ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

5,

1983

TEXACO,

INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 81—96

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

ROY M.

HARSCH (MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTER

& SONNENSCHEIN) APPEARED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

PETER ORLINSKY

(ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.D. Dumelle):

This matter comes before

the Board on a permit denial

appeal

filed by Texaco,

Inc.

(Texaco)

on June

9,

1981.

On March 18, 1981

Texaco requested that the operating permit for its incinerator be

renewed.

~Thatpermit had formerly been issued by the Agency on

July 5,

1979 and was due to expire on June 11,

1981.

The

Agency

denied that request on May

5,

1981.

The Agency’s record on the

appeal was filed September

3,

1981.

After numerous postponements,

the parties were ordered

to hearing by Board Order of October 274

1982.

Hearing was held on December

6,

1982, where the parties

proposed an agreement consisting of four permit conditions.

The Texaco incinerator at issue

is located at its Lockport

Refinery.

It has a rated capacity of 78,000 barrels of crude

oil per operating day.

Production at the refinery ceased as of

June

1,

1981 and to date the refinery is “mothballed”. However,

certain operations,

including the wastewater treatment plant

continue to operate.

The treatment plant is needed to treat

remaining flows, wastowater resulting from cleaning and flushing

various units and tanks,

and any contaminated surface runoff.

The contested operating permit involves the incinerator used

to

thermally decompose sludges removed in the treatment of industrial

refinery process water and contaminated surface runoff, and

sludges taken from tank bottoms and process vessel cleanings.

Before being charged to the incinerator, the sludge is

gravity thickened and dewatered by centrifuging

to reduce its

volume.

Texaco estimated that approximately 5,083,000 gallons of

52-127

---

2

sludge were incinerated in 1978, but was unable when filing the

petition to estimate the volume which would be treated once the

refinery was mothballed.

Texaco averred that the normal

composition of the material fed to the incinerator is 76.1

water, 6.6

oil, 17.35

solids.

The Agency estimated that the

incinerator disposed of sludges containing 12

to 17

solids,

(Permit Analysis,

April

28,

1981).

Thus, the incinerator at the

Lockport Refinery constitutes

a liquid waste incinerator.

The incinerator was originally installed

in 1970.

It was

permitted in 1973 and 1979.

The last permit included a special

condition that the particulate matter concentr~ition

iii

Lhe

effluent stream be tested within one year of that permit’s

issuance.

Texaco conducted that test on June

9, 1980 and sub-

mitted the results on June 24,

1980.

Shortly thereafter Texaco

modified its

scrubber,

so it conducted a second series of stack

tests on February 26,

1981.

These results were submitted with

the permit renewal request.

Based on the second series of tests the Agency determined

that the average emission rate of emissions from the incinerator

to he 0.215 grain per standard cubic

foot

(gr/SCF).

The Agency

premised its May

5,

1981 denial on the fact that this average was

greater than the 0.08 gr/SCF allowed for incinerators burning

more than 2000 pounds per hour pursuant to Rule 203~e) (2) of

Chapter 2.

Texaco argues that the Agency’s denial was in error because

Rule 203(e)(2)

is not applicable to its liquid waste

incinerator

given the

two 1976 cases of ~on

Waste

Man~9~rnent

Services

Inc.

V.

IEPA,

PCB 75—413,

21 PCB 75

(April

8,

1976) and ~yon Waste

Mana~jementServices,

Inc.

V.

IEPA,

PCB 76-166,

24 PCB 419

iD~~pmher

16,

1976).

With those cases the Board found that Rule

203(e) (2)

is not applicable to liquid waste incinerators.

Furthermore,

since this appeal was filed,

the decision

in

Album,

Inc.

v. IEPA,

PCB 80—189 and 80-190,

February 17,

1982

again held that Rule 203(e)(2)

is not applicable to liquid waste

incinerators.

That decision had been appealed;

oral arguments

in

liii

noi~_

en

tal

Protection

~encyj~

Pollut

ion

Control

Board~ and_Alburn,_Ln~c~,No.

82-666

were

heard

by

the

First

District Appellate Court on

December

2,

1982.

No

decision

has

been issued

to

date

by

that

Court.

At hearing, the applicability issue was not argued by either

party.

Instead the parties offered four conditions they found

mutually acceptable.

(R.4.)

As

no evidence or argument in support

of the conditions has been given the Board,

the Board declines

to “place its imprimatur” on them and

to

order

their

inclusion

in

a

permit

(See

Minn.

Minin~&Mf~j.

Co.

v.

IEPA,

PCB

77-71,

May

5,

1983).

In

fact,

one

of

those

conditions

was

that

the

permit

be

reopened should

the Agency’s appeal

in the First

District be successful. Not only is Lhis condition unnecessary,

but is also indicative that the parties do not seek an adjudicated

resolution, but rather

a settlement.

52-128

---

3

However, since

the appeal has not been withdrawn the issue

now before the Board is whether or not this

liquid waste incinerator

must comply with Rule 203(e).

Having twice held that Rule

203(e)(2)

is not applicable to liquid waste incinerators, and

finding no reason to overturn the

prior decisions or to distinguish

this case,

the Board

finds the Agency’s

decision

not to renew

the operating permit because the incinerator’s emissions did not

comply

with

Rule

203(e)(2)

limits,

to

be

in

error.

This Opinion constitutues the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It

is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the

decision by the Illinois ~nvironmenta1 Protection Agency of

May

5,

1981,

to deny Texaco,

Inc. an operating permit for its

liquid waste incinerator is reversed,

and that the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency issue an operating permit,

consistent with this Opinion and conditioned to assure compliance

with the Environmental Protection Act and applicable Board

regulations.

IT IS

SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board, hereby~certifythat the above Opinion and Order

was adopted on the

day of

—

~i,

1983

by

a

vote

of

~

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution Control Board