ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 19,
1973
TEXACO,
INC.
(LAWRENCEVILLE REFINERY),
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 73-6
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Mr. Dumelle):
On January
8,
1973,
a variance petition was filed
by
Texaco
asking for relief from Rules 404(b)
and
404(c)
and
Rule 408 of the Water Pollution Regulations.
The Agency’s
recommendation,
filed March
8,
1973,
states that variances
from Rules 921(d),
1002(a)
and 1002(b) are implicit in the
petition.
Denial is recommended by the Agency unless proof
is made by Texaco that no significant adverse effect will
occur upon the Embarras River.
A public hearing was held in Lawrenceville on April
12,
1973.
The Lawrencevilie refinery employs
600 persons and
processes 92,000 barrels of crude oil
(3,600,000 gallons)
a
day.
It makes the whole gamut of petroleum products from
LPG and gasoline to heavy fuel oil and asphalt.
The effluent from the detention pond amounts
to 3300
gpm.
According to Texaco,
it does not meet
the
20 mg/l BOD5
standard of Rule 404(b), but averages 29 m~/linstead.
Also,
the effluent averages 0.062 mg/i cyanide ihstead of the 0.025
mg/i standard called for in Rule
408 after December
31,
1973.
Texaco proposes an improvement program costing $2,235,000
which includes
(a)
improvements to No.
S oil-water separator
and changes in the detention, aeration and storage capacities,
all to reduce BOD,
(b)
reducing the volume of effluent from
3300 gpm to 2400 gpm to achieve a dilution ratio greater than
5:1
arid
a looser effluent standard,
and
(c)
correcting the
cyanide problen,
with
incineration
as
a
future possibility.
S
—
537
—2—
The Agency,
in its recommendation, points out the possibility
of a suspended solids violation.
However, since the petitioner
has not amended his petition to request a variance for this
parameter, we will not grant what is not asked.
Counsel for
the Agency,
in opening remarks, has admitted that the BOD dis-
charge from Texaco will not have an adverse effect upon the six
miles of Embarras River between the refinery and the junction
with the Wabash River
(R.
7).
Thus,
it would be easy to grant
the BOD variance except for
(a) the unexplained delayin
accomplishing
a BOD
improvement program sooner
(the current
effluent deadlines were adopted March
7,
1972)
and
(b)
the pre-
matureness of the request by Texaco’s own schedule.
Since the
effluent reduction will be accomplished by August 15,
1974,
there
is no need for a variance from Rule 404(c) (ii)
since that applies
only after December 31,
1974.
This variance request is dismissed
as premature.
Variance is g±antedfrom Rule 404(b)
to discharge
BOD at a
30
mg/i
monthly average level for one year.
On June 28,
1973,
the Board deleted Rule 921(d)
and thus no
variance is needed for this.
We are left then with Rule 408 and
1002(a) and 1002(b) to consider.
The Agency points out that a
discharge of cyanide of 0.07 mg/i would raise the Embarras River
to 0.018 mg/i
(still below the Rule 203 water quality standard
of 0.025 mg/i).
But Texaco has not come forth with a program
to achieve cyanide reduction.
Dates are given in the petition,
but the Board has
no commitment as to the type
of cyanide control
program and that is a pig in a poke.
And the Texaco witness,
Mr. Lee E.
Mueller,
in answer to a question to forecast a date
by which Texaco would have solved the cyanide problem stated:
A.
I cannot at this time forecast the date we will
be in a position to submit an application for
construction
(R.
110).
His testimony then is
in
flat contradiction
to the dates set
forth in the petition of September
1,
1973 to apply for a con-
struction program and all following interim dates to achieve
cyanide reduction by December
1,
1974.
Thus,
there is no program before the Board on which to act.
Neither the method nor the dates are firm,
and
we
must
deny this
part of
the
variance request.
And since the 1002(a)
and 1002(b)
~imp1±cit~
variances are
needed
only
with
the
Rule
408 variance,,
we
need
not
grant,
them
now.
We
do however, grant
a Rule 1002
variance
if
necessary
for
purposes
of
the
Rule
404(b)
variance
on
BOD,
We
point
out
for
Texaco’
a
guidance
that
even
had
the
method
~f
cyanide
reduction
been
known
and
the
proposed
dates
been
firm,
that
no
nvidenee
was
adduced
as
to
the
effects of
the
cyanide
—3—
upon the Embarras River.
While the Agency’s figure of 0.018 mg/i
is below the 0.025 mg/i water quality standard, there is also a
major technical question as to what amount of cyanide is really
present.
The record shows that the Agency believes its automated cyanide
test method, which seems not to be accepted anywhere else except
for users of Technicon equipment, will detect at least twice as much
cyanide as other methods
(R.
134,
142).
Thus,
since Texaco asks
for an effluent limit variance of 0.07 mg/i,
in reality the discharge
might be twice as much,
or 0.14 mg/i,
if the Agency’s test method
is correct.
Applying a 4:1 dilution ratio to the 0.14 mg/i could
then result in a cyanide level in the Embarras River of 0.035 mg/i,
using an upstream background value of
0.009 mg/i as stated in Texaco’s
petition.
The 0.035 mg/i is 40
over the water quality standard
of 0.025 mg/i.
Its adverse effects,
if any,
should be documented
by Texaco.
Texaco should also,
perhaps in cooperation with the Agency,
determine which cyanide test method is more accurate.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
ORDER
1.
Variance is granted from Rule 404(b) until July 19, 1974 to
the petitioner to discharge BOD up to
30 mg/i on
a monthly average.
2.
Variance is denied without prejudice as to Rule
408 forfailure
to state a firm program, both as to method and time.
3.
Variance is denied as to Rule 404(c) (ii)
because of prematurity.
4.
Variance
is granted from Rule
1002
in order that a Project Com-
pletion Schedule may be filed for the Rule 404(b) variance having
to do with BaD,
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control
Boa~d, hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
were
adopted
on
the
jj~~day
of
July,
1973
by
a
vote
of
_____________________________
Christan
L,
Moffett,
J$rk
Illinois
Pollution
C
‘rol
Board
S
—
539