ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 12, 1982
MOBIL CHEMICAL CO.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 82—18
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
EUGENE W.
BEELER, JR.
(MANGUM, BEELER, SCHAD
& DIAMOND) AND
WINFRED
T.
COLBERT APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER,
E.
WILLIAM HUTTON APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT, AND
LOUIS
J.
PERONA, ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY,
APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE COUNTY OF BUREAU.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
variance of Mobil Chemical
Co.
(Mobil), filed February
23,
1982
as amended July
14,
1982.
Mobil
seeks variance for two ‘~fluent
discharges from its De Pue, Bureau County,
fertilizer manufacturiTig
plant.
As
to its Outfall
001, Mobil
seeks
a three—year variance
from Section 12(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) and
from the 15.0 total
suspended solids
(TSS)
effluent standard of
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 3O4.124(a)
formerly
Rule 408(a)
of Chapter 3~
Water Pollution.
As
to Outfall
002,
a two year variance
is
sought from Section 12(a)
of the Act from the water qualit~y
standards
for ammonia nitrogen
(1.5 mg/I),
fluoride
(1.4 mg/i),
and total dissolved solids
(TDS)
(1000.0 mg/i)
contained
in
35 Iii.
Adm. Code 302.208
formerly
Rule 203(f)
of Chapter 3.
On April
15,
1982 the Illinois F~nvironmentalProtection
Agency
(Agency) filed its initial Recommendation that variance
be denied as to Outfall
001,
but granted in part, with conditions
as to Outfall
002.
Based on information obtained as a result of
May 26 and July 22,
1982 meetings with Mobil,
the Agency amended
its Recommendation August 30, 1982 to suggest that variance with
conditions be granted as to each outfall, hut that variance for
Outfall
002 be limited to one year.
49-275
2
Pursuant to Bureau County’s March
15,
1982 objection to
the petition, hearing was held on August
31,
1982 at which the
parties, the County and members of
the public were
in attendance.
On September 16,
1982,
the County petitioned the Board for leave
to intervene
in this matter.
In the “Argument” attached thereto,
the County states its support of grant of variance for the terms
and with the conditions outlined
in the Agency’s amended Recorn-
rnendation.
The petition for leave
to intervene is granted.
As
the Hearing Officer allowed the County to present testimony of
two witnesses at hearing, “de facto”
leave had already been
granted,
in a situation where a formal
leave to intervene would
have been within the Hearing Officer’s power to grant.
Finally, on September 30,
1982 Mobil
moved for leave to file
instanter
a “Response to Agency’s Recommendation”.
The motion and
Response recite that the Agency has no objection to this late
filing, and the response outlines post—hearing discussions between
Mobil and the Agency concerning both agreed
to and still contested
modifications
to variance conditions suggested in the Agency’s
amended Recommendation.
The motion is granted.
At hearing, technical testimony in Mobil’s behalf was
presented by its employee Robert
D.
Stevens.
The Agency
presented
no witnesses.
Bureau County presented two witnesses
whose testimony was primarily directed to the Outfall 002
problem:
Kenneth Abrahams whose mother-in—law was the former
owner of the property on which that outfall
is located, and
Kathryn Zawacki whose home
is located on the unnamed tributary
of the Illinois River into which the outfall discharges, one
mile downstream of that discharge.
Mobil’s phosphate fertilizer manufacturing operation employs
117 employees to produce 250,000 tons of fertilizer per year from
the raw materials phosphate rock,
sulfur,
and ammonia.
The
facility consists of a sulfuric acid manufacturing plant,
a
phosphoric acid manufacturing plant,
and a diammonium phosphate
(DAP) plant.
Outfall 001 discharges non-contact cooling water and boiler
feedwater treatment effluent.
Mobil currently draws
15 million
gallons per day
(mgd)
of water from the Illinois River
for use
in its operation,
but has the capacity to draw 20.3 mgd.
98
of
this water,
14.6 mgd,
is used “as
is” for non-contact cooling of
sufuric and phosphoric acids.
An additional
94,500 gallons are
used “as is” for dilution water
in the sulfuric acid plant.
The remaining 290,000 gallons are used as boiler feed water,
after the water is filtered and conditioned in a cold lime—zeolite
softening system to remove background solids from the raw water.
Several steps
in the process between intake and use of the water
produce effluent with high solids contents:
49-276
3
1.
The water enters a precipitator/clarifier where
lime,
soda ash and settling agents are added to clarify and precipitate
calcium and magnesium.
This process generates an average daily
effluent of 1,000 gpd containing
1,208 poun’~sof solids.
2.
Clarifier water from the precipitator is processed
through
2 large sand filters for further solids removal.
Periodic
backwashing of the filters, which frequency is dependent on
solids content of the river water, generates a flow of 8,250 gpd
containing 64 pounds of solids.
3.
The filtered water is then softened.
Softener regeneration
results in a discharge of 1,960 gpd containing
0.5 pounds of
solids.
4.
The finished water is then used for boiler feed water.
Boiler blowdown results
in a discharge of
30,000 gpd containing
0.5—0.6 pounds of solids.
Precipitator underflow is reunited with the non-contact
cooling water stream,
which then flows to two 50’
X 500’ settling
lagoons.
Filter backwash,
softener regenerate,
and boiler blow—
down are also routed
to the lagoons, prior to the lagoons’ dlscharge
into De Pue Lake,
a backwater lake of the Illinois River.
Mobil asserts that the nature and extent of its failure to
meet the 15 mg/i TSS limit of the Board’s rules and its NPDES
permit
(a condition appealed in still-pending PCB 79—209)
“are a
direct function of the TSS levels present in the influent
(intake
water)
from the Illinois River,
i.e.,
the influent TSS levels are
greater than 15 mg/i”.
Mobil
further notes that the TSS levels
in its non—contact cooling water discharge have been 25
-
40
lower than the TSS levels in the intake water
(Ex.
5).
Mobil proposes to re—route the precipitator underfiow by
pumping
it to an existing gypsum pond water system
(Outfall 002,
which is discussed in more detail,
infra), rather than reuniting
it with the non—contact cooling water.
This system would cost
$35,000—$40,000 and could be complete and operational
by December,
1982.
Mobil has also investigated the possibility of removing
the
remaining 5
TSS loading added by the filter backwash, softener
regenerate and boiler blowdown.
Comparative
costs of re—routing
these streams are as follows:
49-277
4
Estimated
Estimated
Waste
Pounds/
Percent
Cost to
Removal Cost
Stream
Day
Total
Remove
Per_Pound~
Precipjtator/
1208
95
$
40,000
$
33/lb.
Clarifier
Sandfiiter
64
5
$200,000
$
3,125/lb.
Backwash
Combined Boiler
1
.0785
$
20,000
$20,000/lb.
Blowdown and
Softener Regenerate
Wastewater
Mobil
states that removal of the sandfilter backwash, boiler
blowdown and softener regenerate wastewater would require the
discharge
of the backwash water into the existing closed—loop
gypsum pond water system.
At the current time,
the water balance
in this system is slightly negative
(requiring small water
additions).
If the backwash water option was added to the gypsum
pond system, the balance would become very positive,
so that
there
would be water in excess of that required to run the plant.
This
would require additional capital expenditure
riot identified in
the mentioned construction cost to either increase the system’s
water evaporation rate or treat contaminated pond water and
discharge.
As a result,
Mobil considers this option infeasible.
Mobil asserts that if variance is granted to allow for
re-routing only of the precipitator underflow,
that environmental
harm would be minimal, as the TSS in its effluent would continue
to be lower than that in the irifluent river water.
In its amended Recommendation,
the Agency recommends
variance with conditions from 35 Iii.
Adm. Code 304.124, hut not
from
the Act itself.
The Agency does not dispute Mobil’s economic
claims,
and is particularly concerned about the water balance
problems alleged concerning re—routing of the filter backwash,
which could exacerbate the water quality problems downstream from
Outfall
002.
It suggested grant of variance for a three—year
period,
subject to conditions requiring investigation and
reporting of emerging technology to cost effectively remove TSS
from the process streams still tributary to Outfall
002,
and to
maintenance of an
8 foot depth in all portions of its settling
lagoons.
However,
as Mobil
recites in its Response,
the parties
have agreed that the intent of the latter conditions would be
satisfied and more appropriately implemented by annual
lagoon
dredging and use of normal good operating practices.
The Board finds that denial of variance would impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship, balancing the minimal
environmental impact of less—than—full compliance against the
49-278
5
major costs
to achieve full compliance.
A three—year variance
from 35 Ill. Mm.
Code 304.124 is granted, subject to the recom-
mended and agreed conditions.
Variance from the Act is denied
as unnecessary.
What has been called Outfall 002 consists of groundwater
seepage
from a gypsum storage area and clearwater pond used in
Mobil’s phosphoric acid manufacturing process.
The gypsum/
clearwater pond treatment system operates on a closed—loop basis.
In this recycling system, water serves as the transport medium
for gypsum produced during acid manufacture and filtered out of
the acid.
Gypsum is slurried with pond water and pumped to the
gypsum disposal area.
The gypsum is settled in the gypsum pond,
and most of the clear water
is recycled to the acid plant.
However, seepage from the gypsum pond flows into an unnamed ditch
running along the perimeter of the gypsum/clearwater pond system.
This ditch
is tributary to Negro Creek, which is tributary to
the Illinois River.
Seepage to the unnamed ditch ranges from
10,000 to 28,000 gpd.
The ditch
fails to comply with the state’s
water quality standards for fluoride, ammonia nitrogen, TDS and
pH,
and with the federal phosphorus standard.
Stream samples
taken 1,200 feet downstream of the process wastewater treatment
system in the period November,
1981 through January,
L982 showed
levels for these parameters
in the following ranges:
Fluoride
5.64
—
36.0 mg/l
Phosphorus
131.
—
402.0 mg/i
Ammonia
63.4
—
230.0 mg/i
pH
6.54
—
7.27
TDS
1,224.0
—
4,556.0 mg/i
Mobil has had a long history of problems with the pond
system,
which received its first operating permit in 1972.
Mobil
states that when the ponds were first constructed, state—of—the-
art industry design recommendations were for installation of
separate leak and seepage containment systems along the ponds’
base.
Mobil
felt that an improved design eliminated the need
for such containment systems, particularly since a natural clay
layer between
5 and 25 feet thick underlays the ponds.
The same
design system was employed
in a 1976 expansion of the gypsum pond,
at which time a 12 inch clay liner was put inside the expanded
earthen dam.
Leaks formed in the pond walls.
In 1977 the Agency issued
supplemental permit allowing for construction of a collection pond
(swale) to contain seepage from the gypsum pond prior to its being
pumped hack into a clearwater pond.
An experimental permit was
also issued to allow construction and installation of two pilot
test collection trenches, one
45 and the other 125 feet along, and
appurtenant pipes, pumps, and to allow re—routing of the unnamed
ditch.
The system was permitted to test the feasibility of
intercepting seepage from the gypsum pond before its entry into
the ditch.
The Agency reports that only the 45 foot trench was
built,
and that its use was discontinued by Mobil
in 1981 since
49-279
6
the company felt it had no significant effect.
Finally,
in October 1981 the Agency issued Mobil
a permit to operate a
collection sump and pump back system.
This involved the above
described re—routing of a portion of the ditch and use of another
portion to collect the seepage.
The sump is used to dewater the
general area upstream of the location where the existing ditch
joins
the by-pass.
Water is pumped back to the swale.
Mobil states that it expended $90,000 in 1978 to install
the swale and pump system along the base of the affected pond.
As this took care of only 90
of the seepage,
Mobil began further
investigation as
to the problem’s
source.
Some
4 years and
$95,000 later, Mobil states that it believes that an opening has
developed along the base of the pond’s earthen dam allowing small
quantities of water to seep out and flow below ground level along
the top of the area’s underlying clay layer,
to emerge
in the
unnamed ditch.
Mobil seeks variance to allow it to further identify and
define the area subject to seepage, and to contain and return
seepage to the pond system while
so doing.
It proposes
to deepen
the existing collection trench by 4’
-
6’,
and to excavate the
collection sump to contain
a surge volume of 85,000 gallons
to
intercept rainfall runoff.
It also proposes to install a new
pump to operate
in parallel
to the existing pump.
Both pumps
would be piped directly to the clearwater pond.
Mobil believes that this project,
as outlined, would increase
pumpback system reliability to 90—95.
Construction costs are
estimated
to be $90,000
—
$110,000 and the increase
in annual
operation and maintenance costs to be
$3
—
$5 million.
Project
completion time
is estimated to be
10 months.
Mobil considered
and rejected two minimally quicker alternatives, each on the basis
of lack of surge volume containment, higher costs, and greater
operational difficulties.
Mobil
requests that variance be extended
for 14 months after
construction
is completed,
for
a variance period totalling 24
months.
Two months of those months would provide
a start—up
cushion, while the other twelve are requested for collection of
monitoring data and system evaluation.
Mobil believes that
this would allow it to define the limits of this latest system
improvement and provide data necessary to plan any other necessary
improvement.
During the variance period,
Mobil requests that the
unnamed ditch be subject to interim water quality limits of 150
mg/i
for ammonia nitrogen,
20 mg/i for fluoride, and 4,600 mg/i
for TSS.
Mobil states that denial of variance would impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship because
1)
it is unaware of any
way to achieve immediate compliance with water quality standards,
including plant shutdown,
2)
it is currently unaware of any way
to
eliminate
the
seepage
source,
and
3)
it believes that seepage
would
be unaffected by a production curtailment.
49-280
7
Mobil states that this improvement was designed to produce
100
containment of its wastewater,
and possibly contaminated
runoff from rainwater,
and that
it hopes
the system will enable
it to achieve full compliance with water quality standards.
In
its amended petition,
it states
its belief that variance would
result in
“no significant detrimental impact to the nearby
environment.
The unnamed ditch flows
1.2 miles from
the treatment pond area southeasterly to Negro Creek
which,
in turn,
flows
1 mile south to the Illinois
River.
The ditch is thickly weeded and heavily wooded
with scrub trees along most of its length,
is not a
source for public and food processing water supply, and
we believe would have little,
if any,
use for swimming,
fishing,
or other recreational purposes.
Slightly
increased algae growth can be observed only
in a few
open areas approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the
treatment pond area”
(Am. Pet.
at 13).
In its Recommendations, the Agency strongly disagrees with
this assessment, believing that Mobil’s discharge has had a sub-
stantial adverse impact.
Ammonia nitrogen levels are “excessive,
being well above acute toxicity levels for many species of fish”
and “would cause algae blooms
in the stream”
(Rec.
p.
15).
Testimony given by Donald Bosnick and Kathleen Zawacki in
PCB 79—209
is cited to refute Mobil’s claims.
These individuals
testified to the degradation of the stream from a clear,
recreationally usable waterway containing aquatic life to an ugly
ditch devoid of life.
Each had played by the stream as children;
Mrs. Zawacki had recently observed children swimming
in it, hut
refuses to allow her own child to do so.
She also testified to
the strong odor occasionally given off by the stream, and to the
occasional white and yellow colored bottom deposits.
As Mobil
has made no objection to the Board’s consideration of this
testimony,
and as Mrs. Zawacki herself again testified in this
variance proceeding, the Board will consider this information.
At hearing in this matter,
Mrs.
Zawacki testified to an
occurrance in July,
1982.
As aforementioned, the Zawacki home
is located about one mile downstream of the Mobil gypsum pond;
the unnamed ditch runs behind the home and is approximately 120’—
140’
from the Zawacki’s well.
Following a heavy rainfall, the
ditch overflowed its banks.
When the water receded, the ground
had
a “white—type, definite look”.
The water had an “awful strong
gagging smell”,
which
smell was said to be “also
in our creek
most of the time”
(R.
85—87).
Due in part to the odor,
Mrs. Zawacki has had the Agency
sample the water
in the creek on at least
2 occasions (Bureau
County,
Ex.
1,2), anaylsis of which samples show water quality
violations.
In September—October,
1980 after her well water
49-281
8
also begain to smell, the well water was sampled by some state
agency, probably the Department of Public Health.
Sample results
were not entered into evidence
(R.
99).
On cross—examination, Mr.
Stevens, Mobil’s witness, testified
that gypsum itself does not have an odor.
He did however testify
that he has smelled an odor near Mobil’s clearwater ponds.
Mr. Stevens could not specify the odor’s source, but did not
refute the Agency’s speculation that the source of the odor might
be from sulfate concentrations, while agreeing that gypsum,
a
crystalline calcium sulfate,
is considered an inert substance
(P.
109—110).
Concerning Mobil’s hardship allegations,
in its
Recommendation, the Aency states
its belief that “Mobil has made
something
less than an all-out effort to achieve compliance.
Breakdowns and overflows of the bypass/sump/collection system
began
to occur
in April
1981,
and the Agency notes that Mobil
has given “no explanation for its continued failure to resolve
them”.
No explanation was given for the failure to dig the
second pilot test trench
for which an experimental permit was
issued.
Delay in follow—up on preliminary consultant’s reports
was also noted
(Rec.
p.
12).
However, admitting the technical difficulty of obtaining
immediate compliance,
the Agency recommends grant of variance
in the interests of ameliorating a severe environmental problem.
In its Amended Recommendation,
the Agency recommends grant of
variance for one year, subject to imposition of Mobil’s suggested
interim limits,
a thrice weekly monitoring requirements and other
conditions.
In its Response, Mobil indicates that the Agency has agreed
to the reasonableness of a modified monitoring plan calling for
monitoring twice weekly, and also whenever there is a rainfall
of greater than one
inch.
Disagreement continues to exist as to
the duration of variance.
It is the Agency’s position that variance should terminate
upon the completion and start-up of Mobil’s contaminant mechanism
in August,
1984.
The Agency feels that
this short term is
consistent with the objective of returning the unnamed ditch to
its full use potential
as quickly as possible, and would provide
Mobil
with an incentive to design, construct and operate its
existing and planned facilities to as
to provide complete
containment of run—off.
While noting that stricter limitations
conceivably could he set during the second year of a two year
variance,
the Agency feels this to be infeasible.
As no
construction permit application had been filed,
the Agency is
unaware of the basis of design or specific manner
in which the
project would be carried out,
so that there
is insufficient
information on which to propose water quality limits reasonably
based upon expected performance levels.
If additional variance
relief proves necessary after equipment installation, the Agency
49-282
9
says, Mobil can then petition for the Board for an additional
variance “with appropriate interim water quality levels”.
(As
aforementioned, Bureau County has adopted the Agency’s position.)
The Board finds that denial of variance would impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Mobil has, albeit with a
certain measure of “footdragging”
(which is not hereby excused),
been engaged for some time in a costly attempt to develop tech-
nology to cure what has become a serious environmental problem.
The Agency’s objections
to a two—year variance are well taken,
although Mobil contended that time will he needed to assess the
efficiency of the system.
Should
it be that, due to limitations
in current technology and geologic conditions
in the gypsum pond
area,
complete containment cannot be achieved
(as the Agency ack-
nowledges
as possible), stricter interim water quality standards
could not reasonably be fashioned in any subsequent variance
proceeding
in the absence of any performance data.
The Board is
therefore granting variance for an additional two months beyond
the time recommended by the Agency.
Variance from 35 Iii. Mm.
Code 302.206 is therefore granted until November
15,
1983 subject
to conditions as recommended.
Variance from the Act is denied
as unnecessary.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner, Mobil Chemical Co.,
is granted variance for
discharges from Outfall
001 of its
De Pue facility from the 15.0
mg/l total suspended solids
(TSS) effluent standard of 35
Ill.
Am.
Code 304.124(a), subject to the following conditions:
a)
This variance shall
terminate November 15,
1985.
b)
Petitioner shall
at all times maintain and
operate both settling ponds
in such a manner as to
achieve optimal performance.
c)
Petitioner shall dredge its two settling
ponds at least once annually.
d)
Petitioner shall monitor at Outfall 001 for
TSS by means of
a composite sample taken five times
per week, and shall submit
its results to the Agency
with its monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports.
e)
Petitioner shall make a continuous and
thorough effort to ascertain the existence
of new
cost—effective technology for treatment of TSS
discharges from the sand filter backwash and boiler
blowdown/softener regenerate wastewater.
Petitioner
shall report its findings to the Agency by July
1 of
1983,
1984 and 1985.
49-283
10
2.
Petitioner is granted a variance for seepage from
Outfall 002 of its De Pue facility from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 302.208
as it pertains to total
dissolved solids
(TDS),
ammonia nitrogen
and fluoride subject to the following conditions:
a)
This variance shall terminate November
15,
1983.
b)
Petitioner shall
at all times maintain and
operate its existing bypass/sump/collection system in
such
a manner as
to achieve optimal performance.
c)
Concentrations of the following contaminants
in the unnamed ditch at Outfall 002 shall not exceed
these levels:
Ammonia Nitrogen
—-
150 mg/l
Fluoride
——
20 mg/i
Total dissolved solids
—-
4,600 mg/i
d)
At its Sampling Station
#4, Petitioner
shall monitor flow,
and levels of each of the above
contaminants, by means of a composite sample taken
two times per week and also whenever there
is a
rainfall greater than one inch
(1”).
These results
shall
be submitted to the Agency with Petitioner’s
monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports.
e)
Petitioner shall design and construct the
additional seepage control mechanisms specified in its
Amended Petition
in accordance with the following
timetable:
Installation of Containment
April
1,
1983
Complete Installation
June
1,
1983
Including Additional Excavation
System Start—up and Evaluation
June
1,
1983
through August 1,
1983
A report of the progress made regarding this work shall
be submitted to the Agency monthly.
f)
Petitioner shall submit a complete and
detailed engineering plan regarding the above additional
containment mechanisms to the Agency within 45 days of
the date of this Order.
3.
Variance from Section
12(a) of the Act is denied as
unnecessary.
49-2R4
11
4.
Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
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
shall
be held in abeyance for any period this matter
is being
appealed.
The form of the certificate shall be as
follows:
CERFITICATE
I,
(We),
___________________________—,
having
read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in PCB 82—18,
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
5.
Bureau County’s September
16,
.1982 petition for leave
to intervene is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted on the j~.-~—
day of
~
,~
—,
1982 by a
vote
of
~-C~
~
Tt~/
z~/i~
Christan
L.
Mof
ett,
C1~k
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
49-2R!S
