ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
19, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
R84—13
PROPOSAL OF UNION OIL COMPANY
)
OF CALIFORNIA TO
AMEND
THE WATER
)
POLLUTION REGULATIONS
)
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
FINAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board upon the April
25,
1984
filing
of
a proposal by Union Oil Company of California (Union)
requesting
relief from the
3 mg/I ammonia nitrogen effluent
standard established
in 35
Ill. Mm.
Code 304.122(b).
Union
requests that
instead
it be required
to meet the federal best
available technology economically achievable
(BAT)
limitations
set forth
in 40 CFR 419.23
(1985).
Union has calculated
and the
Agency has not disagreed that the allowable BAT ammonia nitrogen
limits would be 775 lbs/day monthly average and 1705 lbs/day
daily maximum
(Exh.
9
at
5;
see Exh.
8 App. C).
For comparison
purposes,
775 lbs/day
is approximately
29 mg/i
(R.
60).
At
hearing Union requested dissolved oxygen
(DO) WQS relief
in the
event
the Board determines that Union causes or contributes
to a
dissolved oxygen violation in the Illinois River.
Hearing was held on December 12, 1984
in Lemont,
Illinois.
The Department of Energy and Natural Resources
(DENR) determined
that an economic impact study was unnecessary and filed
its
negative declaration
to that effect on May 13,
1985.
The
Economic and Technical Advisory Committee agreed with this
finding,
filing
its concurrence on May 16,
1985.
On July 8,
1985,
the Agency submitted its brief
recommending that relief be
denied.
The last brief, by Union prior
to First Notice, was
submitted on July 31,
1985.
In response
to a Board inquiry on
the status of the Calumet wastewater treatment plant, Union filed
on November
21,
1985,
a letter which contained information
obtained from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
The proposed rule was sent
to First Notice on
March 14,
1986.
Union and the Agency filed comments
on First
Notice on May 19 and June
27,
1986,
respectively.
The Agency
comments
included
a USEPA review statement.
The Board adopted
a Proposed Rule, Second Notice
on
January
8,
1987.
The Second Notice period expired
on March
2,
1987.
At its March
4, 1987 meeting,
the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules
issued
a certificate of
no objection to the
76-443
2
proposed
rule.
The Board accordingly adopts
as final
the rule
set forth in the Order herein.
Hearing Record
Union owns and operates
a petroleum cracking refinery
located
in Lemont, Will County,
Illinois which has
a rated
capacity of 154,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
Some of the
oil used
is sour crude which
is high
in nitrogen content
and
which contributes
to
the high ammonia nitrogen levels
in
wastewater discharge.
The record does not contain the percentage
of Union’s crude feedstock which could
be classified as sour.
The refinery draws
from and discharges
to the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal
(Canal),
a secondary contact stream, pursuant to
NPDES Permit No.
0001589.
Discharge
is at river mile 296.5 which
is 5.5 miles upstream of the Lockport Lock and Dam and 20 miles
downstream of
the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago’s
(MSD) West—Southwest and Caluniet wastewater treatment
plants
(R.
75).
After treatment
in Union’s wastewater
treatment
plant
(WWTP), approximately 3.3 million gallons per day (MGD)
of
process wastewater
and contaminated surface runoff are
discharged.
The WWTP consists of primary, secondary and tertiary
treatment.
Equipment includes
a combined flow equalization and
storm basin,
two API separators,
a primary clarifier,
an
activated sludge basin and a polishing pond.
In—plant technology
includes three
sour water strippers, two stripper storage tanks,
and the recycling and treating of all cooling water.
Union has been granted five previous variances
from the
ammonia
nitroge’n effluent limitation found at Section 304.122(b):
PCB 77—163,
September 29,
1977;
27 PCB 511
PCB 78—168,
September 21,
1978;
31 PCB 499
PCB 80—124,
September
4,
1980;
39 PCB 438
PCB 82—87,
October
5, 1982;
49 PCB
43
and December
2,
1982;
50 PCB 57
PCB 84—66,
February 20, 1985.
63 PCB
75
The variance
in PCB 84—66
imposed a monthly average ammonia
nitrogen effluent limitation of
625 lbs/day and a daily maximum
of 1,160 lbs/day based
on Union’s expectation that its expanded
delayed coker
unit and
its new needle coker complex would
increase
the ammonia nitrogen of its effluent by 73 lbs/day under
specified process conditions (PCB 84—66,
February 20, 1985 slip
op.
at
2).
For comparison purposes,
625 lbs/day
is approximately
23.4 mg/i
(R.
60).
A Union witness testified regarding
the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT)
for refinery operations
such as
that at Union Oil.
According to him,
the USEPA defined
a
model plant which includes in—plant and end—of—pipe treatment.
In—plant controls were sour water strippers,
elimination of once—
through barometric condensor water,
segregation
of sewers and
elimination of once—through cooling water.
End—of—pipe treatment
76444
3
includes
flow equalization, preliminary oil and solids removal
(primary clarifier),
biological
treatment and polishing (Exh.
9
at 3,4).
The witness
testified that the Union refinery has all
of these controls.
In addition
it has programs to minimize water
usage,
provide air cooling,
has extensive stripping and provides
thermal oxidation of stripper bottoms.
While USEPA model plant
sour water strippers were defined
as providing ammonia removals
of greater than 85 percent, Union represents that
its combined
long—term removal
for the strippers averages 93 percent with
monthly averages typically greater than 90 percent.
Union claims
it now currently exceeds the BAT requirements
(Exh.
9 at 5).
As
a part
of its pollution control effort,
Union uses water
conservation.
A 16 million gallon polishing lagoon which also
serves as a holding lagoon provides the refinery with fire
protection water when needed.
The holding lagoon reduces the
amount of water
in Union’s discharge.
While under
BAT guidelines
it could discharge 42 gallons
of water per barrel
of crude
refined, Union discharges only
28 gallons per barrel
(Exh.
8 at
2—13).
Of these
28 gallons, Union estimates that
6 gallons per
barrel are from stormwater flows.
Id.
Union’s current plant
refines three
times
as much oil
as its retired Lemont plant and
uses one—twentieth as much water
(R.
14).
This water conservation effort by Union
in a sense penalizes
it.
While
the federal BAT standards are based on mass loadings
of ammonia nitrogen discharged
in the effluent
(40 CFR 419.23,
1985), the Board’s ammonia nitrogen effluent limitation
is based
on concentration, which
is mass per volume.
While Union has
reduced the volume of water
in
its discharge,
the mass remains
constant.
Therefore,
the mass of ammonia nitrogen is greater
per
unit
of volume after
recycling than if Union did
not recycle,
which
in turn raises the concentration (mass/volume) of ammonia
nitrogen
in the effluent.
Alternative systems to meet the
3 mg/i ammonia nitrogen
effluent
standard were discussed by Union’s consultants
in the
AWARE Report
(Exhibit 8).
According to the report:
The technical feasibility evaluation was made
using
existing
plant
data,
available
literature
published
by
the
USEPA
and
American
Petroleum
Institute,
and
AWARE’s
experience.
Detailed
studies
were
not
undertaken.
The
information
reviewed
can
only define
the potential for ammonia removal
and
cannot
define
the
long—term
reliability
of each process
to continually discharge less
than
3.0
mg/i
of
ammonia.
All
processes
deemed
feasible
by
this
evaluation
must
undergo detailed
testing
to define
the
long—
term
reliability
of
the
processes
performance.
(Exh.
8,
p. 3—1).
76-445
4
Considered not technically feasible were single—stage
activated sludge, single stage activated sludge with mutant
bacteria, land application, ozonation,
air stripping,
and steam
stripping
(Aware Report
at 3—22).
Other systems considered which
can meet the
3 mg/i ammonia nitrogen standards intermittently but
not consistently include:
single stage activated sludge with
powdered activated carbon (PAC),
two stage activated sludge, two
stage biological treatment with activated sludge
in the first
phase
and fixed media
in the second stage,
and ion exchange
(Id.
at 3—23).
These alternatives and another, known as breakpoint
chlorination, with their costs and problems are summarized below
(from Exh.
8, Table
4—6).
The activated sludge/PAC process has
a capital cost of
$3,268,000
and operating and maintenance costs of $568,000/yr.
Needed facility modifications include addition of
a 2.0 million
gallon aeration basin, installation of new aeration system
in
existing aeration basin,
and installation of a PAC addition
facility.
Potential problems
include lack of proven process
reliability, abrasion due
to PAC which may require additional
equipment modifications and alternate sludge disposal
techniques.
The two—stage activated sludge process has
a capital cost of
$3,535,000
and operating
and maintenance costs
of $216,000/yr.
Needed facility modifications
include addition of
a 0.73 million
gallon aeration basin,
installation of a new aeration system
in
existing aeration basin, and the installation of
a new 125 foot
diameter clarifier.
Potential problems include
no proven process
reliability and poor settling
of sludge
in the second stage.
The two—stage activated sludge/fixed media process has a
capital cost of
$3,195,000
and operating and maintenance costs of
$159,000/yr.
Needed facility modifications
include installation
of
a new aeration system in the existing aeration basin and the
installation of
5.0 million square feet of RBC media.
Potential
problems include no proven process reliability.
The
ion exchange process has a capital cost of $10,800,000
and operating and maintenance costs
of $685,000/yr.
Needed
facility modifications include installation of
a granular media
filter
and
the ion exchange system.
Potential problems include
no proven process reliability, high attrition
of exchange media,
and organic fouling.
The chlorination/dechlorination
(breakpoint chlorination)
process has
a capital cost of $1,950,000
and operating and
maintenance costs of $932,000/yr.
Needed facility modifications
include the installation of the chlorination and dechlorination
systems.
While
it
is technically feasible,
it may produce toxic
chlorinated hydrocarbons and was thus discounted.
The Agency recommended that the request for
relief
be
denied.
It pointed out that BAT guidelines are less stringent
76-446
5
than the State’s
standards.
The Agency contends that Union
should have spent more effort in identifying
the substance which
inhibits nitrification and completed a more serious evaluation of
adding second stage nitrification facilities.
It also pointed
out that the nearby 180,000 barrel per day Mobil Oil Joliet
Refinery achieves a much higher quality effluent and
in 1984
discharged only 58 pounds of ammonia nitrogen per day.
The
Agency argues
that this indicates that Union could do a much
better job of removing ammonia.
(Agency Brief).
Union summarized
its past compliance efforts and costs
(Exhibit
1, Tables
2 and 3).
The most recent efforts included
the use of
a sulfide—removing chemical and additional
steam to
enhance nitrification, full scale trial
addition of
Sybron/biochemica.
mutant bacteria
to establish
a nitrifier
population,
and the installation of permanent dissolved oxygen
analyzers
in
the aeration basin.
The additional
steam and
bacteria did not increase nitrification
(PCB 84—66, February 20,
1985 slip op.
at
4).
Present design projects include adding
hydrogen peroxide
to the
WWTP
and final clarifier
modifications.
The total capital cost
for Union’s improvement
program between 1977 and 1984 was $1,023,000 while the total
operating cost was $1,274,000
(Exh.
1,
Table 3).
This amounts to
a combined average of about $300,000 per year.
The Board notes
that the nearby Mobil Oil refinery had average operating
costs
for ammonia reduction projects of $1,660,000 per year.
(Mobil Oil
Company v.
EPA,
60 PCB
97,
at 98, September
20,
1984).
Water Quality
Chicago area wastewaters are collected by the North Shore
Channel and channelized sections of the North and South Branches
of the Chicago River, subsequently joining
the Sanitary and Ship
Canal
(Canal).
The Cal—Sag Channel,
which also collects
wastewaters, joins the Canal upstream of Union.
The Canal ends
approximately one mile below
the Lockport dam where
it empties
into the Des Plaines River.
The Illinois River
is
formed at
river mile 272.86
at the confluence of the Des Plaines and
Kankakee Rivers.
It consists
of eight navigation pools
controlled by seven locks
and dams on the waterway and the Alton
dam on the Mississippi.
Chicago area wastewaters from three
large MSD plants are
discharged upstream of Union.
The Northside plant discharges
to
the North Branch of Chicago River,
the West—Southwest to the
Canal,
and the Calumet plant to the Cal—Sag.
All Chicago waste
and diversion flows
are combined
at the confluence of the Canal
and the Cal—Sag upstream of Union.
Different water quality standards (WQS)
apply in
the various
streams.
The Canal
and the Des Plaines River
from its confluence
with the Canal
are secondary contact waters up
to the 1—55 bridge
southwest of Joliet.
This reach includes
the Union refinery.
The waters below the 1—55 bridge, which include
a
17 mile stretch
76-447
6
of the Des Plaines River
and
the Illinois River
are classified
as
general use waters.
The ammonia nitrogen WQS for secondary contact waters are
2.5 mg/i April through October
and 4.0 mg/i November through
March (Section 302.407).
The dissolved oxygen
(DO) WQS for
secondary contact water
is
4 mg/i (Section 302.405).
The secondary WQS in the Canal
for ammonia nitrogen and DO
are being exceeded.
The ammonia nitrogen secondary WQS
is being
violated downstream of Union at the Agency’s only Canal sampling
station, Lockport
(Exh.
5, Table 3—1
at
3—4).
Union’s monitoring
of influent ammonia nitrogen at
its plant upstream of Lockport
shows ammonia nitrogen WQS violations
in the Canal
(I.d.,
Figure
3—2).
Violations of the DO secondary WQS are also occurring at
the Lockport station
(Id.,
Table
3—2).
The general
use ammonia
nitrogen WQS
ranges from 1.5 mg/i to
15 mg/i based on temperature
and pH
(Section 302.212).
The
general
use minimum DO WQS
is
5 mg/i,
but DO may not be less than
6 mg/i during
at least 16 hours of any 24 hour period (Section
302.206).
Both the general ammonia nitrogen and DO WQS are
sometimes exceeded
in the Illinois River
(R.
120,
Exh.
5 at 3—13,
Table 3—5
at
3—14;
B—iS, Table
3—8
at 3—19,
3—25).
Monitoring
data generally show compliance with the WQS
in the Illinois
River.
Between 1978 and 1983,
however,
a DO WQS violation rate
of one
to three percent existed
in the Illinois River
(Exh.
4
at
6).
For example, Agency data shows one violation at Lacon
in
1980
(Exh.
4 at
6,
Table 3).During the same 1978
to 1983
period,total ammonia nitrogen WQS violations declined
from eleven
percent
to zero
(Exh.
4 at 6).
The latest Agency monitoring data
show that between January and September 1984
there were no DO
or
ammonia nitrogen WQS violations
in the river.
Id.
The Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) modeling study
(Exh.
7) concluded that at 7—day,
10—year low flow conditions
there
would be DO WQS violations
in the Peoria pool
of the Illinois
River.
The modeling
study was based on data collected
in the
summer
in 1971,
1972,
1978,
and 1979 and based on 1971
and 1980
waste loadings
(R.
86;
Exh.
7).
The minimum modeled DO level
in
the Illinois River was 3.1 mg/i
in the Peoria Pool
at river mile
180
(Exh.
4; Table 4).
It
is expected that this level will
increase
to 3.7 mg/i once the MSD Calumet plant achieves
nitrification.
Id.
Using
the ISWS model data
as
a starting point, Union’s
consultant calculated Union’s DO contribution at the Peoria pool
during low flow as
0..0l7 mg/i
(Exh.
4,
Table
4).
The ammonia nitrogen WQS violations are expected
to decline
in the Canal
and
be eliminated
in
the Illinois River once the
MSD’s Caiumet Treatment Plant achieves an effluent quality of
7
mg/i BOD and
2 mg/i ammonia nitrogen
(R.
119—121).
This
assumption by Union is based
on the historical decrease
in
76-448
7
ammonia
loadings between 1971—1980
(Exh.
5 at 3—25).
Whether
the
ammonia nitrogen WQS will
be achieved in the Canal will depend on
the degree of nitrification maintained
at both the Calumet and
WSW treatment plants
(R.
120).
The Calumet plant
is expected
to
achieve nitrification by January 1987
(Huff letter dated 11—6—85
rec’d 11—21—85).
While the additional
nitrification at the Calumet plant
should improve the DO concentration of the waterways, violations
are expected
to continue.
As the Illinois State Water Survey
pointed out, “the bottom sediments alone will cause significant
oxygen depletion in all pools above the Peoria Dam....The SOD
sediment
oxygen demand
rates below the Dresden Island Dam will
continue
to exert ambient demands irrespective of what is done in
the Chicago area to eliminate storm overflows
or
to
improve
treatment plant efficiencies.”
(ISWS Contract Report
324, July
1983 as cited
at
R.
122).
The WQS violations differ
in each pooi and the causes
include sediment oxygen demand, benthic demand and dissolved
biochemical oxygen demand.
The latter
includes the effect of
ammonia loading
as an oxygen consuming material.
The
concentration of oxygen in the water also depends on the extent
of aeration
in each pool.
The impact of Union’s discharge on stream biota was also
analyzed.
By determining
the species number
and diversity,
the
stream can be classified
as to the extent of pollution.
Grab samples were
taken of the Canal bottom at locations
upstream and downstream of Union’s discharge on two different
days
(Exh.
5,
Table 5—3 at 5—16).
The results of the September
8,
1983 sampling revealed tubifex worms present along
the near
shore of Union’s property, both upstream and downstream of Union
(Exh.
5 Fig.
5—5
at 5—18).
None were found
in the middle
or
at
the
far shore because of
a lack of bottom sediment
(the Canal,
whose bottom for
a great length
is bedrock,
lacks
sediment in
places where
barge
traffic has scoured
it clean).
The results of
an October
7,
1983 sampling included tubifex
(sludge) worms,
leeches and Chironomid nudges above
and below Union’s discharge
in the near
shore sediments.
The number of each and their
location are
indicated in Exhibit
5, Table
5—4
(At 5—20).
The tubifex worms were abundant above and below Union’s
outfall on both days
(Fig.
5—5 and 5—6).
Given
their
tolerance
to polluted water,
their abundance
in this segment of
the Canal
indicates
a polluted stream segment
(Exh.
5
at 5—15,
5—17,
Fig.
5—5).
Another method of stream classification involves use of
a
diversity index.
The October
7 results were used
to calculate
a
Shannon diversity index value
of less then 0.16
at each sampling
site
(Exh.
5,
Table 5—4 at
5—20).
This indicates
a polluted
stream segment
(Id.
at 5—21).
76-449
8
The
results
of
Exhibit
5
are
in
agreement
with
the
Agency’s
own
benthic
studies
of
1978,
1979
and
1980
which
showed
that
the
waterway
is polluted upstream of Union’s outfall
at approximately
the
Lockport
Lock
(Exh.
5
at 5—21).
The authors conclude that
there
is no change in the diversity or
the number of organisms
due
to
the
effects
of
Union’s
discharge.
The concentration of ammonia nitrogen was also sampled
during the two benthic sampling days
in order
to calculate
the
un—ionized
ammonia
concentrations
which
are
toxic
to
fish
at
certain
levels.
Un—ionized
ammonia
concentrations
were
calculated
at
a
pH
of
7.4,
4.0
mg/i
ammonia
nitrogen,
and
at
temperatures
of
210 C and 260
C.
At the two temperatures,
the
un—ionized values were 0.042 mg/i and 0.060 mg/i,
respectively.
Reviewing
another
study,
the authors conclude that these levels
would
not
be
acutely
toxic
to
carp,
noting
that the above
calculated un—ionized
values
occur
after
the
mixing
area
of
less
than 100 feet downstream of Union’s discharge
(Exh.
5 at
5—22).
The authors of Exhibit
5 did not perform actual fish
population counts.
They did rely on a 1974 MSD fish study
wherein
carp,
goldfish
and
a
green
sunfish
were
caught
downstream
of
Union’s
outfall
at
the
Lockport
Lock
and
Dam
(Exh.
5
at
5—
21).
Eleven miles upstream of Union’s outfall
between Laramie
Avenue and Willow Springs Road there were no fish.
Id.
The
authors conclude that the lack
of fish diversity indicated by the
MSD study is
a result of the physical features of the Canal,
the
lack of spawning habitat and the low DO levels in the Canal.
Id.
Effluent Standard Relief
Union offers three main reasons why it cannot at this time
comply with the
3 mg/l ammonia nitrogen effluent standard.
First,
its water conservation practices contribute
to higher
concentrations of ammonia nitrogen
in its discharges,
although
the pound loadings remain constant
(R.
24—5).
Therefore,
using
a
concentration limitation
instead of
a mass limitation penalizes
Union.
The
Board
notes
that
Union
would
be
in
violation
even
if
it did not conserve water.
Second,
the increase
in use of sour
crudes, those with high sulfur and nitrogen contents, will
increase
the
ammonia
nitrogen
in the effluent
(Exh.
1,
Fig.
1;
R.
169—70).
Union noted that since
1979 the nitrogen content of its
crude oil has doubled
(R.
16).
The increased use of sour crudes
appears to be an industry trend
(Id., Attach.
1;
R.
16—17).
Third,
the
WWTP
is only accomplishing sporadic nitrification due
to
an
inhibitory
effect
of
an
unknown
substance
or
substances
on
the nitrifying bacteria population
(R.
150,
168,
42—3;
See 164—
166).
While some attempts have been made to identify the
substance
or substances,
they have not been identified
(R.
40-
1).
Union
asserts
that
no
technically
feasible
alternatives
which
are also economically reasonable have been shown
to
exist.
76-450
9
The Board
finds
that the existence of an alternative that
can consistently meet the
3 mg/l ammonia nitrogen effluent
standard at Union which is technically feasible and economically
reasonable
is not apparent based
on the record.
The evidence
does show that there
are alternatives available which would
approach this goal.
Additionally,
the Board
notes that the
current
impact
of
Union’s
discharge
on
the
waterway
is
minimal.
The Board will grant Union relief from the ammonia nitrogen
effluent
standard located at
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.122(b).
Union
will have to meet the BAT limitations at
40 CFR 419.23
for
ammonia nitrogen.
Water Quality Standard Relief
Union has requested relief from the DO WQS through the
operation of
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.105
(R.
9—11)
in the event
that the Board determines that Union causes
or contributes to
a
DO violation downstream in the Peoria pool of the Illinois River
(Pet’s Memorandum at 4,5).
The issue
of whether
relief
is needed
stems from the ISWS modeling study of DO concentrations
in the
Illinois River
at 7—day,
10—year low flow conditions, discussed
above.
The Agency contends that the general use ammonia nitrogen
WQS of Section 302.212 and
the secondary contact ammonia nitrogen
WQS of Section 302.407
also apply
to this proceeding
(Agency
Brief at
4).
The Board agrees that
in the theoretical situation
described,
Union would arguably be contributing
to the modeled DO
violation at low flow in the Peoria poo1
of the Illinois River.
However,
Union’s contribution
to this theoretical violation
is de
minimus.
No relief is needed
at this time.
This applies only to
the Peoria Pool DO model violation and shall not be construed as
applying to any other existing or potential WQ violation.
Theoretically, any upstream ammonia nitrogen discharge
contributes
to that DO violation.
The Board will consider actual
violation on a case by case basis.
For the Board
to rule
otherwise would trigger
a mass
of variance and site—specific
requests
for
relief from
theoretical WQS violations.
Even
if one assumes that WQS relief
is necessary in this
situation,
the mention of that possibility occurred
at hearing
and
in briefs.
There was
no adequate public notice of an
intention to change
a WQS pursuant
to 40 CFR 131.20(b)
(1985).
The relief in this proceeding will be confined
to
the effluent
discharge.
Conclusion
The First Notice proposed rule granted relief and proposed
that the
rule terminate on December
31, 1995.
Comments received
during the First Notice period will be addressed below.
76-451
10
Union objected
to the rule terminating the rule at a certain
future
date.
It
contended
that
it
had
adequately
made
a
case
for
permanent relief,
that
it is not
a major contributor
to
the
waterways pollution load, and that other
factors such as
agriculture,
the MSD and potential diversions
from Lake Michigan
can all have
a significant effect on the attainment of water
quality goals.
Union also asked the Board
to delete or
in the
alternative
modify
subsections
(d),
which
required
continued
efforts
to
reduce
the ammonia nitrogen concentration and monthly
reporting,
and
(e)
which required reporting of
the ammonia
nitrogen
content
of
its
feedstocks
reported
on
a
monthly
basis.
The
Agency
again
argued
that
the
Illinois
technology
based
standard
should
not
be
replaced
in
this instance by the less
stringent
Federal
BAT
limitations:
The
Agency’s
previously
stated
position
emphasizes
that
while
a
technology—based
standard
may
seem burdensome
to
isolated
and
individual
dischargers,
and
of
seemingly
dubious
beneift
to
water
quality,
it
is
nonetheless
appropriate
in
the
specific
context of
this regulatory
scheme.
The
fact
that
Section
304.122(b)
is
more
stringent
than
BAT
guidelines
cannot
be considered
as
justification
for
granting
relief
therefrom.
The water quality of the Illinois
River
system
is
affected
by
far
too
many
dischargers
to
detect
and
quantify
the
impacts
attributable
to
individual
dischargers
even
though
such may contribute
substantial
loadings.
(Agency
Comments
at
2).
The
Agency
also requested that,
“a
legitimate
evaluation
of
two—stage
biological
nitrification,
preferably
including
a
pilot
study,
should
be
required
during
the
‘sunset’
period
if
relief
is
granted.”
(Id.)
The
Agency
also
suggested
that
the
sunset
period
should
be
shortened
and
include
review
of
existing
rather
than
new technology.
The Agency objected
to any inference that it
has
the
burden
to
dispute
or
discredit
a
regulatory
proposal.
The
Agency concluded by recommending
a more limited level
of relief
than that proposed at First Notice.
(Id.)
The USEPA review comments concluded that the “sunset”
provision
“appears
appropriate”,
and
that
granting
relief
would
not
appear
to
“result
in
significant
influence
with
respect
to
acute
or
chronic
water
quality
criteria.”
The comments
included
the
following
statement:
Because
the
technology—based
standard
is
clearly
more
stringent
than
BAT
and
appears
more
stringent
than
dictated
by
water
quality
concerns,
applicability
is
appropriately
a
State
decision.
The
philosophy
and
rationale
76-452
11
for
applying
the
technology—based
limitation
is
adequately
and appropriately presented by
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(IEPA)
in the Board record.
The Board believes that
in certain situations site specific
rules
should
terminate
or
“sunset”
at
a
date
certain.
The
Board
first proposed such a sunset provision
in its First Notice
Opinion
and
Order
of
In
re
Sanitary
District
of
Decatur,
R85—l5,
January
23,
1986.
Although
the
Second
Notice
Opinion
and
Order
did not retain
the sunset provision,
the Board
found
that
it did
have the authority to impose such a provision.
This authority
stems from the broad rulemaking power
granted to the Board by
Section
27(a)
of
the
Act.
In
its
Second
Notice
Opinion
the
Board
stated:
Slunsetting
may
prudently
be
viewed
as
within
the
scope
of
Board
authority
to make
different
provisions
as
required
by
circumstances
for
different
contaminant
sources
and
for
different
geographical
areas.
Therefore,
the Board
determines
that
it
presently
does
have
authority
to
promulgate
sunset
provisions
in
rulemakings,
as circumstances may warrant.
Second Notice Opinion,
In
re
Sanitary District of Decatur,
R85—15,
slip op.
at
6,
April 10,
1986.
In addition, the Board stated that its defined
role under
the Act allows
for the imposition of a provision which terminates
a
regulation
on
a
particular
date.
Quoting
Section
5(b)
of
the
Act,
the
Board
stated
that
the
Board
“is
the
entity
in
Illinois
to
‘determine,
define and implement’
environmental control
regulations.”
The Board concluded that
since “the relief could
only emanate from the Board
initially,
it
is appropriate that the
Board determine the continuing validity of that relief
in the
future.”
Id.
at
7.
A sunset provision is merely the product of
such
a determination.
The Board will retain
the sunset provision in this
rule for
a number of reasons which taken together make permanent relief at
this time inappropriate.
The water
quality of the
receiving
stream
is expected
to change
in the near future.
This change
is
expected
to occur
after
the MSD Calumet plant achieves
nitrification
in
1987
and
as
a
result
of
the
TARP
project.
Union’s output
of ammonia nitrogen per unit of production
is
expected to vary considerably over time as
it utilizes
feedstocks
from different parts of
the world
in response
to the turbulent
oil market.
At the end of the sunset period,
it may be possible
to more accurately predict the sources of crude oil
the plant
will utilize and frame
a rule accordingly.
The BAT limitation
can change as processes are added or deleted at
a facility.
The
76-453
12
sunset provision will allow review of any such changes
in a
timely
manner.
In
addition,
the
Board
believes
that,
given
some
effort,
Union can improve its effluent quality.
Granting
permanent relief would remove any incentive for such efforts.
Union at hearing made
it clear
that
it would
take no substantial
steps
to decrease its ammonia nitrogen discharge if relief
is
granted
(R.
53,
54, 61).
The Aware Report’s evaluation of
alternatives was not detailed enough
to conclusively rule out all
alternatives.
More detailed testing would
be required
for
such a
determination.
Existing technology can significantly reduce
the
discharge
even if
it cannot consistently meet the standard.
These factors taken together suggest that the conditions present
today will almost certainly be changing
in the foreseeable future
and that the rule should have
a built—in provision for review.
Based on the record,
the Board at this time
is not willing
to
accept
the current level
of performance
as suitable
for permanent
relief.
The rule will terminate on December
31,
1993 rather than the
1995 date proposed at First Notice.
This
is consistent with the
Agency’s request that relief
be more limited.
The Board believes
that this will give the MSD adequate time
to bring
its Calumet
improvements on line and debug
them.
The remaining
time will
allow
the river
to respond
to the changes implemented by MSD and
for Union
to
investigate ways
to improve its effluent quality.
At that time,
the Board will be able to better evaluate the
appropriateness
of a permanent rule.
Subsections
(d)
and
(e)
are
modified
to take into account Union’s statement that the
reporting was too frequent and
a new
(f)
is added
for
the same
reason.
The monitoring
and reporting requirements for ammonia
nitrogen can be more appropriately addressed in the permit.
Subsection
(e)
is corrected by replacing the word “ammonia” with
“nitrogen”.
The Board
notes
that Union’s estimate that
its BAT
limitation is 775 lbs/day monthly average appears
to
be based on
the plant’s maximum practical capacity.
Forty CFR 122.45
(b)
(2)
(1985)
specifies that “calculation of any permit limitations,
standards,
or prohibitions which are based
on production
(or
other measures of operation)
shall be based
not upon the designed
production capacity but rather upon
a reasonable measure of
actual production of the facility.”
In accordance with this
provision, the Board expects any permit issued
to Union by the
Agency to take
into account the variability of actual
production.
One way of achieving
this would
be
to specify
maximum limitations
for
increments of 10 to 20 thousand barrels
per day of production over monthly periods.
While Union’s
capacity is about 155,000 barrels per day its production between
1979 and 1983 averaged 120,000
barrels per day and was between 80
and 100,000
for months at
a time
(AWARE Report,
Table 2—3).
The Board does not necessarily agree with the sweeping
assertions contained on page
2 of Union’s comments on First
Notice.
As noted
in the First Notice opinion,
the Board
is aware
76-454
13
that the Sanitary and Ship Canal
and Illinois River have a number
of pollution problems.
The Board agrees with the Agency that
these problems are serious and that existing poor water quality
should not be used to justify additional or continued long—term
pollution even by
seemingly small sources.
In the instant
proceeding
the Board has determined
that given the overall
situation the Union discharge of ammonia nitrogen at BAT levels
will
cause minimal additional environmental harm over the term of
this
rule.
That Union’s ammonia nitrogen discharge is not
“measurable”
or
readily
distinguishable
from
the
discharge
of
other sources
at downstream locations does not change the fact
that it
is an undesirable addition to
the aquatic ecosystem.
The.
waterways must be cleaned up to provide a suitable medium
for
diverse populations of aquatic life.
The Board
notes that the
water quality of
the waterways has been improving
over the years,
and intends that trend
to continue.
The Board agrees that the Agency is not required to dispute
or discredit a regulatory proposal.
A proposal
is
to rise or
fall on the strength or weakness of the record
in the
proceeding.
In this proceeding, however, the Agency has
suggested that the Board compare Union’s performance with that of
Mobil Oil Company,
but provides little information other than
that the plants are apparently similarly situated and Mobil very
nearly meets the standard.
The record does not contain factual
information
about the design, equipment,
processes and feedstocks
that would provide the Board with
a basis for
a valid
comparison.
The Board
is aware
that the Agency has limited
resources,
but again emphasizes the need
for participants to
place
their concerns and
information
into the record
in
a form
suitable for use
in reaching
a decision.
ORDER
The Board hereby directs the Clerk to cause
the filing of
the following final,
adopted
rule with
the Secretary of State.
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART
B:
SITE—SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS
NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section 304.213
Union Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge
a)
This Section applies
to discharges from Union Oil
Company of California’s Chicago Refinery, located
in
Lemont into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
76-455
14
b)
The
requirements
of
Section
304.122(b)
shall
not
apply
to the discharge.
Instead Union must meet applicable
Best
Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
(BA~J
limitations pursuant
to 40 CFR 419.23
(1985)
incorporated
by
reference
in
subsection
(c).
c)
The
Board
incorporates
by
reference
40
CFR
419.23
(1985)
only
as
it
relates
to
ammonia
nitrogen
as
N.
This
incorporation
includes
no
subsequent
amendments
or
ed it ions.
d)
Union shall continue its efforts to
reduce the
concentration of ammonia nitrogen
in its wastewaters.
e)
Union shall monitor the nitrogen concentration of its
oil
feedstocks
and
report
on
an
annual
basis
such
concentrations
to
the
Agency.
f)
Union
shall
submit
the
reports
described
in
subsection
(e)
no
later
than 30 days after
the end
of
a calendar
year.
~j
The
provisions
of
this Section shall
terminate on
December
31,
1993.
(Source:
Added
at
11
Ill.
Reg.
________________
effective
)
IT
IS
SO
OI~DERED.
B.
Forcade
dissented.
I, Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Opinion and Order
was
adopted
on
the_________________
day
of
Y)~
~
1987
by
a
vote of_________________
Ill
s P01
Control Board
76.456
