject
to the conditions which are set forth
in the Agency
Recommendation.
According
to the Agency,
“
on
December 13,
1988,
Richard Lanyon of MWRD verbally informed the Agency that
the District supports
Koppers’l
Variance request”.
However,
despite
a request,
the Agency never received any written comment
from MWRD.
(Ag.
Rec., p.5—6).
Given the circumstances
of this case,
including the apparent
minimal environmental impact which would result from the
requested variance,
the Board
finds that compliance with Section
307.1102, during the time period
of the requested variance, would
impose
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon Koppers.
Consequently,
the Board will grant Koppers
a variance from
Section
307.1102 subject
to conditions.
As one of its recommended conditions,
the Agency accepts the
interim limits requested
by
Koppers.
Koppers
has requested
eCfiuent limits
of 0.030
r.iy/i
for d.~iiy composite and 0.010
my/i
tot monthly composite.
According to Koppers,
such values are consistent
with recent
data which showed non-compliance
and the “worst—case”
situation.
(Pet.,
p.
11).
The Board will accept
the interim
limitations
and
will
impose
them
as
a
condition
of
the
variance.
Also,
the
Agency
states that Koppers has agreed
to comply
with the schedule
of implementing
its compliance plan
as set
forth by Attachment
#13
to the Petition.
(Ag.
Rec..,
p. 4).
That
schedule provides
for completion of the wastewater treatment
1 Koppers facility has
a flow of 0.250
and the Stickney plant has
a design average flow of 1200 MGD.
However,
the average flow
during the period of 10/87
to 9/88 was 816.3 MGD.
(Ag. Rec., p.4)
99—276
5
facility and compliance
by November
5,
1990.
Koppers itself
states that the time schedule
is being maintained.
Finally,
although Koppers requests
a variance from Section
307.1102 and 304.104,
the Board finds that
a variance from
Section 307.1102
is sufficient
to
address Koppers’
needs.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s finding
of fact and
conclusions of
law.
ORDER
Koppers Industries,
Inc.
(Koppers)
is hereby granted
variance from Section 307.1102 with respect
to the discharges
to
the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRD) system by Koppers’ plant located at 3900 South Laramie
Avenue, Cicero.
This variance
is subject
to
the following
conditions:
1.
This variance shall begin on May 25,
1989 and expire
November
5,
1990 or when Koppers achieves compliance,
whichever occurs first.
2)
During the period of this variance Koppers’ discharge
shall not exceed the following limitations
for
mercury:
0.030 milligrams per liter
(mg/l) measured as
a daily composite and 0.010 mg/i measured
as
a monthly
average.
For the purpose of
this variance, the terms
“daily composite”
and “monthly average”
shall have the
meanings
as set forth
in
35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.104(b).
3)
This variance does
not provide relief from compliance
with any local limits
and
does not affect any compliance
agreement or order between Koppers and
MWRD.
4)
Within 45 days
after the date of this Order,
Koppers
shall execute and send to the Agency a Certificate
of
Acceptance
of this variance by which
it agrees
to be
bound
by the terms
and conditions contained herein.
The
executed Certificate
shall
be sent
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Attention:
John 3.
Breslin
Enforcement Programs
P.O. Box 19276
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
IL
62794—9276
The 45—day period shall be held in abeyance
for any
period during which
this matter
is appealed.
Failure
to
execute
and forward
the Certificate within 45 days
renders this Variance void and
of
no force and effect.
The form of the certification shall
be
as follows:
99—277
6
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We)
,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in PCB 88—196,
dated May
25,
1989, understand and accept the Order,
realizing
that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto
binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
Section 41
of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1987 ch. ~
l,i~ 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.
J.D. Dumelle concurred.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy
M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that
the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
—
day of
~79)
,
1989,
by
a
vote
of
7
-0
-.
2
/
.
/
2.
~
..-
Dorothy
M. ç~nn,Clerk
Illinois Po~lutionControl Board
99—278