ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

BACKGROUND ON PCB 05-85
REQUESTED VARIANCE EXTENSION

December 20, 2007

CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and

PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,

Petitioners,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):

On November 14, 2007, CITGO Petroleum Corporation (CITGO) and PDV Midwest

Refining, L.L.C. (PDVMR) (petitioners) filed a petition to extend the variance issued by the

Board in CITGO Petroleum Corporation and PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C. v. IEPA, PCB 05-

85 (Apr. 21, 2005). The variance and the petition for extension (Pet.) concern an oil refinery in

Lemont, Will County (Lemont Refinery), which CITGO operates and PDVMR owns.

Petitioners have waived hearing. In this order, the Board first generally describes the PCB 05-85

proceeding and the requested variance extension. The Board then identifies several

informational deficiencies in the petition and directs petitioners to file an amended petition to

provide the additional information.

BACKGROUND ON PCB 05-85

In PCB 05-85, the Board granted CITGO and PDVMR a variance from two Board water

quality standards for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): the general use water quality standard for

TDS of 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(g); and the secondary

contact and indigenous aquatic life water quality standard for TDS of 1,500 mg/L at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.407. The variance relief lasts through December 15, 2009, and is subject to various

conditions. Before granting the variance, the Board found that petitioners proved that

compliance with the TDS water quality standards would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship on petitioners, and that the requested variance is not inconsistent with federal law and

may be issued without any significant impact on public health or the environment.

The variance is intended to allow petitioners greater amounts of TDS in their wastewater

discharge to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which leads to the Des Plaines River. The

higher levels of TDS in petitioners’ effluent would come from air pollution control equipment

that petitioners must install and use under a Consent Decree with the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Illinois, and several other states. The Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) recommended that the Board grant the variance

requested in PCB 05-85, which the Board did on April 21, 2005.

REQUESTED VARIANCE EXTENSION

Petitioners now seek to extend the PCB 05-85 variance relief for three years, through

December 15, 2012, as well as modify a number of internal dates within the conditions of the

variance. According to petitioners, since the variance was granted, “several material facts have

changed” that warrant the extension. Pet. at 2. First, petitioners state that in a concluded site-

specific rulemaking, Revisions to Water Quality Standards for Total Dissolved Solids in the

Lower Des Plaines River for ExxonMobil Oil Corporation: Proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code

303.445, R06-24 (Feb. 15, 2007), the Board increased the water quality standard for TDS at the

I-55 Bridge in the Des Plaines River, and in the Des Plaines River to its confluence with the

Kankakee River.

. at 2, 7 (limit applies during winter months). Second, in a pending

rulemaking, Triennial Review of Sulfate and Total Dissolved Solids Water Quality Standards:

Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.102(b)(6), 302.102(b)(8), 302.102(b)(10),

302.208(g), 309.103(c)(3), 405.109(b)(2)(A), 409.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100(d); Repealer of 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 406.203 and Part 407; and Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(h), R07-9

(Sept. 20, 2007) (R07-9 Triennial), the Board proposed first-notice amendments to eliminate the

TDS general use water quality standard.

. Third, the Board stated in R07-9 Triennial:

While the Board declines to eliminate TDS standard for secondary contact waters,

the Board recognizes that CITGO may face some hardship if TDS standard for

secondary contact waters is not resolved in a timely manner. Specifically, CITGO

may have to expend funds on designing wastewater storage system for wastewater

from refinery’s wet gas scrubber in order to comply with CITGO’s variance

conditions [PCB 05-85]. In this regard, the Board believes that CITGO has a

number of options CITGO can pursue to avoid undertaking any exercise that may

be unnecessary in the future, including seeking an extension of the current

variance with amended conditions. R07-9 Triennial, slip op. at 30.

Fourth, in another pending rulemaking, Water Quality Standards and Effluent Limitations for the

Chicago Area Waterway System and the Lower Des Plaines River: Proposed Amendments to 35

Ill. Adm. Code 301, 302, 303 and 304, R08-9, the Agency “has proposed to remove the TDS

standard in the Canal.” Pet. at 2.

According to petitioners, they seek to extend the dates of the current variance “to avoid

unnecessary activities.” Pet. at 4. Moreover, petitioners state that:

If the Board removes the existing water quality standard for TDS in the Ship

Canal, this variance will become moot according to its terms, and not require

further action by the Board.

INFORMATIONAL DEFICIENCIES

The Board finds that petitioners have not provided all of the information required by the

Board’s procedural rules for the contents of a petition for variance extension.

See

35 Ill. Adm.

Code 104.204, 104.210. Below, the Board identifies, and directs petitioners to remedy, those

informational deficiencies. The Board recognizes that some of the requested information may

have been provided to the Agency over time, but these items need to be developed in the record

of this proceeding.

In PCB 05-85, petitioners expected that by July 2006, construction of the Fluid

Catalytic Converter Unit (FCCU) wet gas scrubber would be complete and the

discharge would begin.

See

PCB 05-85 Exhibit 4 at 12. The November 2007

petition for variance extension, however, states that “CITGO

will install

a wet gas

scrubber in the Fluid Catalytic Converter (‘FCC’) unit.” Pet. at 8 (emphasis

added). Please explain whether the FCCU wet gas scrubber is operating and, if

so, when its effluent began being discharged through Outfall 001.

See

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 104.204(b)(7).

Petitioners state that the water quality sampling data “continue to show elevated

TDS and chloride levels during periods of snow-melt conditions,” but the “recent

data does not indicate an exceedance of the applicable water quality standards at

the I-55 Bridge.” Pet. at 10-11. According to petitioners, “[i]t would appear that

there is no relationship between the discharges from the [Lemont] Refinery and

the water quality conditions relating to TDS.”

. at 10. Please explain whether

these statements take into account the discharge from the FCCU wet gas scrubber.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.210(d)(1), (2);

see also

Pet. at 9 (projected impact

from the wet gas scrubber).

Data recorded at the I-55 Bridge, states the petition, indicate that “elevated TDS

levels may be longer than previously thought,” referring to “elevated TDS levels

over a three week long stretch” in the winter of 2006-2007. Pet. at 11. Petitioners

also acknowledge that the existing variance “assumes that storage could occur for

a long enough time so that the [Lemont] Refinery could avoid discharging during

these events.”

. Please elaborate upon petitioners’ conclusion that “the length

of time and the volume of water required is greater than assumed when CITGO

put together its compliance plan for the variance in PCB 05-[85].”

see

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 104.204(f), 104.210(d)(1), (2).

According to the petition, “CITGO has undertaken the activities required by the

prior variance.” Pet. at 2. Please provide a statement in accordance with 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 104.210(d)(2).

The petition attaches as Exhibit A and incorporates the Board’s April 21, 2005

opinion and order from PCB 05-85. As indicated above, petitioners have waived

hearing in the instant proceeding. Pet. at 14. Please provide, as appropriate, a

“motion to incorporate any material from the record of the prior variance

proceeding.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.210(d)(3).

To avoid any ambiguity in the record, please reconcile the petition’s request for a

three-year extension of the variance (Pet. at 3-4) with the petition’s request for a

five-year variance (Pet. at 15).

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(k).

Before this proceeding can continue, petitioners must remedy these informational

deficiencies by filing an amended petition. The amended petition “need not repeat the entire

unchanged portion of the original filing provided that a sufficient portion of the original filing is

repeated so that the context of the amendment is made clear.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.226(c).

The Board allows petitioners until January 22, 2008, to file the amended petition. Failure to

timely file the amended petition will subject this matter to dismissal.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code

104.230. If petitioners require additional time to file the amended petition, they may file a

motion for a filing extension, but must do so by the January 22, 2008 filing deadline.

Though petitioners have waived hearing, whether the Board will nevertheless order a

hearing depends on several factors, including the adequacy of petitioners’ responses to the

identified informational deficiencies.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.234. The Agency has not yet

filed its recommendation. The Agency’s recommendation will be due within 45 days after the

filing of the amended petition.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.216(b), 104.226(b). Petitioners will

have 14 days after service to respond to the Agency’s recommendation.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code

104.220. The 120-day statutory period for the Board to decide this case will recommence upon

the filing of the amended petition.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.232(a)(2).

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that petitioners have not provided all of the necessary information in

their petition for variance extension and directs petitioners to file an amended petition to cure

these shortcomings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, John Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the

Board adopted the above order on December 20, 2007, by a vote of 4-0.

___________________________________

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board