~rb’~a~
Do L~~t
~
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
BF GOODRICH CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
V.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB91-
_______
(Permit Appeal)
NOTICE OF FILING
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11—500
Chicago,
IL 60601
Bernard Killian, Director
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday,
January 24,
1991, we
filed the attached Petition for Permit Appeal with the Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
a copy of which
is here-
with served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
BF GOODRICH CORPORATION
Richard J.
Kissel
Lisa Marie Anderson
GARDNER, CARTON
& DOUGLAS
321 North Clark Street
Suite 3100
Chicago,
Illinois
60610—4795
(312)
644—3000
1388a
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
BF GOODRICH CORPORATION,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB91-
_______
)
(Permit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
PETITION FOR PERMIT APPEAL
Petitioner,
BE Goodrich Corporation,
(“BE Goodrich”),
by
its attorneys,
Gardner, Carton
& Douglas, hereby petitions the
Illinois Pollution Control Board
(the “Board”), pursuant
to
Section 40(a)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
(1990) ch.
111
~/2,
Section
1040),
(the “Act”)
and Part 105 of the Board’s procedural rules
(35 Ill. Adm. Code
105.102),
to grant BE Goodrich
a hearing.
In support thereof,
BE Goodrich states
as follows:
1.
On August 30,
1989,
BF Goodrich submitted an NPDES
renewal application, Permit No.
IL0001392,
covering the dis-
charge at its Henry,
Illinois facility (the “facility”).
2.
By letter of December 28,
1990,
the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (the “Agency”),
submitted its
final NPDES Permit (the “Permit”)
for the facility’s dis-
charge.
The Permit as issued,
addresses discharge limitations,
and monitoring and reporting requirements.
However,
the Agency
failed to incorporate BE Goodrich’s
latest comments into the
Permit for various reasons outlined below.
3.
The BE Goodrich facility is located on R.R.
#1 in
Henry,
Illinois
in northwestern Marshall County.
The facility
is
a medium sized chemical plant which produces poly vinyl
chloride (PVC)
and various polymer chemicals.
Polymer
chemicals are additives used to aid in the manufacture of
rubber and plastics.
4.
BE GOodrich has been involved in extensive
negotiations with the Agency regarding the terms of the NPDES
Permit
for several months.
However,
the Agency has included
several conditions to which BE Goodrich continues to object.
Special Condition 4.
5.
Special Condition
4 states
as follows:
SPECIAL CONDITION
4:
The permittee shall monitor
ammonia
as N and report the lbs/day discharged.
If the 30 day average exceeds 100 lbs/day then
the effluent concentration shall not exceed
3 mg/i on
a 30 day average basis.
If the daily
maximum exceeds 200
lbs/day then the effluent
concentration shall not exceed
6 mg/l on
a daily
basis.
This condition is allegedly based on 35
Ill. Adm. Code
304.122(b) which provides:...
b)
Sources discharging to any of the above
waters and whose untreated waste
load cannot
be computed on a population equivalent basis
comparable to that used for municipal waste
treatment plants and whose ammonia nitrogen
discharge exceeds 45.4 kg/day
(100 pounds
per day)
shall not discharge an effluent of
more than 3.0 mg/i of ammonia nitrogen.
—2—
6.
Throughout the drafting process,
BF Goodrich has
asserted repeatedly that Section 304.122(b)
is not applicable
and has never been applied to BE Goodrich’s effluent.
In
fact,
during the mid—1970’s,
the Agency raised the applicability of
this section in
a former draft
permit, only to remove the pro-
posed NH3 effluent
limit and to issue
a final permit without
this condition.
BF Goodrich is unaware of any circumstances
that have arisen since that time which warrant the Agency
changing its interpretation of Section 304.122(b).
7.
In addition to the fact that Section 304.122(b) has
never been applied to the effluent from the facility,
BE Goodrich contends that the Section
is not applicable because
the effluent waste
load can be computed on
a population equiva-
lent (“p.e.”)
basis.
As
a result,
Section 304.122(a) would
apply to the facility’s effluent.
Section 304.122(a)
states:
a)
No effluent from any source which discharges
to the Illinois River,
the Des Plaines River
downstream of its confluence with the
Chicago River System or the Calumet River
System,
and whose untreated waste
load is
50,000 or more population equivalents
shall
contain more than 2.5 mg/l
of ammonia nitro-
gen
as N during the months of April through
October, or
4 mg/l
at other times.
Therefore, pursuant
to Section 304.122(a), no effluent limita-
tion for NH3
is applicable to the BE Goodrich Facility be-
cause its untreated wasteload is less than 50,000 p.e.
8.
However,
the Agency contends that because
BE Goodrich’s effluent
is dissimilar
to domestic waste, even
though
a p.e.
can be calculated for the discharge,
p.e.
—3—
calculations are meaningless and Section 304.122(b)
should
apply.
However, Section 304.122(a) refers to effluents from
“~j~y
source which discharge into certain
river systems”
and
does not limit the discharges
to those which are domestic in
nature.
In fact,
in Section 304.122(b),
it
is the test method
which
is being compared to
a municipal waste treatment facility
and not the type of discharge.
Eurther, wastes other than do-
mestic wastes are discharged into municipal waste treatment
plants which would necessarily imply that the Agency did not
intend this regulation to limit the definition of waste to do-
mestic waste.
Therefore, Section 304.122(a),
and not Section
302.122(b),
is applicable to BE Goodrich’s effluent,
and since
its p.e.
is less than 50,000 p.e., there is no standard for
NH3 applicable
to the effluent for the facility.
Special Conditions
5
&
7
9.
Special Condition
5 provides as follows regarding
outfall
001:
SPECIAL CONDITION
5:
Eor the purpose of this
permit,
outfall 001
is limited to process waste—
water and will serve as an alternate route for
waters discharged normally to outfall OUla.
The
discharge will be free from other wastewater dis-
charges.
Sampling for the monitoring
requirements for the discharge shall
be taken
prior to mixing with the discharge from outfall
OOla.
Additionally, Special Condition
7 states,
regarding outfall
OOla,
SPECIAL CONDITION
7:
For the purpose of this
permit,
outfall OOla is limited to stormwater,
non-contact cooling water,
lime softening and
—4—
demineralization waste,
free from process and
other waste water discharges.
Sampling for the
monitoring requirements for this outfall shall be
performed at
a point representative of the dis-
charge but prior
to mixing with the discharge
from outfall
001.
Further,
at page
6 of the Permit,
the Agency outlines the
effluent limitation and monitoring
as required by Special
Conditions
5 and
7
as follows:
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
LOAD LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS mg/l
30 DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVG.
MAX.
AVG.
MAX.
FREQUENCY
TYPE
1.
Erom the effective date of this permit until December
1,
1995,
the effluent of the following discharge(s)
shall
be
monitored and limited
at
all times
as follows:
Outfall(s):
001a
Flow (MGD)
Measure When
Discharging Estimate
BOD5
1/Month
Grab
Total Suspended
Solids
i/Month
Grab
Total Iron
1/Month
Grab
pH
1/Month
Grab
10.
BF Goodrich has repeatedly commented on and objected
to this separation of the outfalls and has presented the Agency
with substantial technical basis for maintaining only one
outfall for monitoring purposes.
In all prior permits,
BE Goodrich has sampled to determine compliance at
a point im-
mediately prior to the discharge
to the Illinois River,
a point
at which all plant wastestreams have been combined.
If
—5—
BE Goodrich’s prior method of sampling has been approved by the
Agency,
it should continue,
unless the applicable regulations
have been altered to
require corresponding changes in the
Permit.
BE Goodrich has no knowledge or documentation that,
from the time of the last permit
to date,
any regulatory
changes have been made which would support the conclusion that
BE Goodrich is not providing the best degree of treatment
as
defined in Section 304.102:
Section 304.102
Dilution
a)
Dilution of the effluent from
a treatment
works or from any wastewater source is not
acceptable as
a method of treatment of
wastes
in order to meet the standards set
forth in the Part.
Rather,
it shall be the
obligation of any person discharging
contaminants of any kind to the waters of
the state to provide the best degree of
treatment of wastewater consistent with
technological feasibility,
economic reason-
ableness and sound engineering judgment.
In
the making determinations as
to what kind of
treatment
is the “best degree of treatment”
within the meaning of this paragraph,
any
person shall consider the following:
1)
What degree of waste reduction can be
achieved by process change,
improved house-
keeping and recovery of individual waste
components for reuse;
and
2)
Whether individual process wastewater
streams should be segregated or combined.
b)
In any case,
measurement of contaminant
concentrations to determine compliance with
the effluent standards shall be made at the
point
immediately following the final treat-
ment process
and before mixture with other
waters, unless another point
is designated
by the Agency in an individual permit,
after
consideration of the elements contained in
this section.
If necessary the
—6—
concentrations so measured shall be
recomputed to exclude the effect of any
dilution that
is improper under this Section.
11.
The sampling point
after admixture of all wastewater
streams
is an approved concept under Board regulations.
Section 304.102 permits such
a sampling point
if the permittee
is providing the best degree of treatment.
In fact, the Agency
has previously approved an “after admixture” sampling point
at
the BF Goodrich facility.
Under certain circumstances, The
facility will redirect stormwater through the system to
maintain the hydraulic load which results
in the mixture of the
wastestreams.
Therefore,
BE Goodrich must conclude that the
Agency knew of the admixture of wastestreams within the BF
Goodrich facility and further, that the Agency either directly
or indirectly agreed that BE Goodrich was and continues
to pro-
vide the “best degree of treatment.”
BF Goodrich has no
knowledge nor documentation in the Agency record since the
issuance of the last permit
to support the conclusion that BF
Goodrich is not providing the “best degree of treatment” pursu-
ant
to the Board’s regulations.
Special Condition
6
12.
Special Condition
6
requires BE Goodrich to perform
certain acute toxicity tests and other biomonitoring.
Specifically, the Condition requires:
SPECIAL CONDITION
6:
The permittee shall prepare
a preliminary plan for biomonitoring and submit
the plan to IEPA for review and approval within
90 days of the effective date of this permit.
The permittee shall begin biomonitoring of the
—7—
effluent discharge within 90 days after approval
of the biomonitoring plan or other such date as
contained in the Agency’s notification letter.
Biomonitoring
1.
Acute Toxicity
-
Standard definitive acute
toxicity tests shall be run on at least two
trophic levels of aquatic species
(fish,
invertebrate,) representative of the aquatic
community of the receiving stream.
Except
as noted here and in the IEPA document.
“Effluent Biomonitoring and Toxicity
Assessment”, testing must be consistent with
Methods
for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents
to Aquatic Organisms
EPA—600/4—85—013.
Unless substitute tests
are pre—approved; the following tests are
required:
a.
Fish
—
96 hour static LC50 Bioassay
using one to four week old fathead mm-
flows
(Pimephales promelas).
b.
Invertebrate 48—hour static LC50
Bioassay using Ceriodaphnia.
2.
Testing Frequency
-
The above tests shall be
conducted on
a monthly basis for six months
within 90 days following approval
of the
biomonitoring plan or other such date
as
contained in the Agency’s notification (ap-
proval)
letter.
Results shall be reported
according to EPA/600/4-85/014, Section 10,
Report Preparation, and shall be submitted
to IEPA within
1 week of becoming available
to the permittee.
Concurrent with at least one of the above
tests,
the permittee shall monitor for the
priority pollutants identified in Appendix B
of
40 CFR 403.
Should the results of two months of sampling
indicate toxicity for each month,
the
permittee should re-evaluate whether addi-
tional sampling
is warranted.
The Agency
should be contacted at that time.
—8—
13.
BE Goodrich has conducted numerous toxicity tests at
the Agency’s request
in response to this and previous permits.
BE Goodrich has no knowledge or documentation on that,
to date,
the Agency has established any effluent limits based upon the
results of these tests.
To require additional testing would be
duplicative, costly and would impose an undue burden on
BF Goodrich.
14.
Additionally, Special Condition
6 also states:
3. Toxicity Assessment
—
Should the review of
the results of the biomonitoring program
identify toxicity,
the Agency may require
that the permittee prepare
a plan for toxic-
ity reduction evaluation and identifica-
tion.
This plan shall include an evaluation
to determine which chemicals have
a poten-
tial for being discharged in the plant
wastewater,
a monitoring program to deter-
mine their presence or absence and to
identify other compounds which are not being
removed by treatment,
and other measures
as
appropriate.
The permittee shall submit to
the Agency its plan for toxicity reduction
evaluation within 90 days following notifi-
cation by the Agency.
The permittee shall
implement the plan within 90 days or other
such date as contained in a notification
letter received from the Agency.
BE Goodrich has received correspondence from the Agency which
indicates that the Agency believes that the TRE requirement
outlined above should be removed from the permit conditions.
BE Goodrich objects
to this additional and unnecessary test
requirement
again,
as the Agency currently has before it suffi-
cient data for its purposes and that additional testing is du-
plicative and unjustified.
—9—
Mixing Zones and ZIDS
15.
BF Goodrich believes that this permit should include
an allowance for
a mixing zone and ZID.
IEPA has informed
BF Goodrich that, with the exception of copper,
all effluent
limits were more restrictive than waste quality based
limitations.
Therefore, mixing zones and ZIDS are not applica-
ble
to those parameters.
However,
at
a minimum with regard to
copper,
which has
a more restrictive water quality based stan-
dard, BE Goodrich continues
to believe
a mixing zone is neces-
sary and should be included.
WHEREEORE,
BE Goodrich Corporation hereby requests that the
Board authorize
a hearing
in this matter and remand the deci-
sion to the Agency to renew its permit consistent with the
concerns addressed
in this petition.
This relief should in-
clude:
1.
Deletion of the NH3 limitations and monitoring
requirements outlined in Special Condition 4;
2.
Deletion of the separation of outfalls
as outlined in
Special Conditions
5 and 7,
and the corresponding
limitations and monitoring requirements;
3.
Deletion of the sampling, monitoring and limitation
requirments referenced in Special Condition
6;
and
4.
Allowance for the creation of
a mixing zone or ZID at
the point of discharge.
Respectfully submitted,
BE GOODRICH CORPORATION
Richard
J. Kissel
Lisa Marie Anderson
GARDNER, CARTON & DOUGLAS
321 North Clark Street
Suite
3100
Chicago,
Illinois
60610—4795
(312)
644—3000
1 388a
—10—
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, being
sworn,
states that copies of the
attached Petition for Permit Appeal, were filed with the Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
a copy of which is
attached hereto and served upon you by U.S.
Mail,
on Thursday,
January 24,
1991.
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this 24th day
of January,
1991.
Notary Public
1388a
OFFICIAL
SEAL
ADA
MARRERO
NOTARY
PUBLIC.
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
MY
COMMISSION
EXPIRES
11/13/94
