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
.
(,)
12—85