ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

April 18, 1974

ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY

)

(Wood River Station)

)

PETITIONER

)

V.

)

PCB 74—9

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

SHELDON A.

ZABEL, ATTORNEY,

of SCHIFF,

HARDIN

& WAITE, in behalf of

ILLINOIS POWER

COMPANY

JOHN

R.

REIN,

ATTORNEY,

in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Marder)

This

case comes to the Board on petition of Illinois Power Com-

pany,

filed January

4,

1974.

The

petition requests variance from

Rule 203

(f)

of Chapter

3, Water Pollution Regulations,

as it applies

to boron;

Rule 408,

as

it pertains to suspended solids;

and from

that part of Rule 1002 which requires submission of

a project com-

pletion schedule, indicating compliance by applicable deadline dates.

On January 10th the Board entered an Order requesting more in-

formation as to the flow or water quality data for the ash lagoon ef-

fluents.

Also,

more information as to the environmental impact of

the suspended solids and boron on the affected water was requested.

Petitioner filed Amendment #1 to its petition on February 13, 1974,

supplying the required data.

On March

1,

1974,

the Environmental Protection Agency filed its

recommendation with the Board.

Such recommendation was for a grant

of the varianc~~,subject to conditions

Jiscussed below.

Hearing was held in East Alton, Illinois, on March

1,

1974.

The Wood River station consists of five steam electric generating

units.

Units

1 through

3 were converted to oil firing in 1974

and

have

a combined capacity of

155 MW.

Unit ~4 is coal-fired and has a

12—81

---

—2—

capacity of 103 MW.

Unit

#5 is also coal-fired and has a capacity

of 400 MW

(R.

9).

The flow to the ash lagoon when the plant is run-

ning at full capacity is

3.7 mgd

(R.

10).

This case involves

the

effluent from an ash retention lagoon assoc-

iated with Petitioner’s Wood River station.

Units

4 and

5 of the pow-

er station are coal burning.

Ash, which is a residue of the combusted

coal,

is sluiced from these units to

a lagoon where the water is re-

tained for a period of time to allow suspended solids to settle out

of the water.

Rule 408 allows

a maximum of 15 mg/i suspended solids

in the effluent.

A 1973 analysis conducted by Petitioner showed a

24 hr. average effluent of

30 mg/i (Petition p.

3).

On August

2,

1973, Petitioner was granted a construction permit, l973—EA—1649,

for the

extension of the present ash lagoon.

By extension of the ash lagoon, re-

tention

time of the effluent will be increased.

Petitioner alleges

(Petition P.

3)

,

and the Agency concurs

(Agency Rec.

P.

4)

,

that this

will bring the suspended solids

in the effluent from the ash lagoon into

compliance with Rule 408.

The reason completion of the ash lagoon project has not come sooner

is because of exceptionally heavy rain in the Wood River area during

the late summer and early

fall of 1973

(Agency Rec.

P.

3,

R.

12).

At the present time Units

I through

3 do not constitute a problem

in regard to suspended solids or boron, because they are oil—fired and

create very little ash.

Unit

#4 will not be in operation until mid—May

of 1974

(R.

14).

Unit

#5 should have come on stream in mid-March,

1974

(R.

14)

.

Petitioner requests variance from Rule 408 until May 30,

1974,

when it anticipates the ash lagoon project will be completed.

On P.

4 of the Agency Recommendation, there

is

a statement as to the

good faith and intent for compliance of Petitioner, and a recommenda-

tion that variance from Rule 408 be granted until May

30, 1974, sub-

ject to certain conditions.

Petitioner also requests variance from Rule 203

(f)

as it applies to

boron until December 31,

1974.

This variance petition anticipates ex-

tension until June

1,

1975.

The standard for boron is 1.0 mg/i.

Pet-

itioner alleges that effluent from the ash lagoon going to an unnamed

tributary of Wood River Creek, which is a tributary to the Mississippi

River, ranges from 4.0 to 16.0 ppm, with a 24-hr.

average of 4,34 ppm

(Petition P.

5).

It

is alleged by Petitioner that there is no practi-

cal method for boron removal from industrial wastes

(R. 27, Petic.ion

P.

7).

The Agency concurs with this statement

(Agency Rec.

P.

6).

Petitioner considered three methods

to handle their boron problem.

The first was to pump their effluent directly to the Mississippi River

where there is no applicable standard for boron.

Petitioner considered

this expensive and a burden upon their customers, who would ultimately

have to pay

the

bill.

This plan would cost more than $400,000, and

probably take longer than 18 months

(R.

17).

The second approach that

12

—

82

---

—3—

Petitioner considered was a variance from the boron requirement that

did not consider boron removal but would be

just

a straight suspended

solids variance.

Petitioner did not consider this approach to be in

the public interest.

The third approach, the

one

taken b~

Petitioner,

is to enter into

a research program to develop a method of practically

removing boron from the ash lagoon effluent.

Petitioner suggests

a

fourth alternative, which it rejected.

That alternative was to either

operate its plant in violation or shut down its plant.

Boron is contained in the ash that is sluiced to the ash retention

lagoon.

The problem of suspended solids and boron interacts

at this

point, because the longer the boron ash remains in the lagoon, the more

boron leaches from the ash.

?etitioner has now entered into an agreement with Southern Illinois

University to conduct research in developing a practical method for

removing boron from the ash lagoon effluent.

Dr.

Charles Schmulbach

with the Department

of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Southern Illinois

University testified as

to this research program.

He testified that

at this time there are two possible methods

in existence for boron re-

moval.

The first is distillation.

This method is discounted, because

of high energy and cost that it would entail.

The second method

is an-

ionic exchange, where water would be percolated over an ion exchange

resin.

The cost of this would be approximately three cents per thous-

and

gallons.

One of the problems that this method would create is the

regeneration of the resin, which entails taking the boron off of the

resin with sulphuric

acid.

This method would necessitate a method of

disposing of the boron-laden sulphuric acid

tR.

3~3).

The research to be conducted at Southern Illinois will follow two

approaches.

The first approach will be to fire the ash with lime,

or

calcium oxide, in the hopes of converting this to calcium metaborate,

which then will dissolve very slowly.

The

second method is

an attempt

to agglomerate the fly ash into larger granules, so that there will not

be as great a surface area exposed, thereby slowing hydrolization

(R.

31).

Dr. Schmulbach

considers the chances

for success most promising

(R.

32).

It is Petitioner’s intent that upon completion of this basic

research a pilot plant will be built at the Wood River facility (Pet-

ition P.

8).

The Agency agrees that research in this area would be most valuable

(Agency Rec.

P.

6).

The Board also looks with favor upon a Corporation

that is willing to do basic research in

a field and has allowed such a

program to be used

as

a variance compliance plan

(Union Oil Co. of Cal-

ifornia v.

Environmental Protection Age~cy,PCB 72—447,

Dec.

6, ~.973).

Petitioner alleges that its Wood River plant

is

its second largest

station and is necessary to maintain an adequate supply of power to

its customers;

and that if it were not granted a variance it would be

forced to shut down its plant or

in

the alternative to operate in viol-

ation of the regulations.

A variance is only a shield from prosecution,

and failure to give it Is not a shutdown order.

In this

case, Petition-

er’s good faith effort to comply,

along with its research program, in—

12—83

---

—4—

dicates to the Board that Petitioner is deserving of a variance, and

that any delay in compliance was not self-imposed.

It is alleged by Petitioner, and the Agency concurs, that there

will be minimal environmental impact by the granting of this variance.

Both the Agency and the Petitioner indicate that the water from the

unnamed tributary and from Wood River Creek is not used by

a public

water supply or for farm irrigation, and thus

is nothing more than a

conduit to the Mississippi River.

It is alleged that since the flow

would meet the standards

for the Mississippi River that there will be

no significant impact on the environment and the public

(Amended Pet-

ition P.

4, Agency Rec.

P.

7)

.

Data submitted by the Petitioner on

its boron discharge is as

follows:

Ash Pond Effluent

Upstream of Petitioner’s

Downstream of

Discharge

Pet. Discharge

4.34 mg/i

2.98 mg/l

3.96 mg/l

(Amended Pet.

Ex.

1)

Petitioner also feels that there will be no adverse~environmental

impact from the suspended solids because the flow will be in viola-

tion

for

only

a

short

period

of

time

(Amended

Petition

P.

3).

Data

submitted

by

Petitioner

on

its

discharge

of

suspended

solids

is

as

follows:

Ash Pond Effluent

Upstream of Petitioner’s

Downstream of

Discharge

Pet.

Discharge

27.8 mg/l

1259 mg/i

295.0 mg/i

(Amended Pet.

Ex.

1)

The Board will grant Illinois Power

a variance from Rule 408 until

May

30,

1974,

and

from

Rule

203

(f)

until

December

31,

1974.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE O?~.DERof the Pollution Con .rol Board that:

1.

Petitioner is granted variance from Rule 408 of Chapter

3 as

it

pertains

to

suspended

solids

until

May

30,

1974,

upon con-

dition

that

Petitioner’s

discharge

shall

not

exceed

30

mg/l

suspended solids

in any 24-hr.

composite sample.

2.

Petitioner is granted variance from Rule 1002

(Project Com-

pletion Schedule).

Petitioner shall file a project comple—

12—84

---

—5—

tion schedule showing compliance with Rule 408

as applied to

suspended solids by May 30,

1974, and this schedule shall be

filed within 30 days from the entry of this Orderwith the

Agency.

3.

Petitioner is granted variance from Rule 203

(f)

of Chapte~

3

(as it pertains to boron)

until December 31,

1974, subject

to the following conditions:

a)

Petitioner’s discharges shall.not exceed 16 mg/i boron

in any 24-hr. composite sample.

b)

Petitioner shall submit quarterly reports

to the Agency

beginning July

1,

1974.

Such reports shall contain in-

formation relating to all progress or lack of progress

in research conducted by Southern Illinois University

relating to the removal of boron from ash lagoon effluent.

C)

Petitioner shall submit with any request for an extension

of variance an engineering feasibility report on the div-

ersion of the ash lagoon waste to the Mississippi River.

d)

Petitioner shall submit comments on the feasibility of

its boron removal

as per its research program with any

request for an extension of this variance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the

Board on the

~

day of

____________,

1974, by a vote of

~

toO

.

(,)