ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

3

,

1976

ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 76—74

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF

THE

BOARD

(by Dr. Satchell):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board) upon the petition of Illinois Power Company

(Illinois)

for variance from Rule 203(f)

of

the

Water Regulations as

it

applies to boron.

Illinois seeks its variance during the

construction of

a new

lagoon and

during

the pendency of a

proposed regulatory action which

is estimated in Exhibit “B”

titled “Compliance schedule”

as being approximately two years.

The facility for which the variance is sought is Petitioner’s

fossil-fueled electric power generating station, Wood River,

East Alton, Madison County,

Illinois.

The petition was

filed

on March 16,

1976.

Illinois uses an ash lagoon system to treat its fly and

bottom ash sluice waters.

Water

is withdrawn from the

Mississippi River to sluice the ash to the lagoon where

settling of suspended solids occurs.

The water

soluble

boron

is dissolved from the ash and is carried

in the effluent

waters into an unnamed tributary of Wood River Creek which

flows into Wood River Creek which

flows back into the Mississippi.

Rule 203(f)

sets a boron limitation of 1.0 mg/i.

In a petition

filed May 27, 1975

(PCB 75—221)

,

the petitioner states

that:

“During the last 12 months, water samples taken from the ash

lagoon outfall averaged 0.693 ppm (boron); however,

9 samples

out of the 23 total samples analyzed were greater than the

1.0 ppm standard.

The highest sample had 1.70 ppm boron.”

In PCB 74-9 and PCB 74-423, the Board granted Petitioner

variance while undertaking a research project on boron removal.

The research project did not yield solutions which were deemed

feasible by Petitioner.In PCB 75-221 Petitioner was granted a

variance until March 15,

1976 subject to several conditions

listed under No.

1 of the Order.

a.

That Petitioner provide

a time schedule for bringing

the facility into compliance and a detailed descrip-

tion of the corporate approved program to be undertaken

to achieve compliance by March 15,

1976;

22—53

---

—2—

b.

That Petitioner prepare

a feasibility report,

including costs,

of directing its effluent

from the new ash lagoon directly to the

Mississippi River;

c.

That the discharge not exceed 1.6 mg/i of

boron in any 24 hour sample;

d.

That no effluent from the ash lagoons be

allowed to enter the Shields’ Branch im-

poundment area;

e.

That

a feasibility report or alternative

means of disposal of the fly ash including

dry storage of all ash be submitted to the

Agency within 90 days.

The only plan Petitioner provides with a time schedule

and corporate approval is to route the effluent as

is

presently done to Wood River Creek or to the Shields’ Branch

impoundment area and through the twin culverts known

as the

Twin 60’s which provide passage through the levee to the

Mississippi River during normal river levels and which are

closed during flood

stages.

The Board in the consolidated cases PCB 74-51,

73—61

and 74-5 ruled that

a discharge to Shields’ Branch was not

a direct discharge to the Mississippi River.

In addition,

condition 1(d)

supra specifically forbids this alternative.

The other alternative would not lead to compliance unless

a regulatory change were to be made.

Since this has not

been done,

Petitioner does not have a corporate approved

program

to

achieve compliance for routing its effluent to

the Mississippi River as required by the aforementioned

Board Order.

Pursuant to condition 1(b)

supra, Petitioner has

submitted nine methods with costs involved for disposal

of the ash.

Methods A and

B are the only ones with a

time schedule and corporate approval and have been discussed

above.

The estimated costs are: A (Twin

60’s)

$461,971;

13

(Wood River Creek)

$485,971.

Alternatives C—i, C-2,

D-1, D-2 and D-3 involve gravity flow to a pump house either

near the new lagoon

(D’s) or the switch yard

(C’s)

and then

pump

to the Mississippi

in various ways.

The costs vary from

22—54

---

—3—

a low of $740,171

to

a high of $1,235,971.

Either

trucking

(E)

or blowing

(F)

the dry

ash

corr~binedwith

sluicing the bottom ash to the new lagoon was expensive;

$1,178,000 and $2,440,221,

respectively.

Petitioner describes and provides

a report

(Exhibit D)

from a consulting engineering firm and

a letter

(Exhibit

E)

from

the President:

of the Wood River Drainage and Levee

District both of which describe

the improvements made to

Shields’ Branch and the impoundment area.

The Agency was

not convinced that adverse effects might not again occur

when the impoundment area

is flooded or with other seasonal

effects.

Because of the environmental uncertainty involved

in this alternative,

the Board reaffirms special condition

1(d)

supra

that no effluent from the ash lagoons be allowed

to enter

the Shields’ Branch impoundment area.

We must deny Petitioner’s claim that

“boron is not

known

to have adverse effects except on citrus crops.”

Soluble borates are a major component of some nonselective

herbicides and will kill all existing vegetation at high

concentrations.

Farm Chemicals Handbook 1976 states under

Borax:

(Na2B407~10

H20)

“From ancient times used as

a

nonse1ec~iveherbicide.”

The

vegetation along the tributary

and Wood River Creek in that short distance

from Petitioner’s

effluent discharge point to the Mississippi River is likely

to be

grasses,

sedges or small—seeded legumes and these are

fairly tolerant to elevated

boron levels.

Thus the environ—

mental effects would be expected to be

minimal.

In order for the Board to grant a variance, Petitioner

must submit

a final, corporate approved compliance plan

specifying the route to the Mississippi which Petitioner

will utilize to comply with 203(f).

Since this has not been

done, the instant petition

is

denied.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It

is the Order

of the Pollution Control Board that

Illinois Power be and is, hereby,

denied variance from

Rule 203(f)

of the Water Regulations as

it applies

to

boron, without prejudice.

22—55

---

—4—

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order

were adopted ~n the

~

day of

_______________,

1976

by

a vote of

~

C ristan L. Mo

ett,

Illinois Pollution C

ol Board