ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    December
    4,
    1975
    UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA,
    )
    (LEMONT REFINERY),
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB 75—342
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    INTERIM OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Zeitlin):
    This Matter is before the Board on a Petition for
    Variance submitted by Petitioner Union Oil Company on
    September
    5,
    1975,
    seeking relief from the cyanide effluent
    standard in Rule 403 of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution.
    Previous
    Variances have been granted from the cyanide standard for
    Petitioner’s Lemont Refinery in PCB 72—447,
    10 PCB 217
    (1973),
    and PCB 74—333,
    14 PCB 623
    (1974).
    The instant
    Variance
    is sought for the period December
    6,
    1975 to
    December
    6,
    1977.
    An invalid hearing was held, without a
    hearing officer, on November 10,
    1975.
    The record in this matter is deficient in the following
    respects:
    1.
    Petitioner states that as of May,
    1975,
    it has
    already installed a temporary facility for the incineration
    of cyanide—bearing wastewaters.
    Petitioner also states that
    it will take at least one year to complete the installation
    of a permanent system, during which time it will “from time
    to time have to revert back to prior operations”
    (emphasis
    supplied).
    Further, information submitted by the Agency,
    (and included by reference
    in the Petition),
    indicates
    that
    Petitioner
    is presently achieving cyanide discharge concentrations
    much smaller than the limits requested in the Petition.
    It is not clear from the pleadings whether the present
    low effluent concentrations are the result of present operation
    of the temporary incineration facilities.
    Nor
    is it clear
    whether Petitioner could achieve those
    low concentrations
    throughout the period of the Variance,
    were it to continue
    operation of the temporary incineration system,
    or even
    whether such continued operation of the temporary system
    is
    in fact possible during construction of the permanent
    incineration facilities.
    Petitioner’s reference
    to “prior
    operations”
    is not sufficiently clear to allow the relief
    19
    -
    401
    —2—
    granted,
    in that the Board is unable to judge
    the effect on
    the environment.
    2.
    Petitioner now claims that it has arrived at
    a
    final compliance program,
    its past Variances having been
    based on the “research” type of compliance plan.
    Petitioner
    states only that its incineration plan
    “is expected to
    result in compliance on a monthly average basis much of the
    time.”
    This
    is plainly insufficient as a final compliance
    plan.
    3.
    The Agency in its Recommendation raised the issue
    of the ultimate fate of the Cyanide-bearing wastewater which
    Petitioner intends to incinerate at “a petroleum coke
    calcining facility located near the refinery.”
    More important-
    ly, the Petition does not show whether Petitioner will have
    sufficient control over the nearby calcining facility to
    insure continued and/or constant availability of that
    facility’s excess heat, which
    is allegedly necessary to
    oxidize all cyanide present in the wastewater.
    Unless these issues are more fully addressed by Petitioner,
    the Board cannot grant the requested Variance.
    We note that
    Petitioner has waived its statutory 90-day decision period
    until December 11,
    1975.
    While it is not our wish to dismiss
    this matter without allowing the introduction of additional
    evidence, we cannot allow the grant of the requested Variance
    by virtue of inaction during the required decision period.
    ORDER
    1.
    The Variance Petition in this matter shall be dismissed
    without prejudice unless Petitioner timely waives its right
    to
    a decision in the matter until a date not earlier than
    30 days
    after the Board has received the complete record subsequent
    to
    a further hearing, such hearing to be held pursuant to part
    2
    of this Order.
    Such Waiver will be considered timely if
    filed on or before December
    10, 1975.
    2.
    Should Petitioner submit a timely waiver of its right
    to a decision,
    the matter is remanded to the hearing officer
    and the parties for a hearing to be held within
    60 days of the
    date of this Order, such hearing and any further appropriate
    pleadings to address,
    as
    a minimum,
    the issues raised in the
    foregoing Interim Opinion of the Board.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    19
    -
    402
    —3—
    I, Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify
    the above Interim 0
    nion and
    Order were adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ________________
    l975byavoteof
    .~,—o
    Ch istan L.
    èttf~~rk
    Illinois Pollution ~6~rol
    Board
    19
    -
    403

    Back to top