BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
~
~
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
~
7
‘~r~
~
STATE OF
~
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
~QHUtiOn
COnt1O~Board
)
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
)
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
)
)
PCB
05-85
Petitioners,
)
(Variance
—
Water)
)
V.
)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
See Attached Service List
Please take notice that on February
17, 2005,
we filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe
Illinois Pollution Control Board, an original and nine copies each ofthe following:
1.
Pre-filed Testimony of Claude Harmon;
2.
Pre-filed Testimony of James E. Huff; and
3.
Petitioners’ Exhibits 1-15 in connection with the aforementioned pre-filed
testimony.
copies ofwhich are hereby served upon you.
CITGO Petroleum Corporation and
PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C.
One
Atto
eys
Jeffrey C.
Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal LLP
8000 Sears Tower
233
5. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL
60606-6404
THIS FILING IS
BEING SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED
PAPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, certify that I have served upon the individuals named
on
the attached Service List true and
copies ofthe following:
(1)
Pre-filed Testimony ofClaude
Harmon;
(2) Pre-filed Testimony
of James E. Huff; and (3) Petitioners’ Exhibits
1-15 in
connection with the aforementioned pre-filed testimony,
via First Class
mail (unless
otherwise noted), postage prepaid on February 17, 2005.
-2-
SERVICE LIST
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk ofthe Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
-
Suite 11-500
VIA
U.S.
MAIL
Bradley Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
James Allen Day
Illinois EPA
1021
Grand Avenue east
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
-3-
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
~
~
~
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
CL~~f~P
FE~
1? ~
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
STATE OF
11
L~V~
)
Pthlunon Cont~oiEio~
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
)
aL
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
)
)
PCB 05-85
Petitioners,
)
(Variance
—
Water)
)
v.
)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
TESTIMONY OF CLAUDE HARMON
My name
is
Claude
Harmon.
My
current position
is
Environmental
Manager for the
Lemont
Refinery.
I
have
had
this
responsibility
since
August
1994.
I
have
been
in
the
environmental field for 30
years including
16 years with the Illinois Central Railroad,
two years
with Morton International and
12 years at the Lemont Refinery, which was first owned by UNO-
VEN when I began and is
now operated by CITGO.
I received a Bachelor of Science
degree in
Environmental
Biology
from
Eastern
Illinois
University.
I
am
affiliated
with
various
environmental committees.
I am a member of the National Petroleum
Refiners Association.
I
am a member of the Illinois
Association of Environmental
Professionals.
I am
also
a Certified
Hazardous Materials Manager with the National Registry ofEnvironmental Professionals.
The purpose ofmy testimony is to
describe the current efforts by CITGO and the Lemont
Refinery
to
reduce
the
Lemont
Refinery’s
air
and
water
emissions.
The
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
(the “Board”)
already is
aware of the Lemont
Refinery’s
efforts
to
achieve the
ammonia nitrogen standard through regulatory proceedings (R84-13, R93-8 and
R98-14), which
led
to
the
current
site-specific
limitation
for
ammonia
nitrogen
for
the
Lemont
Refinery
at
35 IAC 304.213.
Last fall, CITGO and PDV
Midwest Refining, L.L.C.
(collectively referred to
as
“CITGO”)
completed
negotiations
with
U.S.
EPA
and
the
environmental
authorities
for
Illinois,
Georgia, Louisiana,
and New Jersey to
substantially reduce emissions ofSO2
and NOx,
by 23,000
and
7,000 tons respectively,
from three refineries
including the Lemont Refinery and
two
asphalt plants.
For the Lemont Refinery, the estimated SO2
and
NOx
emission reductions
are
15,000
and
1,100
tons respectively.
That agreement was embodied in a consent decree that
was
approved
on
January
26,
2005;
a
copy
of that
signed
consent
decree
is
submitted
as
Exhibit
1.
The consent decree
includes an ambitious
construction
and compliance
schedule for the
Lemont Refinery.
To
achieve the necessary reductions, the Lemont Refinery must
install
a wet
gas scrubber
in the Fluidized
Catalytic
Cracking Unit (“FCCU”), as well as substantial
support
equipment and controls.
This requires a major construction
project extending approximately 20
months.
Exhibit 2 is a copy ofthe compliance schedule for the Lemont Refinery to comply with
the consent decree.
Stipulated penalties and other sanctions may be imposed if CITGO does not
meet the consent decree schedule.
As
described in our variance petition, to
meet the
emission requirements of the consent
decree,
we are installing the wet
gas
scrubber in
the FCCU,
as well
as other equipment at the
Lemont Refinery.
(See
Exhibit
3
(construction permit drawings depicting the new equipment to
be
installed
and
a
description
of the
same)).
The result
is
to
increase
the
amount
of total
dissolved solids
(“TDS”) in
the Lemont Refinery treated wastewater.
Exhibit 4
is a copy ofthe
Variance Petition filed in this matter on November 8, 2004, which contains further information.
One ofthe critical path items
is to
obtain a construction permit
from the water division of
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency
(“IEPA”).
Exhibit
5
is
a copy of the application for
that
construction
permit.
On
December
3,
2004,
we
submitted
that
construction
permit
application, consistent with the overall construction schedule.
In preliminary conversations with
the water division of IEPA, we learned oftwo
critical issues that pose challenges for the consent
decree
schedule.
First,
IEPA
will
not
grant
the
construction
permit
without
also
issuing
a
modified National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit.
Second, because
there has been an
exceedance of the
TDS
standard
in
the past,
in
association
with
snowmelt
runoff,
carrying
road
salt
and
similar
compounds
into
the
streams,
IEPA
could
not
issue
a
NPDES
permit
for this
project
unless
CITGO
obtained a variance
from
the Board.
Hence, the
variance petition was filed soon after the consent decree was announced publicly.
2
14422107.4
The Board has before it
that
variance petition.
I will not
repeat
what
we
already have
presented in this record.
But
I will respond to
some ofthe questions propounded by the Board,
as well as confirm
certain information that
we presented
to
IEPA
since we began this
petition
process.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
(Responses
to Board Questions
4a,
4b)
No
specific projects
are being developed
that would
increase the production rate, hence
there is no impact on the amount of TDS and
sulfates discharged.
The
chemical used in the wet
gas
scrubbing process was described
as “Caustic” in
the
construction
permit
application
submitted
to
IEPA in
December
2004
(Exhibit
5).
“Caustic”
references a Sodium Hydroxide solution.
PROJECTED WATER
QUALITY
IMPACTS
(Responses to Board Questions
6a,
6b,
6c,
6d)
TDS tests for the wastewater treatment plant (“WWTP”) discharge are run on a weekly
basis.
Below are monthly averages for year 2004:
Yr 2004
TDS (ppm)
January
2493
February
2644
March
2183
April
2244
May
1977
June
1474
July
1680
August
1504
September
1699
October
2003
November
1948
December
1597
Sulfate is not a parameter that
is routinely tested for the WWTP discharge.
3
14422107.4
The
proposed
design
flow
rate
was
described
in
the
construction
permit
application
submitted to IEPA in December 2004 (Exhibit
5).
The expected concentrations ofboth TDS and
sulfates in the purge water from
the wet
gas scrubber were described in the construction permit
application submitted to
IEPA in December 2004
(Exhibit 5).
Projected
increases
in both
TDS
and
sulfates in the discharge after the wet gas scrubber begins operation are described in James
Huff’s
December
2004
report
“Impact
of CITGO’s
Proposed
Discharge
on
Water
Quality”
(Exhibit 6).
DETAILED COMPLIANCE PLAN
(Responses to Board Questions
9a,
9b)
The proposed wet
gas scrubber will impact the
TDS and
sulfate
levels in the refinery’s
effluent
once
the
unit
becomes
operational.
The
expected
concentrations
of both
TDS
and
sulfates
in
the
discharge
are
described
in
James
Huff’s
December
2004
report
“Impact
of
CITGO’s
Proposed
Discharge
on
Water
Quality”
(Exhibit
6)
and
the
construction
permit
application submitted to IEPA in December 2004 (Exhibit
5).
The
negotiated
compliance
plan,
completed
to
the
satisfaction
of
IEPA,
has
been
submitted to the Board as Exhibit
7.
The proposed TDS
compliance plan requires that extensive
TDS
data be taken
from
the Des
Plaines River at
the
1-55
Bridge
during
the winter
months.
Following
two
seasons of stream testing,
the Lemont
Refinery will be
able to
size the required
holding tank or basin
for the wet
gas scrubber
discharge during periods
of high
salinity.
The
project
for
the
retention
system
would
commence by
March
1,
2009.
The project
would
be
completed by the winter season beginning December
1, 2009.
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
(Response to Board Question
10)
Currently, the only
option for a managed
release
program would entail
using
the
storm
water basin
(“SWB”)
for retention.
The
SWB
is
used to
collect
site
storm
water runoff and
drainage
from naturally
existing waterways.
Over the last few years,
a pronounced increase
in
storm
water volume
has
occurred
due
to
residential
developments
near
the northwest
facility
boundary.
The runoff from these developments
feeds into the naturally existing waterways that
terminate within the Lemont Refinery’s boundaries
and ultimately end up in the SWB.
Due to
a
4
14422107.4
special condition
in
the Groundwater Management Zone Approval
Letter, issued by the Bureau
of Water
Permit
section,
the
SWB
water
level
must
be
managed
below
12’9”
due
to
the
groundwater gradient.
Because of the existing
difficulties
associated with managing
the water
level below
12’9” with the additional burden created by the increased storm water runoffvolume
from
residential developments, to
try
to
retain
the wet
gas
scrubber
effluent
during periods of
snowmelt and deicing would not be a viable option at this time.
However, strategies to
divert the
residential
runoff prior
to
crossing
the
Lemont
Refinery boundaries
are
being
pursued.
If a
diversion project
is
implemented, retention
of the wet
gas scrubber
effluent
(due
to
snowmelt
conditions) in the SWB may be feasible.
5
14422107.4
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARJIS’
~‘8
OF
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
1H~~
~i ~fl5
.STATEaFIL~~
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
POllutIon Contr~ji~~.d
)
CITGO PETROLEUMCORPORATION and
)
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
)
)
PCB 05-85
Petitioners,
)
(Variance
—
Water)
)
v.
)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. HUFF
My name is
James B.
Huff.
I am Vice President and part owner ofHuff & Huff,
Inc.,
an
environmental
consulting firm founded in
1979.
I received a Bachelor of Science
in
Chemical
Engineering
in
1970
from
Purdue
University
and
was
awarded
a
Masters
of
Science
in
Engineering from
the Environmental Engineering Department at Purdue University
in
1971.
I
am a registered Professional Engineer in Illinois as well as in New Jersey.
I
currently
serve
on
the
Board of Directors
for the
American
Council
of Engineering
Companies-IL
and served three years
as Chair of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Liaison
Committee
for the
same organization.
I
also
serve
on
the Illinois
Statewide
Nutrient
Science
Committee, which
is
charged with
proposing
state nutrient
standards,
and
am the lead
consultant
for the Northeastern Illinois
Planning Commission (“NIPC”) for evaluating Facility
Planning Amendment requests for consistency with NIPC’s Water Quality Management Plan.
My. work experience includes two
years with Mobil
Oil
as an Advanced Environmental
Engineer during
the construction
and
start-up of the Joliet
Refinery.
My responsibilities at the
Joliet
Refinery
included
the
construction
oversight
and
start-up
of the
wastewater
treatment
facilities,
technical
support
for
the
wastewater
treatment
including
sampling,
discharge
monitoring
reports,
and
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(“NPDES”)
permit
preparation.
From
this
experience,
I
am familiar with
refinery operations
and
the
associated
wastewater treatment, as well as the Des Plaines River.
After
leaving Mobil in
the fall of 1973,
I was employed for three years
at
ITT Research
Institute
in
the Chemical
Engineering
Department, working
on
advanced
wastewater treatment
projects
including
catalytic
oxidation
of cyanide
in
petroleum
wastewaters.
I also
assisted
in
preparing
the
Economic
Impact/Cost-Benefit
Analysis
on
a
proposed
total
dissolved
solids
(“TDS”)
rule change in Illinois.
I then
spent four years with Armak
Company, now called Akzo
Nobel
Chemicals.
I
was
the
Corporate
Manager
of
Environmental
Affairs
responsible
for
regulatory
compliance and
engineering
design of environmental
systems
at nine manufacturing
facilities in the United States
and
Canada including fatty amines plants in McCook
and Morris,
Illinois.
For the last 25 years at Huff
& Huff,
Inc., I have been involved in over 30
environmental
impact
studies
associated
with
the
impact
of
wastewater
discharges
on
receiving
streams
throughout the United States.
Some ofthese studies have involved TDS, sulfates, and chlorides.
Surveys I have been involved with in Illinois have included the following streams:
Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal
Des Plaines River
Casey Fork Creek
Aux Sable Creek
Flint Creek
Mill Creek
Thorn Creek
Kent Creek
Fox River
Mississippi River
Deer Run Creek
Salt Fork ofthe Saline River
Cedar Creek
Tyler Creek
Kiswaukee River
These stream surveys have included water quality, fish, macroinvertebrate, mussels and sediment
quality.
I also have completed mixing
zone studies on the large streams listed above.
I
have
worked with
the Lemont
Refinery for the
past
22
years
on
various
wastewater
issues including two
adjusted standards relating to ammonia, a mixing zone
study,
collection of
macroinvertebrates
in
the
Ship
Canal, modeling of ammonia from
the Lemont Refinery
all
the
way
down the
Illinois
River,
preparation of a
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention Plan
for the
Lemont Refinery, and preparation of environmental training modules for a variety ofsubjects.
-2-
14422099.4
I have been retained by CITGO Petroleum Corporation’s Lemont Refinery to
assist
in the
evaluation ofalternatives
for the wastewater stream generated by the new FCC wet gas scrubber,
identifying
water
quality
impacts,
preparing
the
construction
permit
and
NPDES
permit
modification applications, and
providing technical
support on the variance petition.
A copy of
my resume is presented in Exhibit
8.
Presented herein is a description of the areas
I have investigated that are related to the
variance petition,
which
incorporates
questions
raised by
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
(the “Board”) and Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA” or the “Agency”) in these
same areas.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The
requested
variance
is
for
TDS
in
the
Chicago
Sanitary
and
Ship
Canal
and
the
Des Plaines
River.
The
wet
gas
scrubber
discharge
will
contain
significant
sodium
sulfate,
which essentially
is the
source of the
TDS
subject to
the variance request.
To
the
1-55
Bridge,
the Des Plaines River is
classified
as a
Secondary Contact
waterway with
a TDS water quality
standard of 1,500 mgIL.
From the
1-55
Bridge downstream, the Des Plaines River is
classified as
General Use
with a TDS water quality standard of 1,000 mg/L.
There are no water quality
standards
on sodium.
The sulfate
General Use
water quality
standard
is
500
mg/L.
There
is
no
Secondary Contact
water quality
standard for sulfate.
The
proposed
discharge
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
sulfate
water
quality
exceedance,
and
therefore a variance for the sulfate component is ~
requested.
EXISTING
WATER QUALITY DATA
(Responses to Board Questions
7a and lOb; IEPA Recommendation
Comments 15 and 19)
The Lemont
Refinery has collected
TDS
samples
from
the Chicago
Sanitary
and
Ship
Canal weekly from
1998
to
2005.
Exhibit
9
presents
these eight-plus
years of data, collected
upstream
of the
Lemont
Refinery’s
wastewater
discharge.
To
date,
no
TDS
water
quality
exceedances
were
recorded
in
1998,
1999,
2000,
2001,
2003,
2004,
and
2005.
In
2002,
one
exceedance occurredonMarch 8, 2002 when aTDS level of 1,636 mg/Lwas recorded.
A previously submitted
document
entitled
“Impact of CITGO’s
Proposed Discharge
on
Water Quality” (Exhibit 6) contains TDS data collected by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
-3-
14422099.4
District of Greater Chicago
(“MWRDGC”) on
the same waterway
from 2000
to
2002.
At
the
Lockport
Lock
&
Dam,
downstream
of the
Lemont
Refinery outfall,
one
TDS
exceedance
(1,595
mg!L) was
documented on January
4,
2001.
(The Lemont Refinery recorded
1,408
mg/L
on January
5,
2001.)
At the next
station, Jefferson
Street
in
Joliet,
one
TDS
exceedance
(1,535 mg/L) was recorded on February 24, 2000.
Further downstream at
the
Empress
Casino,
one exceedance (1,867 mg/L) was recorded also on February 24, 2000.
At
the
1-55
Bridge,
where the
General Use
water quality standard begins,
the
1,000 mg/L standard was exceeded on
the following dates:
3/16/2000
-
1,902 mg!L
1/25/2001
-
1,194
mg/L
2/1/2001
-
1,075 mg/L
2/8/2001
-
1,139mg/L
The last three
occurred over three consecutive sampling events, implying that the TDS excursion
was persistent for at least 15 days.
A review of all of the TDS data (Exhibits
6 and 9) reveals that all of the elevated TDS
readings occur in
the winter, and are attributable
to
snowmelt runoff carrying salt runoff from
highway
deicing
activities.
The
Agency’s
Recommendation
Comment
15
states
that
no
information has been
provided between the
discharge and
downstream water quality
standard
violation.
Assuming during snowmelt the streams are at their harmonic mean flow, the flow at
the 1-55 Bridge would
be 3,690 cfs.’
This is a conservative flow estimate.
At
1,000 mg!L TDS,
this
translates
into
20,000,000
pounds per
day of TDS
passing
beneath
the
1-55
Bridge.
The
Lemont
Refinery
wet
gas
scrubber
will
contribute
an
average
215,000
pounds
per
day,
or
approximately
11
mg/L,
or
1
percent of the total
loading
under
this
scenario.
According to
Standard
Methods,
the
precision
of
the
TDS
test
method
with
a
known
sample
TDS
concentration of
293
mg/L
when
tested
in
77
samples
yielded
a
standard
deviation
of 21.20
mg/L.
In essence, the contribution
from the Lemont Refinery will be
less than the precision of
this test when the Des Plaines River exceeds 1,000 mg/L.
Note,
when the
1,902 mg/L TDS was
recorded in the Des Plaines River, this is
equivalent to
38,000,000 pounds per day of TDS,
and
the Lemont Refinery’s contribution would be on the order of 0.6 percent ofthe total loading.
‘Harmonic Mean Flows for Illinois
Streams, ISWS, 1991.
-4-
14422099.4
There
is
a
strong
correlation
between the upstream
TDS readings
and
the downstream
TDS readings.
This is
to
be expected as TDS
is
considered a
“conservative” pollutant;
that
is,
there
is
little
or
no
reduction
due
to
chemical
or
biological
processes.
In
addition,
the
preponderance of flow at the
1-55
Bridge originates
from
the Chicago Area,
so there is
limited
dilutional effects until further downstream.
TOXICITY/FUTURE POSSIBLE CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY
Water
quality
standards
historically have been developed based
on toxicity.
As
TDS
is
composed of a variety ofanions and cations, there are no “toxicity” values that can be applied to
the generic
TDS parameter.
Sulfates and chlorides make up
themajority ofthe anions, and these
compounds typically are regulated.
In Illinois
for
General
Use
waters,
TDS,
sulfates
and
chlorides all are regulated.
Several years ago, IEPA began
a detailed review ofthese water quality standards that by
early2004 led the
Agency
to hold
a stakeholders’ meeting.
The Agency,
at this point, believed
that technical data supported elimination ofthe TDS
water quality
standard
and
increasing
the
sulfate
General
Use
limit
to
approximately
1,800
mg/L.
Information provided
to
the
stakeholders by the Agency on this issue is included in Exhibit 10.
U.S.
EPA’s
review of the Agency’s work has
lead to
additional
toxicity testing
by
the
State of Illinois, which
is ongoing and expected to be completed by September 2005.
If the
additional
toxicity
tests
are
consistent
with
the
previous research,
the
Agency
is
expected to
propose these changes in water quality standards in the fourth quarter of2005.
The
Agency’s
efforts
are relevant
to
the
Lemont Refinery’s
petition,
as it
goes to
the
environmental
impact the proposed discharge will have; that
is,
sodium sulfate, at the proposed.
levels discharged, will not impact the aquatic community in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal
or in the Des Plaines River.
There is no adverse effect on aquatic life due to TDS and sulfate
levels.
PROJECTED EFFLUENT CONTRIBUTION
(Responses to Board Questions
6 and 11)
The
projected
effluent
contribution
was
described in
my
report,
“Impact
of CITGO’s
Proposed Discharge on Water Quality” (Exhibit 6), and will average 215,000 pounds per day of
-5-
14422099.4
TDS.
The
loadings were
further described in
the construction
permit
application
submitted
to
IEPA
in December
2004
(Exhibit
5),
and
also
in
the NPDES
permit
modification
application
submitted
to
the
Agency
in
August 2004
(Exhibit
11).
Exhibit
12
is
a
copy
of the existing
NPDES permit.
PROJECTED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
(Responses to Board Questions
lOb,
lOc,
lOd,
lOe)
The projected incremental increase in both TDS and sulfates in the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal and in the Des Plaines River were described in my December
2004 report “Impact of
CITGO’s Proposed Discharge on Water
Quality” (Exhibit 6).
This
analysis was
done based on
the 7-day, 10-year low flow rates in the streams, and relied on the 1992 mixing zone study
completedby Huff& Huff, Inc. forthe Lemont Refinery. (This mixing zone study was provided
to the Board as part ofthe Lemont
Refinery’s Ammonia Adjusted Standard request, R93-8.)
The
effluent
design
has not
changed
since that
study,
and
remains
valid
with
the
added flow of
274,000 gallons per day from the wet gas scrubber.
ALTERNATIVES
(Responses to IEPA Recommendation Comment 17 and Board Questions
8 and lOf)
Huff & Huff, Inc.
considered several alternatives
for this 274,000 gallons per day stream.
Deep well disposal
initially was evaluated along with direct discharge.
The Agency determined
that the injection of this waste
stream would constitute a Class
I underground
injection
well in
Illinois.
(See
Exhibit 13.)
Class
I wells require injection beneath
a
cap rock that will prevent
migration upwards into higher aquifers.
Northeastern Illinois does not have a cap rock above the
Mount
Simon
formation
used
for
disposal
wells
throughout
the
Midwest,
and
therefore
this
alternative was not viable.2
Based
on the TDS stakeholders’
meeting in early 2004,
direct
discharge
appeared to be
the logical alternative to deep well disposal.
I had anticipated that the Agency TDS
and sulfate
rule change would have
gone
to
the Board by mid-2004, which possibly would
have made this
variance request unnecessary.
This did not happen,
and the Agency position that
the addition of
2
See
Evaluation ofUnderground Injection of Industrial Waste in Illinois, by
R. Brown and A. Visocky,
ISGS, 1989.
-6-
14422099.4
this wastewater stream would contribute
to the existing TDS violations that periodically occur
due to saltrunofffromhighway deicing activities leads to this variance request.
The Board has heard numerous requests over the years for variances from theTDS water
quality
standards
and
these requests
consistently
have found
evaporation technology
cost-
and
energy-
prohibitive.
The
evaporation
costs
are
described
in
Exhibit
14.
These
costs
were
derived
from Rhodia’s adjusted standard request, using scale-up factors.
TDS COMPLIANCE PLAN AND SCHEDULE
Exhibit
7
is
a
proposed
TDS
compliance
commitment,
which
includes
tasks
and
schedules.
The plan calls for extensive TDS data collection from the Des Plaines River at the
1-55
Bridge during the wintermonths.
After two seasons of stream testing, the Lemont Refinery
will
be
in
a
position
to
size
the
necessary holding
tank
or
basin
for
the
wet
gas
scrubber
discharge
during
periods
of high
salinity.
Physical
construction
of the holding tank or basin
would
begin by
March
1,
2009,
and
construction
would
be
complete
for
the
winter season
beginning December
1, 2009.
RESPONSES
TO
BOARD
QUESTIONS
5, 7b, lOb, lOe, 12
5.
Clarify whether Best Available Technology (“BAT’9 applies only to
ammonia.
In
the
testimony
of Robert
Stein
of Aware
(R98-14),
Mr.
Stein
compared
the
entire
wastewater treatment facilities to the federal BAT requirements.
Mr. Stein concluded:
“our
analysis of the Lemont Refinery wastewater treatment system indicates that
it
exceeds the BAT technology for refinery wastewater treatment as presented in the 1982
U.S. EPA Development Document.”
The BAT determination applied to the
total
wastewater stream, not just those that applied to ammonia.
7b.
Have
modeling
studies
been
completed
to
better define
the
impact
on
water
quality
violations?
As noted
earlier,
TDS
is
considered
a
conservative
pollutant,
so modeling
after mixing
essentially
is a mass balance.
A mass balance approach
~.vas
used
to
predict the
incremental change and
average TDS and
sulfate levels with the addition of the proposed
discharge.
This
was
presented
in
my
December
2004
report,
“Impact
of CITGO’s
-7-
14422099.4
Proposed Discharge on Water Quality” (Exhibit 6). The mixing zone study from 1992
was utilized in this samereport.
lOb.
Please comment on the impact ofthe sulfate loading.
The
sulfate
impact
is
presented
in
my
December
2004
Report
“Impact
of CITGO’s
Proposed Discharge
on
Water
Quality” (Exhibit
6),
and
will
amount
to
an
average of
142,000 pounds per day.
lOe.
Please indicate if the current and amendedNPDES permits allowfor mixing ofOutfall
001?
The mixing zone study was part of the record in the Lemont Refinery’s Adjusted
Standard request (R93-8), and
was incorporated in R98-14.
This
mixing zone study was
an integral part of the ammonia adjusted standard, which was relied upon by the Agency
in the issuance ofthe NPDES permits.
Based on this,
the answer is
yes, the current and
amended NPDES permits allow for mixing.
12.
Would you propose interim
effluent limits on
TDS and sulfates?
Would you propose
monitoring?
A proposed TDS compliance plan has been submitted as Exhibit 7.
This compliance plan
includes extensive stream monitoring.
Interim
effluent
limits
are not proposed.
First, no
water quality
violations of the sulfate
water quality standard will occur; therefore, there is no basis for sulfate effluent limits.
For TDS,
it
is
clear
that
the
TDS water
quality violations
are
due
solely
to
salt runoff
from
highway
deicing
activities.
The proposed
discharge
will
not
change
this
fact.
Limiting
the
discharge
from
the
Lemont
Refinery, if
possible,
would
not
change
the
number of TDS water quality violations
in the
Ship
Canal or
at the
1-55
Bridge, as the
FCC wet
gas scrubber will be contributing
on
the order of
1
percent of the total
salinity
loading during these excursions.
The
Agency
historically
has
taken
the
position
that
the
occurrence
of water
quality
exceedances downstream of a discharger of the samepollutant does not necessarily lead
to
a more restrictive permit
limit or enforcement
action.
As
noted by
the Agency
in
a
letter fromDean J. Studer, Supervisor, Southern Municipal
Unit, Permit Section
of IEPA,
-8-
14422099.4
to
Steven Davis,
Galesburg
Sanitary District,
November
15,
2004:
“the
intent of the
Agency was,
and
still is,
that
a District
action must be responsible for a violation of the
water quality standard before it is considered a permit violation.”
(See
Exhibit
15.)
The
Lemont Refinery request
also
would
seem similar to
the Village
of Wauconda’s recent
NPDES
permit,
where
the
Agency,
with
knowledge
of dissolved
oxygen
violations
downstream, concluded that
lowering the effluent BOD5
limit was not necessary “since it
is believed that this effluent will not cause
or contribute
to
a violation of water quality
standards.” (Response to Comments, Questions and Concerns regarding
the
Village
of
Wauconda’s NPDES
Permit,
at
p.
13.)
As
further
noted
by
the
Agency,
“tjhis
information is limited; the extent to which
it is representative ofnormal stream conditions
and its relationship to Wauconda discharge isunknown.” The Agency included dissolved
oxygen monitoring in theNPDES permit for Wauconda to collect additional data, and the
Lemont Refinery’s
Compliance Plan includes a similar data gathering period.
The Lemont
Refinery
will
have
no
control
over
the TDS
concentrations,
so the only
possibility to control the pounds perdaydischarged is by limitingthe discharge rate. This
means the Lemont Refinery essentially
would
have to hold treated effluent.
Presumably,
if the Des Plaines River TDS is greater than 1,000 mg/L at the
1-55
Bridge, the Lemont
Refinery would have to
cease all
discharge.
Today, there
is
no
storage
capacity at the
Lemont Refinery to achieve this concept. As described earlier in my testimony,
these
violations appear to occur for over 15 consecutive days, but less than 22 days.
The
Lemont Refinery will have to come up with in excess of4,000,000 gallons ofcapacity to
isolate the wet gas scrubber during these periods of elevated TDS levels at the
1-55
Bridge.
Currently, this excess capacity does not
exist,
and the actual number ofdays that
would require holding wet gas scrubber water currently
is poorly understood.
The
requested compliance time frame is for
the
collection of the necessary data
to
properly
size this holding basinltankage.
Providing some interim effluentTDS limit will provide
no benefit to the receiving water, based on the Agency-generated information contained
in Exhibit 10.
-9-
14422099.4
