ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
December
3~
1981
ILLINOIS NITROGEN
CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB
80—144
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
MR. ROBERT M.
OLIAN, SIDLEY
&
AUSTIN,
APPEARED
FOR
THE
PETITIONER;
MR.
E.
WILLIAM
HUTTON
AND
MS.
VIRGINIA
YANG,
ATTORNEYS
AT
LAW,
APPEARED
FOR
THE
RESPONDENT~
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
D~
Anderson):
This matter comes
before
the
Board
upon a variance peti-
tion filed August
7,
1980
by
Illinois
Nitrogen
Corporation
(Illinois Nitrogen).
The
petition
requests a variance from
Rule 406 of Chapter
3:
Water POliutjOfl
with respect to dis-
charges
of ammonia
nitrogen from petitioner~s
ammonium nitrate
production facility near
MarseLLles,
LaSalle County.
On
June
15,
1981, the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a
recommend~Lion.
that. the
variance be denied
or,
in the alternative,
granted
for a
short period of time
with
conditions.
Illinois
Nitrogen
filed
a
response
on
June
24.
A
public
hearing
was
held
at Marseilles
on
August
4.
An
amended
recommendation
was filed on
September
4,
1981.
The
Board
will
grant
a
variar~ce
with conditions
as
is
discussed
below.
Two
Board
Orders
addressed
procedural
matters
(October
2
and
October
30,
1980).
An
objection
was
filed
by
citizens
on
September
2,
1980;
however,
no
citizen
commented
at
the
hearing
(R.76).
Petitioner
indicated
that,
after
explanation
of
the
variance
request,
the
objectors had
indicated
that
they
no
longer objected (Response,
p.
2).
Illinois Nitrogen
was involved in
a previous enforcement
action and variance concerning
permits
and particulate emissions
from its prilling operations
(PCB 73—517,
74—169,
May 9, 1974,
12 PCB 243; September
12, 1974,
13
PCB 583; June 26, 1975,
17 PCB 371; August
7,
1975,
18
PCB
288)
44—139
Illinois Nitrogen~sammonium nitrate plant is situated on
a
173-acre tract on the northern bank of the Illinois River
about one mile east of Marseilles,
The plant was built in
1964 and employs about 100 people.
It receives
as a raw mate-
rial anhydrous ammonia.
A portion of this is oxidized to
nitric
acid, which is reacted with ammonia to form ammonium
nitrate.
A portion of this is ~prilled~ into pellet form,
Ammonium nitrate is sold in both solid and solution form.
The plant draws water from the river and returns it
pursuant
to NPDES permit No.
IL 0001708.
There are three
wastestreams involved:
OOla and OOlb are combined with once—
through
cooling water prior to discharge via 001.
The
settling pond discharges to the cooling water stream
via
OOla.
It receives treated sanitary waste, boiler blowdown
and water treatment backwash,
Process water storage lagoon number
2 discharges to the
cooling
water stream via OOlb.
It receives wastewater, con-
sisting
of washdown and runoff from process areas, which is
contaminated with ammonia.
Water from the lagoons
is used as
makeup water for liquid fertilizer solutions, so that OOlb
discharges
only
during
storms.
The
Agency
has
asked
that
Illinois
Nitrogen
demonstrate
that
the
lagoon
will
contain
a
25-year/2
4-hour
storm
event
(Rec~ 15).
Illinois
Nitrogen
claims
actual
measurement
would
be
too
expensive,
but
has
presented
data
correlating
discharges
with
storm
size
(Response
4)
In its Response, Illinois Nitrogen indicated that a
25-year/24-hour storm involves 4.75 inches of precipitation
(Response
4).
OOlb has discharged only four times,
as follows:
Date
Precipitation
_____________
(inches)
____
____
September 1, 1977
Following the wettest
August in a century
August
20,
1979
More than
7 inches in
March 17, 1979
Snowmeit
Sudden thaw and rain
September
1,
1980
Nearly
5
Total weekend rainfall
6.50 inches
44—140
As a condition of the
variance,
the
Board
will
require
continued monitoring
of
any
additional flows
from
OOlb
and
prohibit
discharges
except those caused by a
25~year/24~hour
storm
event
or
equivalent
snowselt,
Once-through cooling water, together with some runoff
from
non-process
areas,
is combined with OOla and 00th and
discharged via
001.
The Agency sought to demonstrate that
more
ammonia is discharged from the plant than
is
taken
in
from the river,
A major source
is thought to
be
leaks
in
condenser
pipes which would add ammonia to the cooling water.
APPLICABLE_REGULATIONS
The
requested
variance
is
from
the second
paragraph
of
Rule 406, which
reads as follows:
Sources
discharging to.,, (the Illinois River)
whose
untreated
wasteload cannot be
computed
on
a
population equivalent
basis comparable
to
that
used
for municipal
waste
treatment
plants
and
whose
ammonia nitrogen
discharge
exceeds
100
pounds
per
day shall not
discharge
an
effluent
of
more
than
3.0 mg/i of
ammonia nitrogen~.
Also
related
to the variance
request
is
Rule
203(f)
which
sets a water
quality
standard
of
1.5
mg/I
ammonia
nitrogen.
Rule 402 prohibits
effluent
discharqes
~hieh
would
ulolate
this
standard~
Federal
effluent
limitations
for
certain
process
discharges
are
191
kg/day
on
a
daily
average
and
366 kg/day on
a
daily
maximum
(421
and
806
pounds
respec;tively)
(40 CFR Part 418)
(Pet,
13).
PERMIT_CONDITIONS
The variance
is requested in order
to
set
an
effluent
limitation in the
renewed NPDES permit.
The
old
peruit
con-
tained conditions
which:
limited
OOla
to
1.5
m~(l if
the
water in the River
exceeded the water quality
sthndard~
and,
limited 001 to 3.0
mg/I only
when
OOla
exceeded
100 pounds per
day
(Rec.
6).
This
condition applied the 100 pounds rule and
the water quality
standards only to the settling pond (OOla);
it appears there was
an Agency finding that the
cooling
stream
an, process lagoon did not
contribute nitrogen.
There
was
no
express mention of
background concentrations.
44—141
Illinois
Nitrogen has requested that the Board choose
one of three
optional effluent limitations and
order
it incor-
porated into
the permit.
Option
1 is somewhat different from
the old permit
in
that it would apply the water quality standard
downstream at the point of final discharge, unlike the old
permit which
applied it at OOla.
Option
1 is similar to the
old permit
in that it applies the 100 pounds rule only to ODla.
Although
it is ambiguously worded, Option 2
is probably
intended to
require
001
to
meet
3.0
mg/i
only
if the
sum
of
OOla
and OOlb exceeds 100
lbs./day,
There is no express mention
of
water
quality
standaras or background concentrations,
Option
3
would limit 001 to 3.0 mg/i over background,
which is
to be determined “on the basis of samples taken during
a particular
calendar month.”
There is no mention of water
quality standards
(Pet.
3).
The
Agency~s
proposed permit contains no limitations or
monitoring of
ammonia
pitrogen from OOla,
The process effluent
(OOlb)
is limited
to 191 and 366 kg/day on a monthly and
daily
basis respectively.
The combined discharge
(001)
is limited
to 3.0 mg/i when
it amounts
to more than 100 pounds
per
day.
There is an
exception if the contamination results entirely
from influent
contamination
or
addition of traces not utilized
or produced in
the process.
The water quality standards are
applied in the
river at the edge of the mixing zone
(Rec, Ex,
A).
Illinois
Nitrogen~sproblem is basically
background
ammonia in the river~
When
background levels rise it must
curtail operations,
assuming
it
is
unable
or unwillicig to treat,
Under
the
old
permit it had to shut down
only
its settling pond
(OOla)
if
either
the river went over
1.5
mg/I
or
OOla
went
over 100 pounds
per day.
This latter possibility is unlikely
considering the
small size of OOla.
Option 1
would again require a shutdown of the settling
pond if it
went
over
100 pounds per day.
It
would
require
a
plant shutdown
if the river went over
1.5
mg/l,
Option
2
is similar but would require a
shutdown
of
OOla
or OOlb if the
sum
went over 100 pounds.
There appears
to
be
little environmental
reason for so restricting
OOlb
which
only discharges at
high water,
Option 3
allows addition of
3 mg/I to background
at
001,
OOla could never do this.
It could result from
either a
large
leak in the cooling system or an overflow
condition at OOlb,
44—142
—5—
The Agency~sproposed permit
authorizes
unlimited
discharges
of
ammonia from the tributaries
OOla and OOlb.
However,
treatment
to
3,0 mg/i is
required at 001.
The
permit
is
athigu~-
ous as to application of the background rule
at
this
point
and
as to what happens in water quality limited situations,
None of the five alternatives--the old permit,
three
options
and
proposed
permit--is acceptable because they
do
not properly reflect applicable Board
regulations.
Although
the Board could order them incorporated in the variance
context,
there
are
simpler
alternatives.
BACKGROUND
LEVELS
Rule 401(b) provides as follows:
Because the effluent
standards
in this Part are
based upon concentrations achievable with conven-
tional treatment technology that is largely unaffected
by ordinary levels of contaminants in
intake water,
they are absolute standards that must
be met without
subtracting background concentrations.
However, it
is not the intent of
these
regulations
to
require
users
to
clean
up
contamination
caused
essentially
by upstream sources or to require treatment
when
Ofli~
traces of contaminants
are added to
the
background.
Compliance with the numerical effluent standards
is
therefore not required when effluent concentrations
in excess of the standards result entirely from influent
contamination, evaporation, and/or the incidental
addition of traces of materials not utilized or produced
in the activity that is the source of the waste.
There appears to be confusion
as to whether
the
100
pounds
limit of Rule 406 applies to discharge of ammonia
in
the
river
water taken in
(Response 14),
This is not the
intent
of
Rule
406.
The rule applies only if the source contributes
to
bacte
ground more than 100 pounds
per day.
Indeed, the simplest
interpretation of the interrelation between Rule 401(b)
and
406
is that the 100 pounds rule defines what is meant by
“traces” of ammonia in Rule 401(b),
44—143
—6—
MASS
DISCHARGED
The
old
permit
and
options
1
and 2
apply
the
100 pounds
rule to part of the facility, usually QOla,
It
is
not. clear
whether these permit conditions arose because the
facility was
treated
as
several
sources
or
because
it
was
determined that
OOla
was
the
only
source
of
nitrogen.
It
seems
evident, that
“source”
as
used
in
Rule
406
means
the
entire
plant;
oth?.rwise
the
standard
would
be
easily
evaded
by
arbitrary
creation of
several discharge points.
Application of the 100 pound rule
to OOla alone should be done only after a determination that
the other sources are not significant.
The following is
a
summary
of the waste streams*:
MGD
Ml/day
OOla
Settling Pond
0.062
0.23
00Th
Storage Lagoon
Intermittent
001
Combined Discharge
15.5
58.7
OOla discharges about 10 lbs./day (4.5 kg/day) (Ex.
6).
OOlb, when discharging, may contribute
large amounts of
ammonia.
During March,
1980, 00Th discharged
.172
MGD
(.651
Mi/day)
at 2,333 mg/i.
This amounts to about 1,500
kg/day
of ammonia as nitrogen (R.53,
Ex.
6).
The Agency’s computa-
tions indicate a discharge of about 7,000 kg (15,000
lbs.)
over five days in March,
1980.
By way of comparison,
100 ibs,/
day is 36,500 pounds
per
year.
There is
a dispute
as to unknown sources of
nitrogen,
such as leaks to the cooling water,
The Board will
require
monitoring to establish
the
difference between intake
and out-
put levels.
For purposes of this variance the Board
will
assume the plant discharges more than 100 pounds
per day ~nd
will
grant a variance from the 3.0 mg/I standard.
At the hearing the Agency sought to establish
through
mass balance that
unknown
sources were contributing
ammonia
to the discharge
(R.54, Petitioner’s Ex.
2).
An Agency
employee testified that the reported 001 levels minus the
contribution from OOla
were
significantly greater than
those
reported in the
intake.
On
cross—examination Illinois
Nitro~’
gen questioned the statistical significance of the difference
(R.57).
The
plant
manager testified concerning difficulties
in
reliably
measuring
this
difference.
*Combined
discharge
is
assumed
equal
to
intake
of
river
water
which is estimated from pumping rates
(R.36).
MGD is
million
gallons per day; Mi/day is megaliters per day.
44—144
—7—
It
is
difficult
to
detect
leaks
by
testing
inflow
and
output:
a difference of 0.1 mg/i would
amount
to loss of
6 kg/day at this flow.
The
Lnstruments in use are accurate
to about this level
CR. 38).
There appear to be technical difficulties involved in
sampling the intake and main outfall,
The Board will not
attempt to include in the Order details concerning the sampling
to be undertaken.
Illinois Nitrogen will be ordered to take
samples sufficient to demonstrate the amount added to the
cooling water apart from OOla and OOlb.
The Agency will be
authorized to write conditions into the permit.
WATER QUALITY
CONDITION
The old condition required that, if the river water
exceeded the water quality stand4rd,
OOla must meet the
1.5 mg/i standard prior to discharge to the flume tributary
to 001.
This appears to apply the water quality standards
prior to the point of final discharge at 001.
It is well
settled that the water quality standards are not applicable
within
treatment
works,
or
indeed within a mixing zone after
the
discharge.
Rule
104,
definition
of
“waters,” Rules 201(a),
203 and 401 (a).
A more appropriate condition might contain
either a general prohibition against violation of water quality
standards
or
a
mass
load
limitation
which
decreases
with
deterioration of water quality.
Rules
402, 910(b)
and 910(c)).
The Board will require the latter in
the
permit
during
the
term of this variance,
44—145
—8—
SEG~GATIONOF
WAS TESTREAMS
The
old
permit
segregated
wastestreams
and
applied
the
effluent
standards
before
the
point
of
final
discharge.
This
is allowed
under
Rule
401(a)
which
proscribes
dilution
of
effluents.
The Agency’s proposed
permit
would
move
the
point
of
measurement
downstream
to
001.
Illinois
Nitrogen
opposes
this.
The
plant
has
three
wastestreams:
it
gives
treatment
to
sanitary
and
other
wastes;
it
recycles
its
process
water;
and,
it passes cooling water
through.
This
seems
a
logical
and
environmentally beneficial segregation which is completely in
accord with Rule 401(a),
Placement of the measuring point
downstream would appear
to
allow
and
encourage
Illinois
Nitrogen
to abandon
its
sanitary plant and mix
the
sanitary
stream
with
boiler
blowdown,
process
water
and
cooling
water
prior
to
treatment
in
a
large
plant,
This
would
result
in
a
lower
level
of
contaminant
removal
and
undue
dilution
in
violation
of
Rule
401(a).
The
Board
will
require
continued
separate
measure-
ment of concentrations at OOla,
OOlb and 001.
VARIANCE
CONDITIONS
Rather than
attempt
to write permit conditions which
track
the
complexities
of
Part
IV
as
applied
to
ammonia
nitro-
gen
discharges
from
this
facility, the Board will grant a
broad
variance
with
effluent
limitations
tailored
to
the
facility.
OOla
will
be
limited to
4.5
kg/day
on
a
monthly
basis
and
11
kg/day
on
a
daily
basis.
This reflects its past
performance.
001
will
be
limited
to
191
and
366 kg/day on a
monthly
and
daily
basis
respectively.
These
are
USEPA’s
limits
(40
CFR
Part
418).
They
are
probably
higher
than
what
Illinois
Nitrogen needs, so the Board will impose a condition requiring
minimization of leaks to the cooling system.
Petitioner will
be required to decrease its discharges in the event of deteri—
orating
water
quality.
OOlb will
be
limited to discharges only after a 25-year/
24-hour storm
event.
There is no indication of why 25 years
was
chosen
rather
than
10
years
or
some
other
frequency.
The
Board
has
required
25
years
upon
Petitioner’s
assurances
that
the
system
can
meet
this
requirement.
44— 146
—9—
DISSOLVE~OXYGEN
The Agency also presented testimony concerning
the
effect
of ammonia in
depressing
oxygen
levels
in
water.
The
Agency
estimated
that
1,000
pounds
of
ammonia
would lower
oxygen
levels
0.3
mg/i
in
the
river
(R-66).
However
tempera-
ture and turbulence in the cooling
system
may have a greater
immediate
impact on oxygen levels near the outfall.
It is
doubtful whether any ammonia-induced depression in oxygen
levels
would
be
seen
close
to
the
plant
(R-72).
The
evidence
is that dissolved oxygen is not a serious problem in this
stretch of the Illinois River.
HARDSHIP
In the verified Petition, Illinois Nitrogen stated that
compliance
with
Rule
406
would
necessarily
result
in
curtail-
ment or reduction in operations
(Pet.
16).
The Agency did not
dispute this in the recommendation.
Petitioner presented no
testimony on hardship
at
the
hearing.
However,
in
its
post—
hearing
amended
recommendation, the Agency for the first time
argued
that
Petitioner
had
failed
to
prove
arbitrary
or
unreasonable hardship.
Another hearing would serve no useful
purpose.
The Board holds that testimony
is not necessary
where
a
sufficient allegation
is supported by affidavit
and
there is no indication of opposition
in the recommendation or
other
pleadings
filed
prior
to
the
hearing.
The
Board
finds
that
immediate
application
of
Rule
406
to Illinois Nitrogen would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship within the meaning of §36(b)
of the Act.
The variance
will be granted with conditions similar to those recommended
by the Agency.
The Agency recommended an 18-month variance,
The Board
will grant the variance for 30 months in order to allow
Illinois Nitrogen two full years to collect data.
This may
be necessary in order to get enough overflow situations to
yield meaningful data.
This
Opinion
constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law, in
this
matter.
44-147
-.
10—
ORDER
Petitioner, Illinois Nitrogen Corporation, is granted a
variance from Rule 406 of Chapter
3,
subject
to
the following
conditions:
1.
This variance will expire 30 months from the date of
this Order.
2.
This variance shall apply only to outfall 001 and
tributary outfails OOla
and
OOlb at Petitioner’s Marseilles
plant.
3.
Petitioner shall not cause or allow discharge of
ammonia as nitrogen from outfall OOla in excess of the follow-
ing levels:
Monthly Average
Daily Composite
OOla
45 kg/day
11 kg/day
4.
Petitioner shall not cause or allow discharge from
outfall OOlb unless it is necessary to prevent overflow
and
results from rainfall, or equivalent
snownielt,
in
excess of
a 25-year/24—hour precipLtation event.
5.
Petitioner shall not cause or allow discharge of
ammonia
as
nitrogen from outfall 001 in excess of the follow-
ing amounts
above
intake
background
levels:
Monthly Average
Daily Composite
001
191 kg/day
366 kg/day
6.
Paragraph
5 notwithstanding, Petitioner shall not
cause or allow the discharge from outfall 001 of
ammonia
nitrogen in excess of background by more than the amounts
listed in the table below,
Water quality levels shall be
based on the average of representative samples taken on the
three days immediately preceding the day on which the effluent
levels apply.
Samples shall be taken near
the intake
pursuant
to Paragraph
8.
44—148
—11—
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Water
Quality
Daily
Composite
(mg/l)
(kg/day)
Less
than
1.5
366
1,5
or
more
but
less
than
2.0
330
2.0
or
more
but less
than
2.5
259
2,5
or
more
but
less
than
3.0
188
3.0
or
more
but
less
than
3..5
117
3.5
or
more
hut
less
than
4.0
46
4,0
or
more
ii
7.
Petitioner
shall
maintain
its
heat
exchangers
so
as
to
minimize
leakage.
8.
Petitioner
shall
sample,
monitor
and
report
ammonia
nitrogen
levels
and
flows at OOla,
OOlb,
001
and
its
intake
as
required
by
NPDES
permit
condition
and
shall
collect
such
additional data as may be necessary to reliably estimate the
total
addition
of
ammonia
to
background.
9.
The
Agency,
pursuant
to
Rule
914
of
Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution,
shall
modify
the
NPDES
permit
consistent
with the
conditions
set
forth
in
this
Order.
10.
Within
forty--five
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
Petitioner
shall
execute
and
forward
to
the
Illinois
Environ-
mental
Protection
Agency,
Variance
Section,
2200
Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706,
a
Certificate
of Acceptance
and Agreement to he bound to all terms
and
conditions
of
this
variance.
This forty—five day period shall
be held
in
abeyance
for
any
period this matter
is being appealed.
The
form
of the
Certificate
shall be as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We,)
having read
and
fully understanding the Order in PCB 80—144, hereby accept
44—149
—12-
that Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms and
conditions.
SI
GNED
________________________
TI
TLE
_______________________
DATE
_____________________
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mr.
Jacob
D.
Dumelle
concurred.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby ce~ifythat the 4bove Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~
iT
day of
tJLit4~-i~Lz~~
~
,
1981 by
avoteof
_________
~
~ii~i
Christan
L.
Moffer’t$’
Cle’~k
Illinois Po11utiofrU~ontro1Board
44—150
