ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 4, 1973
    SHELL OIL COMPANY
    )
    (WOOD RIVER)
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 73-116
    )
    ENVIRONNENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    Mr. William D. Maer appeared for Shell Oil Company;
    Mr. Dale R. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for the
    Environmental Protection Agency.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Duinelle):
    On March 21, 1973, a variance petition was filed by Shell
    asking for a variance from complying with Rule 408 of the Water
    Pollution Regulations. The Agency’s recommendation, filed April
    25, 1973, contained a recommendation to grant the variance. A
    hearing was held on June 29, 1973.
    The Wood River Refinery is located in Wood River Township,
    Madison County, Illinois. It is the largest refinery located
    in Illinois and has a nominal crude oil processing capacity of
    260,000 barrels per day. It produces a wide range of petroleum
    products that are marketed throughout the midwest. Approximately
    2,000 people are employed at the refinery complex.
    Shell submitted an operating permit application for the
    refinery’s waste water treatment facility on September 22, 1972.
    On January 11, 1973, Shell modified its permit application to show
    an average effluent cyanide concentration of 0.09 mg/l instead of
    0.016 mg/i. This modification occurred after testing by the
    Federal Environmental Protection Agency which sampled Petitioner’s
    effluent and found that it contained a higher than reported level
    of cyanide.
    Rule 408 of the Water Pollution Regulations sets forth a
    0.025 effluent standard for cyanide dischargers effective December
    31, 1973. Shell’s effluent empties into the Mississippi River
    which has a dilution ratio of approximately 2300:1 when comparing
    the seven-day
    -
    ten-year low flow to the refineryTs 6 MGD waste
    water flow. Shell alleges that cyanide levels in the Mississippi
    River average 0.0035 mg/i which is below the 0.01 mg/i required
    for Public and Food Processing Water Supply by Rule 204 of the
    Water Pollution Regulations. Petitioner seeks a variance to allow
    them to discharge no more than 0.20 mg/I at any time not to exceed
    0.09 as a monthly average.
    -2-
    Shell has stated that the cyanide discharge occurs as a waste
    stream from their catalytic crackers and to force compliance with
    Rule 408 on December 31, 1973 would require the discontinuance of
    the cracking units with the result of shutting down the refinery.
    The Agency has recommended that the Board grant the variance.
    The Board finds this petition to be similar to that filed by
    Texaco, PCB 73-6, decided July 19,
    1973.
    There, as in the present
    case, Petitioner was seeking a variance from Rule 408. In Texaco
    (PCB 73-6), we denied the variance from Rule 408 because the Peti-
    tioner had not come forth with a program to achieve cyanide reduction.
    No date was given as to the date for ultimate compliance.
    The Board
    was not given any commitment as to the type of cyanide control program.
    Shell has not presented any time table to the Board showing
    ultimate compliance, nor has it set forth what type of a program it
    is going to undertake to control the problem.
    Mere reference to
    “laboratory investigations
    are continuing” is not sufficient enough
    to identify the “pig in a poke” (Texaco, 73-6).
    The record has an allusion that the new Shell process for cyanide
    removal may be patentable (R, 25). If this is
    found to be
    the case
    by Shell, then the Board has non-disclosure provisions which
    can be
    used for protection.
    In its petition, Shell states that it was in conformance with
    the cyanide standard as late as April 1972. The testimony given
    by a Shell witness delineates discovery of the high cyanide levels after
    Federal testing in September 1972 (R. 18),
    We make no judgment on the basic question of the availability
    of cyanide removal technology. Once Shell reveals their promising
    process both the Agency and the Board will be better able to make
    that judgment.
    One further comment. The computations as to the effect of the
    cyanide discharges by Shell on the cyanide content of the Mississippi
    River are not persuasive. The full volume of the River is not
    immediately available for mixing (unless a jet diffuser is used) and
    no showing is made as to the cyanide levels at the edge of the mixing
    zone. This information should be supplied in aii3Tfuture proceeding.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board.
    0 RDE R
    The Pollution Control Board denies Shell Oil’s petition for
    variance without prejudice.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    a —
    396
    -3-
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    certify that the a~ piion and Order was adopted by the Board on
    the
    ‘~‘
    day of
    _________________,
    1973, by a vote of
    4’
    to ~
    U~L~
    a
    —~7

    Back to top