ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 5,
1974
UNION OIL COMPANY
CHICAGO REFINERY
PETITIONER
)
v.
)
PCB 74—333
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESPONDENT
MR. ARTHUR T.
LENNON, ATTORNEY,
of MURPHY,
TINM, LENNON
& SPESIA,
in behalf of UNION OIL
MR, PAUL
G. CHROMEK, ATTORNEY, in behalf of UNION OIL
MR.
JAMES
SCHLIFKE,
ATTORNEY,
in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECT-
ION
AGENCY
OPINION
AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Marder)
This
action
involves
a
variance
request
filed
by
Petitioner,
Union
Oil Company,
on September 9,
1974.
Relief was requested from Rule
408
(a) of Chapter 3 of the Board’s Water Pollution Control Regula-
tions, as it applies to cyanide.
Variance is requested from Decem-
ber 6,
1974,
through December 6,
1975.
The Agency filed its Recommendation October 18, 1974.
This Recoin-
mendation states the Agency’s opinion that the variance should be
granted, subject to certain conditions.
flearing was held October
23,
1974,
in Joliet, Illinois.
This variance request is for a one-year extension of the variance
granted in our Opinion and Order of December 6,
1973,
Union Oil Com-
pany of California v. Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 72-447,
Vol.
10 PCB Opinions 217, wherein the Board discussea the problems
of measurement of cyanide in the amounts in question, along with the
question of free vs. complex cyanide.
(The reader is recommended to
read the previous Opinion for a more detailed handling of those quest-
ions than will be given here.)
Union Oil Company owns and operates a petroleum refinery two miles
west of Lemont, Illinois, known as the Chicago Refinery.
The refinery
has a gross capacity of 150,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
The re-
finery turns out a complete line of petroleum products.
It has a work
force of 650 employees.
The
effluent
stream
from
the refinery, after treatment and holding,
is discharged into the Sanitary and Ship Canal.
The discharge into
the canal at the time of the original variance request almost continu-
ously violated the standard of 0.025 mg/i.
At the present time,
the
plant meets the effluent criteria approximately two-thirds
of the time.
14—623
—2—
Cyanide is a rather recent problem for refineries.
Cyanide is
produced by what
is alleged to be unknown reactions in the fluid catal-
ytic cracker
(FCC)
and the “coker” units.
In recent years, the cyan-
ide concentration in effluent streams has increased because of
a con-
certed effort on the refineries’ part to lower the amount of water
used in the facility (see Mobil Oil Co.
v. Environmental Protection
Agency,
73-452,
13 PCB Opinions 179).
In the previous matter, the Board determined that there were indeed
problems in measuring cyanide levels
in the range in question.
Fur-
ther,
the Board determined that at that time there was not an adequate
method developed to remove cyanide from the effluent stream at the lev-
els in question.
The Board in granting Union its variance indicated
that Union was to work at a research program to control the cyanide,
as well as keeping the discharge to as low a concentration as possible.
In the previous matter the Board ordered:
“1. Petitioner’s cyanide effluent concentration shall
not exceed an average of 0.20 mg/i during the per-
iod of this variance.
2. At no time shall Petitioner’s single month average
be over 0.3 mg/i cyanide.
3. Petitioner shall utilize any methods
it may find
useful to keep its effluent at the lowest possible
cyanide level.
4. Petitioner shall continue to diligently
pursue its
program of research and development in regards to
cyanide reduction.
5. Petitioner shall submit to the Agency bi-monthly
reports.
Said reports shall include as a minimum:
A)
Progress on all methods being pursued by Pet-
itioner regarding cyanide reduction.
B)
Future work anticipated on methods being pur-
sued by Petitioner.
C)
Any and all records of cyanide concentrations
in Petitioner’s effluent. At least one determin-
ation of cyanide shall be run per week.
D)
What methods if any are being used to comply
with
(3)
of this Order.
6. As soon as a technologically feasible program for cyanide
reduction has been
found,
Petitioner shall commence on a
compliance plan to implement this program.
14—624
—3—
This Order was based on the fact that Union would continue in its
research.
At that time Union was considering the following methods
to control cyanide:
1)
Carbon adsorption
2)
Chlorination
3)
Incineration
4)
Polysulfide injection
5)
Precipitation
6)
A compound produced by Nalco
7)
Ozonation
8)
Wet oxidation
9)
Peroxide treatment
At hearing and in the Petition Union claims the most success with
the ammonia polysulfide injection system with the recycle and ulti-
mate incineration of the cyanide—contaminated water.
1)
Recycle and Incineration:
Union is presently installing pipe work so as to segregate and
recycle cyanide-contaminated water for the FCC and cokers
(R.
54).
The engineering is completed on this part
of the plan and actual in-
stallation
is proceeding
(R.
55).
The plan is to then take this water
and recycle it so as to build up the concentration of contaminants.
At certain times the recycle water will be “blown down” with steam
so as
to take part of the water and divert it to the coking unit,
where the water will be used for quenching the hot coke (circa 2000°F.).
It
is hoped that the amount of water will be small enough for this to
take care of the problem.
If this method of control is successful,
then there will be no cyanide discharge from the refinery. Work on
this project should be completed by Spring of 1975.
Union points out
that if this method proves to be acceptable,
it will not be generally
applicable to the refinery industry as
a whole
(R.
60).
2)
Ammonia Polysulfide Injection:
This method will hopefully convert the cyanide to thiocyanate
(R.
40).
Thiocyanate is used in medication for high blood pressure
and is far less toxic than cyanide
(Agency Rec.
P.
14).
At the pres-
ent time Union has been working on achieving the proper dosage necess-
ary to reduce the cyanide in its effluent.
Union feels that the injection system is probably doing the job,
but at this time results are inconclusive.
Problems with the system
are centered around sulphur fouling other equipment in the refinery’s
waste treatment plant.
To counter this,
Union has been adding ammon-
ia to the solution, but feels the ammonia standard might be in jeo-
pardy.
The results of this method are uncertain because of an inter-
ruption in testing when the FCC was taken out of use in the spring of
1974.
When the unit came back on line the cyanide levels jumped. It
is not known whether the reduction that occurred later was because of
the polysulfide injection or from the FCC unit reaching an optimum op-
erating mode, thereby reducing cyanide formation.
Union anticipates
14—625
—4—
further work on this method, even if the recycle and incineration does
solve the problem,
as an anti-corrosive measure.
Hardship:
Hardship alleged by Union in the event of denial centered
around the need to close the facility in order to comply with the Regu-
lations of the Board.
It has been, and still is, the position of the
Board that a failure to grant a variance is not a shut-down order. Am-
erock Corp.
v. Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 74-3; Forty-Eight
Insulations,
Inc.
v. Environmental Protection Agency,
73-478; Velsicol
Chemical Corp.
v, Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 73-543; El.
du
Pont de Nemours& Co.
v. Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 73-533.
The Board agrees with the Agency Recommendation,
that though shut-down
is not sufficient as a reason for granting a variance, coupled with
the newness of the problem, the unavailability of control technology,
and the good faith effort of Union, Petitioner has met its burden as to
hardship.
Environmental Impact:
In its Recommendation,
the Agency concludes
that the environmental impact in the canal is the same as it was de-
scribed in the original Opinion in PCB 72-447.
“The Agency has calculated that the increase of cyanide
in the Sanitary and Ship Canal would be from 0.0255 mg/i
to 0.0257 mg/l.
This is an increase of .0002 ppm.
Petition-
er’s figures show that during the 7-day 20-year low flow of
the canal the increase of cyanide would be 0.0015 ppm.
It
is alleged that although this amount of cyanide can be mathe-
matically calculatedm it could not be analytically determined
in a sample of canal water
(R.
334).
The opinion of Dr.
Gingham was elicited
(R.
335)
as to the effect of such an in-
crease on the canal.
His response was that there would be
none.
The Agency in its recommendation also stated that it
felt no significant harm to the canal would occur due to
this increase in cyanide concentration.”
Union alleges minimal impact on the stream.
Therefore it appears
that the increase of cyanide in the canal would be from 0.0255 mg/I to
0.0257 mg/i,
for an increase od
.0002 ppm.
It is thought that this in-
crease in cyanide would not cause any significant harm.
The major problems in this case center around the Agency’s desire
to make the conditions
of
a continued variance more restrictive than
those of the present variance.
Union asserts the present variance con-
ditions are fair and that it can work with them, but not more restrict-
ive measures.
At issue are the effluent levels that Union would be re-
quired to meet during the variance period.
Also at issue is the date
to which the variance should run.
The Agency recommends that Union’s
effluent not be allowed to exceed a monthly average of 0.1 mg/l, where-
as the present variance allows Union to discharge a monthly average
of 0.3 mg/l.
The Agency also recommends
that Union’s cyanide discharge
not be allowed to exceed 0.3 mg/i.
The present variance does not al-
low Union to have an average effluent above 0.20 mg/i for the period
of the variance.
The Agency’s reason for this more restrictive eff-
luent standard is based on the decrease of Union’s effluent to date,
in that what the Agency is asking for is being achieved,
except for a
—
626
—5--
two-month period when Union is restarting the FCC.
The effluent re-
sults on monthly averages are as follows:
Month
Effluent to Canal
December 1973
.052
January 1974
.054
February 1974
.065
March 1974
.017
April
1974
.014
May 1974
.296
June 1974
.244
July 1974
.025
August 1974
.019
On its face,
this is a persuasive argument.
Union contends that
a more restrictive standard will not allow it to experiment in its
research program.
Union states that it cannot guarantee a 0.3 mg/l
effluent every day of the variance.
Also Union is worried that with
more crude oil from the Mid-East being used in the Union Oil system,
they don’t know how much cyanide will be produced by the FCC.
There
appears to be a positive correlation between nitrogen in the crude
feed and cyanide formation in the FCC
(R.
66).
Union also feels that
it is difficult for them to run a research program with a moving tar-
get.
The Board feels that because of Union’s good faith effort in its
research program, which seems to be nearing success, that Union should
be given the benefit of the levels incorporated in the previous action.
The Board has just set for hearing a proposed regulation change on the
rule here in question.
Therefore,
since the cyanide standard will be
under review during the next calendar year,
the criteria shall remain
the same, with the proviso that Union shall report to the Agency why
it has excursions above the levels suggested by the Agency.
The Agency also suggests that the variance be granted only until
October 6, 1975.
It feels that this should give Union enough time to
digest the operating results of both the recycle-incinerator program
and the ammonia polysulfide injection system.
The Board will grant
Union variance for the full year or the date that compliance can be
achieved, whichever
is shorter.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that the Union Oil
Company refinery, located two miles west of Lemont,
Illinois,. is grant-
ed variance from Rule 408
(a) (as
it applies
to cyanide)
until the date
when such effluent is in compliance with the applicable standard or
December 6, 1975, whichever is sooner, subject to the following
con-
ditions:
14—627
—6—
1)
Petitioner’s cyanide effluent concentration shall not
exceed an average of
.20 mg/l during the period of the
variance.
2)
At no time shall Petitioner’s single monthly average of
cyanide exceed 0.3 mg/i.
3~ Petitioner shall continue its efforts of developing a cyan-
ide effluent control program to accomplish elimination of
cyanide from the refinery effluent via waste water reuse
or any other means
of control so that the effluent con-
forms to the numerical limit for cyanide in Rule 408
(a)
of Chapter
3.
4)
Petitioner shall at all times keep its cyanide effluent
level to the smallest possible amount.
5)
Petitioner shall submit to the Agency bi-monthly reports.
Said reports shall include
as a minimum:
A)
Progress on all methods being pursued by Petitioner
regarding cyanide reductions and specifically the
ammonia polysulfide injection system and the water-
recycle—incinerator technique;
B)
Progress on other work being done or anticipated or
alternate methods to meet the cyanide standard;
C)
Any and all records of cyanide concentrations in the
Petitioner’s effluent.
At least four
(4)
determinants
shall be run per week;
D)
Reasons why effluent levels had higher than a 0.1 mg/i
monthly average during the reporting period and why
the effluent at any time exceeded 0.3 mg/i during the
reporting period.
6)
As soon as technically feasible program for reduction of eff-
luent levels is found, Petitioner shall report this to the
Agency.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that the abov
Opinion and Order was adopted by the
Board on the
..~“
day of
____________,
1974,
by a vote of ~
to
c~
14—628