ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 24,
    1981
    TEXACO, INC.,
    a Delaware
    corporation,
    Petitioner,
    v
    )
    PCB 81—70
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION
    ~ND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by D. Anderson):
    This matter comes before the Board upon a petition and
    amended petition for variance filed May
    4 and June 26,
    1981
    by Texaco, Inc.,
    a Delaware corporation
    (Texaco).
    The petition
    requests extension of a variance previously granted from Rule 406
    of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution with respect to ammonia nitrogen
    discharges from Texaco’s Lockport petroleum refinery.
    On June 4,
    1981 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    recommended that
    the
    variance be granted with conditions.
    An amended recommendation correcting a typographical error
    was filed on August
    7,
    1981.
    No hearing has been held
    and
    the Board has received no public comment.
    Texaco operates a petroleum refinery on the northern peri-
    phery of Lockport, on the eastern bank of the Chicago Sanitary
    and
    Ship Canal,
    in Will County.
    The facility possesses NPDES
    Permit No. IL 0002305.
    It has been granted two previous
    variances from Rule 406
    (Texaco, Inc.
    v. EPA, PCB 77-154,
    28 PCB 371, December
    8,
    1977; and PCB 78—306,
    33 PCB 117,
    March
    15, 1979.
    The petition in the latter is incorporated
    by reference pursuant to Procedural Rule 402(a).
    Texaco was
    allowed to discharge a daily average of 184 kg of ammonia
    nitrogen with a daily maximum of 405 kg.
    Sources of ammonia include intake water, sour water
    strippers and a water degassing drum.
    Treatment includes
    bacterial denitrification.
    Texaco has achieved low effluent
    ammonia levels
    at times, but experiences elevated levels during
    cold weather
    and
    at other times.
    Texaco suspects that materials
    toxic to its bacteria are sometimes introduced into its waste—
    water from its processes.
    In PCB 78-306 Texaco agreed to
    implement a compliance program involving preparation of a
    43—349

    —2—
    proposal to deal with nitrification problems in cold weather.
    Texaco concluded that it would cost $1300 per day to heat the
    aeration basin.
    This was not thought to be “cost effective”.
    Texaco also concluded that low temperature was not the
    only cause of decreased nitrification.
    Texaco felt that inhibi-
    tory compounds exist in some refinery wastestreams, including
    unstripped sour water.
    Texaco proposed to identify inhibitors,
    increase sour water stripping capacity, control sour water
    discharges
    and
    suspected
    inhibitors,
    maintain
    adequate
    dissolved
    oxygen in the aeration basin and use mutant bacteria.
    Texaco achieved some success with mutant bacteria and witi
    maintenance of oxygen levels.
    A sour water storage tank
    and
    collection system has been completed.
    A water recycling project
    has been completed in addition to the proposed program.
    On
    May
    1,
    1981,
    refinery operations ceased.
    Texaco intends,
    in the spring of 1982,
    to decide whether to reopen.
    After the decision to cease production, Texaco ceased
    construction activities directed toward compliance.
    These
    included additional recycling and sour water storage systems.
    Although production has ceased, the wastewater treatment plant
    continues in operation, treating waste water generated from
    cleaning and other shutdown operations.
    The plant no longer
    produces sour water.
    Texaco is continuing to add mutant bac—
    teria and is continuing research directed at identifying
    inhibitory
    compounds.
    The
    facility withdraws from the canal about 84.5 Ni/day
    (megaliters per day)
    or 22.3 NGD
    (million gallons per day).
    30.0 Ml/day is used for process water, resulting in
    a process
    wastestream of about 16.9
    141/day
    (4.5 MGD).
    This is mixed with
    54.5 Ml/day of once-through cooling water, resulting in
    a
    total discharge of 71.4 Ml/day
    (18.9 MGD).
    This is discharged
    to the canal.
    In PCB 78—306 Texaco was granted a two—year variance from
    the
    3.0 mg/l ammonia nitrogen standard of Rule 406.
    The vari-
    ance
    condition
    was
    set
    at
    a
    level
    equal
    to
    applicable
    federal
    guideline3.
    Texaco
    was
    not
    to
    exceed
    a
    daily
    average
    of
    184 kg/day or a daily
    maximum
    of
    405
    kg/day,
    the
    same limita-
    tions requested in this action.
    The 3.0 mg/l standard applied to the process wastestream
    would allow 51 kg/day.
    Applied to the total discharge without
    correction for dilution it would allow 214 kg/day
    Rule
    401(a).
    43—350

    —3—
    Rule 406
    is currently based on a daily average.
    A proposal to
    change
    this to a monthly basis is pending before the Board
    (R76—21,
    Proposed rule, Second notice Order of August 20, 1981).
    Petitioner
    complied
    with
    the
    variance
    limitations
    during
    the
    period from April, 1980 through March,
    1981.
    The following
    table
    indicates
    the
    overall averages and the range
    of values
    recorded:
    kg/day
    mg/l
    Minimum
    0
    less than 0.1
    Average
    68
    4.1
    Maximum
    395
    24.0
    Pursuant to the Board’s request Texaco provided information
    concerning dissolved oxygen levels
    in the LaGrange Pool of th~
    Illinois River.
    Ammonia nitrogen discharges
    tend to depress
    dissolved oxygen levels downstream due to the oxygen required
    for denitrification.
    Texaco’s data indicate dissolved oxygen
    levels in the
    river of 4.0 to 5.8 mg/i during the
    summer
    of
    1979.
    Most of these
    are less than the instantaneous minimum
    dissolved oxygen standard of
    5.0
    mg/i for general use waters
    Rule
    203(d).
    Texaco’s effluent data
    cia
    not show
    a clear trend toward
    a reduction in ammonia levels.
    However the Board
    finds that
    Texaco has made satisfactory progress toward full compliance
    within the meaning of §36(b)
    of the Environmental Protection
    Act
    (Act).
    The variance will be granted with conditions similar
    to those recommended by the Agency.
    Texaco will be required to
    file quarterly reports outlining its efforts
    to achieve com-
    pliance.
    Petitioner will be required to notify the Agency in
    the event production is resumed and provide within one year
    a
    written technical proposal for compliance with Rule
    406.
    The Board will also require that Texaco provide a plan for
    in stream aeration of the Sanitary and Ship Canal
    as a part of
    the
    above
    compliance
    plan.
    This
    is
    to
    be in addition to a plan
    for
    improving
    the
    effluent quality,
    In
    the event Texaco reopens
    the
    facility,
    it
    will be required to present to
    the
    Agency
    a
    study of the feasibility of introducing excess oxygen into the
    Canal,
    including cost estimates.
    The aeration plant need not be
    located at the refinery and Texaco may propose
    a facility
    operated jointly with other dischargers.
    The plan should
    also address any regulatory obstacles to in stream aeration.
    The variance granted in PCB 78-306 referred to a “daily
    average”
    and
    a
    “daily
    maximum”.
    Texaco
    requested
    the
    same
    mass
    discharge
    limits
    except
    that
    the
    lower
    figure
    is
    to
    be
    a
    “monthly
    average”
    and
    the
    higher
    figure
    a
    “daily
    maximum”.
    In
    its
    amendment the Agency recommended the same thing.
    The Board
    43—351

    —4—
    will condition the variance on a “monthly average’~and “daily
    composite”.
    This
    terminology
    will
    be
    more
    consistent
    with
    the
    proposal
    in
    R76-21.
    The
    terms
    “daily
    average”
    and
    “daily
    maximum”
    were
    not
    defined
    in
    the
    earlier
    Order.
    The
    variance
    condition
    here
    is
    identical
    to
    the
    earlier
    if
    “daily
    maximum”
    referred
    to
    the
    highest
    daily
    average
    in
    a
    given
    month
    (now
    called
    the
    ~‘dai1y
    composite”)
    and
    “daily
    average”
    referred
    to
    the
    average
    of
    composites
    over
    a
    month
    (now
    called
    “monthly
    average”).
    On
    the other hand,
    it is arguable that the old conditions
    referred
    to
    daily
    composite
    and
    grab
    sample
    limits.
    If
    this
    were
    the
    case,
    the
    variance
    granted
    here
    would
    differ
    from
    the
    earlier.
    The
    Board
    will
    assume
    this
    was
    not
    the
    case.
    The
    following
    is
    a
    summary
    of
    terminology:
    PCB
    78-306
    PCB
    81-70
    kg/day
    Daily
    average
    Monthly
    average
    184
    Daily
    maximum
    Daily
    composite
    405
    This
    Opinion
    constitutes
    the
    Board’s
    findings
    of
    fact
    and
    conclusions
    of
    law
    in
    this
    matter.
    ORDER
    Petitioner
    Texaco,
    Inc.
    is
    granted
    for
    its
    Lockport
    refinery
    a
    variance
    from
    Rule
    406
    of
    Chapter
    3:
    Water
    Pollution
    subject
    to
    the
    following
    conditions:
    1.
    This
    variance
    will
    expire
    two
    years
    from
    the
    date
    of
    this
    Order.
    2.
    Petitioner
    shall
    not
    cause
    or
    allow
    the
    discharge
    of
    ammonia
    nitrogen
    into
    the
    Chicago
    Sanitary
    and
    Ship
    Canal
    in
    excess
    of
    the
    levels
    indicated
    below.
    This
    is
    not
    intended
    to
    alter
    monitoring
    and
    reporting
    requirements
    in
    the
    NPDES
    permit.
    Monthly
    Average
    Daily
    Composite
    Ammonia
    nitrogen
    184
    kg/day
    405
    kg/day
    3.
    Petitioner
    shall
    notify
    the
    Agency
    of
    any
    decision
    to
    permanently
    close
    the
    refinery.
    4 3—352

    —5--
    4.
    Petitioner
    shall
    notify
    the
    Agency
    in
    the
    event
    produc-
    tion
    is
    re-established.
    5.
    Within
    one
    year
    after
    production
    is
    re-established
    Petitioner
    shall
    provide
    the
    Agency
    with
    a
    written
    technical
    proposal
    for
    compliance
    with
    Rule
    406.
    This
    shall
    include
    a
    proposal
    for
    in
    stream
    aeration
    as
    outlined
    in
    the
    Opinion.
    6.
    Petitioner
    shall
    notify
    the
    Agency
    at
    the
    time
    its
    wastewater
    treatment
    plant
    is
    shutdown
    and
    also
    at
    the
    time
    its
    wastewater
    treatment
    plant
    is
    brought
    back
    into
    operation
    for
    final
    cleanup.
    7.
    Within
    forty—five
    days
    of
    the
    date
    of this Order,
    Petitioner
    shall
    execute
    and
    forward
    to
    the
    Illinois
    Environ-
    mental Protection Agency, Variance Section,
    2200 Churchill
    Road,
    Springfield,
    Illinois
    62706,
    a
    Certificate
    of
    Acceptance
    and
    Agreement
    to
    be
    bound
    to
    all
    terms
    and
    conditions
    of
    this
    variance.
    This
    forty-five
    day
    period
    shall
    be
    held
    in
    abeyance
    for
    any
    period
    this
    matter
    is
    being
    appealed.
    The
    form
    of
    the
    Certificate
    shall
    be as follows:
    CERTIFICATION
    I,
    (We,)
    ,
    having
    read
    and
    fully
    understanding
    the
    Order
    in PCB
    81-70,
    hereby
    accept
    that Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms and
    conditions.
    SIGNED
    ________________________________
    TI
    TLE
    __________________________________
    DATE
    ______________________________
    8.
    The
    Agency,
    pursuant
    to
    Rule
    914
    of
    Chapter
    3:
    Water
    Pollution,
    shall
    modify
    NPDES
    permit
    No.
    1L0002305
    consistent
    with
    the
    conditions
    set
    forth
    in
    this
    Order.
    IT
    IS
    SO
    ORDERED.
    43—353

    —6—
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby cer~ifythat the above Order was adopted
    on the
    ~
    day
    ~
    ,
    1981 by a vote of
    ~
    43—354

    Back to top