ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 18, 1975

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION,

)

(JOLIET REFINERY),

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

 PCB 75—420

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BO7~RD (by Mr. Zeitlin):

The Petition for Variance in this matter was filed by

Petitioner Mobil Oil Corporation

 (Mobil)

 on October 28,

 1975,

seeking relief from Rule 408(a)

(as

 it applies to cyanide),

and 1002 of Chapter

 3: Water Pollution, of the Pollution

Control Board

 (Board)

 Rules and Regulations.

 PCB Regs.,

Ch.

3,

 Rules 408(a),

 1002.

 The Environmental Protection

Agency

 (Agency) Recommendation was filed on December

4,

 1975.

No hearing was held in this matter.

The relief sought here is essentially the same as that

granted by the Board in two previous Variances for Mobil’s

Joliet Refinery.

 PCB 73—452,

 13 PCB 179

 (1974); PCB 74—393,

15 PCB 253

 (1975).

 In each of those cases the Board’s Opinion

examined the operations of the Joliet Refinery, and the sources

of cyanide in the refinery’s operations.

 We may summarize our

findings there by stating that essentially all of the cyanide-

 bearing wastewaters are generated

 in the fluid catalytic

converter

 (90)

 and coker

 (10)

 operations;

 for further

information, the reader is referred to our earlier Opinions.

As was true in the previous Variance cases, Mobil bases

its petition on a lack of available treatment technology

for the removal of sub-milligram per liter cyanide concentration

levels from refinery wastewaters, and its inability to control

the formation of cyanide and cyanide compounds in the basic

refinery processes.

 We accept these contentions, which are

well documented in the records of this and the previous Variance

cases, as well as in the reports submitted by Mobil under the

Orders in PCB 73—452 and PCB 74—393.

524

—2--

Both of the previous Variances were of the “research” type,

wherein the Variance grant is conditioned on the initiation or

continuation of research in an attempt to either eliminate the

contaminant source or to develop a feasible treatment technology,

where no such treatment technology exists.

 As was the case in

the more recent of the prior Variances,

 PCB 74—393, we again

find that Mobil has attempted in good faith to resolve the

cyanide problem at the Joliet Refinery.

 Mobil has continued

its investigation of various unproven technologies, and has

 also attempted to modify fluid catalytic cracker operations

to

control cyanide formation,

 all without success.

Mobil has complied with all other conditions of the previous

Variances,

 concerning attempts to arrive at more accurate testing

methods and extensive sampling and reporting requirements.

The same factors found in our earlier Opinions remain:

1.

 The record again fails to show a suitable

means of removing the cyanide from the Joliet Refinery’s

effluent, giving rise to sufficient hardship for the

grant of the Variance.

2.

 Testing to date has failed to show any

adverse environmental effect on the Des Plaines

River,

 the refinery’s receiving stream.

Weighing these factors, we find that the grant of a Variance

has once again been justified.

 The only remaining matter is to

determine the conditions which shall accompany that grant.

First, Mobil asks that the effluent levels contained in the

more recent Variance, PCB 74-393, be continued.

 The Board there

allowed cyanide levels of 0.3 mg/l on a monthly average, with a

maximum at any time of 0.5 mg/l.

 The Agency notes that in 1975,

Mobil’s cyanide effluent has exceeded 0.1 mg/i only 11

 of the

time, and has never exceeded 0.2 mg/i, and therefore suggests a

monthly average limitation of 0.2 mg/i,

 with the level never to

exceed 0.32 mg/i.

 Apparently anticipating such a request by the

Agency, the Petition notes that Mobil is unable to explain the

 decrease in its cyanide effluent content over the last two years,

and postulates that the cyanide levels are dependent on nitrogen

levels in crude oil,

 a factor over which Mobil has no control.

We agree with the Agency.

 The Board will not, in an instance

such as

 this, grant a higher interim limitation than that which

is shown to be necessary.

525

—3—

Second,

 Mobil asks that the requirement that it sample and

analyze water from the Des Plaines, both upstream of the refinery

and at the edge of its mixing zone, be dropped.

 The Agency agrees

that upstream sampling should no longer be required, but notes

that some analyses at the edge of the mixing zone have shown levels

of cyanide approaching the water quality standard of 0.025 mg/i.

We agree with the Agency that continued sampling and analysis at

the edge of the mixing zone will continue to allow measurement of

the effect of the refinery on water quality in the Des Plaines,

and may serve to protect that water quality.

Third, Mobil notes that it has had difficulty in conforming

to that portion of the Board’s prior Order in PCB 74-393 concerning

sampling of “dissociated toxic ions, moderately complexed cyanide

ions that are amenable to alkaline chlorination, highly complexed

cyanide ions that are not amenable to alkaline chlorination

destruction, and cyanide ions associated with organic compounds.”

 15 PCB at 258.

 The difficulty here concerns the lack of acceptable

testing and analytical procedures at sub—milligram levels.

To

resolve this issue, we shall require that only a portion of this

testing breakdown of Mobil’s effluent be continued.

 Our Order

here shall require only that Mobil report on those cyanides present

in its wastewater that are amenable to alkaline chlorination, and

its total cyanide effluent.

The remaining conditions are identical to those contained in

the Order in PCB 74-393.

We also take notice of the fact that the Board has pending

before it two proposals

 (R 74—15,

 —16) which seek a relaxation of

current general cyanide standards.

 Our Order provides for the

possibility that new standards might be adopted following those

proceedings, and requires that Mobil takes whatever steps are

necessary for compliance with any new, relaxed standard.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

1.

 Petitioner Mobil Oil Corporation is hereby

granted a Variance from Rules 408(a) (cyanide only)

and 1002 of Chapter

 3: Water Pollution,

 of the

Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations for

the period January 24,

 1976 through January 24,

 1977,

subject to the following conditions:

526

—4—

a.

 Petitioner’s cyanide effluent

concentration shall not exceed

 a monthly

average of 0.2 mg/i or a maximum at any

time of 0.32 mg/i during the period of

this Variance.

b.

 Petitioner shall continue its

efforts to develop a control program to

reduce its cyanide effluent concentration

to 0.025 mg/i.

c.

 Petitioner shall continue to

file bi-monthly progress reports with

the Environmental Protection Agency,

such reports to include as a minimum:

(1)

 Progress on all cyanide control

methods being pursued by Petitioner.

(2)

 Any and all records of cyanide

concentration in Petitioner’s effluent,

with at least four determinations to be

made weekly.

(3)

 Any and all records of cyanide

concentrations at the edge of its waste--

water mixing zone, with at least one

determination to be made weekly.

(4)

 At least one study per bi—monthly

reporting period indicating the characteristics

of Petitioner’s cyanide wastes,

 including

but not limited to cyanides amenable to

chlorination and total cyanide.

d.

 Should a technologically feasible

and economically reasonable method of

compliance with the general standard of

0.025 mg/i total cyanide be developed

during the term of this Variance, Petitioner

shall commence immediately to implement such

 method as expeditiously as possible.

e.

 In the event a less restrictive

general effluent limitation for cyanide is

promulgated by this Board as a result of

proceedings currently before the Board,

Petitioner shall within 30 days submit to

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

a final plan for compliance with such new

standard,

 and shall implement such plan

immediately.

527

—5—

2.

 Petitioner Mobil Oil Corporation

within thirty

 (30) days of the date of this

Order shall execute and forward to the

Environmental Protection Agency, Control

Program Coordinator, 2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706,

 a certificate

of acceptance in the following form:

I,

 (We),

__________________________

 having read

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

in case No.

 PCB 75-420, understand and accept said

Order,

 realizing that such acceptance renders all

terms and conditions thereto binding and enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

I, Christan L. Moffett,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify

 he above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

 day of

________

 ,l975 by a vote of ~.p

C ristan

 L. Moff

 Clerk

Illinois Poliutio

 Control Board

528