ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
March 14,
1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
R84—13
PROPOSAL OF UNION OIL COMPANY
OF CALIFORNIA TO ANEND THE WATER
POLLUTION REGULATIONS
PROPOSED RULE.
FIRST 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 mg/l ammonia nitrogen effluent
standard established
in 35
Ill.
Adm.
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, 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).
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
2
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 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/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
monthly averages typically greater
than 90 percent.Union
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
3
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).
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/l 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.
4
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 Union should be
required by the
Board
to proceed with second
stage nitrification
(Agency Brief
at
7,
9,
10).
The
record before
the Board
does not support
such
a
finding.
The Union expert testified that while second stage
nitrification was theoretically feasible,
it would present
operational difficulties
(R.
180—2).
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.
1, Table
3)..
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 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
Plair.es 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.
5
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/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
(Id.,
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—lB, 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
6
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 0.017 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 Calumet 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
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 Caiumet 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 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
7
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).
Giving
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 pointing
to
a polluted stream
segment 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 21°C and 26°C.
At the two temperatures,
the
un—ionized values were 0.042 mg/i 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
8
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/i 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,
although not consistently.
Additionally,
the Board
notes that the current impact of
Union’s discharge on the waterway is minimal.
The Board finds
that Union has shown exceptional
circumstances to justify relief.
Therefore,
the Board will grant
Union relief from the ammonia nitrogen effluent standard located
at
35
Iii.
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
be contributing
to the modeled DO
violation at low flow
in the Peoria pooi
of the Illinois River.
Given
the facts
of this proceeding,
however,
such violation
is
de
minimus and no relief
is needed.
This finding 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
9
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
thet possibility occured 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 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 pollution.
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 will allow Union to meet the BAT limits
for
ammonia nitrogen instead
of those of Section 304.122(b).
Union
is also required to continue
its current efforts
to reduce
ammonia nitrogen discharges.
At hearing, Union committed
to
continue operating
its existing nitrogen removal facilities
(R.
62).
Union’s consultant also stated that continued operation was
essential to consistently meet the BAT standard
(R.
193).
Union
shall
also monitor
its
influent and effluent ammonia nitrogen
concentrations,
as well as the nitrogen content of its crude oil
and report them to the Agency on
a monthly basis.
On
its own motion, the Board has incorporated
40 CFR
419.23
(1985)
by reference into the rule and added a requirement that
the site specific
rule,
if finally adopted, expire
in
approximately eight years.
This “sunset provision”
is
appropriate
in this situation because of the changing water
quality situation.
It
is expected
that once the MSD Calumet WWTP
plant achieves nitrification
in early 1987,
significant changes
in water quality will occur
in the Canal
and the Illinois
Waterway.
The Board anticipates that the eight years will
provide adequate time for the MSD improvements
to come on line
and
be debugged, allowing four to five years to determine how
water quality will respond.
Prior
to the termination date,
Union
will
be able
to assess
the water quality and should also have
better data on the nitrogen content of its feedstocks and any
improvements
in nitrogen removal technology.
Unfortunately,
the record does not contain
a discussion
of
the current or future effects
of MSD’s Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan
(TARP)
on water quality
in the Canal
and the Illinois Waterway.
A consultant
for Union did state that “according
to MSDGC’s
Facility Plan Supplement, modeling of the dissolved oxygen
10
profile
in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal indicated that
without elimination
of combined sewer overflow the DO standard
could not be maintained.”
(Exh.
4 at
3).
Such information on
TARP,
a Chicago metropolitan combined sewer overflow project,
would
be helpful
in the
future,
especially as different phases
are completed.
The Board,
in another site—specific proceeding,
In
re
Decatur Sanitary District, R85—15
(First Notice Opinion and
Order, January 23,
1986), proposed a sunset provision wherein the
Board
stated:
Among
other situations
is the possibility that
a
future change
in treatment technology,
or,
in the
alternative,
a change
in technical
or scientific
understanding of the dynamics of water quality, would
reflect negatively on the exception granted to the
District.
The Board can not determine that any such
changes will occur, but neither can
it definitively say
that they will not.
Given that the history of
environmental management has witnessed many such
changes,
the prudent posture may be
to limit
the
operation of
an exception
to
a specific time interval,
after which
a reconsideration may
be undertaken.
Admittedly,
the problems associated with the
permanency of a rule can be challenged by a counter—
proponent who
at
a future date offers an alternative
rule which partially or
in total
reverses
an existing
site—specific rule.
However,
this places the burden on
a party other
than the holder of
the exception.
The
Board believes
a more appropriate procedure is to
require the holder
of the exception to bear the burden
of justification for continuing
the exception.
In addition,
the Board expressed
its concern that the
proliferation of
site—specific proposals,
absent some Board
review mechanism, would lead to “an edifice
of patchwork site—
specific rules,
some of which will inevitably become obsolete and
others which will
lose their justification with time.”
(Id.
at
7).
The Board likewise adopts
the Decatur reasoning here.
In commenting on this proceeding,
the Agency raised
questions
as
to why Union’s nitrogen removal was
far less
efficient than that of
the nearby Mobil refinery.
It also
suggested that Union could employ existing technology
to improve
its effluent quality.
Unfortunately,
these matters were not
pursued at hearing, when witnesses were available
to shed
considerable light on the questions.
The Board invites both
Union and the Agency to provide such substantive comments and
data as they see
fit during the first notice period.
Although the Board believes
that Union should
be allowed
to
continue
its current activities,
such activities are reasonable
11
only until
its discharges can be viewed
in light of expected
changes on the waterways.
At that time a
far more accurate
assessment of
the impact of the discharge and feasibility of
compliance can be made.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes
to adopt
the following rule and
instructs
the Clerk of the Board
to cause
its publication for
First Notice
in the Illinois Register:
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 304
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, Illinois
into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal.
b.
The requirements of Section 304.122(b)
shall not apply
to said 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
incorporation includes
no subsequent amendments or
editions.
d.
Union
shall continue its efforts
to reduce
the
concentration of ammonia nitrogen
in its wastewaters and
shall
continue monitoring
the influent and effluent
ammonia nitrogen concentrations of
its wastewater
treatment plant,
reporting such concentrations to the
Agency
in both lbs/day and mg/i
on
a monthly basis.
e.
Union shall monitor the ammonia nitrogen concentration
of
its oil
feedstocks and
report such concentrations to
the Agency on
a monthly basis.
f.
The provisions
of this Section shall terminate on
December
31,
1995.
12
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
Board Members
B.
Forcade, J.T.
Meyer,
and
W. Nega 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
~~c’,-~’e4
1986 by
a vote of
__________________
/
~
~
/~2~
4/~
~
Dorothy
M. ~nn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
