ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
8,
1976
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—342
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Messrs.
Arthur
T.
Lennon,
E.
Kent Ayers, and Paul G.
Chromek,
Attorneys,
appeared for
the
Petitioner;
Mr.
John
T.
Bernbom and Ms. Barbara Revak, Attorneys, appeared
for the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Zeitlin):
Petitioner Union Oil Company of California
(Union)
owns and
operates a petroleum refinery located two miles west of Lemont,
Illinois, known as its Chicago Refinery.
The refinery is capable
of processing approximately 150,000 barrels of crude oil per day,
produces a complete line of petroleum products,
and has a work force
of approximately 650 employees.
Certain operations within the
Chicago refinery, principally the fluid catalytic cracker
(FCC),
generate cyanide—bearing wastewater streams.
Concentrations
of
cyanide in the refinery’s wastewater
may
exceed the 0.025 mg/i
effluent limitation
in Rule 408(a)
of Ch.
3:
Water Pollution,
of
the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
Union here seeks a Variance
for those effluents.
Essentially identical Variance requests have been the subject
of two previous Board Opinions and Orders.
Union Oil Company v.
EPA,
PCB 74-333,
14 PCB 623
(December
5,
1974); Union Oil Company
v.
EPA,
PCB 72—447,
10 PCB 217
(December
6,
1973).
The Board’s Opinions
there fully describe the operations of Union’s refinery, and the
sources of the cyanide in its wastewaters,
and need not be repeated
here.
21—51
—2—
Beginning in PCB 72-447,
and continuing under PCB 74-333,
the
Board granted Union variances for the Chicago refinery which allow
effluents with considerably greater cyanide concentrations than are
allowed under Rule 408(a).
In both cases, Union was permitted to
discharge an average of 0.20 mg/i total cyanide during the period
of the Variance, with no single monthly average to exceed 0.30 mg/i.
The Board based those Variance grants on findings that:
1.
Union would indeed suffer a considerable
hardship were the Variances not granted.
14 PCB at
626;
10 PCB at 223.
2.
Union’s cyanide discharges would not cause
significant environmental harm.
Id.
3.
Union was proceeding in good faith in
attempts to achieve compliance with the cyanide
discharge regulation.
14 PCB at 627.
4.
Significant problems and uncertainties
existed in the areas of:
a.
Wastewater treatment to
achieve the 0.025 mg/i cyanide con-
centration limit under Rule 408(a).
b.
Technology for the measure-
ment of cyanide concentrations at the
0.025 mg/i level.
c.
The toxicity of cyanide,
in various simple and complex forms,
at the 0.025 mg/l level.
10 PCB at
219—223;
14 PCB at 624,
625.
Both PCB 72-447 and PCB 74-333 were Variances of the “research”
type.
The Board found that,
in light of the difficulties discussed
in paragraph 4, above,
Union could not be required to commence
a
definite, specific program for compliance with the 0.025 mg/i standard
of Rule 408(a).
See,
10 PCB at 223, and cases cited.
Instead,
the
Board required that Union investigate a number of possible alternative
methods for the treatment of cyanide.
In the more recent of the two
cases,
PCB 74-333,
the Board noted that Union had narrowed its field
of research to two specific processes:
water recycle/reuse, with
final incineration of all cyanide-bearing wastewaters; and an ammonia
polysulfide injection process.
The Board also noted,
again in the
more recent Variance,
that the entire area of cyanide discharges
was under review in the regulatory proceeding R74—15,
-16.
14 PCB
at 627.
Partially as a result of this latter regulatory review,
the
Board reached no decision
in either of the two prior cases on any
of the problems outlined in paragraph 4(a),
(b), and
(c)
above.
21—52
—3—
Nor need we do so here.
Union now seeks its Variance only until
the final completion of its ultimate compliance plan for the cyanide-
bearing wastewaters in question:
the incineration process mentioned
above and in PCB 74-333.
Union now states
that,
upon the completion
of this compliance plan, all cyanide
in the relevant wastewaters will
be completely incinerated.
There will be no cyanide discharges.
Since the Board’s decision in PCB 74-333,
Union has abandoned its
attempts to use the polysulfide injection system for cyanide control.
Union has, however, proceeded to install a temporary incineration
system.
Under that system recycled, concentrated cyanide—bearing
wastewater,
amounting to approximately 50 gallons per minute,
are
piped
to the nearby Collier Carbon and Chemical Company Lemont
facility.
The cyanide—bearing wastewaters are there used as quench
water for a petroleum coke calcining process.
The material being
quenched
is
in excess of 2,000°F.,and
is more generally in the area
of 2,500°F. (R.40).
All cyanide contained in Union’s cyanide—bearing
wastewaters
is totally oxidized and destroyed in the quenching process.
Union requests
a two-year Variance, until December
6, 1977,
to
allow the replacement of the current, temporary facilities with a
permanent incineration system.
In support of that request, Union
presented evidence at a hearing held on November
10,
1975, which
the Board found invalid,
for lack of a hearing officer,
in an Interim
Order dated December 4,
1975.
A valid hearing was then held on
January 16,
1976
in Joliet.
We find that the incineration plan which Union has chosen will
constitute an acceptable plan for compliance with the existing 0.025
mg/l cyanide standard
in Rule
408(a).
The fact that incineration
will eliminate the cyanide in Union’s wastewater was shown by wit-
nesses at the January 16,
1976 hearing
(e.g., R.37),
and was agreed
to by the Agency in its Recommendation submitted October
9,
1975.
In
addition, the Board’s finding
in the two earlier Variance
cases that environmental damage under the Variance would not be great
is again supported,
and even strengthened.
Figures presented in the
Agency’s Recommendation and in Petitioner’s Exhibit
1 show that Union
has been quite successful
in its attempts
to control the cyanide
concentrations in its wastewater effluent,
to the extent that the
levels achieved during the last Variance period
(PCB 74—333) were
far below the limitations
set as conditions.
Several matters do,
however,
remain for consideration.
In
the Board’s Interim Order of December 4,
1975,
we found the record
in this case inadequate
in three specific respects.
In addition,
the Agency’s Recommendation and testimony at the January 16,
1976
hearing raised two further issues:
(I) the appropriate interim
standards for cyanide
to be applied during the Variance period,
should one be granted;
and
(2)
the necessity of permits under Union’s
compliance plan of total incineration.
21—53
—4—
First,
in answer to the Board’s Interim Opinion, Union states
that cyanide discharges under the Variance, during the replacement
of the current temporary incineration system, would not be different
from those experienced over the last year of operation,
(R.23).
Since those levels were within the standards set by condition in
PCB 74—333, we find that those levels would be acceptable.
Second, the Board’s December 4,
1975 Interim Order also noted
that Petitioner had failed to show that the final incineration plan
would achieve compliance with the applicable regulation.
Testimony
at hearing indicated that the qualifications in Union’s Petition,
regarding periods of non-compliance,
referred only to situations
beyond Union’s control.
These included such factors as acts of
God, labor strikes,
and the like,
(R.ll-12).
We find Union’s
explanation satisfactory in this regard.
Third,
testimony at the January 16,
1976 hearing indicated
that Union has complete control over the adjacent Collier facility.
As
a result,
the excess heat at Collier’s facility, which is nec-
cessary for complete oxidation of Union’s cyanide wastes,
is
permanently available for that purpose.
Fourth, regarding the interim standards to be set during the
period of this Variance, we find that the limitations suggested by
the Agency in its Recommendation are more appropriate than those
requested by Union,
The Agency’s Recommendation notes that during
the entire period of the Variance under PCB 74-333,
Union’s dis-
charges were lower than the interim standards set there.
Further,
Union testified that it expected to continue to achieve the cyanide
concentration levels which it experienced during that prior Variance
period,
(R.22).
On those
facts, Union has failed to show any
necessity for
a standard looser than that suggested in the Agency’s
Recommendation.
See, Ex.
1.
We therefore will modify the Variance
granted in PCB 74-333, and shall require that Union meet an average
of 0.10 mg/i during the entire period of the Variance, and that no
single monthly average of its cyanide effluent exceed 0.20 mg/i.
Fifth, the Agency’s Recommendation raises the issue of the
applicability of the Board’s permit requirements to Union’s incineration
facilities;
the Agency specifically recommends that a Variance be
granted, but only on the condition that Union apply for certain
permits from the Agency.
Agency cross—examination at the January
16
hearing also addressed this matter.
We find that this issue is not
properly before us.
Neither the facts presented at hearing nor the
pleadings present either a basis for a decision on this issue or
a need for such
a decision.
However, we grant no Variance from the
permit requirements; no request for such a Variance is before the
Board.
21_54
—5—
As
a final matter,
we note that
Union requested a Variance
until December
6, 1977.
At
hearing, however,
a witness for Union
stated that even with
a considerable
period for debugging and
shakedown,
full compliance will be reached by December
6,
1976,
(R.32).
That being the case,
Union has shown no need for a Variance beyond
that date.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that:
1.
Petitioner Union Oil Company be granted a Variance from
the cyanide effluent standard of Rule 408(a)
of Chapter
3: Water
Pollution,
of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations,
for its Chicago
Refinery,
from December
6,
1975 until December
6,
1976,
subject to
the following conditions:
a.
Petitioner’s cyanide effluent concentration
shall not
exceed
an average of 0.10 mg/i during the
period of the Variance,
b,
At no time shall Petitioner’s single monthly
average cyanide exceed 0.20 mg/i.
c.
Petitioner shall
at all times limit its
cyanide effluent to the lowest levels reasonably
achievable,
d.
Petitioner
shall submit to the Environmental
Protection Agency bi-monthly reports, detailing as
a minimum all progress on the final installation of
its cyanide incineration
system, any and all records
of cyanide concentrations
in Petitioner’s effluent,
(showing at least four determinations per week), and
explanations of any cyanide concentrations exceeding
the foregoing limitations.
2.
Petitioner
shall, within thirty
(30) days of the date of
this Order, submit to the Environmental Protection Agency,
in a
form acceptable to that Agency,
a performance bond in the amount of
Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000)
to assure completion of the recycling
and incineration system detailed
in the foregoing Opinion.
21—55
—6--
3.
Within thirty
(30) days of the date of this
Order Petitioner
shall execute and forward a Certificate of Acceptance to the address
shown below in the following form:
TO:
Environmental Protection Agency
Manager, Variance Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
I,
(We),
_________________________
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in case No. PCB 75-342, understand and accept said
Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all
terms and conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
Mr.
James Young abstained.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order we
e
adopted on the ~
day of
__________,
1976,
by a vote of
.‘~
Illinois Pollutio
ontrol Board
21—56