ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
8
,
1977
TEXACO,
INC.,
a
Delaware corporation,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 77—154
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Mr.
Mark
H. Virshbo appeared on behalf of Petitioner.
Ms.
Susan H.
Shumway, Assistant Attorney General, appeared
on behalf of the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Young):
On June
8,
1977, Petitioner filed a Motion seeking a
determination under Rule 302 in Chapter
3:
Water Pollution
Regulations that
a stream known as Deep Run Creek be re-
classified as a secondary contact water.
In
the
alternative,
Texaco submitted a variance petition requesting relief from
certain provisions of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations
until May
1,
1978.
S~ecifica11y, a variance is requested
from Rule 203(f)
as it applies
to ammonia nitrogen and total
dissolved solids
(TDS)
and from the Rule 203(i) maximum
temperature requirements.
On June
28,
1977,
the Board set this matter for hearing
following the Agency’s Objection to the variance.
The Agency
submitted a Recommendation on July
27,
1977,
and an Amended
Recommnnclation
on
October
1.1
,
1977,
to
dc~ny
!:he
Motion
for
Recla:~ification
and
to
qrant
the
var~ancesub~c~
to
certain
cond~tions.
After
numerous
conL~nuances
~nd
L~±1~±
Lan to waivers
of
the statutory deadline,
a hearing was held on October 11,
1977,
in which Petitioner withdrew its Notion to Reclassify
Deeo Run Creek and submitted its variance
as amended by their
Response of August 29, 1977.
During the hearing, the Agency
withdrew their Objection to the variance and both parties
stipulated to facts
in the Petition and the Recommendation
as
amended;
the parties further agreed to
a proposed plan as part
of the settlement that Petitioner construct a pumping station
to divert the wastewater discharge
from the Deep Run Creek
into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
28
—
371
—2—
The Board has held
that
the
stipulation
and uroposed
settlement
between
parties
is
not appropriate in
a variance
or~ceodincc.
Tilini Beef Packers,
Inc., PCB 76-117
(Sentember
2~, 1777)
.
In this case,
tao Board will act
in response
to
the F~ctiticnas amended to reflect the changes
cit
the hearing
and w11
consider the Agency’s action as a recommendation
favorable
to grant of the variance.
Petitioner owns and onerates
a petroleum refinery which
is located on the eastern bank of the Chicago Sanitary and
Shin Canal
in Lockport,
Illinois.
The refinery withdraws
an annual average of 17,132 gpm from the Ship Canal and
returns
its once-through cooling waters
(approrhmately 60)
to
the Ship Canal;
the refinery’s orocess wastewutor which
is
treated and discharged into the Deep Run Creek,
is the
sueject of this variance petition
(Pet.
p10,
11).
Deco Run Creek
is 3.7 miles in length and averages
100
feet
in width;
dry weather flow is estimated
as less than
972 gem.
In the 1960’s,
the Petitioner and others enlarged
the channel
to allow for the increased discharges from nearby
onerations.
In the present form,
the Deep Run Creek receives
overflows from the
ILl
inois
and lvlichigan Canal and serves
as
a backwater for the Sanitary
Canal.
At
this
time,
the Deep
Ran
Creek
receives
discharges
from
Petitioner’s
refinery
at
ci
rate
of
4250
ppm
and
from
the
Lockport
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
at
694
ppm
(Pet.
p3,
4,
9).
Accordinq
to
monitoring
renorts
taken
from
Deep
Run
Creek
downstream
from
the
Texaco
discharge
(January,
1975,
to January,
1977)
,
the
1.5
mg/l
ammonia nitrogen standard
(as N) was exceeded in one—half
of
the readings while violation of the 1000 mg/i total
dissolved solid standard occurred once during the two—year
period.
In addition,
the monitoring report indicates
that
the naximum temperature water quality standard was exceeded
on four occasions during the two—year reporting period
(Rec.
n7)
I
i
t
i
orn
r
a
1
1
n~
~
5
1.11
I
In’
pun
I
I
t.y
~
I
I
In’ wa; ow
t
or
Ii
(H
I(
(
(‘5
I
d
I
1 y
a
rIIIIiOI~
I
a
n
I
0O
si
I1(
‘ri
)~
~
0
si
n
r5~vated
H
;‘Lprnund
leve
Is
present
in
the
intake wat
or
11
em
the
Ship
Canal
and
thereby
claims
background
allowances
under
Rule
401
(h)
for
those
parameters.
The
Board
does
not
aeree.
As
stated
in
pertinent
part,
the
concentration
in
question
must
he:
“...entirely
from
influent
contamination,
evanoration
and/or
the
incidental
traces
of
materials
not
utilized
or
produced
in
the
activity
of
the
source
of
the
waste
(Rule
401(b))
.“
28
—
372
—3—
Since
Petitie
efinerv produces stgnificant
con-
centrations
of
amm
arogen
and TDS in ats processes,
the discharge must
c5~m~
th the standard without
an
allowance
for back~ou~
Jie
discharge
iio
Deep
Run
Creek
The refinery~s
discharge
r
te leaves no zone of
passage
as required by Rule 201 of Chapter
3,
Petitioner claims
that
the
mixing
zone
and
zone oa passage requirements
do
not apply to the
treatient
facility
for any of the parameters.
The Board cannot
agrre
Rue
231
of Chapter
3 establishes
mizing
zones to provice an adec
ate zone of nassage for
aquatic life in
the
stream.
In
this
matter
~etitioner’s
discharge
of 4250
ppm
of
the
Deep Run Creek exceeds the
natural
mixing zone
boundaries
and
may
thereby block any
reasonable
zone
of passage in violation of Rule
201.
According to the propose1 ‘ompliance plan, the Petitioner
estimates that the constru~
of the pumping station and
related appurtenances
to diie~ the discharge
to the Ship
Canal will cost $200,000
~
to this Petition, the re-
finery had devoted much
d money in efforts
to control
air
and waterborne
emissc
i
Tn
1970,
Petitioner built a
sophisticated
wastewater
-tent plant at a cost of
$6
million.
In 1972,
1t
con’~:ncicted
two 10-acre storm retention
ponds equipped
with
oil
skimmer~
costing
$300,000.
In
efforts
to improve air quali~i,
the
retlnery has installed a Sulfur
Recovery Unit witi
T,~r1 Gas
Treating costing in excess of
$2.6 million and
~)
boilers
and electrostatic precipitators
costing $8.8 million.
At the present time, Petitioner con-
templates additional projects
to improve its air and water
performance at a
cost
of
$1.5
million
(Pet.
p26).
Furthermore,
Petitioner has
set
up
a
water conservation and recycling plan
to reduce the
amount
of
effluent discharged and to meet certain
limitations imposed by the refinery’s NPDES permit.
This latter
program is expected to increase concentrations of ammonia nitro-
gen and TDS in the future
(Pet.
p14,
15).
At the present
time,
the
quality of the effluent for ammonia
nitrogen,
TDS, and
temperature
is as
follows:
1)
The
refinery~s
discharge of ammonia nitro-
gen
to
the
Deep Run Creek amounted to an
annual average of 201,3 kg/day
for
1975
which
wa’
reduced
to
112.3
kg/day
during
1976
(Pe
,
p14); discharge
concentrations
for
ammonia nitrogen
are
6.7 mg/l from
April to November
and
15.3
mg/l
from
December through March
(Pet.
Resp.
p2,
3).
28
—
373
—4-’
2)
The dl
charge of total dissothed solids
ranges
from
800
to
1750
mg/i
\~cth
an
average of 1082 mg/i.
Reduced flows
from the treatment facility w:~
II
increase
concentrations
to range between 1000 and
2100
mg/i
(Pet.
p15)
with
an
average
of
1500 mg/i
(Pet.
Resp.
p2).
3)
The
temperature
of the refinery’s discharge
to Deep Run Creek which ranges between
90°
and
100°F
in
the
summer
months
and
65°
and
76°F
in
the
remaining
months
is
apt to cause violations of
th
ambient
water temperatures of Deep Run Creek which
ranges from 33°Fto 85°during the year
(Pet.
p15,
16).
The Agency points out that the refinery
is meeting the
Best Practicable Control Technology Available pursuant to the
FWPCA P.L,92-500
as required by its NPDES permit for most of
the requirements, except that it is encountering problems
with the suspended solids and the ammonia nitrogen limits at
the same time
(Rec.
p14,
15)
A biological survey to determine the condition of Deep
Run Creek downstream from the discharge was conducted by the
Agency on December 10, 1975,
and June 15,
1976.
The Agency,
based on these surveys, concludes that but for Petitioner’s
present discharge,
a diversified biota would exist
(Rec. p5-
10).
Additionally,
the
waters
downstream
from
the
discharge
contain
sludge-like
deposits
which
cause
oil
slicks
when
disturbed.
If Petitioner’s proposed diversion were implemented, the
Agency claims that the diversion into the Ship Canal would meet
the applicable requirements for BOD, suspended solids, total
dissolved solids,
temperature and mixing zone requirements of
Chapter
3
because
it
would
then
he
subject
to
the
less
stringent
water
quality
standards
of
Rule
205 for secondary contact waters.
However,
the
Agency believes that Petitioner’s proposed dis-
charge may violate the State effluent limits of Rule 406, Chapter
3 and Federal mass discharge limits for suspended solids
(Rec.
p16)
Despite these shortcomings, the refinery is making head-
way toward controlling their air and water emissions.
In light
of Petitioner’s prior efforts and the proposed plan, the Board
finds
that to require immediate compliance with the water quality
standards
in the Deep Run Creek would impose an arbitrary and
28
—
374
—5—
unreasonable
hardshth
The Board will hereb
grant a variance
to Petitioner from
I
hole
201 zone of pass~ce requirement,
from Rule 203(f)
as it applies
to ammonia niTrogen and TDS,
and from the Rule 203(i) mavunum temperature
~quirements
for
the
Deep
Run
Creek
until
May
I,
1978.
The Board considers
the
prc~oseddiversion
to
be a
reasonable
plan to correct the water
qualiL1f
problems
in
Deep
Run
Creek.
However,
this diversion
may be
ocily an interim solution,
In the
event that the Board
reclassifica
the Ship Canal
as a primary
contact water, Petitioner
will Ic required to meet these
water
quality standards of Rule
203.
This Opinion constitutes
the
Board’s
ft~dings of fact and
conclusions of law in this
matter.
ORDER
The Petitioner
is
grantth
a variance to the Lockport
Refinery
from Rules
201, Ruie 203(f)
fo~ammonia nitrogen and total
dissolved solids and from Rule
~3(i)
for the Deep Run Creek
until May
1,
1978, subject to rue following conditions:
a)
Petitioner
L5
canted
a variance from Rule
203(f) with respect to total dissolved solids,
subject to the limitation that Petitioner’s
discharge shall
n~c
contain more than 1500
mg/l of total dissolved solids based on the
monthly averages nor more than 2100 mg/I on
any given day.
b)
Petitioner
is granted a variance from the
zone
of passage requirements of Rule
201.
c)
Petitioner
is granted a variance from Rule
203(i) subject to the condition that Peti-
tioner’s discharge temperature shall not
exceed 100°Fin summer nor 76°Ffor the
remainder of the year.
d)
Petitioner
is granted a variance from Rule
203(f) with respect to ammonia nitrogen subject
to the condition
that Petitioner’s discharge
shall not exceed
6.7 mg/i
(gross)
for the
months April
through
November
and
15.3 mg/l
(gross)
fur the months December through March
nor 30 mgil
(gross)
on any given day nor 8.7
mg/i
as
a twelve—month running average of
monthly averages.
28
—
375
—6—
e)
Petiti~ner chall
b?
required
meet
the
mass discharc~1
lirJts
in
Petic~cacr’s
NPDES permit
c imolement
~r practi-
cable control
iology to
a5
~ove com-
pliance with Inc
cter qualitn standards
of
Chapter
3.
f)
Not later than
Ma
ci’
1~ 1978,
Petitioner
shall prepare a r. nort for presentation
to
the
Agency
eel
cling
‘~he el~ectiveness
of
Petitioner’s
s
~er
poiluth
control
program
with
par’
cilar
refer
.
e
to the
ammonia nitrogen
~ed
total
sus,~ended
solids
components of PeL honor’s
discharge.
Should this
repc~
determine that the
existing
hardwai~
ciii
Petitioner’s
water
pollution
contru
~sythcm
be
irad.equate
to
meet the
appli
e
lim~ts
for
total
sus-
pended solids
er~~amr~on1a
nitrogen,
then
that report
sha
detail
the
steps
Petitioner
will take and
equipment and operating
techniques wt1
.Jilize in order
to assure
compliance
~
~-hose
standards.
g)
Petitioner
shall
oly
for
al.
necessary
modification
of
NP~LS per
nt,
Petitioner shall within
rorty-flie
(45)
days
after
the
date
of
the
Board
Order,
herein,
execute
and
forward
to
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Variance
Section,
Manager,
Division
of
Water
PolL
lion.
Control,
2200
Churchili
Road,
Springfield, Illinois,
6/c06,
and the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be
bound by all of the terms and conditions of
the variance.
The forty-five day period heretn shall not run during judicial
review of this variance
pursuant
to Section 41 of the Environ-
mentai Protection Act.
The
form
of
said
certification
shall
be
as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We),
______
____
having
read
and
fuily
understanding
the
Order
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
in
ECE
7li154,
hereby
accept
said
Order
and
agsee
to
be
bound
by
all
of
the
terms
and conditions thereof.
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
IT
IS
SO
ORDEREd
I,
Christan
L. Moffett,
Ci
Dc of the
Ii
~
cuts
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
tick
above
OpL
and
Order
were
adopted
on
the
~
day
of
tigq~~
by
a
vote
of
‘I-o
Christan
L
.Mofftrtj
Clerk
crcjnojs
Poilu. ~.tio~l~Control
Board
28
—
377