ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 11, 1973
)
CLARK OIL AND REFINING CORPORATION
)
)
)
v.
)
PCB 73-238
)
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
)
MR. W. GERALD THURSBY OF HACKBERT, ROOKS, PITTS, FULLAGER AND
POUST, appeared on behalf of Clark Oil and Refining Corporation
MR. LARRY R. EATON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, appeared on behalf
of the Environmental Protection Agency
OPINION AND ORIJER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle)
Clark filed a Petition for Variance from the Pollution Control
Board’s Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3 (Water Pollution Rules)
on June 8, 1973. The Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed a recommendation to grant the ~rarianceon July 27, 1973.
Hearing was held on July 31, 1973.
Clark operates a petroleum refinery located in Hartford, Illinois.
The plant employes approximately 325 people in the production of
gasøline, fuel oil and petroleum coke from crude oil. The plant
processing capacity is currently expanding from 37,000 to 80,000
barrels per day of crude oil. Sampling results obtained by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the
Agency, in addition to data from Clark’s Monthly Operational
Reports, indicates that Clark is currently discharging an effluent
that is not consistantly within the limits of 20/25 mg/i BOD/
suspended solids standard and the phenol and cyanide levels which
become effective December 31, 1973.
Following the adoption by the Board of the Water Pollution
Rules, Clark began to develop a plan to meet the requirements. Clark
filed a Compliance Schedule with the Agency on September 21, 1972.
The Agency approved the schedule which showed that Clark would
he in compliance on December 21, 1973. Subsequent to this,
Clark met with U.S. EPA and learned that the program it had
proposed for compliance with Illinois standards would not comply
with the expected discharge limitations to be found in the
National Pollutant DIscharge Elimination System (NPDES) require-
ments.
9—
449
-2-
The Agency agrees with Clark, in that to force Clark to
comply with the Illinois standards by December 31, 1973, would
result in an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship because Clark
would have to redesign and reconstruct to meet any federal
standard which was more stringent. The Agency states that Clark’s
effluent should not cause a detectable increase in the downstream
concentrations of BOD, suspended solids, phenol and cyanide.
More significantly, the Agency believes that the continued discharge
of Clark’s present effluent concentrations for the period of
time requested should not adversely affect present aquatic life
or significantly retard restoration of the Mississippi River.
Clark is seeking a variance from Water Pollution Rule 1002
to allow the Agency to approve a compliance schedule that will resu~t
in compliance by July 30, 1974 of Clark’s effluent except for
cyanide, for which Clark seeks a 3 year variance. A variance
from Water Pollution Rule 404(b) is sought for BOD and suspended solidE
effluents which are normally either just under or over the limit
of 25 mg/i. A variance from Water Pollution Rule 408 is sought
for phenol effluents which are shown to exceed the 0.3 mg/l limit
on occasion. Cyanide levels exceed 0.025 mg/i 10 percent of the
time. The Agency has recommended that the variances be granted
because of the short time involved, the minimal effect on the
Mississippi River, and the fact that the delay was caused by factors
outside of Clark’s control.
This case is somewhat similar to others where the Board has
denied variances from the cyanide requirements because of a failure
to give any detail as to the method of complying with Water Pollution
Rule 408 with respect to cyanide (PCB 73-14). The Board feels that
this case is significantly different in that Clark violates the
cyanide limit less than 10 of the time. Clark’s professional
engineer in charge of the pollution abatement program testified that
it will take up to one year to carry out research to pin point
the source of the cyanide and to develop possible upstream treatment
techniques to reduce cyanide levels reaching the treatment plant.
He also testified that his firm, William Brothers Waste Control,
will be reviewing the research done in the field for the next year
and will develop a program to correct the cyanide problem.
The Board finds that a delay of seven months in the completion
of Clark’s facility to control BOD, suspended solids, and phenols
will not cause significant deterioration of the Mississippi River
sufficient to overcome the hardship that would be forced upon Clark
if the variance petition was denied. Therefore the Board will grant
a variance to Clark to allow the Agency to approve Clark’s com-
pliance schedule and a variance from the effluent limitations on
BOD, suspended solids, and phenols subject to certain conditions
that follow. Remaining is the request for a variance as to cyanide.
9
— 450
-3-
The Board finds that Clark is in compliance more than 90 of the time.
The Board also notes that Clark has presented testimony that three
is apparently no current technology that will guarantee consistent
compliance with the cyanide limit as respect to oil refinery
wastes. The Board grants Clark a variance from the cyanide limits
for one year in order to allow Clark to investigate the source of
the cyanide, conduct research as to possible upstream removal, and
to evaluate treatment systems subject to the limitations that follow.
The Board notes with displeasure that Clark’s waste treatment
lagoons are subject to flooding during high water periods on the
Mississippi and therefore are rendered inoperative part of the
year. While the record is absent as to possible flooding of the pro-
posed new plant the Board feels that the Agency should examine
permit applications as to the susceptibility of
flools.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
It is
the
Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1. The Board hereby grants Clark a variance from Rule 404(b) until
July 30, 1974, subject to the conditions that Clark’s effluent
concentrations of BOD and suspended solids not exceed SO mg/i.
2. The Board hereby grants Clark a variance from Rule 1002 of
Chapter 3 provided that the compliance schedule indicates
compliance by July 30, 1974 with respect to all parameters
except cyanide. The compliance schedule with respect to
cyanide shall only constitute a prima facie defence to any
enforcement action until October 11, 1974.
3. The Board hereby grants Clark a variance from Rule 408, as
it applies to phenols, until July 30, 1974, subject to
the condition that Clark’s effluent concentration of
phenol not exceed
1.0
mg/i.
4. The Board hereby grants Clark a variance from Water Pollution
Rule 408 as it applies to cyanide, until October 11, 1974 subject
to the following conditions:
a. That Clark’s effluent concentration of cyanide
not exceed 0.30 mg/i at any time.
9 — 451
-4-
b. That Clark submit to the Agency, within 30 days
information regarding what experimentation has been
undertaken and what method appears feasible.
~ That Clark submit bi-monthly research progress reports
to the Agency detailing the progress made in finding
a solution to any cyanide removal problem it may have.
d. That Clark conduct monthly water quality monitoring
at the edge of the applicable mixing zone with respect
to cyanide and report the results to the Agency.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the
/~4~
day of October, 1973 by a vote of
‘I—a
Christan L. Mo~fett, ~
Illinois Pollution Coi~~lBoard
9—452