BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
STATE 01-
ILL.il’N0!S
Pollution
Control Board
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Clerk, Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Environmental
State ofIllinois
Center
Protection Agency
100 West Randolph Street
1021
N. Grand Avenue East
Suite 11-500
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Chicago, IL
60601
Illinois Department ofNatural Resources
524
South Second Street
Springfield,
IL
62701-1787
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, April 30, 2001, we filed the attached
Petition for Adjusted Standard
with the Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, a
copy
of
which is herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
RHODIA, INC. AND THORN CREEK
BASIN SANITARY
DISTIRCT
By:
J&r5~
/fr~
One ofIts Atto
eys
Roy M. Harsch
Sheila H. Deely
GARDNER, CARTON & DOUGLAS
321
North Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois
60610
(312)644-3000
RECEIVED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
APR
30
2001
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
ASO1-
7
Petition ofRHODIA, INC. and THORN CREEK
)
(Adjusted Standard
-
Water)
BASIN SANITARY DISTRICT for an Adjusted
)
Standard from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
)
302.208 and 304.105
)
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Notice
of Filing and Petition
for Adjusted Standard
was filed by
hand delivery with the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board and served upon the parties to whom said Notice is directed by
first class
mail,
postage prepaid, by depositing in the U.S. Mail at 321
North Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois
on Monday, April 30, 2001.
CI-IO1/12149405.1
-2-
RECEIVED
CLERK’S
OFFrCE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
APR
302001
)
STAf
b
Of-
ILLI1~4O!S
COUNTY OF COOK
)
Pollution
Control Board
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN TIlE MATTER OF:
)
Petition of RHODIA, INC. and THORN CREEK
)
(Adjusted Standard
-
Water)
BASIN SANITARY DISTRICT for an Adjusted
)
Standard from 35 Iii.
Adm. Code
)
302.208 and
304.105
)
PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD
Rhodia, Inc.
(“Rhodia”) and the Thom Creek Basin
Sanitary District
(TCBSD), by their
attomeys, hereby petition the Board for an
Adjusted Standard, pursuant to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
104.400
et seq.
and
Section
28.1
ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection
Act (Act).
Rhodia and
TCBSD request that the Board grant an adjusted standard from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 302.208 and
35 Iii. Adm. Code 304.105 as they apply to the discharge oftotal dissolved solids
and sulfates to
TCBSD from Rhodia’s proposed expansion of the silica plant at its
Chicago Heights facility and
to the discharge oftotal dissolved solids and sulfates from TCBSD’s treatment plant to Thom
Creek and from Thom Creek into the Little
Calumet River.
Parties to the Proceedings
Rhodia owns
and operates a plant at 1101
Amold Street, Chicago Heights, Cook County,
which manufactures inorganic phosphate chemicals primarily for food use and precipitated silica
primarily for use in the tire and toothpaste markets.
The plant currently has a wastewater
discharge to TCBSD.
Rhodia proposes to expand its
silica plant, which manufactures silica
through the reaction of liquid sodium silicate and sulfuric acid.
The wastewater from this plant
expansion is
also proposed to
be discharged to TCBSD.
The TCBSD treatment plant discharges
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
to Thom Creek approximately 10.1
miles
upstream of its
confluence with the Little
Calumet
River.
The production of silica generates a waste stream that has elevated levels of total dissolved
solids (TDS) and sulfates.
The discharge to TCBSD is projected to
contribute to excursions from
the water quality standards for TDS and sulfates in Thom Creek and the Little Calumet River as
set forth
in Section 302.208.
Rhodia and TCBSD request an
adjusted standard from Section
304.105 and Section 302.208.
The specific information required to be set forth in a petition for
adjusted standard pursuant to
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
104
is set forth below.
Section
104.406(a):
Standard from Which Relief
is
Sought
Rhodia and TCBSD request an adjusted standard from both 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 304.105 and
302.208 as they apply to the water quality standards for TDS and sulfates applicable to effluent
discharges from TCB SD’s sewage treatment plant to Thom Creek and from Thom Creek into the
Little Calumet River.
While there are no specific effluent standards for TDS, Section 304.105
prohibits effluent discharges that cause or contribute to violations of applicable water quality
standards.
Section 302.208(e) requires that concentrations of 1000 mg/L of TDS and 500 mg/L
of sulfates shall not be exceeded in Thom Creek or the Little Calumet River1.
The effective date
of this regulation is May 17,
1979.
An adjusted standard was granted to Rhodia2 and TCBSD in
1994 for the same stream reaches for which Rhodia and TCBSD request the current adjusted
standard.
Thus, with respect to Rhodia and TCBSD, the water quality standards applicable for
TDS and sulfates for the subject stream reaches are as set forth in Exhibit
1
at 2-11. (In~
1
The portionof Thorn Creekbetween
its confluence with Deer Creek and the USGS Gaging Station located
on Thorn Creek approximately 15
miles downstream of the
discharge point from the Consumers Illinois
Water
Company in University Park, Illinois
is subject to an adjusted standard granted to Consumers Illinois Water
Company,
which establishes a TDS standard of 2,100
mg/L
(Board Proceeding, AS89-3)
2
Then known as Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals.
-2-
Petition ofRhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co., AS No. 94-7 (Adjusted Standard),
1994 Ill.
ENV LEXIS 743 (June 23,
1994) and In re Petition ofRhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co., AS
No. 94-7 (Adjusted Standard),
1994 Ill. ENV LEXIS 1030 (August
11,
1994) (Supplemental
Opinion and Order))
The water quality standards requested for Thom Creek in this
Petition are 2,650 mg/L of
TDS for the stream reach between TCBSD’s discharge point and the confluence with Deer Creek
(Reach #1), 2,620
mg/L from the confluence with Deer Creek to the USGS Station 05536275
in
Thomton (Reach #2), and 2,360 mg/L forthe portion ofThom Creek between the USGS Station
05536225 in Thomton
and the confluence of Thom Creek with the Little Calumet River (Reach
#3).
The requested water quality standard for Reach #1
and Reach #2 of Thom Creek is
1,350
mg/L and
1,340 mg/L of sulfates, respectively.
For Reach #3 it is
1,160 mg/L.
For the Little
Calumet River from its confluence with Thom Creek to the Calumet-Sag Channel (Reach #4),
less
relief is required.
Based upon projected maximum levels, a water quality TDS limit of2,020
mgIL and a sulfate limit of 1,000 mg/L in Reach #4 would provide the relief needed for this plant
addition, while still being protective of the environment.
The requested relief is shown below in table form:
Parameter
Reach #1
Reach #2
Reach #3
Reach #4
TDS
2,650 mg/L
2,620 mg/L
2,360 mg/L
2,020 mgL
Sulfate
1,350 mg/L
1,340 mg/L
1,160 mg/L
1,000 mg/L
Section 104.406(b):
Nature of Regulation of General Applicability
The primary purpose of the regulations involved in this Petition is to protect aquatic life
and to
safeguard the quality of waters of the state for crop irrigation and public water supply
purposes.
There are no
effluent standards for TDS or sulfates.
The Board once adopted an
-3-
effluent standard of 3,500 mg/L TDS, (R70-18, 3 PCB 419, January 7,
1972) which the Board
repealed afterrecognizing that the treatment processes for TDS are very expensive, consume
large amounts of energy, and produce dry salts, which still must be disposed of.
(R76-21,
September 24,
1981).
Regulation ofTDS discharges was left to the application of water quality
standards forTDS, chlorides and sulfates.
These water quality standards were set in 1972, in
part by reference to then-current studies of the toxicity of the contaminants to aquatic life.
The Board’s water quality standards
have been approved by U.S. EPA and are consistent
with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Thus, in a sense, these standards exist pursuant to
Section 303(a) of the Clean Water Act.
Petitioners
do not believe that the water quality
standards involved in this proceeding were adopted in whole orin part to implement the other
laws specified in Section
106.705(b):
the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Clean Air Act, or the state
programs conceming the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Underground Injection
Control, or the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Section 104.406(c):
Specified
Level ofJustification
The regulations of general applicability from which Rhodia and TCBSD seek an
adjusted
standard do not specify a level ofjustification for adjusted standards.
Section 104.406(d):
Facility and Process Descriptions
The Rhodia Chicago Heights plant is located at 1101
Arnold Street.
The facility has been
in operation since 1902
when it was Victor Chemical Works.
Stauffer Chemical Company
bought Victor Chemical in
1959.
Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals, Inc. purchased the Basic
Chemicals Division of Stauffer Chemical Company in December 1987.
The name was officially
changed to Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. in September 1989.
In
1998, the name of the
-4-
company was changed again to Rhodia, Inc.
The facility currently employs
320 people and
manufactures inorganic phosphate chemicals and precipitated silica.
Most of the inorganic
phosphate manufacturing processes involve the chemical reaction of phosphoric acid with
either
soda ash or slaked lime.
Wastewaters that fluctuate in pH and total suspended solids are
generated in both processes. The precipitated silica manufacturing process involves reacting
sodium silicate with
sulfuric acid to produce silica.
Wastewaters generated in this process
contain total dissolved solids and sulfates.
All process wastewaters are discharged to TCBSD.
The proposed expansion to
Rhodia’s facility is to its
Silica Plant, which produces
precipitated silica.
Rhodia has proposed this expansion at its
Chicago Heights plant because the
plant is ideally located relative to both the raw materials necessary forthe silica process and the
receiving market.
The proposed expansion to the silica plant will increase annual TDS
discharges by 65
over the original design
capacity.
A block flow diagram for the proposed
expansion is set forth at Figure 2-4 ofExhibit
1.
Multiple grades of silica are produced, and will continue to be produced at higher volumes
in the expansion.
The process begins neutralizing the sodium silicate solution with sulfuric acid
in agitated reactors to
produce precipitated silica.
Once the reaction is
complete, the silica is
removed from the solution via filtration.
Filtrate from the operation,
which contains
approximately 4
of dissolved sodium sulfate, is diverted to the mother liquor tank.
The filter
cake is then washed with water and squeezed to remove residual sodium sulfate, and the filtrate
is directed to
a 20,000 gallon equalization tank.
The TDS concentration of these streams
declines toward 0 percent sodium sulfate by the end of each filtration cycle.
-5-
Table 2-3 ofExhibit
1
sets forth
the projected discharge loadings.
On an
annual average,
the expanded process will discharge 0.84 million gallons per day containing 137,400 lbs/day of
TDS.
The peak daily TDS discharge is projected to be
151,700 pounds.
TCBSD operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) with a design average flow of 15.9
L
mgd and
design maximum flow of 40.25 mgd.
The WWTP is located in Chicago Heights,
Illinois, and provides wastewater treatment for approximately 100,000 people from the Chicago
L
Heights, Park Forest, Homewood, South Chicago Heights, Steger, and Crete communities.
The
L
treatment plant was originally constructed in
1933 and has undergone a number of construction
projects including an expansion to accept flows from the Homewood Regional Plant.
The TCBSD WWTP has been cited as
an exemplary treatment plant based on its overall
U
efficiency and environmental control by both an independent engineering team of the Agency
and the Central States Water Pollution Control Association.
The WWTP represents a $40
million investment, including an on-site laboratory and computer monitoring and control.
A
L
schematic of the physical/biological WWTP is presented in Figure 2-3 ofExhibit
1.
From the
sewers, the influent passes through bar screens prior to being pumped to the surface through grit
chambers followed by primary sedimentation.
From primary treatment, the wastewater flows
through a conventional plug-flow activated sludge process, followed by a second-stage
biological aeration process and tertiary clarifiers for nitrification.
The wastewater is then
U
filtered, and seasonal chlorination added followed by post aeration and seasonal dechlorination.
The fully treated effluent is
then discharged to Thom Creek.
Excess flow is
diverted through
H
separate excess
flow clarifiers, which is then recombined with the complete treatment effluent.
The current dry waterflow through the WWTP is
11.6
mgd based upon the average of the
lowest three months in
1998.
This is 4.3 mgd below the design average flow of 15.9 mgd.
Thus,
H
-6-
L
the treatment plant has available capacity for future growth.
The TCBSD WWTP serves 861
industrial and commercial users in addition to the 31,000 residential connections.
This industrial
and commercial sector accounts for 2.7 percent of the users and 29 percent ofthe influent
flowrate based upon 1999 values.
The major industrial users are manufacturing facilities,
H
including steel manufacturing and stamping facilities.
Included in
the industrial users besides
Rhodia are Ford Motor Company, Calumet Industries, Chicago Heights Steel, Rohm & Haas,
L
and Alpharma.
c
There are three streamreaches on Thom Creek and a fourth reach on the Little Calumet
River that will be impacted by the proposed expansion, under peak loading and low flow
conditions.
Reach #1
is from the WWTP to the merger with Deer Creek.
Reach #2 continues
H
from the merger with Deer Creek to the USGS Station at Thornton, while Reach #3
is
from the
USGS Station
to the merger with the Little Calumet River.
The fourth reach is from the Thom
Creek confluence with the Little Calumet River to the Calumet-Sag Channel.
Li
Section 104.406(e):
Cost of Compliance and Compliance Alternatives
In order to
comply with the regulation of general applicability and the existing adjusted
standard, some form ofpretreatment by Rhodia for TDS removal would be necessary.
The
U
expanded silica plant wastewater design characteristics lend themselves to
selected demonstrated
and proven TDS/sodium
sulfate removal and disposal strategies.
Although the sulfate removal
processes discussed below are technically feasible, even the most economical solution for
U
sodium sulfate removal to
comply with water quality standards
would result in si~ificantcost
penalties to Rhodia.
For example, in the evaporation process the cost of steam alone required to
L
dehydrate the sodium sulfate solution would result in a finished product cost above current
market price for granular sodium sulfate.
This cost, together with the cost of initial
and working
7
capital and annual operating fixed costs would place Rhodiain a non-competitive price position
H
for its silica finished product.
Taking into consideration the flow and variability of the wastewater stream, Rhodia
considered the following technologies for pretreatment:
H
(1)
(2)
Single/Multiple Effect Evaporation;
(3)
Evaporation with Mechanical Vapor Recompression (MVR);
(4)
Reverse Osmosis followed by Evaporation with MVR;
(5)
Calcium Chlroide treatment followed by Evaporation with
/
MVR; and
H
(6)
Biological Process Reduction of sulfates to
elemental sulfur
Vendors informed Rhodia that Electrodialysis
(in its various forms) has almost never been
foundto be practical in the United States industrial chemical industry, especially for as dilute
a
H
feed as Rhodia has.
Any evaporation scheme would require multiple effects (increasing cost) or
falling film technology, and much more steam that the plant is capable of providing.
Biological
sulfate ion reduction to elemental sulfur was not found to be practical because the process uses
H
an organic compound and air to create carbonate ions that replace the sulfate ions.
Although this
reduces sulfates, it does not appreciably reduce the TDS going to
the stream.
U
Rhodia, therefore, evaluated the remaining technologies:
Li
(1)
Falling film evaporation with MVR;
(2)
Reverse Osmosis followed by Evaporation with MVR; and
(3)
Calcium Chloride Treatment with falling film evaporation
U
with M\TR.
A brief process description of the technologies evaluated follows.
Falling Film Evaporation with MVR (Alternative 1)
This technology produces dry sodium sulfate from a dilute aqueous solution.
This is
U
achieved by concentrating and subsequently crystallizing the sodium sulfate out of the process
L
liquor.
A single falling film evaporator is employed.
The feed is pumped to the top of the
8-
U
Li
evaporator and falls through steam-heated tubes.
The feed stream is thus concentrated to
a point
where it can be cooled to precipitate the sodium
sulfate crystals in the forced feed crystallizer.
The water vapor from the evaporator and crystallizer is compressed by a large compressor and
U
routed to the shell side of the falling-film tubes to
become the heating steam.
This is an efficient
use ofenergy and that would keep the plant from needing to provide a new boiler.
The
crystallization outlet stream is sent to a centrifuge and the cake is sent to a dryer. A simplified
process flow diagram for Alternative
1
is presented in
Attachment A.
U
Reverse Osmosis followed by Evaporation
with MVR (Alternative 2)
This technology also produces dry sodium sulfate from a dilute aqueous solution by
concentrating and subsequently crystallizing the sodium sulfate out ofthe process liquor.
Again,
H
for energy conservation reasons, both evaporator and crystallizer vessels are used.
This process
is even more energy efficient since it performs a four-fold concentration with a reverse osmosis
U
(RO) unit, thus reducing the evaporation requirement.
However, the RO unit has very stnct inlet
L
requirements concerning foreign material, which is residual silica in this case.
Thus,
magnesium/caustic pre-treatment and high-tech filtration are accomplished to remove the affects
offoreign material before evaporation begins.
Evaporation, crystallization, centrifugation and
H
drying are accomplished much the same as in Alternative
1, with the first two steps being smaller
because of the RO unit.
A simplified process flow diagram for Alternative 2
is presented in
U
Attachment B.
Calcium Chloride Treatment
—
Falling Film Evaporation
—
MVR (Alternative 3)
This technology employs a lime treatment ofthe feed stream to increase the effectiveness
ofcrystallization/precipitation.
The evaporation through drying steps are accomplished much the
U
same as in Alternatives
1
and 2.
/
-9-
U
U
U
U
Li
Li
U
H
H
U
A simplified process flow diagram for Alternative 3
is presented in Attachment C.
Cost Summary of Compliance Alternatives
H
U
U
H
Each of the alternatives evaluated produces
a dry sodium sulfate stream requiring ultimate
disposition or possible disposal.
For the purpose of this analysis, however, disposal costs were
not included since sodium sulfate is a commodity chemical with some resale value.
A summary
comparison of the demonstrated sodium sulfate removal systems discussed above is presented in
the following Table.
It contains critical process and technical considerations
and provides a
summary including estimated capital and annualized capital and operating costs for the three
alternatives studied.
COMPARISON
OF
SODIUM SULFATE
REMOVAL SYSTEMS
Alternative
1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Undesirable
Constituents
Silica
25 ppm
Silica
25 ppm
Impact on Plant
-
Dispose Silica
Dispose Silica
Capital Cost
$6 Million
$4 Million
$4.2 Million
Total Annual Cost
$9 15k
$600k
$670k
Total Annual Cost!
A/
Ton ofProduction
$32
$21
$24
Treatment Cost as a
Percentage Product
Cost
6.2
3.8
4.4
Cost/1000
gallon
watertreated
$11.90
$7.78
$8.70
of Cost of direct
B!
discharge to TCBSD
1190
778
870
Alternative 1
Falling film evaporation with MVR
-10-
U
H
_________________________________
Alternative 2=
Reverse Osmosis followed by Evaporation with MVR
Alternative 3
=
Calcium Chloride Treatment
—
Falling Film Evaporation
Al
Based on New Production Capacity
Li
B/
TCBSD charges the Chicago Heights
plant $1.00/bOO gallons treated.
As
set forth in Attachment A, Alternative
1
would require more than
11 times the normal
U
cost to
discharge to the WWTP and would add 6
percent to the cost of the product silica.
L
Alternatives 2 & 3 are more economical, although they would still cost about 8 times the normal
WWTP cost and would add
approximately 4 percent to the cost of the product silica.
See
U
Attachments B
and C.
U
Although technically feasible, even the most economical solution for sodium sulfate
H
removal to comply
with water quality standards would result in significant cost penalties to
Rhodia.
Such significant cost penalties would result in
a non-competitive price forits silica in an
U
increasingly competitive market.
H
Section 104.406(0:
Proposed Adjusted Standard
As described earlier, Rhodia and TCBSD seek modification of the existing adjusted
standard as an adjusted standard from the generally applicable
water quality standards for TDS
H
and sulfates for that portion ofThom Creek downstream of TCBSD’s discharge to the confluence
H
ofThom Creek with the Little Calurnet River (Reaches #1, #2 and #3) and from that point to the
confluence with the Little
Calumet River with the Calumet-Sag Channel (Reach #4).
The
Li
adjusted standards sought for TDS
are:
2,650 mg/L in Reach #1, 2,620 mg/L in Reach #2 and
2,360 mg/L in Reach #3
of Thom Creek and 2,020 mg/L in
the Little Calumet River (Reach #4).
The requested standards for sulfates are
1,350 mg/L in Reach #11,340 mg/L and Reach #2
,
and
L1
1,160 mg/L in Reach #3
of Thorn Creek, and
1,000 mg/L in the Little CalumetRiver (Reach #4).
—11-
U
Rhodia and TCBSD propose that the Board adopt the following language to effectuate the
requestedrelief:
(1)
The water quality standard for TDS shall be 2,650
mg/L for
that portion of Thorn Creek between TCBSD’s discharge
point and Thom Creek’s confluence with Deer Creek.
The
existing adjusted standard, which already exists for this
portion ofThorn Creek of 2,100 mg/L TDS shall be
modified to the new adjusted standard.
The water quality
standard for TDS found at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 302.208 shall
not apply to
this portion ofThorn Creek.
(2)
The water quality standard for TDS shall be 2,620 mgIL for
that portion ofThom Creek between it’s merger with Deer
Creek and the USGS Gaging Station 05536275 in
Thornton.
The existing adjusted standard, which already
exists for this portion of Thom Creek of 1900 mgIL TDS
shall be modified to the new adjusted standard.
The water
quality standard forTDS found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
302.208 shall not apply to this portion of Thom Creek.
(3)
The water quality standard for TDS shall be 2,360 mg/L for
that portion ofThom Creek between the USGS Gaging
Station 05536275
in Thornton and Thorn Creek’s
confluence with the Little
Calumet River.
The existing
adjusted standard, which already exists fOr this portion of
Thom Creek of 1,900 mg/L TDS shall be modified to the
new adjusted standard.
The water quality standard for TDS
found at 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 302.208 shall not apply to this
portion of Thorn Creek.
(4)
The waterquality standard for TDS for that portion ofthe
Little Calumet River from the confluence with
Thom Creek
to the Calumet-Sag Channel shall be 2,020 mg/L.
The
existing adjusted standard, which already exists for this
portion of the Little
Calumet River of 1,700 mg/L TDS
shall be modified to the new adjusted standard.
The water
quality standard forTDS found at 35 Ill. Adm.
Code
302.208
shall not apply to this
portion of the Little Calumet
River.
(5)
The water quality standard for sulfates shall be
1,350 mg/L
for that portion ofThom Creek between TCBSD’s
discharge point and Thorn Creek’s confluence with Deer
Creek. The existing adjusted standard, which already exists
-
12
-
for this portion ofThom Creek of 1,000
mg/L sulfates shall
be modified to the new adjusted standard.
The water
quality standard for sulfates found at 35
Ill. Adm. Code
302.208
shall not apply to this portion ofThom Creek.
(6)
The water quality standard for sulfates shall be
1,340 mg/L
for that portion of Thom Creek between Thom Creek’s
confluence with Deer Creek and the USGS Gaging Station
05536275 in Thornton. The existing adjusted standard,
which already exists for this portion of Thom Creek of
1,000 mg/L sulfates shall be modified to the new adjusted
standard.
The water quality standard for sulfates found at
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 302.208 shall not apply to this portion of
Thom Creek.
(7)
The waterquality standard for sulfates shall be 1,160
mg/L
for that portion ofThom Creek from the USGS Gaging
Station 05536275 in Thornton to Thorn Creek’s confluence
with the Little Calumet River.
The existing adjusted
standard, which already exists for this portion ofThom
Creek of 850 mg/L sulfates shall be modified to the new
adjusted standard.
The water quality standard for sulfates
found at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 302.208 shall not apply to this
portion ofThorn Creek.
(8)
The water quality standard for sulfates forthat portion of
the Little Calumet Riverfrom the confluence ofThorn
Creek with the Calumet-Sag Channel shall be 1,000 mg/L.
The existing
adjusted standard, which already exists for this
portion ofthe Little Calumet River of 750 mgfL sulfates
shall be modified to the new adjusted standard.
The water
quality standard for sulfates found at 35
Ill. Adm. Code
302.208 shall not apply to this portion of the Little Calumet
River.
(9)
The requirements of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 304.105, as that
section relates to the water quality standards forTDS and
sulfates of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208, shall not apply to the
effluent discharges from the facilities ofRhodia and the
Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District, provided that the
water quality standards established in this
adjusted standard
are met.
In order to comply with the proposed adjusted standard, Rhodia would direct the
wastewaters from the expanded silica plant to TCBSD fortreatment.
Since TCBSD has
-
13
-
adequate capacity to handle these wastewaters, there is no significant capital cost.
The annual
H
operating costs are the cost of treatment.
TCBSD projected 2000 charges of
$
1.00/1000 gallons
ofwastewater treated.
Since Rhodia’s annual average discharge is
projected to be 75,000,000
Li
gallons, the operating costs (and annual costs) would be approximately $600,000 per year.
Section 104.406(g):
Impact Comparison Between Compliance and Proposed Standard
Rhodia and TCBSD retained Huff & Huff, Inc. to perform an environmental assessment of
U
the impact of the TDS and sulfates anticipated to be discharged from TCBSD.
The results of
H
Huff & Huff’s study are presented in a report entitled “Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Increase in Total Dissolved Solids Discharge from the Thom Creek Basin Sanitary
U
District” (Exhibit 1).
Huff & Huff’s assessment included a review of Rhodia’s proposed silica
H
production processes as well as the existing treatment processes and influent and effluent flows
at TCBSD’s WWTP.
Huff & Huff also reviewed the flows and water quality of Thorn Creek
from its headwaters in Monee to its
confluence with
the Little Calumet River as well as the Little
H
Calumet River from that point to its
confluence with the Calumet-Sag Channel.
With these data,
Huff & Huff was able to
model the projected water quality for TDS and sulfates in
the various
reaches ofThorn Creek and the Little Calumet River.
Huff & Huff then reviewed available
H
acute toxicity data to dete~inewhether the projected water quality would be anticipated to
H
result in any acute toxicity, and it retained SF Analytical to
perform chronic toxicity testing using
Thorn Creek stream water spiked with various
levels ofTDS and sulfates to determine whether
(1
U
any chronic toxicity would be anticipated.
The TDS and sulfate sources included both synthetic
H
sodium sulfate and Rhodia’s silica plant wastewater.
Huff & Huff also performed a biological assessment ofThorn
Creek.
This included the
U
sampling of macroinvertebrates and fish in Thorn Creek both upstream and downstream of
-
14
-
H.
Il
H:
TCBSD outfall.
Using these data along with other existing data on the stream quality, Huff &
Huffwas able to
establish a Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
(IVIBI) as well as the Index ofBiotic
Integrity
(1131) for Thom Creek.3
This information was then used to
assess the existing
and
U
potential quality ofThom Creek as an aquatic resource.
H
Based on these studies, Huff & Huff concluded that Thorn Creek, from upstream of the
TCBSD’s outfall to downstream ofthe Butterfield Creek confluence can be classified as a “fair”
quality stream with classifications between a “limited” and a “moderate” aquatic resource,
H
common classifications for urban streams.
(Exhibit
1
at 91-92).
The lET and MBI values for the
stream reaches did not change after the increase in TDS discharge that occurred when the
existing Rhodia silica plant went on-line in October
1995.
H
Huff & Huff also concluded that given its proximity to urban areas, there is limited
potential for future improvements in the aquatic community in Thorn Creek.
Similar conclusions
U
were drawn by Michael Ander ofDames
& Moore (1990) during an
environmental impact study
U
of Deer Creek.
(Exhibit
1 at
115).
Deer Creek, a tributary of Thorn Creek, was stated as having
limited potential uses due to
the limited amount of water and habitat available.
The Agency
noted a similar water quality classification in its annual waterquality report.
(IEPA 1992). j~j~
U
The quality of the Little Calumet River was classified in that same report as a non-support
waterway, a lower quality than in Thom Creek.
MBI values are used by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
to assess stream
water-quality.
These values range from 0 to 11, with 0 representing the best water quality and
11
the worst.
(Exhibit
1
at 62).
IBI values are also used by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to assess stream- quality-and-are based-
upon the fish
assemblage at a given site.
Values of this index range from 0 to 60, with 60 representing the best
•stream quality and 0 the worst.
(Exhibit
1
at 62).
-
15
-
Huff & Huffdetermined that there would be an
impact upon Thorn
Creek and the Little
Calumet River caused by Rhodia’s proposed•discharge, i.e. TDS and sulfate levels will increase.
A summary ofthe projected peak concentrations by Reach is set forth below:
Parameter
Reach #1
Reach #2
Reach #3
Reach #4
TDS
2,650
2,620
2,360
2,020
Sulfate
1,350
1,340
1,160
1,000
(See Table 7-3
of Exhibit
1
at
111).
While the concentrations ofTDS and sulfates are projected to increase in certain areas of
Thom Creek and the Little Calumet River, those increases are not anticipated to have any
adverse environmental impact and are within the historical variability ofthose waters for TDS.
In adopting the water quality standards forTDS and sulfates, the Board focused on three
potential
areas of adverse impacts:
aquatic life, crop irrigation, and public water supplies.
The
Huff & Huff report addresses each of these areas, and Huff & Huff concludes that crop irrigation
and public water supply uses do not exist and that there will be no adverse impact upon aquatic
life.
Therefore,
there should be no
adverse environmental impact upon any of these uses from
Rhodia’s proposed discharge.
A TDS water quality limit of 2,100 mg/L was supported for Reach #2 in
NutraSweetlClWC’s
Adjusted Standard in part because of the Limited Aquatic Resource
Classification of Thorn Creek, and in consideration ofthe low level oftoxicity of TDS.
A
biological
assessment performed in support ofthe NutraSweet/CIWC petition concluded a TDS
water quality level of 3,000 mg/L would not cause any undue stress to
the aquatic life (Dames &
Moore, 1981).
(Exhibit
1
at 115).
This opinion was supported by the Agency
(Studer, Hearing
Testimony in AS89-3, 1990).
Id.
U
I
-~
H
U
H
K--
U
H
U
Li
I-
-~
U
H
H
U
-
16
U
K:--
U
Based upon the modeling work conducted by Huff & Huff, under worst case conditions the
H
TDS level
during
operation ofRhodia’s proposed expanded silica plant is projected to reach
2,650
mg/L
and the sulfate level is
projected to reach 1,350 mgfL in Thorn Creek.
(Table 7-3 of
U
Exhibit
1
at 111).
No impact on the current aquatic community in Thom Creek would be
H
expected from these levels based upon Huff & Huff’s review of available acute and chronic
toxicity data and the bioassays conducted.
(See, Chapter 5 ofExhibit 1).
This conclusion with
U
respect to TDS is also supported by the biological assessment in the NutrasweetlClWC adjusted
H
standard proceeding (AS 89-3).
Due to lack of literature regarding chronic toxicity levels on sodium sulfate, a chronic
toxicity bioassay was conducted.
The bioassay used Thorn Creek water, downstream of the
H
WWTP
discharge, to evaluate the effects of increasing levels of sodium sulfate on the water flea
(Ceriodaphnia dubia) and the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas).
The Thom Creek water
was initially analyzed for sulfate and then spiked with
sodium sulfate to
obtain seven targeted
H
levels of sulfate.
The targeted levels are percentages of the projected peak effluent sulfate
concentration
of 1,350 mgIL.
The sulfate levels, based on the test conducted with Thorn Creek
U
water spiked with Rhodia silica plant wastewater are as follows
(see, Exhibit
1
at
59):
Measured
Measured
-
Sulfate
of Projected
TDS
Level,
mgIL
Peak Effluent Sulfate
Level,
ma/L
-,
817
-
60
1870
U
1079
-
-
80
2180
I
1190
88
2310
1332
99
2530
H
1365
101
2690
U
U
-17-
U
U
U
During the chronic toxicitybioassay tests, no chronic toxicity was observed in either the
H
waterflea or fathead minnow up to the highest sulfate concentration tested;
1,365
mg/L
(with an
associated TDS value of 2,690 mgfL).
The
1,365
mg/L
sulfate level is
101
of the projected
L
~
sulfate level anticipated.
Based upon these results along with the literature regarding acute
H
toxicity, there will be no acute orchronic toxicity impact upon aquatic life in Thom Creek or the
Little Calumet River from the proposed Rhodia expansion project.
Furthermore, the request for
U
an adjusted standard to allow Rhodia to expand its silica plant at its Chicago Heights facility is
H
consistent with historical water quality levels and will not degrade the quality of the aquatic
-
-
community in Thorn Creek.
Huff & Huff also
concludes that there would be no adverse impacts upon crops.
The areas
H
surrounding Thorn Creek from TCBSD’s outfall to the merger with the Little Calumet River are
K:
limited to forest preserves
and developed areas.
No known owners/operators conduct crop
U
....
.
irrigation in the basin.
No commercial crops are grown, and no evidence of water withdrawal
L:
from Thom Creek for irrigation of crops was observed during the stream study performed by
Huff & Huff.
(Exhibit
1 at
109).
U
Huff & Huff further concludes that there would be no
adverse impact upon public
water
U
supplies.
Communities along Thom Creek downstream of TCBSD’s outfall all derive their water
supply from Lake Michigan, including Chicago Heights, Flossmoor, Harvey, Glenwood,
U
Homewood, South Holland, Thornton, Calumet City, Dolton, and Lansing.
Most water supply
U
wells have been capped and taken out of service in these communities.
Based upon this
H
-
investigation,
Rhodia’s proposed expansion project will not increase the TDS in any public
water
supply.
(Exhibit
1
at 109-10).
H
U
U
-18-
H:
U
Finally, in order to
comply with the rule of general applicability, cross-media impacts
would result.
For example, pretreatment ofTDS would produce dry sodium sulfate that would
U
-
have to be disposed on land if it could not be sold, creating the potential for land pollution and
Li
for water pollution should it leach from a landfill to
groundwater.
Also, pretreatment would
U
necessitate increased energy consumption, which not only would deplete energy resources, but
also potentially would result in air pollution from the generation of the necessary energy.
Thus,
while TDS and sulfate levels in Thorn Creek and the Little Calumet River would increase under
the proposed adjusted standard, no adverse environmental impact would result, whereas if
compliance with the generally applicable standards were to be required, there might be some
adverse cross-media impacts.
H
Section 104.406(h):
Justification
As
notedunder Section
104.406(c) ofthis
petition, the regulations of general applicability
from which Rhodia and TCBSD seek adjusted standards do not specify levels ofjustification for
Li
adjusted standards.
Section
28.1(c) of the Act allows the Board to grant adjusted standards in the
absence of a specified level ofjustification if the Board determines, based upon adequate proof
U
by the petitioner that:
(1)
factors relating to the petitioner are substantially different
I
from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the
U
igeneral regulation applicable tothat petitioner;
1
(2)
the existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;
U
-
(3)
the requested standard will not result in environmental or
-
health effects substantially and significantly
more adverse
U
than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule
of general applicability;
and
1
U
(4)
the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable
federal law.
Ii
U
H
-
-19-
U
-
-
See also
35
Ill. Adm. Code 301.108(c).
The factors relating to Rhodia and TCBSD are substantially different from the factors
U
-
relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation-.
As discussed above, in adopting the
U
general regulations, the Board was concerned over potential adverse impacts upon aquatic life,
crop irrigation and water supplies.
Based upon the Huff &
Huffreport, no such adverse impacts
U
-~
are anticipated should the requested relief be granted.
Further, the levels ofTDS that already
U
exist in some
areas of Thorn Creek are higher than the water quality standard levels set in
the
Li
general regulation and the projected levels of TDS are within the historical variability of TDS
levels in Thorn Creek.
The Board recognized in deciding to repeal the previously established
U
effluent standard for TDS of 3,500
mg/L, that the treatment processes for TDS are very
H
expensive, consume large amounts of energy, and may produce concentrated brines that must be
I
-,
disposed of.
Those high costs have been documented in this petition.
Finally, the regulation of
U
general applicability was adopted based on the protection of aquatic life in a receiving stream
H
•
that does not already contain high background levels of TDS.
Thus, an
adjusted standard for
H
TDS and sulfates in Thom Creek is justified.
The requested standard will not result in environmental orhealth effects substantially more
H
adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability.
-i
That rule was adopted to protect aquatic life.
Thom Creek is classified as a Moderate to Limited
Aquatic Resource.
(Exhibit
1
at 9 1-92).
A biological assessment of Thorn Creek done in
K-I
U
support of the NutraSweet/CIWC petition concluded a TDS water quality level of 3,000
mgfL
H:
would not cause any undue stress
to the aquatic life (Dames & Moore, 1981).
Id.
This opinion
was supported by the Agency.
(Studer testimony in AS89-3,
1990).
H
-
H
H
•
-20-
H
-
Based upon modeling conducted by Huff & Huff, under worst case conditions
the TDS
level is expected to reach 2,650
mg/L
and
sulfate to reach
1,350
mg/L
in Thorn Creek and lower
in the Little
Calumet River.
(Exhibit
1
at 111).
Thus, based on the Moderate to Limited Aquatic
Li
Resource classification,
the previous work by Dames & Moore (1990) and the stream surveys
I
conducted by Huff & Huff, no impact on the current aquatic community in Thorn Creek or the
U
-
K-
-~
Little Calumet River is expected. j~
U
-
The adjusted standard is consistent with federal law in that under 40 C.F.R.
131.4,
“states
H.
are responsible for reviewing, establishing and revising water quality standards.”
These
standards are to be protective ofthe designated uses.
40 C.F.R.
13 1.5(b).
As
stated above, the
U
adjusted standard would be protective of the present and potential
uses, ofThorn
Creek.
H
In addition, granting this
adjusted standard is consistent with Section 27(a) of the Act,
taking into account the existing physical conditions, the character ofthe areainvolved, including
U
the character of surrounding land uses, which have been described herein, the zoning
H
classification of the area as industrial,
and the nature of the existing receiving body of water, and
I
the technical infeasibility and economic unreasonableness of reducing TDS and sulfates.
Li
In summary, Petitioners’ justification for the proposed adjusted standards is that the
Ii
U
granting of the requested adjusted standard will not result in any significant adverse
H
environmental or health effects, while the cost ofcompliance is high and could be associated
-
with adverse cross-media impacts.
As noted above, the purpose of the regulation from which
U
Petitioners seek adjusted standards is primarily to protect aquatic life.
Such purpose will still be
H
served if the requested adjusted standards are granted by the Board.
H
H:
H
-21-
Ii
U
Section 104.406(i):
Consistency with Federal Law and Federal Procedural Requirements
1.
Consistency with Federal Law.
Li
-
Rhodia and TCBSD believe that the granting of the requested adjusted standard would not
U
be inconsistent with or violate any provisions of the Clean Water Act.
As explained above, the
H
requested relief is predicated solely upon potential
exceedances of the TDS water quality
standard and the standardfor sulfates.
There are no applicable
federal or state TDS or sulfate
Li
effluent standards.
UnderFederal law:
I
A water quality standard defines the water quality goals of a water
U
body,
orportion thereof, by designating the use or uses to be made
of the water and by setting criteria necessary to protect the uses.
States adopt water quality standards to protect public health or
welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes ofthe
Clean Water Act (the Act).
“Serve the purposes of the Act” (as
U
defined in sections
1O1(a)(2) and 303(c) of the Act) means that
water quality standards should, wherever attainable, provide water
quality for the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish and
U
wildlife and for recreation in
and on the water and take into
consideration their use and value ofpublic
water supplies,
K-
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, recreation in and on the
U.
water, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes including
navigation.
I
-~
Li
40 C.F.R.
131.2.
Under 40
C.F.R.
131.4
“states are responsible for reviewing, establishing and
I
-
revising water quality standards.”
In turn, pursuant to 40 C.F.R.
131.5,
“EPA is to review and to
approve or disapprove the State-adopted water quality standards.”
These standards
are to be
11
-
U
protective ofthe designated uses (~13b.5(b))
and,
where those uses are not protected, this must
be supported by “appropriate technical and scientific data and analyses.”
(~131.5(d)).
A State is
allowed to remove a designated use, which is not an existing use, if it “can demonstrate that
attaining the designated use is not feasible” because of several enumerated causes.
(~131.10(g)).
-
22
Rhodia and TCBSD believe that the granting of this
adjusted standard will not impair any
beneficial existing use of the receiving stream.
This has been established by the Huff & Huff
study which has been made part ofthis Petition.
Even if the Board were to find that some use is impaired, Petitioners believe that one or
mOre of the requirements for federal approval have been met as set forth under
§
131.10(g) as
follows:
(1)
Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the
attainment ofthe use; or
(2)
Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or
water levels prevent the attainment ofthe use, unless these
conditions
may be compensated for by the discharge of
sufficient volume of effluent discharges without violating
State water conservation requirements to
enable uses to be
met; or
(3)
Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent
the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would
cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave
in place; or
(4)
Dams, diversions or other types ofhydrologic
modifications preclude the attainment of the use, and it is
not feasible to restore the water body to its original
condition or to operate such modification in a way that
would result in the attainment ofthe use; or
(5)
Physical conditions related to the natural features ofthe
water body, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover,
flow,
depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water
quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses;
or
(6)
Controls more stringent than those required by
sections 30 1(b) and 306 of the Act would result in
substantial
and widespread economic and social impact.
Most particularly, the portion ofThorn Creek referred to
as Reach #2 is impacted by TDS
discharges from Consumers Illinois Water Company at its University Park facility.
Consumers
-
23
-
I-
-~
Li
Illinois Water Company, which discharges to Deer Creek, is allowed, pursuant to an existing
H
adjusted standard, to discharge TDS to
a maximum of 2,100
mg/L.
Elevated TDS levels exist
downstream of Deer Creek’s merger with Thom Creek to the USGS Station 05536275 in
Thornton.
The Board established an
adjusted standardfor that portion of Thorn Creek in
part
-~
because these levels ofTDS could not be remedied.
-~
2.
Federal Procedural Requirements
Li
Pursuant to U.S.
EPA’s current position on whether a
hearing
is required, Rhodia and
H
TCBSD do not believe that a
hearing is necessary where an authorized states follow approved
state procedures, those procedures are federally acceptable.
U
Rhodia and TCBSD understand that U.S.
EPA’s present position is that the fulfillment of
H
the state requirements fornotice and hearing is all that is required and that if the state allows for
waiver of the hearing requirement, hearing can be waived without conflict with federal laws.
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 104.406(j) allows for waiver of hearing.
H
Section 104.406(j): Hearing Waived
Rhodia and TCBSD hereby waive hearing in this matter pursuant to Section
104.406.
Section 104.406(k):
Supporting Documents
H
Supporting documents cited in this Petition areappended hereto.
H
WHEREFORE,
the Rhodia, Inc. and the Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District
request the Board to grant an adjusted standard from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.105 and 35 Ill.
Adm.
H
-
H
H
•
-24-
Code 302.208 as they apply to proposed discharges ofTDS and sulfate fromRhodia’s proposed
expansion ofits
silica plant to TCBSD’s sewer system and from TCBSD’s treatment plant to
Thorn Creek.
RoyM. Harsch, Esq.
Sheila H. Deely, Esq.
GARDNER,
CARTON & DOUGLAS
321 North Clark Street
Suite 3400
Chicago, illinois
606 10-4795
(312) 644-3000
CHO1/12031427.5
U
H
H
H
Li
H
H
H
H!
H
One of Their
H
H
U
25
-
Exhibit
A
H
H
ALTERNATIVE I
H
H
U
H:
U
~L•i
Bulk
Truck to
I
Conveyor
Silo
Customer??
Concept for Sodium Sulfate Recovery
Sales
28500 ton/year
Configuration /
Ref. Drawing
P-C Treatment
-
Alt.
1
Price
-
Installed
US$
$6,000,000
Footprint
LxWxH
_________________
Power
kW
750
Drier
Duty
MMBTU/h
0.35
Major Equipment
OOM
Total
Installed Cost
$6,000,000
$
4,800,000
to
$8,400,000
Falling
Film Evaporator
(Brine Conc)
Forced Circulation
Crystallizer (Brine XL)
MVR
Compressor
2
Condensate pumps
2 Evaporator feed pumps
2 Evaporator discharge pumps
__________
Purge pump
___________
Conveyor
__________
Dryer
Annual
Operating Costs
$k/year
Power
329
Maint
180
Depre.
400
Gas
7
SuIf sales
-
Total
915
$/mt
32
$/mt above
23000
166
Estimates are 0DM
based on evaporation
rates above and similar unit&bufltpreviously
Exhibit
B
H
H
ALTERNATIVE 2
H
H
H
H
H
MgSO4
NaOH
Feed
•Na2SO4
to bulk
truck
Sales
28500
ton/year
Configuration/ Ref.
Drawing
P-C
Treatment
-
Alt.
1
Price
-
Installed
US$
$6,000,000
Footprint
L
x W x H
____________________
Power
kW
750
Drier Duty
MMBTU/h
0.35
Major Equipment
OOM Total
Installed
Cost
$6,000,000
$
4,800,000
to
$8,400,000
Annual
Operating Costs
Falling Film
Evaporator (Brine Conc)
$k/year
Forced Circulation Crystallizer (Brine
XL)
Power
329
MVR Compressor
Maint
180
2 Condensate pumps
Depre.
400
2 Evaporator feed
pumps
Gas
7
2 Evaporator discharge
pumps
SuIf sales
-
Purge pump
Total
915
Conveyor
$/mt
I
32
Dryer
$/mt above 23000I
166
Estimates are 0DM based on evaporation
rates above and similar units built previously
Exhibit
C
ALTERNATIVE 3
Lime
Feed
Na2SO4
to bulk
truck
11
U
H
H
U
~1
U
U
U
¶__
_i
U
U
U
L•~•~
Sales
28500
ton/year
Configuration / Ref.
Drawing
P-C Treatment
-
Alt.
1
Price
-
Installed
US$
I
$6,000,000
Footprint
L
x W x H
L
Power
kW
750
Drier Duty
MMBTU/h
0.35
Major Equipment
OOM Total Installed Cost
$6,000,000
$
4,800,000
to
$8,400,000
Falling Film Evaporator
(Brine Conc)
Forced Circulation
Crystallizer (Brine XL)
MVR Compressor
2 Condensate pumps
2 Evaporator feed
pumps
2 Evaporator discharge pumps
Purge pump
Conveyor
Sulf sales
-
Total
915
$/mt
32
Dryer
$/mt above 23000
166
Estimates are 0DM based on evaporation
rates
above and similar units built previously
Annual
Operating Costs
$k/year
Power
329
Maint
180
Depre.
400
Gas
7
