ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 23, 1986
    MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 85—83
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    MESSRS. JEFFREY E. FORT AND JOSEPH S. WRIGHT, JR. OF
    MARTIN,
    CRAIG, CHESTER & SONNENSCHEIN APPEARED FOR PETITIONERS;
    MR. RICHARD C. WARRINGTON APPEARED FOR RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Marlin):
    This matter comes before the Board upon the June 18, 1985
    filing by Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) of a petition for
    extension of variance from the total dissolved solids (TDS)
    (1,000 mg/i) and chloride (500 mg/i) water quality standards
    (WQS) located at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208. Marathon was ordered
    to submit an amended petition on June 27, 1985. On August 8,
    1985 a responsive filing was submitted. In response to a Board
    Order dated September 5, 1985, Marathon submitted a filing
    addressing whether relief could be granted consistent with
    federal law. It was construed by the Board on October 10, 1985
    as an amended petition. Marathon requests a five year
    variance. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    recommends a grant of variance subject to conditions. A hearing
    was held in Robinson, Illinois on October 22, 1985. No members
    of the public were present.
    Marathon owns an oil refinery in Robinson, Illinois which
    has a capacity of 205,000 bbls/day. The 1980 refinery capacity
    was 195,000 bbls/day. Marathon currently employs 638 persons.
    Marathon owns and operates its own wastewater treatment
    facilities. These facilities consist of two API separators, a
    chemical flocculation unit, an air flotation unit, an aerated
    surge basin, an activated sludge unit, a final clarifier, an
    equalization pond to maintain a constant load on the tertiary
    sand filters and a stormwater impoundment basin.
    Discharge by Marathon pursuant to NPDES Permit No. 1L0004073
    is to an unnamed tributary of Sugar Creek, to Sugar Creek, then
    to the Wabash River. The unnamed tributary has a 7 day, 10 year
    low flow of zero at the point of discharge from Marathon’s
    facilities. Municipal and industrial wastewater discharges
    account for an average flow of 5.58 cubic feet per second (cfs)
    67-513

    2
    in the tributary. Marathon contributes 3.5 cfs, while the two
    upstream dischargers, the City of Robinson and Briggs
    Manufacturing Company, discharge 2.00 cfs and 0.10 cfs,
    respectively. The tributary is one—third to two—thirds of a foot
    deep (Exh. C to Petition).
    Marathon was granted a prior five year variance from the
    equivalent of Section 304.105 (old rule 402 of Chapter 3) as it
    applies to discharges causing violations of the TDS and chloride
    WOS of Section 302.208 (formerly rule 203(f)) subject to
    conditions (PCB 80—102, October 2, 1980). Interim effluent
    limitations were 3500 mg/i TDS and 700 mg/i chloride. The
    variance expired October 2, 1985. One of the conditions of the
    variance was for Marathon to study the feasibility of:
    1. separate treatment and disposal of high TDS waste
    streams,
    2. constructing a holding basin to retain the high TDS
    water until it can be released during times of high
    flow, and
    3. obtaining low TDS water for dilution of the effluent
    during times of low flow, including a study of whether
    this would be a sound conservation practice.
    Alternatives Studied
    The Radian Study commissioned by Marathon addresses the technical
    and economic feasibility of each. (Pet. Exh. 2). All three were
    found to be technically feasible by Radian (Id. at 3—28).
    The first alternative involves segregation of high TDS waste
    streams by reverse osmosis. The literature search conducted by
    Marathon identified advances in membrane technology for reverse
    osmosis (Pet. Exh. 1 at 2, 3, 4). The search also identified
    problem areas such as brine disposal and expensive pretreatment
    to control membrane fouling (Id. at 4). The Radian study
    concurred and pointed out that one of the constituents of
    refinery effluent, oil, is a prime membrane fouler (Pet. Exh. 2
    at 3—11). Capital costs for the first alternative were $1.3
    million. The $1.3 million figure includes the purchase of 15
    surface acres of land for construction of a 10 million gallon, 20
    foot deep pond. If the brine residue was to be deep well
    injected, the cost would rise to $2.6 million. Annual operating
    and maintenance costs were estimated at $270,900 with the ponds
    and $299,100 with deep well injection (Pet. Exh. 2, Table 3—4 at
    3—16). If the brine is not deep well injected, it would be
    stored in the pond and released during high flow events. The
    study reports, however, that the land for such a pond is not
    readily available at the refinery. The pond size could be
    reduced to 2.5 million gallons if deep well injection is used
    (Id. at 3—17). Marathon asserted that the concentrated brine is
    67-514

    3
    more toxic than the normal discharge (Id. at 3—28). Marathon does
    not consider deep well injection a proper disposal method.
    The second alternative consists of segregation of high TDS
    waste streams, storage of it in a pond, and its discharge during
    high flow events. Marathon asserts that the problem with this
    alternative is that the exact modifications to the existing
    system and the attendant costs are difficult to predict.
    Therefore, the costs of this alternative as presented by the
    study were based on a new separate system (Pet. Exh. 2 at 3—
    18). The capital cost for this alternative is $5.6 million, $4.4
    million of which is for land for a 10 million gallon pond. As
    discussed in alternative 1, this land is not readily available.
    Annual operating and maintenance costs would be $212,000 (Id. at
    3—21, Table 3—5).
    The third alternative involves the pumping of ground water
    to dilute the treated TDS discharge. New pumps would be needed
    as well as a new five mile, fourteen—inch diameter pipeline. The
    $1.7 million capital cost does not include expansion of the
    existing gravel pit or, if needed, the digging of a new well on
    the refinery site. Annual operating and maintenance costs would
    be $80,000 (Pet. Exh. 2, Table 3—6 at 3—24). The study authors
    concluded that “the principle of using pristine ground—water
    resources to improve the quality of a short stream segment...is
    not considered a wise use of resources....” (Id. at 3—25, 3—26).
    Water Quality
    Marathon submitted TDS and chloride data for the tributary
    in graph form for the years 1979 through December 1984, roughly
    accounting for most of the prior variance period. The results
    show consistent exceedences of the 1,000 mg/i TDS WQS at Outfall
    001 (Exh. D—l to Petition). Exceedences of the 500 mg/i chloride
    WQS also are shown in the tributary at Outfall 001 but none
    downstream in Sugar Creek (Id., Exh. D—2).
    The Agency’s 1978 study showed average TDS levels one and
    one half miles downstream of Marathon’s discharge were in excess
    of 1900 mg/i, and chloride levels averaged 400 mg/i. (Resp. Exh.
    A, Agency Rec. at 5). The Agency also furnished the Discharge
    Monitoring Report data for TDS and chloride for Marathon’s
    Outfall 001 for February 1984 through July 1985. The interim
    maximum TDS effluent limitation was not exceeded while the
    interim chloride limitation was exceeded twice (Agency Rec. at
    4). The monthly TDS effluent averages all exceeded 1,000 mg/i.
    Two chloride monthly averages exceeded the WQS of 500 mg/i
    (Agency Rec. at 4).
    No exceedences of the TDS or chloride WQS have been shown to
    exist downstream in the Wabash River.
    The Radian Study reported a range of 326 to 1063 mg/i TDS
    upstream of the Marathon outfall (Pet. Exh. 2 at 4—8). The study
    67-515

    4
    estimated that without the discharges of the City of Robinson and
    Briggs Manufacturing, the natural tributary TDS concentration
    would approximate 250 mg/i. Id. If only the Marathon discharge
    was terminated, the authors estimated that the instream tributary
    TDS would exceed the WQS 35 percent of the time (Id. at 4—9).
    The statements in the record claim that there are no human
    uses of the tributary such as swimming, fishing, and boating and
    that, therefore, there is minimal adverse effect to human health
    or human activities.
    No known survey of the biological community of the tributary
    exists other than a 1976 biological investigation by the Illinois
    Natural History Survey wherein stream degradation was found
    downstream of the City of Robinson’s and Marathon’s discharges
    (Exh. H to Pet., PCB 80—102, October 2, 1980 Opinion at 2). To
    supplement the paucity of data on the tributary biota, the Radian
    authors cite two USEPA Water Quality Criteria documents. The
    first states that TDS becomes unsuitable for most freshwater fish
    at 15,000 mg/l (EPA Quality Criteria for Water, #EPA—440/9—76—
    023, 1976 as cited in Pet. Exh. 2 at 4—li). A prior document
    from the National Academy of Sciences to the USEPA stated that
    the “TDS level that will affect freshwater fish by osmotic stress
    is between 5,000—10,000 mg/i depending on the species and prior
    acclimatization.” (EPA Water Quality Criteria 1972, EPA—R3—73—
    033 as cited in Pet. Exh. 2 at 4—13). The Radian authors
    conclude that the tributary levels under worst possible
    conditions would not exceed 2000 (Pet. Exh. 2 at 4—l2&l3).
    Discussion
    Based on recent correspondence from the USEPA in two
    regulatory proceedings, the Board by Order dated September 5,
    1985 directed the parties to address whether the Board could
    grant site—specific or variance relief pursuant to the Clean
    Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1257 et. seq.) (CWA), specifically
    Sections 303 and 510 (Id., §S 1313 and 1370). Upon meeting with
    the USEPA, the Agency represents that variances can be granted
    consistent with the Clean Water Act. This position is based on a
    November 1977 Memorandum of Agreement between the Agency and the
    USEPA. The underlying rationale is that a variance only involves
    a temporary relaxation of compliance with the WQS and that
    ultimately compliance is required. Marathon correctly argues
    that such a variance thus is not a new or modified WQS within the
    meaning of Section 303 of the CWA and does not have to be
    submitted to USEPA for approval. Recently the Board has granted
    a variance from the TDS and chloride WQS. Borden Chemical
    Company v. IEPA, PCB 82—82 (December 5, 1985). The Board need
    not address the other arguments presented for the disposition of
    this case.
    Marathon alleges that to require it to comply with the TDS
    and chloride WQS would impose an arbitary or unreasonable
    hardship (Petition at 8). First Marathon states that there is no
    67-516

    5
    economically reasonable and technologically feasible means to
    accomplish compliance. Second, that its effluent causes no
    injury to or interference with the public health, safety, and
    welfare. Third, that permitting its discharge even though it
    exceeds the WQS would have no significant adverse environmental
    impact on the Sugar Creek drainage area to the Wabash River (Id.
    at 8—9).
    Marathon’s first argument is inconsistent with the Radian
    Study’s conclusions that all three alternatives are
    technologically feasible means for Marathon to comply with the
    WQS (Pet. Exh. 2 at 3—28). If Marathon’s effluent meets the WQS
    it would be in compliance with Section 302.208. The issue of
    compliance with Section 304.105 is another matter. If Marathon’s
    effluent did not meet the WQS at the pipe a fair reading of
    Section 304.105 would find it contributing to a violation.
    As to the economic reasonableness of requiring Marathon to
    comply, the $5.6 million price tag of alternative two is high.
    The cost of alternative three is high and ~zouldinvolve an
    unacceptable use of groundwater. Alternative one appears
    promising in light of the advances in reverse osmotic membrane
    technology in recent years. However, it could involve injecting
    hazardous brine waste into the ground. Marathon asserts the land
    needed for the alternative of pond storage is “not readily
    available.”
    In any future variance or site—specific proceeding, Marathon
    is to submit economic data on itself and the Robinson plant.
    This will help to place the cost of compliance in perspective.
    Based on this record, one cannot reach reliable conclusions
    regarding the exact impact of Marathon’s discharges on the
    environment. It is clear, however, that the receiving tributary
    is degraded and suffers water quality violations. Marathon’s
    assertions do not appear to be adequately supported.
    In any future proceeding, the Board expects that Marathon
    will present more complete data on the stream and alternate
    compliance or mitigation options. Basing assumptions about TDS
    on one sample at the Robinson Sewage treatment plant is
    unacceptable. The Board will also expect consideration of
    variants to alternative one which would decrease TDS and chloride
    levels in the stream during the periods of lowest flow. It is at
    this time that aquatic life requires the most protection. It is
    conceivable that a smaller pond for two month’s storage or
    removal of less TDS from another wastestream could be beneficial
    to the stream even if total compliance was not achieved.
    The Board does not accept Marathon’s contention that a
    compliance plan is in place. Therefore, as a condition of the
    variance, Marathon will be ordered to submit a complete proposal
    for site—specific regulatory relief by a date certain or a plan
    schedule for compliance. The Board cautions Marathon,
    67-517

    6
    however, that questions have been raised by USEPA about relief
    from a water quality standard on site specific rules.
    The Board finds that compliance, with the TDS and chloride
    WQS of Section 302.208 would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
    hardship at this time, considering the environmental impact.
    The Board hereby grants Marathon a variance for Outfall 001 at
    its Robinson refinery from the TDS and chloride WQS of 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 302.208. To the extent requested (Pet, at 10), the
    Board grants relief from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.105. The variance
    will be for a period of five years, upon obtaining site—specific
    regulatory relief or coming into compliance. If Marathon does
    not propose a compliance schedule or apply for site specific
    relief by February 1, 1987 the variance will terminate. These
    cdnditions and those that follow will assure compliance either
    through a regulatory change or through the installation of
    compliance technology.
    Should Marathon not receive relief from the WQS in a site—
    specific proceeding, it shall submit a compliance plan to the
    Agency within 60 days of denial of site specific relief and come
    into compliance by the end of the variance period. The interim
    effluent limit of 3500 mg/i TDS will be reduced to 2500 mg/i.
    While in August 1982 the effluent measured 3805 and 4588 mg/i
    TDS, the other values approximated 2500 mg/i. The 1983, 1984,
    and 1985 values support the lowering of the 3500 mg/i TDS interim
    effluent standard to 2500 mg/i (Exh. D—i to Petition). Other
    conditions, none of which have been objected to by Marathon, will
    be included in the Order.
    The dates in the Order have been changed from those in the
    Agency Recommendation where appropriate. Because the original
    petition was timely filed and delays were beyond Marathon’s
    control, this variance shall begin on October 2, 1985.
    This concludes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions
    of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    Marathon Petroleum Company is granted a variance from the
    TDS and chloride WQS of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.105 as it relates
    to the TDS and chloride water quality standards of Section
    302.208 for Outfall 001 at its Robinson, Illinois refinery
    subject to the conditions below:
    1. Variance shall begin on October 2, 1985.
    2. Variance shall expire on October 2, 1990 or upon
    Marathon obtaining a site—specific regulatory change,
    whichever occurs first. However, in the event that
    Marathon does not file for a site specific rule change
    or file a compliance schedule with the Agency by
    67-518

    7
    February 1, 1987 this variance will terminate on that
    date.
    3. Marathon shall:
    a) conduct an investigation by November 30, 1986 of
    the aquatic biological community in the Sugar Creek
    Tributary to confirm or refute the studies by the
    Illinois Natural History Survey and the Agency in
    1976 and 1978.
    b) conduct sampling of the Sugar Creek Tributary to
    determine representative background levels of TDS
    by November 30, 1986.
    c) Submit the data in (a) and (b) above and any other
    necessary data including updated literature
    reviews, a TDS/chloride control study and any pilot
    plant experiments in support of a rule change, as
    well as a proposal for a rule change or a
    compliance schedule, by February 1, 1987.
    4. Should relief in the site specific proceeding be denied,
    Marathon shall, within 60 days from the date of the
    denial or two years before the expiration of the
    variance, submit a plan to the Agency to come into full
    compliance by the expiration date of the variance.
    5. Variance shall apply only to Outfall 001 which shall be
    limited during the period of the variance as follows:
    Chloride
    700 mg/i
    TDS
    2,500 mg/i
    6. Marathon shall operate its existing treatment facilities
    so as to minimize its discharge of chloride and TDS
    below the limits of 5 above if possible.
    7. Marathon shall execute and forward to James C. Frost,
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Compliance
    Assurance Section, Division of Water Pollution Control,
    2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706, and to
    the Pollution Control Board within twenty—eight days
    after the date of the Board Order herein a Certificate
    of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to all the terms
    and conditions of the Variance, the form of said
    Certificate to be as follows:
    67-519

    8
    CERTIFICATION
    Marathon Petroleum Company, an Ohio corporation, has received and
    understands the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in
    PCB 85—83 dated January 23, 1986 and hereby accepts said Order
    and agrees to be bound to all of the terms and conditions
    thereof.
    Petitioner
    By: Authorized Agent
    Date
    Title
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Opinon and Order was
    adopted on the
    __________________
    day of
    ___________________,
    1986
    byavoteof
    -7-o
    .
    /
    Dorothy M. Günn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control B~~I
    67-520

    Back to top