ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 15,
1979
TEXACO,
INC.,
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 78—306
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
Petitioner has requested a five year variance from Rule
406 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution.
Rule 406 requires a stand-
ard of 3.0 mg/i ammonia nitrogen in the effluent from Peti—
tioner~spetroleum refinery in Lockport.
The Agency has
recommended a two year variance.
No hearing was held.
The Lockport Refinery has the capacity to process
78,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
In 1977 the re—
finery~swastewater treatment plant discharged an average
of 3490 gallons of effluent per minute which was admixed
with once through cooling water and discharged to the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
The ammonia nitrogen in
the effluent comes from the intake water
(also from the
canal),
the sour—water strippers,
and a water degassing
drum.
The wastewater treatment plant consists of pH
control, oil/water separation,
equalization, air flotation,
activated sludge treatment and sludge disposal.
Nitrifi—
cation has reduced ammonia concentrations to 1,5 mg/l during
the warmer months as
long as
intake ammonia has not increased
or malfunctions have been avoided in the strippers or
degassing drum.
Petitioner suspects that unidentified pollu-
tants have occasionally been toxic to the nitrifying bacteria
causing upsets in the system.
This system has produced annual
average concentrations of ammonia of 5.7 mg/l
in 1976,
5.4
mg/i in 1977,
and 3,7 mg/l during the first eight months of
1978,
Petitioner intends to improve its system through the
addition of a new 100 gpm sour—water stripper and install-
ation of caustic injection facilities
to remove ammonia
presently not amenable to steam stripping.
These improve-
ments will be completed by November, 1979, but Petitioner
33—117
—2—
will still not be assured of meeting the 3.0 mg/l standard
during the colder months or during times
of high ammonia
intake.
Petitioner is proposing to use the remainder of
the variance to conduct continued studies of further
improvements to meet the standard.
Petitioner contends that the impact of this variance
would be minimal since its discharge will contribute only
.023 mg/l to the 1977 average of 4.5 mg/l in the canal.
Petitioner claims
it should not be forced to curtail pro-
duction to meet a standard which other dischargers are not
required to meet (through variances)
and which requires
treatment better than federally defined best practicable
treatment.
As interim limitations Petitioner proposes to
meet the federal standards
in its NPDES permit.
These are
184 Kg/day average and
405
Kg/day maximum.
In its Recommendation the Agency points out that the
new sour—water stripper will probably not solve the problems
experienced during cold weather,
The Agency has encouraged
Petitioner to explore the possibilities of using waste steam
and/or partial enclosure to assist nitrification during cold
weather.
The Agency feels that two years should allow ample
time to complete the planned improvements and prepare a plan
for compliance.
The Board agrees that compliance with the 3.0 mg/l stand-
ard at this time would constitute arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship.
Although the costs associated with compliance are
not quantified,
they would probably be substantial.
These
costs should not be incurred now when substantial progress
has been made and improvement
is expected.
When these costs
are coupled with the fact that Petitioner’s discharge will
have minimal impact on the receiving
stream,
they are
rendered unreasonable,
The Board agrees with the Agency’s
suggestion that Petitioner should explore the feasibility
of heating or enclosing the treatment facilities to enhance
nitrification.
A similar proposal
was
made by the Petitioner
in Union Oil Company
v. EPA,
PCB 78-168.
That case addressed
a problem similar to Petitioner’s.
The Board is concerned about Petitioner’s emphasis on
compliance with Federal standards.
These standards are based
on an analysis of refinery effluent throughout the country,
and do not reflect Petitioner’s present capability.
The
3.0 mg/l standard is based on a strategy for achievement and
maintenance of downstream dissolved oxygen concentrations.
The Board will reluctantly accept these standards
as an
interim measure since
it has not been advised of any other
alternative.
The Board prefers to limit this variance to two years
so that it can remain advised of Petitioner’s attempts to
resolve this problem.
The Agency’s recommended date of
33—118
—3—
February 1,
1980 appears reasonable as a deadline for submission
of these plans.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that
Petitioner be granted a variance from Rule 406 of Chapter
3: Water Pollution until March
31,
1981 subject to the
following conditions:
1)
The discharge of ammonia nitrogen into the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal
shall not exceed a daily
average of 184 Kilograms/day and daily maximum of
405 Kilograms/day.
2)
Petitioner
shall,
no later than February 1, 1980
submit a written technical proposal to the Agency
detailing methods to be pursued to eliminate the
nitrification problems encountered during cold weather.
3)
Within 45 days
of the date of this Order, Petitioner
shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Variance Section,
2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield,
Illinois 62706,
a Certification of
Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to all the terms
and conditions
of this variance.
This
45 day period
shall be held in abeyance during any period this matter
is appealed.
The form of the Certification shall be
as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We)
,
having
read and fully understanding the Order in PCB 78—306, hereby
accept that Order and agree
to be bound by all of its terms and
conditions.
SIGNED ______________________
TITLE ________________________
DATE _________________________
The Agency
is authorized to modify Petitioner’s NPDES
permit in a manner consistent with this Order.
33—119
—4—
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opiniop and Order
were adopted on the
day of___________________
l979byavoteof_______________________
Christan L. Moffé
Clerk
Illinois Pollutio
ontrol Board
33—120