ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 7,

1993

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

MARATHON

OIL COMPANY’S PETITION

)

R91-23

FOR SITE-SPECIFIC

RULE

CHANGE TO

)

(Rulemaking)

35 ILL.

1.’)M. CODE 303.323

)

Proposed Rule.

First Notice.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by R.

C. Flemal):

On August 19,

1991 Marathon Oil Company

(Marathon)

filed

this proposal for site—specific rulemaking.

Marathon seeks to

amend the 1~.its contained in the current site-specific rule at

35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.323 pertaining to chlorides.

The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.

(1992)).

The Board is charged therein to “determine,

define and

implement the environmental control standards applicable in the

State of Illinois”’.

More generally, the Board’s rulemaking

charge is based on the system of checks and balances integral to

Illinois environmental governance: the Board bears responsibility

for the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory functions, whereas

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

is

responsible for carrying out the principal administrative duties.

The latter’s duties include administering any regulation that may

result from action in the instant proceeding.

A petition for variance, docket PCB 91-173, was filed by

Marathon on September

17,

1991 involving the same facility and

discharge.

That petition is currently before the Board on remand

from the appellate court2.

On December 19,

1991 the Board

granted Marathon’s motion to incorporate the record of the

variance proceeding into this proceeding3’4.

Hearing was held

Act at Section 5(b).

2

Marathon Oil Company v.

IEPA and PCB

(5th Dist.

1993),

242

Ill.App.3d

200,

610 N.E.2d

789,

182 Ill.

Dec.

920.

See also the

Board’s opinion and order of this date in PCB 91-173.

~ In

the

Matter

of:

Marathon

Oil

Company

Site

Specific

(December 19,

1991)

,

R9l—23,

128 PCB 899.

---

2

before hearing officer Karen Rosenwinkel on this site—specific

petition on September 10,

1992 in Robinson,

Illinois.

No members

of the public attended.

Briefs were filed by petitioner on April

12,

1993 and respondent on May 17,

1993.

Today the Board proposes for first notice an amended version

of Marathon’s proposal.

The Board notes that pursuant to the

Illinois Administrative Procedure Act

(5 ILCS 100/1-1 et seq.

(1992))

interested persons will have 45 days from publication of

this proposed amendment in the Illinois register to file public

comment&.

The Board further notes that since it has been nearly

one year since the close of the hearing record, interested

persons filing comments should update the Board on developments

that have affected this matter since the closing of the hearing

record.

REGULATORY HISTORY

The Board’s general effluent regulations do not include a

specific limitation for chloride.

However, they do prohibit any

discharge that would cause or contribute to a violation of a

water quality standard.

(35 Ill.

Adin.

Code 304.105.)

The

pertinent water quality standard for chloride is the 500 xng/L

General Use Water Quality Standard found at 35 Iii. Adm. Code

302.304.

Marathon initially petitioned this Board for temporary

exemption of its receiving waters from the 500 mg/L water quality

standard in PCB 80-102.

On October 2,

1980 the Board granted

this petition for variance, under condition that chloride

effluent concentrations not exceed 700 mg/L,

effective through

October

2,

1985.

In PCB 85-83 Marathon petitioned for extension of the PCB

80—102 variance with respect to chloride.

On January 23,

1986

this petition was granted effective for the period October

2,

1985 through October 2,

1990.

~ Citations to the record will indicate transcript references

as

“Tr.”,

petition as

“Pet.”,

exhibits as

“Pet.

Exh.”

or

“Resp.

Exh.”,

and briefs as “Pet. Br.”

or “Resp. Br.”.

Citations to the

site—specific

and variances records will

be distinguished where

necessary

by

prefacing

the

citations

with

“SS”

for

the site-

specific record and

“VI’ for the variance record;

e.g.,

“SSPet.

at

xx.’,

~

See

hearing

officer

order

of

this

date

for

filing

particulars.

---

3

On January 28,

1987 Marathon filed a site-specific

rulemaking petition seeking,

among other matters, to make

permanent its exemption from causing or contributing to

violations of the 500 mg/L water quality standard under the

continuing provision that its effluent discharge not exceed 700

ing/L.

On September 13,

19896 the Board responded to Marathon’s

petition by promulgating

a new rule at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 303.323.

The new rule generally tracked Marathon’s proposal, except that

the Board added

a 550 mg/L limit on in-stream chloride

concentrations as recommended by the Agency.

Accordingly, the

currently applicable rule is as follows:

Section 303.323

sugar Creek and Its Unnamed

Tributary

d)

Thi3 Section applies only to Sugar Creek and

its unnamed tributary from the point at which

Marathon Petroleum7 Com~.:~y’s

outfall 001

discharges into the unnamed tributary to the

confluence of Sugar Creek and the Wabash

River.

b)

35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.105 shall not apply to

total dissolved solids and chlorides

discharged by Marathon Petroleum Company’s

Outfall 001,

so long as both of the following

conditions are true:

1)

Effluent from Marathon Petroleum

Company’s Outfall 001 does not exceed

3,000 mg/i total dissolved solids or 700

mg/l chlorides,

2)

The water in the unnamed tributary does

not exceed 2,000 mg/i total dissolved

solids or 550 mg/i chlorides.

On August 19,

1991 Marathon filed this site-specific

rulemaking proposal, seeking to amend the chloride provisions of

Section 303.323.

The new proposal would increase the effluent

chloride limitation from 700 mg/L to 1000 mg/L and the chloride

water quality standard from 550 mg/L to 700 mg/L.

As stated earlier,

on September

13,

1991 Marathon filed a

petition for variance, docket PCB 91-173.

In that proposal

6

In the Matter of: Marathon Petroleum Company Site-Specific,

R87—2,

103 PCB

133.

‘

Marathon Oil Company is the successor in interest to Marathon

Petroleum Company

(VResp. brief at 1).

---

4

Marathon requests as variance conditions the same 1000 mg/L and

700 ing/L effluent and water quality limitations that it proposes

as amendments to Section 303.323.

Therefore, Marathon now seeks

to make permanent the relief requested in the variance.

FACILITY DESCRIPTION

Marathon operates a petroleum refinery located on the

outskirts of the City of Robinson, Crawford County,

Illinois.

The refinery processes some 205,0008 barrels of oil per day and

employs approximately 650 persons (SSPet.

1-2.)

Part of the refining process consists of removing chloride

mixed with water from the crude oil.

The quantity of chloride in

the crude oil varies depending upon the nature of the pore fluids

in the source rocks of the crude oil and the history of recovery,

transportation, and storage of the crude oil.

Because the

Marathon facility receives crude oil from different sources, the

chloride content of the crude processed at the facility likewise

differs.

Since 1988 the chloride content has varied on a

monthly—average basis from a low of 29.2 pounds per million

barrels to 104.5 pounds per million barrels; in the first ten

months of 1991 chloride contents ranged from an average of 48.5

to 88.7 pounds per million barrels

(VPet.

Exh.

8.)

Marathon. treats its wastewaters prior to discharging them.

However, the treatment is not capable of producing significant

reduction in chlorides.

Marathon is in the process of designing

an upgraded treatment facility that would allow it to increase

treatment capacity, but this too would have only marginal effect

on chloride discharge concentrations and does not contain any

specific technology to remove chlorides

(VTr.

at 25-27.)

The

effluent chloride that the plant discharges

is basically

dependent on the salt content in the crude oil and the amount of

water discharged to the creek.

(SSTr.

at 8.)

Discharge of the wastewaters is to an unnamed9 tributary of

Sugar Creek at approximately mile 5.0 of the unnamed tributary;

Sugar Creek thence flows approximately five miles more to its

mouth on the Wabash River

(SSPet.

2, Attachment A; VPet.

Exh.

1

at 8.)

8

The record contains different figures for the amount of crude

processed per day at this facility.

The figures range from 170,000

to 205,000 barrels per day.

(SSPet.

1—2; VTr.

11; SSTr.

6,

23,

36;

SSPet.

Exh. A—i)

~ Although

not

officially

named,

the

creek

is

sometimes

referred to as Robinson Creek

(e.g.,

VPet.

Exh.,

p.

6).

---

5

The unnamed tributary at the Marathon discharge has a

drainage area of approximately eight square miles

(VTr. at

15)

and a natural 7-day 10—year low flow of zero

(VTr.

at 22).

However,

actual low flow in the unnamed tributary is controlled

by wastewater and other manmade discharges.

These include

discharges located upstream from Marathon’s discharge that

aggregate an average of approximately 1.4 million gallons per day

(MGD’°) (SSPet.

Exh.

1 at A3,

VTr.

at 15-6),

of which ~he

discharge of the City of Robinson’s sewage treatment plant at 1.2

MGD is the largest.

Marathon itself discharges an average of

another 1.4 MCD, such that the low flow is approximately doubled

due to Marathon’s discharge.

TECHNICAL ~‘EASIBILITYAND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS

Compliance Efforts

Over the years Marathon has examined different treatment

alternatives for chloride, including concentrating the chloride,

removing it, and disposing of it underground by injection or in a

dried form in landfills.

Marathon has also examined transporting

the effluent to a larger water body via pipeline and discharging

it.

Marathon argues that none of these alternatives is

‘technically feasible or economically reasonable.

(SSTr.

at 8—9.)

Marathon currently uses storing techniques employing storm

water impoundments.

The storage process

is described as total

diversion of the effluent from the wastewater plant to storm

water basins with later treatment of both collected stormwater

and already once—treated, diverted effluent.

Discharges from the

plant are resumed again during periods of higher flow.

(SSTr.

at

10—11.)

Marathon maintains that the storage option, while

technically feasible,

does not work during periods where high

chloride content in crude and storm events coincide.

Marathon

offers that preventing discharge that exceeds the limits

is

increasingly harder to maintain during such storm events.

Furthermore, Marathon presents that the potential for discharging

effluent that exceeds the limits will increase due to additional

planned changes in the operation of the storm water diversion

system.

Marathon intends to divert storm water out of the ponds,

close the ponds, and replace them with tanks.

This would result

in a diminished amount of water to dilute the effluent from the

treatment plant.

The amount of dilLtion water is diminished

10

One MCD equals 0.04381 cubic meters per second or 1.55 cubic

feet per second

(cfs).

---

6

because certain storm water runoff is not considered contaminated

and is no longer to be diverted to be mixed with the contaminated

storm water runoff.

(SSTr. at 11-13.)

The closure of the ponds

may be necessary due to potential groundwater contamination and

cleanup due to other contaminants present in the pond sediment

(SSTr.

at 67.)

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT

The

environmental impact issues are twofold.

One question

involves Marathon’s position, acceded to by the Agency, that the

continued use of the current management practices,

especially in

light of the planned changes to the treatment plant, may result

in a negative impact on the receiving waters.

The second

consideration consists of an unknown toxicity problem present in

Marathon’s effluent, and the Agency’s concerns that increased

chloride may additionally burden an already stressed aquatic

population.

Storage Impacts

Marathon presents that the storage option of controlling

chloride levels in the plant effluent, discussed above, has a

potential negative environmental impact on the stream due to the.

greater chance of overflow during certain storm events.

Marathon

further states that the use of all the storm water retained in

the ponds to dilute the chloride has historically resulted in

greater swings in the concentration of chloride discharged,

which

Marathon believes

is not beneficial to the fish population.

(SSTr.

at 70.)

The Agency basically concurs with Marathon’s assessment of

the environmental impact of the currently—employed management

-

techniques,

as described in the testimony of Dean Studer:

Although unable to determine at this time

if

discharging

a “more continuous but higher level of

chlorides in the stream”

is any less stressful

on

the

fish population,

the Agency does believe that raising

the water quality standard for chlorides in the

receiving stream to allow Marathon to continually

discharge effluent from outfall #001

is environmentally

prudent.

Such a change in the chloride water quality

standard would minimize the potential stress from the

cyclic changes in flow and water quality resulting from

the alternating cessation and commencing of discharge.

*

*

*

Given the nature of the receiving stream and the

unknown toxicity problem,

if an emergency bypass were

to occur,

it

is possible that the discharge would

contribute to the degradation of the receiving stream.

(SSExh.

4 at 7.)

---

7

Unknown Toxicity Problem

The unnamed tributary in question has been the subject of

previous study.

Marathon’s environmental consultant, Radian

Corporation, performed a study of the receiving stream in 1986,

finding that,

while there were no fish for a distance below the

Marathon outfall, the water quality and stream sediment quality

had improved since a study done

in 1976 by the Agency.

(VTr. at

47;

VPet.

Exhs.

1,2.)

A study was also undertaken by the Agency

in 1986 and published in 1988.

(VPet.

Exh.

1.)

Marathon

believes that the Agency’s study reaches the same basic

conclusions as the Radian Corporation study.

There are differences between the studies, mainly

in scope,

as the Agency study encompassed genera)

‘~treamquality while the

Marathon study was limited to the Marat~ndischarge.

(VTr.

at

45—46.)

In 1991, the Agency performed a survey of the fishes of

the Sugar Creek Basin in the proximity of the Marathon discharge

and some found improvement in the fish population since the two

1986 studies,

as well as a lack of toxicity in the stream

sediment.

(VResp.

Exh.

1.)

The Agency reported fishless

conditions for four

(4) miles downstream of the Marathon outfall

and concluded that “it seems very likely that the continued

effluent ‘toxicity from Marathon is the cause of impacts on the

fish community”.

(~.)

The 1991 study as well as the 1986 studies show that there

continues to be an effect downstream of the Marathon discharge

that is limiting or reducing the number of fish in the Sugar

Creek Basin area.

(VTr. at 49—50; VResp. Exh.

1.)

•As Robert

Wallace,

of Radian Corporation testified:

T)he

Agency

and, for that matter, Marathon, are at a

loss to explain the stream degradation that is apparent

from observation of the biological community in the

stream,

and there

is some frustration on both sides

because it can’t be clearly shown what’s causing- it.

Whether it’s something in the discharge or not, we

don’t have identification of

a chemical that’s causing

the observed toxicity.

(VTr.

at 50.)

Degradation was also attributed to the City of Robinson sewage

treatment plant effluent, but there has been improvement

downstream from that plant.

(SSPetition at C

1-4,

2-2.)

Effects of Higher Chloride Concentration

Marathon presented two recent studies prepared by its

consultant,

Radian Corporation, Marathon Oil Company Chloride

Study of Robinson Creek, August 1992

(SSExh.

3),

and Marathon Oil

Company 7-Day Chronic Fathead Minnow-Larval Survival and Growth

Test, July

1992

(SSExh.

2.)

Based on these studies, Marathon’s

---

8

witness, Robert

C. Wallace concluded that “the

results of these

studies indicate that a chloride limitation of 1600 xng/L in the

effluent would result

in an instream chloride concentration at

low flow of less than 1,000 mg/L,

a level shown to be non—toxic

to aquatic life”.

(SS.Exh.

1 at 1.)

The chronic toxicity test

results are summarized as follows:

A 7—day chronic fathead minnow test was conducted on

synthetic effluent chloride levels of 700,

800,

900,

and 1,000 mg/L while holding total dissolved solids

(TDS)

constant at 2,000 ing/L.

Results -of the chronic toxicity test indicated that

chloride concentrations up to 1,000 ing/L, the highest

level

tested, had no significant negative effect on

fish survival.

Larval survival in all chloride test

solutions was greater than or equal to 93 percent.

Biolnass was higher in all chloride test solutions than

in control groups.

The no—observed effect

-

concentration

(NOEC)

for the test was 1,000 mg/L

chloride and the percent impairment concentration

(1C25) was greater than 1,000 mg/L chloride.

This

would indicate that 1,000 mg/L chloride and 2,000 mg/L

TDS do not produce toxicity to larval fathead minnows

and should not be toxic to aquatic life in Robinson

Creek.

(SSExh.

2 at

1—1.)

The Agency does not dispute the results of these studies,

per se,

but rather continues to assert its position that the

chlorides may constitute

a stress factor:

The Agency is concerned that raising the chloride water

quality standard too high will stress the aquatic biota

and exacerbate the existing toxicity problems in the

waters below Marathon’s outfall.

Further, with the

existing chronic toxicity problem in Marathon’s

effluent, any toxicity tests for chloride will be

biased.

Therefore,

the only way to measure the effects

due strictly to chloride is to use a synthetic effluent

in toxicity testing.

This technique, being the sole

option open to petitioner for chloride toxicity testing

at this time, was employed by petitioner in support of

this proposal.

This process, through its very nature,

ignores the interaction of elevated chloride levels

with the existing toxicity in Marathon’s effluent and

introduces a decree

(sic) of bias in the results.

(SSExh.

4 at 4.)

The Agency goes on to state that it believes that in all

probability, this bias in the testing will increase as the

chloride levels go higher; therefore,

the Agency

is skeptical of

the toxicity results.

(SSExh.

4 at 4-5.)

---

9

Parties’ Positions

The Agency agrees that site-specific relief for chloride

is

necessary.

However due to the toxicity problem, the Agency

believes that the relief should be temporary, and that a toxicity

reduction evaluation

(TRE)

should be required.

Marathon is

opposed to temporary relief in this site-specific rulemaking

because of the time and effort that would be needed to complete

another rulemaking in the future.

Marathon also disagrees that a

TRE should be required as a condition of the requested relief,

pointing out that TRE’s are usually imposed by the Agency in the

course of the grant of an NPDES permit.

(VPet.

status report. at

3; see also,

SSTr. at 50.)

CONCLUSIONS

The Board is persuaded,

based upon an analysis of the record

Ln this proceeding,

that there is no alternative treatment method

for Marathon that is simultaneously technically feasible and

economically reasonable.

The Board is also persuaded that the

increase in chloride in Marathon’s effluent as proposed here,

is

not a known limiting factor in the quality of the receiving

waterway.

Accordingly, the Board will today propose for first

notice a rule which would provide the relief requested,

as

modified to comport with Administrative Code Division

requirements.

The Board emphasizes that it shares the Agency’s concern

over the toxicity in the unnamed tributary.

This toxicity needs

to be characterized and eliminated.

The toxicity issue would

seem to be appropriately addressed in the NPDES permitting

process.

There the nature of the effluent in all its water

quality aspects

(including its possible toxicity)

is a relevant

concern”.

The Board also notes that its support of Marathon’s proposed

amendment is predicated on the belief that chloride at the

concentrations proposed is not a known notable contributor to

degraded aquatic conditions in the unnamed tributary.

Any

evidence that would cause an opposite conclusion to be drawn at

any time in the future would be grounds to reverse this support.

“

The Board notes that it is not prejudging the imposition of

TRE’s

in the pending permit

appeal,

PCB 92-166,

but only states

that the issues are better raised in the permit context.

---

10

ORDER

The Board directs the Clerk of the Board to cause first

notice publication of the following amendments

in the Illinois

Register.

Section 303.323

Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary

a)

This Section applies only to Sugar Creek and its

unnamed tributary from the point at which Marathon

Pctrolcum Qj~J, Company’s outfall 001 discharges into the

unnamed tributary to the confluence of Sugar Creek and

the Wabash River.

b)

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 304.105 shall not apply to total

dissolved solids and chlorides discharged by Marathon

Pctrolcum

QJJ~

Company’s outfall 001,

so long as both of

the following conditions are true ~j~:

1)

Effluent from Marathon Petroleum

Qi~.

Company’s

outfall 001 does not exceed 3,000 mg/~~

total

dissolved solids or

7-GG 1,000 mg/~~

chlorides,

and

2)

The water in the named tributary does not exceed

2,000 mg/~~

total dissolved solids or ~

2~Q

mg/-~~

chlorides.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy

M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,. hereby certify that the above opinion and order was

adopted on the

7~Z

day of

_______________,

1993, -by a vote

of

7—o

.

~

~.

Dorothy N. G~4~ñn,Clerk

Illinois Po~utionControl Board