ILLI@OIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 14, 1986
PFIZER PIGMENTS,
INC1,
Petitioner,
v,
)
PCB 85—107
ILLINOIS EN~JIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent1
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R1 C~ Flemal):
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter comes before the Board upon the July 22, 1985
filing of
a variance petition by Pfizer Pigments,
Inc1
(“PPI”)
requesting
a thirty—two
month variance from certain water quality
parameters
relating
to
its discharge of non—contact cooling
waters
from its East St1 Louis plant
to Schoenberger Creek1
The
Board
on August
1,
1985 found PPI’s petition deficient and
ordered
that more information be
submitted1
PPI filed
an amended
petition
on October
30,
1985,
accompanied by responses
to
additional
information requested by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (“Agency”)
in
a letter
to PPI dated August
21,
19851
On December
30, 1985 the Agency filed a recommendation
to
grant variance
relief to PPI subject
to conditions,
accompanied
by
a motion for leave
to file its recommendation
instanter1
That
motion was granted
by Order
of the Board
on January
9,
19861
Hearing
in this matter was waived by the Petitioner1
However,
on August 29,
1985
an objection and request
for hearing
was
filed by Mr1 George
T1 Bush,
Sr1,
Alderman and Public Works
Committee Chairman
of the City of East St1
Louis1
Hearing was
held January
21, 1986
in the St1 Clair County Building,
Belleville,
Illinois1
The Agency asserted that
Mr1 Bush was
notified of
the hearing1
However,
Mr1 Bush did not appear at the
hearing~
No other
objections have been received,
either
as
written comment or
at hearing1
The specific relief that PPI requests consists of
an
increase
in the limits
on total
iron
(STORET 01045)
and total
suspended solids (STOREr 00530) concentrations
identified
in
35
1111
Adm1
Code 3041204(c),
and an increase
in the load
limits on
total
iron and total suspended
solids
(TSS)
loads,
as specified
in PPI’s currently applicable NPDES permit No1
1L00387091
To
wit,
Section 3O4~204(c) and the NPDCS permit currently limit
discharges
to:
—2—
Conc1
Load Limit
Constituent
(mg/i)
(lbs/day)
Total
Iron
20
350
TSS
37
648
In place of these limits,
PPI proposes the following
limitations with the concurrence
of
the Agency:
Conc..
Load Limit
Constituent
(mg/i)
(lbs/day)
Total
Iron
34
764
TSS
98
1823
Section 304~204 is
itself
a site—specific
rule promulgated
by the Board
in PCB R8l—29 on April
21,
1983
(7
1111 Reg1
8111,
effective june
23, 1983),
and relating
to PPI’s cooling water
discharge to Schoenberger Creek1
In its entirely, Section
304..204 provides:
Section 304~2O4Schoenberger Creek: Groundwater Discharge
a)
This rule shall apply
to discharges from an existing
facility owned by Pfizer Corporation
to Schoenberger
Creek
immediately south of
the Baltimore and Ohio
main
tracks
in
T2N,
R9~ of
the
3rd
P..M..
,
St..
Clair
County1
b)
This
rule
shall
apply
only
to
discharges
of
groundwater
used
as
non—contact cooling water
in which naturally
occurring background concentrations have not been
increased by
industrial
or
other human
use..
C)
Instead of
the general effluent standards set forth in
Section 304..124
for
the listed parameters,
these
discharges shall
not exceed
the following limitations:
CONCEN—
STORET
TRATIO~
CONSTITUE~IT
t~IUMBER
(mg/i)
Iron
(Total)
01045
20
Total Suspended Solids
00530
37
In the same proceeding
in which Section 304..204 was
promulgated, and simultaneously with that action,
the Board also
promulgated
a special
total iron water quality standard for
Schoenberger
Creek1
This standard,
namely
20 mg/i,
is identified
in
35 I11~Adm1
Code
303.353..
Section 303353
also specifies the
location of applicability of the special
total iron standard
to
be:
—3—
1)
The
final
1500
feet
of
Schoenberger
Creek
starting
immediately south
of the Baltimore and Ohio main tracks
and
running
north
to
an
unnamed
tributary
of
the
Cahokia
Canal;
and
2)
The unnamed tributary from its confluence with
Schoenberger Creek as
it runs west and northwest for
a
distance of 8000 feet to
its confluence with the Cahokia
Canal1
3~CK~~~ROUND
Petitioner
owns and operates
a manufacturing facility in
East
StI
Louis,
Illinois1
The
plant
employs
over
300
people
and
is
the major employer
in East
St1
Louis1
The PPI facility
produces and processes both natural and synthetic
iron oxides
which are used
in the paint and coating
industry and
in the
audio,
video, and computer tape industries1
pPi has two waste discharges from its facility1
Process
wastewater, which averages
2 million gallons per day
(MGD),
is
discharged
to the East St1
Louis municipal sewer
system1
Once
through cooling water
is pumped from three on—site wells, used
for
cooling,
and discharged sequentially to
a storm sewer,
Schoenberger Creek,
an unnamed
tributary to the Cahokia Canal,
the Cahokia Canal,
and
the
Mississippi River1
The three wells
are designated as wells
#12,
#14,
and
#151
They have respective depths
of
117,
115,
and
117
feet and
capacities of
500,
1000,
and 1700 gallons per minute
(3PM)1
PPI
states
that the only suitable configuration
of well use
is
a
combination of #12 and #15; wells
#14 and #15
in combination
produce more pressure than the piping system
is
capable of
bearing,
wells
#12
and
#14
do
not provide adequate volume to
satisfy peak demand,
and none of the wells singly produce
sufficient quantity
to meet peak demand1
WELL WATER QUALITY
Petitioner attributes the difficulty
it has
in meeting
present standards to elevated concentrations of
iron and TSS
in
the raw well water, particularly the concentrations encountered
in well #15,
PPI provides the following
typical analyses:
Total Iron
TSS
flell
No,,
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
12
12—14
22
14
16—18
23
15
22—29
39
PPI believes
that the high iron concentrations are due
to
natural conditions
in the aquifer,
and not
to any
contamination1
It
cites
two
recent
reports
published
by
the
—4—
Illinois
State
Water
Survey
(“ISWS”).
The
first,
ISWS
Contract
Report
#341,
dated
March,
1984,
is
quoted
as
describing the
groundwater
in
the
East
St.
Louis
area
as
“highly mineralized,
very
hard,
and
very
alkaline, with unusually high soluble iron
concentrations”
(emphasis added
by Petitioner),
The same report
is
also
cited
to
note
that
local
well waters have
a substantial
degree
of
variability
in
mineral concentration, which PPI
believes
to
be
consistent
with
the
variability
encountered
in
its
three
wells..
The second
report,
“Quality of Water
in the
Alluvial Aquifer, American Bottoms, East St.
Louis,
Illinois”,
ISWS Water Resources Investigations Report 84—4180,
shows that
dissolved iron concentrations within
a three mile radius
of the
PPI plant wells
are
as high as 80—82
mg/i..
EFFL(JE@T CONDITIONS
The Agency has collated from Petitioner’s Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
the
following
summary
of
iron
and
TSS
concentrations
in
PPI’s
cooling
water
discharge:
Total
Iron
TSS
Avg.
Flow
Avg.
Max.
Avg.
Max..
Month
(MGJ)
(mg/l)
(mg/i)
6/85
2,34
18,02
19,09
31
45
5/85
1.94
15,77
19..05
27
33
4/85
1.9
16,2
17.3
30
35
3/85
2.504
l9..0
20.2
41
45
2/85
2,61
23.7
34.0
49
62
1/85
2,11
20,3
20,6
46
54
12/84
1.79
20.6
21.2
45
49
11/84
1,97
23,6
15.1
51
56
10/84
1.73
17,8
24,6
58
98
9/84
1,57
17.2
21,0
44
46
8/84
1,71
18,7
21.3
58
74
7/34
1.65
20,7
24,8
55
58
Avg.
1,99
19,3
22,4
45
55
As
these
data
indicate, Petitioner has had difficulty
meeting
the
presently
applicable
concentration
limitations
for
both
iron
and
TSS.
~iowever,
the
difficulty
stems
principally
from
the
elevated
iron
concentrations,
The TSS derives largely
from
oxidation
of
the
dissolved
iron
of
the
well
water,
which
produces
colloidal
ferric
iron
compounds
measurable
as
suspended
solids..
Thus the two concentrations measurements are
manifestations of
the same problem.
PPI attributes
its effluent difficulties principally
to
water
drawn from well
#15,
This conclusion
is consistent with
the observations
of the high iron concentration in well #15 and
PPI’s ability
to meet the existing limitations prior
to the
development of well
#15..
Well #15 was
installed after
the
adoption of site—specific rule 304,204 and after
application for,
but before receipt of,
PPI’s current NPDES permit.
Petitioner
therefore suggests that the difficulties
it
is presently
encountering with well #15 could not be
foreseen
in either
action,
—5—
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
Schoenberger
Creek,
as
discussed
by
both
Petitioner
and
the
Agency,
is
severely
degraded1
The
Board
notes,
however,
that
the
presence
of
environmentally
degraded
conditions
do
not
as
a
matter
of
course
dictate
continuation,
nor
worsening
of
such
conditions1
A
September
28,
1985
study
of
Schoenberger
Creek
commissioned
by
PPI
described
the stream as channelized and
having
a
heavy
sediment
load1
It
further
noted
that
anaerobic
sediment
conditions
exist
upstream
of
Pfizer’s
discharge,
and
that
the
creek has been extremely degraded by channel
manipulation, drainage diversion,
and point source
and non—point
source
pollution1
The
following
sampling
data
has
been
collected
by
PPI:
Schoenberger Creek Sampling Results
September
28, 1985 Survey
Fe
Fe
Field Readings
Site
Total
Dissolved
TSS
Temperature
DO
No1
Location
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(°C)
(ppm)
1
Schoenberger
112
0105
46
14
618
Creek Upstream
2
Schoenberger
1419
0121
36
13
7.3
Creek
at
Culvert
(Discharge
Point)
3
Schoenberger
11.2
0130
38
1315
6.8
Creek
at
Route
40
4
Cahokia
Canal
6.34
0123
30
13
619
below
confluence
5
lOOT
discharge
1119
0123
34
1315
7.0
6
Cahokia
Canal
611
110
34
14
713
above
confluence
7
On
plant
1710
313
42
1315
7.0
discharge
8
~7e1lhead
18.2
9.4
42
1315
—6—
These
data
suggest
that
Petitioner’s
discharge
adversely
affects both the total and dissolved
iron loadings of
Schoenberger Creek, but has
a positive influence on the level
of
total suspended solids
in the stream1
A potentially more
troublesome result of
the discharge is the oxidation of ferrous
iron to the ferric
state,
at which point
it precipitates1
As
the
Board noted
in R81—29,
this process exerts
a chemical oxygen
demand
on the
stream,
and
coats
the bottom of the stream with
a
deposit of
ferric
iron, destroying habitat1
However,
the
depletion of dissolved oxygen
in the stream expected
to occur
as
a result of
the discharge was not borne out by the September
28,
1935 sampling conducted
by Petitioner
(above)4
That sampling
shows that levels of dissolved oxygen remain essentially constant
throughout
the stream’s reach; moreover, samples taken
at all
stations were in compliance with the dissolved oxygen water
quality standard of
35
1111
Mm1
Code 30242061
REMEDIAL AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS
Petitioner has undertaken several programs
to attempt
to
come
into compliance1
Among
these has been
a comprehensive
analysis of
the existing cooling water distribution system,
including piping, valving,
controls,
etc4
Its objective was,
and
continues to
be,
to determine the feasibility of proportioning
the three well water sources
in
a manner which would both satisfy
discharge limitations
and provide adequate cooling water
supply1
As of the date of the petition, PPI asserts
that it has
been unable
to find any workable alternatives due
to limitations
of the existing network design and controls coupled with the
periodic need for both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance
downtime of the individual wells1
However,
PPI asserts
that it
intends
to continue investigations in this direction1
Among other
specific compliance alternatives considered
by
Petitioner have been temporary use of
the East St1 Louis
Treatment Plant, discharge
to the new American Bottoms Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant,
use of city water, pre—treatment of
the cooling water,
shut—down of well #15,
and replacement of well
*15..
ppI considers the first alternative
to lack viability
because the East
St..
Louis Treatment Plant
is scheduled to be
replaced during the first quarter
of
1986,
and hence does not
offer
a permanent
solution..
Discharge
to the new American
Bottoms Plant remains
a possible resolution1
However,
Petitioner
considers that
it may be cost—prohibitive,
indicating that
treatment of
2 MGD
of cooling water would increase PPI’s
sewer
bill by more than $l~5million annually1
City water,
in addition
to costing an extra $500,000 per year,
is about 30°Fwarmer than
the well water
during the summer months,
and hence cannot provide
sufficient heat transfer
to replace the well
water.,
Alternate
well configurations and possible pre—treatrnerit of the well watet
are options which remain
under
consideration..
The Board suggests
that Petitioner
consider
blending of city water with well water
as
an additional compliance
alternative..
—7—
In
an
attempt
to
find
a
permanent
resolution
to
the
problem,
Petitioner
has
initiated
and
proposes
to
continue
an
eight
step
compliance
program
beginning
with
sampling
and
ending
with
an
operational compliance system (Petition,
Ex..
A)..
During this
period
PPI
proposes
to
identify
the
most
effective
compliance
alternative among
those noted
above,
as well
as other
alternatives
which
may
exist,
and
to
implement
this
alternative..
The Agency notes that this program consists of
a
“schedule
for
decision
rather
than
a
commitment
to
resolve
the
problem”
(Recoin..
p.
7)..
However,
the Agency apparently believes
that
no
obvious
best
solution
is
apparent
at
this
time,
and
cites
the Board’s previous holding
in Modine Manufacturing Company
v.
IEPA as controlling:
Compliance plans
are
to be developed prior
to and included
in
the
variance
petition,
not
during
its
pendency..
This
is
not
to say that
if
no solution
is apparent,
the variance
requested cannot include
a time schedule and compliance plan
designed
to study and
resolve the problem..
PCB 79—112,
August
18,
1982,
p..
2..
PPI proposes
that its compliance schedule take 32 months,
the requested period of variance1
Assuming that this period
began with the filing month of July,
1985,
the
32 months would
extend
into
March,
1988..
The
Agency
contends
that
this
time
frame
is
longer than necessary,
that much
of the information
necessary
to evaluate
a compliance method was developed
in R8l—
29,
and
that
Petitioner
has
had
knowledge
of
excessive
amounts
of
pollutants
since
July,
1984,
For
these
reasons,
the
Agency
recommends that the variance be granted only until July
31,
1987,
producing
a period approximately eight months shorter than that
requested by
PPI..
For
the reasons cited by the Agency,
the Board
finds
the
variance
period
suggested
by
the
Agency
to
be
the
more
appropriate..
HARDSHIP
Both
PPI
and
the
Agency
contend
that
Petitioner
would
suffer
an
arbitrary
or
unreasonable
hardship
if
denied
variance
relief..
Given
the
alternatives discussed
above,
the Board
finds
that
arbitrary
or
unreasonable
hardship
would
result
if
PPI
is
denied variance relief,
and that such hardship would not be
justified
by
the
environmental
impact
of
Petitioner’s
discharge..
The
Board
will
therefore
grant variance
relief from
the
effluent
limitations
of
304..l24(c),
subject
to
conditions..
This
Opinion
constitutes
the
Board’s
findings
of
fact
of
conclusions
of
law
in
this
matter..
ORDER
Pfizer
Pigments,
Inc..
is
hereby
granted
variance
from
35
Ill.,
Adm..
Code
304.,204(c)
for
its
East
St..
Louis
plant,
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
—3—
1.
The
variance
shall
begin
on
July
22,
1985
and
shall
terminate
on July
31,
1987..
2,
During
the term of the variance, Petitioner
shall
operate its existing facility so as
to minimize
its
discharges
of
iron
and
total
suspended
solids,
3..
During the variance period Petitioner
shall
limit
its
discharges
to:
Daily
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/l)
Total
Iron
34,0
Total Suspended Solids
98,0
4.
The Agency shall modify Petitioner’s NPDES permit
to
reflect the altered daily maximum concentrations of
total
iron
and
total
suspended
solids
imposed
on
the
Petitioner
by the Board,
5,
The compliance program chosen by Petitioner shall
be
operational
by May 31, 1987,
and Petitioner
shall attain
compliance
by
July
31,
1987.
6,
Petitioner shall
report
to the Agency
in July 1986,
December 1986,
and June 1987 of the progress toward
c o mp 1 i an cc..
7..
Within forty—five
(45) days after
the date
of the Board
Order
the Petitioner
shall execute and send
to:
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
Compliance Assurance Section
2200
Churchill
Road
Springfield,
IL
62706
Attention:
James
C,
Frost
a certification
of acceptance of this variance
by which
it agrees
to be
bound by its terms
and conditions,
This
forty—five
(45) day period
shall
be held
in abeyance
for
any
period
during
which
this
matter
is
being
appealed,
The form of
the certification shall
be
as follows:
CERTIFICATION
Pfizer Pigments,
Inc.
has received and understands the Order
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in PCB85—l07 and hereby
accepts said Order and agrees
to be bound
to all
of the terms
and
conditions thereof,
—9—
Pfizer
Pigments,
Inc..
By:
Authorized
Agent
Title
Date
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
7~2,c”2~e/
,
1936,
byavoteof
7-c’
L2~4
~.
~
Dorothy
M..
~unn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board