ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 8,
1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
R84—l3
PROPOSAL OF UNION OIL COMPANY
OF CALIFORNIA TO AMEND THE WATER
)
POLLUTION REGULATIONS
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND NOTICE.
PROPOSED 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 ing/l 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/l
(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 by a vote of
3.
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.
Hearing Record
Union owns and operates
a petroleum cracking refinery
located
in
Lernont,
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
74-507
2
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 Calumet 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 nitrogen 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.
The varianee 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/l
(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
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
74-508
3
monthly averages typically greater
than 90 percent.
Union claims
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/l 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/l
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).
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
74-509
4
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
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).
74.510
5
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/biochemical 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.
I, 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
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/l April through October and 4.0 mg/l November
through
March (Section 302.407).
The dissolved oxygen
(DO) WQS
for
secondary contact water
is
4
mg,’l
(Section 302.405).
74-511
6
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
influerit ammonia nitrogen at its plant upstream of Lockport
shows ammonia nitrogen WQS violations
in the Canal
(Id.,
Figure.
3—2).
Violations of the DO secondary WOS are also occurring at
the Lockport station
(Id., Table
3—2).
The general use ammonia nitrogen WQS ranges from 1.5 mg/l
to
15 mg/l based on temperature and pH
(Section 302.212).
The
general use minimum DO WQS
is
5 mg/l, but DO may not be less than
6 mg/l 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—18,
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 WOS 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/l in the Peoria Pool
at river mile
180
(Exh.
4; Table 4).
It is expected that this level will
increase to 3.7 mg/l 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 0.017 mg/l
(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 Calumet Treatment Plant achieves an effluent quality
of
7
mg/i BOD and
2 mg/l ammonia nitrogen
(R.
119-121).
This
assumption by Union
is based on the historical decrease in
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).
74-512
7
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 pool 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 midges 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).
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.
74-513
8
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
21
C and 26
C.
At the two temperatures, the
un—ionized values were 0.042 mg/l and 0.060 mg/l, 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 upstream
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.
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.
74-514
9
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 pool
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 adeqate 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.
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
74-515
10
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
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
74.516
11
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:
Sunsetting
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—l5,
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
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
74.517
12
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
th.e 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
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
74-518
13
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 directs
that second notice of the following
proposed rule be
submitted
to the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules:
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.
b)
The requirements of Section 304.122(b)
shall
not apply
to the discharge.
Instead Union must meet applicable
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT)
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
74.519
14
incorporation includes no subsequent amendments or
editions.
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.
gj
The provisions of
this Section shall terminate on
December
31,
1993.
(Source:
effective
Added at 11
Ill. Reg.
)
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
B.
Forcade dissented.
I, Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed O,pinion and Order
was
adopted
on
the
__________________
day
of
~
1987
by
a
vote
of
~—/
.
/~
_~
i
V
~
Dorothy M. 4~unn,CleTk
Illinois Pollution Control Boar
74-520
