ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
March
6,
1980
STAUFFER
CHEMICAL
COMPANY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
P~B79—230
)
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
)
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Goodman):
On
November
6,
1979
Petitioner
petitioned
for
a
5-year
variance from Rules 203(f) and 402
(TDS
of the Board’s water
regulations and for a one—year variance from Rule 408(a)
(TSS
of
those regulations.
On January 4, 1980 the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency) filed a
recommendation
of
granting
the
variances given, three conditions
•
The recommendation was based
on the acceptability of the interim control methodology for
removing TDS.
(In R76-21, the Agency took the position that TDS
effluent standards should be eliminated
by
the
Board
for
this
reason.
Petitioner
owns
and operates a chemical manufacturing and
processing plant in Chicago Heights, producing sodium bicarbonate
and various phosphates.
Noncontact cooling water is drawn from
wells owned by Petitioner and the City of Chicago Heights.
This
water is discharged to a storm water collection
system
after a
flow of water distilled by a vacuum crystalizer operation is
added.
The entire discharge passes through an 84—inch storm
sewer to the NState Street Ditch
in Chicago Heights, and
ultimately to Thorn Creek, a general use water tributary to the
Little Calumet River.
The ditch also contains the discharge of a
36-inch City of Chicago storm sewer, which discharge is similar
in quality, and the discharge of artificially—diverted Thorn
Creek.
Of the approximately 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm),
1,440,000 gallons
per
day (1.44 MGD) discharge, half is from
storm water runoff and half is from the noncontact cooling water.
While Petitioner’s NPDES Permit No. IL0035220 issued February 21,
1979 and amended August 17, 1979 (to expire March 31, 1981)
allows for discharges of TSS up to 15 mg/l and TDS up to 1,000
mg/i, discharge monitoring reports show that Petitioner’s
discharges
exceed
the
permit limitations. In PCB 79-65,
Petitioner
sought
review
of
the
15—mg/l
TSS
NPDES
permit
limitation,
(the
same
limitation
found
in
Rule
408(a),
but
withdrew its petition for review.
:37—4
15
—2—
Petitioner alleges that continued operation of the storm
water collection system is necessary to prevent plant flooding
and that continued discharge of the noncontact cooling water
is necessary to prevent the plant from closing operations.
Petitioner’s proposed compliance program is to install a
pressure sand filter system of 1 000—gpm capacity.
Petitioner
proposes to monitor pH and TSS op daily basis to determine
when diversion to an existing concrete setting basin is
necessary.
The discharge would be filtered by a vacuum filter
with the sludge removed to an approved sanitary landfill.
The filters would be cle~nedby back washing into a receiving
tank
where a vacuum rotary filter would separate out dry
sludge for disposal.
The discharge from the vacuum filters
would
be
monitored.
The agency agrees this is acceptable methodology for
TSS compliance if the system is properly operated and maintained.
The Agency, although agreeing that any interim TSS discharges
will not cause harm to plant, animal or human life, recommends
that TSS discharges not exceed 45 mg/l based on 30—day averages.
Petitioner agrees to the 45 mg/l limitaition but seeks base
measurements on monthly averages of daily composite samples
instead.
As to control methodology for reducing TDS emissions,
Petitioner has agreed to continue its investigations of
economically reasonable solutions and to keep the Agency
informed yearly as to its findings.
The Agency however,
seeks this information at 6-month intervals.
Both agree
on the infeasibility of reverse osmosis, evaporation, and
ion exchange.
The Agency also seeks to require that
TDS
effluent levels
do not increase over their present levels.
Petitioner
has agreed to continue its improved housekeeping and management
practices to avoid excursions above current levels to the extent
possible.
Petitioner has alleged and the Agency does not deny
that the only reasonably available source of cooling water is
the nearby wells which can contain TDS levels in excess of
1,500 mg/l.
Petitioner, however, proposes to seek alternative
sources of this cooling water, including Lake Michigan.
The Board grants the relief requested on the conditions
that TSS concentrations shall not exceed 45 mg/l based on
monthly averages of daily composite samples and that TDS
concentrations not exceed present levels.
31—476
—3—
This Opinion constitutes the findings of
fact
and conclusions
of
law of the Board in this matter,
ORDER
It
is the Order
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
Stauffer Chemical Company
is granted variance
from Rule 408(a) of the Board~sWater Regulations
to March 31,
1981 on the condition that TSS
concentrations not exceed 45 mg/i based on monthly
average.s of composite samples taken daily which data
shall
be submitted to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
IL 62706;
2,
Stauffer Chemical Company is granted variance
from Rules 203(f) and 402 of the Board~sWater
Regulations to March
1,
1985 on the condition
that TDS concentrations not exceed present
levels;
that new TDS treatment methodologies he studied and
evaluated to the degree practicable and reports of
findings made to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency,
at the address above given, annually beginning
October
6,
1980; that TDS concentrations be monitored
weekly
in the State Street Ditch and monthly
in Thorn
Creek, with reports of findings made to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency at the address above
given; and
3,
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
is
authorized
to amend NPDES Permit No, 1L035220
to include the terms of this Order,
4.
Within 45 days of the adoption of this Order, the
Stauffer Chemical Company shall execute and forward
to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois 62706
a certification of Acceptance and Agreement
to be
bound to all terms and conditions of this Order,
The 45-day period shall be held in abeyance during
any period this matter is being appealed.
The form of
said certification shall
be as follows:
I
(We), __________________________________having
read
and fully understanding the Order of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
in
PCI3 79—230,
hereby accept said Order and
agree to be bound by all
of the terms and conditions
thereof,
SIGNED ________________________
TITLE _______________________
DATE ________________________
37—477
Mrs. Anderson abstains~
I,
Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted
on the
~
day of
~
i98Obyavoteof
___________
~
Christan
L,
Mof
Illinois Pollution Control Board
37—478