ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 3, 1994
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 93—151
(Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
DAVID L. RIESER, of ROSS & HARDIES, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER; and
ROBB H. LAYMAN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter is before the Board on petitioner Mobil Oil
Corporation’s August 18, 1993 petition for variance from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.122, as that section relates to ammonia nitrogen
effluent limitations. Mobil seeks a five—year variance for its
Joliet refinery. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) filed its recommendation on October 27, 1993, and Mobil
filed a response to that recommendation, and a request for
hearing, on November 2, 1993. Hearing was held on December 29,
1993, in Joliet. No members of the public attended.
As set forth below, the Board finds that Mobil would suffer
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship if variance were not
granted. Therefore, variance will be granted, subject to
conditions.
BACKGROUND
Mobil owns and operates a petroleum refinery on Arsenal Road
in Will County, Illinois, approximately 10 miles southwest of
Joliet. This refinery began operation in 1973, and is Mobil’s
newest domestic refining facility. The Joliet facility has a
rated capacity of 190,000 barrels of crude oil throughput per
operating day, and employs approximately 675 people. The
refinery processes high sulfur and high nitrogen North American
crudes, which comprise 70 of total throughput. Its principal
products are motor gasolines and distillate fuel oil. The
refinery also produces kerosene jet fuel, propane, petroleum
coke, sulfur, and some heavy fuel oil. The refinery’s products
are primarily marketed in Illinois and other midwestern states.
(Pet. at 2.)
The Joliet refinery uses water from the Des Plaines River
2
for boiler feed, cooling tower make—up, and non—contact cooling.
Well water is used for drinking, sanitary purposes, and general
services. Separate sewer systems segregate the various types of
water discharged into the Des Plaines. These include stormwater
(Outfall 003), non-contact cooling water (Outfall 002), and
process water which is treated at the refinery’s wastewater
treatment facility before release to the river (Outfall 001).
The refinery design includes advanced water conservation
practices, so that only 14 gallons of water are used per barrel
of crude refined. This compares with an average of 39 gallons
per barrel for the calculated best available technology (BAT)
flow for a refinery of Joliet’s size. However, these
conservation efforts result in a more concentrated effluent.
(Pet. at 3.)
The refinery process wastewater treatment facility consists
of two parallel channels. Each consists of an API oil separator
and an air floatation unit equipped with a mixer for flocculation
and chemical addition, as well as the ability to add acid and/or
caustic for pH adjustment. From the air floatation unit, flow
can be pumped to either a 1½ acre aerated east equalization
basin, or to two 900,000 gallon aeration basins. The aeration
basins flow to two final clarifiers which in turn flow to a 1¼
acre guard basin. The guard basin effluent is split to a cascade
aerator and a stair cascade for additional aeration. These two
streams, along with non-contact cooling water and stormwater,
flow to a recessed basin and then discharge, via an underwater
discharge line, to the Des Plaines River. (Pet. at 3-4; Agency
Rec. at 3.)
RELIEF REOUESTED
Mobil seeks a five—year variance from the ammonia nitrogen
effluent standard established at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122(b).
That subsection limits discharge of ammonia nitrogen to no more
than 3.0 mg/i. Between 1988 and 1993 Mobil operated under a
site—specific ammonia nitrogen rule (35 Iii. Adm. Code 304.214)
that established limitations of 20 mg/i on a monthly average and
35 mg/l as a daily composite. That site—specific rule expired on
December 31, 1988. From 1989 to 1991, however, Mobil was able to
comply with the more stringent general limits of Section
304.122(b), with only one exceedance of those general limits. In
1990 and 1991 Mobil made modifications to its wastewater
pretreatment system in order to comply with federal RCRA
requirements. Mobil states that those modifications adversely
affected the refinery’s ability to reduce ammonia loading, and
that conventional adjustments were not sufficient to restore the
necessary level of performance. Thus, Mobil seeks a five—year
variance, with three years to investigate compliance options, and
the remaining two years to either implement a reduction strategy,
or pursue site-specific relief. (Pet. at 1, 5.)
3
The Agency recommends that Mobil be granted a variance.
However, the Agency recommends that the study period be shortened
to 1½ years (instead of 3 years), which could be extended if
Mobil can provide more data on the progress of the research and
design program. (Agency Rec. at 6-7.) Additionally, the Agency
recommends that the variance terminate earlier if the Joliet
facility shows compliance with the general effluent standard of
Section 304.122(b) for four consecutive quarters. (Agency Rec.
at 7.) Mobil objects to both of these recommendations.
(Response to Rec. at 1—3.) These issues were the focus of the
hearing in this matter.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
Mobil contends that
the impact of the requested variance on
the ammonia nitrogen load in the Des Plaines River would be
insignificant. Mobil has provided a table which summarizes
calculated increases in river ammonia concentrations attributable
to Mobil’s discharge at actual past average performance,
conditions under the now-expired site-specific rule, requested
variance conditions, and conditions permissible under BAT.
(Pet., Table VII.) Mobil concludes that in all cases, Mobil’s
impact is negligible, with a maximum change in ammonia
concentration of 0.198 mg/i at BAT conditions. (Pet. at 6, Table
VII.) Mobil has also included a summary of dissolved oxygen and
ammonia water quality data from 1989 to 1992, and states that
existing water quality in the vicinity of Mobil’s discharge is
well within applicable standards. (Pet. at 6, Table VIII.)
Therefore, Mobil concludes that its requested discharge of
ammonia nitrogen will not threaten water quality standards, and
that there will be no negative effect on the aquatic community in
the Des Plaines or Illinois Rivers. (Pet. at 6.)
The Agency agrees with Mobil’s conclusion that there should
be no long-term impairment of the water’s uses or aquatic life.
(Agency Rec. at 5.)
HARDSHIP
Mobil states that it has evaluated three alternate
technologies, and associated costs for those options. Mobil
lists those technologies as activated sludge with PAC, granular
media filtration/selective ion exchange, and breakpoint
chlorination. Mobil states that the capital investment for these
options would range from $1.9 to $13.8 million, with annual
operating costs between $0.7 to $1.7 million. (Pet., Table IX.)
Mobil concludes that these costs are disproportionately high,
because the average cost to remove an incremental pound of
ammonia above the existing system’s current capability would be
$40 per pound. Mobil states this figure is $32 over the cost
incurred to remove a pound of ammonia using its existing BAT
technology. (Pet. at 6.) Mobil contends that denying a variance
4
would result in an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship, because
proven and cost—effective technology has not been identified,
while its ammonia discharge has an insignificant effect on the
ammonia concentration of the Des Plaines. (Pet. at 8.)
COMPLIANCE PLAN
Mobil proposes that it perform an investigation to determine
the sources of nitrification inhibition and methods to bring the
facility into compliance. This investigation would study
pollutant source survey/control, removal of inhibitors of
biological nitrification, microtox studies, biological nutrient
addition, and respiration studies. (Pet. at 7, Table VI.) Mobil
believes that this study period should continue for three years
from the grant of variance. Mobil states that because
nitrification is a dynamic chemical and biological process, it is
difficult and time-consuming to evaluate problems. At the end of
that three year period, Mobil proposes to file a report with the
Agency indicating its intent to either bring the facility into
compliance or seek site—specific relief. The remaining two years
requested by Mobil would be used to either make the necessary
modifications to achieve compliance, or to pursue site—specific
relief. (Pet. Exh. 3, Table IV; Pet. at 1, 7.)
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
Mobil states, and the Agency agrees, that the Board may
grant Mobil’s requested variance consistent with federal law.
The Agency notes that Mobil’s requested variance limits are still
more restrictive than federally allowable under 40 CFR 419
(1989). (Pet. at 8; Agency Rec. at 6.)
CONCLTJS IONS
After reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments, the
Board finds that immediate compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code
304.122(b) would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
The record demonstrates that Mobil’s current discharges of
ammonia have a minimal impact, while the proper control
technology has not yet been identified. Therefore, the Board
will grant a Variance from Section 304.122(b) for Mobil’s Joliet
refinery, subject to conditions.
As noted above, however, the dispute in this case is over
the proper term of the variance. Mobil requests three years to
research the problem, while the Agency recommends an eighteen
month study period. Mobil contends that it presented unrebutted
testimony at hearing in support of its contention that a three
year study period is necessary. Mobil states that its witness,
Ms. Lilliana Gachich, testified to the steps necessary to
identify and control the current nitrification inhibition, and
notes that Ms. Gachich testified that utilizing outside
5
consultants would not shorten the time frame for study of the
problem (Tr. at 78-79), and that the time frame cannot be
shortened without compromising the quality of the work (Tr. at
42—43). Mobil also points to the testimony of Dr. William
Patterson that the scope of work proposed by Mobil will require a
full three years. (Tr. at 66.) Mobil argues that the Agency did
not present any evidence in support of its position that the work
be performed within 18 months. Thus, Mobil contends that
imposing the 18 month study period would be unreasonable,
arbitrary, and capricious.
In response, the Agency maintains that it is not convinced
that Mobil has exhausted all of the available steps to keep its
research tiinefraxne within a “reasonable’ time period. The Agency
points out that Mobil became aware of the ammonia problem in
early 1992, and thus has had almost two years to study, explore,
and investigate compliance alternatives. The Agency continues to
recommend an 18-month study period, with Mobil having an option
to ask the Board to modify the variance to extend the
investigation phase by the additional 18 months.
The Board will grant Mobil two years for the study of the
problem, and two years to make necessary modifications or seek
permanent relief. We recognize that nitrification inhibition is
a complicated problem, and that the necessary studies and
investigations are time consuming. However, as the Agency points
out, Mobil has been aware of the current problems since early
1992. Additionally, prior to the January 1988 grant of the now-
expired site—specific rule, Mobil’s Joliet facility had operated
under five prior variances for ammonia nitrogen. (Mobil Oil
Corporation v. Illinois Environmental Protection A~ency
(September 20, 1984), PCB 84—37; (June 10, 1982), PCB 82—36;
(July 10, 1980), PCB 80—54; (June 8, 1978), PCB 78—97; (June 9,
1977), PCB 77—22.) The first of those variances was granted on
June 9, 1977. Thus, the Joliet facility has been operating under
variance or site-specific rule for the majority of the past 17
years. We will not, at this time, extend that period for five
additional years. We believe that the record does support a
shortened study period. Mobil’s timetable shows that the bulk of
the study steps are to be completed by the end of 1995. (Pet.
Exh. 3, Table IV.) Granting a two-year study period, until March
3, 1996, will give Mobil some additional time to complete those
steps. Mobil will then have an additional two years, as it has
requested, to make modifications or seek site—specific relief.’
Additionally, the Agency recommends that the variance expire
if the Joliet facility shows compliance with Section 304.122(b)
1
Mobil, like any other variance petitioner, can move for
modification of variance during the pendency of the variance.
6
for four consecutive quarters. The Agency makes this
recommendation based upon its general view that variance relief
should be based upon need. In response, Mobil contends that, as
its witnesses testified, 12 months of compliance may not indicate
that the source of the problem has been identified, or that Mobil
can be assured of continued compliance. (Tr. at 21—22, 67.)
The Board shares the Agency’s general view that variance
relief should be limited to those situations where the petitioner
cannot demonstrate compliance over four consecutive quarters.
However, given the situation presented by this case, where the
ammonia nitrogen standard has presented problems for 17 years,
the Board believes that it is necessary to allow the variance to
run the full four—year term.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
Mobil Oil Corporation, Joliet facility, is hereby granted a
variance from the ammonia nitrogen effluent standard in 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304
.
122(b), subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance expires on March 3, 1998.
2. Mobil shall not exceed ammonia limits of 13 mg/l on a
monthly average basis and 26 mg/I on a daily maximum basis.
3. Mobil shall submit progress reports every six months to
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency), do
Mark Books, Compliance Assurance Section, Bureau of Water,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill
Road, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL 62794—9276. The
progress reports shall describe completed and anticipated
events in the optimization study, and any process changes
made to reduce ammonia nitrogen discharges.
4. By March 3, 1996, Mobil shall submit a report to the
Agency, at the above address, stating whether it has
identified a means for compliance with the general effluent
standard of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122(b). If so, Mobil
shall include a specific plan for achieving compliance,
including preliminary engineering designs for any necessary
construction. If Mobil chooses to seek an alternative
standard, it shall include a draft petition for that
alternative relief.
5. In the event that Mobil chooses to seek an alternative
standard, it shall file its petition with the Board by May
3, 1996.
7
6. Mobil shall continue to operate its wastewater
treatment plant so as to produce the best effluent
practicable and to achieve compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code
304.122(b) as soon as possible.
7. Within 45 days of the date of the final Board order in
this case, Mobil shall execute and forward to Robb Layman,
Division of Legal Counsel, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL
62794—9276, a certificate of acceptance and agreement to be
bound to all terms and conditions of this variance. The 45-
day period will be held in abeyance during any period that
this matter is appealed. Failure to execute and forward
this certificate within 45 days shall render this variance
null and void. The form of the certificate shall be as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I (We),
_______________________________,
hereby
accept and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of
the Pollution Control Board’s March 3, 1994 order in PCB 93-
151.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the a~oveopinion and order was
adopted on the 12 ~
day of ~‘~)i
~
,
1994, by a vote
of~’~C)_.
Lborothy
~
M. ,Gi/nn,
~.
Clerk
/~
Illinois Pó~&ution Control Board