ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
22, 2979
BORDEN CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
PCB 78—269
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Satchell):
This matter comes before
the
Board
upon
a petition
for
a
variance filed by Petitioner Borden Chemical Company
(Borden)
on October
20, 1978.
Borden operates a chemical plant near
Illiopolis
in Sangamon County.
It requests a five year variance
from effluent and water quality standards, contained in Board
Rules
203 and 402 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution,
as they relate
to total dissolved solids
(TDS)
and chloride.
The Agency filed
a
recommendation to which Borden responded.
The response
(Res.)
requested different relief from the petition and was deemed an
amended petition by Order of the Board on April
26,
1979.
The
Agency filed an amended recommendation.
No hearings were held.
In a related proceeding
(R78—13) Borden seeks a site specific
regulation.
The plant is located in a rural area
one mile west of Illiop—
ohs.
It employs about 170 people and produces polyvinyl chloride
(PVC)
resin, PVC latex emulsions, styrene-butadiene emulsions,
polyvinyl acetate emulsions and PVC plastic film and moulding
compounds
(Pet.
3).
Vinyl chloride emission control is provided
by combustion in an incinerator followed by scrubbing
(Pet.
5).
The
emission control system cost $15,000,000 and became operational
on October
21, 1978
(Res.
3).
The scrubbing operation produces a
water solution of hydrochloric
acid
which
is neutralized with
caustic or soda ash to produce a neutral effluent containing salt.
The neutralized stream is added to the plant~sother wastewater
prior to discharge
(Pet.
5).
The plant discharges about 400,000 GPD into an unnamed ditch
which has a seven—day,
ten—year low flow of zero
(Pet.
3,
4),
Prior to start—up of the scrubber it was calculated that the com-
bined effluent could reach a maximum TDS of 2200 mg/l
(Pet.
5).
Subsequent to the filing of the variance petition Borden conducted
actual
sampling
of the ditch during periods when the scrubber was
not in operation
(December,
1978)
,
and when the scrubber
was in
operation
(January,
1979).
The data are presented below
(Res.
6):
34—7 1
—2—
DATE
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Upstream
Discharge
Downstream
December,
1978
661 mg/h
1415 mg/i
1238 mg/h
January,
1979
525 mg/h
1755 mg/h
1390 mg/l
CHLORIDE
December,
1978
72 mg/h
301 mg/h
248 mg/l
January,
1979
28 mg/h
495 mg/i
362 mg/l
Rule
203 water quality standards are
1000 mg/i for TDS and
500 mg/i for
chloride.
Borden believes its discharge constitutes 90—95
of the flow
of the ditch
(Pet.
4),
Upstream are located two other dischargers,
a municipal water treatment
plant which discharges filter back wash
and a chicken hatchery which
discharges cage and crate washings
(Pet,
3).
Borden claims that the ditch is not used for recreation-
al
purposes and
that chloride and TDS concentrations will not
detract from
whatever aesthetic value the ditch might have
(Pet.
6).
The ditch runs
about one and one—half miles before joining a
drainage area known as Long Point Slough, which flows into the
Sangamon River about one-half mile past the ditch
(Pet.
4).
Borden
believes
no water
is withdrawn from the ditch prior to confluence
with the S~ngamonRiver
and that there will be no significant
environmental impact on Long Point Slough
(Pet.
4,
6).
Water
quality of the Sangamon River is cited as less than
600 mg/i TDS
and 200 mg/i chloride
(Pet.
Ex.
A;
Rec.
4).
There will be no water
quality violation in the Sangamon River
(Pet.
7;
Rec.
4).
Borden admits
that the data do not demonstrate a water quality
violation for chloride
in the ditch
(Res,
7).
The Agency recom-
mends that the variance be
denied for chloride for this reason
(Am, Rec.
3).
During the sampling, the plant
was not in full
production and water flow was high because
of melting snow
(Res.
7),
Borden believes the concentration of chloride in the ditch
will
increase as production is increased and the weather becomes
drier
(Res.
8).
Although
Borden did not violate the ditch water
quality of 500 mg/i chloride, the effluent averaged 495 mg/l
during the month the
scrubber was in operation.
If the discharge
were the sole
source of water
in the ditch, there would have been
violations on six days out of the thirteen
sampled
(Res,
6; Ex.
A).
Considering this the Board
concludes that Borden ha~established
the
need
for a chloride variance during periods of low flow.
The original petition was vague about whether a water quality
or effluent variance was requested.
Borden now requests that the
plant be granted a variance which would exempt the plant from the
34—72
—3—
application of Rules
203(f)
and 402 for TDS and chloride,
so
long as the plant remains
in compliance with the 3500 mg/i
effluent limitations for TDS contained
in Rule 408(b).
Borden
claims that mere modification of water quality standards would
give it no relief because compliance would be based not upon the
plant’s discharge, but upon such discharge together with a variety
of other factors over which the plant would have no control
(Res.
9,
11).
On the other hand the Agency recommends that the variance
be denied until Borden proposes a water quality standard for the
ditch
(Am.
Rec.
3),
Rule 402 provides that no effluent alone or in combination
with other sources
shall cause a violation of any applicable
water quality standard.
In this proceeding Borden seeks
a var-
iance from the water quality standard.
Borden refers to the
effluent standard found
in Rule 408(b) which provides that
effluents shall not increase TDS by more than 750 mg/i above
background unless caused by recycling or other pollution abate-
ment practices, but in no event are TDS effluents to exceed 3500
mg/h.
Borden believes that the increases beyond 750 mg/i above
background limitation are attributable to the plant’s pollution
abatement practices which it says include softening, deionization
and filtration of influent water and treatment of wastewater with
lime and ferric sulfate to enhance settling of suspended solids
and with activated sludge to eliminate organics
(Res.
8).
There
is no evidence that softening of the influent water is a pollution
abatement practice.
The pleadings do discuss the relative con-
tributions of these processes to the total waste load.
It has
therefore not been established that the 3500 mg/i discharge level
for TDS
is applicable.
Rule 408(b)
also sets
a
750 mg/i above
background level limit for TDS discharges not caused by pollution
abatement practices.
Borden does not draw water from the ditch
and has not established the TDS level in its influent water.
The
record
is therefore insufficient to determine whether Borden is
in compliance with this discharge limit.
The Board rejects Borden’s claim of hardship because it cannot
control water quality upstream.
Borden estimates that its dis-
charge accounts for 90—95
of the flow in the stream
(Pet.
4).
The upstream discharges should probably therefore not have
a
significant effect on the water aualit~Borden must maintain.
Borden quotes the Illinois Effluent Standards Advisory Group
in support of its contention that there is no proved conventional
technology for control of TDS in waste waters
(Pet.
6).
The
Agency
is aware that treating for TDS and chloride is not econom-
ically feasible
(Rec.
4).
The Board finds that it would impose
an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship to require the application
34-73
—4—
of non-conventional technology at this time.
The Board will
set an
interim standard sufficiently high to permit Borden to
operate while collecting data
to propose water quality standards
for the ditch in the pending site specific regulation R78-13.
This should include continued monitoring of discharge levels
and biological surveys which include counts of salt tolerant
and sensitive species as
low flow conditions develop this summer.
No water is drawn from the ditch prior to confluence with
the Sangamon River and
it appears that the use
is limited to
secondary contact.
There is adequate dilution in the Sangamon
River.
There
is no evidence before the Board about the effects
these levels could have on the
environment around the ditch.
The Board notes that
chloride and TDS are relatively innocuous
pollutants.
No permanent build-up
of
pollutants or damage to
the environment is likely to occur during pendency of the
reg-
ulatory proceeding.
The Agency recommends
a discharge limit of 2200 mg/i for
TDS if the variance is granted
(Am. Rec.
3).
This is the figure
Borden originally requested
(Pet.
2).
The effluent monitoring
data averaged 1755 mg/i TDS with the scrubber in operation, with
a maximum of 2172 mg/h.
The petition requested a limit of 1500
mg/i for chloride.
The Agency does not recommend a chloride
level.
The chloride effluent monitoring data averaged 495 mg/i
with a
maximum of 635 mg/i during the period when the scrubber
was in
operation.
Maintenance of
a water quality level in the
ditch not to exceed 2200 mg/h TDS and 700 mg/h chloride would
appear adequate to prevent significant environmental damage and
still not interfere with
Borden’s operation.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It
is the
Order of
the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Petitioner,
Borden Chemical Company,
is granted a
variance from Rules
203 and 402
of
Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution
as these apply to TDS and chloride.
2.
Borden’s discharge shall not cause the water in the
unnamed ditch to exceed the following levels:
Total Dissolved Solids
2200 mg/h
Chloride
700 mg/i
34—74
—5—
3.
This variance will expire three years from the date
of this Order or upon the adoption by the Board of
a final Order in the site specific regulation for
the unnamed ditch, R78-l3, whichever comes
first.
4,
Borden shall monitor the chloride and TDS levels in
its effluent and in the ditch above and below its
discharge.
5.
Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Variance Section,
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 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 78-269,
hereby
accept that Order and agree to be bound by all of its
terms and conditions,
SIGNED ______________________
TITLE
_______________________
DATE
__________________________
I, Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, herelj certify the above Opinion and Order w~re
adopted on the
~
day of
~
,
1979 by a vote of
~SO
Illinois Pohiuti
Board
3/~_75