ORIGINAL
NOTICE OF FILING
To: Dorothy Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street -
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
100 West Randolph
Suite 4-300
Chicago, IL 60601
Connie Tonsor
Thomas Andryk
Illinois EPA
1021 N. Grand Ave . East
Springfield, IL 62794
Please take notice that on February 7, 2006, we filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and ten copies of the attached Petition for a Site
Specific Rule Change, a copy of which is served upon you
.
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Elizabeth A . Leifel
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 S . Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS IN THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER ;
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, PETITIONER
e "I
s A to
(Site
R06- Specific
do
Rule
- Water)
Illinois EPA
1021 N. Grand Ave
. East
P.O
. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794
Illinois Attorney General
188 West Randolph
Suite 2001
Chicago, IL 60601
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
RECEIVEDCLERKS
OFFICE
FEB 0 7 20105
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOISBoard
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
R
RV
CLERK'S
OFFICE
FEB 0 i 20J6
Pollution
IN THE MATTER OF
:
STATE
Cont
of Board
)
REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY
)
STANDARDS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
)
R06 -~'
SOLIDS IN THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER
;
)
(Site Specific Rule - Water)
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, PETITIONER
)
PETITION FOR A SITE SPECIFIC RULE CHANGE
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation ("ExxonMobil" or "Petitioner") petitions the Illinois
Pollution Control Board ("Board") for a site specific rule applicable to its Joliet Refinery
. This
rule change would authorize discharges of Total Dissolved Solids
("TDS") from the refinery
during the months of November until April on terms and conditions outlined herein
. Petitioner is
the owner and operator of a refinery located in Will County, as described below
. Petitioner has
entered into a Consent Decree with the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("U .S.
EPA") and the States of Illinois, Louisiana and Montana to resolve certain alleged air quality
violations at certain refineries
.' The resolution for these claimed violations requires reduction of
air emissions at the Joliet Refinery
. This process will contribute to the wastewater treatment
system additional levels of dissolved solids and sulfates
. To comply with the Consent Decree,
Petitioner must construct certain equipment and obtain air and water construction and operating
permits from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (the "Agency")
. The Agency has
advised Petitioner that, due to occasional observed violations for TDS in the Des Plaines River
and in light of the requirements of 35 Ill
. Admin
. Code § 302
.102(b)(9), it cannot allow a mixing
zone and hence could not issue the wastewater construction permit needed by Petitioner
. For the
I
A copy of the Consent Decree is Exhibit I hereto and is submitted separately
.
reasons stated below, Petitioner therefore requests a site specific rule change during those
months with the potential for elevated TDS due to snow melt run-off, with respect to the
application of 35 Ill . Admin. Code §§ 302
.208(g) and 302
.407 regarding TDS . Petitioner thus
requests that it not be held responsible for other sources not achieving those TDS water quality
standards
. This Petition for a Site Specific Rule ("Petition") is brought pursuant to Sections 27
and 28 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/35, and Part 102 of Chapter 35 of the Illinois Administrative
Code, 35 Ill. Admin . Code § 102
.100 et seq
. In support of this Petition, ExxonMobil states as
follows :
STATEMENT OF REASONS
1 .
Petitioner has discussed the relief sought here with the Agency over the past
several months
. Petitioner has shared information relating to the technological feasibility and
economic reasonableness [or lack thereof] in meeting the TDS standard in the receiving stream
.
The Agency has also shared with Petitioner publicly available information concerning potential
revisions to the TDS standards in General Use waters
. The Agency believes, based on guidance
from U.S
. EPA, that this petition is federally approvable
. (See Exhibit 2)
. The Agency and
Petitioner are filing contemporaneously with the filing of this Petition a Joint Motion that the
Board immediately proceed to First Notice on this Petition
. The Agency has advised Petitioner
that it believes that a site specific rule change is the appropriate procedure, rather than an
adjusted standard proceeding
. Petitioner understands that the Agency is supportive of the relief
herein requested and agrees with Petitioner that the relief needs to be obtained expeditiously in
order for Petitioner to meet the schedule required by the Consent Decree
. While the Agency is
not a joint petitioner in this matter, Petitioner and the Agency agree that this relief is appropriate
and ask the Board to take appropriate measures to expedite the consideration of this Petition
.
2
The Petitioner further expects that one or more Agency representatives will be present at the
hearing herein to testify in support of this requested relief
2 .
Based on the suggestions we have received from the Agency, Petitioner proposes
the following section be adopted by the Board
:
Section 303.445 Total Dissolved Solids Water Quality
Standard for the Lower Des Plaines River .
Beginning November 1 and continuing through April 30 of each
year, the TDS water quality standard for Secondary Contact and
Indigenous Aquatic life Use waters in Section 302 .407 of this Part
does not apply to the portion of the Des Plaines River from the
ExxonMobil refinery wastewater treatment plant discharge point
located at 1-55 and Arsenal Road (said point being located in Will
County, T34N, R9E, S15, Latitude : 41 0,25"
North, Longitude : 880,
11', 20" West) and continuing to the Interstate 55 bridge . TDS
levels in such waters must instead meet a water quality standard
for TDS (STORET Number 70300) of 1,686 mg/L.
Beginning November 1 and continuing through April 30 of each
year, the TDS water quality standard for General Use waters in
Section 302
.208 of this Part does not apply to the Des Plaines
River from the Interstate 55 bridge to the confluence of the Des
Plaines River with the Kankakee River
. TDS levels in such waters
must instead meet a water quality standard for TDS (STORET
Number 70300) of 1,686 mg/L.
3 .
The requirements of the existing water quality standards are neither technically
feasible nor economically reasonable as applied to the refinery and the construction project
required by the Consent Decree
. Snow-melt conditions and the resulting run-off of dissolved
solids is believed responsible for the monitored exceedances observed in the Des Plaines River
;
therefore, the request here is seasonal in nature
. Due to the limited space available at the
refinery, temporary storage is not a feasible option
. Other equipment or measures are not
feasible, and all of the technical options are not economically reasonable
. At the same time, the
numerical standard for TDS appears unduly restrictive
. The Board adopted these TDS standards
3
based on the assumption that both chlorides and sulfates would be present at maximum levels ;
but that is not the case in this stretch of the Des Plaines River
. Moreover, the Agency has
developed substantial information showing that the sulfate water quality standard should be
much higher -- roughly at or above the TDS levels proposed herein for the winter months
.
4.
This Petition seeks relief from the water quality standards for total dissolved
solids contained in 35 Ill
. Admin. Code §§ 302 .208(g) and 302 .407. These TDS standards have
been in effect since March 1972
. The following paragraphs and exhibits address the remaining
requirements of 35 Ill . Admin. Code § 102 .210 with respect to site specific rule changes
. Based
on information provided by the Agency, the only other dischargers to this segment of the Des
Plaines River are not believed to have any substantial discharge of dissolved solids, and hence
are not affected by this request
.
GENERAL REFINERY INFORMATION
5
.
The ExxonMobil Joliet Refinery is located in Channahon Township on a 1,300-
acre tract of land in unincorporated Will County, Illinois
. The site is adjacent to Interstate 55 at
the Arsenal Road exit, approximately 50 miles southwest of Chicago
. To the immediate north of
the refinery is the Des Plaines River, while east and south is the former Joliet Army Arsenal,
which is currently being redeveloped as an industrial complex and the Midewin National
Taligrass Prairie .
6.
The Joliet Refinery employs more than 500 full-time ExxonMobil employees to
manage, provide engineering for, and operate and maintain the plant . The refinery operates 24-
hours-a-day every day
. Approximately 100 additional ExxonMobil employees who provide
regional support services are located at the refinery
. Approximately 150 full-time contractor
employees provide a variety of maintenance functions at the refinery on a continual basis
.
4
Construction projects and intensive maintenance periods called turnarounds can swell the
contractor workforce by thousands during the year .
7.
The refinery was built by ExxonMobil and began operating in 1972
. It was one of
the last grassroots refineries built in the United States . The refinery has a crude oil processing
capability of approximately 240,000 barrels per day, or nearly 10
.1 million gallons a day
. The
single-train, high-conversion refinery produces approximately 9 million gallons a day of gasoline
and diesel fuel . Other products include
: liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG"), propylene, asphalt,
sulfur and petroleum coke .
8.
The Joliet Refinery is the first major refinery in the nation to be admitted into the
STAR Program of the U .S
. Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"), a
voluntary employee safety program that challenges industry to meet and even exceed the most
stringent government safety standards . The refinery was recertified as a STAR worksite in 1994,
1999 and 2002, with another rigorous OSHA review to be conducted in 2005 .
9.
The refinery draws from and discharges to the Des Plaines River, approximately
1,000 feet east of the 1-55 Bridge
. The refinery takes approximately 10
.2 million gallons of
water daily from the River, and 2 million gallons per day from wells, and discharges
approximately 12 .3 million gallons to the River
. [On average, stormwater quantities more than
offset the amount of water evaporated in the refinery]
. The wastewater effluent contains
dissolved solids derived from compounds present in crude oil that are removed from the crude by
various refinery operations, as well as concentrating the TDS present in the intake water from the
River from the evaporation cooling
.
10.
On October 11, 2005, a Consent Decree between ExxonMobil Oil Corporation,
the parent company of petitioner, and the United States, and the States of Illinois, Louisiana, and
5
Montana, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois .
Under that document, Petitioner is committed,
inter alia, to making substantial investments in
emission reductions at the Joliet Refinery . Without admitting any violation of federal or state
law, Petitioner will be reducing at the Joliet Refinery [a] the emissions of sulfur dioxide by over
95%, or over 24,000 tons per year or 130,000 pounds per day, and [b] the emissions of nitrous
oxides by approximately 50%, or over 1,800 tons per year or 9,800 pounds per day
. The
Consent Decree was subject to a 30-day period for public comment and was entered by the Court
on December 13, 2005 . (See Exhibit 1).
11 .
The Consent Decree calls for the use of a Wet Gas Scrubber [WGS]
. In addition,
and to mitigate the amount of sulfates and dissolved solids to be discharged, the Joliet Refinery
will use an added technology : Catalytic SO
2
Additive Technology (DESOX)
. Exhibit 3 to this
Petition contains a summary description of these measures . Both are necessary to meet the
requirement of the Consent Decree
. The WGS will create additional sulfate and total dissolved
solids (TDS), the latter of which is the subject of this Petition .
12.
The Board adopted the regulation now appearing in 35 Ill . Admin. Code
§ 302.208(g)
to control TDS in the Des Plaines River downstream of the 1-55 Bridge and §
302
.407 to control TDS in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Des Plaines River
upstream of the 1-55 Bridge
. The need for this site specific rule arises due to the potential impact
on the Des Plaines River and whether the increased level of TDS would "cause or contribute to a
2
Note that Ammonia Nitrogen levels will not increase [even with the addition of the SCR technology to
remove NOx from the gas stream], due to an additional aeration basin and clarifier in the wastewater
treatment process and optimization of the sour water stripper to further remove ammonia nitrogen
.
6
violation of a water quality standard" even though those exceedances are associated with snow
melt conditions independent of TDS discharges from the refinery .
13.
The refinery operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permit (No . IL 0002861), issued by the Agency . A modification to the current
NPDES permit was issued on September 12, 2001 .3 The combined outfall for the refinery
wastewater treatment plant is located at approximately 41', 25', 20" North Latitude and 88°, 11',
20" West Longitude . ExxonMobil filed a timely NPDES renewal application on December 2,
2002 . The current NPDES permit does not have effluent limits on TDS .
14.
The refinery includes a physical/chemical and biological wastewater treatment
plant . The treatment plant performs primary, secondary and tertiary treatment on the generated
wastewater before it is discharged into the Des Plaines River . The original wastewater treatment
plant, which began operation in 1972,
included two pre-separator flumes for gross oil removal,
two API separators for oil and total suspended solids removal, two dissolved air flotation units
for further oil and total suspended solids removal, two activated sludge units that can be operated
in both parallel and series, followed by the treated guard basin and aeration before discharge
.
15 .
The refinery has made improvements to the wastewater treatment system, and has
continued its efforts to reduce the concentration of ammonia nitrogen in its effluent
. These
upgrades have included the large equalization basin/biological aerated lagoon, (termed the
EBTU), larger blowers on the activated sludge units, new internals in the secondary clarifier and
many process changes in the refinery proper to reduce the pollutant loadings on the treatment
system
. Upstream improvements include installation of facilities to reduce oil carryover from
3 A copy of the modified permit is attached as Exhibit 4 .
7
process units, implementation of a "No Oil to Sewer" program plantwide, and installation of
access points in the sewer system to allow increased cleanouts .
16 .
Exhibit 5 is a diagram of the wastewater treatment plan as it presently exists.
Further improvements to the existing wastewater treatment system or in the refinery proper to
reduce pollutant loadings on the treatment system are planned
; these improvements include an
upgrade of the Sour Water Stripper for pH optimization in order to further reduce ammonia by
over 50% to the wastewater treatment plant, installation of alternate piping to reroute FCC feed
tank water draws from the wastewater treatment plant to the light slop system, increased flow
monitoring in the wastewater treatment plant, and installation of new internals in the dissolved
air floatation unit
. Petitioner will expend approximately $40,000,000 to meet the total suspended
solids limitations, but requests relief from the water quality standard for total dissolved solids .
EXISTING WATER QUALITY
17 .
The refinery discharges into the Des Plaines River
. Until the 1-55 Bridge, the
River is designated as Secondary Contact water
; below the 1-55 Bridge, the Des Plaines River is
designated as General Use water
. The General Use standard for TDS is 1,000 mg/L; 1,500 mg/L
is the standard for Secondary Contact waters .
18 .
The requested standard will not result in environmental or
health effects
substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting
the rule of general applicability
.
19.
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits are based on low flow stream conditions (7-
day, 10-year)
. Estimated values for stream low flows for the Des Plaines River at the 1-55
Bridge, just downstream of the refinery is 970 MGD
.
8
20.
The peak recorded TDS result (1,194 mg/L) at the 1-55 Bridge occurred on
January 25, 2001, and was likely due to road deicing activities . The elevated TDS remained for
two additional weeks, before returning below 1,000 mg/L
. No other exceedances have been
documented at the 1-55 Bridge or downstream of the refinery discharge since 2001
. Upstream of
the refinery, in the Secondary Contact portion of the Des Plaines River, the maximum TDS level
reported was 1,595 mg/L .
21 .
The recent sampling for TDS and sulfates, taken by both MWRDGC and the
refinery are included in the Water Quality Impact Analysis, included in Exhibit 6 .
22.
To meet the requirements of the Consent Decree, Petitioner will install both
DESOX technology and a WGS in the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit ("FCC") unit at the refinery
to remove sulfur dioxide air emissions (Exhibit 3)
. The DESOX control complements the WGS
and reduces S02 emissions by converting sulfur to a stable form and recovering it downstream
.
The sulfur thus recovered will not enter the wastewater stream, rather it is converted to elemental
sulfur .
23 .
The WGS technology begins with the flue gas stream
. The sulfur dioxide is
ultimately converted to sodium sulfate salts which are contained in a purge stream
. This purge
stream will be cooled, the catalyst solids and ammonia nitrogen removed, and discharged
upstream of the refinery Outfall 001 in the wastestream treatment system
. Three alternative
treatment processes for the catalyst fines and ammonia are under consideration by the refinery
.
None of these options will change the TDS or sulfates discharged, which are the subjects of this
site specific rule request
. The exit temperature will be limited to 90°F either by the
specifications for the WGS purge system or the equivalent BTU's will be removed elsewhere in
the refinery.
24.
The particular design of the WGS is a proprietary technology and design for
ExxonMobil. This WGS technology allows refineries to reliably meet stringent FCC emission
requirements with well-proven technology . The WGS technology has the following advantages :
•
Can avoid costly CO boiler upgrades with allowable scrubber pressure drops as
low as zero inches of water ;
•
Maximizes cat cracker availability - scrubber run lengths match longest FCC up-
time in the industry ;
•
Extremely high reliability [99.9%+] with over 200 years of operating experience ;
•
Meets or exceeds toughest particulate and SOx emission regulations ;
•
Produces environmentally benign wastewater safe for direct discharge ;
•
Collected catalyst suitable for direct low cost disposal ; and
•
Smallest commercially-proven FCC unit scrubber as it needs only 1/3 to 1/2 the
area of competitive systems .
The following disadvantages can be expected from the attenuation of dry scrubbing technology
:
•
Dry scrubbing process cannot accomplish the desired S02 removal to comply
with the Consent Decree ; and
•
Dry scrubbing processes cannot meet the run time consistent with an FCC Unit
.
A more complete description of the WGS is included in Exhibit 3
. While the DESOX
technology complements the WGS and reduces the TDS loading to the sewer system, it is
inadequate by itself to achieve the requirements of the Consent Decree .
10
PROJECTED IMPACT OF WET GAS SCRUBBER
25.
The effluent from the purge treatment unit (PTU) will add an average of 133,000
lbs/day of TDS and 89,900 lbs/day sulfates .4
The resulting refinery combined outfalls [001, 002,
and 003] will contain an average 1,050 mg/L of sulfates and 2,610 mg/L TDS
.
26.
At low flow conditions, the increased discharge from Petitioner, including the
Citgo WGS discharge, will increase the sulfate and TDS levels in the waterways after complete
mixing, by 29 mg/L for sulfate, and 43mg/L for TDS . (See Exhibit 5)
. At the confluence of the
Des Plaines and Kankakee Rivers (the beginning of the Illinois River), approximately 5 miles
downstream of the refinery, the TDS water quality standard of 1,000 mg/L will be achieved,
even assuming low flow conditions and maximum TDS values from the State's monitoring
program. Historical monitoring data on the Illinois River indicate TDS values are consistently
below the water quality standard of 1,000 mg/L . The projected increase will maintain this status
.
27.
The projected sulfates and TDS would achieve the General Use water quality
standards at the 1-55 Bridge, except for TDS during times of snow melt run-off when the
upstream TDS exceeds 957 mg/L . The TDS levels in the snow melt run-off are beyond the
control of Petitioner .
THERE ARE NO REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS THAT PROHIBIT THIS
RELIEF
28 .
There are no specific Illinois effluent limits on TDS . Therefore, to the extent
there are water quality impacts, effluent limits would be based on Water Quality Based Effluent
4 Assumes all sodium salts
.
11
Limits ("WQBELs"), factoring in antidegradation, Total Maximum Daily Limits ("TMDLs"),
and mixing zones .
29.
Water quality standards must be achieved at the edge of the mixing zone
.
ExxonMobil completed a mixing zone determination in 1997, which determined the mixing zone
provided a 21
:1 dilution in the total discharge . That determination yields the following
incremental change in water quality results :
Projected Increase in WQ
at Edge of Mixing Zone
Except when de-icing runoff causes TDS levels in the Des Plaines River upstream of the
refinery discharge to approach the existing water quality standard, no water quality violations
will occur . (See Exhibit 6) .
30.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify impaired
waterways and the causes of impairment and then develop what is essentially a waste load
allocation for addressing the impairment
. Illinois prepared its list of impaired waterways in
1998
; 738 segments were identified
. Illinois also developed a priority list for addressing these
738 segments. According to the Agency's
Illinois
Water Quality Report 2004, the Illinois River
is listed as impaired waterways, for a variety of reasons
. However, none of the reasons listed are
for sulfates or TDS .
31 . U.S
. EPA has promulgated categorical limits on various industries, including the
petroleum refining industry
. The Joliet Refinery's W WTP effluent parameters meet or are well
below all federal effluent guidelines and standards for the appropriate petroleum refinery point
12
Sulfate, mg/L
46
TDS, mg/L
91
source subcategory (40 C .F .R. 419, Subpart B - Cracking Subcategory). The flow rate used to
derive the Best Available Technology ("BAT")
effluent values for a refinery the size and
configuration is 5,200 gallons per minute (gpm), while the refinery's actual current flow rate is
2,200 gpm, with a maximum hydraulic flow rate of 3,400 gpm . The refinery's wastewater
treatment system goes beyond BAT requirements
. See, E.g., Mobil Oil Corporation v . Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 93-151, Opinion and Order at 4. (March 3, 1994)
.
32.
Based on the foregoing, ExxonMobil submits that the relief here requested is not
inconsistent with the effluent standards and areawide planning criteria under the Clean Water
Act
. Moreover, the Agency concurs that this relief is federally approvable . (See Exhibit 2) .
OTHER FACTORS JUSTIFYING THE SITE-SPECIFIC STANDARD
33 .
The approach being pursued by ExxonMobil minimizes the overall environmental
impact and costs associated with the Consent Decree
. Moreover, applying the existing TDS
standards in this situation is neither technically feasible or economically reasonable
.
34
.
The Consent Decree, to which the Agency is a party, substantially reduces
emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter . ExxonMobil agreed to these
reductions and will be investing over $180 million at the refinery, most of which costs are for the
WGS which generates the TDS and sulfates identified above, and for the purge water treatment
for thermal, total suspended solids and for ammonia oxidation
. These investments are projected
to reduce S02 emissions by over 24,000 tons/year, and NOx emissions by over 1,800 tons/year
.
35 .
The relative contribution from the refinery is readily within the assimilative
capacity of the waterway, and there is no water quality violation for TDS in the Des Plaines
River, except in association with snow melt conditions
. The available information demonstrates
13
that this increased discharge will not adversely affect the River and that other approaches are
either not feasible or would have other adverse environmental impacts
.
36.
The Agency has been investigating changes in water quality standards for sulfate
and TDS
. Investigations have occurred and are on-going
. These investigations indicate that the
existing TDS standard is unnecessary and that a higher numerical standard for sulfate would still
be protective of water quality uses
. The Agency has advised Petitioner that it intends to pursue a
change in the TDS and sulfate water quality standards statewide in the near future
. Under the
Agency's draft proposal, TDS would be removed as a water quality parameter, and sulfate water
quality standards would be increased to between 1,400 and 2,000 mg/L for the Des Plaines
River
. At these proposed standards, even during snow melt conditions, there would not be a
water quality exceedance, as highway deicing involves chlorides, not sulfates
. Petitioner's
requested relief would not be necessary if the Agency's proposal is adopted
.
37.
There is not a need for TDS controls on Petitioner's wastewater discharges with
respect to TDS
. Indeed, the only potential violation of the existing standard for TDS is in
association with snow melt conditions, a cause for which Petitioner clearly is not responsible
.
Indeed, the Agency has not listed the applicable Des Plaines River segment as impaired for TDS
.
38 .
Petitioner has investigated methods of avoiding releasing the wastewater from the
FCC to the existing wastewater treatment system, including deep well disposal and removal
technologies
. None of these are technically feasible
.
39.
The Agency has rejected the deep well disposal option because in its view this
would constitute a Class I injection well
. Class I injection wells are permittable only where there
exists a cap rock to prevent the injected fluids from migrating upwards
. In northeastern Illinois,
no cap rock exists over the depth where disposal wells are drilled
. This alternative is not viable .
14
40.
Technologies for removing sodium sulfate from a dilute aqueous stream are
limited
. Electrodialysis has never been applied in the chemical or refinery industries on the scale
required at the refinery
. Biological sulfate reduction is theoretically possible, but this will not
reduce the overall TDS concentration merely by replacing the sulfate ions with carbonate ions
.
The concentration of sodium sulfate is too high for reverse osmosis concentration, as the osmotic
pressure of the solution is too high.
41 .
The sole technology potentially available is evaporation/crystallization, an energy
intensive approach, which will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere
.
Due to the lack of space available at the refinery, construction of a crystallizer/evaporator would
require removal of existing tankage, site preparation activities, as well as the construction of a
crystallizer unit sufficient to remove about 200 gpm of water, and handling of 90 tons per day of
a dry sodium sulfate by-product (sulfate salt)
. Whether this by-product would be of sufficient
purity to have any market value, and whether demand for the large amount of sulfate salt exists,
has not been determined
. The salt would possibly end up as a waste stream that required
disposal
. The equipment required for the evaporation/crystallization unit would include a
sulfuric acid storage tank [6,000 gal capacity], metering pumps, a pH adjustment tank, a
degasification tower, a 200 gpm crystallizer feed pump, a 24,000 gallon crystallizer feed surge
tank, a crystallizer system, consisting of a tower, pumps, drums [10
ft diameter and 40
ft tall], a
preheat exchanger, a condenser and various surge tanks, driers, and instrumentation controls and
valves
. The evaporation/crystallization technology would be also paired with pretreatment
. The
estimated cost of this size of the evaporation/crystallization system, including oxidation and
solids removal, is $36,000,000 to $56,000,000
.
15
42.
Operating costs, including depreciation, are estimated to exceed $1,000,000 per
year, with 40% of this amount representing energy costs
. The above cost estimate assumes the
refinery has sufficient steam capacity, and that a new boiler would not be required
. If it was
determined that sufficient steam capacity did not exist, the refinery would need to increase boiler
capacity or install another boiler, potentially increasing capital cost by $3,000,000 to $4,000,000
for the project
. Moreover, Petitioner is not aware of a situation where the salt from the purge
stream of refinery WGS has been precipitated to produce a solid salt
. All applications of WGS
utilizing circulating caustic soda solution for absorption and removal of S02 in the refining
industry have been allowed to discharge the purge stream with their other wastewater
.
Therefore, assessments of precipitation performance reliability impacted by corrosion and
fouling are uncertain
. Further investigation would be warranted before such an approach was
pursued.
43 .
Short-term episodic storage is neither technically feasible nor economically
reasonable
. The refinery has a relatively small footprint . All of the areas near the wastewater
treatment plant are already fully occupied by existing tankage, and that tankage is expected to be
fully utilized in the future, particularly in light of the energy needs of the region
. The refinery
would need to remove one or two currently utilized tankage limiting flexibility of operations and
replace with a new 200,000 barrel storage tank, pumps, secondary containment, and associated
piping
. The cost estimate for this option is $13,200,000
.
44 .
Requiring Petitioner to install wastewater treatment for the scrubber TDS
discharges into the wastewater system is not economically reasonable
. Petitioner is not the cause
of any water quality standard exceedance for TDS
. Petitioner is investing substantial monies in
the refinery to substantially reduce air emissions and to substantially reduce the overall
16
environmental releases from the refinery . The wastewater discharge involved is relatively
modest and would not pose an adverse threat to the receiving stream .
45 .
The apparent cause of the exceedance in the Des Plaines River is the result of
snow melt, carrying accumulated salts used for road deicing . Because of that phenomenon,
which is beyond the control of Petitioner, the Agency has advised it would not grant the
necessary construction permit without regulatory relief from the TDS water quality standard .
DIFFERENT FACTORS EXIST HERE THAN THOSE CONSIDERED BY THE
BOARD IN ADOPTING THE EXISTING TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
STANDARD
46.
Several factors relating to the matter are substantially and significantly different
from the factors relied on by the Board in adopting the TDS water quality standards cited here .
a) When the Board adopted the existing TDS [and sulfate] standard, it did so based on
relatively limited data, and with clear caution in mind . The Board's rationale was to be
protective of aquatic life . See, In re Effluent Criteria, et al ., Nos. R70-8, R71-14 and
R71-20, Opinion and Order at pp .7-8 (March 7, 1972). Since that time, however, the
Agency, U .S. EPA and other interests have investigated the water quality issues and have
concluded that a substantially higher standard is warranted . These investigations indicate
that the current TDS standard of 1,000 mg/L is not necessary to achieve the goal of
protecting aquatic life . (See, e.g., Exhibit 7). The existing standard is based on a worst
case combination of minerals being present . TDS becomes toxic where chloride is
present in high concentrations, and where sulfate and sodium are not the primary anion
and cation, respectively . This combination is not typically present in Illinois waters,
including the Des Plaines River, where sulfate is the primary anion and sodium is the
primary cation
. Alternatively, by imposing a standard for chloride, as the Agency is
presently considering, the danger of dissolved solids toxicity is addressed, thus making
any TDS standard unnecessary . This information was clearly not available in 1972 when
the TDS standard was adopted
. (See also Exhibit 8, listing further new information since
1972).
b) In 1972, the air quality requirements applicable to sources such as the Joliet Refinery
were also unknown and had not yet been adopted . The NSR regulations which triggered
the Consent Decree here were not even a requirement under the Clean Air Act or the
Illinois State Implementation Plan .
c) In 1972, the Joliet Refinery was just coming on line and was clearly not known as a
source of discharge into the Des Plaines River . Nor was there information on the relative
17
contribution of snow melt run-off into waters of the State . The Board did not then
consider the costs of treatment for TDS and certainly did not anticipate that removal of
total dissolved solids would require the kind of massive investment and further increases
in C02 emissions that would be required to meet the existing standard .
For each and all of the preceding reasons, the situation relating to the Joliet Refinery is
fundamentally different than those considered by the Board in adopting the TDS standards
.
47.
Moreover, the discharge from the Joliet Refinery that will occur, does not pose
any threat to human health or the environment that is significantly greater than the
environmental impact that the Board was trying to control when it adopted the TDS standards
.
The information compiled reflects a concern for the same impacts that were identified by the
Board in 1972 . But now there is better information on where to draw that line for the appropriate
water quality standard
.
48.
Petitioner requests the Board expeditiously proceed to First Notice in this matter,
and schedule a public hearing, and to proceed to consider this matter so that Petitioner can meet
the schedule required by the Consent Decree .
CONCLUSION
49.
This Petition satisfies the requirements of the Act, the factors relevant here
demonstrate that requiring compliance with the existing TDS standards is neither technically
feasible nor economically reasonable
. Moreover, the situation here represents conditions which
are substantially and significantly different from the factors relied on by the Board in adopting
the TDS water quality regulation (see ¶ 46)
; those factors necessitate the relief here sought (see
¶¶ 25-27)
; the requested standard will not result in environmental and health effects more
adverse than the effects considered by the Board (see 146)
; and the requested standard is
consistent with applicable federal law (see ¶ 32)
.
18
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Elizabeth A . Leifel
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
12023I45v2
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Board grant this site specific rule .
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
By:
Attorneys
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
19
ORIGINAL
RE
CLERK'S OFFICE
EVE®
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
FHB 0 `
2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that I have served upon the
Pollution
individuals
Control
named
Board
on
the attached Notice of Filing true and correct copies of the Petition for Site Specific Rule Change
Standard by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on February 7, 2006
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY
)
STANDARDS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
)
R06 -2-
SOLIDS IN THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER )
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To: Dorothy Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
- Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
100 West Randolph
Suite 4-300
Chicago, IL 60601
Connie Tonsor
Thomas Andryk
Illinois EPA
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
Springfield, IL 62794
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECE
CLERK'S
V
OFFICF,t~:1
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
FEB 0 7
2,305
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLIIVo
E3or„r
s
(Site Specific Rule - Water)
Illinois EPA
1021 N. Grand Ave . East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794
Illinois Attorney General
188 West Randolph
Suite 2001
Chicago, IL 60601
Please take notice that on February 7, 2006, we filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and ten copies of the attached Motion to File Less
Than 10 Copies of Exhibit, a copy of which is served upon you .
EXXON BIL OIL CORPORATION
By:
Jeffrey C . Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Elizabeth A
. Leifel
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 S . Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
RECEIVEDCLERK'S
OFFICE
,
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
FEB O 7 2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF :
Pollution Control Board.
)
REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY
)
STANDARDS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
)
SOLIDS
IN THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER)
R06 -
(Site Spec fic Rule - Water)
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To: Dorothy Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street - Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
MOTION TO FILE LESS THAN 10 COPIES OF EXHIBIT
NOW COMES Petitioner, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation ("ExxonMobil") and hereby
requests leave of the Illinois Pollution Control Board (the "Board") to waive the requirement to
submit an original and nine copies of Exhibit 1 to its Petition for a site specific rule change
. In
support of this motion, ExxonMobil states as follows :
1 .
In accordance with 35 Ill. Admin. Code § 101 .320(h), all documents filed with the
Board must be filed with a signed original and nine duplicate copies (10 total) . Referenced
within ExxonMobil's Petition as Exhibit 1 is a Consent Decree between the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and ExxonMobil, executed on December 13, 2005
.
2.
Exhibit 1 to the Petition is the Consent Decree
. That Consent Decree is a very
lengthy document, numbering over 150 pages of text, plus all of the supporting attachments and
exhibits.
3 .
Submitting ten copies of this Exhibit, as part of the Petition, would be wasteful of
the parties' and the Board's efforts and of resources
. Petitioner further notes that the consent
decree is available online at the following link :
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/civil/caa/exxonmobil-cd .ndf
WHEREFORE, ExxonMobil respectfully requests the Board to waive the requirement to
submit an original and nine copies of Exhibit 1 to the Petition and allow ExxonMobil to file only
one copy of this document .
Respectfully submitted,
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
By:
Dated: February 7, 2006
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Elizabeth A. Leifel
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
12020176v2
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that I have served upon the individuals named on
the attached Notice of Filing true and correct copies of the Motion to File Less Than 10 Copies
of Exhibit by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on February 7, 2006
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
RECEIVE
CLERK'S OFFICE
FEB 0 7 2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
Pollution Control Board
REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY
)
STANDARDS
FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
~
)
R06 -CF
SOLIDS IN THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER)
(Site Specific Rule
- Water)
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To :
Dorothy Gunn
Illinois EPA
Clerk of the Board
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
Illinois Pollution Control Board
P.O. Box 19276
100 West Randolph Street -
Suite 11-500
Springfield, IL 62794
Chicago, IL 60601
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Illinois Attorney General
100 West Randolph
188 West Randolph
Suite 4-300
Suite 2001
Chicago, IL 60601
Chicago, IL 60601
Connie Tonsor
Thomas Andryk
Illinois EPA
1021 N. Grand Ave
. East
Springfield, IL 62794
Please take notice that on February 7, 2006, we filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and ten copies of the attached Joint Motion, a copy
of which is served upon you .
Jeffrey C . Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Elizabeth A . Leifel
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 S . Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
RECE6VED
CLERK'S OFFICE
FEB 0 7 2006
pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOISBoard
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY
)
STANDARDS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
)
SOLIDS
IN THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER)
R06 -
(Site Specific Rule - Water)
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To : Dorothy Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street - Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
JOINT MOTION
NOW COMES Petitioner, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation ("ExxonMobil") and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA" or "Agency") by their respective attorneys, and
moves the Board, upon acceptance of the Petition in this matter, to publish the proposed rule and
proceed to First Notice in this matter, and to waive the requirement for 200 signatures on this
Petition. In support of this Joint Motion, the Petitioner and the Agency state as follows
:
1 .
Petitioner has entered into a Consent Decree with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
("U.S
. EPA") and the States of Illinois, Louisiana and
Montana to install extensive controls to reduce air emissions, including air emissions from the
Joliet Refinery. (A copy of the Consent Decree is filed with the Petition as Exhibit 1 and is
available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/decrees/eivil/caa/exxonmobil-cd
.pdf
.
2.
The Agency has reviewed the factual matters as contained in the Petition . The
Agency is supportive of the relief being sought by Petitioner and agrees with Petitioner that this
matter should be handled expeditiously . The Agency also submits, based upon recent
discussions with U.S
. EPA, that this matter must be decided as a site specific rule change, rather
than an adjusted standard . (See Exhibit 2 to the Petition) .
The parties submit that this matter is meritorious and urges the Board to consider this
matter expeditiously, proceed with First Notice and schedule a hearing in this matter following
First Notice.
Respectfully submitted,
12020175v1
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By:
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
By:
Thomas
4
Andryk
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 Grand Ave . East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Jeffrey
rt
Sonne
hein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that I have served upon the individuals named on
the attached Notice of Filing true and correct copies of the Joint Motion by First Class Mail,
postage prepaid, on February 7, 2006
q(/ C'A~/
ELECTRONIC FILING,
*****R2006-024
RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE,*****FEBRUARY
7, 2006
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY
)
STANDARDS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
)
SOLIDS IN THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER)
R06 -
(Site Specific Rule - Water)
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Dorothy Gunn
Illinois EPA
Clerk of the Board
1021 N . Grand Ave. East
Illinois Pollution Control Board
P.O. Box 19276
100 West Randolph Street - Suite 11-500
Springfield, IL 62794
Chicago, IL 60601
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Illinois Attorney General
100 West Randolph
188 West Randolph
Suite 4-300
Suite 2001
Chicago, IL 60601
Chicago, IL 60601
Connie Tonsor
Thomas Andryk
Illinois EPA
1021 N. Grand Ave . East
Springfield, IL 62794
Please take notice that on February 7, 2006, we filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board via electronic mail the Appearances of Jeffrey C . Fort, Letissa
Carver Reid and Elizabeth A
. Leifel, a copy of which is served upon you .
Jeffrey C . Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Elizabeth A
. Leifel
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
EXXONMOBI OIL CORPORATION
By:
ELECTRONIC FILING,
*****R2006-024
RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE,*****FEBRUARY
7, 2006
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF
:
)
REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY
)
STANDARDS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
)
SOLIDS IN THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER)
R06 -
(Site Specific Rule - Water)
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
)
APPEARANCE OF JEFFREYC.
FORT
The undersigned, as one of its attorneys, hereby enters an Appearance on behalf of
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation.
Jeffrey C . Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Elizabeth A. Leifel
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 S
. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
By:
ELECTRONIC FILING,
*****R2006-024
RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE,
*****FEBRUARY
7, 2006
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY
)
STANDARDS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
)
SOLIDS IN THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER )
R06 -
(Site Specific Rule - Water)
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
)
APPEARANCE OF LETISSA CARVER REID
The undersigned, as one of its attorneys, hereby enters an Appearance on behalf of
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation
.
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Elizabeth A . Leifel
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 S . Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
ELECTRONIC FILING,
*****R2006-024
RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE,*****FEBRUARY 7, 2006
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY
)
STANDARDS FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED
)
SOLIDS IN THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER)
R06 -
(Site Specific Rule - Water)
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
)
APPEARANCE OF ELIZABETHA.LEIFEL
The undersigned, as one of its attorneys, hereby enters an Appearance on behalf of
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation .
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Elizabeth A . Leifel
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 S . Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
ELECTRONIC FILING,
*****R2006-024
RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE,
*****FEBRUARY
7, 2006
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, certify that I have served upon the individuals named on
the attached Notice of Filing true and correct copies of the Appearances of Jeffrey C . Fort,
Letissa Carver Reid and Elizabeth A . Leifel, via electronic mail and First Class Mail, postage
prepaid on February 7, 2006 .
